"That's dynamite, don't touch it!" a politician once told me when I expressed the desire to write about Caledonia and the natives. I agree, it was and still is dynamite, but is this a valid reason not to talk about it?

I don't think so. There are pre-Confederation treaties signed but never respected, and $12 billion a year from Ottawa to assist the aboriginals. But still Canada's natives are dying in their reserves. Can we talk about it?
. .
There are 1.2 million aboriginals in Canada. Some 700,000 of them live on reserves in conditions similar to those of Third World countries despite massive federal government spending. Alcoholism is widespread and the suicide rate among young natives is three times higher than in the rest of the population.

Because aboriginal leaders refuse to account for the vast sums of taxpayer money that government hands over every year, and our politicians refuse to insist on such an accounting, the real problems cannot be addressed.  Instead, attention is focused on sensational side issues.

Instead of debating how we have created a black hole into which billions are funnelled with minimal accountability and why human rights and legal processes are suspended, we talk about a frustrated Mohawk, Shawn Brant, who is taking the law into his hands, and OPP Commissioner Fantino, who has the almost impossible mandate to enforce a rule of law that, regarding native issues, has taken a leave of absence.

Clearly, aboriginal Canadians are not well served by their leaders or the federal government.  Despite annual expenditures of over $10,000 for every aboriginal person, the present system isn’t working.  Before it can be fixed, we need to know what happens to all that money so the same mistakes aren’t repeated.  Or is it racist to ask for an accounting?

h/t: Bourque

Previous related posts:

• Aboriginal protests are our own fault
• Promoting aboriginal self-reliance
• Canadian reserves: Candidates for international aid

The UK's first sharia-compliant prepaid MasterCard has been launched in London – dubbed the "Islamic financial centre of Europe".

The Cordoba Gold MasterCard does not charge or receive interest as this is in direct conflict with sharia Law. The company also donates at least 10% of its profits to registered charities in the UK and abroad.

I’d always thought of MasterCard as a credit card, but the Cordoba Gold proves I was wrong.  Despite being branded MasterCard, the card involves no credit.  It’s “prepaid”, i.e., users have to deposit money into a Cordoba Gold account before they can use it to spend a dime.  The card can be used to pay for services at shops or to withdraw prepaid funds from a bank machine.  It’s just a glorified debit card.

The propaganda at the card’s website is hilarious.  From the FAQ page:

1.3 Do you give or receive interest?
No. Cordoba Gold does not and will not charge or receive interest as this is in direct conflict with Sharia Law.

Of course, the company charges the card user no interest for the blindingly obvious reason that no credit is extended.  The company’s risk of financial loss from customer default is precisely zero.  The customer cannot use the card before he or she makes a payment up front, and can never spend more than the amount previously deposited on account.

2.1 What makes the Cordoba Gold prepaid MasterCard different from a Credit Card?
When you apply for a Cordoba Gold cashplus prepaid MasterCard your credit rating is NOT taken into consideration because the Cordoba Gold card is not a Credit or Debit card. Even if you have a poor rating you will still be able to get a card.

Unlike a credit card where you buy now and pay later, Cordoba Gold is a prepaid MasterCard card, which means that similar to a Pay-As-You-Go phone you can only spend the money that you top-up on to the account. So, with Cordoba Gold you can only spend what you can afford.

All that bafflegab only obscures the short answer to the question: The primary difference between the Cordoba Gold and a credit card is that the glorified debit card entails no credit.  Hello!  Of course, your credit rating doesn’t matter because there’s no credit involved.

The company maintains it earns no interest on prepaid funds.  How then does Cordoba Gold turn a profit?  Check the fee schedule, found in the terms and conditions.

Card issue fee  £9.95
Monthly subscription fee (per account) £4.95
ATM withdrawal UK £2.00
ATM withdrawal non-UK £3.00
Cash withdrawal at bank £3.00

Additional cards can be provided for family, friends, business associates, etc., for only £9.95 per card.  If you cancel your card and want the unspent balance refunded, you will be charged £10.00.

With that laundry list of fees and charges, the Cordoba Gold will be gold, all right: A gold mine for the company that markets this little scam.

h/t: Dhimmi Watch

A cascade of oil-based revenues will, sooner or later, fall in all corners of Newfoundland and Labrador, the premier promises.
. . .
Even so, Williams recognizes that many people in the province feel like the oil-fuelled boom is passing them by.

In recent days, news reports have detailed how various people — seniors needing home care, others requiring medical services, such as portable oxygen tanks — have been turned down for public aid, and found no help in the blockbuster budget.

"I know there's instances of hardship, and I'm very, very sensitive to them," Williams said.

"We'll always find an example of some poor person who's hard done by, and it's not getting down to them. But we're trying to spread it out as much as we can at this stage, and hopefully the trickle-down effect will benefit everybody."

Translation: After Danny’s friends and supporters get their share, those ubiquitous poor people might get some leftovers.

"We’ll always find an example of some poor person"?  How callous can you get.  Nineteenth-century robber barons couldn’t have said it better.

Danny should be careful with this trickle-down rhetoric or he may find fewer votes trickling up come the next provincial election.

Previous related post: Danny Williams: Not a have-not, but plays one on the national stage

Last week's release is based on the Survey of Labour Income and Dynamics (SLID), which is designed to track the income of a very large sample of Canadians over six-year periods, thus enabling comparison of incomes earned by families and unattached individuals over time.  The summary in Statistics Canada's The Daily, however, fails to mention or discuss SLID's time-series aspect and presents only a snapshot of the 2006 results.

The Census release on May 1 showed an 11.1% increase in median family income (pre-tax) between 1980 and 2005. As a result of strong economic growth fostered by gains in employment, a further 2.1% increase was observed between 2005 and 2006, according to new data from the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics. At the same time, government transfers also increased, leading to a similar increase in after-tax family income.

Families had an estimated median income after taxes of $58,300 in 2006, up 2.1% from 2005 in real terms. It was the third consecutive annual increase.
. . .
The incidence of low income in Canada remained relatively stable in 2006. An estimated 3.4 million Canadians (or 10.5%) lived in low income (after-taxes) in 2006.

To find the time-series analyses, one must dig deeper in Statistics Canada's website.  I'll describe that more fully later in this post.  Right now, let's cut to the data.

For purposes of this data release, low income is measured by the low-income cut-off (after taxes and government transfers), or LICO.  (As Statistics Canada has repeatedly affirmed, the LICO is a measure of income inequality, not poverty—an admonition that is frequently and annoyingly ignored by poverty "activists" and opposition politicians.)

The proportion of Canadians who did not fall below the LICO at any time during the years 1993-1998 was 75.5%.  That fell slightly during 1996-2001 to 74.6%, but then jumped to 80.0% during 1999-2004.

All age groups (except 55-64) and both sexes saw increasing percentages with incomes above the LICO throughout the period 1999-2004 compared to 1993-1998.  (For those aged 55-64, the percentage declined from 77.6% to 77.3%.)  Moreover, Canadians at all education levels—from less than high school through university degree—were less likely to fall below the LICO in 1999-2004.

During the same time period, the proportion of Canadians experiencing persistent low income fell by over 30%.  Between 1993 and 1998, 3.6% had incomes below the LICO every year, dropping to 3.4% in 1996-2001, and then to 2.2% in 1999-2004.  Without exception, all age groups, both sexes, and those at all education levels were less likely to experience six years of below-LICO income in 1999-2004 compared to 1993-1998.

These new data bolster an earlier Statistics Canada study (blogged here) demonstrating that Canadians have lower rates of low income than do people in the US, Britain, or Germany.

Statistics Canada last week posted some 40 tables of time-series data showing income trends in Canada back to 1976 but, as I said, they're not easy to find, especially for those unfamiliar with Statistics Canada's labyrinthine website.  As a public service, Magic Statistics has done the digging for you.

We start back at The Daily, where the last line of text reads:

Also available today, the 2006 Income Trends in Canada (13F0022XIE, free) provides 40 tables at the Canada and province level as well as some data at the census metropolitan area level.

That link takes you to a page describing the data product along with a link to another page, styled "Income Trends in Canada 1976 to 2006".  In the left sidebar of that page, click on "data tables" to go to another page where nine sets of data tables are listed and linked.  Click on one of those links to go to yet another page where the corresponding tables can be downloaded.

We’re not out of the woods yet, however: there's another wrinkle. The data tables can only be read with a software product called "Beyond 20/20".  You can download the Beyond 20/20 Browser from Statistics Canada; but I, for one, would find it much easier if the data were loaded into Excel spreadsheets.  Also, Beyond 20/20 is only available in Windoze versions.  What a pain!

Once the tables are opened in Beyond 20/20, they can be exported to Excel.

The data discussed above come from Low Income table 2020807 — "Persistence of low income, by selected characteristics, Canada and provinces".

Sources:

Statistics Canada, 2008.  "Income of Canadians".  The Daily, 5 May.  Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-001-XIE.
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080505/d080505a.htm
(accessed 13 May 2008).

Statistics Canada, 2008.  "Income trends in Canada: data tables".  Released 5 May, no catalogue number.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/13F0022XIE/2006000/nettabletitles-en.htm
(accessed 13 May 2008).

Previous related posts:

• Dion’s anti-poverty commitment based on spurious statistics
• Widening income gap in Canada?

There may be a magic bullet for solving some of our society's most difficult problems, such as a lack of affordable housing, immigration, productivity declines, an aging workforce or the near-crippling demands on the pension system.

Make it easier for women to get into the paid workforce.

Here's the magic. Not only would that increase family incomes, making homes more attainable, it's been shown to boost gross domestic product and decrease dependency on imported labour.

And, perhaps surprisingly, it almost certainly would increase the number of Canadian-born babies.

Many economic studies dating back at least to the 1970s have found a positive correlation between female labour force participation rates and the price of housing.  That is to say, getting women into the labour force does not “mak[e] homes more attainable”.

A moment’s reflection on the law of supply and demand should have made that clear.  Because the supply of suitable and desirable land for housing is relatively fixed, increasing income will drive up the price of such land and, therewith, housing.  (In technical terms, the supply of land for housing is inelastic.)  Even a cursory look at housing prices over the past fifty years will bear that out.

The claim that increasing female employment will cause an increase in fertility is said to be based on a 2004 study by the investment banking firm Goldman Sachs that focused on the European Union, the United States, and Japan.

Higher female employment results in a lower birth rate, right? Nonsense, says Goldman Sachs.

"This claim is simply contradicted by the facts. Fertility is positively correlated with high female employment."

More simply, countries with the best child-care policies not only have a higher proportion of women in the workforce, they also have higher fertility rates. Conversely, Italy and Japan, with the lowest levels of female employment, have the fewest babies.

Based on that information, the Goldman Sachs study appears to be based solely on cross-sectional analysis: Data from several countries at a single point in time were analysed.  A historical time-series analysis would have generated far different results.  Look at this chart showing fertility rates in Canada and the US for the period 1940-1999.

Female labor force participation rates rose more or less steadily during that time period, but look at what happened to fertility.  It went down—big-time.  In the 1990s, fertility in the US recovered to replacement level, but not in Canada, despite ongoing increases in female labour force participation and employment rates.

The claim that getting women into the paid labour force will result in increased fertility is based on a myopic and misleading analysis.

So, if the women are all out working, who will look after all those phantom babies?  Need you ask?

The report notes the inadequate supply of good-quality, affordable child care as the chief impediment to women taking full-time paid employment, followed by inadequate parental leave provisions.

Governments providing child-care subsidies conditional on employment, the report says, have been shown to consistently and significantly boost the number of women who work.

Daycare has been studied to death in recent years, and the verdict is in.  Daycare is bad for children and bad for parents.  If at all possible, parents should not pay strangers to care for their children, and the state should certainly not subsidise such arrangements.

h/t: ProWoman, ProLife

Previous related posts:

• Liberals and NDP want more daycare spaces . . . No, wait a minute
• Even high-quality daycare is associated with poor behaviour
• Canada’s fertility deficit
• Putting babies in daycare can lead to behaviour problems
• Mothers: Stash those kids in daycare and get back to work

Some companies that failed received ACOA funding over 15 years, returning repeatedly for loans and subsidies between 1988 and 2005.

They include:

• King Metal Fabricators of Dartmouth, N.S., which received money on 11 occasions — three loans and eight grants before bankruptcy proceedings resulted in a $317,262 loss for ACOA.
• 10824 Newfoundland (Servco Environment) Ltd., a provider of chemical and oil spill cleanup technology, received money nine times from ACOA between 1991 and 1996, before last year's writeoff of about $104,000.
• Cape Minerals Ltd. of Edwardsville, N.S., received money on eight occasions between 1992 and 1997, before a writeoff of $96,626 last year.
• Juniper Lumber of Juniper, N.B., cost ACOA $156,062, after getting money from the agency on seven occasions between 1988 and 1993.

The idea behind public funding is to improve the economy by helping businesses reach profitability.  That these firms return to the trough time after time indicates that "profitability" is beyond their grasp.

ACOA spokesman Richard Gauthier insists that the firms met agency criteria when the loans were made.  How about re-evaluating the criteria with a view to ensuring that repeat defaulters are not allowed back into the public trough?

Tesco blasted for sending Scottish chickens on 1,000-mile round trip to Essex for processing

Tesco came under attack from green campaigners last night after it was revealed that its "local" chicken goes on a 1,000-mile round trip before being put on sale.

Britain's biggest supermarket sends Scottish chickens 499 miles south to Essex to be packaged, then returns them to Scotland.

Environmental groups called the process crazy and said it involved thousands of unnecessary and wasteful "food miles".

Meddlesome environmentalists serve roast Tesco.

Previous related post: Quebec’s feeble economy is its own fault

Two automotive experts, Nicholas Rufford and Jason Dawe, conducted a real road test of the Prius for The Times of London.  Does Toyota’s hybrid car live up to its reputation?

To find out we set a challenge: to drive a Prius to Geneva using motorways and town driving. The direct route is 460 miles but we drove almost 100 miles further to give the Prius the advantage of running in urban conditions where its petrol-electric drivetrain comes into its own.

We took along a conventionally powered car – a diesel BMW executive saloon – for comparison and drove both cars an identical number of miles (545).

The fuel tanks of both cars were filled to the brim before they hit the road to Geneva.  Upon arrival, both would be filled again to see which car had greater fuel efficiency.

The two drivers describe the features of their vehicles and their trips here; I’ll just cut to the chase.

The BMW averaged over 50 mpg, while the Prius averaged only 48.1 mpg.  Prius driver Jason Dawe concludes:

Coasting down the mountain into Geneva my Prius averaged 99.9mpg for a full 10 minutes. It was the highlight of my journey and improved my overall average fuel economy by a full 2mpg. But it was not enough. For all my defensive driving, slippery bodywork and hybrid technology, my average fuel consumption was 48.1mpg. I’d lost to a Beemer and I was disappointed; I had never driven so slowly or carefully for so long in my life. I’m considering buying a V8 Range Rover and opening my own oil well in protest.

The official combined fuel consumption of the BMW 520d is only 55.4 mpg, but it used less than the Prius for the same journey.

American readers please note: Mileage is measured using the imperial gallon, which is about 20% larger than the US gallon.

h/t: Greenie Watch

Previous related posts:

• One of Jeremy Clarkson’s least favourite cars in the world
• Hybrid cars use more energy than conventional cars

Although the policy was criticised as a paternalistic violation of the rights of welfare recipients, it has already resulted in noticeable improvements in children’s diets.

STRICT restrictions on welfare payments in Aboriginal communities have led to a dramatic rise in the consumption of fresh food, a development that has intensified Labor support for a key aspect of the Northern Territory indigenous intervention.

A survey of store managers in remote Aboriginal communities has found spending on nutritious food has increased dramatically – with six in 10 stores recording more turnover.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin said she had commissioned the early survey – well before the 12-month review promised by the Government – to see if the forced quarantine of Aboriginal welfare was working.

She told The Australian she was convinced that income quarantining was working to deliver fresh food to indigenous children in the Territory.

The reform was implemented under former prime minister John Howard, whose government was later defeated by the Labor Party under Kevin Rudd.  Some members of Mr Rudd’s government oppose forced income quarantining, but these findings make it more likely the policy will remain in place as is.

h/t: Australian Politics

Previous related posts:

• Please take our children out of here
• Australia implements radical welfare reform
• Australia plans to link welfare and personal responsibility

Thirty per cent of the jobs in Nunavut's Community and Government Services Department are vacant, and government officials say they have had a difficult time finding all the people they need.

Senior staff told the legislative assembly Tuesday that 105 of the department's 345 positions are vacant.

The jobs page at the government website lists scores of openings in many areas: health care, management and administration, construction, policy wonkery, etc., etc.  There’s something for everyone.  The Nunavut government pays very well indeed and offers generous benefits and other incentives.  As well, Northern bonuses and significant tax breaks are available to Nunavut residents.

I can only see one drawback to a job with the Nunavut government: You’d have to move to Nunavut.

Previous related posts:

• Do not misspell Iqaluit
• Nunavut facing crisis in Inuit education and employment