Government Funding for the CBC

It is amazing that with today's communication technologies the federal government is still thinks there is a need for a national television and radio broadcaster. Canada is ranked fifth in the world for broadband penetration with 69% of households having access to broadband internet (source). This allows these household to stream video and audio and have access to nearly unlimited data. Even Canadian without access to broadband are able to access the internet via local schools or libraries. Therefore we are able to receive news and entertainment from anyone and any organization online. The technology for Canadians to produce and distribute content around the world has never been so widely available or more affordable.

Yet the federal governments continue to fund the CBC which is increasingly irrelevant to Canadians (interesting to note that the CBC does not publish their ratings). Not only do the feds continue to fund this organization but the funding has increased from 1999 to 2009 at a rate of roughly 2.4% per year. In 2009 the total government funding reached a staggering $1,185,492,000.

Source

As part of the required government cutbacks to eliminate the deficit, the Harper government must eliminate the funding for the CBC/Radio-Canada. They must also transfer ownership of the firm to any willing buyer in the private sector or to simply give every Canadian a share of the firm and have it trade on the TMX exchange. This will eliminate the potential for government patronage positions at the CBC.

The Case Against a High Speed Rail in Canada

The Liberals and socialists from time to time like to propose the construction of a high-speed rail line (with taxpayer money) in the Windsor to Quebec City corridor. The reasons are varied including the supposed benefit to the environment, or to make us more European since we are the only G7 nation without high speed rail. Thankfully for taxpayers this idea only wasted only as much money as the government paid for the salaries of bureaucrats at the Ministry of Transport examining the idea and no doubt countless consultants.

If building a high speed rail was truly a good business venture we would expect to see entrepreneurs promote the idea to investors and try to raise capital in the equity and bond markets to fund the project. There has been no talk of this among business people because there is no solid economic incentive for this project. Consider Via Rail, the federal government's monopoly passenger rail service. This "corporation" is far from being profitable, it is a consistent burden on all taxpayers. Take a look at the "corporation's" financial statements, under the line "Operating Loss Before Funding from the Government of Canada and Corporate Taxes" and "Operating funding from the Government of Canada" for the past few years (in thousands):

2009: 284,203 226,280

2008: 256,832 214,223

2007: 204,465 200,596

2006: 190,657 169,001

2005: 202,392 169,001

2004: 208,513 177,444

2003: 228,560 181,115

Source: http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/our-company/annual-report

As we can see, even with a near monopoly (personal cars, bus lines, and airlines are close substitutes) rail service in Canada is not a very profitable enterprise. There are many reasons that Via Rail is consistently a losing enterprise:

1. Via managers know that if they lose money the government will bail them out. This gives does not give managers the incentive to cut costs, they may simply cave into union demands since managers are not compensated out of profits.
2. Bilingualism: Anyone who has been a passenger on Via knows that customer service is not a priority when hiring employees, knowledge of French seems to be the only requirement.
3. Unions: Like any unionized workforce poor employees remain on the payroll. For this company salaries are likely even more elevated than they should be because there is no worry about bankruptcy.
4. Too many useless passenger rail lines (Gaspe, Pukatawagan, Jonquiere, Senneterre, White River).

Air Canada was successfully privatized, it is about time we take the money losing Via Rail off the public purse.

Book Review: Uranium: War, Energy, and the Rock that Shaped the World by Tom Zoellner

This is a fascinating book that explains the history and the people behind the rise of nuclear science. Zoellner takes a close look at the major producing uranium mines around the world. Notably the massive uranium mine Shinkolobwe in the Congo which supplied much of the American stockpile and the primary mine for the USSR at St. Joachimsthal, in Czechoslovakia.

The author focused mostly on the quest for the bomb for the USA, USSR, Israel, and Pakistan. The book takes a close look at the massive state industrial buildup to mine, process, and construct nuclear weapons. Fortunately, the process of enriching uranium is huge undertaking.

There are many troubling aspects this book revealed to me. Primarily that the construction of a nuclear bomb is very simple if one can find a grapefruit sized amount of "enriched" U-235. There exist some common smuggling routes for enriched uranium from the former USSR, through Georgia for example. Even if the borders are equipped with detectors, shielding the uranium in lead will, prevent the radiation from setting off the alarm. Worrying as well is that the A. Q. Khan Network that spread stolen blueprints for nuclear technology from his former employer a subcontractor for Urenco (which was Europe's only facility for enriching uranium for power) has passed that information on to Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and others.

The problem with waste must be addressed. The spent fuel must be secured for 10,000 years. Most nuclear power plants have their waste in pools of heavy water still inside the plants, a very short term solution. President Bush had a plan to build a huge multibillion dollar dump for spent nuclear fuel, but thanks to Obama and Harry Reid (D - Nevada) the desert storage facility was cancelled. The legacy of nuclear power and weapons have lead to many areas that will remain contaminated for centuries.

The importance of securing enriched uranium and preventing Iran and other nations form acquiring a nuclear weapon should be top priority. The US and its allies seem to be the only countries trying to secure enriched uranium, unfortunately it presently does not have any interest in stopping Iran from acquiring a bomb.

Nuclear power has its shortcomings but the major problem is that it is uneconomic. Private insurers require huge premiums making the plants unaffordable. This leads to government insurance and an indirect subsidy to the industry. The question of diversifying our energy sources with government subsidies for the preferred power of the day is useless. Governments should allow private enterprise to choose their preferred power source. Coal and natural gas should continue to play a major part in North America's energy mix, we will move to nuclear and others when technology improves and there is proper disposal plans. Market price signals should dictate our energy mix, not a confused government web of subsidies like Ontario has unveiled.