O Canada!

Although Australia habitually lays claim to the title "The Lucky Country," surely Canada is the new contender. It seems that "close" counts not only in horseshoes and hand grenades, but in referenda as well.

People continue to speak of the fragility of our national character and the nurturing that it requires from our politicians. Excuse me? From where I sit, the repatriations and regional bloc vetoes look like cures worse than the disease. Perhaps there is no disease. Perhaps our national character doesn't need nurturing, but celebrating.

Those who talk about what governments need to do about us and for us are missing the point. The issue is what we need to do about governments and for ourselves.

It is up to us, the leaders of tomorrow, to vanquish the stale platitudes and misinformation of the status quo.

It is up to us to explain in clear, uncompromising terms the implications of the choice between capitalism and welfare statism.

It is up to us to dismantle the social-safety-net cage in which we have imprisoned ourselves.

Most particularly, it is up to us to ensure that government monopoly of our national identity never happens again.

Let us each, individually, rediscover our freedom. This is how we will remake Canada in our own image: true, strong and free.

Tracey Nicholls Editor

The New Campus Radicals

by Jason Morris, University of Northern British Columbia, Political Science

One thing to look forward to at the beginning of each school year is the campus activists: students who volunteer their time to speak out for a variety of causes. Indeed, one of the benefits of a university education is the opportunity to interact with these people and hear their perspectives on current social issues.

Otherwise quiet students may soon find themselves marching for the environment, rallying to end violence against women, protesting the treatment of First Nations people, signing petitions for nationalized daycare, and working at information tables on campus . . . an important component of the university experience.

However, the traditional campus radicals are not as progressive as they like to think they are.

Conservatism, once about maintaining the status quo, is now the most radical ideology around; more radical than the "leftist" or socialist beliefs of today's campus activists. When the grand social experiments put forward by the old campus radicals, such as getting paid for not working, being hired based on your gender, or putting murderers on day parole all fail, the conservative way of doing things becomes radical.

Karl Marx once wrote that the proletariat would revolt against the evil capitalists. Now, the evil capitalists-the conservatives-are the new radicals and are revolting against Marxism and every other outdated doctrine. This is why some women are refusing to call themselves feminists, why many people don't trust environmentalists, why communities have rallied in support of the death penalty, and why social programs are being cut.

Of course, the traditional campus radicals may still shout and stamp and march, but by ignoring recent events they are just proving how old their "radicalism" is and how opposed they are to democracy. They don't seem to want ordinary people to make up their own minds about how their country and their own lives should be.

If the activists found on today's campuses are actually far behind the times, where are these new campus radicals, these conservatives? The real campus radicals of today are busy studying and searching for solutions to the problems that the old activists helped create, and don't have time to don berets and march for the cause du jour. Instead, they are actively making the world a better place.

The Best Solution to the Problem of Unemployment

by M. Danielle Smith, University of Calgary, Economics

In the distant past, there were some who thought that government intervention was necessary to address unfavourable employment conditions, questionable safety standards, and child labour. They were wrong though; every nation must go through a process of economic development and improvements occur naturally over time. That is the nature of free markets.

However, yesterday's poor public policy has led to today's irreducible rate of unemployment in Canada of 6 to 7 percent. (This measure is NAIRU, the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment.) And why?

Because bureaucrats justify mucking up the economy with out of date policies all in the name of the social good. What are some of these antiquated policies?

Minimum wage laws were developed in 1919 to inhibit the hiring of female workers at low wages (which was causing wage rate depression). Today, minimum wage legislation contributes to high youth unemployment and discourages low wage industries from hiring more workers. Not only that, but in times of recession, downward pressures on wages are retarded, thus prolonging the steps to recovery. Best solution? Eliminate the laws.

Regulations concerning hours of work were originally designed to prevent exploitation. The problem is that they create rigidity. Eight hour workdays, forty hour work weeks and half hour lunch breaks provide stability, but eliminate flexibility. Not all people want to, or can, work the same schedule. Look to the increase in the number of contract and on-call workers for evidence that workers demand flexibility. Best solution? Eliminate the regulations.

U.I.C. is a tax, plain and simple. By supporting citizens in economically depressed regions, U.I.C. discourages mobility and creates a disincentive to work. In 1994, 40 percent of U.I.C. beneficiaries had collected benefits three or more times in a five year period. Frank Reid, "UI-Assisted Worksharing as an Alternative to Layoffs: The Canadian Experience," Industrial and Labour Relations Review: 35(3), pp. 319-29.Note Also, those who don't find jobs when their benefits end drop into C.A.P. (Canada Assistance Plan) and continue to live off the efforts of taxpayers. Best solution? Eliminate the program. Second best? Redesign it. Make the system an insurance program, with premiums commensurate with risk so that those who are more likely to lose their jobs pay more. Such a system would take into account the fact that there are frequent and infrequent users of the system.

We face the possibility of an economic disaster similar to the depression of the 1930s because of over-regulation. Marginal tax rates of 50 percent on average gouge the personal and corporate savings and investment that would otherwise be creating jobs. Business is, and always has been, the best solution to the problem of unemployment. Government is not even second best. Not by a long shot.

A Reading from the Book of Job Creation

John Robson, freelance writer

Once upon a time, there was just enough to go around. Every man, woman, and child over five toiled as long and as hard as they could in order at the end of the day to have enough to eat, wear, and burn to survive the night and work again the next day. But at least everyone did have a job, and they all did survive, if the gods were willing, and the creek didn't rise.

But then one day something extraordinary happened. A farmer and his family figured out how to grow enough wheat to feed not only themselves, but an entire other family. Prehistory records that the increase had something to do with a stick and a line in the dry ground from the river to their field.

When this happened, some Cro-Magnon Keynes looked up from his plough and warned that there was not enough demand in the economy to soak up this extra production. After all, everyone else was already working, so the surplus wheat would just hang over and depress the economy. He suggested government slurp up the extra wheat and restore prosperity, while his Levantine Luddite neighbour said filling in the irrigation canal would strike at the very root of the problem, and the hairy radical Undeciphered Cuneiform Marks suggested filling in the canal with the farmer.

______________________________________________________________________
Who among you considers himself a better builder than he is a farmer? If he will build me a new house this year, I will pay him with a year's worth of wheat.
______________________________________________________________________

The farmer, however, called all the people together and said "Behold my wheat, which sits in a great whacking pile. I can't eat it all myself, nor do I want to. What I really want is a new and better house. Who among you considers himself a better builder than he is a farmer? If he will build me a new house this year, I will pay him with a year's worth of wheat. Let his family gather fuel and spin cloth as before, and he will have everything he ever had before. If he can build my house in less than a full year, he will even be able to grow some wheat himself, and trade it for a pair of River Jordan athletic sandals for his pimply kid. We will both be better off."

In those days, there were no professors of political philosophy, government inspectors, or advocates and activists, because everyone was busy surviving.

So the farmer got his house, the builder got his wheat, and the teenager got his athletic sandals, although verily he sassed his father anyway. But in the evenings the people marvelled at what had happened. "Lo," they said, between cracking nits with their teeth, "our brother took away his neighbour's job, by growing the wheat he was wont to grow, and instead of heaping ashes on that neighbour's head, he made the neighbour a wealthier man, and himself as well. Verily, economics is counter-intuitive. The neighbour's kid, though, is up to no good with our daughters, and those River Jordan sandals don't help any, do they?"

But the people were simple and had no book learning, and so they decided that he or she who made more than before did good for the community, and provided new jobs for those sick of the south end of a north-going water buffalo. And so it came to pass that another man dug an irrigation canal, and grew more wheat.

At that point, the stories say, someone wandered in from another land.

Hittites had destroyed his house, he said, and he had wandered near and far seeking a place to live. Everywhere he went, people had said unto him: "Sorry, we have no work to spare, and besides, you smell of garlic, so begone."

But in the land where more wheat was grown, such was not the response. There a man awash in wheat said "Speak, oddly-scented stranger, and tell me what you can do." And the man said "When the Hittites destroyed my house, they smashed a really first-rate dwelling, with a patio and a porch and a tasteful little gazebo as well, and one of those little vestibules for hanging cloaks. I can build you the best house you ever saw." So the man with the wheat said "Behold, my house is a shack, nay, a shed, and that wall there isn't going to stay up past next Tuesday. Build me a new one, and this wheat is yours."

______________________________________________________________________
And so they praised the man who made two blades of grass grow where one had before, and welcomed the stranger who sought to live peaceably among them and to work to produce more than he consumed . . .
______________________________________________________________________

But his neighbours reproached him, saying: "Verily, by allowing this stranger to build your house and consume your wheat, you have allowed him to take away a job from a member of our community. Wherefore do you do this?"

And the man said unto them: "It's my wheat and my house, so bugger off." And there was much glaring and wringing of necks, and all did stagger home with lumps on their heads.

But behold, as it turned out, the stranger build the house in less than a year, and then hired himself out as a general contractor and dug irrigation ditches throughout the land, and was paid in the extra wheat that could be grown because he did this. And so it came to pass that before two years were done, he himself

______________________________________________________________________
All of these things came to pass in olden times when people were simple and did not know of deficient demand . . .
______________________________________________________________________

was offering wheat to those who would make him a much nattier set of animal skins, so that he could compete with the kid with the River Jordan sandals in the eyes of the community, and so the neighbour who had grumbled most loudly at his coming became a tailor. instead. And again the people marvelled, saying "Behold, this stranger did not take a job, but made one, and have you tried those sausages fried in garlic that he makes?" And so they praised the man who made two blades of grass grow where one had before, and welcomed the stranger who sought to live peaceably among them and to work to produce more than he consumed, and trade the surplus, and expand opportunities for all the villagers, even the pimply kid with the sandals and the sneer, who eventually grew up, trimmed his locks, and became a sanitation engineer with a sneering kid of his own.

All of these things came to pass in olden times when people were simple and did not know of deficient demand and the Red Sea Opportunities Agency.

And that is why there used to be jobs, and now there aren't.

The end.

[This article is reprinted with permission, from Fraser Forum, January 1996.]

Free Market Thinking is Colour-Blind

by Andrei Kreptul, University of Alberta, Computer Strategies

According to those who believe in freedom and free markets, all members of society ought to have an equal opportunity to pursue whatever makes them happy, without harming others. Unfortunately, many critics of market solutions to public policy problems have often assumed that this "equal opportunity" only applies to rich, white people. However, this attitude is starting to turn around in North America, especially in the United States where racial issues have generated the most controversy.

Since the era of the Great Society and the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the U.S. government has failed in its attempts to win the "war" on poverty and to eliminate discrimination in the workplace through affirmative action programs.

The result has been devastating for the black community, with large increases in illegitimacy, poverty, crime, and self-doubt.

Many blacks are now beginning to change the way they vote in elections. The current Republican revolution in public policy thinking is loosening the Democratic Party's hold on the black vote. During the 1994 elections, Republican Governor George Voinovich, running on a politically conservative agenda in Ohio, received 40 percent of the black vote, and in California, Republican Governor Pete Wilson was re-elected with the help of 21 percent of the black vote. "Commentary: Black Americans turn their backs on King's dream by Martin Walker of The Guardian" Edmonton Journal, Sunday, January 22, 1995, p. A7.Note

One measure of this trend is the proliferation of black academics, columnists, politicians and radio talk-show hosts with a decidedly free market, or libertarian orientation. For many years now, economists such as Dr. Thomas Sowell of The Hoover Institution, and Fraser Forum contributor Dr. Walter Williams have espoused the benefits of free markets and free choice for the economic and social betterment of the black community. In cities across America, black conservatives Armstrong Williams, Ken Hamblin, and 1996 Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes all spread the word of freedom on their radio talk-shows. And for the first time in many years, the Republican Party has two black members in the House of Representatives: J.C. Watts from Oklahoma and Gary Franks from Connecticut, who both happen to represent majority white congressional districts.

The failure of the welfare state is convincing more black Americans to support ideas that advocate freedom and economic opportunity by switching their votes to the Republican Party.

It no longer is safe (if, in fact, it ever was) to assume that black people automatically have left-liberal views on political issues and are going to vote for the Democratic Party or any other left-liberal political party like trained robots. It just goes to show that free market ideas can, and do, transcend race.

The Institute is Welcomed onto the Internet

Mark Weller, Web Project Supervisor

On January 1, 1996, The Fraser Institute established its presence on the Internet with the opening of its site on the World Wide Web at http://www.fraserinstitute.ca. The Institute's decision to go on-line is an important step in its continuing attempts to bring its research on the role of competitive markets to a wider audience.

This project is the culmination of several months of effort by the Institute working with Information Retrievers, a Vancouver- based web service provider. With this step, the Institute joins an impressive number of free market research groups on the Net including, among others, the CATO Institute and the Progressive Policy Institute.

The Institute site is somewhat unique on the Web because it offers a wealth of research material which can be read on-line. Where the World Wide Web has sometimes been criticized for lacking content, The Fraser Institute has taken pains to ensure that our site is content-based and not simply a "web presence" or a method of advertising.

The site is designed primarily to assist researchers and to provide for the needs of students and journalists. When this phase of our project is complete, the site will contain the text of all of our publications from January 1991 to the present. This will comprise some 400 megabytes of data.

As a relatively unregulated area of the global economy, the Internet has become a gathering place for people and organizations who are interested in free speech and the freedom of information. This suggests that there should be a natural synergy between the interests of the Net community and the work of The Fraser Institute.

Indeed, within hours of our coming on-line, it was apparent that many people had been awaiting our arrival in cyberspace for some time. Several people sent e-mail to the Institute welcoming us to the Web and asking for information on a variety of subjects including where they could find tax rates for Alberta, and how they could get the welfare dependency figures for B.C. Far from being critical of the site, most of our visitors suggested additional material they would like to see there.

One way of measuring our effect is by counting the number of unique visits to the site. In its first week of operation, more than 150 people visited our site, and they downloaded a total of more than 20 megabytes of data.

If you have access to the Internet, please make sure you drop by our Web Site. There is place where you can leave comments, or you can e-mail the Institute directly at info@fraserinstitute.ca.

50 ans de violation à la liberté d'association

par Éric Duhaime et Pierre Desrochers, étudiants à Carleton University et à l'Université de Montréal

Il y a cinquante ans, un rapport de médiation du juge Ivan Rand obligea tous les travailleurs de la compagnie Ford de Windsor (Ontario) à payer des cotisations syndicales. La formule "Rand" était née. Par le biais de diverses mesures législatives fédérales et provinciales, elle se répandit rapidement à l'ensemble des organisations et entreprises syndiquées au pays. Nous «célébrons» donc cette année le cinquantième anniversaire de l'abolition du droit des travailleurs québécois à négocier, à être répresenté et à disposer de leur salaire de la façon dont ils le désirent.

La formule Rand a mal vieilli. Par le biais de clauses "orphelins" ou autrement, les nouveaux employés à statut précaire, le plus souvent des jeunes, se voient dans l'obligation de cotiser même s'ils ne sont pas protégés par le syndicat local. Le Canada dispose pourtant d'une Charte des droits et libertés reconnaissant la liberté d'association et il est un des pays signataires de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme qui stipule, au paragraphe 2 de l'Article 20, «Nul ne peut être obligé de faire partie d'une association.» Souhaitons que bientôt des organismes internationaux de défense des droits de la personne blâmeront sévèrement le Canada et le Québec de brimer ainsi les droits élémentaires de leurs travailleurs!

Le juge Rand imposa cette "taxe syndicale" en se basant sur la croyance que tous les employés d'une entreprise syndiquée, qu'ils soient membres ou non du syndicat, tirent un avantage important de cette situation. Rien n'est plus faux. Les seuls facteurs vraiment importants pour la détermination des salaires des travailleurs sont leur productivité et ce que les consommateurs sont prêts à payer pour leur production. En clair, un salaire ne devrait jamais être plus élevé que ce qu'il vaut réellement. On peut aussi remarquer que par leur opposition au progrès technologique et aux gains de productivité dans les entreprises, les syndicats sont devenus un obstacle réel à la hausse future des salaires de leurs membres. Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, Arlington House Inc., 1979.Note

Les syndicalistes répondront évidemment qu'un travailleur a le droit de s'impliquer dans son atelier syndical. Nous savons pourtant tous que les règles démocratiques internes aux syndicats varient d'un endroit à l'autre, et qu'elles sont encore bien souvent fidèles au "centralisme démocratique" de certains partis communistes d'une époque révolue.

Les tenants du statu quo rappelleront également qu'un travailleur peut se battre pour la désaccréditation syndicale de son lieu de travail. Mais pourquoi donc un travailleur mécontent devrait-il recevoir l'appui de 50% de ses collègues afin de sortir le syndicat de son entreprise s'il n'a pour seule ambition que de se retirer du syndicat ou de s'associer à une autre centrale? Pourquoi lui refuse-t-on le "droit d'être différent"?

La formule Rand a de plus amplifié le caractère violent des relations de travail. Que ce soit lors des votes de grève à main levée, lors des assemblées pour déterminer la stratégie à suivre lors des négociations de travail ou lorsqu'un groupe de travailleurs tente de changer de syndicat ou simplement de se désaccréditer, les débats dégénèrent souvent en tactiques d'intimidation. Un syndicalisme libre permettrait au contraire de respecter le choix de chacun.

Après un demi-siècle de "taxation syndicale," il est temps que nos gouverne-ments aient le courage d'abolir la formule Rand. Cela ne signifierait pas pour autant la disparition des syndicats. Au contraire, si ces derniers faisaient le travail qu'attendent leurs membres-cotisants, ils continueraient d'en recueillir le support dans un système syndical libre.

L'abolition immédiate de la formule Rand serait également un premier pas vers une véritable politique de plein emploi. Des études estiment en effet que 2% du taux de chômage actuel est directement imputable à la monopolisation syndicale. Migué, Jean-Luc, Une société sclérosée, L'etincelle of Montreal, 1995.Note. Ce type de négociation impose un nombre fixe et artificiel d'emplois et dicte des salaires arbitraires souvent non concurrentiels. Ce sont ainsi les 60% de travailleurs non-syndiqués qui perdent des opportunités de se trouver des emplois dans des entreprises syndiquées.

Chez nos voisins américains, pas moins de 21 états ont adopté des législations sur la «liberté du travail» afin que les travailleurs ne soient pas obligés d'adhérer à un syndicat et de payer des cotisations. Bien que ces états ne représentent que 35% de la population américaine, entre 1988 et 1993, 77% des emplois manufacturiers rémunérateurs y ont été créés et le revenu moyen y a augmenté de 2,852$, alors que dans les 29 autres états, il n'augmentait que de 1,377$. Fazil Milhar, «The Economic Benefit of Right-to-Work Legislation,» Fraser Forum, septembre 1995, pp. 9-13.Note

La formule Rand, et le monopole syndical qui en découle, s'avèrent désastreux pour une nouvelle génération à la recherche de son premier emploi. Les jeunes auront à payer dans le futur pour l'irresponsabilité de ceux qui les ont endettés dans le passé. Libérons-les au moins du fardeau de supporter présentement l'oligarchie syndicale et ses mesures anti-sociales!

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.