Harper Should Resign and Dion and Layton Should Form a Coalition Government Until October 2009.

Before Dion meets with Harper to discuss cooperation for the pending parliamentary session he should meet with Layton first. A couple of reasons come to mind. First they ought to see if they can work out a collaboration to see if they can run a minority government until the fixed election date of October 2009.

If Harper wants to resign OK that is his business. But that need not automatically trigger a $400m useless election. The Governor General can accept the Harper government resignation because, as Prime Minister, he apparently feels Parliament is dysfunctional.

That is not the case. He has to admit it, given how he brags that he has delivered on his mandate in the past 2+ years that he has been in power. Harper is such an unabashed obfuscater with his self serving mewing about a dysfunctional Parliament. Consider that he has his henchmen draft a 200 page guide for his Caucus instructing them how use cheap political tricks and tactics just to disrupt Parliamentary Committee proceedings. And he now says Parliament is dysfunctional. Well I wonder who is to blame for that.

I like the idea of Harper resigning now. But I don’t think the only option coming out of that decision is an election. It is entirely within the Governor General’s purview and powers, given the minority situation, to consider inviting a coalition of Liberals and New Democrats to try and govern. I think that is a viable alternative for the short term until October 2009.

I think before any behind-closed-doors horse trading goes on with Harper, Dion and Layton ought to look at cutting coalition deal as an alternative to an election that dishonors the new fixed date election law they all just passed.

Such a Dion/Layton chat would also serve another purpose. These two parties ought to see if they can agree on what conditions they would require of Harper for continuing support. They ought to demand that they meet with the PM together so they don’t get inveigled and misled by the PMO in the post meeting patter, positioning and pandering.

If they can’t meet the PM together, they better take a witness and record the conversation too. Of course they should be able to trust the PM, after all he holds the highest and most honourable office in the land. But this is politics and it is always best to be able to verify what was actually said – just so everyone stays honourable.

I think a few reasonable conditions to present to Harper would be an immediate proclamation of his Accountability Act so it becomes binding on his government now. He honours it now more in the breach and that is unacceptable. Why not demand an immediate alternate strategy to provide for the 250,000 daycare spaces the private sector was supposed to provide but has been swept under the carpet. Struggling young families are not making it just with his taxable $100 per month per infant. He promised these day care spaces but has conveniently forgotten young families.

The Mulroney/Schreiber Inquiry has to be started immediately as well and not be a kangaroo court of his design. It needs to be a full fledged public inquiry to help restore public confidence it he Office of the Prime Minister – at a number of levels. The delays are deplorable and are undermining democracy. And while you at it, insist that Harper drops his U.S. clone copyright proposal called Bill C-61 and start over.

The best outcome I see would be for Harper to go the GG and resign and then she appoints a coalition Liberal/NDP government that would serve until the October 2009 - legal election date. They could go into a fall session and use it to undo some of the mess Harper has made like reverse the political interference in the judicial selection process, restore the arts and culture funding cuts and preserve the safe injection sight in Vancouver. There a many more such Harper ideological screw ups then need reversing right now and no need to wait for an election to fix them.

It is time for Harper to go – and he says is thinking of resigning. But an immediate election is unnecessary to achieve that end. The GG can accept his resignation and then look to other parties to form a government. When the next election happens, in October 2009 according to law, and if we end up with another minority, then Dion and Layton will have some experience in a coalition. Perhaps they can continue to replace the Cons then too, if necessary.

Buffett Not Investing In Oils Sand - Not Yet Anyway!

Here is a transcript of what Warren Buffet said this morning on CNBC about his visit to the oil sand last Monday. I’ll still bet I was right, that Gates and Buffett did play some Bridge on this trip.

QUICK: Welcome back, everybody, to this special edition of SQUAWK BOX. We'vebeen talking all morning long with Warren Buffett of Omaha, Nebraska, sincewe're live in Omaha today.And, Warren, we've covered a range of topics, but there has been an awful lotof people who are interested in the trip you made this week. On Monday youheaded up with Bill Gates and you got to take a look at the tar sands. What happened?

Mr. BUFFETT: Well, what happened was Bill and I talked some months ago aboutjust how interesting the whole thing was from a geology standpoint and fromthe standpoint that that represents one of the few big upcoming sources ofmore oil production in the world, or very few. And we both thought we'dunderstand a little bit better if we went up and looked at it than simply byreading about it. So on Monday six of us, Bill and a few other fellows--theKiewit company arranged it. They're--they've done a lot of construction upthere. And we went up to northern Alberta and we saw a very big mining-typeproject. There are two ways that they recover oil from the tar sands. Andthen we went to this in situ project also, and we had some perfect peopleexplain a lot about how it worked both from a economic standpoint and from a physical standpoint.

QUICK: Uh-huh. And was this something that you came up with, that Bill cameup with, your friend, Walter Scott, from the Kiewit company? Who came up withthe idea?

Mr. BUFFETT: Well, Walter Scott arranged it for us.

QUICK: Right.

Mr. BUFFETT: Walter's a whole lot smarter than I am about what goes on inmining and all of--anything to do with the real world. I'm good with numbers.And so he arranged the trip for us. But it was something that Bill and Icooked up by--a couple of months ago when we were talking about the tar sands.We said why don't we go up and take a look? And so we found a date when sixof us could do it. Walter arranged the trip. We had some wonderful people upthere in Alberta at both projects that explained how the things really work,the costs involved. And they just couldn't have been more helpful.

QUICK: OK. So having seen that, there's already been a lot of people who'vebeen speculating that you must be interested in investing in this arena. Areyou?

Mr. BUFFETT: No, no. I go to the movies, but I don't buy movie companies.I mean, I--I'm always interested in understanding the math of things andunderstanding as much as I can about all aspects of business. And what Ilearn today may be useful to me two years from now. I mean, if I understandthe tar stands today and oil prices change or whatever may happen, I'm--I'vegot that filed away and I can--I can use it at some later date. And that'sreally the wonderful thing about investments is your knowledge is cumulative.So if you learn about coal or you learn about retailing or something, 40 yearsyou--it's useful at some point.

QUICK: Wait, does that make you think that an investment in a tar sands company, somebody who's making--taking advantage of that would not be worth it at $120 a barrel for oil?

Mr. BUFFETT: Well, the biggest variable in whether it's a good investment isthe price of oil. Now, it's important to know how much they can get out andwhat their costs are going to be and what the capital costs--all of that isimportant and that fits into it. But you still have to figure out what yourown feeling is about what oil's going to be selling for three years from nowor five years from now. Because you could be the world's greatest miningengineer, but if you were wrong about the price of oil in a big way it wouldnegate all that knowledge. So it--I can tell you that if 100--if you had $120oil from now till, you know, 50 years from now, that the tar sands wouldbe--would work out very well. But I don't know the answer to that. And I mayform an opinion at some point, and I've got it--I'm prepared to form thatopinion now.

QUICK: But you are not actively looking right now to invest in any of thesecompanies?Mr.

BUFFETT: Do I have a buy order this morning? The answer's no.

If you are interested in the video of the interview - here is the link:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=828981936&play=1

The Grandinite Gives Some Sound Oil Sands Investment Advice to Buffett

The Grandinite knows what he is talking about in terms of the variables around oil sand investment. This blog post on the 5 criteria to consider for oil sands investment should be worth a consulting fee from Warren Buffett.

Sound analysis with maps and charts...more than you get from most "advisors" these days.

Big Telcos Are Driving Me Crazy - How About You?

I am getting increasingly suspicious about how the Big Three Telco Internet Service Providers are dealing with the customer these days. I am a Rogers cell phone customer. Have been for years and I like the company. However, I just saw an ad for Rogers Internet Mobility Stick in the Globe and Mail today. It drove me crazy.


It promises a DSL Internet connection on a stick which is a good idea but the fine print…the devil in the detail is where the truth often lies…or at the very least misleads. Consider the advertised price of “starts at $30/month.” “Starts” there indeed! It sure does not end there. In the fine print at the bottom we see this offer is “subject to change without notice.” I will not be a customer so I will never know if this $30 price changed before I got to the store. Is it a loss leader…or perhaps a bait and switch? Not accusing. Just asking. Inquiring minds want to know.


Next we see some fees and charges that “…apply in addition to the Monthly Service Fee. Like the $6.95 monthly System Access Fee. That will be added in every month so why not be honest and say up front the service will Start at $36.95 a month? They take pains to explain this is a “non-governmental fee.” As if that is supposed to mean something. A “non-governmental fee” is a commercially based service charge, plain and simple. Why bring the government into it at all…even by implication, or should I say “non-implication?” God know we have enough non-government already, and we sure don’t need more non-government. BTW, if you want 911 services – add $.50 a month for more “non-government service” (sic).


Now we get into the really fine print. They say in the big print this Stick “gives you the fastest mobile browsing and downloads.” Great but what about uploads? I want to do some serious video uploads with my Sticky Mobile Internet Broadband service. Talk about being sticky. The very fine print says there will “overage data usage” charged extra and added to my monthly bill. What exactly does that phrase “overage data usage” mean? When do I know I am over using the data service? It is at Rogers’ discretion as to when and how much they decide to charge? How fair and clear is that? Could such a contract be void for uncertainty?


Next we have additional roaming charges. Well so much for being able to “Get Broadband Virtually Anywhere” as they promised in the advertisement. So I guess I can enjoy having the Stick “virtually anywhere” but then why do I have this feeling the company is sticking it to me with some serious and perhaps significant additional roaming costs, just because I use the product as promised? More price uncertainty.


Finally there is the “unsaid” that makes me wonder and mistrust even more. They brag about having the “Fastest wireless network download speeds within HSPA coverage.” What on earth is HSPA coverage? And why only measure download speeds. Do I get the same “fastest” upload speeds too? Since they are silent on this point and since the big Telcos already limit internet upload speeds now, my guess is no, I don’t get the same fast upload speeds from the Stick. I’ll bet I could technically get the same speed both directions but the providers don’t want me to have that level service, even though I am paying for it?


The Internet is interactive and evolving. The interactive aspect requires more bandwidth and speed to accommodate video uploads because that is where the Internet culture is evolving.

Don’t sell me a cell phone with video capacity and then limit its usefulness to me because you throttle the upload speed on my Internet connection. That is not what I bargained for in either instance. If you are allowed to do that in our contract, then I want out. Oh yes, according to the fine print that will trigger an Early Cancellation Fee on top of everything else won’t it? I’d text the cell phone providers a piece of my mind but they would only return a text message advertisement to me and charge me for privilege of receiving it.


Tell me again just how the open marketplace in the free enterprise system is supposed to improve my life because competition works best to serve those progressive ends. Telus, Bell and Rogers control 95% of the cell phone revenue market and I don’t know how much of the Internet market. That market place is not open enough and is sure ain’t free. ..no matter how you look at it.


Now they want to take the usury of the cell phone corporate culture and apply it to the Internet making it look and cost like Cable and Pay television. It is time Canadians learned a lesson from Charlton Heston and the National Rifle Association. If they want to charge me and force me to subscribe to Internet websites on a fee for service basis like Cable or Pay TV, then they will have to take my wireless mouse from my cold dead hand first.

FCC Has Teeth to Fine Internet Service Provider Abusers - Does the CRTC?

Here is a link to the Comcast decision by the FCC in the States to bring down the hammer on a service provider diddling the Internet service and access to their customers. They were "throttling" also some times called shaping. This is when your Internet provided has a different rate for downloading than uploading. So you con download easily at the rates you are paying for. However to upload a video from our computer - or to do video conferencing, you have a much lower speed put on your system. As a result you are not getting the Internet service levels that you are actually paying for when this service provider trickery happens. It is a RIPOFF!


We know this is happening in Canada too and it needs to be challenged at the CRTC. I don't think our regulators have the kind of teeth the FCC has to levy hefty fines for such customer abuse...but it ought to.


I will be posting more on this and other Net Neutrality and Alberta SuperNet issues over then next few weeks as well. Stay tuned!