“Social entrepreneurs are society’s change agents, creators of innovations that disrupt the status quo and transform our world. By identifying the people and programs already bringing positive change, we empower them to extend their reach, deepen their impact and fundamentally improve society.”

If the UN were fully funded in terms of the IMF or WHO or UNICEF, you would still need Social entrepreneur’s to disrupt the norm. For example helping small villages with microloans to small business owners so that they can get out of debt and get their businesses on the move. Even if the UN was fully funded social entrepreneurship is still very viable.

People always want to learn how they can change the world and social entrepreneurs are the people making that change. But the reason they would still exist is they need the funding the UN can provide, they need the support of the government and of the people.

Social Entrepreneur’s are the foundation for the pyramid of success stories and without them many small business a round the world in developing countries like Bangladesh and Rhodesia wouldn’t have been able to get off the ground.

Social Entrepreneur’s have the skills to gain results and aren’t driven by a profit but are driven by the goal of bettering the welfare of society. S.E’s in my mind are very selfless and are here to provide for those who can not do everything themselves.

Having someone who isn’t driven by making a major profit but who is driven to help others succeed and get an advantage in life is an essential role in society if we ever want to grow. I will admit that at times, more often then I would like, I have been selfish however the times I do give back and help others get off their feet really does make me feel more humble. It truly is better to give rather than to always be the person wanting to receive something. During these readings I have learned that even though giving, you can receive something far more valuable than money. You receive the satisfaction of knowing you made someone smile, or that you made someone be able to be happy again and that is why Social Entrepreneurs are needed.

So regardless if the UN were fully funded or not, social entrepreneurs and the Arc will always be needed. The problem is who is willing to fund these social entrepreneurs? If the UN were to be fully funded then there would be no need to worry.

When you think of our country, you believe that we are a sustainable nation who is innovative, protecting jobs and the environment, not hurting it by polluting in excess and degrading the natural resources we hold. Well you were wrong. Canada does not put a high enough tax on polluting but rather on income, employment and profits. Shouldn’t they be doing the opposite? Tax polluting which harms the environment and ease off on jobs, innovations and investments will actually stimulate the economy and help protect the environment.

Former Bank of Canada chair Chris Ragan, along with his “A-Team” of partners such as former Reform party leader Preston Manning, former PM Paul Martin and former Quebec Premier Jean Charest, the cross-partisan advisory board includes former B.C. premier Mike Harcourt, tax specialist Jack Mintz, former Alberta finance minister Jim Dinning, Suncor CEO Steve Williams and Dominic Barton, the global managing director of McKinseyand Co. They are sure to get the attention of the government with their superior knowledge of issues and how to deal with them. 

In 2012 Harper axed the old commission, The National Round Table for the Environment and Economy. But because EcoFiscal has been privately funded in its projects, it is no issue to the government.

In my opinion Mr. Reagan has brought up many key issues with Canada’s policies and corporation’s CSR’s. He moves that the government tax heavier on pollution which hurts the economy and the environment and release the high taxes on income and profits. By doing this the economy can begin to grow at a higher rate, while protecting our environment. It makes sense right? To promote what will help our economy and environment rather than something that harms the both of them. As it stands I disagree with PM Harper’s priorities, as he does not take into account the loss in innovations and investments that could have been if not for the high taxes. By taxing corporations on their pollution rates rather than on personal income, people can save a lot more money and inject it back into our economy. By taking away high taxes on investments and innovations, companies will want to invest and innovators will be more motivated to come up with better technology.

To help our economy and environment I am with Chris Reagan and his team, because to me it makes sense to tax that which harms our environment, rather than the building blocks of our economy.

By shifting taxes to high polluters Canada will be increasing its Social and Environmental responsibilities and larger corporations will soon follow as they have more money to invest into those initiatives.

For the time being Canada is a cheap and easy place to produce and pollute, so it seems that our current structure promotes the destruction and degradation of our environment and that surely needs to change. We should be promoting new investors to come in and innovators to create, not to mention support jobs where people can actually make an honest living. By doing this Canada will become a greater nation in terms of economic growth and environmental responsibility.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ecofiscal-group-seeks-a-way-to-tax-pollution-not-jobs-1.2823634

The new service app UberX sweeping eastern Canada can be very useful but will harm the lively hood of those working in the taxi industry. The San Francisco based company has come out with a very innovative way of getting the customer from point A to point B. In many countries like the USA and Singapore where the public transportation system is unorganized, Uber is a very useful service. But on Canada I don’t think it a good idea. My reason is simple, to protect jobs.

How Uber works is, you open the application and all the private “taxi’s” in your area will pop up on the screen. Having already submitted your credit card information, you select where you want to go, the class of your vehicle and you are on your way. That simple. Prices are affected by the class of the car coming to pick you up, you could get the standard Toyota Corolla or Prius or upgrade to a Limo and anything in between. Uber is an amazing system because it allows you to always have a safe ride home, but in Vancouver do we not spend millions of tax payer dollars upgrading our already amazing transit services?

Uber is like an invasive species, the moment it moves in Taxi drivers who make a solid living out of what they do will lose business and eventually be forced to go private, making less profit and having to pay more for private insurance. This may benefit the consumer but no the people who actually do it for a living. Although UberX does put many precautions into who their drivers are with criminal background checks, high insurance rates, it will harm the “ecosystem” of already existing cab drivers.

I personally would not use Uber, my reasons are simple. I can transit anywhere I want in the lower mainland all with my U-pass. For $47 dollars a month, thats a great deal, not having to tip my bus driver or constantly be searching for change. If I’m ever stuck somewhere I know a bus will come, but if by the odd chance I do need a cab, I would trust them more than a private Uber driver. Cab companies like Yellow-Cab or Belair-Cabs have already established a strong market position in my mind and my friends also agree. They are always safe and always on reliable. I mean if you are paying for a limo to be your taxi then clearly you cab afford to not use transit. But for the rest of us who support local business at a faire price, keeping taxis in and Uber out is our decisions.

Besides the law suits going on about how unsafe Uber is, and has been proven to be in Singapore and the USA, many people are not willing to make the switch. And actually to bust Ubers bubble about being cheaper, it actually isn’t in Canada. You pay more in the end on credit card fees and unregulated fees than a normal cab. Although Uber is cheaper in countries where public transit is almost non-existent, here in Vancouver regulated taxi’s that will keep honest are the way to go. I mean if your credit card is already hooked up to the system, they can overcharge and you wouldn’t be able to notice because all you do is get in the car and then get out at the end, no physical transaction would ever be taken.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/uberx-targeted-by-cab-companies-with-ad-campaign-over-safety-1.2826240

During Prime Minister Stephan Harper’s visit with Chinese officials and founder of Alibaba, Jack Ma, he brought back with him two things: A deal that would bring in trade using Chinese currency and Alibaba’s system of getting start ups off their feet and making money.

I personally am interested in the latter of the two because it will help many Canadian start ups on their way. But I do not know the full details yet. As per the article I read I am interested in Chinese currency being traded out of Toronto.

The reason this deal is huge for Canadian businesses is it will save companies that trade back and forth between Canada and China a lot of money. How? It will save them money because now they can trade directly from the Canadian dollar to the Chinese yuan without having to convert into American dollars. This is a good business tactic for both nations and their businesses because it will promote more trade between the two countries and as well it will foster better growth for start-up companies. Companies used to have to convert to American dollars and take longer to finalize deals because of the old exchange rates. Now business transactions can be made faster and easier. Among the deals made other topics included the Cherry industry in B.C, health sector deals, air travel and nuclear co-operation.

I am for this move by our government because it allows for bigger corporations to save money and invest in other aspects of their companies like CSR’s or innovations. I also like this deal because it allows even smaller businesses that rely on Chinese goods and manufacturing. Not to mention it promotes smaller and mid-sized companies to do business and provide goods and services in China. But on the other hand I am against this because it will cause an influx of Chinese investment in Canadian resources. This will cause Canadians to lose their jobs and our natural resources to be sold to foreign companies. As I read on in the article I found out that our PM did very little “business” except help banks make huge profits, neglecting Canadian citizens who have been locked up for months.

When it comes to doing business Stephan Harper is the guy for it, but when it comes to the well being of Canadians abroad and even at home, I’d look to the next guy. This deal ultimately does help businesses but at the expense of jobs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-china-sign-currency-deal-aimed-at-boosting-trade-1.2828707

A major issue I have with natural gas today is how it is actually collected in the USA. The new system of fracking is very dangerous to not only the environment, but to our personal health as well. These companies are not being socially responsible for their actions by leaking their more than 600 chemicals into near by groundwater reserves. The chemicals released into the water systems affects the local environment and possibly water sources in the cities. This can all lead to even worse consequences for the environment as huge amounts of water, and chemicals are being pressurized into the ground just to release some natural gas. In my opinion there has to be a better way, I mean these companies are even releasing Methane gas into the atmosphere at an astonishingly high rate.

In my opinion for fracking to continue-if it does-is for companies engaging in these activities to become more innovative and create more sustainable practices. The water used in one fracking job can support hundreds of thousands of people who actually need it as it uses up 1-8 million gallons of water. As well I think that companies could invest in creating a waste management program, maybe to reuse the chemicals and contaminated water instead of always using clean water. Find ways to reduce the amount of methane gas being leaked out into the atmosphere.

If fracking becomes more sustainable and these companies begin to display higher standards for their CSR’s then maybe they would be approved in more states or even accepted by the general population. Fracking only occurs in areas outside of smaller counties, so not much can be done by one area alone. But the results of their polluting are real and there needs to be an end to it all soon. Either something needs to change to make fracking more sustainable or fracking should be made illegal.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/11/05/as-oil-plunges-further-why-it-might-be-game-over-for-the-fracking-boom/

The debate is to raise the minimum wage or not to? Over the past few years in Canada we have seen minimum wages increase to above any US minimum wage. The only issue is that generally goods such as petrol, housing and living costs are much more expensive in Canada. Across much of the USA an increase in the minimum wages will cause for a loss in many jobs, but in my opinion this can actually benefit locals.

The issue in America, as well as north of the border is a huge influx of illegal immigrants or huge amounts of legal immigrants who many feel are taking Canadians jobs. Now if those immigrants are more highly trained then sure give them a job, but many of the jobs that will be lost are very low wage, very simple jobs. My point is that if the USA decides to increase their minimum wage it can start to weed out the illegal immigrants causing many problems for actual residence of the country. If families in the lower classes can actually afford to live above the poverty line, than can you imagine the increase in spending nation wide? As well as the increase in jobs and the decrease in welfare reliance.

In Canada there is a different issue concerning the minimum wage. The problem is, costs are too high, predominately in the Vancouver housing market. By raising our provinces minimum wage to above the poverty line of $13 per/hour, people who are unfortunate to have to work these jobs for a living, or just people looking to make extra cash, can actually afford to live a comfortable life away from debt and fear.

Now it might not sound the best, but securing jobs for Canadians and permanent residence will cause productivity to rise and an increase in consumer confidence. If both nations reduce the amount of foreign labour being used and secure jobs for those in the country, we can expect to see people’s marginal values for those jobs increase. (In my opinion of course)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/in-raising-minimum-pay-us-finds-a-rare-common-cause/article21467210/

Living just a five minute drive from this native reserve and having worked on it myself, I understand the governments pains more than anyone. The Kwikwetlem First Nation’s are situated in a very strategic area, having water front open to the Fraser River perfect for fishing, acres of tree land and the monopoly of selling Fireworks to the thousands of high school children every year. The reason I bring this up is because I used to work regulating the fish that were caught by these first nations with BC Hydro and as well as a part time job with on of the council men very close to my family. My point? The cash coming into this community is very generous in comparison to the amount of people actually working there.

Now everyone in my community heard about the scandal by Chief Ron Giesbrecht and it was no surprise. Every year native communities across Canada get tax payer money and can use it for certain plans but the problem here is that no one is actually accounting what they are spending their money on. When asked to show a financial statement of where their money has been spent, an astonishing $180k was taken by the Chief alone and yet they are still asking for more and more. 

$900,000+ per year in pure tax payers money is a little much I have to argue. When you drive up to this reserve, at first glance it looks nice but when you drive further it is a dump. Although the numerous Cadillac’s and BMW’s parked at the houses might make you think they have money, the houses and living conditions really don’t reflect the wealth coming in.

It upsets me that native communities fight so hard for what they deserve but a few clans give them all a bad name. Embezzling the cash  really hurt this clans reputation and it makes the people directly affected by this to really wonder-why do we support natives this much?

I do believe it is wrong for the council of this clan and many across the country for milking the cash but they do need it to survive. To fix this problem, Harper needs to establish that reserve accountants can not provide the statements but official accountants hired by municipal governments must monitor the spending by these clans.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Harper+government+outraged+that+chief+tiny+Coquitlam+first+nation+received+900K+latest/10080633/story.html

In response to Nathan’s comment, I’d like to expand a little further. While I do agree with many of Nathan’s points, I believe that Apples key positioning is what is keeping it at the top of the ladder in its respective market but falling in comparison to its values.

With reference to the mobile phone market, whenever someone thinks about a stylish, touch screen product, they think Apple Iphone’s. Since its inception into the market as the first touch screen phone, Apple established its place at the top of the ladder. Despite its many initial problems, the masses loved it and wanted more. As time went on Android has started to creep up the ladder, surpassing the Iphone in many of her undervalued areas, the Iphone will forever be our first choice. From personal experience I have always loved my Samsung because of its reliability and the fact that it does break if I drop it from a few inches off the ground, but my friends always default to the newest Iphone.

Although the Iphone does have its perks, when it comes to value, Samsung is on top. Apple’s main concept is to keep the Iphone as simple as possible while remaining original. With its all white design being matched by Samsung’s all black design, Samsung has moved to the top of the list in customer satisfaction and reliability. Being able to last over two days, match the apps of Apple, take higher quality pictures and be more affordable is what has led Samsung to move forward in terms of values. That being said, Apple has spent a lot more money on its firm position in the market, hence Apples higher sales rates and revenues.

Although I will never be a fan of Apple, the Iphone as a flagship product will keep Samsung below in terms of position, ultimately leaving Apple with the burden of producing better, while Samsung has the burden of “catching up.”

I agree with Johnathan on many of his points, but one of which that I disagree with is “Automation has reduced the need for employees in the production process, which has led to a large decrease in employment levels.” Huge technological advances in the last few decades have made it possible to convert from Man-power to  machine-powered operations. Although this does cut out many employees, it does bring in many other opportunities for employment. Mechanics will be needed to fix the various equipment when it breaks down, trained operators who have the knowledge to use the machines themselves to “reduce human error” and as well the assembly line style that Ford has been accustomed too will not be cut out entirely.

I do agree that it is odd for Ford to be bringing in this new plant and opening up that many positions but in the long run it can prove to be very effective. As locals become comfortable and aware of Fords capabilities, releasing new products to an area that-if from the outside- might not have been as popular. Ford has the chance to improve costumer relations and expand its customer segments while maintaining profitability.

Back in 2012, Canada cut its funding to marine biology, causing many of Canada’s leading biologists to leave the country to find work else where like in Australia where they are funding this research. With many more examples of scrapped projects-like the Avro-Aero-that could have out our country at the frontier of research again our government decides to give up something we should be embracing.

The message for the last decade has been “go green,” this message has been seen on commercials for restoration projects of Canadian mines, to researching more sustainable farming techniques, but now Canada is starting to back away from its once prestigious position in the world.

While many other nations, such as China, Germany and the USA are pouring billions of dollars into the research of greener energy like solar power, and wind energy, Canada remains on the rear-end of the band wagon. Although we have major government corporations like B.C Hydro doing research on more efficient techniques of sustainability, the government as a whole is lacking.

Now if Canada wants to continue to spend money on already expensive fossil fuels, and wait until many of the larger economies of the world are saving money on greener-practices than it is safe to say that the money has gone somewhere else. Of course our taxes are collected to spend on important issues but this issue is just as important. Our planet is being damaged by Canada’s addiction to unsustainable practices. From fracking to polluting, Canada is climbing down the environmentally friendly ladder, and eventually if Canada doesn’t start being more ethical with its business opportunities, than this country wont be so great to live in any more. Living costs, electricity, hydro, etc..would be cheaper world wide and Canada would just be catching up.

So my question is, do you think Canada should move funding away from other projects to this important one? Why or why not? What is a better alternative?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-missing-out-on-green-energy-revolution-report-says-1.2774192