The Liberals Under King John Dion

There's not a heck of a lot that shocks me about Canadian politics any more. However, this weeks announcement that the Liberals are considering a coalition government with the Bloc and NDP boils my blood. When the new parliament opened, we were promised more decorum. Boy, that disappeared much faster than usual this time. The story goes over Harper trying to cut the government budget by a risky gamble that would have see an end to parties getting government funding. The whole dollar amount of this funding works out to be about $28 million split between the major parties. Some have claimed this was a brilliant tactical move on his part though I believe it to be rather foolish at this time. The Liberals and other opposition parties have criticised the financial update that included this plan for not including any sort of economic stimulus package. Indeed they are correct, it should do more. However, Harper is in the same boat as their lover boy Barack Obama to the south, who has said vary little on what he intends to do.

Canadians just finished an election. We've had three of them since 2004, which is pretty much unprecedented in Canadian history. Canadians gave Harper another mandate for a minority government, strengthening the party's standing from the previous election. The Liberals by contrast saw huge losses. Well, it seems that Dion is not done and wants to go out in a blaze of sour grapes by installing a party in office that Canadians did not vote for. Most Canadians may not be aware of the notion of a coalition government because they are vary rare in this country. Basically, the Liberals plan to forward a motion of non-confidence. Gambling on the fact that Canadians are election weary, they will force the Governor General to install them as the governing party in coalition with the Bloc and NDP. With these two parties, they will have enough seats for a majority. This sort of action is highly undemocratic in my opinion since under our current system. If you thought floor crossing was bad, this is its equivalent on a grand scale. Canadians will now have someone ruling the country who they did not vote for. That of course would be Stephane Dion. Even though he's on his way out, he would sit as interim Prime Minister until the party's leadership convention next spring. This sort of underhanded tactic reeks of elitism. If Dion cannot become PM through democratic channels, he will do so against the will of the Canadian voters. Of course I'm sure the fact that his pay and pension will increase as well does not factor into this decision. (sarcasm alert)

At this point, the left wing parties have gone from the parties to vote for to irrelevant in the eyes of a majority of Canadians. A coalition that would come out of this plan would be a ticking time bomb. The Bloc and the Liberals are arch enemies in Quebec, a province where Liberal support has been declining sharply in recent years. Quebecers are not going to take an alliance with the devil sitting down. Before we even get a month into such a coalition, I would expect an all out war to break out within it as the three parties fight over who gets heard. Neither has enough seats to gain total control of such a coalition. The government would eventually collapse and we'd be in another election. Right now, Canada needs the four parties to work together more than ever. None of them are currently serving out needs but the Liberals for even mentioning this are the biggest disgrace. This is a party that has already gone through a major corruption channel and has shown its propensity for arrogance and elitism time and time again since Chretien was first elected. These sort of political shenanigans will only make things worse off for all Canadians. Even if you do support Liberal ideals, you have to admit that these sort of games are not right at a time like this. If the Liberals push this coalition, then they should be forcibly removed from office by the Canadian public.

read more...

The Broken CCRF

"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;"

I thought I'd just confirm that with the Justice Department since I believe a lot of people are not wholly clear on this little tidbit. The line comes from Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a constitutional document that guarantees the rights of all Canadians. Your rights are enshrined here to protect you from abuse by the government. Despite this, there are certain people within the Canadian government who break the charter on a regular basis. These are the judges and tribunal commissioners who misuse the bench as their own personal soap box. This week, the Moon report was released. It painted a critical picture of the way human rights trubunals are held in Canada. It was drafted partly in response to the Styne/Macleans fiasco that happened over the summer of 2008. The problem arose from section 13(1) of the human rights code that deals with how human rights abuses are to be handled. It found that people were abusing the tribunals to silence any criticism of their particular group. The Moon report called it blantant government censorship. It stopped short of closing the door completely on censorship by noting that documents that deliberately incite violence against minorities should still be prosecuted.

The problem though is not simply with the human rights tribunals but the way the vary legal core of the country has evolved since Trudeau "brought home" the constitution in 1983. Are Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is chock full of vague language and legal loopholes. In fact, the first section of the Charter opens the door wide open for its abuse.
"1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
The reasonable limits clause is defined by Supreme Court Justices and lower courts but that wording in itself is fairly meaningless since who gets to determine what a reasonable limit is? This was how the tribunals came to be misused. Censoring any language that could possible be deemed to incite hatred or is bigoted in any way is considered a reasonable limit to your Section 2(b) rights. This segues into my previous article back in June that dealt with Macleans and Styne. Who exactly gets to determine what is unacceptable language? The tribunals certainly aren't made up of legal experts. Is it them determining what should be censored? These tribunals often poke their noses into issues, looking for problems that are not actually there. Now, I'm not defending people who are genuinely trying to incite hatred. That's a common misconception of what free speech crusaders are trying to do. We believe you should be able to say whatever you want, no matter how stupid or wrong. Someone with an opposing view should have the right to openly disagree with such statements as well. This is how democracy works. If we cannot say things that may offend, then we are not a democratic country at all, not even close.

Currently, you as a Canadian citizen have been given a list of supposed rights. However, the government has no obligation to maintain them. That's clearly listed right in the document. In fact, it's one of the only things that is clear. They can have some rights trump others, or choose to omit entire sections if they so choose. Often, it's non-democratically elected judges making these decisions with an impotent Parliament just keeping mum on the subject. There is nowhere in the constitution that says you have a right not to be offended. In my opinion, the Charter itself needs a serious overhaul to prevent these abuses from ever happening again. First of all, Section 1 and Section 33 need to be removed entirely. Section 33 being the infamous Notwithstanding Clause that allows Parliament to take a whole host of basic legal rights and fundamental freedoms away. There are other parts of the CCRF that I object to but these two sections are indeed the most troubling. If Canada wants to call itself a proper democracy, its constitution needs to reflect that by providing no path for a government to abuse our free speech rights.

read more...

Is Recycling Really as Green As We Think?

Here in Milton, the new green bin has been subject to a lot of controversy. For those who don't know, Green Bins are for wet garbage. Basically food scraps, soiled paper, etc. Before the program was introduced this year, Halton had garbage picked up every week and recycling picked up every other week. We had all wanted recycling to be picked up each week too, and we got it. However, there's a catch. Halton now picks up the green bin and recycling each week, but garbage every other week. So, what's the problem with this. Well, in other jurisdictions, diapers can be put in the green bin. Toronto and Peel Region allow it. Halton does not. Soiled styrofoam meat packages also can't go in the bin. When the blood in these packages festers for two weeks, it creates quite a smell. A woman wrote into the local paper complaining about the lack of garbage service, especially concerning the baby diaper issue. She received a lot of flack from local greenies and the region itself. They basically told here, not in those exact words, that she was being an idiot.

I'd like to direct my readers to a letter by Milton resident Joe Gesualdi, published in November 19th's Milton Canadian Champion. Joe muses that the new recycling program might actually create more waste and environmental damage than just sending it all to landfills. Joe cites that there are now three trucks picking up garbage instead of just the one. Each truck burning gallons of diesel fuel. He also mentions that recycling programs do not divert as much waste as people think they do, which is a known fact that a quick Google search will prove. Essentially, we are paying more for what amounts to less service. I think this letter is especially relevant considering the fiasco over garbage collection currently ocurring in the City of Toronto. I say it's time we fought to get our services back. Ban the Green Bin.

read more...

Toronto's Trash Under Millerist Socialism

Toronto, a city in decay. Well, perhaps that's a little strong but there is no denying that the city seems to be on a decline. The roads are falling apart, historic buildings in the downtown look dilapidated and are now towered over by high rise condos, violent crime is on the rise across the city, the water front looks like a garbage dump, businesses and people are leaving, services are being cut, the city's finances are bleeding red ink, and taxes have increased dramatically. All this going on yet Toronto's mayor and his inner circle of NDP oligarchs seems to be totally unaware of it. When David Miller was elected mayor of the city in 2003, he promised, broom in hand, to clean up city hall. So far, this has not happened. In fact, things have gotten much worse at Nathan Phillips Square. It seems that each week, we hear of yet another corruption allegation or ludicrous program announced. Most recently, a memo regarding garbage collection problems was only set to councillors who were the Mayor's allies. This isn't the first time that the city has misled or deliberately withheld information. In fact, this sort of activity seems to be business as usual. That's how the city of Toronto operates under Millerist socialism.

I'd like to focus this discussion on Toronto's most recent boondoggle: its new garbage collection scheme. David Miller is another bandwagon environmentalist who wants to make Toronto the "greenest" city in North America. Miller has run into a great deal of "unforeseen" problems with this initiative, which he has been working on since day one. One of his first accomplishments after being elected mayor was getting the city sued for breech of contract after shutting down construction on a bridge to the Island Airport. Since then, we've seen a whole host of ludicrous green plans such as banning pesticides. Unfortunately, the pesticide bans are putting allergy sufferers through a living hell and have marked a resurgence in blood sucking bed bugs within the city. The chemical used to kill these dangerous insects is banned under the program. Since then, we've seen tree cutting on your own property banned, a proposal to introduce recycling police, another proposal to ban plastic grocery bags, and a failed attempt to force Tim Hortons to stop using paper cups and plastic lids.

The new garbage program has to be the icing on the cake though. The plan, which was forced through council, was developed to divert waste from landfills in order to fulfill Miller's green initiative. The idea was to turn Toronto into a city that recycles the most. Well, that's what Toronto residents were told. The real reason behind the plan involves money as usual. Currently, the City of Toronto has no local landfill to dump its garbage. It is working on opening a small facility in St Thomas ON in the near future. However, most of the garbage is currently trucked across border to Michigan. As one would expect, this costs a bundle. Trucking companies charge per ton so reducing garbage makes financial sense. The waste diversion initiative covers for the fact that the city was too lazy and incompetent to find any long term local solution to its garbage problem. Instead, Miller decided that it was simply easier to punish Toronto's citizens by finding a new revenue source for the cash strapped city, made that way principally due to mismanagement. The city now charges individual residences an annual fee for garbage collection on top of their property taxes. The fee depends on whether people want a small, medium, or large bin. (I don't have the exact cost figures in front of me, but I believe it is over $150 for the smallest bin. Please correct me if I'm wrong) If you want to put out garbage, you have to buy the bin. As if getting your property tax funded garbage collection service taken away was bad enough, the implementation of the new program has been less than smooth. 40,000 Toronto households are still without their bins. The city claims this is due to a backlog at the factory that makes them. Instead, the city has handed out pink tags for people without bins to put on their garbage bags to ensure collection. No pink tag, no collection. People have complained that the tagging system is confusing. Reportedly, Toronto marked bins have shown up in Florida. Additionally, there are reports of bins actually getting stolen. Illegal dumping is also on the rise. It's not as if these were unforeseen problems. At the vary least, there wouldn't have been had the city taken their time to plan it out properly. Instead, they made a knee jerk reaction to a problem that should have been dealt with years ago before it got this bad.

Then there was the now infamous email incident I mentioned above. When pressed on it, Miller lashed out at a Sun reporter and denied he knew anything about it. Others involved denied any knowledge of the email or why it was only sent to Miller's allies. So much for cleaning up city hall. More denial, more cover ups. Lastman had the MFP scandal, Miller has countless under his belt. Miller's scandals aren't as delightfully juicy though. In fact, they're downright scary at times. If Toronto isn't the most mismanaged city in Canada, I would certainly be frightened to see the one that is.

read more...

Violence in Schools Report Misses Boat

Ever try to find a cruise ship port in Saskatchewan? If your out there looking for one, you're either an idiot, or you're either former speaker of the legislature Dr. Alvin Curling or former attorney general Roy McMurtry. This week, the two men released a report regarding violence in Ontario schools. The report missed the boat by so much, they might as well have been trying to board a cruise ship in the prairies. What we were given is another $2 million boondoggle courtesy of the McGuinty government, complete with the typical Liberal pablum. According to the report, the reason young black men are killing each other on Toronto streets is due to racism and poverty. So basically, we've spent millions on something we've already heard before. The report also blames community design, education, lack of economic opportunity, and the justice system as factors for breeding violence. In response, the solution will be built around "four pillars": social opportunity and anti-racism; a youth policy framework; neighbourhood capacity and empowerment; and integrated governance. (Toronto Sun)

To hear people like Curling and McMurtry talk, you'd think Canada was the most racist country on Earth. They make it sound as if the white majority has nothing better to do than than stomp on the dreams of visible minorities. That is a completely ludicrous notion. As Jonathan Kay of the national post noted, Canada is probably the least racist country on Earth. One can walk into any public place and see people of all sorts of different backgrounds freely mingling. The report is obviously directed at only African Canadians and not other races, and seems to suggest that they, and only they, are subject to increasing persecution. They apparently need programs such as race-based education in order to find good role models. It has been argued that Canada's "whitewashed" history makes visible minorities feel like they have contributed nothing to this country, and that there is a lack of historical role models for young visible minorities. Canada boasts a diverse parliament, and our head of state is African Canadian. The United States just elected Barack Obama as their first president of African heritage. If black youths cannot find any historically significant role models, they certainly aren't looking hard enough. Race based education creates a watered down fantasy of Canadian history and does no service to those involved in such programs.

In regards to the anti-racism programs, this sounds like another excuse to impose the same tired politically correct rhetoric that became big in the 1980s. These programs are made with the best intentions. Unfortunately, that's what the road to hell is paved with. Such programs create perceived racism. In other words, people start seeing racism that is not there. Now, I'm not denying it doesn't exist, not by a long shot. However, I get suspicious whenever someone in this day and age tells me they cannot get ahead in life simply because of the colour of their skin. There seems to be plenty of non-white people working in prestigious jobs in industries where affirmative action programs are not used. A number which is increasing. We may be in an economic slowdown now but less that a year ago, businesses were clamouring for people, any people to hire. You cannot honestly say that there were no jobs available anywhere. If people living at Jane & Finch cannot find jobs in their community, perhaps they should be introduced to a wonderful, futuristic invention known as a bus. It can take you anywhere in the city, and even outside for just $2.75! Oh, but they say that poverty is what prevents people from doing that. I guess they can't afford the fare. As I have said time and time again, to say that poor people are inherently prone to violence is an insult to them. When my family first came to Canada, they were considered poor. My grandfather never picked up a gun and shot somebody because of that. He took a job at a steel mill, worked hard, and bettered himself. Most other people from all races, creeds, and backgrounds have done the same thing. Yes, this includes plenty, if not most of African Canadians too. I want to know why Curling and McMurtry feel that young black men living in Toronto are the exception, and why they should be subject to special treatment.

To me, this report is essentially a cop out. It tries to scapegoat others for the problems of a specific community. It seems to suggest that there is a massive conspiracy against inner city black youths. This line of thinking fans the flames of violence because people living in these communities start believing this trash. The culture of street violence is fostered in part by this distorted view and part by a society that increasingly sees other people as obstacles to destroy or tools to use, rather than as human beings. This is by far an attitude specific only to inner city communities by that is where it turns to violence. It is a global problem. We might as well be waging Thomas Hobbes dystopian war of all against all in the mean streets of North Americas inner cities. The lack or caring is an attitude that is introduced at home, at a young age. Tossing the blame on racism and poverty does not solve the problem. We've heard these same things said time and time again. The real solutions come in the form of community building within troubled neighbourhoods. This does not involve putting up basketball courts. Rather, its introducing higher education standards, more community involvement (through community service), and a no-nonsense crackdown on organized crime. Many have criticized former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani's "broken windows" approach. However, it did something that these Liberal programs did not, it worked. New York went from the most crime ridden big city in the US to one of the safest. The trick is teaching these youths that they can succeed and that there are no barriers against them. Push them hard, don't molly coddle them with "race-based" (segregated) schools. They will never learn to function in the real world under these "Afrocentric" programs. All these kids need is a kick up the rear and to be shown that the thug life is cowardly and undesirable. If anything, the Curling and McMurtry study will only continue to aggravate the problems. It's time we stopped taking the easy way out and started tackling the problem in a tough love manner. In the mean time, both Alvin Curling and Roy McMurtry should be writing a cheque to Ontario tax payers to pay back the money they wasted.

read more...

The Auto Industry: A Bad Investment

I talked about the failure of the auto industry in North America before. This odyssey just seems to keep dragging on so its worth another look at. Since I first wrote up about the issue back in June, things have only got worse for the so called "Big Three": General Motors, Ford, and Crystler. GM is now threatening another round of massive layoffs at the Oshawa plant. The big question today is whether the federal and provincial/state governments in both Canada and the United States should bail them out again. There's a lot of debate going on on both sides, but in my opinion, the answer is quite clear. Imagine you have a buddy who comes to you and says they need $100. He promises he has a sure fire plan that will reap good return on your rather small investment. He then goes to the casino, blows it all on the slots, and never pays you back. A couple months later, he asks you for $500 because he's down on his luck. You give him the benefit of the doubt and give him the money. He promises he'll give a good return on your investment, but he blows it on lottery tickets. Your buddy comes back in another couple of months and asks for $1000. He's screwed you twice already. Are you going to risk giving him the money? Of course not. It's a bad investment. This is pretty much how GM et al have been acting when they go to the various governments hat in hand. They ask for money promising we would reap big rewards in the future, we give it to them, and they do nothing with it.

Most of the Big Three's problems were caused by mismanagement. Ten years ago, analysts were predicting we'd see a huge spike in oil costs in the coming years. Honda, Hyundai, Toyota, and Volkswagen looked at their line up and began producing ultra-fuel efficient vehicles when everyone else was churning out SUVs and minivans by the train load. The Americans were betting heavily on $0.60 a litre gas would be here to stay. Then in 2005, it happened. Hurricane Katrina bumped oil prices up to an astounding $1.30 per litre. The American auto makers claimed that was just a spike. Then in 2006, gas prices broke the psychological $1.00 litre barrier and stayed there. Large, gas guzzling SUVs with 70 litre tanks were becoming prohibitively expensive to operate, yet the Big Three still kept churning them out at faster and faster paces. SUV sales started to decline. The Big Three responded with the crossover, which was essentially an SUV that wasn't as tall. Nobody bought them. 2008 marked the final nail in the coffin when gas prices rose over $1.30 in Canada and stayed there. Nobody could afford to fuel their large vehicles. Sales of fuel efficient small cars skyrocketed while SUV and minivan sales plummeted. American automakers barely scraped past the first fuel crisis in the 1970s after years of betting on cheap gas. However, that was an event that could not have been foreseen years ahead. Everybody saw the 2008 fuel crisis coming, everyone except the Big Three. Gas prices have dropped dramatically, as they usually do at this time of year. The long term trend however is sill going up. We will most likely see $1.30 prices return by next summer. What have US automakers done to address this? Absolutely nothing. GM and Crystler's big solutions to save Canadian auto jobs was to build the new Camero and Challenger in Oshawa and Brampton respectively. Both are gas guzzling muscle cars that only appeal to a niche market. Employees currently at the plants are overpaid and underworked, which has led to mass layoffs. They don't get off the blame entirely since the CAW has extorted these exorbitant pay rates and benefits from the company, but it still all boils down to mismanagement from the top.

This is precisely why we should not give the industry more money, despite the number of jobs that are at risk. The auto makers might as well be crown corporations at this point due to the amount of tax payer money that has gone into them. We keep handing over the dough but the industry does absolutely nothing with it other than maintain the status quo. The status quo does not work any more in today's world. Giving them more money is akin to trying to stop the Titanic from sinking by attempting to plug the hole with your finger. These companies are still bleeding red ink despite our best efforts. Bailouts are necessary in rough economic times as dictated by Keynesian economics. However, when you keep giving your buddy money to help him out, and he wastes it, there must come a point where you have to say "no more." Perhaps if faced with extinction, the American automakers might finally be forced to innovate, rather than churning out products nobody wants and spending other peoples' money like water.

read more...