Ontario's eco-fees may be unconstitutional

Did you watch the price of goods go up on July 1st? HST wasn't the only culprit. New "eco-fees" were slapped on a wide variety goods that the government thinks are environmentally harmful. This includes everything from potting soil to washing up liquid. Stewardship Ontario, an independent body set up by the Ontario Government, has levied these fees. The problem is, it can't.

Legal experts say the eco-fees are unconstitutional since they are legally considered to be a tax. The problem is only the legislature can levy taxes and only the ministry of revenue can collect them. It grows out of that whole "no taxation without representation" that got the Americans so hot and bothered 230 years ago.

Direct taxation is when the government passes a law in the legislature and announces it to the public. That's allowed by the constitution. Indirect taxation is when the government sets up an external body to levy and collect fees without informing or consulting citizens. That's what Stewardship Ontario has done. They are collecting fees for the government through businesses, who then pass the costs on to consumers. There was no vote on these fees. No hearings were ever held. No legislation was tabled. The body unilaterally decided to implement them.

The fees have been in place since 2007 when they were first levied on items such as paint. Nobody complained mainly because nobody knew they were there. At the time, only a handful of items were covered. The list has since ballooned.

Environment Minister John Gerretsen seems to think this is A-OK. After all, the McGuinty government thinks the lack of action by the public is a wholehearted endorsement of their policies. Dalton's dream team knows how to play the apathy of Ontarians like a well used Xbox.

Despite the lack of complaints, it still doesn't make the fees legal. Yet another sign that our governments have total contempt for the people they serve.

read more...

Making the Infalible, Falible

It is perhaps the greatest centre of power in the world. Amongst the golden temples sits the throne of Pope Benedict XVI. Arguably one of the most powerful men in the world, influencing the lives of over 1.1 billion people world wide. Now some are asking to do something unprecedented. Take this powerful man and lock him in irons for crimes against humanity. The crime? Supporting child sex slavery and harbouring individuals accused of raping those who trusted them the most.

A friend of my Dad's is an Irish Catholic who abandoned the Church. A tall, lanky, greying man in his early 60s, he occasionally mentions his disgust with what he saw. Everyone knew the local priest was molesting his young flock. He decided he couldn't support an institution that let people get away with that behaviour. Yet 40 years on, the allegations have just come to light. Some priests were arrested and jailed. People began screaming for justice. They wanted Benedict (also known as Joseph Ratzinger) to take responsibility for those under him. Instead, the Vatican sent a brief letter to the people of Ireland. A half-hearted apology for the abuses. At the same time, the Church said it would not take responsibility for these "isolated incidents". One high ranking church official at an Easter mass dismissed the allegations as "petty gossip."

The problem is, they were not isolated cases. Several countries and countless priests have been involved. The American cases were the most publicized. A report by John Jay found at least 10,667 accusations were made from 1950 to 2002. About 4% of Catholic priests were involved in accusations. The victims were overwhelmingly teenage males. Besides the US and Ireland, notable cases have popped up in the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, mainland Europe, and Canada. The Vatican itself admits anywhere from 1.5% to 5% of priests have abused a child.

According to an IPSOS Reid poll, approximately 2 million Canadians know someone abused by a Catholic priest. Father Thomas Rosica, CEO of the Salt & Light Catholic TV network, told Canada.com that the poll was "misleading and sensationalistic," and did not include the Church's efforts to curb abuse. To which people are asking "what efforts?"

This is the big problem with the issue. Around every corner, the Church has actively tried to hide and dismiss abuse claims. Either they outright deny them or make it seem as if it's not a big problem. Studies have even shown that abuse rates are no higher than the general population. What they fail to consider is that priests are supposed trusted authority figures, not perverts driving around in a grey cargo van. They are held to a higher standard than others, and rightfully so.

This is why it should fall on Ratzinger. He is the leader of the Church. He is responsible for those under him. It's similar to the Nixon case. Although Richard Nixon himself didn't plant the bugs at the Watergate, he was still criminally responsible. That's because people under him had done the job and he tried to cover it up. It's called aiding and abetting in law. By covering up these crimes, the Church has aided and abetted criminals, has prevented them from being caught and tried in court.

Atheist activists in Britain are mounting legal challenges against Ratzinger when he comes to Britain later this year. There are even calls that he get arrested for crimes against humanity. They plan to challenge the diplomatic immunity of the Pope on the grounds that Vatican City is not a legitimate sovereign state. If they win, Ratzinger could be arrested and tried in the International Criminal Court at The Hague. It would be a landmark case and a major blow to the Church's power. The Pope is not God's spokesperson on Earth. He's a man like any other man, and should be subject to man's laws. Here's hoping victims will get their justice through a real, legitimate trial.

read more...

Why I'm Hesitant to Donate to Haiti

This week, I've realized what a truly awful person I am. No matter how much tragedy I see about the Haiti quake that happened last Tuesday, I just cannot be convinced to donate. Is it because I'm greedy and lazy? Probably. However, I also feel that no matter how much I give, that money will not be put to good use, if it's put to use at all.

Haiti is the poorest nation in the Americas, in line with some of the poorest African states. It also rates the lowest in the UN's Human Development Index for the Americas. To put this in perspective, the next poorest country, Nicaragua, is 30% better off in terms of life expectancy, GDP, and literacy. The irony is that Haiti is sandwiched between two of the wealthier nations in the Americas: Cuba and the Dominican Republic. These nations both have access to the same resources Haiti does.

Much of Haiti's problems can be attributed to it's high level of corruption and political instability. After the quake, the UN is scrambling to re-establish the rule of law in Port-au-Prince. However, it can be argued that the rule of law has never existed in this country. It is estimated that a third of the population in the capital live under the boots of violent gangs who hold their iron grips on the poorest slums. Rape, theft, murder, and machete attacks are common place and the government does little to try and stop them. Approximately 30 armed factions rule over them like medieval feudal lords ruled over their serfs. They exist only to profit off the backs of the country's destitute. The gangs obviously have no respect for law but are the only real government in places like the notorious (and ironically named) Cité Soleil shantytown.

According to several news reports, these gangs seem to be the only ones benefiting from the disaster. Several hundred of them escaped from prison during the earthquake and have now re-established their stranglehold on the slums. Small turf wars have already broken out and violence is expected to escalate as people become more desperate. The sad truth behind so many of these aid operations is that the food, money, and supplies destined for the truly needy ends up, more often than not, in the hands of these soulless monsters. Even with the US and Canadian troops on the ground there, I just cannot feel guaranteed that aid will not end up in the hands of gang lords and raiders. Unfortunately, this is the case in so many similar situations. It happens in Africa all the time. Aid, particularly food, gets stolen and is sold back to the same destitute people it was meant for, on the black market, for several times its actual worth. This puts the wealthier nations between a rock and a hard place and discourages many who truly want to help.

This is the time where I usually suggest solutions but I just can't in this case. For the foreseeable future, all I can see is things getting worse before they get better. I think we need to start considering that Haiti may never recover. Even before the earthquake, the government had no economy whatsoever. 30-40% of the government's budget was already coming from foreign aid. Current exports, aside from a small coffee industry, are mainly low income agricultural goods. The country has almost no industrial capacity. It also lacks the tourism industry that so many Caribbean nations have built themselves on. The tourists stay away for obvious reasons. It is estimated that half of all Haitians were unemployed prior to the quake. Two thirds were thought to be without formal jobs. What economy it had is now all but gone, and has taken the lives of countless with it.

I cannot be optimistic. After studying the history and politics of the region all through university, I know a failed state when I see one. There have been so many. Haiti though is as textbook an example of one as you can get. As sad as it sounds and as awful as it sounds, perhaps it's time we abandon the Haitian people. We in the West and the world at large have done all we can to help these people but none of it seems to be working to build a stable country and improve the lives of its people. Many of the poorest areas resent our "interference". All I can say is may God have mercy on their souls.

read more...

Hot Headed on the Heels of Climategate

Violence erupts at the climate change conference in Copenhagen. It's a shameful spectacle of the worst kind. One thing about socialists. They hate war but they love to violently riot. The crowed has been described as groups of European leftists, naturally.

As I said in one of my previous articles, I believed that the pro-anthropogenic (man made) global warming crowd would get more militant. This was due to the fact that the anti-AGW side was gaining more ground in the debate. Of course this was before the proverbial feces hit the fan a couple weeks ago. Emails leaked from the University of East Anglia (the lead research institution for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) provided the strongest evidence yet that scientists were deliberately altering climate data and that there was an large, organized conspiracy to silence critics.

The so called Climategate scandal should have went off like the Tsar Bomba in the media, but fizzled like a dud cherry bomb. It did get reported, slowly, and has now given climate critics a huge stockpile of ammo against the IPCC. Climate activists know that their argument is weakening and they are loosing public support big time. Belief in man made global warming has dropped an astounding 20-30% in the United States. This follows on the heels of an earlier report that suggests that the majority of Brits don't believe in the AGW theory.

With these revelations, those pushing for the agenda behind climate change have gotten more desperate. The real goal of Copenhagen is to provide third world countries with huge wealth transfer payments from richer countries. It's not as if they've kept this hidden. They've been fairly open about it. The goal is not to stop climate change but rather equalize global wealth by taking money out of the hands of the G8; all based on the pretext of atoning for their eco-sins. Now that their socialist dream has come under threat, they believe they must become more militant to try and get public opinion on their sides. Nothing pulls at people's hearts and senses like beating a cop with a brick and setting cars on fire... apparently.

On the subject of wealth transfer itself. One may wonder why this is so bad. It's like setting up a global charity after all? Not exactly. Most poor people will never see a dime of the money spent from these agreements, should they be put into place. More often than not, it ends up lining the pockets of despots, organized criminals, and corrupt bureaucrats. Socialists love to cuddle up to their fearless leaders though. Leaders who don't mind taking their own peoples' human, social, legal, and economic rights away for the "greater good".

Believe me, I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I know die hard liberals who think this climate change business is a huge scam. A lot of them in fact. The sceptics cannot be labelled crackpots or people buying into corporate propaganda anymore. There's just too many of us. Ultimately, we can only hope that this green madness will end and common sense will once again reign supreme.

read more...

Something Rotten in the State of Denmark

It's that time again. We're getting bombarded with more climate change hysteria by "scientists" and activists as world leaders prepare to meet in Copenhagen. The goal of the meeting is to hash out a new deal to replace the largely failed Kyoto Protocol of 11 years ago. Arguably, there is a lot more debate now than there was, say five years ago. The problem is that the United Nations and powerful NGOs like GreenPeace have long entrenched themselves. Any argument that states that climate change may not be real, or a natural phenomenon, or that carbon reduction schemes would devastate the global economy usually falls on deaf ears. It doesn't matter how much evidence you have in favour of your argument, or how good it is. It's like trying to argue with a wall.

So far, the goal of Copenhagen seems to involve massive monetary transfers to developing countries in order to pay for them to limit emissions of carbon dioxide. This sounds an awful lot like a "social justice" wealth transfer scheme. It's not so much that I disagree with this idea, even though I do. Foreign aid has proven futile in solving poverty issues. What really bothers me is why not just call it what it is. It always amazes me that people are more moved by sad polar bears than AIDS riddled, starving African children. That is they're more willing to open their wallet if they think the "disaster" will affect them; as opposed to child poverty, which they can happily ignored without any direct influence on their own lives. I think it's a sad statement on ourselves as society, and a particularly large black mark on the "textbook" liberals.

So what should we do? Should we still push ahead with a climate agreement? Absolutely not. Rather, if you want to help developing countries, even in the name of stopping climate change, technology sharing and free trade are a far better solution for dealing with both. Money just ends up in the hands of corrupt officials. Give people something tangible.

read more...

Toronto Strike Highlights Need for Municipalities Inquiry

During yesterday's rather heated debate at Toronto city hall over whether the strike deal should be ratified, council took a rare but not unprecedented step. In a motion during the debate that only one councillor voted against, video feeds were cut and all members of the media and the public were asked to leave. The debate over the deal continued behind closed doors away from the public eye. At the federal and provincial level, such a motion would violate the rules of parliament but it is perfectly legal for municipal councils. Of course this is raising many questions over what exactly was discussed during that closed door debate among a sadly dysfunctional. Whether or not you agree with the contract or the strike itself is a moot point. Looking at the bigger picture, we have been presented with a mayor who has chosen to conduct city business in the utmost secrecy, and someone who is not afraid to stretch their autocratic muscle should they not get their way. As much as a weenie David Miller appears to be in public, he strikes me as being ruthless in his dealings outside of preying eyes. During the part of the debates that did make it to the media, Miller accused councillors who planned to veto the contract of "hating" Toronto, and furthermore claimed their dissent was a personal attack against him. The public was not kept informed regarding the mediation process, they were kept in the dark by the mayor, and when we finally had something, they were shut out of the debate. This is not democratic. This is the kind of government behaviour I would expect in the People's Republic of China or Cuba.

This is just another addition in a long line of scandals that the city has tried to keep under wraps. Councillors have been caught spending taxpayer money like water on their expense accounts, billing everything from fine dining to one particularly chintzy member who billed a bottle of Advil to the city. Debates over misspending have raged since Miller became mayor despite his main campaign platform in the first election being to clean up city hall. He actually had a broom in hand when he made that statement, as if we need another walking political cliche. Toronto is now plagued by crumbling infrastructure that it cannot pay for, mainly due to councillors' pet projects and generous contracts for unionized labour. Toronto may not be a dangerous city, crime wise, but it sure looks like it. No longer maintaining its clean reputation, the city is downright dirty even at the best of times; and examining critical infrastructure is like hopping in the DeLorean to go back to 1955. The council just uses tax payers like their own private bank account, and McGuinty's foolish City of Toronto Act has allowed them to accelerate that process unrestrained with all sorts of new user fees.

Unfortunately, corruption issues within Ontario municipalities are not limited to Toronto. It is just more noticeable there due to the larger media presence and variety. I've taken strong issues with the way the Town of Milton operates. Both Vaghan and Ottawa's mayors have seen court cases with accusations over electoral fraud. Other cities in the GTA, such as Burlington and Brampton also have serious issues with corruption according to the scuttlebutt in political circles. What goes on behind the closed doors of Ontario's city hall would probably make your blood boil. Everybody knows it; however, it's extremely difficult to prove. Given what we know about in Toronto, I do believe there is substantial enough cause for some sort of provincially led investigation into how municipalities in Ontario are being run. While many would balk at the idea of spending millions more in tax dollars, I think the situation has gone beyond critical mass and that there is no other way to deal with it. Most municipal politicians, is seems, care little of what their constituents think; partially out of arrogance, partially because nobody votes. This attitude is the vary antithesis of the responsible government concept that this nation was built on.

The Ontario government first of all needs to appoint a group of independent, non-partisan auditors to comb through the books of a select number of municipalities where there are the largest number of complaints. Sniff out any questionable expenses and "income sources" that councillors and civil servants might have. From there, if proof of corruption if found, it may be necessary to investigate the personal finances and assets of said individuals. Look at everything from voting records to ties to stakeholders such as big time land developers. From there, a system of checks and balances needs to be set up to ensure councillors and civil servants must remain fully transparent and accountable to their citizens. I think it is time to do what the United States has always done and appoint municipalities as a third level of government, rather than having them as self-governing corporate entities under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as they are now. Doing so would require councils to operate under the same decorum, constitutional conventions, and procedures that Parliament and the Legislature are required to operate under. Failing that, each city should at vary least have an independent auditor general and ombudsman appointed by the province to investigate citizens' complaints. Once who is accountable only to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and not city council.
City councils must be roped in through some way, shape, or form to make sure citizens are getting the kind of democratic government they deserve.

read more...

Should the Public Service Be Deunionized?

Unions have a contentions history in Canada. Originally designed as a layer of protection for workers when no labour laws or welfare state existed, many, notably on the more individualistic right, have come to consider them as dinosaurs in the modern world. Whether big private sector manufacturing unions such as the CAW still need to exist is a moot point though. During this latest recession, even these big power houses have been forced to take deep cuts to generous benefit packages in order to survive rounds of layoffs. In the public sector, not such threat exists. Job security is as near to iron clad as you can get. Recent non-partisan studies by Statistics Canada, drawn from the 2006 Census data have shown that salaries of civil servants are roughly 8% to 12% higher than those doing comparable jobs in the private sector. This number jumps to 30% when benefits are included for both sides. The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), and Ontario Teachers Federation, and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) are some of the most powerful organized labour institutions in North America. The Teacher's pension fund has lucrative business stakes and actually owns majority shares in Toronto Maple Leafs Sports & Entertainment; the entire package, not just the hockey team. Despite the wealth the public sector unions and their members hold they, quite oddly, are the only ones striking. Toronto's inside and outside workers, members of CUPE, have been on strike for over a month now. Crown corporation VIA Rail's engineers' union went on strike today at noon, cutting train service nation wide. Windsor city workers were on strike for nearly 100 days before that labour dispute was resolved. However, I can't think of a single high profile private sector union that has struck since the recession began even though their workers have been taking a major beating.

Civil servants truly do believe they are hard done by compared to other workers. The unions themselves are just huge money generating machines for their wealthy leadership. I've already touched on that before though. What the public sector badly needs is a process of deunionization. That is eliminating civil service unions all together either by immediate ban or by attrition; not allowing new hires to join the union. There are a couple of reasons why I think this should be done. Am I anti-union? Most definitely, I admit that. I don't think they have a place anymore. However, one of my biggest problems with public sector unions is the fact that you have this large, monolithic, unelected organization that has virtually no accountability to the public, essentially controlling all the strings of government. The civil service largely dictates what government policies eventually get enacted and how they are carried out. They are known to be highly resistant to new governments. While supposedly non-political, public service unions spread and openly encourage strong partisan attitudes among their members. This is why certain governments, notably labour friendly left wing parties, get favoured while those who fall out with the union, such as David Miller, are given the hardest time possible. While we rant and scream about wealthy private lobby ground influencing governments, here's one that is in total control of it. They arguably have power far exceeding even politicians to create policy that controls our lives yet there are virtually no checks or balances against the bureaucracy. The minister in charge of that portfolio may be forced to step down due to gaffes by their civil servants. However, that does not address the issues inherent with the bureaucratic system that caused the problem in the first place.
Directly and indirectly, the unions have encouraged the poor attitude civil servants have towards the public. CUPE workers have been caught physically assaulting citizens of Toronto if they try to cross the picket line to dump their garbage. They are also alleged to have slashed the tires of private garbage trucks. The police, also unionized, have chosen to do nothing about the criminal allegations. Everyone I know has a story of abuse at the hands of the public service. Since they cannot be fired due to the union's power, they have no incentives to treat citizens in a fair and polite manner. Most will do so out of common decency but there is nothing to punish those who do not, and there are a large number of bureaucrats that do that. When things do go wrong, the public has no say beyond the media to vent complaints and nothing will ever be done to prevent future issues.

(To my and my dad's credit, we did fight and win against the civil service. I had been one minute late for a driving exam due to an unforeseen major traffic jam on the highway. They tried to make me pay the fee twice, plus lost pay for the half day I took off work, even after I explained the problem, so I stormed out of there. We managed to get an apology and I got to take the test I originally paid for. Good thing I had help considering I'm not too good with people due to my shy nature. Incidentally, that's the only time I've ever blown up at somebody and I don't intend to ever do it again. However, I consider my victory to be more like the get out of jail free card in Monopoly. There's only one. My dad, who is a civil engineer and worked as a contractor on mostly government projects has a great deal of experience with the inner workings of the bureaucracy. This sort of behaviour is typical. He still remembers the days when bribes were common, before they cracked down on that. They never got money from us. Beyond the corruption and bad attitude, they're also known to have quite a vengeful streak if you point out problems with their logic. Sorry for the long soliloquy.)

Of course all of this is just musings for academic purposes. No politician has the guts to actually ban public sector unions, with maybe the exception of Ronald Reagan or Mike Harris. To do so would require either the Supreme Court to enact the Section 1 reasonable limits clause on Section 2 of the Charter which allows freedom of association. This is extremely unlikely. A charter challenge by the Harris government that sought to change the definition of freedom of association to also mean freedom of disassociation failed. The challenge was originally intended to open up the closed shop nature of public sector unions, allowing those who did not wish to join CUPE or OPSEU to still be employed by the provincial government. The other route is to levy a ban on public sector unions and impose the infamous Section 33, the Notwithstanding Clause of the Charter of Rights, to essentially trump Section 2 rights. That would be political suicide at best. The answer is also not making them essential services. One thing I will grant to Toronto mayor David Miller, he is correct about that leading to arbitration rather than negotiation. Binding arbitration in labour disputes has historically resulted in the union receiving all of their demands regardless of the employer's situation. Despite this, the public's tolerance of civil service unions has been waining significantly in recent months as they fight for rather trivial benefits while harassing and inconveniencing the rabble who are loosing their jobs. Public sector unions are teetering on the brink and the public and politicians may not be so nice when the next major strike rolls around. The end of union friendly administrations may be on the horizon. Miller's current low popularity rating is a testament to that.

read more...

Union Irony: Protecting Workers At the Expense of Others

The National Post is reporting that 400 seasonal workers have been laid off indefinitely at Centreville Amusement Park . The park, located on Toronto Island, has been closed due to the cancellation of ferry service to the island as a result of the CUPE strike that has hit the city. Ironic isn't it. Just yesterday I talked about how I thought people would feel bitter and even hostile toward CUPE for striking over such a petty issue when others are being forced to do with less and less. I wonder how these 400 people feel. The vast majority of them are students who will be struggling to pay their tuitions come Fall thanks to lost hours. There's definitely not going to be any labour soliderity here.

Source: National Post

read more...

Unions Are Loosing the PR Battle

During this recession, a great deal of people have lost their jobs. Those fortunate enough have had wages frozen and benefits clawed back, or are stuck working part time for relatively low pay. Retirees, most without private pension plans, have seen their savings dwindle as stocked crashed. Many of them are questioning whether they can afford to maintain their current quality of life. Retired workers are now flooding into the part time market, taking jobs away from younger people, in order to supplement their incomes. Yes, it's tough times for all, unless you happen to belong to a big union. Toronto's city workers have gone on strike over what amounts to whether or not they can bank their 18 annual sick days and cash them in when they retire. Government workers have long operated on a culture of entitlement and believe that regardless of what happens in the outside world, they should be left untouched. Toronto's concessions to maintain labour peace is a large part of what has led to the city's near bankruptcy. Simply put, the city cannot afford to be paying these huge cash bonuses as large numbers of employees start to retire, many of who are eligible to do so at 55 instead of 65. CUPE claims it did not want to go on strike but obviously, I'm not buying this. Oh, it just happens they set their strike deadline at the beginning of Pride Week, an event which brings millions to the city and generates a heck of a lot of garbage. That was a coincidence I'm sure, no extortion here. All it will do is parade the city's incompetence and the union's greed before the world.

There is some backlash against big unionism starting to appear. It has marked a drastic change since the strikes during past economic downturns. Back in the 1930s and 1970s, workers were fighting for fair wages and better job security during bad times. Today, they are seen to be fighting for petty issues, such as the right to cash in sick days, or to grab tax dollars as was the case with the CAW's negotiations with GM and Chrysler. Toronto's CUPE workers are basically fighting over something stupid while at the same time putting people at a huge inconvenience and putting public health at risk by not picking up trash. Even many socialists will have trouble defending this while their non-union brothers are getting thrown through the shredder for no fault of their own as private companies struggle to survive and remain profitable. Most people recognize cut backs during hard times as inevitable. As other pundits have pointed out, unions however, particularly in the public sector, soon see minor perks as becoming inalienable rights. To add insult to injury, Toronto's non-unionized staff have seen major layoffs in order to pay for the perks of the union. In some perverse way, the big unions see this as incentive for more to join their ranks. In reality, it has drastically soured the relationship between unions and the general public. People see them as snivelling, entitled, cry babies. Civil servants are quickly loosing their golden boy status. They need to get their butts back to the bargaining table as soon as possible because they're not going to get the public sympathy that they did in the past. In the end, they look and largely are just as bad as the fat cat managers they're fighting against.

read more...

...But Do I Get a Free Car?

I own GM now, apparently. I must say I feel wealthy along with my 32 million other shareholders who have just purchased 12% of a car company to the tune of $10 billion. Now, this seems great until I realized that I don't get a dividend for my stocks. In fact I don't get anything except an inevitable paycheque decrease thanks to the future taxes I'll have to pay for this colossal blunder. Steven Harper is pulling the "following orders" excuse as to why the government bailed out General Motors. According to the PM, they would not have done it had Obama not bailed out the US arm of the company, and it was only done to keep jobs in Canada. Fair enough but I cannot help but wonder whether it's just delaying the inevitable. All throughout the bailout negotiations, GM management and the CAW/UAW have taken an apathetic stance on restructuring. The CAW still considers being docked down to the same level of every other worker, blue or white collar, to be a major concession.

Now that two of the largest companies in the world have been nationalized, what's in it for the rest of us who are forking out this money? One leading bankruptcy lawyer noted that Chrysler will be unable to repay its loans to the government. What makes General Motors any different? It's simply putting good money after bad. GM has put a great deal of funding into the Camaro and the Volt, two cars which will supposedly save the company. Unfortunately, pony cars and hybrids aren't selling and the company has grown a reputation for having unreliable vehicles. GM's plan for profitability is relying on niche products, which may work for smaller companies or those in strong financial shape, but it's not viable in the long run. If this recession has done anything, it has shown that Keynesian economics, or rather the distorted version being used today, simply no longer works in modern economies. It's important to keep banks stable and inject cash into infrastructure projects to create jobs but Keynes to my knowledge never said anything about bailing out the failures of others. However, that seems to be the government policy de jour. The problem is that all political parties seem to be supporting this yet Canadians and Americans alike are not liking it one bit. The Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP have all been pushing for bailouts. Sure it keeps people working but at what cost? If GM collapses again in the near future, which to me seems inevitable, we'll be out double rather than just letting them fail now and worrying about EI. We've lived to survive another day but at what cost? We now risk governments micromanaging the economy and getting more bloated than ever before. Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan must be turning in their graves.

Steven Harper has failed on this issue but would Michael Ignatiff had done anything different, or Jack Layton? Already government deficit is ballooning out of control, both at the national level and in Liberal controlled Ontario. The United States is in no better shape. The two North American powers desperately need to return to the Reganomics model. While Canadians have criticized such models for cutting services and cutting back the "saintly" civil service, they worked; something that cannot be said for the hypergovernment models of today. Governments are simply getting far too big and too intrusive for their own good. We've been down this path before, and have always emerged worse off than when we went in. If we must suffer this, at the vary least I should get a free car; seeing as how I paid for it. I'll take a Corvette please, in black if possible.

read more...

Are Canadian Broadcasters BS'ing the CRTC?

For all the talk about the death of media, there seems to be no shortage of it. HDTV is surging, the Internet is growing, even print media is expanding to a certain extent even if its future is no longer on paper. However, we kept getting told that advertising revenues are down and threaten to destroy Canadian television/newspapers/radio as we know it. Tell that to the fifty commercials they make you sit through during the average half hour TV show. Now, Canadian broadcasters are up in front of the CRTC trying to drastically hike your cable and satellite fees or else pull over-the-air television from the airwaves in some markets. I don't buy the argument that the death of conventional media is imminent. Even if it is, a lot of it has to do with how the media industry is operating rather than how people are consuming content. Take CTV for example who just accomplished a hostile take-over of the CHUM network and auctioned off former CITY stations to Rogers Television since they couldn't hold more than two network stations in the same market by law. Canada went from four major networks to three (soon to be two as some claim) as CHUM went the way of DuMont. Legendary rock station 1050 CHUM in Toronto was closed down and replaced by CP24 radio, an all news station owned by CTV, and most CITY shows were liquidated or replaced with new personalities. Arguably, the content on CTV controlled networks has gotten worse, not better since the takeover. They currently now own half the channels in the country including flagship CTV stations, the Comedy Network, Space, Bravo, the A Channel network, the Much Music network, MTV Canada, CP24 News, CTV Newsnet, TSN, and the Discovery Channel. That's not the mention the fact that they already owned Canada's largest direct-to-home pay satellite provider as well. CTV, owned by Bell Canada, spent hundreds of millions on the deals to buy up Canadian media and now has nothing to show for it except mountains of debt. Talk about a case of their eyes being bigger than their bellies.

Of course, CTV is not the only network in trouble. We've been hearing for a while now that Canwest Global is on the verge of bankruptcy and cannot even pay employee salaries. However, they have continued to operate as normal so I can only assume that what we've been hearing is not the whole truth. CBC is threatening cuts despite their executives being caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, abusing their expense accounts to the tune of $60,000 on frivolous things. We are in a recession but I just cannot accept that it is the only reason they are in trouble. Nor can I accept that Internet sites like Youtube are stealing business away from them. Just as it is with the auto industry, most of the problems seem to stem from a long string of poor business decisions. Also like the auto industry, the networks are trying to put the government up against the ropes (read blackmailing) by threatening to take down over-the-air television unless they either get a bailout or get additional fees from cable companies to carry network stations. If there's one thing CTV is good at doing, it's tooting their own horn. After the CRTC denied the increases last week, they've launched an advertising campaign to argue that cable fees should be hiked. CFTO in Toronto is even hosting an "open house" where they will brainwash... er, inform the public on their side of the issue.

The reason there are no cable fees for network stations is because they are seen as a vital link between the state and their citizens as a tool for informing the electorate and providing information on disasters. Television networks are obligated to offer their network stations for free regardless of whether it is by antenna or cable. The same is true within the United States. It's also worth noting that it is unfair to make people pay for a service that is already available for free to everyone. Despite the government having a vested interest in keeping network TV available for free, television stations are under no obligation to keep over-the-air facilities operational. As Canada approaches the DTV switch-over date in 2011, certain networks may refuse to upgrade their equipment in less profitable markets, leaving many in the dark. A large number of these less profitable markets do not have cable access and the costs of satellite TV are prohibitive for many. (Basic satellite is roughly double the price of basic cable, not including taxes and box rental.) Large swaths of the country, namely in markets such as the Prairies, the Maritimes, and the Far North in particular may see themselves without access to television. To many, it seems unfathomable that TV would simply disappear.

One has to question CTV's true motives, given they are the only network that has really been openly trying to win public support for the fees. They are owned by Bell, who also owns Canada's largest satellite provider. Increasing cable costs to make it more comparable to their satellite service would certainly be beneficial to them. It would potentially solidify Bell's monopoly over information utilities within Canada. A monopoly that the CRTC has all but openly endorsed. BCE and its various utility subsidiaries have been facing slipping sales and growing consumer dissatisfaction in recent years. Regardless of their motives, blackmail is not exactly the best tactic to win political support and CTV's gamble borders on being outright shameful. If CTV wants to save some cash, they should instead sell off some of the assets they foolhardily bought in their attempt to build a media monopoly. They are the ones who are being greedy and anti-competitive. All the hikes would do is punish consumers. Unfortunately, that's just situation normal when it comes to Canadian politics. If media is dying, it's media monopolies that are doing it. Not the cable companies and certainly not consumers. Of course now that HDTV is available for free over the air, what would happen if people ditched cable and satellite all together. Don't laugh, I've seen more and more antennas going up in my neighbourhood. More people switching to free alternatives would effectively wipe out all the money CTV gets from their speciality stations and Bell ExpressVu. Maybe they'll be demanding we ban antennas next and lable people who use them as pirates.

read more...

Dhalla's Conspiracy

The recent case involving Brampton MP Ruby Dhalla's illegal hiring and abuse of migrant workers has shown that the Liberals still have not solved the issue of extreme arrogance within their ranks. To make long story short, Dhalla is being accused failing to pay the wages of three Filipina live-in caregivers she once employed. The accusers claim they were forced by Dhalla to work shifts up to 16 hours preforming duties beyond what they were required to do, such as cleaning the family's chiropractic offices. They claim that Dhalla withheld their passports and refuse to pay them. Of course none of these allegations have been proven in court. However, it's Dhalla's reaction to the allegations that has surprised many. The Brampton-Springdale MP is popular in her riding. For those who do not know the area, Brampton has a huge Punjabi population and as a Sikh woman, Dhalla has proven popular in her home riding. She is also a former Bollywood actress and model. According to the Ottawa Sun, at least one of her fellow MPs considered her to be manipulative. Other Liberals think vary highly of her.

The "nanny-gate" story has exposed her dark side for the world to see, a mind which seems to border on paranoia. She must have been talking to Garth Turner before speaking to the media about the story. She is now claiming the allegations are a Tory conspiracy against her, claiming the nannies are in cahoots with the Harper government to have her removed as an MP. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has said he finds the conspiracy allegations preposterous. Regardless, Dhalla has spoken with the integrity commissioner, which her lawyer is calling an unprecedented step. The nannies will testify under oath in front of an immigration committee. However, it seems like the Liberal party has already convicted them of perjury before any trial has begun. Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis, who sits on the committee, promised that the hearing won't turn into a witch hunt; but it sounds to me as if it already has. Unfortunately for them, the Liberals are not winning the battle in the court of public opinion. Strong calls are coming out for her to resign. However, in a community who often puts the candidate's ethnicity over issues, it will be hard convincing Brampton's Sikh voters otherwise; especially given the star power Dhalla has. If anything, this whole tale shows that the Liberals have not learned a thing from the sponsorship scandal. The party is still as arrogant as ever and fails to own up to mistakes, or even to keep their mouths shut before the proverbial feces hits the fan. If the Liberals wants to ever be elected to lead, Igantiff would be wise to start purging the Dhallas of the party.

read more...

Turner Getting Sued, Well... Maybe, Hopefully

The Odyssey of Garth Turner never seems to end. The trend now for washed up celebrities and politicians is to write the tell-all-book, and Garth is no exception. The book, titled Sheeple: Caucus Confidential in Stephen Harper's Ottawa, naturally takes a stab at the Harper government. However, it has landed Turner in legal hot water with the Canadian Press. As you probably already know, Turner was ousted from the Harper caucus in 2006 for violations of caucus confidentiality through the use of his blog. Turner is now blaming the media for his ouster. He claims that the confidentiality violation was made up by the PMO and leaked to the media. The media is at fault, according to him, for not fact checking that tid bit of information. The Canadian Press is threatening to pursue legal action against the comment.

Turner himself is no stranger to controversy. He made a mockery of the Canadian parliamentary system in 2006 by jumping ship to the Liberals after his constituents advised him to remain an Independent. Turner had promised he would abide by their wishes which were voiced at a series of his "Town Hall Meetings." He was nearly kicked out of the Dion Caucus a year later for making inflammatory remarks against Quebec and Alberta on his blog, calling them "separatist losers". Turner was defeated in the 2008 election in his home riding of Halton by Lisa Raitt, current minister of natural resources. He lost by a significant margin of 12%. In my own opinion, after shamefully campaigning for the man when he was a Conservative in 2006, I think Turner has gone insane. There is a clear difference between being outspoken and mad. I'm outspoken but hardly crazy. I don't make claims that there was a conspiracy against me when I screw up. Garth seems to be a vary bitter person who is borderline paranoid. I really think he needs to seek professional help; and I'm not being cheeky when I say that.

Updated April 25th: I've come across a review of the book. Kudos to this fellow who actually read it. As you know, I have a severe allergy to BS that would cause my head to explode if I picked it up. According to the Creeple blog, the book is garbage and far more poorly written than some of Turner's other works. It reads like a compilation of his blog posts. Can you believe that at one time Turner was actually a respected journalist? How the mighty have fallen.

Source: Ottawa Citizen

read more...

Pirate Bay Ruling Shows Flaws With Modern Copyright Law

I never thought I'd be talking about Sweden on here but here we are. A court in the Scandinavian country has convicted Pirate Bay's co-founders and have found them guilty of accessory to breeching copyright laws. For those who don't know, Pirate Bay is like Google for torrents. A torrent is a peer-to-peer downloading service. Pirated music and movies are often provided through such services though torrents do have a large legitimate following within the open source software community as it is cheaper than conventional direct download distribution for large files. The Pirate Bay's founders have been sentenced to a year in prison each as well as hefty fines of $3.58 million US. This case exposes a lot of the problems with current global copyright law. Under Canadian and US law, copyright infringement is punishable with a five year prison sentence and stiff fines, up to $50,000 per instance I believe. This puts it as an indictable crime in line with serious offenses such as armed robbery. Many argue that copyright infringement is theft and should be treated as such. However, those convicted of petty theft rarely receive sentences of more than two years less a day, a summery conviction in line with minor drug possession. Most never receive prison terms, just probation and maybe house arrest. So what's the difference between shoplifting a DVD from a store and downloading it from the Internet? Why is the latter treated far more harshly by the justice system than the former? Also, how can Pirate Bay be held responsible? It is important to keep in mind that they were not the ones actually providing the copyrighted material. Pirate Bay is simply a search engine for torrents. They did not create the files and they were not offered for download from their servers. Are they encouraging people to download it? Most certainly yes, but I feel there is a huge legal grey zone here. They're only providing a means to an end. It would be as if I were to casually suggest to someone in a bar you can kill someone by putting a plastic bag over their head. If they actually go do it, am I guilty of murder as well? No reasonable jury would say so provided there was no proof that I was egging that person on. Google can easily be accused of doing the exact same thing, same with Microsoft or in fact any computer manufacturer or Internet service provider. Egging someone on is considered to be a crime, but does the punishment fit the crime?

I believe that Pirate Bay has simply become an entertainment industry pariah. It's not the first time they've done so. Copyright trials in the United States tend to resemble three ring circuses more than a court of law. Groups such as the Recording Industry Association of America have been known to uses spy tactics to obtain data. There have been several high profile cases in which these tactics have been used to falsely accuse people of copyright infringement. Most notoriously was the case of a deceased grandmother who never owned a computer. This sort of evidence gathering is technically illegal to begin with. The problem is that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to private citizens. However, that sort of data is also technically not admissible in court either, something judges in the US are beginning to enforce. The Recording Industry alone has filed literally thousands of suits in the past five or so years, which have clogged the courts, something judges are growing increasingly intolerant of. Those who are convicted often face unreasonable sentences. Take a mother who was forced to pay up several hundred thousand dollars for allegedly downloading a handful of songs. Far more than what they would be worth at retail, even if you include people who downloaded the songs off her. (that's how P2P works) Groups such as the Electronics Frontier Foundation (a group that defends fair use rights in the US) have argued that this violates her Eighth Amendment rights to be free from excessive bail & fines and cruel & unusual punishment. The original conviction was overturned and a new trial has since been ordered.

The problem is that despite the fact that groups such as the RIAA engage in unscrupulous activities to gather evidence, they more often than not get their way. The entertainment industry has a huge lobby pushing governments to strengthen sentences for copyright infringement and reduce fair use rights. Originally appearing to want to soften copyright law and to add more fair use exceptions, Barack Obama has since decided that more needs to be done to strengthen copyright. Unsurprisingly his campaign for president received large donations from Hollywood. The way the law is set up now, anybody could be considered guilty of copyright infringement. Last month, Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore caused a stir when he admitted he likes to use his digital video recorder (DVR/PVR) to record his favourite shows and watch them at a later time. He also admits he likes to port these shows to watch on his iPod. Under Canadian law, recording TV shows using a DVR is illegal. This unintentional gaffe exposed the issues with last year's Bill C-61, which has since been dropped by the Harper government. C-61 would have brought Canada in lock step with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of the United States, passed by the Clinton administration in 1998. While the DMCA did clarify copyright law, it severely reduced consumer rights. Notably, it made it illegal to rip commercial DVDs and put something so common as ripping CDs to your iPod into a legal grey zone. I personally admit that I have ripped my favourite DVDs to store them on a personal media server. Doing this has a huge benefit in terms of convenience since I can have all my favourite films and TV shows accessible from my Playstation instantly on demand. No digging through discs, no risk of getting them scratched or dirty. I have purchased all these movies legally but in some jurisdictions, I have committed a crime just by transferring them to my server. If I travel to the US and save one of these movies on my laptop's hard drive to watch during the flight, US customs officials are allowed and encouraged to search and confiscate my computer. Imagine being told that the movie you copied is worth more than your $1400 laptop and all your work on it. I am not selling or giving away the film copies, I am using them only for my own personal use. However, I am still guilty of a crime punishable by five years in prison. If you copy a photo off the Internet to show a friend, that's illegal. If you copy text from a news article to put on your blog, even if you cite it, that's illegal. Not all of these are enforced but the law permits that they can be, and that they are all subject to harsh punishment. The entertainment industry has been pushing global governments to enforce every detail of copyright to the maximum letter of the law, and they have spent billions in lobbying for it. On the Moore issue, keep in mind that the entertainment industry once tried to have VCRs banned way back in the 1980s and audio cassette tapes a decade before that. They cited that these technologies would cause rampant copyright infringement, even though they never did. Both cases against these devices were thrown out of court. More recently though, the US government has allowed for the use of broadcast flags for over the air DTV signals which prevent certain programs from being recorded; the choice being left up to the content provider. The flags are not widely adopted and most current DVR systems ignore them. However, there was a controversy last year when Windows Vista users tried to record Medium and American Gladiators using the operating system's built in video recorder. The software is one of the few instances where the flags are supported and these people were prevented from recording their programs. This was the first time a large portion of the general public were introduced to the restrictions.

The problem with copyright law is not so much it trying to prevent actual piracy but rather that it has ultimately ended up treating ordinary people like common criminals. What we consider to be day to day activities when we use our media are crimes and can actually be punished with severe jail time. I argue that this violates basic legal and consumer rights of individuals in favour of the rights of large, powerful lobby groups. This is wrong. Dowloading a song off the internet does not justify jail time. A small fine and probabtion at most but these people do not deserve to have their lives ruined by powerful media cartels. It doesn't say much about our society when we value intellectual property or cartels more than say the physical property of the average Joe; or that we put drunk drivers and violent offenders away for less time than those who copy a few movies. Copyright law needs to be reformed to enhance consumer protection, not to limit it. The system we have now is broken, plain and simple.

read more...

An Unpublished Letter to the Champion on Urban Sprawl

It's been a while since I've written anything local but sometimes something just boils your backside so much that it just has to go to print. So let me give you a bit a background information. A developer is trying to build a huge mall behind my house that nobody wants or needs. Local residents, the hospital, housing developers, and local councillor Gary Carr have been strongly opposed to the mall. However, the town council has shown little to no interest in helping these people and the developer just ran off to the OMB when they failed to get the zoning changed. So myself and my neighbours have been trying to get a sound barrier put up since we back on to a major road. I have particular interest in this since the entrance to the mall (one of three!) is facing the back of our house, meaning we're going to get headlights shining in our back windows at night and 24/7 traffic noise. I was woken up at 6am this morning by the developers construction crew. I know some readers will think "aww, poor baby". I worked in construction for several years and by law, when working in residential areas, you cannot start earlier than 7am. We've tried to get the town and developer to put up the barrier for Bronte St residents. It would cost some $120,000 for the whole street from Derry Rd. to Vanier Dr. The developer has only put up $20,000, which is quite frankly an insult. The fence would cost us $6,000 to put up on our own property, which is a lot for us but a pittance for the developer. However, it looks like we're loosing this war.

Below is a letter on the subject that I submitted to the Milton Canadian Champion. They refused to publish the letter stating that it was "inaccurate". All the information it contains comes from meetings and official letters and our own discussions on the subject. It was 100% accurate, as everyone I showed it to agreed. To add salt to the wound, they actually published a notice in the paper saying that all letter submitters should ensure the information contained is accurate! That was a major slap in the face to myself and our cause. This leads me to believe that the Champion is in bed with the developers or is just incompetent. The last part is a guarantee, the first one likely but impossible to prove. I think this letter needs to be published so it's going to go up here, where I'm in control. On the plus side, this whole issue has given me a lot of new inductees for the Idiots Hall of Shame.

When plans to grow Milton were announced nearly a decade ago now, the Town Council stressed that they would try to keep the small town feel. Now that we can look at this plan with twenty-twenty hindsight, I can say this promise has been completely and utterly broken. Milton is walking down the same path Brampton did several decades earlier. It is a poorly planned jumble of development, snarling traffic, and increasing rates of crime. The common excuse is that this naturally comes with growth. In reality, this is the byproduct of the Town and the province turning over our humble little community to large developers who have no interest in preserving it as a small town. When it was on the other side of town, the development was easier to ignore. I guess the statement “not in my backyard” always holds true.
I have lived in Milton my entire life. My current house had a lovely view of the escarpment. Now there is a housing development there and half the view is gone, taking away much of the appeal of living in south Milton. So much for Dalton McGuinty's Green Belt; though his Places to Grow Act is what has been trumping it. The last straw for me is the proposed First Capital shopping centre development at the corner of Derry and Bronte. The plan seeks to cram a Milton Mall sized plaza on a plot of land half that size. Myself and my neighbours have been fighting this proposal tooth and nail. The land in question was originally zoned for light industry, which we were fine with as that only meant nine-to-five traffic. The plan for the proposed plaza calls for five large buildings, three entrances off Bronte, more traffic snarling lights, and more noise pollution. It has already gotten to the point where I am no longer able to use my backyard in the summer due to noise and the town refuses to erect a sound barrier. Originally the plaza was planned to be open 24-hours, which would lead to constant noise and light pollution, and possibly attract crime. After a meeting with the council, it was determined that nobody wanted this plaza, including the housing developers, and the town supported us. So naturally, First Capital took their fight to the OMB and the Town was forced to rezone the property. One cannot really blame the Town for this as the province has constitutional right to override the decisions of local councils. We have people unfamiliar with the community making decisions that affect us directly, without members of the community having any real input. The developer came back with “changes” to their proposal, which was now an “office development” that would include shopping. In reality, the plan has not changed at all since we originally voiced our concerns back in 2007. Indeed it was worse than the original as it included adding islands to Bronte and pushing the property buffers closer to the road. The Town's and First Capital's answer to our complaints? We'll plant some trees so you don't have to look at it. Lovely. We loose our escarpment view, our quality of life declines dramatically, but at least we will have some trees that do nothing to stop noise pollution, which is the primary issue. At the vary least they should be putting up an eight foot sound barrier along Bronte; at the developer's and the Town's expense, not ours. It's the only practical method for solving the pollution issue. Nothing is being done to adequately address our concerns.

read more...

Top Ten Failures In McGuinty's Tainted Legacy

How do you write yourself into the history books as one of the worst leaders a province has ever had in its history. Simple, just follow Dalton McGuinty's legacy and you'll do fine. Here's a list I've compiled of some of the more notable events of the last five years.

1. Implemented the Largest Tax in Ontario History
McGuinty ran on a campaign promise that he would not raise taxes, even solidifying it in writing by signing an agreement with the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation. In his first budget, he implemented the "Health Care Premium" so that all Ontarians would pay their "fair share" to hire more doctors and nurses due to a shortfall caused apparently by Mike Harris's cuts. The premium is roughly $900 per person per year and appears within your income tax. It goes into general revenue rather than a specific fund for health care. Health care services have arguably have seen little to no improvement despite the massive funding increase.

2. Put the Province in an Energy Shortage
Get rid of your old fridge, caulk your windows, replace light bulbs with the crappy twisty ones as stated by David Suzuki in the Powerwise commercials for the Ontario Government. When McGuinty was elected in 2003, he promised to close all of Ontario's coal fired generating stations by 2007 to reduce carbon emissions. However, there were no plans to build new power plants to replace them. It turns out that closing down just one major coal station, the Lakeview Generating Station, sparked a massive power shortage in the province. Ontarians were forced to put in "Smart Meters" as an excuse to charge you more for electricity and force you to conserve. (As a side note, the debt retirement charge on your hydro bill is actually a tax that goes into the province's general revenue. It is not used to pay down the debt of the former Ontario Hydro as claimed. This tidbit was obtained from publically available budget documents which provide a breakdown of tax revenue streams going into general revenue.) Large sums of money were wasted on conservation programs and buying power from out of province. Money which could have been put to retrofit existing power plants with clean coal technology. The rest of the coal generators are still open as of 2009. It would take more than a decade to replace the plants with nuclear power, a plan that was hacked out just last year, long after the coal closure deadline had passed.

3. Destroyed the Environment
McGuinty had a lot of egg on his face after the Oakridges fiasco. For a refresher, McGuinty had promised during the election to shut down a major housing development along the environmentally sensitive wetlands known as the Oakridges Moraine, near Holland Marsh. Unfortunately doing so was technically illegal since the contracts allowing them to build had been in place since well before he was elected. Being a lawyer, he should have known this. However, I suspect he knew all along and it was said simply for token populist purposes. However, it backfired and went down as his first broken promise; first of many. In 2005, the McGuinty Government passed the Places to Grow Act and the Greenbelt Act, apparently in order to prevent urban sprawl. In reality, the Places to Grow Act has accelerated it to the point of being out of control. Outlying GTA communities have been swallowed up by massive unchecked growth, putting huge tolls on their original residents and the surrounding environment. The Greenbelt Act is impotent at best and has led to housing developments almost up to the base of the Niagara Escarpment, a UNESCO biosphere reserve. Plans even called for putting a highway on top of the environmentally sensitive cliffs at one point. Even Toronto is not immune. The city now has a street literally named "OMB Folly" as a monument to these laws. Environmentalism is only chique when it deals with fake issues like global warming and federally regulated safe pesticides. If McGuinty and the OMB had their way, they'd turn Ontario into ecumenopolis of cookie cutter houses.

4. Caught Buying Votes
An Indian-Canadian cricket club that had asked the province for $100,000 in taxpayer funding to establish their team. They surprisingly found themselves with a $1 million cheque mailed to them, authorized by the premier's staff. That's more than a little suspicious and not the first or only incident. $250,000 was given to build a massive Sikh temple in Mississauga. The owners of the Khalsa Darbar had lost their charitable organization status shortly before that, and had been linked to a radical Sikh separatist group in India. This was all part of an odd $32 million fund set aside for ethnic minority groups. A fund which had little to no fiscal transparency or accountability. Targeting specific ethnic groups, namely new Canadians citizens with free money, well, let's just say it's a little less than ethical. I wonder what the going rate for my vote is. I'm a little short on cash right now. See below for the reason why. The slush fund fiasco would have destroyed his hope of reelection if it wasn't for the incompetence of John Tory. Tory may be a nice guy, as people keep saying, but he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. More like a spoon.

5. Let People Go Blind but Put Breast Implants in a Guy
One of the first things the McGuinty government did was take away eye exams from OHIP coverage. These didn't cost the government much (a pittance of $80 a pop) but it has taken a toll on low income earners with eye troubles. I guess poor people don't need to see. Chiropractics were also delisted so I guess it's ok for poor people to be blind and have a bad back too. However, the government thought it was ok to allow sex change operations to be covered. So it's ok for poor people to be blind and have a bad back but at least they can go from male to female on the taxpayer's dime, and vice versa. Joy!

6. Nanny Statism
The McGuinty government has spent much of its time in office on developing petty bans. You can't put pesticide on your lawns, you can't smoke in the car, you can't own a pitbull, etc. Nanny statism is a tactic used to distract the public from real issues by creating issues out of non-issues. Did you get that? Good. Oh on the pesticides; what happens to all those people who do that for a living now that they're banned? I personally think we should have Liberals banned while we're at it.

7. From Have to Have Not
Ontario went into the McGuinty leadership term as the economic engine of Canada. Now the largest province by populaton is considered to fall under "have not" status and requires equalization payments for the first time in the history of the federal program. McGuinty actually positioned this as a good thing, because the government would now get the money from the feds "it deserves." I guess people loosing their jobs and recent university/high school grads not being able to find work is a small price to pay for "fairness". We're now below Newfoundland in terms of economic performance for God's sake. Ey's the by who built the ship, McGuinty's the by that sank 'er.

8. Created an Unfriendly Environment for Business
The federal government warned McGuinty to cut business taxes to encourage companies to stay. Everybody knew a recession at the time, except McGuinty. It was just like how he didn't know about the deficit in 2003 that everybody else knew about. There must be so sort of massive conspiracy afoot, that's the only explanation! Now many big corporations, such as Daimler Chrysler, and threatening to pull out of the province all together due to the high cost of doing business here. The government is now scrambling to throw money at them with no guarantees they'll remain in Ontario. This economic plan would be akin to me emptying my wallent into the toilet, fushing it, and expecting to retrive its contents from the sludge at the sewage plant a week later.

9. Raising Taxes During a Recession
According to Keynesian economics, which plays a big role in liberal theory, governments have two duties in regards to the economy. Raise taxes and save during good times, cut taxes and spend during bad times. The Ontario Liberals raised taxes and spent during good times, and raised taxes and spent during the bad times. Ontarians got a nasty surprise in the 2009 budget when they found out many staple goods would now be subject to an 8% sales tax due to harmonization. "Gee, nobody's buying anything because they have no money so you know what we'll do to fix that? We'll increase the sales tax and make them pay more!" This is just incredibly asinine.

10. Making Rae Look Fiscally Responsible
During McGuinty's years in office, annual government spending has tipped the scales at $18 billion. Rae's biggest budgets only managed to top $9 billion in the early 90s. When adjusted for inflation, McGuinty's budget is still $6 billion more than Bob Rae's! Once again this goes against Keynesian economics. McGuinty is trying to spend his way out of a recession but spent to much when times were good, so there's no money left. The province will be in deficit for six years, compared to the one year it was under Eves due to the Dot Com Burst and 9/11 crashes. It will take decades to repay that level of debt, and more government belt tightening if we manage to get someone with half a brain running the province again. Civil servants better start making their strike signs now before they're taxes so much, they can't afford coroplast and 2x4s.

Now for the top ten successes of the McGuinty Government.

1. ...........
I'd better get back to you guys on this one. I'm head first in the barrel as we speak, spatula in hand.

read more...

Captain Planet's Secret Identity Revealed! It's David Miller

With the power of fire, earth, water, wind, and heart, the Toronto Councilteers put their rings together and summon the ultimate protector of Mother Gaia: Captain Planet, er... David Miller. The Toronto Environmentalist Alliance (as a side note, what is the left wing obsession with using the word "alliance" in the names of their organizations) released it's report dubbing Toronto to be the greenest city in the country. They took the time to rank each councillors actions on the environment. Not surprisingly, David "Captain Planet" Miller got an A+ for his eco work. So did the rest of his inner circle of cronies such as Joe Pantalone, Carol Shelly, and Adam Vaughn. The lowest ranked councillors, all with an F grade include Rob Ford, Case Ootes, Doug Holyday, Denzel Minnan-Wong. Ironically, these men are the conservative members of the council so there's obviously no partisan politics behind this report. Well, it's good to know that Miller has some supporters. The TEA is applauding the mayor's non-working hybrid buses and it's project to have 25% of city facilities powered by renewable resources. The group though complains there is too much red tape for green programs to get through. I find that odd considering the council had no problem handing the mayor $125,000 for his London, UK climate office. I guess the environmentalists have no problem spending tax dollars of a cash strapped city on ineffective $10,000 a peice solar panels. These people have their heads so far up their backsides, they can see the organic tofu they just ate.

read more...

No RESPECT For Galloway

Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, you're guaranteed freedom of expression and freedom of association. However, someone needs to tell British MP George Galloway's supporters that this only applies to Canadian citizens and landed immigrants. The controversial UK politician has been denied access to Canada on grounds of him being a risk to national security. Galloway had planned to speak at several events in Toronto, Mississauga, and Montreal; having been invited by the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War. The theme of the conference was "Resisting War: From Gaza to Kandahar." First, I think we need a little back story to explain why this man was denied access by the Ministry of Immigration in the first place. Mr. Galloway, from Scotland, was originally a member of parliament under the Labour Party. Back in 2003, he was strongly opposed Tony Blair's proposed invasion of Iraq. Galloway was expelled from the party for insubordination after calling Blair's government "a lie machine". Remember that he was a member of Blair's caucus at the time. Galloway went on to be the first sitting MP of the newly created RESPECT party in 2004. RESPECT is an acronym for Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environmentalism, Community, and Trade Unionism. It is a party situated on the far left and from what I've read on Wikipedia, it takes a vary radical stance. It is not a social democratic party like the NDP. It is allied with Britain's communist parties and take a strong anti-capitalist/anti-imperialist stance. In short, Galloway himself is a communist and proudly so.

So Galloway may be a radical member of a radical party who is against a war that Canada is not involved in. That is hardly a qulification to bar him from the country. However, Galloway is known to be familiar with some seedy characters in the "anti-war" movement. In 2005, he was accused by the United States of personally profiting from the UN oil-for-food scandal in Iraq, among other allegations of corruption. In 2007, he was censured from the House of Commons for failing to cooperate with investigations into his political integrity. It was recommended he be suspended for eighteen months though I could not find any information as to whether this threat was carried out. Furthermore, Galloway has openly admitted to giving aid to infamous Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas during their 2008-2009 war with Israel. This last bit is why he cannot enter the country. He is known to fund of a group on Canada's terror watch list.

I find it ironic that he does not support one group's war but supports the war of another. Both are arguably guilty of war crimes and nine times out of ten, it has been Hamas that has violated UN backed cease fire agreements. They are the aggressors. Little of what the radical left does makes sense though, or ever made sense. One needs to delve deep into the minds of people like Galloway to get a true understanding of why the war on terror is rapidly becoming unwinnable. People on the left are always inclined to support the underdog. However, the vast majority of anti-war protesters who defend these groups are ignorant of what actually goes on. They soak up Hamas propaganda as if it were going out of style. That's how you get people to support you these days, pretend to be the victim even while you continue to lob rockets at civilians. Groups like Fatah, who have brokered successful peace deals, are largely ignored. However, Galloway is different from your typical university student protester who falls for these traps. He harbours a great deal of hatred for Israel and Western democracies, despite being part of the latter. Such a deep seeded hatred of another country and it's people cannot stem from actions alone. I don't approve of what China or Venezuela does but I certainly would not give a cent to any group who's mission statement is to wipe out the Chinese or Latino people. (Didn't we fight a war agaisnt that some 65 years ago?) There is a vary clear racial element present for somebody to hate a country so much when said nation has posed no personal threat to them or their home land. Antisemitism on the radical left is a disturbing and growing problem. When it comes to Israel, I'm neutral on the subject. It's another country in a far corner of the world. It's not a trade partner with Canada or part of any strategic alliances with us. Their war with Hamas does not effect us and up until recently has been contained. Israel is a democratic country and does not engage in violating the rights of its own citizens, unlike Sudan. Nor are they trying to commit genocide as some have claimed. I don't take issue with how they chose to solve their problems as long as they follow the rules of war. I do have a problem when people like Galloway hold violent marches against the actions of these countries, similar to the riots that happened in Montreal a decade ago. I do have a problem when Canadian universities openly allow their students to target a specific ethnic group for harassment, or refuse to hire professors from said group. These sort of actions are highly un-Canadian. What these protesters supporting Galloway need to get into their thick skulls is that it is a privilege, not a right, to come to Canada. He is a terror threat, a racist, and would be an affront to Canadian values. This is why I believe he should not be allowed into this country. Canada is under absolutely no obligation to let him in.

Update: Bill Ayres is now blasting Canada for not letting Galloway into the country. For those who don't know, Ayres headed the Weather Underground (aka the Weathermen, not related to actual weather site wunderground.com), a home grown pro-communist terror organization within the United States during the 1970s. The WU comitted several arsons in NYC, and detonated bombs in Greenwich Village NYC and at the Pentagon in 1972. Ayres quite proudly admits he was involved in the attacks. He is currently a university professor and friends with Barack Obama. The latter ignited controversey during the 2008 POTUS election. Well, I guess if you're a radical who supports terrorists, it's good to have a radical that is a terrorist in your corner.

read more...

Is Oz Becoming an Online Police State?

I don't really talk about the politics of other nations that often beyond the Americas. However, I can't help but find myself asking what the heck is going on with Australia. In 2007, the centre right Liberal Party of Australia was replaced with the left wing social democratic Labour Party. Since Kevin Rudd was elected Prime Minister, the country has started taking a disturbingly authoritarian turn. I've been closely following the continuing saga on Internet censorship within the country. For years, conservatives have been warning people about the dangers of left wing nanny statism. Banning smoking in cars with kids, or banning pesticides and coffee cups to keep people politically correct might seem pretty harmless but it is, to use an oft complained about term, a slippery slope. Australia has been doing what many other left leaning democracies in the west have been regarding the Internet. The basic idea was to enact a law and bureaucratic body which would blacklist websites dealing in child pornography. Internet service providers would be required to block these sites or face a fine. Those linking to those sites would also face an $11,000 fine. The concept is noble enough and I don't dispute that child pornography on the web is a vary serious issue. However, problems occur when there are no checks placed on the bureaucracy in control of what should and should not be censored. The biggest danger is when governments keep information on what is censored censored. This is the case within countries such as Australia and Denmark.

Whistle blower website Wikileaks had obtained a copy of a censored web sites list being used by the Danish government. The site soon found itself blocked by Australia. The same site managed to obtain a copy of Australia's secret list of blocked sites. On it included an American anti-abortion website as well as the innocent websites of a dentist and a tuckshop owner. Online gambling sites, Youtube links, Wikipedia entries, sites on euthanasia, legal pornography, fringe religions, fetishes, Christianity, and that of a tour operator were also blacklisted. The Australian government claims that the list is not genuine. However, media investigations seem to indicate otherwise. Reports have also come out regarding the censorship of adult content on the Internet (R and X rated) to protect children. I took a quick look through the list and discovered several legitimate porn and gambling sites including Milkmanbook (legal erotic art) and Pokerstars. This is the vary slippery slope I talked about. A tool originally just intended to filter out child porn websites is being cast wider to get rid of things the government does not approve of. Right now it may seem alright to get rid of what are widely considered social vices such as gambling and legal porn but the blocking of the anti-abortion website and particularly of Wikileaks is cause for great concern. Wikileaks has been highly critical of the Great Firewall of Australia.

Currently, most of what is on the list legitimately deserves to be there, but how far is it until the government starts manipulating bureaucrats into blocking website belonging to their critics and political opposition. This would make Australia no better than the People's Republic of China or Chavez's Venezuela. Simply put, these blacklists don't work because they are too easy to abuse. The great danger to us Canadians is that a similar firewall could easily be implemented here. Once we start restricting people from certain types of information, and more importantly restricting people from knowing what is restricted, we loose our democracy; even if the original intention was to protect the greater good.

You can visit Wikileaks for more information on this issue, including the list. I warn you not to view any of the links it contains. UK based technology site The Register has also been following the story closely.

read more...

Seeking Peace: Musings on the Environment, Places to Grow and Urban Sprawl

I've spent a lot of time here taking pot shots at the environmental movement and I still stand firmly by everything I've said in the past. Global warming is a constructed phony disaster in my mind and I think it distracts people from more important issues, both in general and regarding our environment. Governments are more interested in how they can make money of "climate change" and mostly make token gestures, such as banning pesticides and bottled water, which does nothing more than to irk ordinary people. One of the most painful things about growing up and growing older is seeing a lot of the things you treasured as a child melt away. Long walks on peaceful summer days, nothing but the sound of a light breeze, robins singing, and distant wind chimes. Sitting by the pond or lying in the grass watching the world lazily go by in a small town. Trips to the lake, playing in the park, long bike rides; all things that make young lives worth living. I sometimes wonder whether this stuff will be around for future generations to enjoy. As it stands now, much of this is already gone. Startlingly, this has only happened in perhaps the last 10 years. Urban sprawl is probably one of the biggest threats to the environment, or at least the biggest threat that effects us directly.

So here we've come full circle to where we began nearly four years ago when I first started this blog. It was the same year that the Places to Grow Act went into force. The law passed by the McGuinty Government combined with the Green Belt act originally sought to increase urban density while protecting outlying areas and the countryside. The reality of the act has become painfully apparent as it has only encouraged massive urban sprawl, destroying the countryside and ruining small, outlying communities in the GTA. Quiet summer days have been replaced by the constant beeping of backup alarms from construction vehicles, flying dirt, and endless traffic. Wildlife has fled these communities en mass and those that remain often become pancakes on the road. For me personally, this change has taken a huge toll on my well being as Escarpment Country is turned into another Oakridges Moraine. Even now all I can hear is construction machinery and traffic and I have lost my escarpment view, decreasing my property value and ending the charm the Milton community once had. Houses are now at the base of the Escarpment, which is supposedly part of the Green Belt. The town can barely sustain the population growth, which has more than doubled within the last five years. The problem has largely been caused by large developers who have taken over communities due to naive municipal councilors and workers but it all can be routed back to 2005 and Dalton McGuinty. Here is a man who jumped on the eco-bandwagon early but each plan he and his government have come up with has failed. Oakridges was just the beginning, where in 2003 he promised he would stop development on environmentally sensitive land. It was the first promise he broke.

The laws are impotent when it comes to stopping any kind of development. Even if a munipality manages to vote down a proposal, developers head to the Ontario Municipal Board where their plans get rubber stamped. People who do not know the community are making decisions that effect citizens, without said citizens having any say. Even Toronto is not immune after an unwanted condo development in an old neighbourhood was forced through by the board. The City named the street the condos were on as OMB Folly to take a swipe at the faceless board. Everybody knows OMB members are getting paid off by developers. Everybody knows corruption is ripe in that industry. However, they're vary good at covering their tracks and it's impossible to prove. It's hard to fight this kind of environmental destruction when absolutely nobody is on your side.

There needs to be a complete freeze on development projects until the situation can be properly assessed. The Places to Grow Act also has to be immediately repealed. If McGuinty et al supposedly care about the environment, they'll act to actually do something to protect what we have, rather than just implementing token anti-climate change schemes.

read more...