An education with nowhere to go

I am wasting my life. I found myself thinking that on another one of my long drives. The ones through a grey winter's countryside with nobody else on road. Working as a driver gives you time to think. The sad part of it all is I'm too smart for my job. I have double honours degrees in history and political science. I also have a college graduate diploma in journalism. Still I'm forced to work for low pay in a mind numbing job. There are no entry level positions in my field. I've come to realize that higher education doesn't open the doors it once did.

For years, the government has pushed university degrees as the be all and end all. The labour market increased demand for educated workers as well. Then the 2008 recession happened. While blue collar and minimum wage jobs bounced back, white collar ones didn't. Many university grads are waiting tables, or cleaning cars. Now that everyone has a university education, degrees don't carry the weight they used to.

Entry level professional jobs have given way to volunteering and internships. Those do not pay the bills, and do not generate tax revenue. Employers want experience. Typically this means a minimum of two years in the real world. Grads lack the experience needed to get good jobs, but there are few paths for getting that experience.

This is why I took exception to recent comments made by Michael Ignatiff. He's another stuffy academic that Liberals seem to love. Iggy wants to push education big time should he be elected PM. That's all well and good but it doesn't address the job problem. Pursuing knowledge is a wonderful thing, but it's useless if you can't practice it.

Not a single party at both the federal and provincial levels has addressed the job shortage for new grads. They need meaningful full time work in their own fields to succeed. Mark my words, ignoring this issue will lead to a brain drain. At best, we'll have an entire generation under-qualified for their age group and career level. We're wasting a colossal amount of fresh talent because there are no real world opportunities for beginners. All we've done is create the world's most educated Wal-Mart employees.

read more...

War on Terror Ends: Bin Laden Victorious

I'm declaring the War on Terror over today and it looks like underdog Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda are victorious. I'd send him a poisoned cake to congratulate him but it seems the US doesn't know where he is.

The Western world has finally reached the point where protection against terrorism has broken constitutional law for the average citizen. Airport security will now be allowed to break Section 8 of the constitution by conducting body scans and pat downs without probable cause to make sure you're not going to blow up a plane. This truly sickens me. It is placing a major limits on our rights to be secure from unreasonable search and freedom of movement. Perhaps what sickens me even more is how apathetic the Canadian and American public feel towards their constitutional rights being violated. If there's any questions about how dictators rise to power with wide public support, this answers it. People won't resist as long as the changes happen slowly enough.

I have decided that I will not fly period if I am to be subjected to this kind of treatment. I'd rather take a train or a ship. Sure it takes longer but consider the advantages of sailing to Europe on a luxury liner. It costs the same but you get world class food and entertainment, and the ability to stretch your legs. Plus, you're only subject to your bags being scanned by an x-ray when you board. The trip is a vacation in itself, compared to flying which is more often than not a nightmare. Believe me, I went through my own airport hell just days before this "attempted attack" happened, though it had nothing to do with security. Still, the way things are being dealt with bothers me a lot.

Airport security has been largely a joke in the years following 9/11. Statistics show that you are no more or less likely to be in a terror attack today than you were 20 years ago. The folks at technology site Gizmodo estimate the odds of being a victim in an airborne terror attack are 1 in 10.4 million. You are 20 times more likely to be struck and killed by lightning. Not including the people in the WTC, only 647 people have died worldwide in such incidents from 1999 to 2009. The airline industry averages 7 billion passengers a year. They colourfully state that the you could flytwo round trips from Earth to Neptune before being in an attack. Wikipedia (not a reliable source but good enough for quick info) states that there were 13 major hijackings in the 1990s compared to 12 in the 2000s.

So with these statistics, it would seem that terrorism is not a major issue at all. We have poured billions of dollars into security and we are now forfeiting basic human rights and dignity to secure our airliners. It has gotten increasingly difficult to support anti-terror measures when all the hard facts are considered.

It leads one to question whether the measures put in place since 9/11 are doing anything at all. We are no longer allowed to bring bottled water, we must walk through security barefoot, we used to joke about being susceptible to patdowns. Yet somehow, someone managed to elude dutch security and smuggle a firecracker onto an airplane. Yes, the "bomb" was probably no more than an M-80 or something similar. Unless he was lucky enough to get this thing near a fuel line, it probably wouldn't have brought down a plane, or killed anyone but himself. No one has ever heard of these measures stopping an attack. It would seem like that would be something the government would brag about.

One security expert cited in a recent news article noted that the only realistic improvements to security in the last eight years have been reinforced cockpit doors and passengers knowledge that they must resist attackers. Reading between the lines, this translates to the other stuff just being fluff. It's designed to make civil servants look like they're actually doing something when they're not doing anything. Indeed, the only reason this man, a known threat, got on the plane with the firecracker is because some Dutch civil servant failed to do their job. I could go further and say 9/11 was caused by the exact same thing. How on earth could a group of men get on a plane with box cutters? It's not like they didn't use metal detectors or x-ray bags at the time. It's not exactly an object anyone would conceivably need on a plane.

Obviously the problem doesn't lie in more stringent security measures but rather better training for security guards. There was nothing wrong with the measures in place before 9/11, just in how they were being executed. It is well known that Canada Customs uses students during the summer to man land border crossings. With such little training, how can these people be effective or trusted? I believe that to be an airport security guard, or any border agent, one should have the exact same training that a police officer does. They should be subjected to the same privileges and legal limitations that they are as well. Further intensive training should be given to teach guards how to spot suspicious behaviour. Beyond the baggage x-rays and metal detectors, they should have no right to search you without reasonable cause. You should also have the right to refuse if they don't give cause. If explosives are an issue, begin using trained dogs. Finally, get rid of those full body scanners. I don't want some stranger looking at my private areas. I don't care what the privacy commissioner says, these are illegal.

These changes I'm recommending would relax security to the point where it doesn't affect law abiding passengers, and only singles out those who may be up to something. Airports would be more efficient, we'd still be secure if not more so, and we wouldn't be subjected to the violation of our rights and dignity.

I don't blame the Harper government for enacting these ineffective and undignified measures. They were forced into it. I do blame them for folding so easily to pressure from Homeland Security and the Obama administration instead of resisting it. The US cannot be allowed to dictate to us like this. 9/11 was terrible but not terrible enough for us to abandon the principles that our two great nations were built on. For any doubts, I leave you with a quotation from one of America's own founding fathers. Written in 1775, Benjamin Franklin said this. "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".

read more...

Voter Burnout

University of Saskatchewan student newspaper The Sheaf published an interesting article regarding voter burnout among youth. Considering the election posturing right now, it's worth a read. It reflects my belief that parliament is risking a crisis of legitimacy.

The Sheaf: Students Suffer Election Fatigue

read more...

Ignatiff Gambling with Democracy

I'm really starting to get fed up of this garbage. Liberal leader Michael Ignatiff is threatening to pull the plug on the Conservatives come Fall. If he goes through with this, it would be the fourth election in the last five years. One has to admire the tenacity of the Liberals. However, is this really about serving the public good or rather making sure the Grits can go back to ruling with their divine right? Ignatiff has said that he would do a better job as PM but has failed to outline how he would do so other than expanding the EI program, something that is arguably as fine as it is. Really, there's a lot I don't like about Harper. Namely his party's ringing endorsement of the controversial HST reforms in Ontario and BC, and forking over public money to GM and Chrysler. Ignatiff has failed to attack this though and instead has focused on minor "scandals", such as the woman who is currently suing the government after she was detained in Kenya for passport fraud. Incidentally, I think she did not look anything like her passport photo. So one woman who could not be confirmed to be who she was by any authorities until a DNA test was performed constitutes the government abandoning Canadians abroad.

All the Liberals have offered up are empty slogans about being green and bringing accountability but what they do have to show from this Parliament is a string of colossal blunders mixed in with silence on the real issues. An election would cost millions of dollars and I can tell you right now how it would turn out. We'll spend the money, poll turnout will be at its lowest ever, we'll elect another Conservative or Liberal minority, and we'll be right back to square one. Lather, rinse, repeat. None of the parties even have adequate funding to keep fighting annual elections. In the end, all it serves to do is make a mockery of our democratic process. A process which the Liberals under Dion showed little regard for. Don't like the outcome, hijack it and force yourself into power like some sort of petty dictator. The Canadian public won't tolerate it, but they won't retaliate by going Conservative. They'll retaliate by simply not voting. I think this is what Ignatiff is gambling on; that he can grab the support of die hard political junkies that will show up to vote no matter what. It's not exactly equivalent to having an ace up his sleeve, more like betting on a horse named "Glue". This is especially a poor gamble when the liberal-left is on the defensive right now in the Western world. The way Obama and Brown have bungled the US and UK economic recoveries respectively won't draw rousing support from those who follow the news, who are also those junkies. What the Liberals need is a Conservative majority. Of course I'd like to see that but there is practical advantage for Ignatiff et al as well. Simply put it gives them time to reorganize as the party clearly has lost touch with its support base and Canadians at large. This is why Dion had to go and this is why they'll likely loose again. Harper has a solid platform for better or worse while the Liberals have none. They had long put their money on the "better the devil you know" mantra when they were in power, but it might just come back to bite them in the backside. Regardless of what happens, everyone in Parliament needs to stop playing foolish games with democracy and get down to some real business.

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...

Harper a Bonehead, but Another Election? Really?!

The Harper government has done some boneheaded things in the last couple of months but the empty sabre rattling from the left wing makes me wonder just how together the Liberals are. The NDP had proposed widespread changes to Employment Insurance in order to make it easier to get since many people do not qualify for it. Namely those who work too few hours or are self employed. I suppose that's fair enough even though the last thing we need in this country is an expanded welfare state. Whether it's an issue of confidence in the House is a completely different question. If a Federal election were called this summer, it would be the third is as many years. Given the dismal voter turn out last October and the flat rejection of the Liberal coalition, one has to wonder whether even bringing up the possibility is a wise idea. Judging by polls, any election is just going to return us to the status quo. We either have a narrow Conservative minority (most likely) or a narrow Liberal minority. Either way it would be a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars. Canadians are already beginning to show strong signs of election fatigue.

The Liberals are just doing what they do best, politciking without really accomplishing anything. The party has major image issues and the unelection of Michael Ignatiff has done nothing to help their cause. Stephane Dion was an academic with a loose grasp on what Canadians wanted. Ignatiff is a Harvard professor who has lived outside of the country for the past several decades and has a loose grasp on what Canadians want. Really, the two men show little difference other than the latter passing off as more of a sleazeball to Dion's wussyness. Canadians see this. So, I'm going to give the Liberals a little advice. Get rid of Ignatiff and find a home grown leader who isn't Quebecois. Focus on the economy and take the carbon tax completely off the table. That's what killed them in the last election. The environment really only has mass appeal for yuppies, crunchy granola types, and academics; not blue collar people who see it as another expense. There's lots to attack Harper on but so far the Liberals have only focused on petty things, which doesn't sit well with the people at home. The Liberals are their own worst enemies simply because they cannot connect with average Canadians.

Secondly, I want to deal with the issue of Ignatiff being outside of Canada for some twenty-seven. The Conservatives have been attacking him heavily in various ads over the last couple of weeks over this vary issue. The ads have been criticized by people supporting multiculturalism and immigration, with critics saying it's equal to attacking new citizens for living most of their lives outside Canada. However, I think the Conservatives do have a large point to make, whether intended or not. A person who has been out of the country for that long and has only returned recently does not have a strong grasp of the specific issues. A lot has happened since Ignatiff left, stuff that effects us profoundly today, and surely he wasn't glued to Canadian papers on a daily basis. Picking someone like that as leader was a really dumb decision on the Liberals part as it further paints their party with the notion of being out-of-touch. In the United States, the qualifications to become president require one to be born or naturalized in the US, be at least 35, and lived there for 14 consecutive years as a permanent resident. Canada has no such restrictions but it would be worth considering them for adoption, namely the last two. To be Prime Minister, you should have to be at least 35 and have lived in Canada for at least 10 consecutive years before you can run for office. Under this, Ignatiff could not qualify since he has only been back in the country as a permanent resident for four years. Rules such as this are necessary for making sure leaders are informed and have the best interests of Canadians in mind. It also doesn't exclude immigrants which should pacify the multiculturalists. Surely the Liberals could find someone who has lived here, though they did entirely rule out Rae for the candidacy. The fact that they didn't even bother to elect their leader as everyone else does shows their mentality.

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...

An Email From Tony Clement on Bill C-61

A while ago, I wrote my MP in regards to the resurrection of Bill C-61, also known as the "Canadian DMCA", which proposed sweeping changes to Canadian copyright law that I felt were inherently anti-consumer and anti-free market. Interestingly, I received this email on Friday claiming to be written by Tony Clement, the industry minister. It's your typical generic form letter but it's nice to actually hear back from a government official.

Thank you for your e-mail expressing your views on an Act to Amend the
Copyright Act, or Bill C-61, which was introduced in the last Parliament.

In my view, the Copyright Act must continue to reflect current
technological and legal realities, while supporting innovation and the
needs of consumers. Adequate protection for Canada’s creators must be
balanced against the access needs of Canadians. As you may be aware, Bill
C-61 died on the order paper with the dissolution of Parliament on
September 7, 2008. At this time, I am carefully reviewing the copyright
bill, taking into consideration the views of stakeholders in order to
determine the appropriate next steps in the reform process. In this
regard, I am working closely with my colleague, the Honourable James
Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Once again, thank you for writing, and please accept my best wishes. Rest
assured that your concerns will be taken into consideration as we move
forward on copyright reform.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Clement

This doesn't sound promising though. However, it's a good example as to why you should write MPs about major issues. Often the only way to get heard is to talk to them directly, or make a big media fuss. I prefer to do both.

read more...

Proportional Representation or How I Learned to Let Nutjobs Run the Country

Federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May is once again pushing for proportional representation for the House of Commons. She feels the current system of "first past the post" elections are unfair to alternative parties. It's worth addressing this issue again since British Columbia recently voted in a referendum to switch their electoral system to the needlessly complex "single transferable vote" system. It was voted down of course since naturally, nobody understood it. It's hard to get excited about electoral systems but it ends up effecting us all. Arguably our current system has a lot of issues but is not nearly as problematic as the nightmare that proportional representation would be. Currently the candidate with the most votes wins their seat in parliament. Which ever party wins the most seats rules the House. Under proportional representation, rather than counting the number of votes for an individual candidate, only votes for the party are counted. The House of Commons has 308 seats. I'm going to use the figures from the 2008 election to show how this would work, rounding numbers off to make it easier.

Current System
Conservatives: 37.65% of popular vote, 143 seats
Liberals: 26.26%, 77 seats
NDP: 18.18%, 37 seats
Bloc: 9.98%, 49 seats
Greens: 6.78%, 0 seats
Independent: 0.69%, 0 seats
Christian Heritage: 0.19%, o seats
Marxist-Leninist: 0.06%, 0 seats
Libertarian: 0.05%, 0 seats

Proportional System
Conservatives: 37.65% of popular vote, 116 seats
Liberals: 26.26%, 81 seats
NDP: 18.18%, 55 seats
Bloc: 9.98%, 31 seats
Greens: 6.78%, 21 seats
Independent: 0.69%, 2 seats
Christian Heritage: 0.19%, 1 seats
Marxist-Leninist: 0.06%, 0 seats
Libertarian: 0.05%, 0 seats

I know this doesn't equal 308 but of course somebody can't have half a seat. However, you can see how the playing field changes when popular vote is factored in as a whole rather than per individual candidate. Left wing parties in parliament would have gained a significant amount of power had this system been in place. It especially benefits the greens who would have gone from no seats to 21. May sees proportional representation as a free ride to power. Some have argued that this would enhance democracy but like so many things, what looks good on paper doesn't always work in real life.

The biggest flaw with proportional representation is the question of accountability. Under the current system, members of parliament are directly accountable to their constituents. This is why people like Garth Turner, Wajid Khan, and Blair Wilson lost their seats in the last election. They betrayed the trust of their voters. Proportional representation completely wipes out the local riding system and local candidates in favour of a list. Parties draft this list of 308 names with the party leader at the top and the most favourable choices in descending order. The problem with this system is two fold. First of all, it separates the citizen from their representative. There is no local representative to contact as everyone is based in Ottawa. In a country as vast as Canada, a lot of issues would likely get ignored. If candidates are caught doing unscrupulous activities, it is up to the party to deal with them. The public has no say. While it is more democratic in terms of allowing smaller parties for a shot at seats, it removes a great deal of interaction between citizens and their government. Proportional representation is a system ripe for abuse. The second issue is one of patronage. A common complaint about the current system is that it fails to ensure that the best candidates for the job lead ministries. Proportional representation opens the door to changing that but the list based on favouritism is also widely open to abuse as party leadership moves their friends and biggest campaign contributors to the top, ensuring that they get seats regardless of whether they're qualified or not. The temptation to stack the list with patronage appointments is just too strong and opens the door for corruption combined with lack of accountability. This system in actuality is far less democratic than the current system. It may benefit May but it doesn't benefit us. Besides, the current system is hardly broken so why try to fix it?

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...

Chrysler Now Nationalized... Sort of

The sound of toilets being flushed at Queens Park and Parliament Hill today was almost deafening. The sound of all that money going down the drain to "rescue" failing automaker Daimler Chrysler. The United States government has now taken a 8% stake in the company and Canada now owns 2% of the shares. The UAW/CAW now owns more than half the company's operations while Italian automaker Fiat taking the rest. The Federal and Ontario government made a colossal mistake in forking over $2.5 billion of taxpayer money to essentially the union who continues to deny any responsibility for the collapse of Chrysler. Ah, the workers now control the means of production; Karl Marx's and Ken Lewenza's wet dream. In essence, Chrysler has been nationalized and communized, bringing my own worst case scenario to fruition. Surprisingly I don't have a lot to say on the subject other than saying the government should not expect a penny of the $2.5 billion to be repaid. All it does is reinforce the problems that led to the auto industry's downfall. Nobody will learn anything from the ordeal and it will not be long until they return looking for more handouts. It may be cutting off my nose to spite my face given that it's my money funding this, but I will never purchase a car from the Big Three as long as I live. I already knew McGuinty was a terrible premier and I expected he would do this but I'm no longer sure if I can support the Harper Conservatives. Of course the alternatives are considerably worse and would never get my vote. However, Harper is going to have to do a lot before he can win me back. I wonder if the Libertarians need any supporters.

Update May 4th: One of the top advisers overseeing Chrysler's restructuring says the automaker will likely never pay off its government loans. He made the statement during the company's bankruptcy hearing. Did they really need a so called expert to tell them that?

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...

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...

Garth Eating Some Humble Pie

The soapbox for the self-obsessed windbag Garth Turner has finally been put out in the recycling bin. Turner wrote the last entry in his blog, announcing that he was shutting it down. Good riddance is all I have to say. While Turner is perfectly entitled to his opinions as much as I am, his blog was basically a bull horn for his self love and crackpot conspiracy theories. As readers will know, Turner's blog got him into a lot of hot water while he was both a Conservative and a Fiberal. Most famous being his double whammy insult to Alberta and Quebec over the summer. After his landslide defeat to Conservative Lisa Raitt in October '08, I guess he's been forced to eat some humble pie over the last couple of months. No more will we have to hear Garth talk about how great Garth is. It's a shame really. It gives me one less thing to mock and ridicule.

Source: National Post

read more...

Liberal Coalition Backfires According to Polls

I had warned the Liberals that their plan for forcing an unelected coalition would backfire on Canadians. I guess they underestimated the resolve of the Canadian public as well as the huge insult to their own supporters that allying with the separatists was.

From the Ottawa Citizen, Saturday December 12th, 2008.
"TORONTO -- Canada's ruling Conservatives would win a strong majority in Parliament if elections were held today, according to a poll showing the new leader of the opposition Liberals has done little to boost public support.

Canadians favor the Conservatives over the Liberals by 45 percent to 26 percent, an Ipsos Reid poll showed. The New Democrats (NDP) had the backing of 12 percent."

Ok, so these polls aren't exactly reliable but the news doesn't bode well for the coalition and its plans to govern. It shows that the Liberals popularity hasn't budged one bit despite Dion being kicked out. More interesting is the substantial loss the NDP has suffered, down from approximately 18% of the vote in the last election. When will the lefties learn that their unethical and elitist tactics for gaining power (more than what's normal for politicians anyway) don't win votes. It's nice to see them taken down a peg. Looks like Canada's left is going the way of the PC party in the 1990s.

Source: Ottawa Citizen

read more...

Liberal Holiday Blowout Sale: It's Rae Days Nation Wide!

Well, it's finally become apparent who is pushing the Liberal-NDP-Bloc Coalition. A man who knows a thing or two about weaselling his way into power through less than ethical channels. Yep, you guessed it: Bob Rae. Back in 1985, his NDP joined up with David Peterson of the Ontario Liberals to form the coalition that wasn't a coalition to oust the impotent Frank Miller Conservatives. It was notable for ending the "Big Blue Machine" that had ruled the Ontario Legislature since 1948. In 1985, neither the Conservatives or Liberals held a majority at the time, though the Conservatives had been the ones elected to office. The Accord Rae signed with Peterson, which he (Rae) stressed wasn't a coalition, gave the balance of power to the Liberals. Through NDP support, the Liberals gained power through a motion of non-confidence without being elected. This proved unpopular. Ontarians, fed up with the Liberals and the PC voted Rae in as premier under a majority government in 1990. Things wend down hill from there. The early 90s were a period of tough economic times for Ontario. Jobs were being lost left, right, and centre. In response, Rae took a tax and spend approach and quickly racked up a $10 billion deficit. Realizing the mistake he made, he tried frantically to cut back spending. He attempted to roll back civil servants' salaries and instituted the now infamous Rae Days, unpaid "holidays" for public employees. The public service unions, the biggest supporters of the NDP, lashed out at him. In response to the mess, the PCs were elected to power in 1995 under Mike Harris, who promised to clean up the huge amount of debt that the Rae NDP had left on Ontario citizens' door steps.

Skip forward 18 years after Rae was first elected premier. Now a Liberal, Rae is pushing for a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc to try and oust the "impotent" Conservatives under Steven Harper. Neither the Liberals or Conservatives hold a majority of seats in the House of Commons. The country is in a period of tough economic times. Jobs are being lost left, right, and centre. Wait a minute, this sounds familiar, doesn't it? It came out on Friday that the coalition seems to be the mastermind of Rae. After all, he seems to be the one pushing for it the most. He's also considered the most likely candidate to head the Liberal Party and would be Prime Minister if the coalition got its way. Ignatiff has already declared he is uneasy with it. Isn't it funny how history seems doomed to repeat itself. Once again, we have Bob Rae using unethical tactics to gain power, while in a period of economic crisis. Has he learned from the mistakes he made as Premier of Ontario? Obviously not. Mr Rae is nothing more than a prostitute. More shocking was yesterday's demonstrations with him parading about in Toronto in front of a crowd of tunnel visioned left wing idiots who are nuts for such a coalition. All they see is getting the Conservatives out while not looking at the big picture, including Rae's past history and the dangerous constitutional precedent such a coalition would set. To paraphrase Sideshow Bob, "your guilty conscience may force you to vote Conservative, but deep down inside you long for a corrupt Liberal to raise taxes, brutalize the electoral process, and rule you like a king." I'm sure this must be what's going through Bob Rae's mind right now. If the coalition gets in, I wonder how long it will be before we're $100 billion in deficit and have Rae Days nation wide. Maybe Mike Harris should run for the federal Conservative leadership. Help us Mikey baby, you're our only hope.

read more...

GG Suspends Parliament, What Should Come Next

This week, I find it vary difficult to be proud to be a Canadian. Our Parliament has threatened to tear the country apart over $28 million, which is peanuts in the grand scheme of things. It represents a historical low for responsible government in Canada, in which none of the three major parties has acted with dignity and decorum, more like childish shouting and personal vendettas. Today, Prime Minister Steven Harper visited Governor General Michaelle Jean and asked her to suspend Parliament until the new year. He was granted this wish. Right now, I believe this is the best thing for the country since it gives both Parliament and Canadians a much needed cooling off period. What is happening in Canada now is unprecedented and nobody really knows how to handle it. It was done in Ontario with a Rae/Perterson coalition in the late 80s but then, there were only three parties and the NDP and Liberals held the majority of the seats. It is not the same in the federal case, where a localized separatist party that the majority of Canadians cannot vote for now holds the balance of power. I've already discussed my feelings on that at length. The big question now is where to go next.

The right to form an opposition coalition if non confidence is declared in minority government is constitutionally legal in Canada and has been since 1867. The question we should ask as a people is whether this law still applies today. We inheritted out constitutional law from the UK, and like theirs, there are numerous unwritten traditions, norms, and conventions within the Canadian constitution. One such convention is that the governor general only acts on the will of the Prime Minister, despite her power to do otherwise. If this were broken, it would lead to a constititional crisis despite it being unwritten, as happened in the King-Byng Affair of the 1920s. A norm is how we elect our representatives. Canadians expect that in our first past the post parliamentary system that the party that has the most seats is the ruling party. They also know that there are three federalist parties. The Bloc is usually left out since they are only focused on Quebec interests and not Canada as a whole. Now that they hold that balance of power, it creates another crisis as interests that would undermine the entire country are now rolling the dice. This is why a substantial majority of Canadians oppose this coalition. I believe that since this is what Canadians expect, we should amend the constition to remove the right to form coalitions at the fedeal level. Canadians expect one party to form the government so our constitition should reflect that belief. This does not mean that opposition parties could not band together and declare non-confidence, it would simply mean that the final decision of the motion would automatically be transfered to the citizens of Canada via an election. Opposition rights to coalition opens up the doors to backroom deals without public consent and is far too paternalistic. If parties want to run in an election as a coalition, that is fine with me. However, the final word on who rules Canada should be up to the citizens, and only the citizens of this country. People may tire of the elections but it is far better than the alternative, which is authoritarian in nature, especially in this particular situation. The idea that voters are incapable of voting in ther best interests is an archaic one, born out of the imperialist 19th century, and should be put to rest for good.

read more...

Canadian Parliament Risks Crises of Legitimacy

I blasted the Liberals for their highly undemocratic actions in my previous articles. Indeed, their plans for a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition are a slap in the face to the Canadian electorate who just gave the Conservatives another mandate to govern. Coalitions are perfectly legal within Canada though that does not make them right, especially at a time of great economic turmoil. Aside from the potential catastrophic problems I mentioned about such a coalition, there is another issue at steak that could have far greater repercussions on Canada's political system. The October 2008 election saw the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history. Most politicians like to pat themselves on the back by saying that the public likes what they're doing so they see no need to vote. The voting public accuses non-voters of being lazy and apathetic. However, one reason is often overlooked. Many Canadians feel that none of the three major national parties support their needs and concerns. This opens the door up to a crisis of legitimacy.

What if a majority of Canadians suddenly felt that the Federal Parliament was no longer legitimate. A lot already do, which low voting numbers, radio and TV talk shows, and various opinion polls clearly show. The current song and dance being played in parliament has thoroughly disgusted many Canadians. We are in a time of economic crisis and Canadians are asking why politicians are wasting their time on this sort of politicking. Canadians view it as highly inappropriate and irresponsible, which it is. All four parties in the house are equally guilty of this action, though the three left wing parties have taken it to an extreme, and crossed the line over what Canadians will tolerate. The particular sticking point amoung Liberal supporters is the alliance with the Bloc Quebecois, since the Liberals and NDP do not have enough seats to form a coalition on their own. The Bloc, being a separatist party, obviously will not sit well with the federalist public in the rest of the country. The Liberals after all have always been a staunchly federalist party. One commentor in the National Post asked what Pierre Trudeau would think about his Liberals (indeed he molded the contemporary Liberal Party) joining with the separatists that he fought with tooth and nail. He would most likely condemn such action, even if it meant letting the Conservatives rule. Ironically, his son is now one of the party's rising stars, yet Justin has been quite mum on the subject. To Canadians, such a deal is a deal with the devil. The problem with the Canadian left is that they continue bury them further and further into the hole they've dug for themselves. Ironically, coalition talks will only serve to strengthen Harper's position with the Canadian public, since he was given the democratic mandate to rule. Canadians already see the coalition as illitigimate even before the deals have been finalized.

Canadians need to have faith in their government. In a time of crisis, all this political posturing needs to stop and they need to start working together to get things done. All the arguing and back room deals are not sitting well with Canadians. If this sort of bad behaviour continues, Canada will have a crisis of government legitimacy on its hands the likes of which we've never experienced.

read more...

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...