Canadian Broadcasting: Radio Raise Further Questions

I wasn't sure whether I was going to post this story or not but it ties in with my article of TV versus radio in Canadian broadcasting. Sorry for this story being a couple of weeks old. In that article, I looked at the double standard between radio and TV. Namely that TV is given certain protections, notably against international broadcasting, that radio does not. Despite Canadian radio stations being fed to the international wolves, they are actually making money, in fact considerably more money even though we are in a recession. According to the Financial Post, radio profits before taxes for 2009 are up 12%. Revenues are up 5% across the board. Higher ad revenues are being credited for the success. Television by contrast is loosing money and saying that their ad revenues are declining. Therefore they are demanding we pay more for TV to compensate. Canadian radio faces stiff competition from satellite and Internet radio providers while TV is protected from this. This seems to point to the fact that perhaps it's because Canadian TV is being poorly managed. It could be argued that TV content costs more to produce, which is true. Most radio stations, music ones anyway, don't produce their own programming and they require less equipment to operate. However, CTV's claims that ad revenues are down don't hold up if they're actually increasing in another, similar medium. TV networks need to take a serious step back and reevaluate their business practises. Enough trying to squeeze more out of the recession battered consumer.

Source: Financial Post via Canada.com

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...

What's Wrong With Canada?

I often ask myself this question and I keep coming to the same answer. The biggest problem with Canada is Canadians themselves, or more specifically their attitude. Pulling a file out of the large virtual filing cabinet of issues I follow, I select one that's close to home. It regards the unwanted mall and sound barrier issue I discussed last month. At one meeting, neighbours cautioned my family not to upset the bureaucrats because they were "trying to help us." My father being a retired civil engineer and myself a political scientist & quasi-journalist, we knew better. Civil servants filibuster and have little interest in improving the lives of people they serve. They're mostly brain dead robots serving a higher power who can't be bothered with a bunch of nobodies trying to get money out of them. The remark from one of my neighbours came after my father pushed one of the bureaucrats into answering a vital question they had been dodging. Don't upset them. That was a moment of epiphany for myself. It confirmed something that I had suspected for some time. The problem with Canada is that Canadians refuse to rock the proverbial boat. You can decrease their quality of life, you can take away their rights, you can undermine democracy, but still they will stand there unwilling or uninterested. It's a dictator's dream come true.

The million dollar question is why do Canadians behave this way. It's certainly in stark contrast to our neighbour to the south. Americans get riled up over things at the drop of a hat. It's guaranteed somebody, somewhere in the US is protesting something. A lot of that comes from Americans having a vary different heritage from us. When the Thirteen Colonies suffered gross democratic abuses at the hands of the British Empire, they rebelled. America fought for their independence, we asked nicely and even then we weren't truly free of Britain until the 1980s. Canada was built by the loyalists who did not want to rebel for one reason or another. We're quite satisfied with the status quo regardless of whether we're being subject to abuse or not. This way of thinking has opened us up to gross abuses. I already discussed the increasing number of immigrants who only come here to collect our social services. We don't speak out against them for fear of offending people. Meanwhile they offend ever other immigrant who can here and struggled to make a life for themselves. It's not just them. Powerful NGOs, various special interest groups, land developers, large corporations, drug dealers and petty criminals, con artists, labour unions. They all want a slice of the pie and they take it regardless of who's toes they step on. We do nothing to stop them because we simply do not like confrontation.

The government itself is probably the biggest abuser of them all. The politicians themselves are unwitting pawns in the game that is entirely controlled by fat cat bureaucrats who sit around and freely and openly abuse and neglect the public interest for one reason or another. Over the years, they've been handed a considerable amount of power and obtained golden idol status. Every criticism slides off them as if they were all coated with Teflon. Take the Walkerton incident for example. When water engineer Stan Cabel neglected his duties of making sure the town's water had enough chlorine in it, an e. coli outbreak resulted causing several deaths. In a logical world, Cabel would have been fired at the vary least, though I would have gone as far as to charge him with criminal negligence. Through union trickery and politicking, the blame somehow went directly to Mike Harris for not properly funding the civil service. Despite willfully falling asleep at the switch and killing several people in the process, Cabel walked away a hero and the public ate up the rhetoric like Oprah on a baked ham. Pretty much every other scandal involving the bureaucracy has received a similar outcome and it effects all levels of government. The Toronto Catholic School Board, eHealth, the human rights commissions, the Sponsorship Scandal, or just being mouthed off to at the MTO licensing office. I know someone who works at a receptionist at one of the municipalities. She has actually be verbally assaulted by bureaucrats for putting their phone calls through to them. It happens on an almost daily basis. (incidentally, I believe voice mail and Microsoft Solitaire to be the most important inventions in bureaucrat history) Despite abusing a fellow employee and refusing to do their jobs, they receive vary little recourse if any. Usually the latter. These are the same bureaucrats who I've been fighting with over the mall. The public knows this behaviour is wrong but they don't do anything about it for fear of upsetting the goldenboy image. After all they are just trying to help us, right? So says my neighbour. This is allowed to go on because people don't fight it. Our apathy is destroying this country.

Am I being cynical when I describe Canadians as a bunch of lazy idiots living in fear of rocking the boat? It's hard not to be when that is all one sees. Even the media is just as guilty of this; choosing to focus on petty issues while virtually ignoring discussion on the major ones. If it wasn't for amateur bloggers, many of these issues would never see the light of day. The vast majority of protests one sees here are the big, corrupt stakeholders or new Canadians fighting for some issue back in their old country that no longer affects them. It's vary easy to become jaded. However, I would be more than thrilled to be surprised. I was quite surprised in fact when Canadians came out in force against the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition late last year. That is probably the only time I've seen Canadians react so strongly to an issue. The problem is it being an isolated case when it should be the norm. Canadians need to wake up and stop being so fearful of challenging authority. For God's sake it only takes 10 minutes out of your day to pick up a newspaper or watch the evening news to inform yourself. It only takes 10 minutes out of your day once every three or four years to vote. Write letters to representatives, start your own blog, get out and protest. Get with the program and stop letting the government and corrupt organizations walk all over you. Canada is our country. Let's start acting like we care.

read more...

PETA Finally Goes Right Round the Bend

You thought PETA (People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals) couldn't get any more bizarre. Apparently you thought wrong. Earlier this week, US president Barack Obama swatted a fly that was disrupting him during an interview with NBC. The animal rights group came out today announcing that they were vary disappointed in the president for doing that. The group's spokesman Bruce Friedrich said that ""We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals, we believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals." Friedrich went on to say that while they approved of Obama's voting record on animal rights "swatting a fly on TV indicates he's not perfect, and we're happy to say that we wish he hadn't." PETA suggested that he should have used a more humane method that allows flies to be trapped and released outside. I had often joked that PETA would soon equate swatting flies to murder. Now I can say that they finally have. This is just too funny. PETA members really need to find something better to do with their time.

Source: CNEWS

read more...

What's A Canadian Citizenship Worth These Days?

The United States takes its sovereignty vary seriously, arguably far more than most other democratic nations. This is precisely the reason why US presidents must be born and live within the country. In Canada, the only requirement to vote or run for office is simply having Canadian citizenship. A proposed plan by Toronto mayor David Miller would see that soon change. Miller wants to allow non-citizens, in other words landed immigrants, to vote in municipal elections. His argument is that if they pay taxes, they should be allowed to vote, going as far as to compare it to "taxation without representation." On the outset this makes some sense but if we allow landed immigrants to vote, what is the purpose of Canadian citizenship? If this goes through, citizens will only have the "privilege" to be conscripted against their will for jury duty. I'm hardly a nationalist but this bothers me because it seems as if we are throwing away both our sovereignty and identity. When I think of my parents coming to Canada and working hard to gain citizenship, I cannot help but feel a little screwed if this goes through. Citizenship privileges have been slowly dwindling over the past few decades and even now it doesn't give you special treatment when you travel. So basically, Canadian citizenship is meaningless. I would gladly do as Conrad Black did and have my own citizenship revoked just so I don't have to ever sit on a jury. It's not as if it is doing anything else for me.

The whole issue brings up a questions of immigration. Miller's obvious motives I'll leave for another discussion. The big issue this country is facing today is so called "Canadians of convenience". The media coined this term during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War when Canada mounted the nation's largest sea evacuation since World War II. Thousands of Lebanese-Canadians were evacuated from the war-zone. However, it turned out that most of them had few ties to Canada at all other than citizenship papers. Basically, they had only held onto citizenship for easy access to social services and relatives. However, these are not the only people who are Canadians of convenience. There is a small but growing problem within Canada's immigrant communities that involve people who are little more than long term tourists. They are those who remain in immigrant enclaves their entire lives without learning our language or even interacting with Canadians in general. A growing number of them are elderly relatives here simply to collect social services. Large numbers of whom do not work, do not contribute financially to the system, and most do not contribute to society in any other ways. In cities such as Brampton Ontario, they can be seen wondering the streets and malls in middle of the day during the week. It is well known that the majority of these people are only here to collect socialized medicine. This is painfully evident when going into places like Brampton Civic Hospital, which is sometimes referred to as the $750 million free walk-in clinic for Brampton's Punjabi community.

When questioning immigration, the left usually labels you as racist or against multiculturalism. However, Canadians of convenience throw a monkey wrench into their logic. An immigrant who never learns Canada's official languages and never interacts with the world outside ethnic enclaves does not fall under the umbrella of multiculturalism. Canadians are encouraged right from childhood to learn about and interact with other cultures. To me, this has always been the definition of multiculturalism. It is not enough to simply have multiple cultures in a society to call it multicultural if said cultures do not interact with one another. The problem is that we have to interact with Canadians of convenience eventually and due to the fact many of them cannot communicate in either official language, it has placed an enormous burden on businesses and governments. Is it right to accommodate people who make absolutely no effort to accommodate you? Of course it is difficult to learn a new language and embrace a new society but millions of immigrants have done so with great success. The problem is the people who simply don't care and are just here for the perks rather than trying to build a nation.

One way to solve the problem of Canadians of convenience is to change who is eligible for social services. In order to receive health care and welfare, I believe you must be either a full Canadian citizen or contribute to the system by paying income taxes. Non-citizens and landed immigrants who do not work should not be allowed to collect social services. Of course this would exclude children under 18. Is this harsh? I don't think so. The welfare system acts as a sort of state run insurance. Just like private insurance, if you don't pay into it and never did pay into it, you should not be able to collect. This would eliminate people coming to Canada for "free" health care. I would go even further to say that immigrants should have lived here for a minimum number of years before being able to collect social services, or even that only citizens can collect. Of course the left would never approve any of this but it would certainly raise the value of Canadian citizenship and encourage more immigrants to get their card. Another idea would be to require all new immigrants who cannot speak French or English to take a mandatory ESL or FSL course to be able to communicate with Canadians. As long as they at least make an effort to learn, they should be granted full immigrant status but those who do not should not be allowed in. Radical? Yes, but the current system is just throwing up more and more walls between peoples and is allowing a small but growing minority to take advantage of our generosity. This, quite frankly, is an insult to all those immigrants from every background who built this nation. Things need to change to keep the freeloading Canadians of convenience out.

read more...

The Curious Case of Canadian Broadcasting

Internet radio is great. I can listen to thousands of stations anywhere in the world right from my computer. Even Canadian radio stations have grown a small international audience judging by the ones who phone in to talk programs. Try watching international TV on your computer and you'll get a completely different and wholly negative experience. I use IGN a lot for my MMNTech site but I find a lot of the videos they've been using to show clips and trailers of TV shows are through Hulu. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp owns both Hulu and IGN so naturally they're going to use the service. Unfortunately, Hulu is not available in Canada or anywhere else for that matter besides the United States. Pretty stupid for a website with an international audience. Copyright problems are usually blamed but I don't buy this since audio falls under the same umbrella as video. So why am I free to access international audio broadcasts online but not international television?

To answer this question, you have to go a few years back with a struggle over Apple Corp.'s iTunes and the Canadian networks. When Apple launched the iTunes video store back around 2006, they wanted to put TV shows up for all customers. However, this was blocked in Canada because Canadian networks refused to hand over broadcasting rights. As usual, CTV was the leader, meaning popular American shows like South Park took a long time to reach Canadian internet shores. It doesn't matter that CTV doesn't own the copyrights to these shows. They had been handed exclusive broadcasting privilege from the CRTC. Much of it has to do with laws concerning Canadian ownership of broadcast outlets and Canadian content laws. Apple is an American company after all. What confuses me is why such a double standard exists between TV and radio in Canada. To tell Apple they can't sell TV episodes in Canada would be equivalent to them saying they can't sell music on iTunes because it would hurt Canadian record stores and radio stations. Obviously that never happened. The problem still exists today with a great deal of television content moving online. Direct feeds from American networks are off limits to Canadians let alone huge archive sites like Hulu. Canadians are met with the message that they are not permitted to use the service. So let me get this strait. We live in a multicultural society that praises our international heritage but the government won't let me watch international broadcasts online. Does that make sense? I didn't think so.

The CRTC recently decided that it would not try to regulate new media at this time, although they are already doing it by proxy. They also left the door open for future regulation. As I've said many times before, the whole Canadian content rules are anti-multicultural and are vastly outdated for our current international society. The laws only exist at this point to keep the likes of CTV, Bell, and CBC in exclusive communications monopolies. It is worth noting that radio doesn't have the lobby power that the TV networks do. The CRTC needs to get with the program and open the doors to international television broadcasting, no matter what the medium, to put it on equal ground with radio.

read more...

Radio MMN

The beauty of the Internet is being able to produce content free of charge. If you're cheap like me, that's great. It's what's kept this blog going for four years now. I've been toying with the idea of adding a multimedia feature to MMN or MMNTech. I got the idea to do an enhanced podcast as a project of mine just to see how it works out and what kind of interest it generates (likely none. lol).
I'm in the planning stages of it right now but I have worked out a loose format. Each episode, I'll discuss two or three current events topics just like any pundit show. No schedule. It will be done when its done if it gets done. Here's the plan for my first episode.

Episode 1: Food For Thought

-Food Inc.
Discuss the topics Robert Kenner brings up in his new documentary Food Inc. Why are we so afraid of industrialized agriculture? Is Ronald McDonald really the spawn of Pennywise? Plus my secret to good health and why I will relish my 30th birthday when it comes.

-Places to Mow (Down)
Is the 2005 Places to Grow Act of Ontario accelerating urban sprawl? Is the Greenbelt just a myth? Why is it that "Big Mayonnaise" seems to be the only realistic organization fighting sprawl? Plus a look at the issue of broken municipal planning and I rant about my fence.

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...

Idiots Hall of Shame: April & May

We had a lot of idiots for these two months so I'm archiving them early to make more room.

May Inductees
John Lennon & Yoko Ono -- Special lifetime award on the 40th anniversary of their Montreal bed-in for peace. I'm still puzzled as to how they thought lying in bed for a week was going to stop the Vietnam War.

Ruby Dhallah -- claims allegations of abusing live-in caregivers is a Tory conspiracy against here, despite lack of proof. Gives Garth a run for his money.

CTV -- Attempting to screw consumers by trying to force extra fees on cable customers who receive network stations because it bought too many assets that it could not afford. Blackmailing the CRTC and attempting to brainwash the public.

Elizabeth May -- Funny how the only goal of her plan to enhance democracy seems to be getting herself a guaranteed seat in parliament. No conflict of interest there.

PETA -- Would rather let humans starve just to protect cute seal pups.

April Inductees
Harmid Karzai -- Tried to legalize spousal rape in Afghanistan to cajole the Taliban and Al Qaeda

G20 Protesters in London -- How is beating cops going to fix the economy again? I think we should ask North Koreans how well that whole communism thing is going.

Ken Lewenza -- CAW president thinks Ontario taxpayers are morally obligated to pay his huge union pensions when so many other retirees are living on less and less. Talk about a culture of entitlement. He'd do the Liberals proud.

Milton Canadian Champion -- Local newspaper that insulted me by refusing to publish my letter, publically stating that I was basically lying. Incompetent at best, in bed with developers at worst.

Milton Town Council -- Ignoring their constituents in old Milton

First Capital Development -- Building a giant mall that nobody wants or needs, creating noise, air, and light pollution in the middle of a residential area.

Ontario Municipal Board -- For making decisions undemocratically, rubber-stamping development projects without any knowledge of the community and never asking for their concerns.

The Entertainment Industry -- For turning copyright law into an absolute farce.

Tamil-Canadians -- For trying to get Canada involved in a war it has no business being involved in, and for openly supporting an internationally recognized terror group.

Janet Napolitano -- US Homeland Security Secretary within the Obama administration. Falsely accused Canada of allowing terrorists to entre into the US.

Garth Turner -- Honorary lifetime inductee. Betrayed his voters, makes offensives comments, and paranoid statements. In regards to the latter and in all seriousness, I think he may have a mental illness and needs to seek help.

Steven Harper -- Bailing out Chrysler. Yeah, like we'll ever see that money again. Isn't he supposed to be an economic conservative?

Barack Obama -- Failed his first 100 days by wussifying America. Bailed out the automakers and partially nationalized Chrysler. Three international incidents started with Canada by people under his watch... plus all that sleezy stuff he did during the election. Far too much to cover for this section.

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...

Dambisa Moyo's Dead Aid Interview

The National Post recently interviewed Dambisa Moyo, the author of the controversial book "Dead Aid". Moyo is advocating that Western governments slowly wean African governments off foreign aid, arguing that it has done nothing to help the lives of the African people. I spent four years in university studying Latin American politics and history, and while not as bad off, those countries suffer from a lot of the same issues. While trillions of dollars in aid have been spent on these countries, little progress has been made in improving the lives of their peoples. Africa in particular has actually seen quality of life regress. I agree with everything Moyo has said in the interview in that countries need to invest in economies and building a strong private sector based on small business, not in corrupt governments. In the interview, she also talks about her issues with NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and the celebrity-aid culture led by people such as Bono and Bob Geldof. It's an interesting read. Moyo herself was born in Zambia, was named one of the 100 most influential people last year, and her book is a TIME bestseller.

National Post: Why Aid to Africa Must Stop: Interview with Dambisa Moyo

read more...

Lil' Hitler's Legal Bind

There's a trial going on in Winnipeg where authorities are attempting to win the legal right to take away a young girl who's parents are suspected Neo-Nazis. It is alleged that her parents trained the child to be a racist who hates "niggers" [sic] and calmly talks about how all black people should be killed. The girl also believes that any visible minorities are a threat to white children. The story first broke last year when the child showed up to her school with swastikas and white supremacist slogans drawn on her skin. It was not so much what the girl was saying that alarmed social workers but the cold, matter-of-fact way in which she said those things. Social workers allege that the parents have Nazi paraphernalia around their home, have made frequent racial slurs, and have trained their child to think this way. The parents are fighting the seizure of their children on constitutional grounds citing freedom of association, conscience, and belief. The question is whether or not authorities are taking the right steps by trying to take this girl away and more importantly how the final decision will affect future cases.

It's the old can of worms argument once again. Can the state really take a child away due to the beliefs of their parents? Also, how does the state determine what beliefs are acceptable and which are not. In this particular example, assuming the allegations are true, I think child protection services has a perfectly viable case. Obviously the girl has been taught to believe that violence is perfectly alright. She may not pose a threat now but as those beliefs fester, it could lead to violent physical acts in the future unless she has some sort of epiphany before that happens. No matter which way this hearing goes, it could set a precedent that this country is not prepared for; setting off nightmare constitutional problems and potential legal double standards. There is no clear definition of what is and what is not an issue when parents bring children into highly charged politics. Most recently was the case where Tamils were alleged to have used their children as human shields during the blockade of the Gardener Expressway in Toronto earlier this month. The case seems different at first glance but is surprisingly similar to the case of the Winnipeg Neo-Nazis. Both peoples are using their children as a means to further their political cause. One is a hatred for blacks, the other is a hatred for the Sri Lankan government and frequently its Sinhalese majority. What about Muslims that take their kids to Mosques where radical Imams preach violence against Jews and the destruction of Israel. What about blacks who teach their children to fear whites or Hispanics who teach their children to blame the United States for issues in their home countries? Should these groups also have their children taken from them? Other recent issues involved the FLDS in Texas, which sparked controversy when American authorities seized children from parents belonging to the sect for at least partially indocrinating them in polygamy and a view that women were inferior. The question we need to ask ourselves is at what point does ideology become abusive. It's simply not as clear cut as physical abuse is. The racial element that is often involved only makes things more complicated, especially with the inevitability of human rights tribunals becoming involved; who's members which as we have learned are not always formally trained in law or politics. Unless physical abuse is involved, removing a child from the home in these cases should only be a last resort when counselling fails. Arguably simply taking the child away does not attack the root of the problem, where as court ordered psychiatric help for both the parents and the child would certainly be a start. It's just too much of a legal burden to decide which ideologies constitute abuse and which ones do not.

read more...

Getting to the Heart of Animal Rights Thinking

The other day while on a trip to Nunavut, Governor General Michaelle Jean helped gut a seal and ate a piece of its heart. Certainly not something I would do unless I was starving but it was an important symbolic gesture none the less. It shows that the GG is in solidarity with Canadians over the sealing controversy with Europe. Most Canadians have shown support for the action given that seal hunting is a way of life for many Inuit and Maritimers. However, her act has attracted outrage from a variety of special interest groups; namely animal rights activists such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. In an act which insulted two groups of peoples, PITA senior vice president Dan Mathews said that Jean eating the seal heart was an act of "bloodlust" and proceeded to call Canadians a bunch of "Neanderthals". Wow, I'm quite impressed with Mr Mathews. Offending all Canadians and the Inuit people to boot! This would have been perfect for my racism on the left series.

When I was in high school, I had a teacher who tough native children in in Kenora for years. He said that he never understood the opposition to fur since it was the most natural garment for humans to wear. In fact we've been doing so for thousands of years. Of course there are questions regarding over harvesting of fur bearing animals for clothing but the act hunting the animal for that purpose is not wrong in and of itself. Then there's the question of PETA's existence. They've been waring on anything and everything they consider to be animal abuse for at least the last 25 years now. The group has also attracted a lot of celebrity attention, namely our export bimbo Pamela Anderson. They have also harnessed shock and awe protests such as Gorey signs and nude marchers. They aren't the most radical group out there (unlike the Animal Liberation Front), but they certainly are the most public. They certainly like the attention but I cannot help but wonder whether these people are just insane. Based on what I've heard the group say, it seems to me that they think animals should be awarded the same rights as people. (Both South Park and MAD Magazine classically lampooned this belief) Obviously we can agree that animals are free from abusive treatment but the idea of abandoning ALL animal products is ludicrous. According to PETA, we're not supposed to eat meat, wear fur and leather, own pets, race horses, hunt and fish, or use animals for work. It has gotten to the point where these groups feel that the rights of human beings should be sacrificed by the rights of animals. Surely if I accidentally ran over a possum with my car, they'd jail me for hit and run if they could. Of course animals should have the right to be free from mistreatment. However, telling people to sacrifice their only means of subsistence and then calling them bloodthirsty Neanderthals for refusing to give it up, you're anti-human at best and racist at worst. If PETA really wants to help animals, they'd focus on the puppy mills and helping humane societies rather than lashing out against the poor Inuit hunters.

read more...

CTV Gets Warning Shot Across Her Bow

According to the Financial Post, Canadian cable operators have filed a formal complaint with broadcast authorities against CTV regarding their recent advertising campaign. They are accusing CTV of violating journalistic principals by only airing their side of the story, constantly. Any avid couch potato will have seen their ads running 24/7 on each station the network owns. They have also inserted the pro cable tax ads into all their news casts. Presumably this is what has gotten cable companies irked. They have filed a letter with the CRTC asking them to take "immediate action". I'm definitely siding with the cable providers on this one. CTV is certainly not going to win many friends in the public. One thing I've come to learn is that Canucks hate it when anyone tries to raise the costs of their holy trinity: Tim's Coffee, beer, and TV. When Canadians hear cable TV and bill increases in the same sentences, they tend to get riled up.

I had considered filing a complaint myself with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, of which CTV is a member. Their fee hike commercials do seem to violate clauses 6 and 7 of the CBSC's code of ethics which require balanced coverage of issues. Being a journalism student who will be looking for work in a year's time, that's probably not the wisest thing for me to do. Perhaps my readers could be persuaded into doing so. It's gone beyond simply a matter of money to something I would equate to as deceptive propaganda and extortion by this network. CTV is hosting an open house this Saturday (May 23rd) so that would also be a good platform to politely voice concerns about their methods.

Source: Financial Post

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...

Americans Have It Good

I've never understood the gripes of our neighbours to the south about their country and our government. They complain about their taxes, their social services, their government. American liberals look to Canada with envy for our broad social network and "free" healthcare. I argue that Americans actually have it far better than Canadians do and that Canada is actually moving backwards as the rest of the world moves forwards.

Taxes are one of the most common gripes I hear about on online messages boards. Americans think they're paying too much. Back in April, Tea Parties were held by American conservatives protesting high taxes. They fear Obama is going to raise taxes to an unprecedented level to offer "Canadian style" social services. Canadians pay a vary steep price for our social services and I'm not sure we're getting anywhere close to getting our money's worth. So, it's worth comparing the two countries in terms of what we receive versus what Americans receive for our dollars. In Canada, people spend half their year working for the government. According to Wikipedia, my bible, Tax Freedom Day in Canada, the abstract date in which we start working for ourselves and not for the tax man, will land on June 14th this year. The United States has already passed their Tax Freedom Day, which landed on April 13th. The average tax burden of Americans, that is the percentage of money going towards the government from all taxes, state and federal, is 28.2% and is actually decreasing. For Canadians, the tax burden is 44.8% and climbing. Canadian taxes are over a third higher than they are in the US. To add to this, Canadians also make less money than Americans do. According to the CBC, the median household income of Canadians in 2005 was approximately $41,404 CAD, a figure that has not changed since 1980 when adjusted for inflation. Using today's exchange rate, that works out to be $35,179 US. (the rate then was similar to what it is now so it's just easier to use today's rate) By contrast, American median household income was $43,389 during the same period. Americans get to keep about $31,153.30 after taxes while Canadians keep just $19,418. Americans make more and get to take more of it home than we do. Of course I'm using pre-recession figures but we can assume that the large gap still exists.

Of course, Canadians have to take home less because we're paying for health care, right? Americans have a choice of health insurance and what they want and don't want to be insured. Canadians do not have that choice. We can't shop around for the best deals. In Ontario, $600 to $900 annually is collected in tax per person as a "health premium" on top of what is already being paid into healthcare from other taxes. It's worth noting that the socialized medical insurance plans don't cover eye, dental, drugs, physio-therapy, and medical supplies. Everyone is guaranteed health treatment but this often doesn't mean Canadians are entitled to the best care available. While wait times have decreased, average ER wait times are still six to eight hours for minor ailments and up to 19 hours or more for more serious conditions. People are often left on stretchers in the hallways of many urban hospitals because there aren't enough beds. Rural hospitals are being closed down in many provinces to cut costs. Wait times for diagnostic examinations such as MRIs and ultrasounds must be booked months in advance. Many Canadians lack family doctors, particularly in more rural regions but the problem exists in major suburban areas as well. While health treatment in the US is not equal across the board, Americans will usually receive faster service and treatment than Canadians do. While I don't have the statistic in front of me, the US government supposedly spends more per capita on health care than Canadian governments do.

Another incident of Americans having it better than we do in Canada boils down to something much simpler that effects us all on a daily basis; municipal services. I have a friend that lives in Fairfax, Virginia. To give you some idea, Fairfax is a medium sized town that's a suburb of Washington DC. It's like Streetsville would be to Mississauga; a town within a city. I was floored when she told me they get their garbage picked up twice a week. That's everything including recycle. By comparison, in Halton region of Ontario, where I live, garbage is only picked up twice a month while recycling is picked up weekly. In Toronto, residents have to pay for their garbage collection on top of already steep property taxes. Halton uses two trucks to pick up garbage and recycle while most US cities use one truck that can store both. Aside from better garbage collection, Americans also get mail delivery on Saturday. In fact, there was some controversy when the USPS was considering dropping weekend delivery due to the recession and increasing costs. Canada by contrast has never had Saturday delivery. For transit, the DC area features a robust subway system that reaches right out into the suburbs and runs trains all day. In the Toronto area, the subway only operates in the city and commuter trains only run during rush hours. It costs nearly $7 ($5.95 US) to get from outlying areas of the GTA to Union Station, one way regardless of time. By comparison, it costs about $4.50 US to get from far flung Fairfax to central DC during the rush, and $2.35 at all other times. Want to go further? Hop on the Accela Express, a Canadian built electric train that runs between DC and New York City at speeds of 200km/h. You could travel from Toronto to Kingston in 1.5hr rather than the three hours it takes for VIA's aging diesel trains. For those who know the area, Washington DC is hardly a model city. However, it still manages to pull off better services for average citizens, and for less money than we do here.

Canadians are getting ripped off when it comes to the level of services versus what we pay out. The high taxes wouldn't be so bad if we actually got what we paid for. Each year we're asked to give more while governments claw back services or simply leave things to fall far behind the rest of the world. So where is all this money going? Corruption, pet projects, and bureaucratic red tape are the primary culprits. Simple projects, such as constructing a highway offramp or building a badly needed railway grade separation, get tangled up in years worth of environmental impact and cost feasibility studies. At minimum it takes a year for any infrastructure repair project to get approval. The civil service chews up money as it it were going out of style, most of it going to their ludicrous salaries and benefit programs. Politicians spend it on their little projects, such as Toronto mayor David Miller's green initiatives which have sunk the city far into the red. Granted, Americans don't always have things better. Canada's schools are probably better than theirs and we do pay less for electricity. However, if we continue to waste money at this rate, Canada risks slipping further and further behind the rest of the developed world. We're paying a small and increasing fortune annually to the government, who keeps infrastructure and basic services at the level of barely adequate at best. It's high time we Canadians started holding our own Tea Parties. The government needs to know that if they expect us to pay out so much, we at least want our services to reflect that. As for the Americans, you guys really don't have it all that bad, even with Obambi as your new president. Anybody know where I can get a green card?

read more...