Should Supreme Court Justices Be Bilingual?

Today, the House of Commons passed a bill that would amend the Supreme Court Act to require future Supreme Court appointees to be bilingual.

This bill–a Private Member’s Bill introduced by NDP MP Yvon Godin–strikes me as a reasonable step forward. But apparently the Conservative Party disagrees: not one single Conservative MP voted in favour of the bill.

The bill now moves to the Senate for its consideration. It is unclear what fate holds for the bill in the Red Chamber.

But for the moment, if anyone can articulate a good reason why Supreme Court appointees should not be bilingual, I would be curious to hear it.

Surprise! Surprise! The NDP will raise taxes!

How’s that NDP majority working for you now, Nova Scotia?

The results from Finance Minister Graham Steele’s cross-province consultation on the province’s finances are in, and they indicate a sales tax increase is coming in next week’s budget.

Related: Government fiscal myopia (Tax! Tax! Tax!) cuts across party lines, it seems. The Quebec Liberals.

Update April 1: Éric Duhaime expounds on the tax and spend addiction of the Quebec Liberals. Increasing government spending by 3% “year after year after year.” Nice.

Dead Babies

While the dumping of twenty-one babies in the Guangfu River, China, is appalling, I can’t help but wonder what people would think if 265 dead babies suddenly appeared on the shores of the St. Lawrence River, the approximate number of infants killed each and every day in Canada in the name of reproductive rights.

Yes, the disdain and contempt rising up toward the inhumane disposal of these children is laudable. But the improper disposal is not the problem; it’s merely evidence of the problem. The problem is these twenty-one Chinese infants are a minuscule portion of the thousands obliterated each day around the planet in the name of reproductive rights.

The world stands suddenly aghast when dead infants line the shores but pays little to no attention to the fact that thousands more like these are being buried in our landfills or flushed into our waterways each and every day of the year. Out of sight, out of mind, it seems.

Do we need any other illustration of the moral repugnance of abortion? What about the moral vacuity of a nation that seemingly prefers not to start an argument than to force its elected leaders to put limits on when and how infants are killed in utero? This even though 60% believe abortion is morally wrong.

Canada, can we start to talk about limits on abortion? And what might those limits be?

Stephen Harper aka John Maynard Keynes

CBC:

… the Fraser Institute, which champions free-market economic solutions, concluded government spending and infrastructure investment accounted for just 0.2 percentage points of the 1.1 per cent growth between the second and third quarters of 2009. [...]

“First of all, that’s completely wrong and quite frankly contradicted by very serious work that’s been done [elsewhere]” Harper told reporters. “Economic theory and history is clear, governments must … make sure [funds] are put to productive use in the economy to create jobs.”

And with that, Mr. Harper demonstrates he is a pro-Keynesian quasi-capitalist who really does not believe economic freedom alone can pull nations out of challenging economic times. Actions and now words have shown that when the pressure is on the CPC believes government must intervene by essentially reversing the generational taxpayer truck to the government trough and opening the valve.

The gig is up. A free market, small-government, fiscal conservative Mr. Harper is not.

All Extortion is Local, Broadcast Television (2nd) Edition

The CRTC has come out with a decision regarding the transmission of broadcast television via cable, and it’s a complete mess.  First, they come out with new obligations that they are going to implement on broadcast and cable companies:

Group-based policy

In 2011, the CRTC will hold licence-renewal hearings for the largest English-language private ownership groups. The largest groups are: CTVglobemedia Inc., Canwest Television Limited Partnership and Rogers Communications Inc.

This approach will permit the CRTC to introduce new requirements to encourage and support the creation of Canadian programs.

The CRTC will propose that the three largest ownership groups spend at least 30 per cent of their gross revenues on Canadian programming. However, they will be able to shift resources among their English-language conventional television stations and specialty services to meet this obligation.

Then they have the audacity to claim that they are introducing a market-based system:

As part of its framework, the Commission has set out a market-based solution to allow private local television stations to negotiate with cable and satellite companies. Each television station would have the option of entering into negotiations to establish a fair value for the distribution of their programs.

Yes, because nothing screams “market-based” like a government agency deciding how a company must spend their money, and which party in a commercial transaction gets to decide whether they’ll negotiate or not.

As The Globe and Mail reports:

Under the new system, the broadcasters would have the choice every three years to negotiate value for their signals. If they choose to do so, they give up regulatory protections that require cable and satellite companies to carry all the conventional networks and to place them at a preferential point on the dial (on channel 8 instead of 508, for example). That three-year option was proposed by CTV at the hearings in November.

So, basically, cable companies will be given permission to carry over-the-air signals for free, if the broadcast television companies so choose.  However, if they are granted this privilege, cable companies will have to continue to provide preferential channels to broadcast television stations.  So broadcasters get to, essentially, make the rules.  The complaint against broadcast TV has been that no one seems to have a viable business model, but now the CRTC has solved that problem.  These corporations get to choose a business model, and then force everyone else to play along!  And if that doesn’t work, in three years they can force everyone to go along with a whole new business model (yeah, I have no idea why three years are so magical, either).

Of course, as pointed in the Globe and Mail article, consumers will need their cable providers to carry these stations in order to be able to watch a lot of the most popular American TV shows, as the parent networks own the rights to these shows.  This is the ace that the networks are holding; no cable company will want to deny its viewers the pleasures of American Idol, Glee or 30 Rock.  Of course, no one should pay attention to the chutzpah displayed by these networks, who were able to bid exorbitant sums for the rights to these programs precisely because they had the increased distribution and signal quality afforded by cable.  To think that a company like CTV has the audacity to frame itself as the little guy is pretty laughable.

Now, there is a bit of a dilemma in all of this.  Broadcast television is providing a resource to cable companies from which they can profit, and they have been doing so relatively free of charge.  (Sure, the value of this resource is declining, but let’s ignore that for now.)  It seems only right that they should be rewarded for their services.  As such, I propose the following solution.  The government should allow broadcast television stations to either sell their feed or give it away for free, whichever they choose.

That’s it.  That’s all that should be done.  Cable companies can enter into negotiations or not.  There are zero obligations imposed on either party.  From there, people can choose whatever television service they prefer.

One other thing I’d like to see (aside from the disbanding of the CRTC) – I’d like to see cable companies provide for their customers a cable receiver that doubles as rabbit ears for broadcast television.  I don’t see how this would be impossible, especially with the soon to be mandated digital broadcast of television signals.  This would solve everyone’s problems.  Cable companies wouldn’t transmit broadcast signals, but cable customers would still be able to watch So You Think You Can Dance Canada.

Of course, broadcast companies would have to provide a worthwhile service, and that’s the rub.

There’s a lot more going on in the CRTC’s decision.  Can you read their press release here, and the reference document here.

I first wrote about this issue here.

Ann Coulter Talk Gets Cancelled – Hate Spews Forth Shortly Thereafter

I’ll spare you the specific details about the cancellation of Ann Coulter’s talk at the University of Ottawa, but before this whole controversy calms down, make sure to check out the comments trending on twitter relating to Ann Coulter.

It’s pure unadulterated hate poring forth from those who claim Coulter is the one who promotes hate.

Here is a sampling:

marandamoses: God don’t like ugly, Coulter. Do unto others…

twatblock: RT @sandeepgu: Guess what Ann Coulter? Mother Mary, jesus’s wife wore a ‘Jihadist scarf’!! Ha ha fucking ignorant twat!

jungho_kim: RT @ValentinaVH How is Ann Coulter still alive with all that fecal matter pouring out of her mouth? U know, the mouth above her adam’s apple

It’s kinda ironic, isn’t it?

Who are Muslim women?

As much as I have a hard time siding with Quebec statesmen, I have to wonder what masked muslims are thinking. It is just silly for them to expect to live in a cosmopolitan community while simultaneously wearing a mask.

Could Amazon be the first of many bringing jobs to Canada?

Amazon.com is looking to open a new Distribution Centre here in Canada, if Canadian Heritage allows for it.

Canadian Heritage has 45 days to complete the review launched Jan. 27, but it could be extended by another 30 days if needed.

Walid Hejazi, a professor of international business at the University of Toronto, said he believes the government is close to allowing Amazon in to Canada, a move that would be consistent with the government’s recent steps to open Canada to more foreign investment.

And doing so would provide better prices and more jobs to Canadians.

Paul Misener, Amazon’s vice-president of global public policy who has been meeting with government officials, says a Canadian distribution centre would provide a benefit to the country.

“We are pleased to be continuing to communicate with policy-makers about the benefits that we have brought to Canadian culture both within Canada and globally,” he said Wednesday.

With the Canadian government opening up the telecom and satellite industry to foreign ownership allowances, Amazon could potentially be leading the way (hopefully) for foreign corporations coming into Canada and being able to take advantage of the benefits of doing business in Canada.

But, in many ways, Canada has been a closed market to so many different competitors because of those very foreign ownership laws and how they slam up against our cultural preservation limitations.

However, if it happens, and more follow, those industry “giants” as some call them, will only add to jobs in Canada which leads to a larger tax base, both corporately and in individual spending.

And Jack Layton wants to prevent tax benefits for “big business”. Michael Ignatieff doesn’t think the current Budget will create new jobs for Canadians.

“We will vote against it, but in a way that does not provoke an election,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff told reporters, speaking in French. “I don’t see a path in this budget that gets Canadians back to work. This is the key thing.”

Mr. Layton and Mr. Ignatieff, this is how this Budget could, and I stress could get Canadians back to work and raise our GDP to levels that can accomplish what the Budget proposes.

Instead of poo-pooing the Budget just because you hate the Conservatives, try finding ways to make it work, or make it work better.

Support the Government and encourage these initiatives that are bringing investors and jobs to Canada!

For the Liberals, MP means Missing Parliamentarian!

So, below is a list of all those Liberal MP’s who did not show up for work, or were directed not to by their unelected leader when it came time to vote on the Budget [h/t to Alberta Ardvark & The Phantom Observer]:

MP = Missing Parliamentarian

Bagnell, Larry – MP – for Yukon, Yukon
Bennett, Carolyn – MP – for St. Paul’s, Ontario
Bevilacqua, Maurizio – MP – for Vaughan, Ontario
Byrne, Gerry – MP – for Humber–St. Barbe–Baie Verte, Newfoundland and Labrador
Cannis, John – MP – for Scarborough Centre, Ontario
Coderre, Denis – MP – for Bourassa, Quebec
Cotler, Irwin – MP – for Mount Royal, Quebec
Dhalla, Ruby – MP – for Brampton–Springdale, Ontario
Duncan, Kirsty – MP – for Etobicoke North, Ontario
Eyking, Mark – MP – for Sydney–Victoria, Nova Scotia
Foote, Judy – MP – for Random–Burin–St. George’s, Newfoundland and Labrador
Fry, Hedy – MP – for Vancouver Centre, British Columbia
Garneau, Marc – MP – for Westmount–Ville-Marie, Quebec
Kania, Andrew J. – MP – for Brampton West, Ontario
Karygiannis, Jim – MP – for Scarborough–Agincourt, Ontario
LeBlanc, Dominic – MP – for Beauséjour, New Brunswick
MacAulay, Lawrence – MP – for Cardigan, Prince Edward Island
Martin, Keith P. – MP – for Esquimalt–Juan de Fuca, British Columbia
McTeague, Dan – MP – for Pickering–Scarborough East, Ontario
Murphy, Brian – MP – for Moncton–Riverview–Dieppe, New Brunswick
Murphy, Shawn – MP – for Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island
Murray, Joyce – MP – for Vancouver Quadra, British Columbia
Pacetti, Massimo – MP – for Saint-Léonard–Saint-Michel, Quebec
Patry, Bernard – MP – for Pierrefonds–Dollard, Quebec
Regan, Geoff – MP – for Halifax West, Nova Scotia
Sgro, Judy – MP – for York West, Ontario
Silva, Mario – MP – for Davenport, Ontario
Russell, Todd – MP – for Labrador, Newfoundland and Labrador
Trudeau, Justin – MP – for Papineau, Quebec

Why am I posting this when so many others have? Well, I believe it important to make the information as visible as possible to as many people as possible. Even if one person sees this list and chooses to contact their MP about it to demand answers about their lack of representation, then it was worth it.

Why is this important? Because these so-called Parliamentarians appear to be more interested in playing games rather than actually representing the people in their constituencies. In the same vein as my previous posts,

• Lions and Tigers and Budgets! Oh my!
• Michael Ignatieff is playing games with Parliament
• Michael Ignatieff: Recent History Repeating

the Liberal Party of Canada is content to usurp the values of democracy and opt instead for gamesmanship to say one thing and do another. There’s another word for that; it’s liar.

As identified in Alberta Ardvark’s comment section, maryT noted the phony photo-op the Liberals posed for regarding the “locked doors” of Parliament, which were actually open behind them [FAIL].

Yeah, so after making such a huge stink about Proroguing Parliament, they don’t even have the guts to show up!

Now THAT’S Leadership eh?

Tories Ready to Trample on Rights to Catch a Few Drunk Drivers

Is this what the Conservatives mean when they say they’re tough on crime?

The Harper government appears ready to move ahead on legalizing random roadside breath testing, which a new federal discussion paper says has produced “remarkable results” in catching drunk drivers in other countries.

In a rare move, the federal government has posted on its website a discussion paper, weighing the benefits of random testing, seeking feedback by the end of April.

Empowering police to conduct random breath tests would replace Canada’s 40-year-old legislation on impaired driving. That law dictates that breathalyzer tests can only be administered when there is reasonable suspicion of drunk driving.

What’s next, random house searches?

Imagine the “remarkable results” in crime prevention that could be attained if we gave up all of our rights to the state.

Make sure to tell Justice Minister Rob Nicholson just what you think of this ill-advised legislation – (613) 957-4222, webadmin@justice.gc.ca

For a full explanation of these proposals see, Modernizing the Transportation Provisions of the Criminal Code – Discussion Paper

Next Page »