Bob Chiarelli is a Zombie

That’s the only way I can explain the fact that his political career just won’t die.

From 1987 to 1997, Ottawa suffered through Mr. Chiarelli’s reign as an MPP.  His time at Queen’s Park was undistinguished, and ended when Mr. Chiarelli resigned and returned to Ottawa to deal with a family tragedy.  Soon after, he settled in as Regional Chair.  This was a fairly suitable high-profile, low-impact position befitting a politician of Mr. Chiarelli’s stature and competency.  His name remained in the news, but he wasn’t able to do too much damage.

Upon the amalgamation of Ottawa and several surrounding municipalities, Mr. Chiarelli was elected mayor.  The cities that had been relatively well run during the ’90s, became a unified bloated lumbering beast after Mr. Chiarelli assumed power.  Under his guidance, the city council was more interested in enacting smoking bands, debating the Iraq war and trying to build a $9 million chamber music hall than it was in making sure the city ran smoothly.  Mr. Chiarelli was fiddling while this monolithic new city burned.

A little while ago, it seemed like the city had been freed.  Mr. Chiarelli resigned and, although it made way for criminal mastermind Lex Luthor to become mayor, the city was better for it.  Lary O’Brien’s time as mayor has not been without controversy, and it appears that he won’t secure a second term.  In a fitting, circular development, one of the leading candidates to replace Mr. O’Brien is Jim Watson, former Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing… and the man Mr. Chiarelli replaced as Mayor in 2001.*

Before declaring his candidacy for mayor, Jim Watson had been the MPP for Ottawa West-Nepean, essentially the same riding that Mr. Chiarelli first represented back in 1987.  On Thursday, Mr. Chiarelli won a by-election and, once again, will be replacing Mr. Watson.

So it’s 1987 again, and, just like Kiefer Sutherland in The Lost Boys, Bob Chiarelli’s political career appears to be immortal**.

*Okay, technically, Mr. Chiarelli replaced Allan Higdon, but that doesn’t really count.

**Yeah, yeah, I’m mixing my undead metaphors.  Deal with it.

The Problem With the Palin Hypocrisy Angle on Healthcare

Tonight the US is abuzz with the revelation that former GOP Veep candidate and Alaska governor Sarah Palin had traveled across the Alaska-Yukon border to utilize the Canadian health care system in the fine northwestern territory. We Canadians have long understood that many of our home-grown journalists get snatched by the big American media so it’s a bit surprising to see that there wasn’t a Canadian around in the newsroom to explain what any Canuck who knows his history would immediately see in this story: if Palin’s family did travel in the mid-1960s, they would not have used the same state-run system that Canada uses today. In fact, quite a bit has changed since Lester Person’s government passed the medicare system into law during it’s brief time in office from 1963-1968, with the legal prohibition of private health care coming in during 1984 and the capping of salaries for doctors later in the 1980s. The system that Palin’s family would have used over 40 years ago would have been only mildly different from the US system at the time, with user fees and private clinics still operating. While it’s fair to guess as to why the family would cross a national border to access health care, one sees a reasonable argument for bad weather as this is Alaska and even the most pessimistic Al Gore devotee would have to admit that global warming hadn’t really taken off in the 1960s yet!

---

Matthew Campbell writes for The Politic and is webmaster of Election Target, an online election prediction community.

Retiring Boomers should pave the way to 0% unemployment. Right?

So, TD Bank is saying that retiring baby boomers will disrupt the economy.

My first thought? Duh!

This was followed shortly by the thought that the massive vacuum in the employment sector should, in theory, mean the end of unemployment. Right? Yeah, I’m not so sure about it either. However, it will be an interesting test on those who claim they can’t find work. I believe that it will come down to one of two things. 1) Those who aren’t working don’t actually want to work, and 2) Those who aren’t employed don’t have any desirable skills needed to maintain employment.

An inflammatory statement? Perhaps. But perhaps the truth hurts sometimes.

Still, I’m tired of hearing how dismal the future will be with the advent of the Baby Boomer Retirement Saga. Presumably, companies will have the same amount of demand (if not more) for their services or products. The problem they will be facing is that they may not have enough people to provide it.

This leads to the question of what to do about it. One alternative is that the entire job market is going to have to change in shape. Companies are going to be demanding more of their employees, and so they’re going to have to be willing to pay salaries at a rate comparable to the demand placed on the employee. Also, in an employee’s market, they have the power. Companies will have to offer sufficient incentive to hold onto employees who may be being tempted by other companies looking to fill their own vacancies. This may also open the door to employer-provided day care to encourage mothers (fathers too) to return to the workforce. Day Care business boom is in there too, or Nannies for that matter.

Now, I’m not suggesting that this will fill the gap. We’ve known for decades that the current Pension system is broken and that there was a coming storm. Still, higher wages and salaries mean more taxes being collected from jobs that before had paid less, and the potential for savings in the EI system also mean savings Federally.

Just some things to consider.

Bearing Witness to Police Brutality

Early Tuesday morning, I witnessed an incident involving the police and what seemed like an intoxicated driver.  The driver resisted arrest.  In return, the police assaulted him.  I write about it here.

An excerpt:

Eventually, the officers opened the door to the squad car and removed the gentleman they’d just fought so hard to intern in their Crown Victoria.  They brought the gentleman, still resisting, but with less energy, to another car.  They walked around the car and opened the door.  They were on our side of the street, just off the side walk; we could see clearly what was happening.

Once again, they attempted to put this man in the back seat of a squad car.  They got him to a sitting position on the back seat, but that was as far as this man was willing to go.  He would not pull his legs from the ground, and he struggled as best he could, arms still restrained behind him.  There were three or four officers fighting to get him in.  One kicked at his legs, trying to get them in.  Then they backed off, and began to close the door on this man’s shins.  They hit his legs with the door.  Then, as that was not enough, multiple officers began pushing on the door, the gentleman’s legs caught between the door and the frame of the car, feet still hovering inches from the ground.  They repeated this maneuver, but to no avail.  At no time did they try to pull him in from the other side – the tactic that had worked previously.  They attempted to use pain to make this man submit.  None of it worked, and they backed off.

They kept him pinned to the back seat of the car, legs still hanging out.  It was at this point we saw an officer begin to move over him.  It was at this point we saw a red dot, much like that of a laser pointer, dance across his torso.  The officer moved over him more, blocking his torso, the red dot no longer visible.

And then we heard a noise.

I am in the process of contacting the authorities and the media about this.  I will keep readers of The Politic up to date, if they so desire.

Some Thoughts on the Proposed Anthem Amendment

• I unequivocally loathe the suggestion.
• Is the CPC conservative or not? If so, should not a “conservative” government act to conserve or preserve the nation’s traditions?
• Following the thought line of a National Post commenter, the vast majority of people who have served and laid down their lives for this country are male, they are the nation’s sons. The vast majority of those who will further serve and lay down their lives for this great nation are male, they are the nation’s sons.  Do we change the anthem because women are now more prominent in the military and are becoming battle casualties? Is this reason enough?
• Isn’t the whole thing a bit like straightening the deck chairs on the Titanic? I mean, we’re in the hole up to our nostrils, we continue to be taxed on birth, life and death, government is no smaller than it was five years ago, we still involved in war in Afghanistan, and we’ve got people suggesting we should add air pistols to the list of licensed firearms. There are a thousand higher priorities than fiddling with the anthem.
• Misplaced priorities aside, what is there to gain in this enterprise?  Was there some sort of national outcry over the anthem that I didn’t hear about?  Seems to me Canadians sang the living heck of our anthem for two weeks in February, to the point of being hoarse, with tears on our cheeks and pride in our hearts, all of us — male and female and the transgendered/unknown/confused/experimenting.  I didn’t see or hear any females, full or quasi, having identity crises or feeling somehow slighted and emotionally damaged by singing “in all Thy sons’ command.” Tinkering with the anthem is likely to create more headaches for government than having left it completely alone. It causes me to wonder who is the imbecile whispering these dumb suggestions in the PM’s ear? Or is it the man himself?
• Speaking of sexual identity, how far would the government have to go to make a phrase completely sex neutral? And what certainty do we have that whatever is contrived will stand the test of sexual identity evolution, which seems to result in another letter being appended to the acronym each and every year?
• Are there any truly sacred national icons or traditions?  Seriously.

Lions and Tigers and Budgets! Oh my!

I have to say that I was amused by the reactions of the various Opposition Leaders to yesterday’s Budget release when they came out of the House of Commons. Robert Fife and Craig Oliver seemed to have a fun time dealing with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe. In fact, I was stuck by the similarities between said leaders and the colourful cast of The Wizard of Oz.

The Cowardly Lion (played by Mr. Michael Ignatieff) – ‘This budget is so very terrible that we simply can’t stand to support this government! In fact, we are so unhappy with it, we’ll rrrruff, and we’ll rrrrrufff! and we will vote against it with at least fully half of our caucus!’

Yep. So instead of getting fully behind his rhetoric and getting his entire caucus to vote against the budget, he opts for the cowardly route. Not that I’m looking for an election or anything, since that would just be stupid on anyone’s part. But still, it makes you wonder if Mr. Ignatieff has spine enough to bring consensus to his caucus and have everyone of them move in lockstep. Judging by his previous courageous stands, well, I’m not going to hold my breath…

The Scarecrow (played by Mr. Jack Layton) – ‘Well look, see, there’s a lot of things I like in this budget that addresses some of our larger concerns, but we don’t want to think about that. Look at the things he’s doing that I don’t like!’

Right! The ‘If I only had a brain!’ argument! Jack Layton couldn’t decide what he was going to do about the Budget. Was he going to support it? Was he going to vote against it? Was he going to try and negotiate? Was he going to do anything? Mr. Layton just couldn’t decide! So instead, he’s going to take it to his caucus and tap into the power of loony-left-groupthink and come up with something outrageous.

The Tin Man (played by Mr. Gilles Duceppe) - ‘You see, I don’t care about the rest of Canada. I only heart Quebec. This budget does not do the things for the Quebec Nation that we want, so since we don’t get special treatment above and beyond the rest, we vote no.’

Thanks Gilles! I think we knew that the man with no heart for Canada wouldn’t support a budget that doesn’t try to bribe Quebec with the rest of the nation’s money.  How very predictable, but then we expect that from Mr. Duceppe…wait, was that a redundant observation? We expect predictability…? Anyway, back to navel-gazing for you Mr. Duceppe.

So in the end, while we got the usual reactions from the usual suspects, I was at least momentarily amused by them. Carry on carrying on boys!

Borrower-Friendly Mortgages and Mortgage Interest Deductibility:Two Key Differences

Harry Koza, from the Altantic Institute for Market Studies, does everyone a great service by summarizing the two major differences between US and Canadian borrowing/financial system.

Mr. Krugman states that Canada’s advantage has been in being stricter about limiting bank leverage, and that’s true. But he then blames Reagan-era deregulation for the “dangerously interesting” US banking system and suggests that the wild American banking mustangs must thus be broken to the regulatory bit.

The thing is, in his Keynesian enthusiasm, he is neglecting the most important qualities of the Canadian financial system, the things that really made the difference and account for the fact that we didn’t have a US-style housing collapse and have to bail out our entire banking system. The stuff he cites in his column is all correct, as far as it goes, but it’s just the feathers, not the chicken.

The first major difference between the US and Canada that Mr. Krugman neglects is that we do not have the perverse government-spawned incentive of mortgage interest deductibility.

[...]

The second big difference in Canada that Mr. Krugman neglects to consider is that our mortgage law is far more lender-friendly than that in the US, where it is far more borrower- friendly. We don’t have no-recourse loans where you can just mail in the keys on your underwater mortgage and walk away. And, more importantly, our lenders can much more easily act on their collateral.

« Previous Page