I understand these regulations. Many schools have children who can not afford to buy costumes. This makes the celebration an obvious demonstration of greedy one-up-manship that is not conducive to schooling.

To the parents that do not like these policies, I say: Too bad. Go to a different school or take your kids out of school all together.

I get annoyed when individual motivations are routinely reduced to some quack popular culture psychology. People are intelligent and do what they do for their own reasons.

The Russell Williams case, however, is a fascinating example of feigned moral sanity; a highly organized and respected Colonel who clearly had a lot of demons lurking in his closet.

How are we to speak of such individuals without laxing into the default rhetoric of some personality disorder or simply swearing them off as “monsters”?

Unfortunately for his victims, let alone the trajectory of his own life, Williams, like so many, allowed his pride to stand in the way of his repentence. And by that I mean we can readily assume he made compromises, compromises throughout his life he shouldn’t have made. He stood on the pretense of his ambition and ability when he should have been facing the darkness and taking out the trash.

It’s one thing to attribute individual behaviour to some psychiatric disorder, its quite another to speak to how individuals are capable of intelligently counteracting the pathology or onset of it.

A significant part of the tragedy here is that someone with so much promise could become such a monster. An important lesson, I suppose, that having a lot of ambition is not always a good thing, especially in the absense of a firm foundation of humility.

Why he did what he did is between Russell Williams and God, but in doing it he managed to hide who he was actually becoming from those who knew him best.

Now, granted, Russell Williams seems the text book definition of a sociopath; not too many can claim to have known him all that well, especially given what we now know. But what about his marriage?

From Macleans we learn that Williams confessed to make his wife’s life a little easier. As Friscolanti writes:

It was way too late, of course. His wife’s life was already shattered—solely because of him—and a belated burst of honesty wasn’t going to soften the shock. Her entire world was suddenly a lie. The man in her bed was someone else.

Later that night, the confessed killer wrote a note to his devastated spouse. “Dearest Mary Elizabeth,” it began. “I love you, Sweet [illegible]. I am so very sorry for having hurt you like this. I know you’ll take good care of sweet Rosie. I love you, Russ.”

Did he truly love her? Does he still? Can someone so absolutely evil—a man who sticks duct tape over a woman’s face, and films her last breath—be capable of love? A man who loves his wife doesn’t spend their wedding anniversary breaking into another woman’s house. A man who loves his wife doesn’t celebrate Valentine’s Day by trying to pry open a neighbour’s basement window.

And a man who loves his wife doesn’t sit at their home computer and watch video footage of Jessica Lloyd’s final few hours—knowing her heartbroken family is praying she walks through the door. “He would have absolutely no idea what the word love really means,” Debra Lloyd, Jessica’s aunt, said during Williams’s sentencing hearing last October. “He certainly couldn’t have loved any of his own family members, because now they have to live with his crimes and shame.”

No one more than Mary Elizabeth Harriman.

This raises an observation worth considering with repect to marriage and Williams relationship with his wife: is there love in the absense of an abiding responsibility for WHO YOU ARE and HOW who you are will effect WHO THE ONE YOU ARE WITH will become themselves?

The text book definition of eros, if there is one, is no. Love demands that we be genuine, that we do not hide who we are for the sake of using another toward some fraudulent end.

By his own admission, Williams felt some responsibility to make his wife’s life “a little easier,” but that amounts to very little by way of love given the enormity of his betrayal and deception.

I’m glad Friscolanti points this out because a large part of speaking clearly about moral sanity has to do with speaking clearly about love.

To borrow a quote from C.S. Lewis:

St Augustine defines virtue as ordo amoris, the ordinate condition of the affections in which every object is accorded that kind of degree of love which is appropriate to it. Aristotle says that the aim of education is to make the pupil like and dislike what he ought. When the age for reflective thought comes, the pupil who has been thus trained in ‘ordinate affections’ or ‘just sentiments’ will easily find the first principles in Ethics; but to the corrupt man they will never be visible at all and he can make no progress in that science. Plato before him had said the same. The little human animal will not at first have the right responses. It must be trained to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likeable, disgusting and hateful.

Speaking clearly about Russell Williams requires that we identify how a man with the pretense of great virtue is lacking where it matters most. It’s one thing to typecast him as a sociopath or a monster (monikers he deserves!), but we should not neglect how his great undoing could have been avoided by better choices to override his pride and ambition with some humility, by learning what it means to love.

The Canadian Wind Energy Association is disappointed that the Ontario government is stopping offshore wind farm developments but I am disappointed too. I would like to see people free to build their windmills on their own land (or water, depending on how pedantic the detractors need to be) and sell the electricity to the public. If the CanWEA folks have any real technology to offer, let them build it and sell their product without resorting to government privilege, favoritism nor subsidy.

The problem is not that the Ontario government put a moratorium on a wide range of technology. The problem is that the government controls entry into the market or electricity.

He’s right. Everything that people thinks sounds ridiculous actually happens in countries with government health care systems. He’s quite right. In the province of Quebec, for example, they tell doctors, “No, you can’t practice in Montreal, you have to go and practice up in Lac Saint Jean… because they need a doctor there.” He rightly identified, I think, what is at issue here, which is that once the government is responsible for your health care it licenses the government to regulate every aspect of your life because everything you do – what you eat! – impacts on your health.

Fast-forward four months, almost to the day. The KFC Double Down – with all its saucy, salty, chickeny, greasy, cheesy, bacaony goodness – officially lands in Canada, the Mecca of socialized health care, Trudeaupian cradle-to-grave Nanny Statism and government dependence. Almost immediately, as if on queue, governments are considering “investigating” the chicken sandwich, while some people are calling for government to protect us from corporations and sodium in general.

You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.

Protect us from the evil salty corporations, O Government!!

Consumer specialist Trevor Norris, a U of T professor who’s written a forthcoming book on corporate social responsibility, said he believes it’s time the government stopped leaving it up to the consumer entirely.

“We should be asking our government to protect us from corporations who are creating a major burden,” Norris said. Corporations, he argues, should not be free to pass the burden of future health-care expenses to taxpayers if a grossly unhealthy fast food product is wildly popular.

Investigate this sandwich of concern, O Government!!

The arrival of KFC’s 540-calorie Double Down sandwich has caught the attention of the Ontario government.

Health experts and nutritionists expressed concerns this week when KFC started selling the Double Down — two slabs of seasoned fried chicken sandwiching bacon, cheese and secret sauce — in Canada.

Health Promotion Minister Margarett Best was asked about the Double Down today, and said it was something the province could investigate.

The Double Down flies in the face of Canadian values, O Government!!

An initiative to put the pinch on global dietary salt intake would save Canadian health care systems alone billions in related costs.

That was the message delivered by the University of Calgary’s Dr. Norm Campbell on the eve of a two-day World Health Organization conference taking place in Calgary. [...]

As the Calgary conference kicked off, so too did the Canadian arrival of KFC’s Double Down sandwich – a bacon and cheese sandwiched between two pieces of boneless fried chicken which 1,740 mg of sodium.

Piazza said such a sandwich flies in the face of everything the Heart and Stroke Foundation is working to curb.

Which makes me say, based on pure principle of personal freedom, I’m getting me a KFC Double Down.

Here’s to you, Ronnie!

Update 1: Ontario backtracks.

Update 2: Peanuts. A concerned mother takes “reasonable accommodation” to the next level.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Education said that school boards are responsible for drafting the policies that govern teacher behaviour during school trips [, including what they eat during off hours in the teachers' cabin away from the kids, apparently. -ed]

Update 3: There are worse things than the Double Down.

Update 4: Double Down becomes KFC’s best-selling new item ever. Never forget, socialists: the consumer is king.

So the Toronto Police has managed, with overwhelming public support, to identify, locate and arrest 7 more criminals from the G20 Most Wanted List. They have assured the public that the search continues, and they will eventually track down and arrest everyone they are looking for.

So, the newly added names as of July 19th are:

Six men and a male youth are facing mischief charges in connection with property damage inflicting during G20 Summit protests last month….

…Andrew Loughrin, 23, of Toronto, Michael Corbett, 29, of Toronto, Brian O’Handley, 19, of Toronto and Robert Kainola, 24, of Toronto are each facing mischief charges.

Kurt Roarco, 22, of no fixed address is facing a mischief charge, an arson charge and failing to comply with probation.

Jeffrey Delaney, 23, of Toronto is facing a mischief charge and an attempted theft charge.

Of course, under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, anyone under the age of 18 can’t be named, hence the “youth”. Maybe I’m wrong, but if he/she is old enough to decide to take those kinds of actions on their own, they’re certainly “old enough” to deal with the publicity. They certainly weren’t shy about getting out in front of Toronto and the world and making asses of themselves.

This was in addition to arrests made on July 16th:

Police said Friday they have laid charges of assault, mischief and theft over $5,000 against Cody Caplette, 21, and Phillip Lee, 28. Both men are Toronto residents

And earlier:

Peter Hopperton is one of about 20 people identified as part of a police investigation into activities of people planning violent G20 action.

Police allege Hopperton is a member of the Southern Ontario Anarchist Resistance.

William Vandreil also got bail today, with his set at $50,000.

As well as this:

A man caught on tape damaging a police car was arrested July 14 after turning himself into police with his lawyer. He was one of six people identified after images of vandals were released on July 7. Three were identified within 12 hours.

Ashran Ravindhraj, 25, of Toronto, was charged with arson and two counts of mischief over $5,000 in relation to damage done to a police scout car on June 25.

I don’t know if these thugs truly appreciate how lucky they are that we live in a country that respects the rule of law, even if they do not. They are safe in our jails, they are safe from the public, and they are safe from vigilantes.

Now, I’m sure that in the days ahead we will hear all sorts of weepy, tear-jerking stories about how hard of a life these guys had. The “hug-a-thug” crowd will try to make a case that their anger and violent behaviour is actually the fault of society insofar that society as a whole has failed them and didn’t provide them with sufficient opportunity blah blah blah….pardon me while I puke.

Too harsh? I don’t think so. In fact, I think that’s part of the problem.

Too often we (the afore mentioned “society”), do not speak out hard or loud enough to condemn this kind of behaviour and give quarter and sufferance to those who would seek to place the blame anywhere but upon the shoulders of the individuals who made the choice to take the violent route, knowing full well that such behaviour is wrong. They’re not 2 year old infants who haven’t developed the reasoning skills necessary to determine the difference between right and wrong.

I’m all for throwing the book at them. Charge them, and if found guilty, punish them to the full extent of the law. The message needs to be sent loud and clear across the land: This kind of behaviour is unacceptable in this country, and those who engage in such lawless activities will face the full force of our justice system.

Contrary to popular belief (albeit with good reason through demonstration in recent history), our Justice System actually does have teeth. Unfortunately, thanks to the hug-a-thug loons out there, it’s considered uncivilized for it to bear it’s teeth and take a bite out of crime. No no no, we can’t have our justice system feared! How déclassé! To think that there are those who believe that criminals and deviants should fear the consequences of their actions! How barbaric! No no, let us take them into our arms, show them that they are loved and have value…[end sarc]… good lord, I think I’m going to puke again.

There is right, and there is wrong. Sure there’s shades of grey, but really, grey is still dirtier than white. There are also consequences for actions. These, dare I say men, knew that they were acting in the wrong and they need to know those consequences. I can’t dream of any excuse for what they and others did that day other than a desire to be violent.

I’m disgusted by their actions, nearly to the point of physical illness. And I’m not alone.

And really? What is it with Liberals and transportation?

Shall we review current and past events?

In what appears to be hilarious irony, The Liberal Express breaks down within the first hour of setting off on what the Liberals have been touting as the largest event a Leader of the Official Opposition has ever undertaken. Given their current polling numbers…..quite apropos.

In other transportation news, an oil tanker has lost some of it’s load, up to 200 tonnes it’s said, in the St Lawrence seaway. How is this related to Liberal Transportation you ask? The ship was part of the Canada Steamship Lines fleet. For those of you who’s ears don’t recognize the name, this is the fleet that is registered in the Bahamas and belongs to the family of Paul Martin. For shame! I fully expect the Liberals to be as vocal about environmental damage as they have been in other situations.

Then, under the “Head in the Sand (Ash?) Dept.”, several Liberal MP’s were “stranded” in Newfoundland back in April when the Airport decided to cancel morning flights as ash from Iceland’s Eyjafjoell volcano was predicted to arrive. They began to cover their tracks by suggesting there was a conspiracy involved. It was found out that in light of the planned cancellations, additional earlier flights were provided. Tsk tsk tsk.

In 2008, then Leader of the Official Opposition Stephane Dion had a little trouble with transportation. It seems the Liberals were unprepared for an election they were so busy preparing for. When the time came, poor Mr. Dion was unable to acquire a plane to bring him around the country. When he was finally able to get one from Air Inuit, it turned out to be a massive gas guzzler that cost the party between $18,000 and $20,000 an hour to fly, and was 35 per cent less efficient than the Conservative and NDP planes. To top it all off, this was the launch of the Green Tax Tour.

Maybe it (LPC) just needs a jump-start?

More likey, it just needs a casket.

Similar laws are pending in Belgium, Spain and some Italian municipalities.

Is this the way the wind is beginning to blow in Western Societies? I’m both encouraged and dismayed if this is true. Not specifically about the veils, but rather by the attitudes behind it.

As far as being encouraged goes, I’m pleased to see countries and societies standing up for their own way of life and culture and protecting it from being trampled over by the stampede of Cultural (Reasonable) Accommodation.  I’ve previously discussed this issue in other aspects here, and here.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The reason why so many people want to come to Canada is because it was such a wonderful, stable, and respectful country. We had clear values and respect for one another’s differences. What brought us to that status was a legacy inherited from Britain and France of a predominately Christian philosophy and a structured but flexible legal system based on basic Christian values.

Just as Quebec and France and other countries have been trying to do, I agree that if faced with protecting my culture (which is what has made Canada for example, a wonderful place to live and why people want to come here) that there should be conditions upon migrating to my country.

Foremost, I want to ensure that migrants understand that when they come to Canada, it is to pursue a better life in a Canadian manner, not to seek to rebuild the country in an image of how they would have rather seen their country of origin under those cultural rules.

Increasingly, other countries are saying ‘We are not some place to be considered a tolerant blank-slate-state that you can come in and change to suit your own beliefs’.

I say that there is nothing wrong with this.

I appreciate the differences that other cultures and individuals bring with them, but I recognize that not all of it can, or should be tolerated in Canada. (see Sharia Law, Honor “Crimes”,  etc). Those things are not Canadian and have no place in Canadian Society or Culture. Time and again, I’ve seen other countries stomp on those who say “In my country…” with an immediate and sometimes hostile “You are not in your country!”.

Why are we in Western Societies so afraid to do the same? Is this some form of White Guilt/Wealth Guilt/Survivor Guilt etc? Are we so ashamed of our own cultures and ways of life that we are unwilling as citizens to stand up and defend it?

And why should I be dismayed by this? Frankly, I’m dismayed that there is only a small handful of countries getting on board with protecting themselves and their own ways of life and culture from outside influences.

Personally, I’m willing to say “This is my country and my way of life and my home. If you choose to come to live in my house, there are different rules you’ll have to live by. If that’s unacceptable to you, then I respectfully suggest you find someplace else more to your liking.”

And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Many people have lists of things they would like to achieve or do in their lifetimes, more commonly known recently as a Bucket List. Most people include things that they’re fully aware may only ever have a remote chance of happening. For me, meeting Her Majesty was one of those remote happenings. Now, thanks to my political activism and dedication through the opportunities provided to me, I have achieved exactly that. And I couldn’t be more thrilled about it.

The evening itself however, endured a dubious start. A transformer in the downtown core of Toronto chose that evening to fail, and the entire downtown core fell into darkness. This included the Fairmont Royal York Hotel where Her Majesty’s Reception and Dinner were to take place. Traffic was a nightmare when combined with those converging on the Royal York to hopefully catch a glance of the Royal Tour and no traffic signals to control the flows. Inside the hotel, with 38 degree weather outside, the temperatures began to rise without air-conditioning and the Salon in which the Reception was taking place was dimly lit by emergency lighting. Whether it was due to the excitement of the event, or because of a kind of patience and understanding inherent in Canadians, everyone took it in stride and when the power was finally restored, there was simply a sigh of relief and a smattering of applause as the lights came on and the groan of the air-conditioners began.

It was during the Reception that I had the fortune to meet up with fellow Blogging Torries Roy Eapen of Dr. Roy’s Thoughts, Steve Laikos of Officially Screwed, and Matt MacGuire of A Step To The Right.

I was also pleased to meet Mark Dotzert, Kara Johnson and Simon Chapelle of our National Council, Senator Mike Duffy, Olympic Champion Jennifer Heil, Ministers Jason Kenney, Rob Moore and Rona Ambrose and many others of whom I had either known before or had the privilege of meeting for the first time.

I was delighted when I learned that we would be individually presented to the Queen, His Royal Highness, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his wife Laureen Harper. When my name was announced, I’m sure the pleasure I was experiencing was evident on my face, but I also know that I wasn’t alone. Each of them offered their hand which I took in amazement. This was an honour to which there can hardly be any comparison. As with all moments of staggering importance, it was over far too quickly and seemed a bit of a blur, but it was time to be ushered to my table by a charming and engaging woman with the Royal Tour.

I knew one person at my table, Steve Laikos, who I had met briefly at the National Convention, but everyone at the table was charming and talkative. When the Queen was announced, the room thundered with applause that seemed more than what a room of 350 people could manage. There were a few speeches, a presentation of a new addition to the Hockey Hall of Fame in honour of a previous visit by the Queen and an address by Her Majesty as well. The applause during her entrance was humbled by the sound when Prime Minister Harper announced that Canadians were particularly looking forward to Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012 by which time she’ll have served as Queen of Canada for 60 years!

At somewhere around what I believe was 10pm, the Queen gracefully retired for the evening after a wonderful performance by The Canadian Tenors and proceedings were brought to a close. Many people stayed for a time visiting with one another and discussing the privilege of the evening we all shared while taking a few pictures for posterity.

It was a singular event of magic and elegance; everything an evening with the Queen aught to be, and it is a night I will never forget!

If anything is more misguided and unnecessary than the recent G20 Summit itself, it’s the decision to hold an independent inquiry into police actions that weekend.

A thousand arrests, 263 charged, no one seriously hurt, no police brutality, a serene citizenry, vandalism but no violence.  Forget about it.

Oh, the civil liberties activists have their shorts in a knot, but they always do. Ignore them. As for “violence” and “rioting” on Toronto streets during the G20, that’s hyperbole and wishful thinking.

…

To suggest there was police brutality is again wishful thinking by those who yearn for substance to malign the cops. Yes, some cops over-reacted, or questioned people unnecessarily. Or searched the wrong bag. Or questioned identities…

Or stole an amputee’s prosthetic leg.

Or threatened women with rape.

Or imprisoned people without cause.

Or struck non-violent protesters with batons and shields.

Or beat up a journalist.

But I guess that’s just wishful thinking.  Move along.  Nothing to see here.

Can you guess what I’m wishing now, Mr. Worthington?

For Tory, the larger issue was fairness. Insofar as Catholic denominational schools receive public funding to the exclusion of other denominational schools in Ontario, it made sense to Tory as a matter of equality, as it did to some others, that if one religion enjoyed the privilege of public funding, then so should all other religions.

We know how the story ends. The controversial denominational schools issue felled Tory’s campaign from the very beginning. McGuinty was reelected. And Tory ultimately resigned, ceding the party flag to the current Ontario Conservative leader, Tim Hudak.

The bottom line is this: Ontarians voted against Tory on this issue. And no one can gainsay the freely expressed choice of Ontarians. They, and only they, can choose their representatives in the Ontario legislature.

So according to Ontarians, the answer is clear: John Tory was wrong.

But according to the United Nations, John Tory was right.

In the case of Waldman v. Canada, the United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled that Ontario’s policy of extending public funding to one denominational school without funding all others is a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right to “equal and effective protection against discrimination.” Here is the relevant passage from the full text of the ruling:

[T]he proclaimed aims of the system do not justify the exclusive funding of Roman Catholic religious schools. … In this context, the Committee observes that the Covenant does not oblige [Ontario] to fund schools which are established on a religious basis. However, if [Ontario] chooses to provide public funding to religious schools, it should make this funding available without discrimination. This means that providing funding for the schools of one religious group and not for another must be based on reasonable and objective criteria. In the instant case, the Committee concludes that the material before it does not show that the differential treatment between the Roman Catholic faith and the [Petitioner's] religious denomination is based on such criteria. Consequently, there has been a violation of the [Petitioner's] rights under article 26 of the Covenant to equal and effective protection against discrimination.

Perhaps John Tory can take solace in the knowledge that the United Nations thinks he was right after all.

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal MP – it’s the bloody patriarchy, stupid!

There is a huge misconception that these crimes occur because of certain religious beliefs. There is no religion that condones the murder of women. It’s the feudal/patriarchal culture of male dominance and control that’s the culprit.

Dr. Amin Muhammad, Professor of Psychiatry at Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador – it’s not just Islam, stupid!

While many recent cases in Western society involve Muslims, Dr. Muhammad said honour killings have also been committed in the name of Hinduism, Sikhism and Christianity.

To which I say: While it may be true that “honour killings have also been committed in the name of Hinduism, Sikhism and Christianity,” the numbers pale in comparison to the thousands of females murdered each year around the world in the name of Islam for the sake of family honour.

United Nations Population Fund:

Throughout the world, perhaps as many as 5,000 women and girls a year are murdered by members of their own families, many of them for the “dishonour” of having been raped, often as not by a member of their own extended family.

It is dishonest at best to survey the numbers of honour murders committed by Muslims, along with the allowances for honour murder within the legal structures of Islamic nations, such as Syria, Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan, which can be seen as a tacit endorsement of the practice, and then suggest equivalency among faiths when a handful of honour murders are committed by members of other faiths. Honour murder is a much greater problem for Islam than it is for other faiths and it is ludicrous to even suggest otherwise.

As for endorsement within religious texts, Dosanjh and Muhammed are correct that no religion condones honour murder per se, but they should have been more careful to point out the caveats under Islam that have led to the widespread acceptance of honour murder within Islamic tradition. As an example, Christianity, the faith I know best, provides no justification whatsoever to murder one’s own children or one’s wife, whereas the Qur’an Sura 18 arguably allows for the killing of children not even your own as long as you’ve accurately determined a child will grow up as a non-believer. (How that determination is made, I have no clue.)

Does honour murder occur in other faiths? Yes. Under which faith is it most prevalent, by far? Islam. Which nations tacitly endorse the practice through caveats of law? Islamic nations. That’s the point that must be accepted before reform can be realized, and it’s the critical point that Dosanjh and others prefer to gloss over to our collective detriment.

I credit Dosanjh in one respect, though; his reference to the role political correctness in shaping the response to honour murder.

… political correctness prevents us from demanding that the cultural norms that justify such heinous practices as honour killings have no place anywhere in the world. We must never be too sensitive to call a spade a spade.

As if on cue, some on the pro-dhimmi side are already suggesting Canadian judges should take “cultural practices,” such as honour killing, into consideration out of respect for (I say genuflection at the altar of) multiculturalism. Scaramouche, via Mark Steyn:

John Oakley is seriously entertaining the question of whether Canadian judges should give those who commit “honour” killings a break because they have different “cultural practices” and may not be aware of our norms and laws; defence attorney Lawrence Ben-Eliezer thinks judges should  take these differences into consideration because we have “multiculturalism”.

Canadians, of course, are already aware of what “taking these differences into consideration” means: preferential treatment of en vogue “victim” groups of the political left. What Canadians are less aware of, in my opinion, is the tangible threat posed to Western society by ardent multiculturalism, our Achilles heel.

So a story was released on Sunday regarding online facts vs ‘misinformation’. Apparently the Federal Government is looking at means to fight misinformation (and sometimes outright lies) in online forums such as Facebook Groups and Comment Sections:

The government is looking for ways to monitor online chatter about political issues and correct what it perceives as misinformation….

…The seal hunt pilot project was set up in part “to establish foundations and recommendations for future programs and campaigns to use social media as another way to listen to, inform and engage with Canadians”

Right off the top, those of us experienced in Blogging and Commenting online about various issues know that there are those out there who will immediately assume that this will be nothing more than a propaganda machine for the government in power. Having read through the comments of the story, I’m sorry to say that I wasn’t disappointed in my expectation.

Now in all fairness, this could very well be true. The potential for abuse and propaganda peddling is self-evident. However, I believe that those who will be most threatened by this, are those who intentionally misrepresent information, stories and facts in order to further their own personal agenda. I also believe that those who shout loudest about Big Brother et al. are those who have the most to lose if a Federal Representative were to intrude upon their rant with actual facts (and in this statement, I’m assuming that only facts are what will be posted). Such comments/replies will of course become subject to ridicule and further attack.

On the bright side, this is also a government who is recognizing that as more and more Canadians resort to online forums of all sorts to obtain their information, they too will have to go where the people are. Provided that it’s “just the facts ma’am“, and rhetoric and propaganda are left at the door so-to-speak, then I believe that this is truly a responsible proposal.

With Governments falling victim to shoddy “Gotcha!” reporting tactics where the Headline and By-line are far more important than the actual facts and issues at hand (not to mention the importance or lack thereof), misinformation is spreading like wildfire among the populace. The natural reaction of any responsible government would be to take advantage of any means by which to provide factual information wherever possible.

As someone who is more interested in facts and truth, I wouldn’t mind in the least if a member of the Federal Government were to show up and post corrections on something I had written online. If I disagreed, I would be able to challenge them directly, visibly, for all to see, and then be proven right or wrong. Again: Publicly. Visibly. I have no issues with this, and in fact, encourage it.

So the Pros and Cons? On the pro side, it engages people with their government, and facts can be set straight. A laudable and credible endeavour. It may also create a pressure for commentators and authors to clearly state that this is ‘their opinion‘ and that it ‘should not be taken as fact.’ On the con side, if abused, it will only serve to forever widen the gap between the Government and Public Trust. The danger of this can not be over-emphasized, and should the Federal Government embark on this initiative on a larger scale, they absolutely must do so responsibly with an eye to the public good and stick to the facts.

Thus far, in the world of privacy, when a company oversteps its hand…

What?  How do you overstep you overstep your hand, doing a crab walk?  Usually, I wouldn’t bring attention to such a massacred metaphor, but it’s a pretty good demonstration of the level of quality of the post.

So, what, you may ask, is the point of the post?  As far as I can tell, Ms. Boyd is claiming that Facebook is – and wants to be – a utility, and, consequently, it will get regulated.  She supports the argument by writing that Facebook is a utility, and utilities get regulated.  She further supports the claim by arguing that Facebook is a util… well, you get the picture.  From what I understand, the definition of utility is “something you use a lot and then gets regulated”.

(By the way, she doesn’t really say this is a bad thing.  She seems to generally dislike regulations, but she likes governments threatening regulations.)

In the comments, one reader brings up the idea of Facebook as a public good (which it isn’t, but almost is).  Here’s the thing about the post and this accompanying comment.  They talk about utilities and public goods.  As with many discussions of such topics, they keep using these words.  I do not think the words mean what they think they mean.

It’d be really nice if people who continuously talk about “public goods” would actually bother to learn what the term means.  It does not mean, “I’d like the government to pay for anything that I think is really imporant”.  Hell, if it does, then the complete series of The Wire is a public good.

I’ll expect my copy to arrive in the mail soon.

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!

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.

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.

It’s obviously no secret, and isn’t really news anymore that Mr. Williams chose to leave the country to obtain surgical services he claims were not available in Canada. I honestly don’t know the truth of that, but I do question it.

His defense? “It’s my health and it’s my choice.”

You know what? I agree. Yes, I agree with Danny Williams. My problem though, is that there are few other Canadians (Newfoundlander’s notwithstanding) who have that choice. Why? Because they can’t afford it.

And that leads me to the point of this post. I don’t think we should be demonizing Mr. Williams for taking that choice. In fact, I think we should be unabashedly using him as a prime example of how a Public/Private Health Care System could work.

Mr. Williams is a perfect example of how someone who has the means can take advantage of a private health care provider’s services without taking up space in the public ‘queue’ as it were. He can certainly afford the higher costs associated with such care, and in his own words, he was only doing what was best for him. Fabulous!

Unfortunately, there are many others who can, and exponentially more who can’t. For those who can, why can’t they get that service in Canada? Why do they have to take their money and spend it outside the country? And even then, that’s assuming they do. For the rest of those who can’t, they have to wait behind those in front of them ‘in line’. Those who if they had the option in Canada, might not be there at all, thereby shortening the lines.

So, what’s the problem? Why can’t we perform more procedures in Canada in order to lower the wait times? It’s called Salary Caps ladies and gentlemen. Something that isn’t as harshly mandated in the United States where physicians are allowed to earn more.

As I understand it, once a Canadian physician earns up to their “cap” anything they do after that is pro bono, assuming they choose to work for free. I don’t know many people who would work for say, half a year at their job for pay, and then volunteer their time and skills for the second half of the year. Would you?

What I see as a solution, is to remove Salary Caps on a private service care/practices and allow them to earn as much as they care to work for here in Canada, but require them to provide a certain number of hours in the public system while continuing the current limits in Public Care earnings.

Basically, let them work in the public system and collect up to the maximum allowed under the Canadian Public Health Care System, and then allow them to continue to earn additional wages in the private sector.

That kind of opportunity would draw more doctors to Canada instead of the reverse, and allow them to provide more care on a continuing basis to more people over longer periods of time as well as reducing the backlogs.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

—————————————————————————————–

Further this post from this story:

Updated 4:30pm – Feb 23/10

“This was my heart, my choice and my health,”

“I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics.”

“I wanted to get in, get out fast, get back to work in a short period of time,”

“If I’m entitled to any reimbursement from any Canadian health care system or any provincial health care system, then obviously I will apply for that as anybody else would,”

“But I wrote out the cheque myself and paid for it myself and to this point, I haven’t even looked into the possibility of any reimbursement. I don’t know what I’m entitled to, if anything, and if it’s nothing, then so be it.”

That’s just dandy Mr. Williams. While you may have the means to simply write a cheque without worrying if you’re entitled to any reimbursement, very few other average Canadians share that same laissez-faire approach. And I’m definitely certain that you’re not alone in wanting to get in and out and back to work as soon as possible, you’re exploiting an option that most Canadians don’t have.

Perhaps you aught to advocate bringing these choices to Canada. Put your mouthiness to good use and you might actually earn some conservative forgiveness from the rest of the country. Not, I’m likely to believe, that you’re looking for it…

Once again, we’re not seeing a whole lot of press about what was such a big deal in the past. Maybe someone will pick up the ball on this one, but I’m not holding my breath.

Still, not such a good day for Elections Canada who has stated it will review the ruling before deciding whether or not to appeal.

Speaking of W., I have to agree with a friend who stated that, love him or hate him, the former President defined this decade more so than any US leader has since Eisenhower. It’s hard to believe how different things would be today had Al Gore won the 2000 election and been responsible for the US reaction to 9-11, the CO2 scare and everything else that transpired in the years between then and now. While Barack Obama currently occupies the office, he runs the risk of being a bookend between Bush Jr. and the emerging trends that will define the 45th President up.

Now for the big so what, a collection of brief, but pointed predictions on how history will be defined by this period.

First and foremost, I think its clearly emerging, albeit while most of us blissfully ignore it, that the United States is a spent cause as a superpower. Like Great Britain, it will continue to have moderate, regional influence, but historians could find a fair argument in the self-destructive and, more lately, apathetic tendencies of America over the past 50 years finally coming home to roost at the start of the 21st century. 9-11 was merely a painful symptom, but there was already warning signs when President Bush found few allies internationally who were willing to enter into legitimate cooperation with him in the first eight months of his presidency; this included former Cold War allies, and more recent friends who became used to Bill Clinton’s style of glad-handing and saw the US as just another guy in the room. In the near future, the realization will come through a reflex recession that will clearly establish Asia and Europe as the new power blocs, although the the former is prone to local instability that could shift the balance of power further.

Culturally, there isn’t much to say as there isn’t much to work with. In an era where most folks invest so much in gratification, there isn’t very far to go down, but only because we’re extremely deep to begin with. Be it iPods, or Twitter, or other tools and inventions that will define this decade, it very telling to see just how shallow our society has become. If our world ever became rough and difficult again, the people will certainly look upon an event like our 2004 election in Canada much in the same way that we look upon the story of the Roman horse who would be senator — in both cases, with both societies, the suggestion that the luxuries and liberties enjoyed by both groups of people were far from deserved would be fair comment. As if we had nothing better to define our society by. Even still, Paul Martin was no Caligula.

Finally, there are the small seeds that got planted this decade that will only come into full blossom in the years to come, though they provide a warning to the wise who chose to heed their warnings. For the academic community, living the good life off the public dime currently, the upcoming baby boom crash (when all those boomers will want extensive health care and living costs paid for through social programs) will only serve as the final straw to drastically undo the entire scholarship system as we know it. As climategate showed us just recently, there is enough membership among the public that is willing to criticize the academy if given the excuse and hiding inconvenient truths as the recipients of many a public grant for climate change research did will only serve to speed up the drying up of the fiscal well. For what it’s worth, the militant evolutionists should also take heed, especially if they too have been tampering with the evidence and employing bullying tactics as it has been suggested over the last 24 months. Continually insulting the intelligence of the voting public might make you feel smug, but it’s not good for the long-term survival of your research projects.

Education will also yield drastic results on a more direct level in the coming decades as the western world starts be overwhelmed by Indian, Japanese, Chinese and eastern European graduates who have learned more, in less time and now do more for less cash. The white collar world is in for a bit of a shock if it thinks that university degrees somehow make one immune from what has been rolling through the industrial marketplace recently. To it’s credit, North America has tons of land and natural resources that will keep some of us employed, but not everybody. If we want to compete in the economy of tomorrow, abandoning rigid standards in favour of promoting students’ self-esteem (as Ontario has been doing recently) will only lead us to serious decline, the likes of which our fair country hasn’t seen yet.

If there is to be hope though, it is that the CFL in general has been doing well as far as revenue and attendance goes, with the 2009 season easily being the best in over 20 years. For the good folks of Saskatchewan, the Roughriders seem poised to add another Grey Cup championship to the team’s credit over the coming 10 years — maybe more. The stage is set, now we just need the snow to melt! Happy New Year everyone!

Conservatives, writes Scrutton, “recognize that social order is hard to achieve and easy to destroy, that it is held in place by discipline and sacrifice, and that the indulgence of criminality and vice is not an act of kindness but an injustice for which all of us will pay,” adding that:

Conservatives therefore maintain severe and — to many people — unattractive attitudes. They favor retributive punishment in the criminal law; they uphold traditional marriage and the sacrifices that it requires; they believe in discipline in schools and the value of hard work and military service. They believe in the family and think that the father is an essential part in it. They see welfare provisions as necessary, but also as a potential threat to genuine charity, and a way both of rewarding antisocial conduct and creating a culture of dependency. They value the hard-won legal and constitutional inheritance of their country and believe that immigrants must also value it if they are to be allowed to settle here. Conservatives do not think that war is caused by military strength, but on the contrary by military weakness, of a kind that tempts adventurers and tyrants. And a properly ordered society must be prepared to fight wars — even wars in foreign parts — if it is to enjoy a lasting peace in its homeland. In short conservatives are a hard and unfriendly bunch who, in the world in which we live, must steel themselves to be reviled and despised by all people who make compassion into the cornerstone of the moral life.

In contrast, liberals, according to Scrutton, “are of course very different.” How so? In Scrutton’s own words:

They see criminals as victims of social hierarchy and unequal power, people who should be cured by kindness and not threatened with punishment. They wish all privileges to be shared by everyone, the privileges of marriage included. And if marriage can be reformed so as to remove the cost of it, so much the better. Children should be allowed to play and express their love of life; the last thing they need is discipline. Learning comes — didn’t Dewey prove as much? — from self-expression; and as for sex education, which gives the heebie-jeebies to social conservatives, no better way has ever been found of liberating children from the grip of the family and teaching them to enjoy their bodily rights. Immigrants are just migrants, victims of economic necessity, and if they are forced to come here illegally that only increases their claim on our compassion. Welfare provisions are not rewards to those who receive them, but costs to those who give — something that we owe to those less fortunate than ourselves. As for the legal and constitutional inheritance of the country, this is certainly to be respected — but it must “adapt” to new situations, so as to extend its protection to the new victim class. Wars are caused by military strength, by “boys with their toys,” who cannot resist the desire to flex their muscles, once they have acquired them. The way to peace is to get rid of the weapons, to reduce the army, and to educate children in the ways of soft power. In the world in which we live liberals are self-evidently lovable — emphasizing in all their words and gestures that, unlike the social conservatives, they are in every issue on the side of those who need protecting, and against the hierarchies that oppress them.

Two questions occur to me. The first is quite simply whether these are accurate representations of conservative and liberal ideology, or whether they are more correctly viewed as caricatures.

Yet there is a second, and more interesting, question. If we assume that Scrutton is correct in his description of conservatives and liberals–and I hesitate to make that assumption because I believe his descriptions leave much to be desired–what does it mean to call oneself a moderate?

When someone calls herself a moderate, is she standing on firm, principled and defensible ground? What values does she claim as hers?

When someone says he is a moderate, does that evoke a refrain as familiar as the one that comes to mind when someone calls herself a conservative, or another calls himself a liberal?

These are difficult questions that require us to peer inward at our own convictions and also to cast our gaze outward at how political ideology is framed and subsequently perceived in public discourse.

But the agency insisted Rachel couldn’t prove she was supporting her children — she didn’t have enough receipts — so she had to stop claiming them as dependents. A few weeks ago she paid back $1,438 (plus penalties and interest!) on that issue.

Way to go, IRS. You did an investigation likely costing tens of thousands of dollars (counting both sides). To squeeze a grand out of a single mom who did nothing wrong.

A thoughtful study will first begin to consider if things can get worse though, which in the case of Toronto’s boatmen can’t be a distant possibility. Within 35 years, the Argos have gone from being one of only two pro sports teams in Toronto (and exclusive owners of the summer sports season) to being the poor cousin at a table that includes baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer and, most recently, another team, albeit inferior, which plays football encroaching on the Argo’s turf.

Geography isn’t helping the franchise as the downtown SkyDome is largely inaccessible to out-of-towners who can’t rely on the GO system (which is now literally designed for the ACC teams) and more an artifact of the past than a central landmark. Moving to the new BMO Field would bring the Argos back to their old stomping grounds (literally, given the site once housed Exhibition Stadium), but with Toronto FC already occupying the residence and the same accessibility issues for the demographics that the Argos need to attract, it’s important for the team to recognize that the site isn’t the same place it was 20 years ago.

The deeper one analyzes the team’s problems, which are shared with the fellow poor-attendance-last-in-the-division Blue Jays, the more one concludes that Toronto is still a remarkable city with different pockets of different interests, and the old city may not be the best place to set up shop for such a sport. The Bills generated excitement at first, but the new kid on the block always gets some extra attention that quickly fades with time (as it is with the plagued NFL team).

Demographically and geographically speaking, with Old Toronto being a burden, the old North York area might just solve the Argo ills perfectly. First, it’s more central than the downtown is, giving easier access to the CFL-less 519 and 705 regions, as well as York Region; parking is cheaper and more readily available, and in York University, the team would have a reliable partner with a young football base to grow the attendance rate with (the Calgary Stampeders, Saskatchewan Roughriders, Montreal Alouettes have similar deals with their local schools); sharing a football field with another football team is always easier than mixing with a baseball or soccer club. Demographically, the Argos have the same problem the NDP has: their fanbase is predominantly white and growing grey. This doesn’t need to be as York is proving: northern Toronto has a large group of football fans who, unfortunately, are more interested in the NFL right now and frankly too poor to pay the extravagant prices that playing in the SkyDome forces the CFL team to charge. Moving to a closer, cheaper location makes the game more accessable to what are very persuadable football fans.

On a final note, the Argonauts aren’t going to solve all their ills with a change in postal code; the team was still the only franchise this year that everyone knew wasn’t going to make the playoffs by August. It’s a building season for the boatmen unlike one they’ve experienced since ending their long, three-decade drought back in 1983. Such seasons are necessary for all franchises from time to time, but they’re also the most dangerous for the team’s long-term interests. Strong teams in Ottawa and Montreal have folded under more optimistic scenarios, and die-hard football fans in Hamilton almost lost their team back in the mid-90s. Toronto isn’t as fortunate as the team isn’t seen as pivotal to Toronto’s makeup any longer, except to the CFL itself. That’s why, as much as the Argos need a move to start recruiting fans again, they also need some good management to properly steer the team (be a Jason, if you will!) to at least a playoff appearance or two within the next few years. Lowering costs and distance help to get fans into the stands, but giving them something worth seeing is the only way to keep them there!

At National Post‘s Full Comment, Adrian McNair (who also blogs at Unambiguously Ambidextrous) comes to Mr. Urquhart’s defense.

I take the opposite stance – as does Mr. Urquahrt; he’s since apologized – and explain all the ways Mr. Urquhart’s comment was unbecoming and offensive over at my blog, Canned Goods and Ammunition.

The political culture is such that we are subjects of a massive state apparatus and comforted with infinite means to entertain ourselves, but why such little appreciation for the responsibilities that come with citizenship? with looking out for your own self-interest, especially in the community where you live? taking pride in your own capacity for self-governance?

Such prison policy is bearing fruit south of the border and it is rotten! … Reform is needed, and as the New York Times reports, it’s becoming a bipartisan issue.

I watched Gran Torino for the first time last night. Great movie!

There is a scene in Gran Torino where Clint Eastwood’s character, Walt, is asked why he didn’t call the police instead of confronting a gang outside his house. Walt’s response, “Well you know, I prayed for them to come but nobody answered. … when things happen quickly like that, you have to react.”

When faced with any individual or social “problem,” be it crime, the need for some agent of welfare, or even some public works project or another, we need to consider how civil society engenders a much larger definition than Big Government prefers to accommodate. Big Government is not the natural result of civil society, rather, Big Government is what Max Weber called an “iron cage,” and we require a responsible citizenry to moderate its role in civil society.

Consider what John von Heyking writes in his insightful review of “It’s the Regime, Stupid! A Report From the Cowboy West on Why Stephen Harper Matters:”

And so Canadians have come to view their sovereign as the agent of “gift giving,” … This decadent regime has been rendered possible by a decadent Christian culture that has forgotten the distinction between compassion, which benefits bureaucrats (because the purpose of compassion is to feel good about oneself), and caritas, for which the language of costs and benefits are irrelevant (because the purpose of caritas is love for another). Subjects of the modern regime need to balance their interest-calculation with some pride, which Cooper describes as a “something that you hold on to without qualification as to whether it is in your interest to do so – otherwise there would be no ‘you’ to have an interest.” …

In other words, too many take Big Government to be the default solution to whatever ails them. And yet, there is no virtue, no individual dignity to be gained, in not taking responsibility for your own life.

Parks Canada wants a home where buffalo can roam. They’ve got their eyes on scenic Banff, Alta., but the Alberta government is cool to the idea.

The recently released draft of the Banff National Park Management Plan calls for the reintroduction of a breeding herd of plains bison into the front ranges of the park.

Park officials say the idea essentially is to complete efforts to bring back large species native to the Banff region, which was home ground for massive herds of bison for thousands of years following the end of the last ice age.

The province of Alberta isn’t so bullish:

Dave Ealey, spokesman for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, said the province is concerned bison would wander out of the national park.

“Bison, of course, would not end up confining themselves to a national park and that would create fairly significant management issues for us,” he said.

Mr. Ealey said reintroducing bison into Banff would have impacts on the province’s elk population, raise concerns for public safety and affect outdoor recreation.

I’m not exactly sure where to come down on this, so I thought I’d throw this out to the readers of ThePolitic; I know a lot of you are from Alberta.  Personally, I’m inclined to think it’s a well intentioned but ultimately misguided idea… that will no doubt waste a lot of money.

Of course, if we’re not going to be wasting it on the gun registry any longer, we might as well waste it on Bison.

First, I hear that Unsteady Eddy managed a 77% leadership approval tonight in Alberta, and that many APCs who are loyal to Stelmach believe that this puts the wind at their backs. Well, we here in Ontario made a similar mistake not so long ago too, and my warning to my Alberta cousins is that if you don’t correct the leadership problem, the electorate has a way of doing it for you!

Next, I won’t go into details here for obvious reasons except to say that my poor Hyundai Accent was hit on the driver’s side yesterday by someone who was running late to take a relative to get an H1N1 shot — now I know there’s been some sniping from both sides over the shot recently, but as at least one victim of the panic caused by this disease, I strongly urge everyone to calm down! Nothing circumvents road safety and it’s better to arrive late to an appointment than not at all!

On the bright side, the Accent protected me extremely well, and as much as I already loved my little Korean car, I’m extremely amazed by it now and highly endorse it to everyone out there. On the not-so-bright side, since yesterday I’ve witnessed about 20 separate cars in Waterloo region driving with downright criminal insanity (and I have passenger witnesses for these too!) — a car that almost clipped over a motorcycle in order to do a sharp 10 degree turn into the lane three spaces over; another bozo leaving the local Costco by pulling up to the right turn-only lane and then clipping a van in order to drive straight through into the parking lot across the way; and, the worst was my girlfriend and I seeing a car literally staring at us across the Westmount and University intersection tonight, attempting to turn righ (yes, it was driving in the wrong direction and would have to cut across the three eastbound lanes to do so). Perhaps it’s time to review just how flexible our licensing system is, given the responsibility of operating such a dangerous machine.

At least I end this week on a happy note, well…other than a surprise run-in to Christian Conservative today. Anyway, the Saskatchwan Roughriders, breaking a 33-year drought, become the CFL’s Western Division’s first place, regular season team this year. Congrats to the green Riders for a wonderful season, and a well-earned by next week. Being from Hamilton, and having a father who is a die-hard tabby fan, I can only hope that the Tiger Cats get their home field advantage for the next week tomorrow, and to see them in the Grey Cup this year.

The Eighth in a Series of Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

“Not Left. Not Right. Moving Forward.” That is the slogan that greets all visitors to Martha Hall Findlay’s website. It’s easy to write off that greeting as mere political rhetoric, empty words, or, as we say in my native French, la langue de bois.

They may indeed be empty words when spoken by most politicians but they aren’t when spoken by Hall Findlay. (Or at least I would like to think they aren’t!)

Proof positive is the text of the interview that follows below. Hall Findlay, as you will read, appears genuinely interested both in inviting and engaging in constructive dialogue. Whether ideas trace their origin to the left or to the right does not seem to matter to her as much as whether those ideas can lead to better solutions to enduring problems.

Why can’t we have more people like her in Parliament?

There is much to find compelling about Hall Findlay. A quick look through her life’s work will show you why. Championship skier, distinguished graduate of the University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall, attorney at a high-powered international law firm here, corporate executive there, 2006 Liberal leadership contender, and now Member of Parliament for Willowdale—all while raising three children, aged 24, 26, and 28. To describe all of that as impressive might be the understatement of the year.

What impresses me most about Hall Findlay, though, is a certain quality she possesses, one that eludes most people in her current line of work: authenticity.

Some are eloquent, some have great organizational skill, others have born leadership ability, many are smart, most are ambitious, and all have worked indefatigably to win their seat in the House of Commons.

But few exhibit authenticity.

Whether Hall Findlay is authentically authentic, or whether it is a carefully developed and deliberately managed strategy developed over her years of successfully navigating vast and competitive social structures, I cannot say for sure. But I sure hope she is authentically authentic because I’m convinced that she is.

But you can decide for yourself in this eighth installment of our continuing Meet the Players series.

One quick word about the mechanics of the interview: Hall Findlay received my questions by email on September 12, 2009—just as speculation about a Fall election reached its apex. But I did not receive her answers until a few days ago. To be fair, September and October were busy times for Liberal MPs, so I hope you will forgive her delay, as I have.

You will see that it has been well worth the wait.

Richard Albert (RA): So, Martha, what’s your latest take on whether Canadians are heading to the polls this Fall? I’m skeptical. So much so, in fact, that I’ve issued an open invitation to my readers: I’ll give 30-1 odds against an election taking place this Fall. (And while I got you on the line, you’re a lawyer, right? Perhaps you can tell me whether the famous Carbolic Smoke Ball case applies to my open bet. I hope not!)

Martha Hall Findlay (MHF): Wow, it sure shows how long it’s taken me to answer your questions, when the first one is about whether we’ll have an election this Fall. My feeling badly about taking so long is reinforced by the fact that it now already feels like winter outside. The good news is that we’ve come so far this Fall without an election.  Did anyone take you up on your 30-1 bet against one happening? You’re looking more prescient every day…  As for whether the Carbolic Smoke Ball case would apply (even though it was 25 years ago when I first studied it, I remember it fondly)—you didn’t put any money on the line. No consideration, not a valid contract. A no-risk proposition, one might say, other than reputational damage if you turned out to be way wrong. Good news for all, it looks like you might be right.

RA: Your predecessor in Willowdale, Liberal MP Jim Peterson, held your seat in Parliament since 1980 (with one term of interrupted service as a result of the conservative sweep of 1984). Based on my back-of-the-envelope calculations, Peterson achieved over 50 percent of the vote in every federal election since 1988, including the last election he contested in 2006.

In 2008, which was your first general election following Peterson’s resignation, you earned less—a little less, but still less—than 50 percent. Any idea why Peterson’s supporters did not all move to you?

MHF: Jim Peterson indeed did very well in almost all of his campaigns in Willowdale.  An almost continuous run of 27 years. (We don’t talk much about 84-88, or his first run in 1979 which he lost.)  You are correct that in the General Election I managed just under 50%.  I will note that in the by-election in March, 2008, when I was first elected, I managed just shy of 60% of the vote.  In the general election of 2008, the same thing happened in Willowdale as happened all across the country—the Conservative Party vote in fact went down; the NDP vote went down.  The problem was that a lot of Liberals stayed home, and the Liberal vote went down even further.  We look forward to getting those wonderful Willowdalean liberal voters back out the next time—just not anytime soon.

RA: You recently said that the next election will be “fought on attitudes.” Interesting. What did you mean by that?

MHF: Attitudes—Ken Dryden put it best when he described the Harper government as “pinched”.  It’s the perfect word. “Let’s see what little we can do. Let’s give as much up to the provinces. Let’s see how far back we can pull from our Canadian participation on the international stage.” It’s pinched. I find it all rather grumpy. I just don’t believe that Stephen Harper has much optimism about Canada—I get the impression that he’d be just as happy if we were one of the United States of America. I don’t. I see Canada as a place, and as a group of people, with immense potential to do so much, both at home and abroad. Glass half full v. glass half empty. I am definitely a glass half full person. I feel a personal responsibility to start a de-grumpification process. (Yes, that’s my own word, but it’s pretty good, no?)

RA: Bottom line, though, Martha. Why is your leader better for Canada than the current prime minister, Stephen Harper?

MHF: Michael Ignatieff is better than Stephen Harper for a number of reasons, but first and foremost relates to my last answer.  Michael is hugely optimistic about Canada and Canadians—what we are, what we have been able to accomplish, what we can do going forward, what we can become—leaders once again in the combination of economic prosperity, but prosperity with a purpose—a social justice purpose.

RA: My very first guest in this interview series was Warren Kinsella, the master Liberal strategist who is apparently slated to run your Party’s war room in the next election. I asked him whether he thought the Liberal Party was doing enough to be more inclusive to, and encouraging of, female candidates. To his credit, he said no and expressed his wish that your Party do more. Surely you agree, as I do. But can you articulate for our readers precisely why it is so important to have more women in Parliament?

MHF: We do need more women in government. At the federal level, we make up only 21% of MPs. Compare that with the fact that we women make up 52% of the population as a whole (yes, that’s a majority!).  As such, we are the ‘consumers’, or ‘recipients’, if you will—the majority of those affected by—legislation. My answer is therefore simple: women make up more than half of those affected by legislation, therefore more than half of the people around the table when that legislation is put forward, debated, and passed, should be women.

RA: Does it bother you at all that you are always asked for your thoughts on how to bring more women into politics? It seems to be everyone’s go-to question for you. Kind of like what I am doing now.

MHF: It used to bother me a bit. As a lawyer and businessperson, with a considerable focus in past lives on international relations and international trade and business, I used to respond with, “Can we please talk about economics, finance or foreign affairs?” But particularly after the 2006 Leadership campaign, I recognized that I am seen as representing a minority that shouldn’t be one, and I do feel a responsibility to work to effect that kind of change. I also realize that an awful lot of women, young and old, are really interested in getting involved, but don’t really know how—and more importantly don’t know just how accessible political involvement is. I really enjoy encouraging more women to run, by sharing my experiences, giving advice, occasionally being a shoulder, etc…  I rebel at the label “a woman in politics”—I am “a politician”.  But (based on the last time I checked ) I AM also a woman, who happens to be in politics, so therefore have a role and a responsibility that I enjoy taking on.

RA: It is admittedly still a little early, in my view, to assess people and events from the 1990s. We need more distance. Nonetheless, how do you think history will remember Kim Campbell, Canada’s first and only (until you become Liberal leader, perhaps?) female prime minister? Has she been treated fairly since her departure from Canadian politics?

MHF: Kim Campbell will be recognized, rightly and importantly, as the first female Canadian Prime Minister. She faced a huge challenge insofar as the federal Conservative Party itself was facing a huge challenge from the Reform Party at the time—and the story of what happened in the election in which she, and the Conservative Party, suffered so much, was in my view much less a story about her (despite much of what was said and written) but rather much more about the success of the Reform Party. As such, I do not think she was treated fairly, nor do I feel she was treated fairly by her own party as the situation became so clearly challenging. The fall, at the time, of the Conservative Party was by no means the fault of Kim Campbell alone, yet she bore, unfairly, much of the blame. Remember that she was, before that, an extremely highly respected Minister of Justice and was highly regarded for her performance in other roles.

RA: So, on another topic, where is your Big Red Bus? It is still fueled up somewhere, ready to go next time around?

MHF: The Big Red Bus did its job well, and has been granted appropriate retirement—at least from me. The MHF wrapping was removed, and my “home” for many months was sold. I hope that the new owners are enjoying travelling across this fabulous country as much as I did!

RA: Let’s transition to a couple of lighter questions as we prepare for the super-fun lightning round. If you could have any superpower, what it would be? And why?

MHF: Any “superpower”? Is  “wisdom” a superpower? I think it should be, although it doesn’t exactly make for exciting comic book material. No matter—I choose “wisdom”.  I dare you to come up with an exciting costume for that one.

RA: (A costume for Captain Wisdom? I bet some people would think a mask that looks like this would be just right. Others, though, might think this is more like it. My own personal choice, though, would be this.)

Which three living Canadians (whom you do not yet know nor have ever met either in person or virtually) would you most like to host for dinner at Pourquoi Pas?, one of the finest restaurants in your riding? Why?

MHF: Having been to Pourquoi Pas? a few times already, I would certainly love to go back with any of my favourite people. As for three living Canadians whom I’ve not yet met … Hmmmm … That’s a challenge because I’ve been so fortunate to have met so many interesting Canadians with whom I’d love to have longer conversations. So I’m going to break your rule, and list three I’d love to have longer conversations with, whether I’ve met them or not.

Alice Munro, because I love her work. Her stories suggest that she’s had many experiences that resonate with my own personal experiences, and it would be fascinating to hear more about them.

Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of Canada, because he occupies an incredibly influential position that, ironically, prevents him from doing too much—I’d like to know what he really thinks.

Preston Manning, because although he and I disagree on many policy issues, I am a big fan of his trying to make change that he honestly felt would benefit Canada and Canadians—I’d like to learn from his experiences.

RA: Ok, Martha. Time for the Lightning Round. Blackberry or I-Phone?

MHF: Blackberry.

RA: Facebook or MySpace?

MHF: Facebook.

RA: Mac or PC?

MHF: PC (although kudos to MAC for great marketing).

RA: Less filling or tastes great?

MHF: Oh, good heavens—it has to taste great! Our team actually has to work to make sure I eat enough. “Less filling” is not an issue for me.  (Example: I never drink “light” beer—that’s for girls.).

RA: Favourite band?

MHF: I’m listening to Dave Matthews’ Band as I’m writing this, but that’s just because they were next in my iTunes library list. There are so many great bands… so instead of “favourite”, I’ll plug the newest addition to my collection, a great young duo from Toronto called Dala. Great harmonies and some really good songs.

RA: The Great One or Sid the Kid?

MHF: Sid the Kid. (Sorry, Wayne.) I mean, that Tim Horton’s ad where he gets off the bus and joins the kids on the outdoor rink? How can you not love the guy?

RA: Thomas Carlyle’s Great Man Theory or Herbert Spencer’s Theory of Social Statics? (Do you care either way?)

MHF: I bristle at the concept of “Great Men”, but only because it ignores all of the great women who either influenced history and events themselves, or hugely influenced the men who ended up as “great” in their influence of history and events. That being said, I agree with Carlyle’s theory. I believe in the power of individuals to make change. If, as Spencer suggests, those individuals become who they are because of other factors, so be it—it is the individuals who ultimately go through those doors, take those chances, take those risks, make those decisions.

RA: Stéphane Dion or Edward Blake?

MHF: Not having met Blake and despite political challenges, my great respect for Stéphane Dion’s honesty, integrity, vision and passion for Canada remains strong and undiminished.

RA: Greatest Canadian?

MHF: There is no one Canadian who can be called “greatest”. That does a massive disservice to all of the many, many Canadians, some unsung heroes, who have contributed so much to this country and its people. Sorry, I know that’s avoiding the easy answer, but that’s how I really feel. When you think of it, maybe that’s quintessentially Canadian—we’re not big on singling out individuals, but really proud of what we can do collectively.

RA: Two more questions, Martha. Greatest prime minister?

MHF: I have a three-way tie.

Pierre Trudeau, mostly because of how he inspired Canadians and made us all feel so hopeful about what we could, individually and collectively, accomplish, both here and abroad, but also, of course, because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Lester Pearson, for the obvious peacekeeping initiatives and how he established such respect for Canada abroad, but also because under his watch we established health care, CPP, the flag—no small feats.

And Louis St. Laurent, for quietly accomplishing a great deal for this country, but doing so in a way that was always conscious and respectful of the English and French duality of Canada, and his insistence on conducting politics with respect and civility.

RA: And greatest politician never (or never yet) to become prime minister? (P.S. You cannot say the current Liberal leader, nor can you choose Stéphane Dion or Edward Blake.)

MHF: I can’t speculate on the future, and you’ve limited my options. I also assume you mean Canadian politicians (as opposed to others from other countries) who have not become Prime Minister. My Liberal friends may not be happy, but out of Canadian history, I would say Robert Stanfield. He was respected by a great many people, of all political stripes. That says a lot.

RA: It does indeed say a lot. Not only about Bob Stanfield. But about you. That you would say such nice things about a Tory like Stanfield and also about a movement conservative like Preston Manning is out of the ordinary for a Liberal politician, at least in the current political climate enveloping Parliament. I hope some of your grace rubs off on your colleagues—of all parties.

Thank you for participating in our Meet the Players series, Martha, and for sharing a bit about yourself and your views with our readers. We’re grateful. Continued best wishes to you.

___

Meet the Players: Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

• Warren Kinsella, August 17, 2009
• Tim Powers, August 20, 2009
• Kyle Seeback, August 26, 2009
• Rocco Rossi, September 2, 2009
• Mark Holland, September 12, 2009
• Ryan Hastman, September 21, 2009
• Elizabeth May, November 1, 2009

Corzine, a former Wall Street executive, has spent $23.6 million on the general election, compared to Republican Chris Christie’s $8.8 million and independent Chris Daggett’s $1.2 million, according to the state Election Law Enforcement Commission.

Corzine donated or loaned his general election campaign $22.6 million of its $24.1 million, writing checks to cover TV ads, several pollsters and a $15,000 hall rental for President Obama’s visit to Fairleigh Dickinson University.

If political campaigns were all about accounting, Mitt Romney would have been battling Obama last year, Brian Mulroney would have become Prime Minister a decade earlier than he did, California and Maine would have gay marriage, the Charlottetown Accord would have passed, and it might have been Forbes v. Bradley instead of Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Sure, one can spend more money and win more votes; the Obama-McCain election demonstrates that.  But could it be that the reason that Obama was able to raise far more funds than McCain is the reason he won more votes: he was insanely popular?

In The Ottawa Citizen years ago, John Robson wrote on this very topic.  He argued that no matter how much money you spent, you couldn’t convince people to eat a sludge sandwich (sorry, no link).  Voters in New Jersey know sludge when they see it, and, thus, voted against Jon Corzine.

No matter how much he spent.

On Steve Janke’s blog post about Michael Ignatieff firing his Chief of Staff, Soccermom made a comment that got me to thinking about this:

Any Quebecker who becomes Liberal leader in the next couple of years will get laughed out of the West.

Now, while most Liberal leaders recognize the importance of wooing Western votes (even if unsuccessfully), doing so earns them the scorn of too many Quebeckers for them to put a serious effort into it lest they lose their support. This is mostly because many (not all) Quebeckers view themselves above and apart from Canada, especially those western places.

Now don’t get me wrong. I love Quebec, it’s culture and it’s people, I just wish that they’d come down from their cross sometime and accept that they are fully a part of Canada and not above or separate from it.

So Liberal leaders become hamstrung from “including the west” too vigorously and end up simply speaking hollow words to Westerners (which comes across as patronizing, and rightfully so because it is) which further wides the rift between the East and West. As a result, in order to achieve their majority governments, Liberals dig themselves deeper into the graces of Quebec by lavishing praise, concessions and money on them. Again, this practice is abhorrent to other Canadians, and especially to the Westerners who don’t hate Quebec but just want the special treatment to end and achieve equality.

Unfortunately, until Quebec officially signs onto the Constitution, this divide will continue to exist and fluctuate. And why should they? They get so much more with really no consequences. Again, this isn’t personal, it’s politics.

Now, the only way I see this changing is if the Conservatives are able to secure a Majority Government without having to be obliged to Quebec for it. Technically, it’s possible; it’s just REALLY unlikely.

If Quebec suddenly becomes not so important to the ever important majority it could spur one of two things, and this is the risk that politicians aren’t willing to take:

1) Quebec becomes aware that it needs Canada

If Conservatives were able to achieve that majority without needing Quebec, it may send the message that the time of blackmail is over for Quebec, at least for the next 4 years. It would no longer have the numerical leverage it has used to hold the rest of the country hostage. This might jolt them into conceding that unless they join the Confederation as an equal partner, they could be handed only what the rest of the country deigns to give them.

2) Quebec fears being ostracized and separates

This is the greatest fear of politicians. We know that practically, Quebec as a sovereign nation would ultimately fail without massive provisions and support by Canada or the United States. The problem is that Quebec would still have to give up part of their absolute sovereignty in order to do that. They want all the benefits without any of the consequences. Our currency, our Passports, our National Defense Organizations, our inter-provincial trade agreements etc. etc. But if they feel that becoming subject to Canada is a worse fate than trying to go it on their own, Separatism could well rise up in sufficient numbers to make it happen.

Legally.

And so, in order to avoid this disastrous event for Liberal fortunes, they continue to bribe Quebec into staying like some fair-weather spouse whom they can’t bear to leave, but can’t afford to keep indefinitely.

Unfortunately, The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, like The Supreme Court of Canada, is now a court with the insidious pretence that its justices are not political actors, be they now the wiser appointed and benign overlords of all the realm. As the website of the court now, boldly, proclaims:

Courts are the final arbiter between the citizen and the state, and are therefore a fundamental pillar of the constitution.

The Supreme Court has been established to achieve a complete separation between the United Kingdom’s senior Judges and the Upper House of Parliament, emphasising the independence of the Law Lords and increasing the transparency between Parliament and the courts.

In August 2009 the Justices moved out of the House of Lords (where they sat as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords) into their own building on the opposite side of Parliament Square. They will sit for the first time as a Supreme Court in October 2009.

The impact of Supreme Court decisions will extend far beyond the parties involved in any given case, shaping our society, and directly affecting our everyday lives.

For instance, in their previous role as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the Justices gave landmark rulings on the legality of the Hunting Act 2004 under European law, and whether or not a schoolgirl could be prevented from wearing traditional cultural dress.

Since Magna Carta, the High Court of Parliament, as it were, has been—and let us hope it remains—the final arbiter between the “citizen” and the state. Consider that a “citizen” is a “citizen” explicitly because he is the “subject” of a State. And “subjects,” being subjects of limited means in comparison to the state, can readily be subjected to the injustices, intentional or not, of that state.

What The United Kingdom has lost is far greater than any advance for federalism would have warranted. It has lost the explicit recognition—at the very top, anyway—that adjudicating the law is always part and parcel of legislating the law.

It was for this reason that John Locke held the Legislative branch of government to be supreme over all others. What we call Parliament was a necessary public conversation between the Executive and those who write the law as well as interpret the law. Take one aspect out of the mix and you will get power run amuck; so much for the balancing act that a separation of powers doctrine is meant to provide.

But, anymore, few learned men consider reading Locke a worthy endeavour. For whatever reason—maybe the American revolution and the cultural dominance of The United States—Montesquieu’s formulation of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government wins wider popular recognition; those who understand the consequences of putting his formulation into practice a much smaller constituency.

It was to temper “legislating from the bench” that, for centuries, by the Law Lords sitting in the Upper Chamber of Parliament, the justice system of The United Kingdom tipped its hat toward Parliament. Being part of Parliament, the fact that the decisions of the Law Lords carried political consequence, that the adjudication of justice can, indeed, be effected by the idiosyncratic disposition and perspective of the adjudicators was lost on no one. The final court of appeal avoided even the appearance of being oracular.

New Labour seems to prefer change for the sake of change, especially when trying to win respectability for its love of big government. This is certainly not the first time it has looked across the pond and adopted the worst, the intellectually laziest, that Canada has to offer; be it the incoherent cult of “multiculturalism,” or, now, the larger, the more significant evolutions of our own constitutional history.

Tom Piatak assesses it well:

Comes news this morning that our beloved President has at last won the Nobel Peace Prize. We can all be glad that the Nobel committee overcame the stark racism that denied Obama the Nobel Prize for Literature for Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope. I suspect that racism has also been behind the denial of the Nobel Prizes for Economics, Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine to Obama, whose accomplishments in those fields very nearly equal what he has accomplished so far in the Presidency. We can only hope that we make contact with extraterrestrials before Obama leaves the White House, so that other worlds will be able to join ours in giving Obama the honors he so obviously deserves.

Or as John Podhoretz surmises:

I can’t agree with my colleagues here on CONTENTIONS that a) Barack Obama should reject the Nobel Peace Prize or b) be embarrassed by it. The Nobel Committee chose him wisely because he does, in fact, represent the organization’s highest ideals.

He is an American president queasy about the projection of American power. He is an American president who rejects the notion of American exceptionalism. He is an American president eagerly in pursuit of legitimacy to be granted him not by those who voted for him but by those who do not cast a vote and who chafe at American leadership. It is his devout wish that America become one of many nations, influencing the world indirectly or not influencing it at all, rather than “the indispensable nation,” as Madeleine Albright characterized it. He is the encapsulation, the representative, the wish fulfillment, the very embodiment, of the multilateralist impulse. He is, almost literally, a dream come true for the sorts of people who treasure and value the Nobel Peace Prize.

It’s the most obvious choice, once you think about it, since Michael Moore won an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine.

Satire to one side, Peter Schramm offers a sensible enough strategy for Obama’s way forward:

I woke up to this stunning decision (as the WaPo calls it) this morning. (We should be prepared to be surprised in politics, right? And we never are, are we?) The problem is that everyone understands that he doesn’t deserve it (and I mean no disrespect to the President Obama). One wag said on CNN this morning that the lefties in Oslo are attempting to tie Obama’s hands on foreign policy, especially regarding decision on troop levels in Afghanistan. Maybe. But this does give Obama a great opportunity: Mickey Kaus suggests that he turn it down. I agree. It would be magnanimous-like act, offered by a statesman who understands that the world does move, or should move, on merit. If he accepts it, there will be a political backlash for some will start arguing that his future war decisions will be taken for the wrong reasons. He cannot afford that opinion settling in on the public. The decisions on Afghanistan, just to cite the most obvious example, are tough enough to figure out without such calculations. He should turn it down.

This isn’t the first time he appears to have told his caucus one thing and then had to reverse his position when word of it leaked out into the media. Not too long ago, Michael Ignatieff was going on a tear about the Unemployment Insurance crisis (yes yes, I know they want to call it Employment Insurance. That’s another discussion), then when the Government brings forward legislation to reform the UI system, they’re not interested in looking at it. Not a backpedal you say? Well, they were willing to call an election over it before the summer break, and have since totally backed away from it.

Michael Ignatieff is an self-admitted “Tax and Spend Liberal”, and backed it up during a speech April 14th, 2009 to the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce:

“We will have to raise taxes,” but not at the expense of hurting the recovery from this recession. He added that “an honest politician” cannot exclude a tax hike as an option.

And then today he goes on to say this today:

“I’ve been clear,” he said. “Tax increases are not part of my plan.”

No Mr. Ignatieff, you have not. You have in fact stated the exact opposite.

So which is it Mr. Ignatieff? Are you a dishonest politician now, or will you be raising taxes?

“When I was a boy, my father used to say that I should work on things that I am good at. The NDP is not good at fighting taxes. The NDP has opposed cutting the federal sales tax. The NDP opposed reducing business taxes. It opposed our cuts to personal taxes. It opposed our cuts to seniors. The NDP never saw a tax it did not like and never saw a tax it did not want to hike. Everybody knows that.”

What is truly hilarious, however, is Layton’s lame duck come back.

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister is not so good at is saying that with a straight face.

Just thought I might share that with you. Have a good night, everyone.

Do we really need to go over all the reasons that no one in the West should celebrate this anniversary: Tiananmen Square, Falun Gong, Tibet, Taiwan, the Cultural Revolution, Daoxian Massacre, the one-child policy, the suppression of dissidents, environmental degradation, economic oppression, forced relocation, etc. etc.?  One might be stumped as to why anyone would choose to honour the birth of this international menace, but I’m sure New York is going to get some favourable trade initiatives and maybe some increased tourism dollars thanks to their kowtowing.

One would hope that a city whose most recognizable landmark is a symbol of liberty would not turn its second most recognizable landmark into a symbol of all that liberty abhors.

One would be wrong.

(H/T: Greg Pollowitz)

Last week, after my interview with Mark Holland–whom I described as part of the new generation of Liberal leadership–readers sent me several emails and Facebook messages to express their interest in learning about the next generation of Conservative leaders.

So, today, I am here to respond to that request. I have three answers for you.

First, here is one prospect who may soon be the latest star candidate for the Conservative Party. If he wins the nomination and then the election, I have no doubt–none at all–that he will be mentioned in the same breath as Bernard Lord, Jim Prentice and Jean Charest as possible successors to Stephen Harper. Those are big ifs, though. He will have to beat this guy–not an easy feat for anyone.

Second, don’t forget about rising stars in the Conservative caucus, like him, her, him, her or him, among others.

And third, onto the business at hand. Allow me to introduce you to a rising star in his own right, one who hopes to join the Conservative caucus with a victory in the next federal election: Ryan Hastman, today’s guest in our continuing Meet the Players series.

A former special assistant to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and aide to Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, Hastman has been well trained in the ways of Ottawa and, if elected, will have little trouble navigating its labyrinthine institutional and political bureaucracies.

Hastman is ready for the election, whenever it is called. He won the nomination to carry the Conservative banner in the riding of Edmonton-Strathcona, currently held by NDP MP Linda Duncan and formerly held by Rahim Jaffer. (Yes, the same Rahim Jaffer you have no doubt read about recently.)

As is quite clear from my interview with Hastman, he is substantive, intelligent, witty, serious, plugged into popular culture, and is as comfortable at the Calgary Stampede as he is using la langue de Molière.

So, with no further ado, and as my gift to readers who asked me to introduce them to the next generation of Conservative leadership, here, for your enjoyment, is Ryan Hastman.

Richard Albert (RA): Your impressive experience in government and in the private sector belie your young age. Still, you are only 30–actually, not until October!–a fact that will perhaps give some people pause. So why you, and why now?

Ryan Hastman (Hastman): Why me? I am running because, first of all, I think that Edmonton-Strathcona deserves stronger representation than its current MP provides. I am from Edmonton and I have a solid business, community and political background. I care passionately about our community, province and country. No one will work harder than I will to listen to every voice and reach out to every corner of the riding. MPs don’t get to choose who they represent. They must represent everybody, not just the narrow interests of a small group of activists. We need an MP who understands what it’s like to run a business, raise a family, and work to make ends meet and get ahead. We need someone who not only understands the core values of the broader community but also has the political skill to effect change. I believe I am the best person to earn the trust of voters in Edmonton-Strathcona, and represent their interests in Ottawa.  And perhaps due to my relative youth, I am still idealistic enough to believe that I can make a difference in this world.

Why now? Electing an NDP member was a risky experiment and I think we’ve seen that experiment fail. The NDP doesn’t understand the economy and it cannot deliver results for the residents of Edmonton-Strathcona, to say nothing of the country as a whole. In the current economic circumstance, we cannot afford to be represented by someone who is out of touch with the majority of mainstream Canadians. Edmonton-Strathcona, the city of Edmonton, Alberta and Canada have an amazing potential and I am very excited about the future. I believe that Edmonton-Strathcona should be the home of the very best in all walks of life and I don’t see us getting there with the NDP. We should be leading the charge in terms of research and science. We should be the natural home for Canada’s next group of groundbreaking businesses and employers. Our children should be given every opportunity to excel and lead their generation forward. While the opposition parties are focused on tired old policies that didn’t even work in the 1960s, we want to take Canada forward.

RA: You’re running in a riding that has been a right-of-centre stronghold since 1972. However in the 2008 federal elections, a sharp leftward turn propelled NDP candidate Linda Duncan to victory over then-incumbent MP Rahim Jaffer. Is this a temporary shift or is there something more seismic underway in Edmonton-Strathcona?

Hastman: Well, the answer is “both”. In 2008 what you saw was a “perfect storm” for the NDP. The disastrous policies of the Liberal Party’s Stephane Dion gave Linda a boost. Many dissatisfied Liberal voters voted NDP in order to protest their own leadership. But I will be the first to admit that we Conservatives need to raise our game in Edmonton-Strathcona. We need to work harder and we need to listen more closely. We really believe Edmonton-Strathcona is looking to return to a broad-based, big tent, mainstream party with reasonable, sensible policies for important issues like the economy. Let other regions protest–Edmonton-Strathcona wants to lead Canada into the future.

But I do want to get back to what you said about a seismic change in Edmonton-Strathcona, because you are onto something there. Edmonton-Strathcona is a fantastic microcosm of Canada as a whole: it is diverse, it is growing, it is represented by many diverse voices, ethic groups and ages. It is vibrant and looking to succeed. I believe that many of Canada’s next leaders will be from Edmonton-Strathcona. There is a real energy here that is contagious.

RA: Have you asked Rahim for advice?

Hastman: Rahim and I spoke shortly after I won my nomination in June. He is now dealing with some well documented issues is his private life, but in his time as a Member of Parliament, Rahim proved not only to his own ethnic community but to all young people that being young or different isn’t a barrier to making a meaningful contribution to Canada.

RA: Have you spoken to Rahim since his arrest?

Hastman: No.

RA: Ok, getting back to your riding, what are the most pressing needs and priorities for Edmonton-Strathcona?

Hastman: #1 The economy. #2 The economy. #3 The economy. As someone once said, “It’s the economy, stupid!“. Without well-paying, stable jobs, most other things in life become less important. I want Edmonton-Strathcona to break out and reach its full potential, but we must make sure we give as many people as possible the best possible shot to succeed in their own lives. That means better jobs, safer streets, and lower taxes. We need to make some changes to the laws and tax system. We need streets that are safe for our children and seniors to walk alone on. We need to protect our local environment as a legacy for our children. We need to continue to attract the best and brightest from around the country and around the world.

RA: Can you say something nice about your NDP opponent, Linda Duncan?

Hastman: I have lots of nice things to say about Linda. She works hard and fights for what she believes in. She is a voracious environmental advocate. She will do very well in her next career as a post-MP, special interest activist.

RA: If you get elected to Parliament, who is the first person whose counsel you will seek once you land in Ottawa?

Hastman: The PM! No but really, I would probably say Jason Kenney. As a young guy from Alberta, Jason and I have a lot in common and I’ll probably pick his brain about how to set up an effective operation in Ottawa and serve my constituents with excellence. Jason has done a lot of good work in terms of building bridges to new communities.

RA: Apart from working to improve the lives of your constituents in Edmonton-Strathcona, are there any larger or more national legislative projects you would like to explore if you get elected?

Hastman: You’re right: working for the people of Edmonton-Strathcona will be my priority #1 and #1A. In addition to that, there are a couple of areas that I hope to make a contribution toward:

Improving our tax code. We need a simplified and reduced tax system in this country. First of all, our taxes are too high across the board. Second of all, despite the last three years of improvements, there remain many inefficient and/or unfair aspects of the code.

Crime and community safety. Again as with taxes, the Harper government has taken many positive steps, but there is more work to be done. People are sick and tired of common thugs ruling their neighborhoods through fear and intimidation. We need to give youth hope for a better future, to help them stay out of trouble before they are trapped.

National unity is also something that I am concerned about. We need to build the ties that unite our diverse groups. Also, I am a strong supporter of official bilingualism.

I could easily go on; there is no lack of worthy and important work to be done.

RA: Now let’s turn to the larger race outside of Edmonton-Strathcona. Why, in your view, is Stephen Harper a better leader for Canada than Michael Ignatieff?

Hastman: Stephen Harper knows what he believes, and why. He thinks about issues and takes a clear position, regardless of which ways the political winds are blowing. He sought the office of Prime Minister to bring change to Canada, and not simply as an entitled gambit to fill a hole on his resume. He wants to build a diverse, prosperous and secure country for the 21st century. Michael Ignatieff has never found an issue that he doesn’t both agree and disagree with. He dreams of returning our country to the tired old ways of Trudeau. After all, he described himself as a “tax and spend liberal.” We need a new approach to the issues of tomorrow, not an old approach that got us into some of the trouble we have today.

RA: I’d like to talk a bit about you for a moment. What is your biggest personal strength?

Hastman: That’s a tough question! I would say that I love rising to challenges. Call it competitiveness or maybe audaciousness, but I love doing things that “they” say can’t be done.

RA: What is your biggest weakness and how, if at all, have you tried to turn it into one of your strengths?

Hastman: Now this is even tougher. Politicians don’t like answering these types of questions… but I think that the opposite of my best strength is also my biggest weakness: I try to accomplish too much on my own. In business and in life I have found that the best way to succeed is to build a strong team around me and empower people to do their best, even if it’s a bit different from the approach I would take. It’s Maxwell’s 360 Leadership model.

RA: As we transition to a few more fun and lighthearted questions, I have to apologize for not saying this at the outset of our interview. But better late than never: Congratulations on your wedding last fall! Your one year anniversary is coming up. Any ideas yet as to what you’ll buy your wife to mark that special occasion?

Hastman: Well that depends on Michael Ignatieff! If we are in the middle of a campaign, we might skip a door knocking shift and head to Steeps for one of their unique teas. If we aren’t into a campaign then, we hope to get away and make up for the very brief honeymoon we managed a year ago.

RA: You helped found a not-for-profit called Her Dream Next Door, which helps women achieve their personal and professional aspirations. Are you concerned about the relatively low number of women in politics both generally and within the Conservative Party specifically?

Hastman: This is something that I feel passionately about. Too many young women today lack strong role models and mentors, keeping them from busting through society’s various glass ceilings. Generally speaking, I am encouraged by the strong women we see in politics today. Our party in particular has a very strong female cohort. And unlike the other parties, female candidates don’t get a special pass for their nominations in the Conservative Party of Canada. Try telling Nina Grewal, Lisa Raitt, Alice Wong, Cheryl Gallant, Rona Ambrose, Kelly Block, Candice Hoeppner, Diane Finley, or Josée Verner (just to name a few examples) that our party doesn’t value their contribution or that they are only plausible as politicians if they are appointed as part of an artificial female slate! Our party’s Vice President, Kara Johnson, is female. Many of our candidates last time who will be elected next time are female. Many of the PM’s key advisors, as well as senior aides to Ministers, are women. Our leader in the Senate, Marjory LeBreton, is female. Canada’s first female PM came from our party, and in 2002 and 2004 our leadership contests featured female candidates. So I would argue that our party is a leader among its peers in terms of female engagement. Of course it would be great if there were even more women involved, and I look forward to working with more and more strong females in caucus.

RA: Now just a couple of more questions before we move to our Lightning Round. Which three living non-Albertans would you most like to host for dinner at Packrat Louie, one of Edmonton’s very best restaurants? Why?

Hastman: If I were to host a dinner at Packrat Louie, my three choices would be:

Bill Gates–not only has he built one of the most successful companies in the world, but he has also transitioned into one of the strongest forces for public health. I would love to talk to him about how the private sector can partner with government and NGOs to solve some of the great issues that humanity will wrestle with this century. I want to hear more from him about how corporations, individuals and governments can partner together effectively.

Cesar Millan (aka ‘The Dog Whisperer’)–I love our puppy but we just can’t seem to reach an understanding on some of his behaviours. I would like to have a hearing with The Dog Whisperer and hope that he can clear up a few issues.

George Strait–My wife Lianne is a huge fan. I think she might wish I was a little bit more like George Straight, so maybe I could ask him for a few tips. I don’t know much about his political views, but I suspect he would take a common sense approach on most things. He definitely wouldn’t vote for the NDP!

RA: Parlez-vous français?

Oui, je parle français. J’ai eu la chance d’assister à l’enseignement par immersion en français ici, à Edmonton. Cela m’aidera à servir notre communauté franco-albertaine dans notre circonscription. Cela me donne aussi une appréciation de la double origine linguistique de notre pays. Je soutiens le bilinguisme officiel, et je pense que parler les deux langues contribuera à donner la prochaine génération un avantage compétitif dans un monde global.

RA: Ok, Ryan. Time for the Lightning Round. Blackberry or I-Phone?

Hastman: Blackberry! I need an actual keyboard.

RA: Facebook or MySpace?

Hastman: Facebook.

RA: Mac or PC?

Hastman: Mac.

RA: Less filling or tastes great?

Hastman: Coke Zero.

RA: Boxers or briefs?

Hastman: I’ll take the moderate position and say boxer-briefs.

RA: Favourite band?

Hastman: U2. I also really like Radiohead and Muse. For Canadian content, I’ll take Paul Brandt and Pilot Speed.

RA: Gretzky or Lemieux?

Hastman: Is that even a fair question? The Great One of course. My father was at the “50 goals in 39 games” game, and I’m fortunate enough to remember most of the 4 Stanley Cups that #99 was here for. The question would have been more tricky had you asked “Gretzky or Messier”, a local Edmonton guy who also went to my high school (St. FX.).

RA: Which was worse for western Canada: The National Energy Program or the Bristol-Bombardier scandal?

Hastman: The National Energy Program. People still talk about it at the doors.  Good on PM Brian Mulroney for cancelling it.

RA: Who was the better premier: Ralph Klein or Peter Lougheed?

Hastman: This is a tough one. Both of them contributed to the province and made tough decisions that needed to be made. Lougheed established a very sensible savings trust fund to diversify the economy; Klein got public spending under control. I guess it’s a draw.

RA: Greatest Canadian?

Hastman: Stephen J. Harper. His mastery of policy is second only to his incredible judgment of cabinet material. (Can you make sure a copy of this is sent to PMO?).

RA: Greatest prime minister?

Hastman: Didn’t I just answer that?

RA: Greatest politician never (never yet?) to become prime minister?

Hastman: Stockwell Day. Politics is a rough ‘sport’, a contact sport as they say, and his experience with national politics started out pretty roughly. He has shown not only resilience, but grace and forgiveness, which is usually not common to the profession. Watching him in his role as a senior Minister today makes me wonder what his contribution could have been had things worked out differently. I hope to model even a fraction of his resilience through my career. He’s been one of the most steady and consistent Ministers in our government. I’m also a big fan of both public safety and free trade!

RA: Public safety and free trade–those are two priorities that no reasonable person could disagree with. So in light of that common ground you’ve struck with all of our readers–those who wear Conservative blue, Liberal red, NDP orange, Green uh green, or otherwise–it’s a nice way to close our interview. Thank you for sharing your views with us. I think it’s safe to say that Linda Duncan is in for a tough battle when the writ drops. Edmonton-Strathcona will certainly be a riding to watch. Good luck to you.

___

Meet the Players: Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

• Warren Kinsella, August 17, 2009
• Tim Powers, August 20, 2009
• Kyle Seeback, August 26, 2009
• Rocco Rossi, September 2, 2009
• Mark Holland, September 12, 2009

Note: Post revised on September 23 to correct “George Straight” to “George Strait”

However, it appears that she is not being welcomed by local Green Candidate Stuart Hertzog. In fact, he’s filed a complaint with Elections Canada over her attempt to parachute into yet another riding indiscriminately across the country.

Didn’t Mr. Hertzog get the memo? It doesn’t matter who’s running where. The Green Party Executive has decided that Elizabeth May absolutly must be elected to the House of Commons, forget whomever happens to have the best chance at it. No no, Ms. May doesn’t want to be another John Tory I guess.

I wonder when Greens might wake up and see that it’s not just the message that Canadians aren’t buying?

1. Teacher accountability;
2. Community involvement;
3. Online education; and,
4. Emphasizing learning.

It’s a short, link-heavy post, and if you have any interest in improving our educational system, you should read it.  Of course, if you do, you’ll probably notice something… nothing is coming from Canada.  Granted, as an ex-pat living in Brooklyn, Lindsay’s not as likely to be up on all the new Canadian activities, but there’s not a whole lot exciting going on in Canada (though online learning is alive and well).

Instead, we have putrid ideas such as this, and cynical half-baked school choice initiatives like John Tory’s proposal in the last Ontario election.

The government school system is tragically broken; we need to start looking at it very, very soon.

As political parties and candidates gird for battle, they would do well to study the latest findings from some of Canada’s leading political scientists, who have recently released their analysis of the 2008 federal election. Entitled “The Anatomy of a Liberal Defeat,” the paper illuminates the reasons behind both the Liberal Party’s historic defeat and the Conservative Party’s road to triumph in 2008.

Three points from the paper merit mention insofar as they may hold the keys to victory in a widely anticipated, though as yet uncertain, 2009 election.

First, the Conservative Party benefited immensely from a mass exodus of Catholic and visible minority voters, who fled the Liberal Party and cast their vote for Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party. As compared to the 2000 election, for example, Catholic support for the Liberal Party dropped 24 points in 2008. And as compared to the 2004 election, visible minority support for the Liberal Party fell 19 points in 2008. Huge drops in both demographics.

Second, between the 2000 and 2008 elections, the Liberal Party witnessed the vanishing of its traditional edge in party identification among voters. This was largely due to the intervening consolidation of party adherents from the merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive-Conservative Party. Today, the Conservative Party likely retains a larger number of party adherents than the Liberal Party. (I say likely, because recent news from the Liberal Party suggests that memberships are up, and significantly so.)

Finally third, the declining economy in 2008 may have actually helped save the Liberal Party from an even worse defeat. (It’s pretty hard to imagine a worse defeat given that the Party’s performance in 2008 hit a near-record low.) Insofar as voters tend to punish the governing party in times of economic hardship, the Conservative Party may have lost votes on that basis, which suggests that in a stronger economic climate, those votes could revert to the Conservatives. Today, with the Canadian economy showing signs of strength, the Conservative Party is less likely to lose votes on that score than it was in 2008.

There you have it. Those are the basic conclusions the authors reach in assessing the 2008 federal election. Some very interesting insights, in my view. Insights that a political party would do well to heed if it were, say for just instance, planning for the prospect of a possible election in the near future.