I have been watching the sad events unfold for a few days and I do not believe what has happened. I have known Mr. Michaud since the late 1970′s when we met at  Base Gagetown in New Brunswick. He is a very sincere and dedicated teacher. My receptionist has two children who have, and had him as a teacher and they both speak highly  and enthusiastically of his dedication, interest and sense of history.

I think “Hearsay” about kids pointing guns at passing cars and publishing this is slanderous. As a former trained military person Mr. Michaud would first instill a sense of responsibility in his students. In my basic training this was perhaps the most important aspect of our induction into the military. To tell people that the kids were acting like a game pointing them at cars is very irresponsible. No police reports were filed about this. But, I did hear neighbours were allegedly “complaining” about the event. And as to tanks…no such event occurred. Now if one imagines tanks one can only guess what one can imagine about guns. Time to look at fact.

Mr. Michaud has had a 20 year dream crushed through political correctness. The lesson has not been lost on his students.

For the past 19 years, students at an Ottawa high school have hoisted 10-pound military rifles to feel what it may be like to lug one around in the muddy trenches. They’ve met veterans and heard their stories, learning how their families were affected and what it was like to fight so far from home.

But this year — the year that was supposed to mark the 20th Remembrance Day Symposium at Notre Dame High School — they will get no such chance.

The traditional school event, scheduled for Nov. 10, has been cancelled because of a school committee decision to ensure there were “no tanks or guns” at the event, its co-ordinator told participants in an email last Friday.

This may seem like political correctness run amok, but there are some other layers to the story.

The event was cancelled because some students who hail from countries touched by war raised concerns about it last year, said Lauren Rocque, a spokeswoman for the Ottawa Catholic School Board.

“There are many students in that school that come from war-torn countries and when they saw replica guns in the hallway, it did upset them.”

Ms. Rocque was unable to say whether the students had complained to the principal directly.

“The tanks on the front lawn, that upset them too, so the committee decided to take this different direction,” she added.

I’m okay with a no guns no tanks policy at schools, even if it eliminates a tactile learning experience. I can’t imagine that holding a weapon actually improves one’s understanding of the horrors of war or the need to do all we can to avoid war in the future. And there’s certainly no justification for upsetting students who have already witnessed real-live war.

This seems like little more than a flounce by history teacher Gene Michaud. He’d assembled a program that fit his preferences and once the rest of the school decided that changes needed to be made, he took his guns and went home - ever the model of professionalism in teaching.

UPDATE: I received the following email on this topic, and I thought it only fair to share:

I have known Gene Michaud for many years. He is a dedicated intelligent teacher who has employed actual action to help student understand what war is about. First there were no tanks in the yard, the kids were not pointing rifles at passing cars and according to my receptionist his classes were very popular with her two children. But I imagine it does  not suit you style which seems zzzzzzzzzzzz

Well, I don’t recall anyone suggesting that kids were pointing rifles at passing cars, but I’m certainly glad it wasn’t happening.

Mr. Michaud may have been a dedicated teacher and may be a dedicated teacher for the rest of his career, but according to the (sympathetic) story, he flounced when he wasn’t allowed to bring guns into a school. I’m sorry if that doesn’t jibe with the third-hand anecdotes of two students, but you’d think he might have wanted to set the record straight if the story was so incorrect.

And by the way, if anyone can explain to me what a style of “zzzzzzzzzzzz” means, I’d greatly appreciate it.

I was a card-carrying member of the Bloc Quebecois for about ten years. It only cost $10 per year. All of that stopped when my wallet was stolen a couple of years ago. I did not bother renewing my membership after that. I still get their letters in the mail.

I love Canada and I love Quebec. The only reason why I stay living in Canada is because I enjoy French-Canadian culture. Otherwise, I would have moved to the US long ago. However, I still want Quebec to separate from Canada and hopefully that will happen before I die.

We are writing this letter in response to the decision of the Wildrose Alliance to allow Ian Donovan as candidate for the Wildrose Alliance in Little Bow.

We became members of this party because we believed that it stood for something different. We saw the policies of the Wildrose Alliance as exciting ideas that would change the nature of politics in this province. We particularly liked the open and transparent message that came from the party. This being said, we have now discovered how wrong we were.

As members of the constituency association we have experienced that the leadership of the Wildrose Alliance has systematically demonstrated incompetence in regards to the nomination process. Not only this, we have also experienced that this party is not a grassroots party, but a party run by a few paid employees that are not willing to work with local officials. Most significantly, the party central, with the leader Danielle Smith in awareness, flagrantly ignored its own procedures and rules by carefully interpreting the rules to favour a specific candidate. Two violations that we point to is the buying of memberships for people other than direct family members in clear contravention of the established guidelines of the party; we also point to the fact that eight mail-in ballots were never verified by the Returning Officer, but were mysteriously left in an office in Calgary.

It does not bode well for a party to make a statement in the public about open, transparent government on the same day that a locally elected executive was being squashed by the party central. As such, we are prepared to release the following statement to the presidents and to the local and national press by 10 a.m. Thursday, November 25, 2010 if our voices are continued to be ignored:

“The Provincial Executive of the Wildrose Alliance has declared Ian Donovan the winner of the nomination contest in Little Bow, contrary to the conclusion and declaration of the local Returning Officer based on the ballots in his possession. To this end, all but one member of the executive of Little Bow are resigning immediately. These resignations are based on the fact that flagrant irregularities occurred in the nomination process that were acknowledged but disregarded by the provincial executive, including the leader of the party. As such, the directors have lost faith in a party that supposedly espouses transparency and grassroots democracy.”

Sincerely,

Kevin Van Lagen, President
Jack Derksen, CFO
Lee De Boer, Secretary
John Voorhorst, VP Fundraising
Robert Laing, VP Policy
Bill Harding, Director at Large Kerry
Nabozniak, Director at Large

It appears that in a rush to jump start the party and it’s chances against the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party, the fledgling upstart “grassroots” Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta is tramping on the very grassroots they claim are the heart of the party.

This shouldn’t really come as a surprise, Danielle Smith is a rookie in the game of politics – she clearly does not understand the vital role of the grassroots in an upstart party. Nor can we expect the Wildrose Alliance’s new Executive Director, Victor Marciano – fresh from a tenure with the federal Conservative Party of Canada, to honor and recognize the grassroots of any party. Since the merger of the PC Party and the Canadian Alliance, Victor Marciano and the other party elites on Conservative National Council have successful purged most of the grassroots elements out of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Perhaps this is the new reality of party politics in Canada.

Update: Former Little Bow Riding Executive Responds to Wild Rose Alliance Statement

Glad to have cleared that up for you.

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.

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.

British Columbia has long been without a viable conservative option at the polls.  In the last 12 years I have watched a variety of flavours attempt to rise from the ashes of the Social Credit Party (which was really more populist and centrist than conservative during most of its tenure) only to wither after electing a handful of seats.  It is hard to pinpoint the reason why this province can vote conservatively in most federal elections but cannot elect conservatives to their legislature.  Some may say bad organization, others may point to a media so left-biased that conservatives can’t even get negative press – they are simply ignored.  (I’d speculate that they get elected federally because the press is national, and less leftist than the local varieties, so the word gets out.)  Whatever the reason, conservative voices have been marginalized in BC for a long time.

Bill Vander Zalm was perhaps one of the more conservative Social Credit Premiers.  He was ousted in 1991, so it’s been a good 19 years of swings between more left (NDP) and less left (Liberal) reigns.  Admittedly, Vander Zalm’s agitation for the rejection of the HST is not really a classically conservative move – more populist really.  However, the last big move of conservative voices in the West was the rise of the Reform Party, which began with a very populist focus.

I see certain similarities between the mood of conservativism at the foundation of the Federal Reform Party and the present situation in BC.  If they can organize behind populist messages and get past the press hurdle and into the mainstream political conversation in BC, we might be seeing a watershed in the politics of the left coast.

She wrote a piece in today’s Vancouver Sun defending the HST, now that recent reports indicate 20 ridings have already succeeded in collecting enough signatures to repeal the HST, and the rest of them are gaining hard.

I have never seen such a pile of ridiculousness in my life.

The arguments come down to, “It will make us more productive by simplifying technology.  And that will make us better than the Americans.  Did you know they are more productive than we are?  And they’re getting better.”

The article could have been entitled, “The HST will make us Better Than Americans”.  Of course, that premise would have been laughed out of the newsroom – but that’s what the piece says.

If your central premise is that streamlining the tax collection process will make BC more competitive, you’d better back it up with facts.  Last time I checked, I don’t see companies that produce tills and other money-processing equipment charging companies less simply because the system has to do one less percentage calculation.

But more obviously, I don’t believe a single State in the USA has an HST.  Mainly because there is no Federal Sales Tax in the USA – although many cities and counties charge special sales taxes on certain goods and services.  So, basically this article, which the Vancouver Sun’s website advertises as one of the most read articles today, negates itself.  It says that we need the HST to be more competitive because America is more competitive than us… but the USA doesn’t have an HST.  They are kicking our butts productively because they work harder.  It has nothing to do with harmonized taxes.

Canada (and BC) needs to get off the pot (and the Pot) and work harder.  Not whine to the government about taxes being too complicated… never mind my 9 year old can calculate them in his head.

Mr. Siddiqui was not impressed by the arguments mounted against the head-to-toe body bag—for example, the notion that it is a “symbol of oppression”:

“Let’s assume that [the niqab] is,” [Haroon Siddiqui] wrote. “Whose business is it to end the practice—that of the state?”

That’s pretty cute coming from a guy who, during this magazine’s long battle with Canada’s “human rights” commissions, argued at length that it was most certainly the business of the state to end the practice of Maclean’s carrying Islamophobic Steyn columns. If the state can regulate what you write and say and think and even (as in the lesbian heckler case at the British Columbia Tribunal) what you quip, it can most certainly regulate what you wear. In Canada, it would be quicker to list what isn’t the business of the state. “The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation,” said Pierre Trudeau, unless, of course, you’re tucked up with a nice mug of cocoa reading an Islamophobic edition of Maclean’s. It was a classic bit of Trudeaupian legerdemain: if you’re allowed to roger anything that moves, or doesn’t, according to taste, you won’t notice all the other parts of your life the state has a place in. In Canada, it’s the state’s business when you get your hip operation, not yours: if the state has jurisdiction over your hip, why shouldn’t it also have jurisdiction over which garments the hip can be sheathed in? In Canada, a resident alien is not permitted to own a bookstore, on grounds of cultural protection. If “cultural protection” can prohibit a homosexual from San Francisco opening up a gay bookstore in Vancouver, why can’t it also extend to a Muslim woman’s dress?

And Quebec is Canada without even the residual restraints of the Britannic inheritance. In the interests of la collectivité, the province regulates not only the public usage of language but the very size of lettering in which your words can be displayed. If the state has power to set a maximum font on the ladies’ room door, why can’t it also set a limit on the yards of cloth you have to hoist up once you get in there?

Emphasized portions mine. Do read it all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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…

Enter Lawrence Martin, whose political insights are so honed, that he’s joining Frank McKenna in giving the Tories the upcoming Red playbook months before the next election! Misjudging 2008′s election results as too ideologically fought, the Liberal Party of Canada has, following McKenna’s lead, abandoned the principle notion for the good ol’ strategy of fear-mongering. “Just bring out Harper’s old quotes!” they say, as if that is some magical panacea that will bring the Liberals back above 100 seats in the Commons.

Just as Yahoo!, Eaton’s, Sony and MySpace all found out though, times change! It’s one thing to, for example, refer to a 1997 quote from the Prime Minister about our need to get rid of the Canada Health Act, but another to follow the argument though on why this means the incumbent entering his fourth year in office needs to be turfed. Garble up the “second tier” quote as they will, the Liberals will also have a hard time explaining how their leader was more recently condoning the use of torture.  This isn’t 2000 anymore…for that matter, it isn’t even 2006 anymore where the Liberals could still rely on a certain level of incumbent comfort among the electorate.

In this new era, it is the Tories who can, and have been, making the arguments against the unknown and untested. Unlike the Liberals though, they haven’t been tied down with a scandal as big as the Chretien-era AdScam issue, and still have some degree of principle over the Liberal Party. The best that a Liberal scorched earth campaign could do is, perhaps, spook a few voters in Toronto, for all the good it will do. The rest of the country, nay world is concentrated right now on the bread and butter issues. Chretien survived the Somalia Inquiry without a scratch; Harper will get by these torture issues just fine. As for what will win the election — taxes, jobs, stability — what have the Liberals said, other than a leader’s musings last April in Cambridge (Ontario, not Mass.; just needed to make that clear!) about the need to raise taxes. That’ll be a winner…for a 2nd tier party competing with the NDP right now!

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.

Such was the case tonight on Steve Paikin’s The Agenda. Paikin’s a smart cookie, and not just because he’s a loyal CFL fan, but I really wish tonight that he had found a better crowd to discuss the massive day care nationalization that Dalton McGuinty is bringing forward than former Mike Harris Education Minister John Snobelen and four professional stateists from various universities. Apparently our education system does need an overhaul as one of said stateists blandly countered Snobelen’s valid question on why we are turning the current batch of toddlers into lab rats by parroting McGuinty’s baseless argument that keeping four and five year olds in school all day is a “Cadillac” system — incidentally, does this mean that it too will be overpriced and eventually brought to an end by less expensive, more efficient foreign models?

As tempting as it is to take this “Cadillac” into the shop for a full inspection, something is pressing me even further tonight: who says what’s best for the kids anyway? This debate isn’t new, as the last provincial election and the recent 2006 federal election both pegged those who think mom & dad know best versus those who want to be tucked in by the all-caring state, even if the policies each side put forward weren’t as dramatically different in practiced. I understand a few wise fellows wrote reports for the Premier to tackle what is best for our kids recently (names aren’t important) about what’s best for our kids. Has anyone bothered to ask how? Were there specific parameters put forward, and why are those parameters important anyhow? Also, while we’re on the matter, why is it “our” kids and not my kid or your kid? Certainly, if we follow the logic through, presuming that I already have a couple million kids of my own scattered throughout Ontario, I should be getting a whole lot more Christmas presents this year than I expected and have some right to tell the rowdy teens who come around on Friday night that they better be back home in 15 minutes, or else!

Where are we drawing the line here? For that matter, while the institution of parenthood exists because adults are essential for the proper upbringing of a child, can we not consult with the little ones to some degree on what they want? I’d love to know how many five year old boys, for example, are eager to have a fully structured day from 7 am – 6 pm where a bossy stranger will tell them when they can play, where they can play and how they can play. Personally, I remember five being a lot more free and, well, fun!

And here inlies the truth of the matter: we’ve been spending too much time telling each other what’s best for the kids (whoever they belong to!), and absolutely no time listening for what’s best. None of us would appreciate a complete stranger (who stands to make a lucrative career out of bossing us around, mind you) going around dictating our lives to us on the premise of “you’ll thank me later”, so why are we putting the next generation through such pains? This explains why parents, the good parents, are such a dramatic improvement over the professionals: they have a vested interested in listening out for the needs of the individual child, and while the day care regime in Ontario hides behind the rare bad apple for why they need to rock the cradle, I have never met a Premier or teacher that has come close to meeting the standard of a faithful mother or father. On that note, I think it’s nap time!

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.

Tim Hudak, who won the Ontario PC leadership this past June, has so far impressed me by indicating, through his actions, that he’s been around long enough to know these challenges and their solutions too! While Michael Ignatieff was dogged all summer with reports that he wasn’t hitting the road and meeting the grassroots of his party, Hudak was. Various community newspapers were peppered with stories during the summer about just who this new, young leader was. In other words, Hudak was defining himself!

Now that the Ontario Legislature is back in session, Hudak has used that momentum to define the McGuinty Liberals. Unlike previous party attempts, Hudak has targeted the bread and butter issues that will most resonate with people: the HST implementation and the e-Health/OLG scandals (say “AdScam” everyone!).

The former, while an interesting issue in that many PC Party members will support a harmonized tax to some degree, has been successfully cast as the “Dalton Sales Tax” by many of the party’s MPPs. It also is an issue that Hudak is wisely building up now, but not too much! This is smart politics — when the HST, Hudak has made himself the defacto spokesman of the backlash forces that the media will turn to.

As for the scandals that have rocked McGuinty, Hudak’s announcement that calls for a public inquiry is only being delayed by the Liberals because they saw what a similar inquiry with a similiarly corrupt scheme did to their federal cousins about six years ago! The consistent and continued calls though will dog the government so long as this issue remains at the forefront of provincial political coverage (and McGuinty has done nothing to help his team by keeping the legislative agenda a ho-hum one at best!).

It’s therefore good to see that Ontario has an Opposition leader that truly opposes; who will go out on a limb to define himself but is smart in picking his battles. This will go a long way to telling us how the 2011 election campaign will play out; both HST and e-Scam will be on the agenda. As for Hudak, his next move will likely be to build up a team for that campaign, and then build up an alternative vision of how Ontario should be governed. Time will tell how this will look, but so far this blogger likes what he sees!

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.

Allegations in the lawsuit have not been tested in court.

On Wednesday, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan told the Star that Smith did not belong in federal prison, along with what he estimated as 12 to 15 per cent of inmates with mental health issues. Van Loan said he could not discuss details of the lawsuit, but blamed the provinces where she was incarcerated for failing to provide psychiatric care.

“There’s a limit to what we can do,” the federal minister said.

A spokeswoman for the Correctional Service of Canada said the agency could not comment on the allegations because the matter is before the courts.

Smith’s mother has watched as federal and provincial ombudsmen have investigated her daughter’s case.

Despite recommendations to improve the care of inmates, little has been done. Smith’s mother hopes a court action will unearth the real story of her daughter’s death, incite accountability and help other inmates in the process.

“During the last year of her life Ashley was shipped across four provinces and between eight institutions … all the while in segregation,” Coralee Smith said.

“Her location changed, but the callous treatment of her most basic needs did not. When she asked for help, she was ignored. I owe it to Ashley to ensure that the truth comes out about how she was treated.”

Raised in Moncton, N.B., by hard-working parents prominent in the local business community, Smith was first jailed at age 15 for a relatively minor incident.

She was caught throwing a crabapple at a letter carrier, whom neighbours believed was withholding welfare cheques, and jailed four months. In custody, a pattern began where she was accused of destructive behaviour and received escalating sentences, which ultimately landed her in federal prison at age 18.

Once in the federal system, Smith was transferred 17 times in less than a year, including moves from Nova Scotia to Saskatchewan to Quebec – ending up in Grand Valley Institution in Kitchener.

The lawsuit alleges Smith was continuously held in segregation and that prison officials sidestepped the rule that triggers a regional review after 60 days.

“The claim lays out conspiracy because a simple examination of the facts in this case makes it very difficult to believe this all happened by happenstance,” the family’s lawyer Julian Falconer said.

If the allegations are established to be true, the individuals responsible should be held criminally responsible. This could well be a case where conscience should have been expected to take precedence over just doing one’s job.

While the federal member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore isn’t having a very good fall, his counterpart in Ontario, Premier Dalton McGuinty (Lib, Ottawa South) might be seeing the beginning of the end of his career in politics. In a display that echos of Jean Chretien’s adscam downfall, McGuinty has been linked on a personal level to the eHealth CEO that his government fired earlier this summer. It’s important to note that this does not mean that McGuinty has been found privy to any wrongdoing yet, but like yesterday’s rumours will have implications for Michael Ignatieff simply for painting an image of the federal Liberal leader as week, so too will this serve to paint the picture that Dalton McGuinty was a little too close for comfort to a government organization that is in the midst of a massive spending scandal.

Previous musings that I’ve made to colleagues that Energy Minister George Smitherman (Lib, Toronto Centre) “isn’t going anywhere” might be more ironic than McGuinty meant it to be when he said those words as Smitherman might opt out of the race for Toronto mayor, seeing instead the potential to be Ontario’s next Premier being more lucrative. As the information about eHealth, the OLG and any other landmines out there starts to close in on McGuinty, the Premier might decide an early retirement is in order about a year before the 2011 provincial election. There’s still some time between now and then, but clearly McGuinty’s teflon days of his first term are starting to give way to a stickier situation than even generously patient Ontarians are willing to deal with!

MPP Cheri DiNovo (NDP) has introduced Bill 198, an amendment to the Planning Act that would allow municipalities to require developers set aside a certain percentage of new housing units for affordable housing (inclusionary housing appears to be the new buzz word), and the government has given their tacit approval.  Sure, the province won’t actually enact price controls with this legislation, and zoning laws rightfully belong with municipalities, but the implications of this legislation could be severe.

“Affordable” housing requirements do anything but create affordable housing.  The requirement for affordable housing will act as a cost on new development, thus deterring companies from building new housing units.

Price ceilings like “affordable” housing have the same effect as increased taxation.  They shift the price of a good away from its equilibrium point.  At the artificial price, demand will be higher but suppliers will create less of the good (in this case, housing).  The deadweight loss will rob society of wealth and we’ll have fewer housing units available.  Further, not all rents will be kept artificially low.  With lower development, and, thus, lower supply of housing, we will witness an an upward pressure on rent for all non-affordable housing units.  Vacancies will drop precipitously, and fewer people will be in the homes that they would have chosen had the government not intervened.  This will be a sub-optimal result for everyone.

This past year has been arguably the worst year, economically, that Ontario has witnessed in quite a long time.  We’re worried about economic expansion; we’re worried about people being able to pay rent.  This is not the time for the province or any municipality to put in place regulations that will stifle growth, increase the cost of housing and create a net drag on the economy.  It doesn’t matter what your motivation is; you’re going to hurt people; you’re going to hurt the poor.

This is pretty basic economics.  Surely Premier Dalton McGuinty or the Ontario Housing Minister, Jim Watson, or someone either in the Liberal caucus or advising Liberal MPs knows this.  Surely, not every Liberal is blinded by the nice talk of “affordable” housing.  The economic illiteracy on display is especially sad considering that Jim Watson was mayor of Ottawa in the late 1990s when such housing policies drove skyrocketing rental prices and led to an estimated 2% vacancy rate for rental units.  (The sadness is compounded by the fact that the Premier is also from Ottawa and must have been aware of what was a huge story in the city.)

If we are worried about people being able to afford housing, the last thing we should do is institute policies for “affordable” housing.  If we have to help people pay the rent, there is a simple way to do it; give them money.  Direct wealth transfers have the least distortionary effect on the economy; do not, directly, stifle economic growth; and would actually allow those receiving them to make choices for themselves.

While the details are still being painted out, what is emerging is the strong possibility, if not reality, that the cyclist who died was willfully holding onto Bryant’s then-hoodless vehicle, and intoxicated. I don’t know about anyone else, but while I wouldn’t purposely try to ram the cyclist into a wall (if that did happen), I certainly wouldn’t know what to do if my pleas with the cyclist to let go of my car fell on deaf ears. Abandoning the vehicle to find the police would risk vandalism to my property, driving off is obviously not an option due to the expectation under the law for citizens to practice due diligence, and doing nothing is also a dangerous situation in and of itself if you are dealing with an intoxicated individual.

Strictly speaking, this story might have a silver lining in that it will bring to the public attention the fact that many stories, too many, are coming out of Toronto of arrogant and dangerously-reckless cyclists who literally think they rule the roads and care not if they put the lives of their neighbours at risk while they skirt around the streets of Toronto. Obviously there are a vast number of good bikers who live there and who do not deserve such criticism, but ignoring the problem in order to appease Ms. Manners have a real possibility after Tuesday of leading to more deaths: it’s worth the discomfort of a discussion! We need to explore if bikers shouldn’t be held to the same account as motor vehicle drivers who use our roads — specifically when it comes to obeying traffic rules and scorning intoxication while driving.

With that in mind, I wish strength and blessings on the Bryant family during this difficult time. May justice truly be done in this case…for all our sakes!

Hudak: 4128 (39.96%)
Klees: 3299 (31.94%)
Elliott: 2903 (28.10%) [dropped]

TOTAL: 10330

This is where it’ll get interesting folks! While Hudak leads Klees by a steady 8%, that number is presumed to rapidly shrink as the Elliott and Hudak camps fought this campaign as though the other side was the one to defeat. However, with Elliott off the ballot, a lot of her supporters are expected to move to Klees. To win, Hudak will need to get around 35.75% of Elliott’s points while Klees will have have to get around 64.25%. It’s not as easy for Hudak as the numbers suggest, and (again) I bet the Hudak team is really wishing they kept the contest against Elliott a little less polarized right now!

As an aside, 15 points were dropped between B1 and B2 (10345 to 10330); this is curious given the points system the OPC uses for it’s leadership system although there might be a perfectly good explanation for this in the details.

Suspender Update:

As expected, Hudak enjoyed most of the second-choice support from Hillier supporters, gaining just over 600 of the 1013 points avaliable in B2. What is surprising is that Klees and Elliott split the remainder (Klees received an additional 206 points; Elliott, 175). One little known fact in this race is that Hillier and the Landowners supported Klees in the 2004 race, but I guess without the open talk of health care choice from Klees and Elliott’s flat tax proposal, many of the libertarian-oriented Hillier fans were literally split as to what to do after Randy got dropped…

Pink Waffle Update: Courtesy of United & Strong, we now have the riding-by-riding breakdown of who won on B2. I did a quick comparison and here below are the changes for those ridings where the winner has flipped.

A few observations:

1) All three ridings Hillier won on B1 went to Hudak on B2.
2) Scarborough, Mississauga, Ottawa and Simcoe proved very hotly contested, with a lot of horse trading in all of those areas.
3) Elliott picked up three ridings (two Klees, one Hudak) this round, Klees took four (three from Hudak; broke the tie in Davenport) and Hudak 11 (five Klees, and three each from Elliott and Hillier)

Format: (Riding B1 Winner -> B2 Winner)
Carleton-Missippi Mills Hillier -> Hudak
Davenport 3-way tie (Hudak, Elliott, Klees)-> Klees wins
Etobicoke Centre Klees -> Elliott wins
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell Hillier wins -> Hudak wins
Lambton Kent Middlesex Klees wins Hudak wins
Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington Hillier -> Hudak wins
Mississauga Streetsville Hudak -> Klees wins
Mississauga-Brampton South Klees -> Hudak wins
Northumberland-Quinte West Elliott -> Hudak wins
Ottawa Vanier Elliott -> Hudak wins
Ottawa West Nepean Hudak -> Elliott wins
Scarborough Centre Klees -> Hudak wins
Scarborough Guildwood Klees -> Elliott wins
Scarborough Rouge River Klees -> Hudak wins
Simcoe-Grey Hudak -> Klees wins
Simcoe-North Hudak -> Klees wins
St Paul’s Elliott -> Hudak wins
Windsor West Elliott -> Hudak wins

Randy Hillier (4th Place)

Randy only won three ridings, all of them in eastern Ontario, all of them rural and including his own Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.

Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington
Carleton-Missippi Mills
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell

Christine Elliott (3rd Place)

Like Hillier, Christine Elliott also took her home riding of Whitby-Oshawa, and much of the surrounding area with ridings like Ajax Pickering, Oshawa and Pickering-Scarborough East. Moving outside the eastern GTA, Elliott interestingly picked up some rural ridings like Essex, Wellington-Halton Hills and Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry, which probably has a lot to do with the fact that former DraftALeader head Nick Kouvalis has strong ties in those areas. Elliott did well in the 416, taking some of the most desolate ridings (in terms of PC Ontario performance/organization), and was able to pick up a riding in each of Ottawa, Kitchener-Waterloo, Oakville and Kingston, giving her a win in a total of 24 ridings.

Ajax Pickering
Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound
Dufferin-Caledon
Durham
Eglington Lawrence
Essex
Kingston and the Islands
Kitchener Waterloo
Northumberland-Quinte West
Oakville
Oshawa
Ottawa Vanier
Peterborough
Pickering-Scarborough East
St Paul’s
Sault Ste Marie
Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry
Toronto Centre
Toronto Danforth
Wellington-Halton Hills
Whitby-Oshawa
Windsor West
York South Weston
York West

Frank Klees (2nd Place)

Suspicions that the infamous “immigrant letter” from this week might have initiated in the Klees camp is lent credibility by the results here. Klees won in the GTA ridings with high immigrant political pariticpation and population numbers, including most of Peel and York regions (the latter being Klees’ home turf). Observers might find it curious then to see much of Waterloo region, and Lambton Kent Middlesex included here, however Klees also had Charles McVety and the Campaign Life Coalition working pretty heavily for him according to the buzz surrounding the last two months, which would explain those ridings falling under the Klees column. Klees won 33 ridings.

Beaches-East York
Bramalea-Gore-Malton
Brampton Springdale
Brampton West
Cambridge
Don Valley East
Elgin Middlesex London
Etobicoke Centre
Etobicoke Lakeshore
Huron Bruce
Kitchener Centre
Kitchener Conestoga
Lambton Kent Middlesex
Markham-Unionville
Mississauga-Brampton South
Mississauga East Cooksville
Mississauga Erindale
Mississauga South
Newmarket Aurora
Nickel Belt
Oak Ridges-Markham
Parkdale-High Park
Richmond Hill
Scarborough Centre
Scarborough Guildwood
Scarborough Rouge River
Scarborough Southwest
Sudbury
Thornhill
Thunder Bay-Atikokan
Willowdale
York Centre
York Simcoe

Tim Hudak (1st Place)

Hudak did very well in his home turf of southeastern Ontario, taking all of Hamilton, Burlington, and Niagara Region. He also won most of the seats in places like London, Oxford Region, Ottawa, and Guelph. Respectable results in the rural areas of northern Ontario (thanks to Mike Harris, no doubt) and southern Ontario (thanks to the HRC issue), as well as both Toronto proper and the GTA give Hudak a nice, well-spread 46 riding victory threshold going into B2!

Ajax Pickering
Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound
Dufferin-Caledon
Durham
Eglington Lawrence
Essex
Kingston and the Islands
Kitchener Waterloo
Northumberland-Quinte West
Oakville
Oshawa
Ottawa Vanier
Peterborough
Pickering-Scarborough East
St Paul’s
Sault Ste Marie
Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry
Toronto Centre
Toronto Danforth
Wellington-Halton Hills
Whitby-Oshawa
Windsor West
York South Weston
York West
Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington
Carleton-Missippi Mills
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
Algoma Manitoulin
Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale
Barrie
Brant
Burlington
Chatham Kent Essex
Don Valley West
Etobicoke North
Guelph
Haldimand-Norfolk
Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock
Halton
Hamilton Centre
Hamilton East-Stoney Creek
Hamilton Mountain
Kenora-Rainy River
Leeds-Grenville
London-Fanshawe
London North Centre
London West
Mississauga Streetsville
Nepean Carleton
Niagara Falls
Niagara West Glanbrook
Nipissing
Ottawa Centre
Ottawa-Orleans
Ottawa South
Ottawa West Nepean
Oxford
Parry Sound-Muskoka
Perth-Wellington
Prince Edward-Hastings
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke
St Catharines
Sarnia-Lambton
Scarborough-Agincourt
Simcoe-Grey
Simcoe-North
Thunder Bay-Superior North
Timiskaming-Cochrane
Timmins-James Bay
Trinity Spadina
Vaughan
Welland
Windsor-Tecumseh

TIE

Likely due to being a small riding, organization-wise, Toronto riding Davenport was split between Hudak, Klees and Elliott!

Hudak: 3511
Klees: 3093
Elliott: 2728
Hillier 1013

TOTAL: 10345

Now, for the second ballot (B2), Hillier’s supporters will have their second choices counted and the last two months indicate that most of those choices will be for Hudak. Under the best scenario for Tim Hudak’s team, all of Hillier’s ballots go to Hudak, which would put us at:

Hudak: 4524 (43.73%)
Klees: 3093 (29.90%)
Elliott: 2728 (26.37%)

This still keeps Hudak just over six percent away from victory, and in reality, some of Hillier’s supporters would rather see Klees or Elliott in the big chair first. While it is possible for Elliott to survive the second ballot, she would need 365 points or 36.03% of Hillier’s points to overtake Klees, presuming the rest of Hillier’s points are allocated to Hudak; in other words, we’re going to a third ballot (B3) between Hudak and Klees.

Under that scenario, the best Hudak could hope for is that he would only need 649 points from Elliott’s supporters, or 23.79% or her B1 points. I bet at this point the Hudak folks are wishing they weren’t so hard on the federal Finance Minister’s wife anymore since that is a reasonable number to overcome, but it is definately in murky territory given the nasty animosity the Hudak and Elliott campaigns had against each other over the past three months. It is also, again, an ideal for the Hudak campaign and they’ll likely require between 25-30% of Elliott’s points to put them over the top.

As much as Hudak’s team is probably a little worried with these numbers currently, Klees’ team should be only cautiously joyful as the best they could hope for on B2 is 4106 points (presuming all of Hillier’s points go to Klees), leaving him with 39.69% at the end of B2. In that scenario, he’d enter B3 requiring 1067 or a modest 39.11% of Elliott’s points from B1, but again, no one is expecting more than a quarter of Hillier’s points to be allocated to Klees at best.

Still, this one ain’t over yet folks, unless you’re Hillier or Elliott!

Update: Welcome Newswatch readers!

Fast forward to 2009, Toronto, Ontario.

Toronto Mayor David Miller has through his own actions created a crisis whereby he has established a precedent for his own dealings with Organized Labour and has suddenly either seen the light, or experienced some sort of epiphany where he has realized that these sorts of “rollovers” can no longer go on. Did someone manage to prove to him that money doesn’t grow on trees? (Given that Canadian money is very colorful, his world must be in perpetual autumn.)

So now, during this disgusting crisis taking place arguably at the worst possible time for an already struggling city, Mayor David Miller is sending out the Toronto equivalent to the KGB with orders to track down and identify citizens who dispose of their trash in ways that the city doesn’t approve of (and admittedly any city wouldn’t). As if this wasn’t enough, he is encouraging citizens to snitch on their neighbors by reporting their activities to the proper “authorities”. Doesn’t that sound like the youth programs the Nazi’s established where children were brainwashed into betraying their parents and neighbors to the Gestapo? Now I’m not saying that this is what’s being emulated here, but it certainly sounds eerily similar in flavor.

Anyway, illegal dumping seems to be taking place because striking city workers have been causing some problems at approved dumping sites causing excessivly long waits (which presumably contribute to more traffic snarls in a city already famous for congestion). Now, I don’t condone illegal dumping, but what options are left to the tax-paying citizens who are not being provided with the services they have (and continue to be) paid for?

Mayor David Miller is asking people to store their garbage in their garages. Having lived in downtown Toronto for a time, I can tell you there’s not many personal garages around there. Striking city workers are asking people to submit to their ill-conceived (albeit legal) strike and all the harassment that goes with it.

Can you imagine though, if Torontonians chose the path of the Boston colonists? Imagine, if you will, if residents chose instead to destroy their own garbage instead of returning the already taxed trash to the city? I doubt Torontonians would tolerate dumping all their garbage into Toronto’s harbour, but there are other ways of disposing/destroying of trash that do not include illegal dumping.

We could very well see the Lazy Hazy Crazy Days of Summer in Toronto. More “Hazy” than usual maybe.

Just a thought…

I haven’t personally been burdened by an instance wherein I loaned Frank Klees my trust when he promised me one thing and then did another, but over the years, I’ve grown to be unsurprised when I meet someone who says they have. I’ve chalked a lot of it up to the fact that the candidate calls himself a “progressive conservative” and has been associated with the social conservative, red tory and libertarian wings of the party at different points in the last decade — his voting record isn’t any more insightful into who the real Frank Klees is. I finally got to have a one-on-one with the man a couple of weeks ago and confess that he handles himself amazingly well in policy discussions. I had two specific questions for him though, and neither of the answers I got were very comforting. On the first, dealing with something he’d change that Dalton McGuinty gave us over the past six years, Klees refused to answer, saying that these discussions were best left up to the grassroots. That, in and of itself was actually a pretty good response in my books, except that when the second question on why he’s treating the HRCs like he is came up, he told me that “I will not be around” if the party fights the next election on a promise to scrap the thought police, either as leader or under another individual. I was seeing clearly after that conversation why so many peers don’t count on Klees to follow through on his words.

More important for pro-lifers, today this report from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation was brought to my attention. I know Derek Filderbrandt quite well and he is both a hard-working individual who takes pride in getting his facts straight, and is also an individual of no small integrity. So if Derek is posting up on his blog a citation from Frank Klees that the candidate will not commit to remove unnecessary/elective health procedure funding from the provincial taxpayer’s burden, even as he’s telling pro-lifers that he’ll fight for him, I trust Filderbrandt’s word over Klees’.

So with two weeks left in this race, and only one before voting starts, we need Frank Klees to clearly come out on how exactly he will fight for the family without stopping the funding for one of the most horrific practices in the modern world. More importantly, he’ll have to explain how an alleged social conservative can even be effective when his reputation isn’t the cleanest to begin with!

Footnote: The full Frank Klees report can be downloaded here.

Now, for those of us who pass over hockey for the far-superior sports of football and baseball, this isn’t quite the passionate exercise that has come to replace what would normally be playoff season hype in Southern Ontario if only the Leafs could produce a decent product again, but even I can feel a bit of the frustration that comes over our fair region whenever the carrot is put out in front of us by one of the RIM boys. It’s hard to see how the New York offices of the NHL would ever find any problem with planting another team in the obsessively-dedicated hockey neighbourhood of southern Ontario, even if the ultimate goal is to make the NHL one of the big boys (the league is easily dwarfed by MLB, the NFL and NBA in the US market place since hockey is practically unknown beyond any state that Barack Obama didn’t carry last November). That is what the execs have done before, and will do again this time once the serious negotiations begin.

Now, before everyone gets into a fight over which area code deserves the team more (and it’s the 519 by the way; K-W is by far a more faithful and dedicated hockey town than Hamilton, which has seen numerous bankrupted AHL teams and frankly likes its CFL team more anyway), might I suggest folks confront the lurking dragon that magically grows quite every time this opportunity comes up: Toronto. Now christened Toronto’s official region, the Maple Leafs have huge capital invested in keeping themselves the only game in town, so much so that they have a veto over any team located within a certain vicinity of Hogtown (which’ll kill the Burlington and Hamilton bids on the spot). I’m frankly surprised that my hockey-loving neighbours haven’t noticed how much Maple Leaf Entertainment has worked against their dreams over the past number of years as the most financially successful team in the league likely holds quite a bit of sway with the NHL brass. The success of the Leafs (didn’t think you’d hear that phrase these days, did you?) to cash in big-time has also got to be on the NHL’s mind as they mull the excuse that they’ll email Jim on his BlackBerry this time.

Wouldn’t it be novel if the hockey fans in Ontario, say, stopped buying ridiculous sums of Leafs merchandise until they were shown a bit more love from the league? Look, I know that I’m asking for a bit of rationality from a group more rabidly insane in its element than the atheists and socialists we usually contend with here at The Politic, but at least with this group I’ve got to believe that with the best interests of the community in mind, a well-planned and popularly-supported backlash would make the cash-constrained NHL think a bit before red-inking another Balsillie deal! Gotta dream big, right Canada?

If each member in the Liberal Party were given an equal vote, guess which region would end up with all the say? Ding ding ding, we have a winner! And if Ontario gets to dictate party policy, the ratio of Western to Eastern in the party will become even more disproportionate, leading to a cruel cycle that can only end with the Liberals becoming a regional rump party.

So unless the Liberals want Canada to remain in minority territory from here into oblivion, they’d best trash the 1M1V plan, before it’s too late.

There has been a LOT of criticism againt the current Conservative Government for their spending of late. And while as a Fiscal Conservative it makes the bile rise in my throat, my brain has me fighting to keep it down with a few considerations.

I want to throw it out there that there has been a LOT of Corrective spending happening.

Now, when I say corrective, I’m referring to PMSH having to spend in order to correct what we as Conservatives view as errors made by the previous Liberal government.  Errors such as the near-mothballing of our Military Forces. General Hillier referred to it as the Decade of Darkness, and Conservatives by and large agree. Conservatives, as I recall, were thrilled by such an endearment and viewed the rebuilding of our Military as a positive thing for our country.

But that doesn’t come free. Our troops needed updating, retraining, re-arming, and re-supplying. IF we were to be able to carry our own weight in international missions, we were going to need the wherewithal to do just that. Once there, they needed protection and security and the tools to do what was asked of them. Enter Corrective Spending. The large purchases made here (helicopters, Globemasters, tanks)  are not ongoing spending. Once purchased, they will need maintaining of course, but the big-ticket purchase will have already passed.

Moving on. We ARE participating in an international, UN sanctioned War. It’s not something that is frequently referred to, but we ARE a Nation at WAR. Again, that doesn’t come free. But also, it’s not going to go on forever.

This Conservative Government chose to make amends for the wrongs commited by previous governments. Things such as the Chinese Head Tax. The Residential Schools issue etc. Those apologies also came with renumeration. This has cost the Federal Government millions of dollars. But this too is Corrective Spending or One-off spending. Once resolved and restitution paid, it’s over.

This Conservative Government has also chosen first to acknowledge that there is a Fiscal Imbalance, and second, to try and tackle it. Something that no previous government has even considered. This has resulted in increased transfers to the provinces and the shouldering of additional responsibilities on the federal side. This likely will be a task that continues, but with co-operation from the provinces, a balance is likely to be found. (This is assuming that the Premiers can get past whining in order to try and squeeze as much as they can out of the Feds…)

I believe that if you were to remove examples such as these (and there are others), you’ll find that the Conservative Government under PMSH is spending at least the same, if not less, than other more so-called thrifty governments.

I also believe that once we are out of this recession which was beyond the control of anyone in Canada (Conservative, Liberal, NDP or BLOC), and once we are past the Corrective Spending and War Time spending, we will see the fruits of the changes being made by this current government. Unfortunately, what usually happens is that while the Conservatives take the heat and make the hard decisions, the public becomes unwilling to wait and elects a Liberal government who then reap the crop of Conservative seeding, unjustifiably propagating the myth that “Conservative times are hard times” when in fact, Conservatives shoulder the responsibility for laying the groundwork for the Good Times.

Simply put, will you, as the new leader of the PC Party of Ontario, and possibly the future Premier of the province, lead the other provinces back to the constitutional mandated responsibilities both Provincially and Federally?

This is important. Canadians at large are starting to get physically ill when the provinces bicker with the Feds, and vice versa. Danny Williams and his mouth have accellerated this situation, and I think that’s about the only thing I can thank him for. For the rest of this post, I promise not to mention that man again.

After SO many elections and fights and rhetoric etc, Canadians want our governments to get to work! Get the job done. I don’t care how many heads need knocking, or ears need to be boxed, but I want to see progress.

A perfect example, and my favorite one to use since so many people are familiar with it, is Aboriginal Land Claims. Aboriginal [First Nations/Native...] issues are constitutionally the responsibility of the Federal Government. Land Issues are constitutionally the responsibility of the Provincial Governments. Over the years/decades, both levels of government have thrown that hot potato back and forth denying responsibility under the premise of “this is YOUR responsibility”.

The issue mostly becomes clouded when you have matching/similar governments both Federally and Provincially who want to co-operate to their own political benefits and swap responsibilites based on who needs a bump in the polls. Chretien was notorious for this. These activities have created “precedence” making it very difficult to go back without an agreement in full to do so.

This isn’t to say that I’m not aware that there are areas that inherently overlap. Aboriginal Land Claims is one of those areas. In such situations, a responsibility framework must be drawn up and strictly adhered to as to who is responsible for what (precisely with no room for confusion), and how  to deal with joint responsibility.

Yes, there’s going to be upheval. Yes, there’s going to be hardship. However, there will also be clarity. As we move on as a Country into the 21st Century and beyond, a clear definition as to who is responsible for what is mandatory. In the event of catastrophe, or emergency, where one might become involved in an area outside their jurisdiction, a clear statement and agreement of a “one time interference” should be required by both levels and properly communicated to the public in no uncertain terms.

Once we accomplish this, relations between Federal and Provincial levels of government should become a walk in the park. For the most part anyway.

So my question goes out to all the Provincial Leadership Candidates.

Where do you stand on this issue? Are you willing and committed to doing this?

This follows on the heels of the McGuinty government announcing deficit spending in the Ontario Budget:

The McGuinty government is allocating $32.5 billion for infrastructure projects over the next two years, supporting an estimated 146,000 jobs in 2009-10 and 168,000 jobs in 2010-11.

So that means $16.25B in 2009-10, and then a further $16.25B in 2010-11. $9B of which is being poured into that little red spot on the above map. I know, it’s hard to see against the vast bulk of the rest of the province.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’ve lived in Toronto, and I know what traffic is like. More mass transit may help alleviate some of that congestion, and the current system is a little chaotic. I grew up in the far north of this province. I currently live in the automotive “heart” of this province. Is it worth taking advantage of the current times and the opening of the Federal Wallet to jump on this complaint, and disproportionately invest in Toronto given the situations elsewhere?

Dalton McGuinty and the successive Mayors in Toronto have whined and complained for Federal dollars to pay for this project (and other transit projects) for as long as I can remember. Suddenly, the country is about to be awash in Federal money and it looks like the Province and Toronto are taking full advantage of it to have the Feds pay for this project.

Oh sure, the optics are that Ontario is “matching” spending from the Federal Stimulus Package, but let’s be honest here; diverting such a large sum directly into that little red blot (in more ways than one) when other regions of the province are literally hemmoraging jobs in communities that are quite literally circling the drain is more than just a slap in the face.

One person even commented that it’s like giving with one hand and taking with another:

Why is the Ontario government spending billions of dollars simultaneously to destroy and save the auto industry?

It’s almost criminal. I’m sure David Miller is practically swooning in sheer joy to be able to go into his next election with this particular feather in his cap. I’m sure Dalton McGuinty is pleased that he has once again pandered to the largest voteshare in the province instead of having the personal integrity and fortitude to do the right thing and invest the money in the truly needing communities of the province. Toronto is not going to sink or swim based on this pet project. On the other hand, there are a plethora of communities who’s life-support plugs are about to be pulled unless drastic measures are taken to re-invogorate them.

But then, that has always been the Status Quo in this province of ours.

En effet, ce qui compte dans le fond, c’est de démontrer sa loyauté indéfectible envers le Canada dans un contexte où des entreprises françaises tentent de soumissionner en Ontario pour la fabrication de réacteurs nucléaires. Business is business.

Alors qu’importe si cela peut faire plaisir à Paul Desmarais, il appartient aux leaders souverainistes d’assumer leur leadership dans ce genre de situation.

Sarkozy is only interested in a Canada that advances French business interests and the sovereignist leaders in Quebec fail to call him out on that.

Alberta

It has it’s critics, say, here and here, but I like it.

“Freedom To Create. Spirit To Achieve” challenges a certain complacency whereby having the freedom to create wealth — not just material wealth, but the individual resource to fulfil one’s hopes and dreams — is diminished by overemphasizing our collective niceness as Canadians, specifically, the emphasis that gets placed on tolerance and equality, acceptance and understanding, or on our public welfare services as tenets of civil society. … And on that score, “Alberta Advantage” was always pretty blah, open to interpretation or any supposed advantage one might place on it; a wide swath of winners and losers.

There are people with ambition in this world, those who don’t whine when life — be it certain grievances against history or some amorphous and oppressive “ism” — deals them a rough hand, but keep going, looking for new opportunities for success despite hardship. These are the kinds of people we need to attract to Alberta, to encourage once they get here.

On the new slogan I say job well done.

First, as if it weren’t enough that Quebec abhors federal intrusion into their affairs, Jack Layton goes on to petition the Prime Minister to drag himself and government spending into the mess as well.

NDP leader Jack Layton said he intends to immediately send a letter making the request to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Next week, he intends to raise the issue of advertising by government departments and crown corporations in the chain’s newspapers during question period in the House of Commons.

Now, for a man trying to make gains off of their first MP elected in a province notorious for demanding more federal money, he is making the enormously stupid demand that the Federal Governmnet do exactly the opposite. Add to that, he is actively tampering in provincial jurisdiction; behaviour which is anathema to Quebecers and only serves as evidence for the BLOC and the PQ to use against Federalism. [insert golf clap here] Well done Jack. Well done.

Last night, Isabelle Dessureault, vice-president public affairs for Quebecor Media, responded to Layton’s plan saying he does not have all the facts.

“What the NDP is asking the government to do is take sides in a context where one of the two parties (Quebecor) exercised its rights under the actual laws in Quebec and Canada,” Dessureault said in an interview.

Dessureault noted that an inspector from the Quebec’s labour standards board recently visited the newspaper concluding no violations of the Labour Code in the current dispute.

What I personally find amusing, is that Jack Layton (the man who refuses to co-operate with the Conservatives on anything now asking for a favor?) continues to believe he has any influence with the Conservatives anymore. I dare say he has little credibility with even the Liberals these days.

That only leaves….oh yeah….

From the Globe & Mail story here:

Justice John Scurfield said Vince Li’s attack on Tim McLean last summer was “grotesque” and “barbaric,” but “strongly suggestive of a mental disorder.”

“He did not appreciate the actions he committed were morally wrong. He believed he was acting in self defense,” Scurfield said Thursday.

Both Crown and defence psychiatrists had testified at Li’s trial that he was suffering from schizophrenia and believed God wanted him to kill McLean because the young man was a force of evil.

Following that logic, no terrorist or terrorist organization should be found “criminally responsible” for their actions. Evidently, ‘God made me do it’ is sufficient grounds upon which to excuse domestic acts of terrorism and otherwise horrifying behaviors.

I wonder if Omar’s lawyers will pick up on this or otherwise try to exploit it. Depends on public reaction I suppose.

As much as I hate using the term “slippery slope” I’m fighting my own gag reflex when I say, we are now heading down a slippery slope when we allow avowed theistic direction to excuse the crimes we commit.

Vince Li will now be held and cared for in a mental patient facility and will receive annual evaluations to see if he is fit to return to a normal life without a criminal record for his actions.

I’m reminded very strongly of the case of another Chinese immigrant who shortly after arriving in this country, committed murder and was facing deportation as a result. She (Lucy Liu) was the first in probably a century who claimed Sanctuary in a Kingston Pentecostal Church to avoid deportation, and was ultimately excused since she had made many friends in the community and had established a life for herself here in Canada, but also, if she returned to China, she would have faced a death penalty for killing her husband, also a Chinese citizen.

These excuses are starting to weigh on our society, and is creating an unflattering image to the world outside our borders. I use the word ‘unflattering’ since the language I want to use over these matters, I personally find repulsive.

I am actually glad that the re-inactment of the battle on the Plains of Abraham has been cancelled. Now, I recommend that the separatists stage their own re-inactment themselves and tell the complete history. I doubt very much that English Canada would be happy to see a dramatization of all the rapes, the murders, the burnings and the pillaging of all the farms and villages leading up to Quebec City.