“This [economic slowdown] is different. It will call for different kinds of solutions,” he said.

But I don’t see a lot of originality in begging for handouts and corporate welfare.  Isn’t that what we’ve always done in the face of economic slowdowns?

Nina Grewal successfully defended her seat, despite returning competition from Brenda Locke.  This is the second time Mrs. Locke has stood as a candidate against Grewal, and the third time in the last 5 years that Locke has stood for public office, also running for the Provincial Liberals in the Green Timbers riding in the last provincial election.  She’s lost every time.  Not sure when she is going to get out of public politics, but I’d be losing heart after running three failed campaigns in a row.  Especially since margin of loss this time is exponentially greater - in ‘06 she lost by 800 votes.  This time around it was closer to 9000.

I voted in this riding, and let me just say, anecdotally speaking, I really feel good about living here in such a culturally diverse riding.  I saw people of all shapes, sizes, colours and garb going in and out of North Surrey Secondary yesterday, all exercising their franchise with dedication.  It was one of those moments that made me feel good to be Canadian.

Surrey North

Dona Cadman won the riding easily, by several thousand votes over the NDP candidate, Rachid Arab.  This, despite the media at every turn attempting to portray her as either stifled, which she wasn’t, or somehow against the party she is running for, which she is not.

To set the record straight, Chuck ran as an independent when a potential candidate snuck into the race at the last minute and signed up hundreds of members to vote him in.  The riding loved Chuck so everyone encouraged him to run against the newly minted Conservative, and he won.  Yes, the party never changed its rules to prevent that kind of shenanigans, but it’s lazy politics to assume that nobody is running against you.  There certainly was never a move to kick Cadman out by the party itself.

Then, during the bribery thing, Dona is completely convinced that what was perceived as bribery by the media and ridden into the ground, was not.  She has had personal conversations with Stephen Harper and is convinced that he never knew about what was going on, so it doesn’t reflect on his character or reputation.  Whatever answer she gave him, it turned whatever residual bad will she had to such a positive, that she was willing to run for the party.  Personally, I think the fact that she is running for the party should have laid this issue to rest once and for all.  If she doesn’t consider it an issue, why does the media (even last night, during election coverage, a reporter on Global was commenting from her riding office that this would “dog her” all the way to Ottawa!) still go on and on about it?

Newton/North Delta

Early returns last night showed Pandher and Dhaliwal running neck and neck.  From lawn signs (not on public land) alone, I thought things were split pretty evenly, but in the end Dhaliwal returns to parliament with a couple of thousand votes more than the Conservative did.  The local rags trumpeted that the only local resident in the riding was the NDP candidate Theresa Townsley, but she ran a distant third.   Not much else to say - it was close but it landed in the Liberal column.

South Surrey/White Rock

Russ Heibert, he of the truly social conservative crowd, was returned handily.  Despite the City of White Rock becoming quite liberal in character, so much of this riding much more closely resembles the Fraser Valley ridings of Langley and Abbostford, where Conservatives win in massive landslides.  Hence, he was never in any danger.

While it is true I haven’t seen a lot of public appearance announcements, by the same token I haven’t seen a lot of any other candidate either.  The Toronto Star took a boo at this riding today:

Dona Cadman has kept a low profile in her campaign to become the Conservative MP for Surrey North. The address for her campaign office was not advertised on her website until yesterday, requests for interviews from many national media outlets have been declined and even local media have noted that her campaign office hasn’t been releasing her event schedule.

Interestingly, her campaign office has been prominent in the riding since the opening day of the campaign, with campaign signs all over its prominent location on a main thoroughfare in the heart of Whalley near the corner of King George Highway and 104th.  Trust me - everyone in the riding knows where it is.

They managed to find someone who doesn’t like her, without an opposing interview which is too bad.  All I know is this: with all the media stink about the supposed bribe, I think it speaks volumes about what really happened that she is running for the Conservatives now, and that her friend, former NDP MP Penny Priddy decided not to run against her.

Chuck had always viewed being an MP as a responsibility, to accomplish a specific aim.  How is it that his widow, who never to my knowledge grandstanded or made an investment life as a public figure, now suddenly can be framed as some kind of subtle publicity-hound, carefully avoiding media scrutiny so that she can ride the coat-tails of her dead husband to glory as an MP?  Only the Toronto Star can pull that kind of leap of logic off.

But as for Rivet, the interviewee for the Star’s piece, good luck with finding more support for justice reform from the NDP or the Liberals.

However, at the rate NDP candidates are resigning in BC, they may have none left on the ballot to benefit from the popular support.

West is the third NDP candidate in B.C. to step down amid controversy, including two who resigned over their actions in support of legalizing marijuana.

It is hinted at in the coverage that the defacings are happening to everyone, but funny thing when you look hard at the facts, it is only the Conservative signs that are being defaced.  It is especially interesting to note that this is occuring in otherwise typically conservative ridings.  What is it about the left that resorts to crime to knock down the opposition on what seems to be a more frequent basis?  Note, I am not suggesting that NDP or Liberal candidates condone or in any way approve of such defacings, but rabid followers acting alone or in small drunken groups are most likely the cause.  Conservative supporters just don’t go off like that - or it’s very rare.  I don’t think it’s unfair to say that the typical right wing supporter is more law-abiding than the typical left wing supporter.

A commenter has asked, “How are the carbon taxes (both BC’s and Dion’s proposed Federal) gone over in the riding?”

My sense is they aren’t.  Fleetwood and Port Kells are nicer, more suburban areas with lots of big homes and lots of RV’s and boats in driveways.  RV’s and boats mean big, often diesel-powered truck to pull them.  The kinds of gas prices we have seen in the Lower Mainland are unrivalled anywhere else in Canada (except in the far north, where it costs a fortune to truck in gas).  In addition, this riding is not serviced by significant bus or skytrain service - the skytrain doesn’t even come within 5 km of its border yet!  Cars are the mode of transport here, and commuting is the norm.  Hence, we don’t like carbon taxes.

We also don’t like crime.  Most people out here have moved this way to get away from the crime of the King George corridor, mostly related to drugs, but also part and parcel of more urban living.  As the elements that people have fled spread in here, there is a conservatism that comes of that.  A homeless guy set up camp beside a church on a main road during the summer, and one of his dogs was seized by the SPCA after he bit someone.  The row this caused was big news.  From those I talked to, a lot of people tried to do what they could to help the “Fleetwood Homeless Dude” but he didn’t really want anything, except to be free to complain about the government and how much wrong he has been done by them.  Some people don’t want to leave their crutches.

The other question by a commenter was “How is Dion’s Tour going over?”  I haven’t heard any coverage of his campaign stops in Surrey.  If he’s had any.  I think the average person in the riding doesn’t really care about campaigns or platforms - they want to know what affects them personally, and what the politicians can do for them.  As much as pundits like to pontificate over policy and politicking, in the last election Harper hit the right notes in knocking down the GST and promising money to help with child care.  It’s help you can see and feel.

And now back to the riding update: Brenda Locke’s team has finally gotten around to putting out signs - the little lawn ones are now littering every grassed meridian I’ve seen.  Still, the large NDP and Conservative signs give more visibility to the candidates.

The Surrey Now (oh, look at that. Another paper owned by the same company who owns the Province and the Sun.  Monopoly anyone?) has a piece on the candidates in the riding.  They do a good job of making Grewal look slimy, and allow Locke to get away with the party line “revenue-neutral” rhetoric on the carbon tax.  They also allow the NDP candidate to make such statements as being “for” increased wages and “against” industrial subsidies, without a thought as to how we can ratchet up industry’s expenses and cut off corporate welfare, and not see a massive collapse in Canada’s private industry.

Dona’s team is way out in front in terms of marketing though.  It will take time to even out.

The Now has a piece on the NDP candidate’s positions.  Some of them I even agree with.  Too bad I don’t agree with the party’s positions on everything else.  I haven’t even seen any of Arab’s signs.  (That’s his name.  Really.  Cadman’s running against Muhammad and Arab.)

Incumbent: Sukh Dhaliwal (LIB)

I drive through this riding every day going to work, and I also go to church down there so I see a lot of this riding.

A little bit of history: this is Gurmant Grewal’s old riding. He had unfavourable publicity after he claimed to have been approached by the Liberals during their minority government to switch sides.  This led to him not running again in the ‘06 election.  Interesting note: his wife, Nina Grewal continues to hold the riding of Fleetwood/Port Kells.

So, the current incumbent, Sukh Dhaliwal, rode to victory on a bit of a reaction to Gurmant’s episodes.  As such, it seems to me that he holds his seat fairly tenuously.  I haven’t really heard of him doing much of anything of note in parliament.  Recently, he has been in the media spotlight for attempting to aid a convicted international drug smuggler in returning to Canada after his extradition to the USA to face charges.  This can’t reflect well on his campaign in Surrey, a city with a bad reputation for crime already.

As far as early race indicators, his competition seems to be a new Conservative nominee, Sandeep Pandher.  The Hill Times reported a bit of a row over Pandher’s nomination as until 2006, he was a member of the Ontario Provincial Liberal Party.  The candidate contends that there is a difference between the provincial and federal parties, and I agree with him, but an Ontario Liberal is not a BC Liberal, whose tent holds many many federal Conservative supporters.

The other strike against him seems to be the fact that he isn’t really local.  If he was a member in Ontario until 2006 he can’t have even lived in BC longer than a few years.  A parachuted candidate may not have much of a chance unless this riding is really a party voter for Conservatives, and only elected Dhaliwal as a reaction.

Both candidates have littered the major roadways with signage already.  In several places, I have wondered if they are actually in breach of rules regarding sign proximity.  Some of them along 88th Avenue appear to obscure sightlines to their opponents’ signs.

I’ll be back with an update next week!

Incumbent: Penny Priddy (NDP) not running again

Surrey is full of ridings with history.  This one is perhaps the most nationally recognizable, as Chuck Cadman attracted national attention when he became the focus of a non-confidence vote during the Liberal minority government prior to 2006.  At the time he was sitting as an independent after losing the Conservative nomination during the 2004 election.  His vote could have brought down the government.  After checking with his constituents, he decided to support the government.  Later, stories circulated that he was offered bribes, and there are still some questions as to whether he was offered an insurance policy for his health in return for bringing down the House, as had the government fallen and he succumbed to his cancer, his family would not have been eligible for the benefits that he could have had as an MP.  A few months later he did pass away, to the chagrin of his constituents and family who missed his stand against crime, which was the original reason he sought office.

The 2006 election saw former provincial cabinet minister, NDP Penny Priddy run for the seat and win, with the endorsement of Dona Cadman, Chuck’s widow.  This year, Dona is running as a Conservative, having apparently resolved the issues that stood between the Conservatives and her late husband.  Penny Priddy has decided not to run again.  Given the Cadman family’s name in the riding, I don’t see anyone being able to stop Dona taking her husband’s place in Parliament.  But I will keep you posted on developments.  Put this one down to an NDP loss and a Conservative gain.

Fleetwood/Port Kells

Incumbent: Nina Grewal (CON)

This is the one where I live.  Since the write was dropped, her signs went up early and plentifully, closely followed by her NDP opponent, Sao Fernando.  This riding has been mentioned in several places as one to watch, as support for Nina has never been that strong even though she has been elected twice so far.  It’s supposed to be a close race because the Liberals have tapped an ex-provincial cabinet minister under the BC Liberals, Brenda Locke to run against her.

My sense is that Grewal’s weak support comes from her marriage to the unfortunate Gurmant Grewal.  His fall from grace attracted a lot of negative publicity and caused him to lose his seat, which I think unsettled her team in Fleetwood.  I think most voters in this riding just vote Conservative, and would vote for a dog named Rover if he ran as a Conservative.  She’s been adequate but unspectacular in my view as an MP.  I don’t see her around the riding much.  I watched her in a candidates’ debate during the ‘06 election and she was very party line up until the point where a man on an open mike said something that she took personally, then she got very animated.  If she showed that passion about her party and its policies, I might actually vote for her instead of just against the other parties.

Having said all that, I have also seen Brenda Locke at a candidates’ debate when she ran for the Provincial seat of Surrey/Green Timbers against Sue Hammell.  She was also singularly unspectacular, and lost to Sue in the election, despite Hammell actually living in Victoria and not even being from Surrey.  I don’t see her as being much of a “star candidate” though she does have a public profile, which is more than I can say for the NDP candidate.  The fact that it’s a week into the election and I have yet to see a single Liberal sign up in the riding leads me to believe they don’t have an organization in place to back her, or that organization is very weak.

So far, I don’t see a threat to Grewal’s seat, though she’s not done much to impress as an MP.  Tune in next week for new developments.

Crime in BC hits 30 year low

At least they kind of realize this may be misleading:

But these numbers don’t necessarily mean less crime is being committed in the province or that police are cracking down more effectively.

What it means is more crime is going unreported.  Someone got into my car the other night.  We came out in the morning and found the door to the car open and the glove box open.  Admittedly the door was not locked in the first place, but the car was parked in our driveway and it was our car.  It’s a crime regardless.  But we didn’t report it.  Why?  Because we knew the cops wouldn’t do a thing.  In many other instances I personally have encountered, the police no longer go to what they call “minor” break-ins.  No checking for fingerprints, no searching for evidence.  Unless you actually see the guy running away or catch him in the act, they ain’t coming.

How many crimes are occurring that people just don’t bother to report to the cops because the value of the goods is less than their insurance anyway, so they’ll just have to pay for it out of pocket?  It’s just a bunch of hassle to report crimes that don’t get followed up or help to deal with your loss.

All I know is growing up, my family was not subject to nearly as many crimes as they are now.  In the past ten years I personally have been the victim of theft 5 times.  In the twenty years prior to that I had been the victim twice.  Is it because I have more stuff to steal?   I don’t think so.  I am thinking of my whole house - in other words, my parents’ and brother and sister’s stuff too.

Is this anyone else’s experience?  I’d like to see statistics from surveying people as to the frequency of the average person being a victim of a crime, reported or unreported.  Is that trending up or down?  Let’s compare official “crime rates” to official victim of crime rates.  What is the rate of reported crime per capita versus the number of victims of crime per capita?

The survey, which comes on the heels of an internal NDP survey conducted in July showing a neck-and-neck race between parties, also reflects a strong public appetite for change, with 58 per cent of respondents saying it’s time for a new political party to be in power.

I am sorry.  Letting the NDP back into power is not change.  It is recession.  In both senses: economically and historically.  Change would be letting the Greens or one of the fragmented pieces of the provincial conservatives in.  Not returning the NDP to power.

For New Democrats, the numbers were heralded as a sign the party and its leader, Carole James, are on the right path ahead of the May election.

If that is the case, this citizen of BC has been completely unaware that the NDP have articulated anything like a “path” heading into the election next year.

In fact, the only position I have heard the NDP take on anything in the last year has been their “Axe the Gas Tax” campaign, a blatantly populist appeal that has less than zero to do with their own base than it has to do with stirring up the Liberal base to mobilize against Campbell.

The fact is the NDP are only mad that they weren’t the ones who got to implement the Carbon Tax, which is very appealing to green voters and socialist voters alike.

So what is their position on anything?  Well, they don’t like… the Liberals.  And wish we wouldn’t vote for them.

Yeah, there’s a winning position.

But for some reason the writer of the piece insists on framing the NDP as having a position:

“The NDP message may be resonating, but it’s not going to be enough to propel her into government unless she can change the minds of those who haven’t decided,” he said.

Again, what message?  That bureaucrats don’t deserve a pay raise?  Is that what the NDP are campaigning on?  That 76% of British Columbians are jealous that some government workers got a pay raise?

I hate to say the words “Liberal” and “effective government” in the same sentence, but compared to the glory years under the NDP, they really have been.

I don’t recall the last labour dispute we had - I know there have been some, but not nearly as many as under the NDP, who the unions knew would cave into every single one of their demands sooner or later.

Business is booming.  The oil sector is doing great and the mining sector is actually becoming part of the economy in the province again - once the lifeblood of this mountainous resource-rich region, it had been driven to the brink of extinction under the NDP.  The Forest industry is struggling, but largely because of the real estate market collapsing in the USA, BC’s single biggest lumber buyer.

Things are getting done: bridges, underpasses, transit, highways… things that had been utterly neglected from lack of political will under the NDP are actually being accomplished.  Yes, some of that impetus came from the Olympics coming, but a lot didn’t.  Have you driven the Kicking Horse Pass lately?  Amazing.

Yeah I think the carbon tax is a joke, and there are other positions they have taken that I have not been in favour of, but overall, they haven’t been too bad and certainly a vast improvement over the NDP.

The van involved in a crash that killed seven New Brunswick basketball players in January had worn tires and brakes and would have failed a safety inspection, the RCMP said Tuesday.

——SNIP——-

A mechanic who examined it has said it would not have passed an inspection before the crash. The last time it passed one was Oct. 29, 2007.

This is all very confusing. It does not seem to offer a reason to trust the New Brunswick motor authority.

In general, I think this guy sums it up quite well:

WRONG PLACE….WRONG TIME!

I do not think governments should be in the business of safety inspection. Rather, the insurance companies should be doing it themselves and they should be held legally responsible for what happens to the vehicles they insure. As things are now, if a faceless bureaucrat lets things slip, there really is no trail of accountability and that serves the insurance companies all too well for my liking.

“It’s our responsibility as global citizens to get this right, and to act now,” McGuinty said.

Wow! I am starting to feel better already!

All I see from this recent announcement is a hidden delay in any future commitment to protect the boreal forest with a token appeal to the aboriginal population tossed into the mix. I find it despicable that he would use the recent environmental fad as his main talking point:

The Ontario government says protecting this region is key to its plan to fight climate change. The forests and peat lands in the Far North store about 97 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide and absorb around 12.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, the government said.

If I owned the boreal forest, I would aim to protect it for its own sake not for the sake of protecting the world from climate change. That is why I think this is just smoke and mirrors again from a Liberal government. It sounds to me like new logging and mining contracts are in the works and the government has to lessen the blow:

Mining generated about $11 billion in Ontario in 2007, and McGuinty said he was confident the consultations on the new protected area of the forest won’t cause any damage to the growing sector.

“We don’t want to compromise that, but we do want to ensure that our mining efforts in the province of Ontario are respectful of Ontarians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.”

I think Gord is right:

The troubling part of the story as I first heard it is that it will take 10+ years to map out what area is to be declared off-limits. For the industries this is bad because it throws an incredible amount of uncertainty into their future planning.
—SNIP—
The idea is good. And admittedly discernment is needed to determine which areas to preserve. But 10 years is too long. Too long to wait, too much uncertainty.

Yes, that delay is troubling. However, the cynic in me says those ten years are long enough to sneak in government favoritism before these hypothetical future restrictions come into effect — sneak in contracts that would not bode well with the landowners nor with the public.

1)The Garth — Got the reception that he deserved for the “Screw the West, We’ll Take the Rest” redux. I hope he doesn’t come back to tell us he’s inclusive the next time a homosexual agenda issue comes up, but if he does, it won’t be the first time he’ll be caught directly lying to Canadians. That last note makes his quote from today all the more amusing (emphasis added):

For writing and acting in defence of my country, for opposing those who put self interests before Canada, for the decisions I have made, and the consequences they have yielded, I regret nothing.

Who knew Turner had such self-hatred?

2) Regarding the most recent evolution post, “Tom” has actually posted alleged proof for macroevolution (the effort is appreciated). Two problems though; First, after being told repeatedly by PZ Myers’ fanboys that we’ve had proof for years, this opening statement from Tom’s article doesn’t sound too compatible (emphasis really added!):

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

So, before June 9th of this year, would Darwinists have happened to have been acting on some level of faith or is the article, written by a well-respected science publication, just wrong and in need of serious correction? Secondly, I’m happy that the bacteria have discovered some new munchies, but as was brushed upon in the definition of a species argument, can we indicate if these lemon-sucking bacteria are in fact a completely different species from their brethren and not just hungrier?

3) I cannot sit by any longer when it comes to Harris-Decima. The Toronto Star’s resident polling firm (that should tell you a lot about their credibility right there!) has been doing weekly polls recently that indicate a trend in which the Harper Government is now on par with dog food in popularity questions they ask. However, their latest butcher job shows over 60% of Canadians preferring massive carbon taxes if

the rising price of fossil fuels is a reason we must move even more aggressively to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels

.

That’s a big if to be assuming there, and one that even I would agree with, were I actually polled. However, I thought the article the quote appears in was called Canadians want climate action now, poll suggests, not (oh, I don’t know), Canadians want action now to end addiction to high gas prices, addiction to oil, poll suggests. Oh, The Star…

4)Finally, it’s always cute to see the NDP attempt to orchestrate some sort of public backlash via the government. Of course, what will really happen is that NDP will fail but consumers will take care of themselves by canceling phone plans and the sort. The phone carriers might think that their government-mandated cartel creates a highway robbery scenario, but there are still millions of us non-mobile Canadians who make do just fine without cells, and it’ll stay that way until someone approaches us with a reasonable cell phone plan!

SEE ALSO: Joanne indicates she’ll be first blood if the new texting fees come in; looks like you got a winner here guys! Right From Alberta also noticed an interesting point about the NDP’s petition to stop these fees.

This is smart. Charest presented these agreements as a bridge between the European Union and the North American Free Trade zone without evoking any nationalist bias.

Then they win a Grey Cup for the first time in decades.

Strangely coincidentally, their economy begins to ride a wave of prosperity started in Alberta.  For the first time in decades, Saskatchewan experiences positive population growth.

…and then came Stephane Dion.

Carole James is launching an “Axe the Tax” campaign, attempting to mobilize strong grassroots opposition to the gas tax portion of Gordon Campbell’s greenhouse fighting initiatives.  Initially, it will result in a 2.4 cent per liter gas tax, which is going to rise over time.

Of course, the clarion call of any government introducing a new tax is “it is revenue neutral!”  Of course.  This year.  But in a couple of years, when you need the revenues, that will end.  Because, as always in Canada, there is no legal enforcement mechanism that requires revenues from certain taxes to be dedicated to specific expenditures.  Thus, there is never a guarantee that taxes will stay dedicated to what their proponents say they will be.

But I digress.  The NDP leader is fighting like crazy to keep the Green Party from becoming a legitimate force in provincial politics.  As the strength of the unions begin to wane from the rise of oil and gas (which pays so much in general, they hardly ever have unions) and the descent of the forestry industry, the NDP are seeking to find a new foothold.  They had it in the environmentalist left, but with the Green Party beginning to gain momentum, that is slipping.

Then came Campbell’s green package a few months ago.  In finest political tradition, a ruling party steals the platform right out from under their opponents.  If they take the green path, the Green Party and the NDP have no stick to beat them with.  They were right.  It has forced Carole James to do the unthinkable - engage in a populist ground war against the very people she was courting to buttress NDP support - the uncommitted Green people.  How is she going to at once maintain her party’s environmental policies while fighting against a “carbon tax”?

I agree it must be done.  As opposition leader, this is what she is getting paid to do.  This is a potentially very divisive issue and could very well help her party’s fortunes if played right.  In the vast wilderness that encompasses 9/10ths of this province, there is no greener option than the gas guzzling pickups that ride the gravel roads of rural BC.  Have you seen the axles on the “green” 4×4s?  They are made of pipecleaners!  They may be fine for city slickers who need them to go berry picking in the summer a couple of times, but when you face the winter, the potholes, the ploughs, the washouts, etc. that interior residents face much more routinely, you need something with meat - and that burns gas.

Needless to say, higher gas prices don’t sell well where there isn’t a regular bus route.  And rural citizens generally don’t vote NDP (with the exception of unionized millworkers, who are probably pretty ticked right now as they are all laid off with mill closures).  But if they were told that the NDP were standing up for the gas they have to pour into their tanks, well they may indeed change their tune.

My question is how much the NDP will lose to the Green Party or the Liberals in urban BC to gain the rural gas tax haters?

Crash! Five years ago today, gay marriage became the law of the province – and, I note, no sky has fallen yet, has it? Nope. The Dominion remains strong. Nice piece by Martha here – but it would have been nicer if she had mentioned our mutual former home that largely financed the litigation: McMillan BInch

,

but he obviously didn’t look too hard since the very debate on the issue was enough for a government institution to convict a preacher of thought crimes. Alas, there is that small polygamy matter that Kinsella’s buddy Dalton is letting slide under the rug despite the law as well — and guess what precedent the Muslims are using? (first one to post the answer in the comments wins a prize!*) But ya Warren, if you mean that Church Street hasn’t transformed into Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch, then I guess you could say that calling the marriage apple just a plain old fruit (thus, making it less offensive and restrictive) did nothing to our poor old Dominion. Unfortunately for Warren though, life isn’t a political campaign, so he can’t attack ad his opinion into reality.

*-like Warren’s definition of “Catholic”, or “Christian”, terms are subject to change. See store for details.

Some of the artists have provided a ray of clever insight:

Une solution semblait faire consensus chez la plupart des participants : la souveraineté.

I agree with that and thus, I have a suggestion to all of the Montreal-Quebeckers who are worried about losing their culture and their language: promote sovereignty or forever hold your peace.

I would also recommend that Quebeckers keep their children in school. Their high drop-out rates seem related specifically to French language studies.

First, to understand the blatant hypocrasy and moral inconsistency (or “intellectual dishonesty”, as our seculatarian friends like to say) of the YFS, you need not read the pages of the National Post, Michael Coren’s column, or the Blogging Tories; just head on over to the Federation’s website, where a big red button titled “Denial of Free Speech at McMaster” which links to this — a letter attacking McMaster for banning “Israel Apartheid Week”. That’s right, the YFS which is making national headlines this month for trying to oppress diverse views on its campus, was the same group that was also making headlines back in March for vigorously defending a campaign that wasn’t just about free speech but was also known for a history of violence and harassment of an prominent ethnic group on campus.

This inconsistency might go a long way to explain why, in the months and years ahead, when Canada starts to examine whether a primitive primate can “argue” for human rights, the YFS will probably be there, strongly backing the cause and at the same time oppressing groups which speak out for unborn humans which can also not speak in a court of law but can, unlike chimps, meet the biological argument for species validation in that all non-genetically defective fetuses have the capability of breeding with humans and producing sustainable, fruitful offspring. Save the primates, scourge the people, as it were. Don’t expect facts to get in the way of York’s student leaders or their cheerleaders on The Left as the entire abortion argument for them has long been one about passion and emotion, but not much beyond the principle that guilt-free sexual incidents should be an absolute right that trumps all others.

Their argument, founded around the reality that men can walk away from affairs without the risk of pregnancy while women cannot, betrays this in that their natural conclusion is that women should have the freedoms that men do in this regard, instead of examining whether men should have the responsibilities that women do for a pregnancy instead. Nor does the rights and realities of the growing child become a discussion point during this whole debate either. Wouldn’t you expect more from scholars, charged with examining all aspects of the issue at hand?

Update:Steyn’s insight into the future of abortion, and a small tip ‘o’ hat to the York affair…

Quebeckers are not better than anybody but they are individuals. Demanding patriotism is not my style but I enjoy seeing people celebrate their origins and their community. This Bouchard-Taylor recommendation would lead to the demise of an exciting aspect of North American culture.

It seems like Falardeau-Poulin were able to see this coming more than twenty-five years ago:

ELVIS GRATTON : Moi je suis un Canadien québécois, un Français canadien-français… Un Américain du Nord français, un francophone québécois canadien… Un Québécois d’expression canadienne –française française. On est des Canadiens américains francophones d’Amérique du Nord… Des Franco-québécois…

I hope Quebeckers do not get sucked into the trap of political correctness.

In California the Salvation Army was forced to close down several inner city missions because officials refused to sign a document approving of homosexuality. The destitute suffered terribly as a consequence. In Britain the Roman Catholic church similarly was obliged to shut the doors of its adoption agency.

Aside from also speaking about our government-imposed unhealthy relationship between employees and employers, Coren got me thinking by phrasing the incident that sparked this whole thing in the way he did:

One employee announced to colleagues that she was a lesbian and began discussing her sexuality. Eventually she was let go. She complained to the Human Rights Commission, which fined Christian Horizons and demanded the change. Demanded, in fact, that they not be Christian.

I hadn’t considered it until reading Coren’s column, but what if we flipped this around and an employee started sharing their Christian faith with colleagues? I doubt it would end up before a HRC. And even if we buy into the secularist axiom that homosexuals are born wired to be homophilic (one that, like all such axioms on fetal tissue, the origins of life and the universe, and climate change conveniently lacks that indisputable proof that axioms usually come with), can the state successfully argue that a believing Christian isn’t just as equally inseparable from their faith and what it makes him or her? Think of the parallels: some people in churches leave to join other religions, and some homosexuals realize they just aren’t homosexuals any longer; both groups claim that their respective affiliations colour everything they do; and both groups have their affiliations protected under the current legal community’s consensus.

It’s an interesting situation: one where a group tasked with going out into all the world to spread their Good News has their constitutionally recognized right to do so repressed, while another had beneficial rights literally penciled into the highest document of the land is allowed to ignore the acronym every employee should know: NSFW (Not Safe For Work). It wasn’t the lesbian woman’s decision to become a lesbian that got her fired, it was her insistence on preaching the news to the rest of her co-workers that did. Curious that, when any Christian who pulled a similar stunt would be out by 3pm, box of belongings in hand. To use Coren’s wording, a sane nation would actually follow it’s own laws and both groups would be able to share away but that would also presume that groups like HRCs would be under the law too, now wouldn’t it?

So when it comes to the case of Waterloo region’s Christian Horizons, the first thing that we should keep in mind is that the government came to them first, not the other way around. If the government didn’t like the way that the outwardly Christian organization did business, or specifically how it hired it’s employees, it shouldn’t have agreed to whatever contracts were set up with CH — after all, with a name like Christian Horizons, it’s not like they were hiding a secret agenda or anything! Now we can debate on whether the government has any business funding any philosophically or ethically-biased group (it’s certainly hard not to, and even liberal atheism has certainly gotten its share through causes like the Court Challenges Programme), but we have to start here with the understanding that the government of the day entered into a deal with CH knowing, or responsible for knowing full well that the organization was guided by divine principles; in the private sector, if you partner up with another company and then expect a change, not only do you become a laughing stalk but chances are you’ll also see your business deteriorate soon afterwards. What the crowd who cites CH’s government funding are trying to do is bad business and bad manners, period.

Next, as far as employment laws are concerned, I have to admit that it’s no surprise that John Tory has once again demonstrated that his lust to win seats in Toronto trumps all common sense and principle, not to mention the desire to hang onto that rural rump that his party currently possesses in the legislature. If a company decides to abide under Charter-protected freedoms of religion as it conducts its business, what right does the state have to come in and impose its own morality. If what the company does is bad practice, won’t its reputation get around and the court of public opinion weed out any unwarranted behaviours? Who would want to buy from a reseller who refuses to hire women when they know full-well that a boycott could be right around the corner? Likewise, we expect Christian organizations, Muslim centres and urbane companies to all hire and work according to what their respective entities stand for. If the public tolerates it through their business practices, so what? Or are we actually, finally brave enough to admit that this is just an attempt to impose state-sanctioned atheist secularism into every aspect of society? I didn’t think so.

Much of this will matter very little though as we will once again see a rip-roaring battle ensue where the God-haters and religiophobes of our society once again rise us to defend a separation of church and state concept they barely understand and always reinvent to suite the flavour of the day. Nowhere will be hear of the 500+ years of jurisprudence that has allowed Christian organizations to serve the public good over that period of time and gave Canada, in particular, such bedrock foundations as the Sisters of St. Joseph, the YMCA or Christian Horizions — all of which have, by a desire to serve a higher calling, given us cheaper, wholesome and quality social services than we would’ve had if we just had the state do it all itself from the beginning. Certainly there will not be a mention of that. Of course, once the crusading secularists have weeded out every vestige of Christian presence in our society, who will be left to do all the things that government is too incompetent to do properly and the rest of us are too selfish to do willingly?

While the reasons for the union, essentially a private organization unaccountable to voters, to reject such a honey of deal remains unclear at this time, it might be time to eulogize this sort of hostage-victim relationship that the transit workers have enjoyed with the city over the last few decades since it’ll never be sweeter than this again. Combined with an illegal strike in 2006, today’s sudden cancellation of service will likely mark a turn in already sour public temperament after the aforementioned week of learning from the media just how much they had to empty the cupboard this time to appease the already well-compensated workers. As a general rule, you don’t come back to the kid you just stole lunch money again for another sucker punch indulgence. That’s exactly what the TTC has done here, prompting both Comrade Miller and a formerly reluctant Dalton McGuinty to reach a deal legislating back-to-work orders, on top of considering a further provision making the TTC essential service. If that last part is successful (and it should be since paying our taxes to public unions is also an essential service), the TTC will have lost most of the ridiculous bargaining powers it used to hold the 2 million-plus city at bay. The threats of literally shutting down the city will evaporate over night and Toronto might actually be able to keep new contract raises under the rate of inflation.

If, on the other hand, the TTC fights back and takes a page from the teachers unions’ during the Bill Davis years in the 1970s, we’ll enter into an ugly, painful, but necessary stage where the public’s outrage with an out of control union will flare up so quickly that we might actually begin to see private transportation grow to a significant level of business. Fleets of shuttle cars, taxis and other creative means of moving people would remove any necessity for the TTC, which would be relegated to a poor cousin dependent on government honey for survival, and much akin to the CBC today. We might see a Mike Harris-type Premier come along and ask why the TTC’s subway service just couldn’t be privatized like the 407 was nine years ago, since commuters already pay for the TTC as it is.

In short, the TTC is about to be de-clawed, and if it shows any teeth because of the procedure, it might find itself further surgically altered. The TTC’s literally putting all it’s stakes on the line today though. Enjoy the nice Saturday weather and smugness today though, for tomorrow you find out that you’ll get more than you bargained for!

UPDATE: Views from Joanne and Tony, with more to follow I’m sure!

Keeping track of all the National Post entries, I have to admit that all the big ones were covered: The Charter, multiculturalism, abortion, The Tragically Hip (actually, that last one didn’t appear, but it should’ve!). The topics covered by Post columnists had the common theme of being either the cumulation of, or source of the social ills we experience today. As I got thinking about this, I quickly came to think of our “biggest mistake” as being something which is a cause, not an effect and furthermore, our biggest mistake should’ve been the biggest cause of things that has hurt us as a nation since.

Once I got into this frame of mind, the riddle became simple: government education! You have to go back a’ways to find a time before we had such a system, but as Ontario’s last election showed, we’re still paying the price for it today. If you take any other problem that we’ve had in the last 100 years since the advent of “public” education, you’ll find that an argument can be made that the government’s meddling in our childrens’ upbringing caused it: Poor performance in the world? Government education. A narcissistic and euthanasia-bent society? Government education. The crumbling of our ability to govern ourselves? Government education. You get the point I’m sure. There’s also the more minor results (relatively speaking) like the over-bearing and scofflaw unions that now indoctrinate our children year after year, or the massive debts that our provincial governments have accumulated because they got tangled in the teaching domain in the first place.

The one thing that makes this mistake unique from the others explored though is that it isn’t unique to Canada. The United States, western Europe, and Australia have all been duped by the allure of having big government pay for every little boy and girl’s enlightenment. If it weren’t for the sparsely populated elitist, religious and cultural private schools consistently out-performing the government systems in the western world, we wouldn’t even have a way of knowing just how much we’re failing our kids. It does present an opportunity for Canada as well though. If we were to take a leadership role in the 21st century by revitalizing and reinvigorating our school systems, doing away with political controls and the presumption that parents aren’t the best decision makers for their children, it would take practically no effort for us to excel to the head of the pack and become the best-educated most potential-blessed nation on the Earth. We’d become the new Japanese, as it were. It’s all something to think about, both from a contemporary and from a visionary point of view. Who knows, our kids might even learn how to properly do their taxes in a couple of generations!

The Bloc Québécois is poised to table potentially controversial legislation giving Quebec the power to opt out of the national Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and set up its own telecommunications regulator.

Hopefully the Bloc succeeds and leads the way to the eventual dissolution of the entire Commission.

While it would certainly embarrass Dion to have to register as a Liberal in another province (if it even comes to that), I think it’s safe to say that PM Harper will still be fighting against Dion in the next election as Dion has nothing to lose at this point in sticking around: there is already open dissatisfaction with his leadership; he’s never contested an election before and will never have the chance again if he cedes his right to do so now; he still has a massive leadership race debt to pay off and not many people will come out to hear the “failed former leader of the Liberal party” speak at a $200/plate dinner; his is under no obligation to have a leadership review vote and if his public image is any indication, he whole-heartedly believes he is the best Liberal leader the party could have right now and is morally obligated to stay on.

In the interest of fair play, I should confess that many Conservatives like myself would actually be more upset if Dion were to retire prematurely as he has done a fantastic job in helping us in Parliament. If another leadership race were triggered, it’d be hard to imagine how things would play out between now and October, 2009. The Liberals would probably want a quick race both to stop the bleeding they’ve been inflicting upon themselves since January, 2006 and to keep costs down both for the central party and the A-list candidates who are still fighting off leadership debts. Parliament wouldn’t change that much as the Conservatives pretty much has a majority as it is right now, although the Liberals would be in even worse financial shape than they are now with the extra costs, making it impossible for them to fight an effective election campaign (they’re currently prepared to borrow most of their campaign costs).

These prohibitive costs must be a small comfort to those who have surrounded themselves around Dion though as none of them actually involve the leader’s ability to deliver and because it’s still pretty well accepted that Dion’s days are numbered, with the only question being whether the last day comes before or after an election. Just remember Stephane, if this Liberal thing doesn’t work out, you’ll always have that fling with Lizzy last year!

So how does the Ontario government respond today with its annual budget? A bunch of fluff: a new programme to retrain 20,000 workers for new jobs; special tax cuts for Northern Ontario and squeaky wheel businesses that need to be taken off corporate welfare if they ever hope to actually contribute to (as opposed to leech off of…) the tax pool; continuing the ill-fated planning that all governments since the ’60s have done of making Toronto the centre of the universe through the transit system just when many businesses are choosing to move outside of Hogtown due to congestion and killer municipal tax rates; increasing welfare rates by 2% so as to give people using the programme every reason to stay on the government dole; and killing off any notion of a surplus with little pet projects while offering absolutely nothing to the overtaxed families of the province. This is how the provincial government of Ontario, which will in all likelihood come cap-in-hand to the feds later this year, intends to make Ontario economically competitive in a time of high uncertainty. Tinker here, grease that wheel there and hope for the best.

The facts don’t lie though and they’re clearly pointing to us becoming a “have-not” province; not something that should mean that the feds owe us something, but an indication that the leading economic growth that we experienced under Mike Harris has officially evaporated. You can’t blame oil for Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick out-pacing our growth here either. Nor should the feds do anything more as they at least took their surplus last year and put it to some good use by giving us the most competitive business taxes in the G7. Juxtaposed to Dalton? Well, at least the kiddies’ll have apples at school when they want them!

What’s saddest of all is that only now will people begin to realize just how foolish we all were to elect a super-majority government on the basis of an ill-advised opposition leader’s pet project; if nothing else, Dalton’s health tax should have assured his Liberals that they would only receive a minority mandate. The fun’s only begun though since we still have another three feel-good, do-nothing budget to go from these folks. I can only imagine what we’re in store for next year, when the 20,000 PhDs that Dalton trains this year realize that all the retraining in the world doesn’t mean a hill of beans when there’s no jobs out there to apply said training with!

I recommend the NEP-erals.

Les étudiants du secondaire privés de classes d’éducation sexuelle
Sweeping Quebec education reforms leaving curious teens without sex ed
Sex education classes abolished from Quebec classrooms

I praise this move because sex education is really simple: penis in vagina, sperm fertilizes egg, nine months pregnancy. Everything else is up to debate. My guess is that students today know enough by the time they reach high school about the non-controversial stuff.

Nevertheless, I would offer a compromise teaching method by assembling all of the students in the gymnasium or theater and have a seminar: one class with everybody in the school. Hell, even let the students discuss it all together.

After all the media hullabaloo about the “massive” undecided vote, and the potential for a minority government arising in Alberta, we get what - another PC landslide.

After all the media talking about how Albertans think Ed Stelmach is a maroon, we have what - the most uniform PC support across the province that I have ever seen.

So much for the media. One more case, I suppose, of how much the media wants to manipulate public opinion these days. We know what the chattering class wanted - the death of conservatism in its heartland.

Sorry, boys. Didn’t happen.

Now, I’ll admit that the position of the current Alberta PC party is very much contaminated (some might say awash) with red tories, and as such doesn’t really represent conservatism in a pure form. However, if one thing is clear from this vote, Albertans may have some doubt that the PC’s are what they used to be (though they haven’t been truly conservative but intermittently for decades - the Klein era began conservatively but faded, and itself was a reaction against the tax-and-spend Don Getty, which was a moderation of Lougheed’s more conservative approach… and so on and so on). The alternatives - the Liberals, NDP and Wildrose Alliance failed to convince the many conservative doubters that their vision was categorically better than the status quo.

Looking more carefully, the Liberals and NDP were reduced, and look to have lost whatever fortresses they were attempting to construct in the two big cities. They should consider this reality a chastisement for failing to articulate a true alternative platform.

The Wildrose Alliance lost their one seat, but did put in strong showings in a number of ridings. They weren’t ready for this election. I scanned the returns of all the ridings, and I noticed that outside of Calgary and the south, candidates were spotty at best. And I am not talking just about quality, but availability. Many, many ridings simply didn’t even have a candidate, so there was not even another conservative option for many Albertans to vote for, besides the PC’s. It is hard to make gains in popular vote when you didn’t even field candidates. I expect if the PC’s continue on this road to liberalism, and the Wild Rose Alliance continue to support a strong right wing platform, then they may do much better in the next election.

Addendum: Good insight from Noise From the Right. I disagree with him that Stelmach resonated with voters - I still think that the results reflect a failure of the opposition to present a coherent alternative, as opposed to the result of “Honest Ed”’s personal charisma.

First of all, I think that the best commentaries that I’ve read so far come from Christian Conservative, Joanne and Aaron; as this post will demonstrate, I don’t agree completely in every case, but the three posts capture nicely the mood in the party right now, as well as making some good arguments. Mr. Tory should feel very fortunate to get such a good group of people behind him since he really needs this group if he’s going to do anything of substance in the next election.

That said, I have to admit great disappointment that so far, the only thing Mr. Tory has released in the aftermath of the most destructive convention I’ve ever been to is a press release that attempts to pad over the difficulties of London but gives little encouragement to the reader that Mr. Tory will follow through with his promise to reach out to the one-third of the party who as able to vote against him at the convention. I have to admit that I am further discouraged from seeing a breakthrough to the magnitude that the party needs after having my first face-to-face with the PC Leader on the 22nd. After explaining to him that he got 6 fewer votes than Ernie Eves did in my family alone, and offering a suggestion on how he could target two groups (one traditionally PC, one swing) with a health care plan I’ve gotten favourable feedback from among other PC Party members, Mr. Tory automatically dismissed it as not fitting with his urbane vision of the party’s policy. After hearing that, I have no more doubt that the man simply does not realize that he has needs to change his thinking if he’s going to bring the party back to 2003, let alone 1999 support levels.

The next problem that the party is facing internally is that the whole leadership process has left a very bad taste in everyone’s mouth. I watched as entire ridings, which incidentally had a strong anti-Tory bias to them, had their delegates challenged on the Friday night. In light of the Andrew Brander scandal that hit on the 20th, and the questionable tactics employed in ridings particularly in the GTA throughout the winter, it would have done a great deal of good for Mr. Tory to announce on Friday night that any delegate that made the trip to London should have their voting privileges acknowledged no matter what, for the sake of being inclusive and representative of the grassroots — two things Tory is now claiming to be constantly. It would have shown that he was confident in his support among party members, lowered the tension level by two points on the rictor scale during the first day, and even guarantee the party a couple extra thousand dollars in delegate fees! Instead, I felt like we were living out a bad Young & the Restless arc and can’t see how those party members who got shafted during the delegate selection process will happily volunteer extra hours in 2011.

Finally, and most importantly, I offer the reason why I am currently not ready to jump behind Mr. Tory in support of his leadership at the present time. It is something that unfortunately has become largely ignored in the last week, but is the biggest scandal of the whole process. To illustrate, I came home on Monday morning and checked my mailbox on the way up to my place. Inside the box was a large manila envelope sent from the PC Party and which contained a letter explaining at length why I should, as a delegate for my riding, vote NO to a leadership review. The letter had Mr. Tory’s picture and the party’s letterhead on the top and a 68 cent postage stamp on the envelope. The question isn’t so much why the PC Party’s headquarters paid for this partisan material with everyone’s donations (including those who don’t support Mr. Tory’s leadership), or why Mr. Tory has not yet paid back the party for all the expenses the debt-ridden organization incurred to keep him as leader (I have heard that he promised to do this after the convention, but have heard nothing since), but rather why such a practice was allowed to commence in the first place!

Let me put it this way folks: if Mr. Tory sees the PC Party as his own personal expense account when times get tough, what would he think of the province’s public treasury? And if you’re a hyper-partisan who thinks that this isn’t a very comfortable development to bring up, then how do you think the Liberals will treat this material in 2011? Let’s face it, the Liberals are ruthless and far more skilled at playing dirty than Mr. Tory’s people are. They will be digging up skeletons from this last weekend all through the next campaign, and I’d bet good money that this financing issue will be front and centre. You’re better hearing it from me now when the public is effectively asleep, than from Warren Kinsella’s negstapo two weeks before e-day. Anyway, isn’t our side supposed to be the integrity and transparency team?!

Mind you, if Mr. Tory settles the accounts now, he might get off with a clean record, but if he doesn’t, he will be the target of corruption accusations that would make the Jean Chretien crowd blush. Irregardless of the political fallout, the only honourable action is for Tory to reimburse the party now. Only then, after that is taken care of, can he begin the process of convincing voters like me that he won’t treat my tax dollars to such a questionable, and partisan, endeavour.

Your move, Mr. Tory!