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.

My first thought? Duh!

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

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

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

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

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

Just some things to consider.

An excerpt:

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

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

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

And then we heard a noise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

And congratulations to the women’s hockey team, who added far fewer grey hairs to my head.  It is wonderful that Canada is currently on top of the hockey world, completely.

That being said, I am so glad that America won the silver medals… and not just because I wanted Canada to win Gold.  There is, at times, an anti-American sentiment in Canada (and much of the world).  To a certain extent this is understandable.  They’re big; they’re rich; they’re powerful.  Regardless of the fact that hockey “is our sport”, the United States has the resources to compete in any sport they choose.  As such, they’re always a target.  They’re the big brother, the privileged rival, the favourite that we all tend to cheer against.

Nonetheless, Canada and the United States have a definite bond.  We have our border.  We have a shared history.  In hockey, we are obvious rivals, but we also share a professional league.  Our NHL teams possess many players of both nationalities (and many other… I’m lookin’ at you A-train).  Beyond that, we share our cultures with each other.  U.S. TV shows always have great ratings in Canada.  Hit Canadian shows inspire hit American shows and cult films.  We are connected.

I value this relationship.  As such, I wish America and Americans much success, and I would not want any other country a step down from us on the podium.  Sure, we may have a longer hockey rivalry with Russia(/the Soviet Union), but our current rivalry with America is richer than our current rivalry with Russia.

Anyway, the best rivalry is always against an opponent you can respect and love.

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…

As candidates, both Reagan and Obama were challengers to the incumbent party candidate. In Reagan’s case, he squared off against President Jimmy Carter of the then-governing Democratic Party. For his part, Obama faced John McCain, a member of the incumbent Republican Party. Both were at first deemed unprepared for a presidential run, but the tide quickly turned in their favour.

Curious, I then expanded the sample size to include all presidential elections since 1980.

What I’ve found is that presidential challengers have defeated the incumbent party candidate on four occasions–and on each of those occasions the challenger won by invoking the rhetoric of redemption.

This may or may not come as a surprise.

But what is interesting, I think, is that there may be a disconnect between rhetoric and reality in the case of the 2008 presidential election. I’ve developed this argument in a bit more detail in my latest piece at the Huffington Post.

Comments welcome, both online and offline.

Take politics for instance. A recent poll from Rasmussen Reports shows that Americans regard the label “conservative” more positively than the either of the two labels “liberal” or “progressive.” The conservative brand is in fact three times more appealing to the electorate than the liberal brand, and twice as appealing as the progressive brand.

I would be shocked if the same were true of Canadians.

Although the Conservative Party has been in power since 2006, I suspect that Canadians nonetheless still identify most closely with the label “liberal.”

Let me be clear on this: I am not suggesting that Canadians define themselves as members of the Liberal Party. What I am instead suggesting is that the brand of liberal resonates most intensely with Canadians, both as an ideological descriptor and as a general cultural orientation.

Two points in particular strike me as worthy of some discussion. First, why do Canadians situate themselves more comfortably in the liberal camp while Americans are more at ease in the conservative camp? And, second, how and how often do these preferences evolve?

Any thoughts from readers here at The Politic?

It’s been a year since the over hyped and under performing ’stimulus’ package was passed in the U.S., and even with the employment rate still hovering around 10% (it dropped 0.3% to 9.7% in January), Mr. Obama has the gall to trumpet the success of the stimulus package in saving or creating 2 million jobs.

The stimulus package was a mistake.  The very premise of the stimulus package has been proven faulty; the notion that this money needed to be pumped into the economy right away is refuted by the fact that the United States government expects most of the stimulus money to be spent in 2010.

Even their job claims are ridiculous.  Sure, it’s conceivable that 2 million more people would be out of work had it not been for the stimulus, but considering the length and depth of the increased unemployment in the United States over the last 12 months, it’s pretty hard to believe (especially if you accept the idea that the real unemployment rate in the United States is 17%).  Further, the notion of jobs being created was always absurd, and often interpreted creatively.  The administration appears to understand this, and have continued to walk back from their original claims of the job-creating power of the stimulus.  However, on the anniversary of this grand mistake, they are throwing reason to the wind, standing tall on the shoulders of this fiscal albatross.

Even if Barack Obama says it, it does not make it true.

Suppose the ‘normal’ working week in Britain lasted for 21 hours.
Not 35 hours, not even four days, but 21 hours. It’s flexible and
variable, but it’s normal and generally expected, by government,
employers, trade unions and most public opinion.

OK. Here is my guess of what would happen: In less than a month, everybody will go bankrupt and the working poor will riot in the street in retaliation against this stupid socialist policy. If they are lucky, they will be able to identify the socialists who enforce this nonsense.
Nay! say the socialist engineers at the New Economics Foundation because the reduction in the work week will be gradual and therefore, everybody will adapt! Hip! Hip! Hooray!

There is more, though. It will all work out because work hours will be reduced while carbon emissions will be reduced. The two together are part of the whole plan. That is their reasoning that everything will work out. If you do not believe me, read their paper and find out.

I am just like the next guy. I want money and I do not want to work for it. However, the absurdity of the socialists never ceases to amaze: “After all, hands up who wouldn’t like a four day weekend?” says Andrew Simms, the foundation’s policy director.

The funny thing is that what they want to impose can evolve through market forces if only taxes and the inflation of the money supply were ended. Of course, you will never hear the do-gooders ask for an abolition of taxes because they want your pocket book.

They do not want you to be free to chose your work week — although they pretend they do. They expect to legislate the changes in behavior and to beat you with a stick if you step out of line:

The weight of public opinion can shift quite suddenly from antipathy to approval as a result of new evidence, strong campaigning, and changing circumstances, including a sense of crisis. There are some signs of favourable conditions beginning to emerge for shifting expectations about a ‘normal’ working week. Further changes that may help include the development of a more egalitarian culture, raising awareness about the value of unpaid labour, strong government support for uncommodified activities, and a national debate about how we use, value, and distribute work and time.

Pretty rich, is it not? This is their segue into their underlying dishonesty and agenda:

The growing consensus that a level of 350 parts per million (ppm), not 450 ppm, will be required to avoid dangerous climate change only worsens the arithmetic.

Uh….. what consensus? what dangerous climate change?

The garbage produced by the New Economics Foundation is conveniently highlighted by their own words:

Measures to ensure that the move towards 21 hours has positive rather than negative impacts on gender relations and family life include flexible employment conditions that encourage more equal distribution of unpaid work between women and men; universal, high-quality childcare that dovetails with paid working time; more job-sharing and limits on overtime; flexible retirement; stronger measures enforcing equal pay and opportunity; more jobs for men in caring and primary school teaching; more childcare, play schemes and adult care using co-produced models of design and delivery; and enhanced opportunities for local action to build neighbourhoods that everyone feels safe in and enjoys.

Gee, I can not wait until they recommend a policy to transform water into wine and lead into gold.

The madness of socialism is very well exposed by this: “ there is no end to what employers can demand, and no end to what is demanded of our unpaid time as we play our pivotal role in the consumer economy.” This is an internal contradiction. The mad men at the New Economics Foundation who wrote this nonsense define unpaid time to comprise the wide range of leisure and domestic arrangements — all of which are choices made by the working people. Thus, it is intellectually dishonest for these socialists to misrepresent it as being a demand placed upon the working class.

The agenda of social engineering is smoked out:

A much shorter working week would leave time for mothers and fathers to do more than supervise homework, share meals, imbue discipline, and otherwise impress ‘positive parenting’ upon their children. It certainly shouldn’t become a means of confining children to individualised home-based care, deprived 21 hours of the proven benefits of learning in groups and mixing with a wider range of children and adults. High-quality, socialised care for children is essential for breaking down inter-generational cycles of disadvantage, and reducing social and economic inequalities. A 21-hour week would help create the conditions for universally accessible and affordable childcare.

God forbid parents should take care of their own kids. Think of all the poor unwanted day-care workers who would be unemployed!
If the consumer does not want to employ the professional baby-sitters, well, by golly, the socialists will institute socialized day-care to put everybody to work!

As it currently stands, the ‘core’ economy depends heavily on unpaid female labour because women have more time for it, for reasons already discussed.

Great! Next on their list will be to get more men buying sanitary napkins and more women buying top hats.
Socialists really can not get their heads around the fact that some people (regardless of whether they are male or female) actually freely choose what they buy and how they spend their time. The socialist feels entitled to mold human behavior.

The next time that a socialist tells you that he has economic research and development to support his freeloading policy demands, do not trust him. This New Economics Foundation is not producing an economic study. Rather, the 21 Hours is a political manifesto on irresponsible socialist statecraft. As far as intellectual value is concerned, this “study” amounts to nothing more worthy than a pretty nursery rhyme that says “Give us more! Give us more! Shut up and pay! We want a free lunch and we deserve it because we say so!” in no uncertain terms — the intended audience of which is the hoards of gullible socialists who seek a new religion and a way out of competing in a labor market.

EditedToAdd:
I am not the only one who posits a mental problem: Latest think tank insanity! This time the New Economics Foundation

It got me thinking about a recent episode with an obese person who likewise felt entitled to force others to accommodate her needs wants.

A couple weeks ago my family and I entered a Burger King to grab a quick bite as part of our hectic Saturday routine. At this particular BK there is only one blue-painted handicapped parking spot though there are at least six parking slots within 10 paces of the entrance. With our burgeoning family, I certainly appreciated being able to park the van and unload the tribe near the entrance.

Seated and munching, I notice a rotund woman park her minivan in a spot about 100 feet from the BK, literally kick the driver’s side door open, gingerly roll herself out of the van, and slowly lumber across the parking lot to the BK.  Used to determining the weight and size of moose and caribou at 100 and 200 yards, I estimated her weight at 350 lbs.

My brother’s fat humour echoed in my brain, “Warm up the fryers! Everyone out of the pool!” My wife, noticing that I had picked up on the “big-boned” woman making her way to the BK, and perhaps observing a rye grin on my face, jabbed me in the ribs. “Stop it,” she said with her eyes, seemingly knowing what was going on behind my eyeballs. Then audibly, “Don’t be so cruel. You don’t know why she’s like that.” You get the picture. Shame on me, but don’t act so innocent, dear reader!

Anyway, said rotund individual entered the BK, walked into the middle of the room and roared, “WHO IS PARKED IN THE HANDICAPPED SPOT?”  Startled at the rude interruption of the consumption of their flame-broiled whoppers and trans-fat sticks (fries), everyone turned.  Most muttered, “Not me,” except for one, an older woman in her 70s, sitting by herself enjoying a sandwich.

“I am,” she said.

Rotund woman, growing more agitated and pointing her finger: “I don’t see a handicapped sign hanging on your mirror. Do you have the right to be in that spot?”

Older lady: “Yes. My tag is in the glove box and I forgot to hang it on the mirror before coming in.”

Rotunda: “Really? Well, I WANT that spot.”

Older lady, with poise and dignity, “I’ll move as soon as I’m done, dear, but there are a couple spots right next that are open.”

Rotunda: “Doesn’t matter. I want that spot and I need you to move.”

The old lady looked away and started eating again. The men in the joint were observing closely, waiting for Roti to do something even more stupid.

Alas, with a “hmph” Large Lady exited the BK, trudged the 100 feet back to her van, damn near ripped the driver’s side door off her van whilst opening it, squeezed inside, somehow managed to reach out and close her abused door, and waited. And waited. Then waited some more. All the while no less than three parking spaces remained open next to the sacred blue slot, presumably the result of people being very accommodating indeed.

We were in the restaurant for 15 minutes beyond this and Double-L didn’t avail of the non-blue parking spaces during the entire time. Our tribe left the BK, jaunted across the parking lot to a market where we spent another 10 minutes or so before returning to our van by the BK.  Lady Large was still in her van.

She had walked at least 200 feet, attempted to run roughshod over an elderly woman, ignored her desire for food, and waited for at least 25 minutes for the privileged blue paint nirvana to open up, even though she could have easily DRIVEN THE FRIGGIN’ VAN into the spot next to the handicapped zone and proceeded to walk the 10 paces into the restaurant.

My wife and I looked at each other, “Unreal.”

In light of these coincidental travesties, I am caused to ask, Why do people, obese or not, feel entitled to certain things that they clearly are not entitled to?  And why, I wonder, do they feel the need to leverage the State to nourish and enforce their believed entitlement and so force their will upon others?  What drives that behaviour?  Finally, why does the State feel the need to involve itself in a disagreement between two renters of condominiums whom have each paid for parking?  And “violating the inclusive values of society”???

Have we lost of freaking minds?

“The Canadian Real Estate Association, through its members, has substantial control or complete control over the supply of residential real estate brokerage services throughout Canada,” the Bureau said in its filing to the Competition Tribunal. “CREA and its members have used CREA’s control of MLS and related trademarks to impose exclusionary restrictions on their use.”

Well, duh. The Canadian Real Estate Association should be free to operate their website listings however they choose. It makes sense to restrict the listings to their own members. You have to pay to play.

What is next? Will the Competition Bureau go after the Water Buffalo Club for excluding non-members from participating in their weekly karaoke night?

The MLS.ca listing service is a fraction of what the Canadian Real Estate Association offers to its members and to the public. Membership also incorporates a recognition of certain standards of business practice. Up until this point, a real estate customer who finds a listing on the MLS.ca has certain expectations and possibly recourse if those expectations are not met. Any clarity of such standardization will soon be crushed by the Competition Bureau.

This is a fine example of the innate challenge with civil service and socialism. Since the job of a civil servant is rarely — if ever at all — threatened by market forces, the civil servant can be forever fixated on optimizing the most pleasant color of the website without ever realizing that the performance of the back-end matters substantially more.

Membership in CREA is somewhere in between the aesthetics of the MLS.ca site and the performance of its search engine.
Should a day’s labor or a week’s labor or maybe a month be spent choosing the best color of the website?
Should a month’s labor or a week’s labor or only one day be spent optimizing the search engine?
Without the risk of loss, the civil servant can not make such responsible decisions. Balancing all of the features of the business model should be decided by the business owner. If the balance is a failure, it is the business owner who pays not the civil servant.

To the civil servant, devoting exorbitant resources to study and develop esoteric details is fun — sometimes the very goal — but can ultimately be a waste to the customer. In this way, the damage created by the civil servant can continue unchecked at the expense of the intended beneficiaries.

The competition bureau fabricates their own “work” and when they run out of things to do, they have the state-blessed power to invent more. In so doing, they trample the freedoms of innovators and economic progressives. After the competition bureau crushes the MLS.ca listings, there will be less of an incentive for real estate agents to aspire to the high standards of the Canadian Real Estate Association and the customer will ultimately have a more difficult time separating the wheat from the chaff.

Regardless, let us not get bogged down in economic incentives and intelligent market analysis. As far as I am concerned, the Canadian Real Estate is a business and I presume they need to make money to survive. The restrictive policy of the MLS.ca is an honest way to make their money.

The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.

When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.

The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.

What are the odds the same result isn’t occurring in Canada?

C’est une GROSSE erreur que Jean Lesage a commise de laisser entrer les syndicats dans l’État. C’est ainsi que les privilégiés naturels du système on hérité d’une arme pour faire chanter les élus et suer le peuple!

In a nutshell, he is insisting that public servants should not be permitted to form unions. He makes the observation that they abuse their privileges, they take sick-days when they are not sick, they blackmail the politicians and the screw the public. His conclusion is that if they want to be part of a union, then they should do so in the private sector.

I could not agree with M. Proulx any more. It is a delight to hear such a clear-headed evaluation and judgement of the parasitic public servant class.

“For some Canadian businesses, the recovery may prove as challenging as the downturn,” he said.

Is recession a dirty word?

Complete the sentence:

“While the bank does not entirely understand why productivity growth has been as slow as it has been, we do understand the consequences,” Mr. Carney said, repeating a warning last month that economic growth could be limited to no more than 2% for much of this decade. This will be due to slower productivity growth and an ageing population.

… and ultimately due to the printing of money.

Printing money creates a false economic indicator. As a result, it aggravates business cycles. That is what we are witnessing right now. Thank you, all you money printers and credit expansionists!

• Canadian Politics (National and Provincial)
• US Politics
• Middle Eastern / Israeli Politics

If you’re interested, please contact us. Prior experience writing for the Internet (or weblogs) isn’t required, but strongly encouraged. Please include your name, contact information and any relevant writing examples.

Also note, we will not be accepting any candidates who intend to cross-post between multiple weblogs – contributed material must be original. However, writers will retain copyright and ownership of contributed materials.

Writers must also agree the Posting Rules and Guidelines.

If you have any questions and or you want to apply, please contact Greg Farries.

Loto-Quebec has received cabinet approval to get into the online gambling business.

The provincial gambling monopoly, in conjunction the BC and Atlantic Lottery Corporations, will set up a site this fall aimed at stemming the lucrative yet unregulated internet gambling market.

And here comes the really laughable part:

Loto-Quebec president and CEO Alain Cousineau says his agency has been trying to fight online gambling sites without success.

Instead the agency’s gambling site will offer a safer alternative, with methods of discouraging problem gamblers.

Now, I live in a rural riding, and I’ve seen the challenges people have in finding day care for their children. Now I’m sure it’s ridings exactly like mine that Mr. Ignatieff et al have their eyes on when they talk about this glorious idea of a Nationalized Daycare program. Here’s the problem though, as seen through the eyes of someone in a rural riding.

We are not Toronto. Not a big surprise and certainly no stretch of the imagination. We have a population of approximately 109,000 people according to Elections Canada. If you’ve followed that link and looked into this riding, the map shows that we’re a fairly long strip of rural land. About half the population lives in Chatham itself and the remainder is spread out into smaller communities.

Now where the population is widely spaced, it’s likely that the only National Daycare Centres that would be put in place here are in the communities of Chatham and Leamington, possibly Tilbury and possibly Ridgetown. That leaves everyone else within the riding having to drive their children 20-30 minutes away from home and then having to travel back in order to go to work. This will very likely cause a lot of grief on any parent who would have to drive an hour (round trip) to another city/town at the beginning and the end of their day just to put their child into this Nationalized Daycare program.

As I’m sure everyone knows, there will be an complaint about Undue Hardship. The typical Liberal response to that will be to offer a subsidy for local day care because of the “unreasonable” distance a parent needs to travel. Likely, the local day care will be charging more given the potential loss of children to the ND program and the fact that it’s government subsidized. This will of course drive up the costs of the program. And I think we also know that the bleeding heart Liberals will succumb to nearly every complaint and woe presented to them.

Then there’s the loss of jobs in the private sector. For a party screaming about the loss of jobs in Canada, to put in a program that will essential wipe out an entire private industry is appalling! The government will of course require certain specialized certification in order to justify the elimination of the private industry which will require current providers to either upgrade their knowledge, which means going back to school which means loss of income and an increase in student debt ($$$), which may further be subsidized by the government ($$$), or else the former daycare provider will just have to suck it up and find a new job (more likely) or go on Employment Insurance ($$$), provided they’re eligible…

All of these costs will end up spiraling out of control (see National Gun Registry) due to poor planning and unrealistic expectations in productivity. The usual answer of the Liberals is to simply throw money at it and hope that solves the problem while crowing about investing in childcare (see Health Care).

How will they pay for all of this? Easy. They’ll simply raise taxes, or pull a Dalton on us and create a Childcare Premium.

The Liberals have been talking about this for nearly 2 decades and still can’t provide anything close to some kind of detail as to how this program might function within budget. This tells me that they have no plan, and that they’re just going to ‘figure it out as we go’.

If this ever happens, I’ll weep for the nation.

Well over 1000 people had posted comments on the AdelaideNow website up to midnight last night – most vehemently against the Rann Government’s legislation which will force internet bloggers and anyone publishing a comment on next month’s state election to supply their real name and postcode.

A poll reveals more than 90 percent of readers are against the laws, which carry a maximum fine of $5,000 for media organisations who do not hand over such information to the Electoral Commissioner.

In an extraordinary response to the story, readers have compared the law to those used in Nazi Germany, China, George Orwell’s 1984 and North Korea, including Mark Burns Springer from the United States.

I personally feel anonymous comments should be placed into context – if the commentator doesn’t include their real name, then their overall argument is diminished compared to those who do include their name. Basically, it’s about trust between those who are having the discussion. Those authors that use their real names tend to moderate their comments and are therefor less likely to tarnish their “good name.”

However, that doesn’t mean I don’t value those who contribute anonymously, and I think it’s a fundamental right to be able to speak your mind without having the government jackboot those who want to remain anonymous.

I have an idea. The 911 terrorist trial should be held in the Space Shuttle while orbiting the planet. That would be the most fair waste of tax-payers’ money!

La leader nationale des Inuits, Mary Simon, a souligné vendredi la contradiction dans un texte mis en ligne sur un blogue. “Nous nous demandons pourquoi, si ces solutions sont abordables et “à la portée de n’importe quel pays du G8″, la situation en terre inuite demeure la même encore aujourd’hui”, a-t-elle fait savoir.

Sorry, Mary, but if you do not know what your own people need, how the hell do you expect politicians in Ottawa to know??

Let me get this straight. The Inuit live in the coldest part of the country, places that have winter and subzero temperatures eleven months of the year and we are supposed to be surprized that their children have high mortality rates and greater incidences of respiratory illnesses. Duh.

Selon une étude rendue publique la veille du discours de M. Harper à Davos, la mortalité infantile chez les Inuits est quatre fois supérieure à la moyenne nationale. Les enfants inuits présentent aussi des taux de maladies respiratoires parmi les plus élevés de la planète.

Next lesson: people who live at the equator have dark skin!

As far as I am concerned, the Inuit are damn lucky. [That is not to say they have always been lucky. I know they have been abused and treated like animals in the past. ] Today, they can move to Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver if they wanted. Expecting to live in the Arctic while enjoying the comforts of modern civilization is just not reasonable and my money should not pay for it.

My guess is that Mary Simon is like every other good Canadian — she is afraid of being honest. She is afraid to bluntly say they want more money.

Imagine that you are undergoing a fairly routine surgery – say, removal of uterine fibroids or hysterectomy. During or right after the procedure, while you are still under anesthesia, a group of medical students parades into the operating room and they perform gynecological exams (unrelated to the surgery) without your knowledge.

Do you consider this okay, or an outrageous violation of your rights?

Regardless of your feelings, you should be aware that this is standard procedure in many Canadian teaching hospitals.

Medical students routinely practice doing internal pelvic examinations while surgery patients are unconscious, and without getting specific consent, at least in Canada.

Guidelines in the United States and Britain say specific consent is required but, by contrast, Canadian guidelines state that pelvic examination by trainees is “implicit.”

…
She [Dr. Sara Wainberg] polled her fellow students and found 72 per cent had also done exams on unconscious patients, without consent, confirming that it is routine.

Read the whole thing.  There’s a lot to unpack regarding this practice.  The mentality behind this is insulting, illiberal and dehumanizing.  There is no justification for penetrating women (or men) without their consent.  It does not matter what letters follow your name; it does not matter that the word, “Dr.”, precedes your name; it does not matter that she is unconscious; it does not matter what other things she has consented to; you are not allowed to violate her.  The same rules that apply to the alley way apply to the operating room.

Further thoughts can be found here.

Sarkozy called for new accounting rules and tighter limits on executive pay, adding that the risks are too great if “we do not change the regulation of our banking system and the rules for accounting and prudential oversight.”

Great! The solution to our economic woes is more accounting trickery! Wonderful!
All we have to do is reshuffle figures from one column to the other. Furthermore, this comes with the admission that governments and regulators — the very people who are telling us they have the solution now — have been endorsing the wrong accounting tricks which are at fault for the collapse of the money markets.

Blaming the free market is a canard — a most dishonest and stupid canard because there never was a free market in money.

I really wonder what the hell is going on in the mind of Stephen Harper. For the first time in history, Canadians have a Prime Minister whose background in economics arguably — specifically promoting free-markets — stands out from all others. Confused conservatives who yearn for their own peculiar brand of small government actually have an intelligent reason to suspect that their man may deliver. Sadly, any consistency in economic theory is falling apart before our very eyes. Most people have been fed so much KeynesianoMonetarist nonsense that they can not see it. The central command in the market for money is collapsing just like central command in any other market tends to collapse.

For a Prime Minister who has worked hard in the past to promote free markets, it must be bizarre to have to utter the following pap:

To be succinct, the real test of the G-20 going forward, is that it develops and sustains among its members a sense of shared responsibility towards the global economy.

For while the market’s awesome power to generate and widely distribute wealth is self-evident, we also know markets need governance. For the new global economy, the G-20 is what we have.

Spoken like a true command economy central planner! Way to go, Harper! Karl Marx would be proud!

The Canadian military has ordered a formal investigation into how a critical report on the beating of an Afghan prisoner remained buried at National Defence headquarters.

In June 2006 soldiers captured a suspected Taliban fighter and handed him over to local police, who then beat him to the point where the Canadians had to intervene.

A report on the incident, which undermines Conservative government claims that no prisoners handed over to Afghans faced abuse, was apparently uncovered only in December.

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk ordered an investigation, which is headed by Rear-Admiral Paul Maddison, commander of Joint Task Force Atlantic.

Natynczyk’s deputy, Vice-Admiral Denis Rouleau, says the probe will look at the incident itself, why soldiers took the actions they did and how it was reported.

The report of the investigation is due March 1 and is to be made public shortly after.

Diplomat Richard Colvin testified before a special House of Commons committee in November that he repeatedly warned federal officials in 2006 and 2007 that prisoners faced the possibility of torture in Afghan jails.

This is good news, a little late, but good news nonetheless.  Will this help end the contention that no one was tortured, or that the torture was nothing more than just being beaten by a shoe.

I have more thoughts on the matter here, but I’d like to ask why it’s so controversial to suggest that we shouldn’t be complicit in torture when, apparently, our troops on the ground think we shouldn’t be involved in torture?

The homes and schools close to Dolphins Stadium are receiving “sex offender advisory” postcards this week warning residents to watch out for The Who’s Pete Townshend, who’ll be performing at halftime of Super Bowl XLIV.

…

Townshend, 63, was arrested in England in a 2003 roundup of alleged pedophiles accused of cruising online sites for photos of child sex. Townshend said he was just doing research for a book at the time. He wasn’t convicted of anything but was placed on that country’s list of sexual offenders for five years.

For more on the controversy, look below or click

Several South Florida child-abuse activist organizations last month asked the National Football League to bar the British guitarist from the halftime stage, which he’ll also share with the classic-rock group’s original frontman, Roger Daltrey. The anti-pedophile crusaders also asked immigration authorities to stop Townshend from entering the USA, citing “moral turpitude.” And they lobbied tire maker Bridgestone from sponsoring the show.

So far, only the NFL responded, saying it would not ban Townshend — whose big tunes with The Who include guitar-heavy Who Are You? and Pinball Wizard — because he was never convicted of a crime.

I’ve raged against sex offender lists in the before.  This situation is a little different, a little more comical, but it’s still rather absurd.

Though I guess, just to be safe, I should make the following disclaimer: Please, children of south Florida, do not accept a ride on Mr. Townshend’s Magic Bus!

(H/T: @Radley Balko)

Now, I don’t try to hide my inner-nerd (which I love dearly btw), but I’m a huge Star Trek fan, and it never fails to amaze me how that single television series in all of it’s incarnations has inspired our technological development. When you think about some of the tools we take for granted today that was (at least partially) inspired by Star Trek, it sort of interesting to speculate where we can go in the future. Things like Cell Phones for example: Star Trek communicator (from the original series). The Internet: Federation Database accessible from any location hooked up to it (I could be stretching here, but you never know). And several other inspirations.

Now, we have the iPad, successor to the iPhone. In essence, it’s an answer to Star Trek: The Next Generation’s PADD or Personal Access Display Device. At the time, a very exciting idea allowing multiple functions to be combined into a mobile, hand held display that wasn’t so large as to be unwieldy but not too small to be difficult to see.

Seems we have it!

Today, while Fisheries and Oceans Minister Gail Shea was delivering a speech to open the Aquatic Life Research Facility in Burlington, a PETA zealot who was sitting in the front row stood up and hit the Minister in the face with a “tofu cream pie”.

Call me squirrely, but I call that assault.

Of course, the crazy zealot was dragged away presumably shrieking about the slaughter of seals, as if that hasn’t already been beaten into the ground 12 times over.

Protesting over your cause-du-jour is one thing, but taking it to the level of assault is another. This “unidentified” woman should be charged and jailed for assaulting a public official.

And for the record, I don’t approve of the pieing of Jean Chretien either. Yeah I know, I hate the guy, but that doesn’t mean I wanted to see him assaulted.

______________________________________________________

Update: Revenge of the Curds courtesy of the National Post

Btw, for what it’s worth: I would totally trade single payer for school vouchers. Each party’s big “21st century civil rights” cause, right?

This doesn’t really apply to Canada (with us already having “single payer” – an incredibly poor description of who actually pays), but I’m totally on board with what he’s saying.  As much as I’d like to remain all ideologically pure and never compromise my principles, that’s not the way politics works.

So, I’m with PEG.  I’d be willing to accept to some of the excesses of our current welfare state if we’d bring in some sort of robust school choice initiative.

Now, dear readers, what sort of trade offs would you be wiling to make?

You can follow PEG on twitter here.  You can follow me here.

We urge the government to expand those efforts by widening which family members can apply and speeding up the unification of adopted orphans with their new families in Canada.

I think they are on the right track.

As far as I am concerned, we should let anybody come in to Canada. Jason Kenney is wrong:

“Massive resettlement is not a solution to natural disaster. The solution is reconstruction, and we’re focused and dedicated to that,” Mr. Kenney said.

Kenney said other stuff too. He said that the government of Haiti would not appreciate it if all Haitians were permitted entry into Canada. Who cares what the Haitian government appreciates?? I certainly do not. As far as I am concerned, massive resettlement is a solution to this natural disaster.

Lorrie Goldstein posted his preferences and bias this morning:

There needs to be a limit on Canadian compassion towards Haiti.
—SNIP—
We cannot solve every global catastrophe by throwing open our doors to the victims.

I do not see why not. The vast majority of Canadian land is empty. If all of the global warming nonsense turns out to be true, well, more of the barren Canadian land will become habitable at affordable rates and Canadians will solve every global catastrophe by throwing open the doors. We will not be able to afford not to do so.

Also, the choice to fund reconstruction assumes that the purpose behind all of this foreign aid is to actually help the lowly desparate foreigners and not the governments nor the government cronies. That is a huge assumption and I am not sure what the motives of people like Jason Kenney truly are. He may have other goals to serve with his policy-making tasks. Who knows?

The problem with throwing money at reconstruction is that the question of whether reconstruction is even possible — that is, to suit the inhabitants — is never honestly addressed. Further, any discussion of the cost compared to resettlement is stifled too. Some people in Haiti may actually want to leave. Thus, the money sent to reconstruct the earthquake-prone land may be better spent. It is not like Canada is such a horrible place to live.

As far as I am concerned, if a reconstruction of Haiti is physically possible, then Haitians should do it themselves. They can move to Canada, save up some coin and go back to their homeland to reconstrct whatever they want. That is how honest compassionate reconstruction should be done.

Mr. Ignatieff, therefore, has to appeal beyond the travails of today to offer a better tomorrow and, in so doing, reconnect with those convictions that once defined the Liberal Party. Giving effect to those convictions – a strong central government, an activist state and an internationalist foreign policy – will take money that the federal government doesn’t have, and won’t have without raising taxes.

It’s good advice, but it’ll never happen under the current minority government situation; with the Liberal Party a whisper and a vote away from being the next government.

The Liberal Party of Canada needs to spend one term, possibly two, sitting in the opposition benches of a majority Conservative government before any real perspective on governing is achieved. The Liberal party had grown stale and corrupt under the heavy hand of Prime Minister Chretien (as any government would after 12 years) and the constant saber-rattling from the official opposition has done nothing to quell the stench of that staleness. I think the parade of new Liberal party leaders further proves the party needs to do some deep reflection before it can be handed the keys to Canadian government.

It should also be said that if Conservative supporters across the country (both big “C” and little “c”) feel like they didn’t get a chance to effect change – without the hindrance of a minority government situation – they are unlikely to consider any other party in the near future.

Polarization of the vote and constant minority governments may become the norm in Canadian politics, and that should strike fear in any Canadian concerned about the future of Canadian democracy.

The Liberal Party needs to lose and lose badly.

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

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

1. Dick Cheney
2. Rush Limbaugh
3. Matt Drudge
4. Sarah Palin
5. Robert Gates
6. Glenn Beck
7. Roger Ailes
8. David Petraeus
9. Paul Ryan
10. Tim Pawlenty

That list looks correct, at least in its broad strokes.

Were I to rank the list, however, I would reorder it in some respects. And I would also replace Paul Ryan and Tim Pawlenty with Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. That would in turn precipitate further changes in the rank ordering. But those are relatively minor changes.

Do you agree with this top ten?

I’ve found Ezra Levant to have been a little reactionary regarding the Afghan detainee scandal.  The allusions made by Liberal MPs and pundits implying Canadians have committed war crimes are a little distasteful, but it does not seem helpful to get into a debate about whether or not someone made such a claim explicitly or implicitly.  Nonetheless, he does nab Mr. Ignatieff saying something rather disappointing:

Ignatieff said Liberals will work with other opposition parties to continue exploring the Afghan detainee issue while Parliament is shuttered. And he lambasted Harper for proroguing rather than complying with a Commons resolution demanding that the government turn over documents related to torture accusations levelled by diplomat Richard Colvin.

“Democracy breaks down if a prime minister defies the elected representatives of the people on a matter of that importance,” he said.

Ignatieff said the documents would shed light on such crucial matters as whether Canada has respected international law and human rights, “the conduct of our troops in the field” and the conduct of the government which appears to have ignored warnings about torture.

“This is really serious stuff,” he said, adding that Liberals “will not let up about this.”

(via The Canadian Press)

One of my hopes for this prorogation was for Mr. Ignatieff to begin showing some leadership.  Whatever one’s political inclinations, I hope most of us believe that a strong and principled opposition is healthy for our democracy.  I haven’t seen that from Mr. Ignatieff in the past, and, by conflating the conduct of Canadian troops on the ground in Afghanistan with the conduct of our political leadership, he does a disservice to those of us who wish to see an open and impartial investigation.

On this topic, Canadian Cynic asks:

There’s nothing magical or sacrosanct about being a member of Canada’s military. They have rules. They’re supposed to know those rules. And they’re supposed to follow those rules. And if they don’t follow them, they should expect to be punished for it. And if they knowingly and deliberately committed war crimes, what’s wrong with suggesting they be held accountable?

He is, obviously, correct.  Accountability does not disappear with the donning of a uniform.  My issue with Mr. Ignatieff’s insinuation is that we don’t have a whole lot of information to back it up.  In fact, we have stories of soldiers trying to do the right thing.  I can be as much a fan of hyperbole as the next person, but it is unhelpful in the pursuit of truth to begin with the concern that our troops are behaving inappropriately.  Further, such a stance only helps to marginalize the views of those of us who believe we need a fair investigation in order to find out what happened rather than a witch hunt.

I understand Mr. Ignatieff’s desire to score some political points.  Lord knows, the Conservative’s have scored enough at his expense.  However, what we, as a nation, need most from Mr. Ignatieff is an opposition leader who shows, you know, leadership.  Mr. Ignatieff has a wonderful opportunity to define his leadership on his own terms.

He’s not off to a good start.

It seems we need to talk.  Our relationship just isn’t what it used to be, and now that you’ve decided that we need a break for a few weeks, I think it’s time that we re-evaluate just where we think we’re headed.

I remember when we first met.  From what everybody said, you just seemed perfect, ooh, he’s soooo wonky.  Sure, you didn’t have the usual charisma that we’ve all come to expect, but that’s really overrated.  I was looking for someone of substance, and you were supposed to be it.  From that initial courtship, everything seemed good.  I knew that it would be an up hill climb, and that all the chattering classes would be predicting our failure, but I had faith in us.  Even if no one else saw in you what I saw, it didn’t matter.  You seemed like a keeper.

The initial flair of a relationship never lasts.  No one is the perfect vessel we believe them to be upon first meeting – one in whom we can pour all of our dreams and expectations.  Dreams linger and fade, and life interrupts honeymoons.  Through such stresses, all we need is to find someone who will still, in essence, be the person we always thought they were; be the person we always needed, even when blinded by desire.

We certainly had our share of ups, but we also had a few downs.  The downs seemed to mount, and grow, and envelop that initial flame.  I may have had some harsh words, but I was mature and confident enough to know that no relationship can be perfect.  There is no Suzanne Somers for my Patrick Duffy, but I didn’t care.  Waking up from a dream or nightmare, I still believed you were the right choice for me.

But I don’t know why you had to go after my friends.  I don’t know why you were so worried about what they might say.  I already knew you weren’t perfect, and I wasn’t expecting perfection; I was expecting the intestinal fortitude, the confidence, I was led to believe you had.  Unfortunately, your jealousy seems to have gotten the better of you.  Insecurity does wear well, Stephen, even on you.  I don’t know if I will be able to remain true to you, if you do not remain true to all the principles I thought we shared.

So here we are, the dark days of January.  Ottawa has been cold; Ottawa has been grey; Ottawa has been quiet.  I know you will return, but I know it won’t be as soon as you’d promised.  You say you need some time.  You need to get composed, take care of some housekeeping issues, and then come back fresh after the Olympics, ready take on everything anew.

I hope you get some rest, Stephen.  I hope you have the chance to reflect on the past few years we’ve spent together.  They’ve meant a lot.

I’m not a child.  I know that people grow.  I know that people’s priorities change.  I’m sad to think that yours have changed so much… or maybe it’s just that I never quite knew you to begin with… no, I don’t think that can be it.  I was prepared for some disappointment, but not this much.  You broke my heart, Stephen, you most cynical of pols.

We’ll talk when you return.

Farewell,

Jonathan

Some might justifiably regard that as a shame. After all, there is a lot of talent in the Conservative Party, and many backbenchers can quite plausibly make a strong case for having earned the right to prove themselves in Cabinet.

In your view, which Conservative backbenchers should be considered for the Cabinet? And for which portfolio?

Let me start our discussion with a suggestion: Michael Chong, the principled and accomplished Member of Parliament for Wellington-Halton Hills, could make an excellent Minister of State for Democratic Reform. The current occupant of that post, Steven Fletcher, could then be promoted to a full Minister of the Crown.

Thoughts?

McCallum: “I think the bigger weight is bread-and-butter issues, jobs and getting your children to school and all of those things. But I also think Canadians do care about democracy and about the high-handed, undemocratic attitude and actions of this government, and I think proroguing adds to the total character picture of Mr. Harper, and the fact that they may have been committing war crimes, handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime. And the fact that they’re covering it up, I think many Canadians do care about those things as well as caring about economic issues.”

This fiasco has just hit a new low and McCallum just drove a truck right smack into the middle of it.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t McCallum the minister responsible for the prisoner transfer agreements when this whole war started?