Patronage?

I am not necessarily against patronage in government per se.  As long as the appointee has at least some contribution to make to their appointment.  After all, any government wants their boards and commissions to represent their views and philosophies.

When I am adamantly opposed to though, is when a government campaigned on eliminating patronage, such as the last few elections by the federal Conservatives.  That is downright fraud.

It was 1984 in Brantford, for God's sake!

Back in 1984 I travelled across Canada looking for a manufacturing site for a range hood fire extinguisher.  One of the places I reviewed was the Six Nations Reserve at Brantford, Ontario.  I met with the Elders, the Chief and an economic development official.  Which of those persons do you think was non-native and a non-resident of the reserve?

In my conversations I explored the downside of relying for product from within the reserve system.  The answers could not have been more contradictory.  The ED official claimed that there were no downsides.  The Elders and the Chief both disagreed with the official and stated that the Indian Act, under which all First Nations existed, was the real force on the reserve and that Indian Affairs in Ottawa could pull the plug on any endeavour without notice or recourse.

Not a nice way to live, is it?

And here we are nearly 30 years later and the discussion still goes on.

Please check your facts, Mr. Harper

The PM and his minions at the PMO may be good communicators but maybe they should be better fact checkers also.  In his year end rah-rah interviews, Harper tells us that he is not worried about the problems with the Keystone XL pipeline project, designed to carry raw bitumen from Alberta to Texas, because he will sell the stock to China instead.  Fine idea but just one problem.

The North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) has a clause that maybe he should read again.

The clause is referred to as Proportionality.  In essence it states that Canada cannot reduce the percentage of oil and gas we now export to the United States even in times of domestic shortages.  That clause applies a percentage of our overall production that we must send to the US.  What does it mean when part of our production goes to China?  Does that mean that Canadians have to use less than we do now?  You can't take it from the allotment to the US so it has to come from somewhere.

In a report on Proportionality, co-author Gordon Laxer, a political economist at the University of Alberta, stated this: “The Canadian government must realize it is the only country in the world that has jeopardized the energy needs of its people in this way, and move quickly to exit the proportionality provisions of NAFTA.”

Maybe it is a problem, Steve?

Rule by Fiat

To most, the vote at Ottawa City Council today with seem insignificant - but it is anything but.

The city built a new archives building in the west end this year and officially opened it in the summer.  The most interesting feature of the building was not what was there but rather what was not there.  There was no sign to indicate what the building was.  Why you may ask?  Good question.

When the building was being planned and built  a group of Ottawa, known as the Friends of the Archives (I am currently on their Board of Directors), put forward the name of the late William Pitman Lett, the first Ottawa city clerk and quite an historian.  Lett was passed over by the bureaucrats in favour of the late Charlotte Whitton, the feisty former Mayor of Ottawa (she was also the first female mayor in Canada).  The nomination was made by the mayor and many councilors but, as is typical of these times, some group got their knickers in a knot and objected to Charlotte.  So the building had no name.

In an obvious attempt at pandering to the special interests, the mayor went looking for another name.  What did he come up with?  James Bartleman.  Who?  All Ottawans remember Bartelman.  He was born in Orillia, raised in Muskoka, went to school in London and became Lieutenant-Governor in Toronto.  This mixed with his world travel as a Canadian diplomat.  He is currently the Chancellor of OCAD in Toronto (and probably a Leafs fan).  So who better to name a building after but a guy with very tenuous ties to the city.  Much better than a former mayor, the first city clerk or any number of former regional politicians, such as Claude Aubry, etc.

So what's next? 

Will we name the proposed library building after Arnold Schwarzenegger?  After all, he visited here once and dropped a puck (on purpose) at a Sens game.

And the spin goes on!

There is more news on the F35 front and none of it is good, unless you believe everything the government tells you.

News point one:  The Defense Department in the US has announced more delays and problems with the F35 prototypes.  Seems that vibration and issues with the power plant and head mounts are the latest problems.  This means further delays to the program and rising costs.  And just in case you think these are minor issues, let's see what the official report says:  

Severe shaking This happens during high-speed maneuvers and may accelerate wear and tear on the plane.   

Helmet system  The display that shows the pilot data from radar and electronic warfare systems has problems with its night vision.   

Electrical power  The system has failed or needed replacement 16 times. If it failed in flight, the plane would lose much of its electronics, the pilot's main oxygen supply and its cockpit pressurization.

I know what you are thinking... these are problems inherent in the development of a new aircraft.  May I remind you that earlier this year, Fantino and the MIA-Minister Peter McKay (I hope he hasn't gone fishing again.) maintained that the F35 was the best aircraft for the RCAF, when the aircraft is still being developed and the RCAF has not yet created a Statement of Requirement.

News point two.  Not-quite-a-Minister Julian Fantino has suggested that we may not buy all the 65 planes that he has always maintained were the right number for the RCAF.    Even though the RCAF brass still says they need 65, is it possible that Fantino's revision is due to rising prices for the aircraft?

News point three:  Fantino has told us that the delays mentioned in point one will result in he may have to extend the life of the F18s.  What will that cost Julian?  And why is there not an option to abandon the F35 and move to the F18 Super Hornet?  The Super Hornet is a proven fighter interceptor, its use will not require Canada to get new air re-fuelers and training and spare pasts will be a fraction of the cost of gearing up for a new aircraft.

Health Care System Rocks!

We constantly hear from critics about excessive wait times, overcrowding and the rising cost of the Canadian health care system.  That is not what I want to talk about today.

I met a truly nice bunch of professionals yesterday at the Ottawa Heart Institute.  From the bubbly ward clerk to the helpful and funny nurses; to the young enthusiastic volunteers and the cardiac plumber who talks fast, works hard and cracks really quick jokes, I could not have felt more relaxed or confident as a catheter was threaded from my wrist to my heart!

The prognosis is that I will live to enjoy another day, have more opportunities to talk with my wife, our kids and grandkids and blog a bit more from my basement study.

My thanks go out to all those at the Heart Institute, including the "B" and "C"-team blood takers who capitulated to the "A" team to put in my IV (I warned you!).

Say what you will about the warts of our system, but I left in good shape, with a positive experience and my house doesn't need to be remortgaged.

Words to govern by.

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."

These words were spoken on April 27, 1961 by President John F. Kennedy in a speech in New York City.

 I got to thinking about this while reading about the latest debacle surrounding Defense Minister Peter MacKay.  In some ways I feel sorry for MacKay.  He seems to believe that the military is his play toy and that all the platitudes being heaped on him by the men and women in uniform are for him and him only.  That poor deluded politician.

I do not feel any sympathy for the senior bureaucrats, both in and out of uniform, that have bent over backwards to cover MacKay's ass by concocting stories and repeatedly lying to Canadians.

There are two injustices against the Canadian people being perpetrated in these most recent incidents.  The first is "making a mistake".  The second is "not admitting the mistake".  JFK said that also.

What is the future of 3D?

I read an interesting letter from Walter Murch, a respected editor and sound producer, written to Roger Ebert, movie critic extraordinaire.  The piece was entitled, "Why 3D doesn't work and never will.  Case Closed." (blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html)

In his letter to Ebert, Murch draws on his extensive experience to tell us that 3D does not work in cinema because, essentially, he does not like it.  His explanation was very technical and, to the average person, sound - but was his conclusion correct?

I was just a boy when television came into being.  It was a tiny image, with no colours and had a tendency to go fuzzy and flicker.  I wonder what Murch would have said about television in 1952?  Just like any technology, it gets better over time.  3D cinema in 2011 is better than television was in 1952 and it will get better as technology improves.

But will improved technology ever come to market or will it be sidelined by corporate interests?  Can't happen?  Remember back to the Beta versus VHS battles of the 1980/90s.  Beta was a much better technology but it was sidelined by corporate interests.  It is humerous to see that producers and editors worked with Beta technology right up to the point that their work was published in VHS format.

I can guarantee you that neither Murch nor Ebert has seen real quality 3D without glasses, technically called autostereoscopy.  It is a game changer, addressing many of the issues that Murch brings up, and is ready to launch next year.

The death of 3D cinema is not upon us.  A new day will dawn.

Bad morning to be Canadian

I woke up about 6:00 this morning, still a little sleepy but, as much as I can be, ready for the new day.  I dressed, put out the garbage, had breakfast and settled down with the newspaper to inform myself about the wonders that are my life.  That was when everything changed.

David Pugliese is one of my favourite writers.  He specializes in stories about DND.  So what was it about our wonderful men and women in Blue, White and Green that set off my day?  Well it wasn't necessarily the ones in uniform... it was the bureaucrats and the politicians that pissed me off.

It is a bit of a conundrum that thousands of Canadians died around the globe in two world wars and recently 160 died to bring democracy to Afghanistan - but here at home - we have what is fast becoming a fascist state.

The information censors at DND and in the Minister's office (and you can be very sure that the PMO had a hand in this) decided that the sensitive minds of Canadians should not be burdened with the news that $600,000,000 of their tax dollars was being spent to upgrade the newly-acquired Nortel building in west Ottawa.  Why suppress the information?  "There is no context for the expenditure and the Minster will get asked question that we do not want to answer," says the minster's office.  Why hide the information.  They bought a building that was built for a purpose different from their own - certainly it will cost to retrofit it.  The fact that they want to suppress the information leads us to wonder what else is going on?

This follows on the heals of the $470,000,000 expenditure on an American satellite program that the minister's office deemed not to be of interest not only to Canadians but to parliamentarians... the ones that should be approving the funds.

So that is over $1 billion already.  Combine that with the past revelations and stories that have not yet emerged and this government makes the Sponsorship Scandal look like chump change.  Oh, I know what you are thinking - that Sponsorship Scandal included funneling money to party hacks.  Well stay tuned because that shoe has yet to fall on these DND follies.

Next up?  The F-35 contract and maybe something on the CH-146 maintenance program?

Enough is enough

At what point in time do Canadians rise up on their two hind feet and yell at the top of their lungs. "Enough Is Enough"?

Since the beginning of Canada we have been seen and used as a source of raw material.  Beaver pelts, trees, coal, oil, fish... you know the list.  It is a rare occasion that we call upon ourselves to demand that we refine our resources into products - a process that creates jobs and raises the value of the resources.  But every time we do rise to the occasion we are pounded back down by either our competition or OURSELVES!

Case in point?  The Oil Sands.  Here we have a natural resource that we dig out of the ground and extra the oil from the bitumen.  We then sell the oil at a price that is higher than the bitumen.  Good deal.  But what happens now?  Welcome the Keystone XL pipeline, promoted by Canadian industry and our government.  The goal of the Keystone pipeline is to take the bitumen and ship it to the US where they will extract the oil, refine it into fuels and ship some of it back to Canada.  Some of what, you may ask?

If you know any of your history, you will recall that a few years ago there was a push to get countries who supply raw uranium for nuclear reactors to repatriate the spend fuel back to their own countries for disposal.  The jury is still out on that issue.  But assuming that logic, can we extrapolate that the US can extract the oil from the bitumen and then ship the refuse back to Canada?  Now wouldn't that just be good thing?

So let's see what we have here.  We mine bitumen and extract the oil in Canada.  Now our government wants to help build a pipeline to ship the unrefined bitumen to Texas.

Sounds about right! 

The legal profession gets a slap-down

I am not a fan of the legal profession.  That is not to say that I do not like lawyers, I have a brother-in-law who is a lawyer, and I like him.  I am also not too fond of accountants... but that is another story.

There is a case currently winding its way through the tortures of the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) which I am watching in awe.  A certain Ontario Paralegal was disbarred in 1989 by the LSUC  for allegedly over-billing of the legal aid system.  Legal Aid investigated the allegations and found that the Paralegal was not guilty of the charges of over-billing.  They sent a cheque for $150,000 as payment for services to the Paralegal.

Not satisfied that their allegations were found bogus, the LSUC decided to pursue the Paralegal through an internal LSUC procedure to expell the Paralegal from his profession.  The LSUC is failing miserably because they have no case.

So why is the LSUC pursuing this Paralegal?  It is simple.  They want to control paralegals to the point where paralegals cannot act without the consent of a lawyer... a lawyer who will also bill the client for the overseeing - even if they do no work.   It is GREED.  Simple GREED.

That is what the Occupy movement is all about.

You can read more on this case at: http://harrykopyto.ca/2011/11/18/law-societys-case-of-kopyto-as-fraudster-falters

Companies the world over.

I have done a lot of work all across the world.  I have worked with British companies and Canadian companies and Japanese companies and American companies, and I have found that they are all different.  Generally, British companies are innovative and fun to work with.  Canadian companies are timid and Japanese companies are overly regimented.  American companies are arrogant to the point of becoming their own worst competitor.

Truth be told... there is a recession

I have been in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina for the last week.  If you look around this place, with boarded up businesses and foreclosure sales of homes, you understand that the recession in the US is real.  Government is out of money and people know it.  Contrast that to the Republican candidates debates where every debater blames one man for everything.  Obama, of course.  Congress, the Senate, state and local governments are out of control... and that is Obama's fault?

And what happened to American patriotism?  They crap on their president like he is a middle-eastern oil sheik with an AK-47.

The US is a dying empire.  They just haven't come to grips with it yet.

The death of our Health system... one study at a time

There have been a rash of studies recently that attempt to tell us why healthcare is out of control in Canada and what measures are needed to reform the system.  But these studies are not done by medical persons, they are the work of accountants and economists.  In their world everything boils down to money.  Social conscience and logistics be damned... their only metric is cash.  So sad.

A recent study was from the MacDonald Laurier Institute.  Their Director of Research, Jason Clemens, a well written author of studies on everything from banking to entrepreneurship and former Fellow at the Fraser Institute, reaches back to the welfare reforms of the 1990s to come up with three gems that will "fix" our healthcare system.  The basis of his argument is in the statistics he presents.  He tells us that of the top countries who provide universal healthcare, Canada ranks number five.  (How many countries are there?  He does not say.)  He then tells us that in the 34 OECD counties (not just those providing universal healthcare) Canada ranks 26th in access to physicians, 16th in nurses, 24th in hospitals beds, and 16th in access in to MRI and CT scanners.  An interesting statistic would have been to include the per capita cost of all healthcare spending per country, but I guess that is not important?

His fixes?  Let's discuss them in order.

1. The Canada Health Transfer should be stabilized or even reduced, and certainly not increased, in order to bring more direct accountability to the provincial level for the raising of resources used in healthcare while containing cost increases to the federal government.

In this fix, Clemens is saying that Healthcare is a provincial responsibility so the feds should get out of the picture.   I agree with him, as I stated in my book, The Provinces Must Go, a tome much hated by the political class cause it does them out of jobs.  But knowing that the feds will not give up the revenue they use for the CHT, this can only mean more taxes on Canadians.

2.  The federal government should allow the provinces the maximum amount of flexibility to design, regulate, and provide healthcare to citizens within a universal and portable framework.

Anyone who reads the newspaper at least once per week knows that the healthcare changes that are being sought in Alberta are privatization without regulation.  Since that is not within the universal and portable framework, I cannot see what Clemens is suggesting here.  Privatization without regulation within the framework is a fancy way of saying, we own and you pay.

3.  The Canada Health Act will have to be amended with respect to cost-sharing and extra billing in order to provide the provinces the requisite amount of flexibility while maintaining and safeguarding the principles of universality, portability, and accessibility. Indeed, the federal government could facilitate provincial innovation and experimentation by clarifying the meaning and intent of the five principles of the Canada Health Act.

Since Clemens is using the 1990s welfare reform model as his base, let's look at them to discuss this fix.  Ontario's Premier Mike Harris introduced Workfare as his reform measure.  The idea was that if you wanted welfare, you had to work for it.  Seemed a bit odd at the time.  If you could work for your welfare, it meant that you could work... and there was work for you to do.  So why be on welfare?  But then the fecal material hit the rotating device.  What about disabled persons?  What about single mothers with kids not in schools?  What about... What about...?  And on it went.  Turns out it was more difficult to carry out the program than the accountants and economists thought.  Too bad they had not discussed the program with social workers or the welfare recipients before hand.  It that what Clemens is suggesting?

At the end of his study Clemens makes the following statements: "Canada’s national finances are in a precarious state. We face immediate challenges in the form of deficits and rising debt, as well as longer-term problems emanating from ever-increasing healthcare spending. We need to confront these problems with specific solutions. Using the lessons of welfare reform from the 1990s is the key."

The nation's finances are in bad shape so let's screw up the healthcare system to fix it?  The $50 million that was spend on gazebos in Tony Clements riding could have been used to raise the nurse/Canadian ratio.  The $9-15 billion that is to be squandered on F35 jets, with no compelling need for them, could buy more MRIs and CT scanners and still have money left over to certify more doctors.

It is time that the economists took a vacation and left the healthcare system to healthcare professionals.  I wonder if there is room for me at the Occupy camps?

What you throw away is not "lost"

I read in the paper today that a former bank manager in Hawkesbury, Ontario, was found guilty of all sorts of crimes surrounding a rash of home break-ins, robberies (including one at her own bank branch) and assaults that were committed in eastern Ontario and western Quebec... by, mostly, members of her family... against clients of her bank.  Geez.

But what really caught my attention was the criminal's lament that she had lost the respect of her community.  Lost it?  She threw that respect way!  She didn't lose it... she deep-sixed it.

You don't lose something that you throw away!

Unintended consequences

The Harper government has recently made two forees into the labour world at Air Canada to squash the rights of employees.  By arguing that potential strikes at Air Canada would be bad for the economy, they have set themselves up to a declaration that Air Canada is an essential service.  They are saying that under no circumstances can Air Canada stop flying cause it will hurt the economy of Canada.

I do not agree with that assertion but, hey, they are a majority government and can do whatever they want.

But there is a serious downside to this declaration of essential service status and it reared its head in the recent declaration at Transport Canada to threaten the license at Porter Airlines for contravention to the Safety Management System, which "regulated" safety of airlines in Canada.  The SMS, to which it is referred, was the Harper government stab at deregulation of airlines by making safety solely the airlines' responsibility.  As long as the airline filed the right papers on time, the government was happy.  Miss a reporting deadline and, poof, Porter Airline.  Under the SMS, the actual safety "inspections" were the responsibility of the airlines.

But what would happen if Air Canada contravened the SMS to the point that Transport Canada threatened to pull their license?  Would the Government of Canada have to jump in to stop the Government of Canada?  Does this give Air Canada carte blanche to run an airline rife with safety violations?  Think it can't happen?  Remember the Gimli Glider?

Maybe someone should ask PM Harper or Minster Raitt that question?

Unhealthy contradiction on the right

The righteous right has been telling us for some time that smaller government is right-sized government. 

"It's our land... Back off", they cry.  "Kill the Wheat Board monopoly",  they bellow.  "Cut civil servant like useless inspectors (of water and food)", they call out from the grave yards.  "Let the private sector delivery healthcare", they yell from every rooftop.

So why then do they blame the Ontario Liberal government for not watching over a private health clinic and the way they deliver care... a situation created by the cost cutting Ontario Conservative government ten years ago. 

If the government inspected every private clinic to try to catch the bozo actions of the recent one in Ottawa, they would have to hire more inspectors and park them in each and every clinic to watch over the workers.  Random inspections would not have caught what happened there.

So what do you want?  More problems or lesser people?  The private sector is not the panacea that the right builds it up as.

Taube and the Protests

Michael Taube, writer-extraordinaire, at least in his own mind, let loose a thoughtful piece in today's Ottawa Citizen.  His topic was the Occupy Wall Street "movement".  Let's see if we can determine on which side of the political spectrum he resides?

In his piece he says, " Instead of praising the nonsensical ramblings of hippies, outcasts and left-wing radicals, those on my political side should engage the public in finding ways to return to laissez-faire capitalism, personal freedom, trade liberalization and good governance."  He concludes with, "Let the fringe element Occupy Wall Street, if they want. In the meantime, the vast majority of us can Take Back Capitalism and promote the power of the free market for individuals and corporations."

You are right... he is ultra-right.  In fact he used to write speeches for PM Harper.

I do not object to anything Taube says... that is, after all, the essence of free speech.  However I can criticize his musings.

Taube's first mistake is to characterize the protesters as "hippies, outcasts and left-wing radicals".  That's a bit like saying "your people".  It lumps everyone into a group that Taube finds distasteful.  I wonder what my friend, who lost his job at Lehman Brothers because of the criminal acts of others, feels about the characterization.  He is part of the protest.

Taube's second mistake is to say that "The protesters want their slice of the pie, and will simply scream, holler and blather away incoherently to anyone who will listen."  My friend is not protesting to get a slice of the pie, he wants the slice that he had that was stolen from him by criminals.

Taube's third mistake is in the statement, "We've made a mountain out of a molehill with respect to Occupy Wall Street - and some conservatives have aided in the construction."  That is a bit like saying that early anti-segregation protests were molehills and some whites have help make them into mountains.  While the protesters are not a homogenous group, neither are conservatives.

One thing Taube and I can agree upon is that time will tell if the protests fizzle or morph into a movement.  Time will tell.

Trouble with logic on the right?

I have having some trouble following the logic of many on the right of the political spectrum.  Seems that contradiction is something under which they suffer but they cannot see it.  For example:

1.  They want the government out of mortgage insurance, something for which you pay, by folding the tent over CMHC, but it is OK to offer subsidized crop insurance to farmers directly from the government.

2.  They want the Wheat Board to die a quick death so that western wheat and barley farmers can sell to private brokers at so-called market prices, but they want to government to develop more agricultural policy to entice private enterprise to invest in agriculture... as if private enterprise cannot do it on their own.

3.  They believe in the right to own land and do with it what you want, but they also believe that, if you are a small farm owner, you should be cut loose so that big factory farms can take over your land.

The effect of bloggers

I have been active with many other blog sites recently.  Onethe right-wing ones I try to offer a polite counterpoint to the spew that is on display.  Being polite really seems to piss people off on these blogs.  Seems that unless they rant, they cannot speak.  There is a constant undertone of intolerance in the way they characterize Liberals and, in a growing number of cases, NDPers and Greenies.

And through all this, they muse that low voter turnout is the fault of the politicians and their handlers. At no point in time does it even dawn on them that maybe they, the bloggers, and the hyperbolic media may have a part in the problem.

One example was a female blogger who expressed her disgust at the result of the Ontario election of a government that supports "high" electricity prices and "high" unemployment, by declaring that she was moving to Greece.  When I pointed out to her that the Greek government has raised the electricity price 30% in three years and that the Greek unemployment rate was 15%, and that she may not like it there, she seemed to have a mini-stroke with the uncharacteristically short comment, "...never mind"!

Maybe bloggers and the media should look a bit harder into the mirror?  However, they may not like what they see.

The Ontario election is over

Did the result of the election tell us anything?  It would be easy to say that the Libs loss of seats tells us that their decisions on our economy have been wrongheaded and they paid the price for them.  But this was a government seeking a third term, almost an unknown concept in Ontario, so was it policy or timing?

The Cons started the campaign 10 points ahead of the Libs in the polls and ended up four points back in the vote.  But they picked up seats.  This is truly a mixed message so what does it mean?  Did the Cons lose steam, get out politicked or just run an anemic campaign.  Probably a mixture of all three.

What of the Dippers?  They picked up seats and popular vote.  Was it their policy statements, a hangover from the federal Orange Crush or their personable leader?  I doubt it was their policies because no one actually believed they could increase costs without raising revenue and still reduce the deficit.  Orange Crush and leader?  Probably.

So what does this mean for Ontario?  Is Hudak toast for his wooden campaign style?  No.. at least not for now.  Will McGuinty retire before the end of this term, what ever that term will be  in this minority situation?  Probably but not for sure.  Will the Cons do the right thing for Ontarians by supporting the minority government as we lift ourselves out of deficit?  Probably not... in fact, NO.

Will one or more Dippers cross the floor to the Libs?  Probably not.  Will one or more of the Cons do the dance?  Possibly.


Will the uber-right-wing of the Cons, namely Hillier and McLaren, make headway in their attempt to out-right the right?  Only is Hudak is dumb enough to allow it.  Will the nutty-right of H & M try to split the Con party.  Frigging right they will.  Will it happen?  Who knows?  Remember the Reform Party?

Will Ontarians wake up one day as a colony of the country of Alberta?

A windy question!

Help me understand, oh wise persons of the far-right. 

Farmers are fighting to own "their" land (Back off government!). Con MPP Randy Hillier and his buddy, Con-candidate Jack MacLaren, are in the vanguard of that fight. 

Farmers are fighting to gain revenue from wind towers on "their" land in North Gower. 

A bunch of local residents in North Gower are fighting against the towers (using exaggerated health claims in place of their NIMBY argument). One of the NIMBY-ites' biggest supporters is Con MPP Lisa MacLeod. She has pledged to fight the project "tooth and nail". 

How do you square the fact that MacLeod is fighting against the land-owners that Hillier and MacLaren support?

Let the squirming begin!

The final demise of the Canadian Wheat Board

Two years ago, Mysteries of Canada posted a history of the Canadian Wheat Board - the CWB.   (http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/Canadian_Political_System/canadian_wheat_board.htm).  Pretty soon, if the government of Canada has its way, the CWB will be deader than a door nail.

Leaving aside that the "majority" government recieved a mandate from only 24% of Canadian eligible voters, the real problem is that the government is using its majority to trample the democratic rights of Canadian farmers who are part of the CWB.

The CWB is a Canadian-farmer controlled single-desk marketing system for Barley and Wheat.  Throughout its almost 100 years of existence, it has managed the flow of grain from the farm gate to the foreign purchasers.  Through thick and thin it has provided a stable income for farmers - back when farmers actually owned farms, that is.  Now that corporations own large the farms they want to squeeze out the remaining "little" guys by cutting off their legs at the ankles and the government is in lock-step with them.  If you want details on this, check out the report delivered by the National Farmers Union of Canada in 2010 (www.nfu.ca/press_releases/2010/06-07-losing_grip.pdf).

So farmers are the losers - well then, who are the winners?

A handful of private companies who own the large farms and the private (mostly foreign-controlled) elevator systems.  And, surprisingly - the railways who can up their rates whenever they want because the government will eliminate the Revenue Cap on freight rates.  They can also shut down short line routes that service farmer-owned elevators, forcing small farmers to haul their grain to big-corporation elevators.

What the dust-bowl period of the 1930's could not do - the government will be doing!

It is a tragedy!

Whither the F35?

Anyone seen any mention of the F35 stealth jet recently?  Seems the Con strategy of misdirection worked.  Bravo for them and more's the pity for us.  What strategy, you may ask?  The RCAF-strategy.

Understand that I am a product of the RCAF.   My father toiled in the service for my entire formative years.  We moved every 18 months and I attended so many schools before I left primary school that I lost count.  Did I like the idea of the RCAF designation being returned?  On one hand I liked it - on the other I could not give a rats butt.

But the strategy worked for the Cons.  While we debated the name change, they changed the game. 

Playing mind games

I have been having a good time the last few days playing on-line mind games with a Conservative blogger here in Ottawa.  In general I would not go out my way to do it but this guy just set me off.  He describes himself as "non-partisan" and goes on to smugly state that there are "bright lights" on both side of the house.  Then he routinely launches into a tirade against everything not-Conservative and promotes only Con candidates in the election.  That is his right, I do not deny it, but he is being a lot less than honest. 

Now I do not get abusive or hit him with zingers.  I calmly make a case that there is more to a story than just his side.  For example, in a recent entry on the provincial election he wrote this,

"OMG.  Sorry I’m so late posting my blog today but I really couldn’t stop laughing long enough to type.  Yesterday, the CBC posted a news story where the Liberal finance minister, Dwight Duncan made a promise that if re-elected in October, the Liberals will guarantee that they will not raise taxes or implement new fees. I’ll wait for you to stop laughing and to regain your composure… This is the same government that said in 2007 that they would hold the line on taxes then introduced the HST and tried to introduce the ECO fees on almost everything you buy (by the way, ECO fees are only on hold while they study another way to implement it).  And this is the same party that in 2003 signed a pledge they would not raise taxes and after winning the election, introduce the health tax  in their very first budget.  So really it makes one wonder, if they are saying the same thing again, knowing full well that voters will be very skeptical of this promise, what is the value or veracity of anything else the Liberals say in this election campaign?  It really makes one wonder what Dalton McGuinty and the provincial Liberals know about the Ontario public that me and many of the people I know are missing.  Remember the saying George Bush made famous: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. What is the saying if we get fooled a third time?  My stomach is cramping!"

What was my response?

"Have to join in this guffaw, -----.  Kinda reminds me of a government that told us that the budget was balanced when they had run up a $5.2 billion deficit. Or remember that guy, I can’t recall his name - Stephen Something, that broke his own election day law by proroguing parliament and calling an election?  How about that guy who lied about needing $50 million for border security only to spend it on gazebos and port-a-potties in his own riding.  Ah, politics. Ya gotta love it."

When inexperienced critics are taken to task by simple logic it stops them dead in their tracks.  They seldom have a witty response available to them so they move on to the next criticism.

I told my kids when they were growing up that is easier to be a critic than an author.  Maybe some of those bloggers out there could start to pay attention to that.

Where was I on 9/11?

I had planned to post this yesterday on 9/11 but was tied up with other duties.  People seem to want to know where I was on that fateful day in 2001.

I remember the time frame well.  I traveled frequently to New York and generally stayed at the Marriott World Trade Center Hotel.  My mother was concerned that I was there.  I was not, thankfully.

I was in San Antonio Texas at an oil industry conference.  The conference had begun on Monday September 10.  The attendees were mostly exploration engineers and geologists - lookers but not purchasers.  Tuesday was always the big day because that was when the executives arrived and deals would be stuck.  The conference started at 8 AM and I was due on the floor at 9 AM.  As I was leaving my hotel, I noted the crowd around a lobby TV set.  They were looking at images of a fire in one of the towers of the World Trade Center.  I did not want to be late for my meetings so I rushed to the conference site.

At about 9:05 AM and announcement came on over the PA system in the hall asking us all to stay calm and vacate the aisles of the trade show area.  There were cell phones going off all over the floor.  About three minutes later a gaggle of armed guards entered the room and started to gather up all the executives.  They were led out of the building to a fleet of waiting limos; I assume there to whisk them to the airport to return to Houston or wherever.

Geez!

By the time I was back to my hotel, the skies were clear of all transportation.  The trade show was cut short and here I was in San Antonio and no way to get out.  The rental cars were sold out and trains and buses were packed.  Not knowing how long this would last, I set about calling my family to make sure they knew I was OK and to cancel dinner appointments for Thursday in Ottawa.  Turns out it was six or seven days before I could get a seat to go home.

San Antonio is a nice city but there are only so many times that you can eat ice cream on the Riverwalk or visit the Alamo before it all grows a bit tedious.

Having been a Liberal for over forty years, paying dues and Laurier memberships for much of that time, you would think that Bob Rae might be interested in what I think about the state of the party.  But you would be wrong.

The Liberal Party of Canada is going through a process of renewal which is fine enough but when the tough questions come up, there is a bee-line for the door and a block on the web site.  Think I am kidding?  Just go to Liberal.ca and click on any hyperlink that suggests that there is feedback.

The page image suggests you have been transferred to the far north where there is no one to listen to you, except a few reindeer (including one being kidnapped or taught to fly by geese).

But guess what.  The donation link works.

I have a lot to say.  Too bad they won't listen.

Are citizens really being heard at City Hall?

  On June 1, 2011 I made a presentation to the Transportation Committee at City Hall concerning the Environmental Assessment for the Widening of Prince of Wales Drive project.  I was given five minutes for my presentation and then answered questions for another ten minutes.  My presentation was quite simple.  Residents along certain parts of Prince of Wales are experiencing excessive vibration, vehicular noise levels from large trucks are excessive and because the problem with traffic on Prince of Wales Drive is an east-west problem at Hunt Club Road, no amount of widening will work until that problem is addressed and fixed.  I made it clear that I was not against the project – I only wanted to make sure that the consequences of the project were understood and addressed.

I have been following this project for a number of years.  I do not make rash claims that cannot be backed up.  When I told the committee that there was excessive vibration from the current roadway that can only be made worse by increasing the traffic throughput, I was met with the statement, “According to our consultants report there is no significant vibration along the corridor.”  I have a copy of the vibration study report and the drawings show that there were no sensors placed along the corridor near my home.  The closest sensor was at Prince of Wales Drive and Crestway Drive where they detected “some” vibration.  I expressed doubt on the validity of the report’s finding and was not questioned on that expression.

At the end of the day (and some 15 or so presenters) the committee unanimously accepted the EA report with a few minor comments – none of which touched on the issue of vibration.

So what does this mean?  Did the committee decide that my concerns were not valid?  They certainly did not indicate anything to me… positive or negative.  Does acceptance of the EA saying that vibration is not an issue absolve the city for damage currently done or done in the future to homes or property due to the vibration?  What happens if the Leda Clay upon which the area of Prince of Wales Drive is built one day liquefies due to heavy rain and excessive vibration (It has happened many times in eastern Ontario including Ottawa.) causing property damage - or worse?  Will the city claim it to be an Act of God because their EA stated that there was no perceptible vibration along the corridor?

When citizens follow a project, make valid observations and take time from their day to attend meetings at City Hall and make reasoned arguments, it is the responsibility of councilors to listen, act and communicate.  If the citizen is wrong on an issue, point out the error and discuss it.  Don’t just walk on by like nothing has happened.

Did they even hear what I said at City Hall on June 1, 2011?  I honestly do not know.

Taxes and the deep blue sea

Remember back a few weeks when I wrote about corporations and taxes?  I read an interesting article in the SUN the other day.

According to a pay study in the US, 25 of the top 100 CEOs in the US were paid more by their companies than their companies paid in taxes.   And many of  those same companies paid more in lobbying fees than in taxes.

Stated another way... What?!!!

Book available at mysteriesofcanada.com

Two-thirds of the firms studied kept their taxes low by utilizing offshore subsidiaries in tax havens such as Bermuda, Singapore and Luxembourg. The remaining companies benefited from accelerated depreciation.

The LOOPHOLES are so big you could drive a Boeing aircraft with GE engines right through them.

Boeing paid CEO Jim McNerney $13.8 million, sent in $13 million in federal income taxes, and spent $20.8 million on lobbying and campaign spending while General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt earned $15.2 million in 2010, while the company got a $3.3 billion federal tax refund and invested $41.8 million in lobbying and political campaigns.

I wonder what a similar study in Canada would reveal?

Why is good policy toxic politics?

My good pal, Brian Crowley, leader of the Macdonald Laurier Institute, a supposed non-partisan think tank in Ottawa, recently gave a speech entitled, Why is good policy toxic politics?  He was referring to the issue of the HST in BC.  

Near the end of the speech he said, "The question of who made the mess is now secondary to the question of who is going to clean it up. In this regard it falls to all of us first to defend the HST on its merits and second to defend the decision to introduce it. But third, we must hold our politicians to a higher standard and ourselves as well, and reward those who speak frankly to us about hard choices before they have secured our votes."

I hope and expect that Brian has the integrity to tell that to the leader of the Ontario Conservatives!   Hudak has been all over the map on this issue.  He supported it - he hated it - he will cancel it - he will gut it - God knows what other position he can take.  Perhaps he can take the position that it is good for Ontario and Ontarians?  And pigs will fly.

Go get 'em, Brian.

It is time to take the politics OUT of politics

I have been watching very closely the lead up to the October election here in Ontario.  There is NO party that deserves to be elected.  They all stink!

Take the ruling Libs.  They have been in power for two terms now and are the people of Ontario better off?  I would say not.  Is it all their fault?  I would say not.  The world-wide financial mess certainly put a dent in things.  Could they have done better throughout the recession?  In my opinion, the answer is yes.

In business a recession is a time to get your house in order and pound the streets looking for opportunity; even if the opportunity is outside the next quarter.  After all, what else do you have to do with your time?

Did the government try to get their house in order during the recession?  Well Yes and No.  While they spent bags and bags of money they did not have to fix up old, and build new, infrastructure; thus creating work for pavers and builders; they really failed at the business of identifying new opportunities for the long term.  Oh sure, they will point to the Green Energy Act and I can agree that it will create some new employment, but what about the million other unemployed Ontarians.

But let's not just focus on the Libs.  The Cons and the Dippers are no better when it comes to having ideas.

The Cons, especially, are a party of whiners.  I always told my kids that it was easier to be a critic than an author.  What are the Cons promising to do for Ontario after October?  They tell us that they will kill the Green Energy Act, remove the HST on heating fuels, cancel the debt servicing charge on hydro bills, invest in healthcare, education and every other hot button that will get them elected - and not raise taxes.  Not raise taxes?  You have to be brain dead to believe that one... unless, no it is not possible... maybe they will just renege on all the promises once elected.  Wouldn't be the first time it was done.

The NDP?  On their web site the NDP leader is quoted with this, "You know the status quo isn’t working for you. You know it’s time for change. It’s your chance to demand the Ontario you want.  In this election, you can stick with the same tired ideas that you know aren’t working, that make your life more expensive, and your province less fair or you can pick change that puts people first."  Then the site goes on to lay out the platform.  End this fee, end that charge, freeze that charge, cut out consultants and get us on track to balance the budget.  How and by when?  No mention of that!  Did they mention holding down the wage increases of public servants?  What do you think.

Politics trumping politics?  It is a sad choice for Ontarians.

The Current Economic Morass - Could it be avoided? - Part 4

OK.  This is the last entry on this subject.  There is a lot more to say but we shall change the channel following this - Part 4.

Let's talk about the amount of government that we suffer under in Canada.  Back in 2002 I wrote a thesis examining the roles of our three main levels of government - federal, provincial and municipal.  As I developed the thesis it became more and more clear to me that Canadians were over-governed.  My analysis led to the conclusion that we had one level of government too many.  I then turned the thesis into a book entitled,"The Provinces Must Go!"

The logic in the book was simple.  Provinces were created at the time of confederation to do the work of the people while the feds looked after the country.  One read of the BNA confirms this hypothesis.  However, in 1867 people did not live to any great extent in cities.  In 2002 a full 70% of Canada's population were urban dwellers with many of our cities more populous than most of our provinces.  Cities by and large became responsible for the welfare of the people.  But cities, since confederation, have been surfs to the provinces.  The result is we have city infrastructure falling apart, homelessness and many other social problems laid at the feet of cities without the political or economic clout to address them.  Is that the way it should be?

The book showed how easy it would be to eliminate the national and provincial debts, improve both urban and rural situations and a host of other problems without raising a single cent of new tax.  The book is available on Mysteriesofcanada.com.

By the way, the book has caused me a fair amount of grief since being published.  The ultimate insult came at the hands of the geniuses at the headquarters of the Liberal Party of Canada Ontario - LPCO (not to be confused with the Liberal Party of Ontario).  The political experts at LPCO disqualified me from contesting a nomination for the last election based on their belief that my thesis and book were not in keeping with the policies of the party.  When challenged to show me the policy that my ideas were contravening, the conversation just stopped on their part.  I guess that the 2011 federal election kinda showed the folks at LPCO that maybe their policies were not so much the policies of mainstream Canadians or Ontarians.

Political parties stagnate with time.  They get so beefed up with their self-importance that they refuse to grow.  They refuse to challenge themselves to reach higher plateaus and debate new issues.  But do not think that this is a problem only of the Liberals.  It affects them all, including the Grande Orange party of (the late) Jack Layton.

Until our political class loses their snootiness and begins to really listen to Canadians, this country will never be a place for progress.

'Nuff said.

The Current Economic Morass - Could it be avoided? - Part 3

We have touched on subsidies and taxes; now let's talk about productivity.

I talked with a retired Canadian Ambassador the other night at a get together.  I asked him about an issue that recently came to my attention.  Apparently there are tens of diplomats at Foreign Affairs that are on the payroll while they sit at home.  The government calls it "waiting for reassignment".  I asked my colleague about it.  He told me that it was a rare occurrence during his time (he retired in 1992) but it did happen.   Seems that when a diplomat turns 60 he/she is told that their career is dead-ended (ie.  no more postings for you, chum).  The dips return to Ottawa and sit at an empty desk until they decide that they have had enough and retire voluntarily.  (Great way to end your career, eh?)

But he did not stop there.  He went on to tell me that, in his opinion, 30% of people who work at Foreign Affairs are working like they like their jobs while the remainder are coasting towards retirement (some 3-30 years from now).

If we could cull the civil service down towards that 30% who do all the work, we could save a bundle.

Just so you don't think I am singling out civil servants, the same can be said for private industry.  I used to tell people that you can always tell when a company becomes mature.  At that point you can shoot a cannon through the offices and not hit a sole.  Everyone goes home to try to forget their day.  Oh sure there is that core group working hard into the evening - they make up the 30%.

Productivity is not a bad word.

The Current Economic Morass - Could it be avoided? - Part 2

There is an interesting debate going on in North America.  In the US Gadzillionaire, Warren Buffet, says that he pays only 17.5% tax rate on his earnings while the average American Joe pays 30%.  Is that fair and equitable?   No says Buffet and yes says the Tea Party.  Buffet wants millionaires to pay more and Tea Party-ers says no way?

In Canada there was an exchange on the CBC TV that was worth watching.  On the Lang and O'Leary Exchange, featuring Amanda Lang and Kevin O'Leary,  O'Leary claimed he was paying over 50% in income taxes and demanded that he, as a job creator (prove it Kevin), should not be penalized for creating those jobs.  Lang, in one her best cool shots yet, commented that investors, such as O'Leary, had more ways to hide their income from taxes than anyone.  She wanted to talk to his accountants.  Caught by surprise, O'Leary tripped over his own tongue trying to change the channel on the discussion.

Canada's tax code contains over 2 million words.  How many of them are loopholes designed for Kevin O'Leary?  The code was written by tax lawyers and accountants for tax lawyers and accountants.  The average Canadian Joe has less knowledge about the tax code than he does about catalytic convertors.  Is that right?

The economic morass could have been avoided if there was equitable tax laws for all.  If you make $30,000 or $30,000,000 per year you should pay the same tax percentage to the government.   By flattening the tax rate and eliminating loopholes, you can also streamline Canada Revenue Agency, and thus save money.

Up next in Part 3 - Making the money Canadians pay; work for Canadians.

The Current Economic Morass - Could it be avoided? - Part 1

Yes and No is the easy answer.  Let's take the No first.

Taxes, as we know them, were first imposed in the early 20th century to fund the government during the First World War.  They were supposed to be a temporary measure but, as with most thing government touches, temporary become permanent.  Take for example the temporary building erected for National Defense in 1939 near the Parliament Building.  At the time, C.D Howe, stated that, "two years after the War nobody would know the temporary buildings had existed".  Take a walk up by the Supreme Court if you want to see the temporary building today.

Back to taxes.  When government gets money, they spend money.  Some would say it is their job while others say that it is their obsession.  Spending money is like a drug for some, not just government, so I lean towards obsession.  If government wanted to avoid this economic morass, one thing they could have done was spend less.  Do we really need to be dropping million dollar bombs in Libya?  Do we really need to subsidize the Oil Sands to the tune of $2 billion per year?

But there is another side to taxes and that is the collection of them to feed the obsession.  It is estimated that the Canadian tax code, with regulations, contains over 2 million words.  Compare that to the bible with just over 774,000 words.  It takes scholars a lifetime to memorize the bible.  What does that say for us mortal taxpayers?  Get rid of the loopholes and flatten the tax to a single rate, please.

In Part 2 we will explore other issues affecting the Current Economic Morass.

Welcome to the Mysteries of Canada Blog

The purpose of this blog is to allow authors on Mysteriesofcanada.com to comment on issue affecting Canadians and others.

"History is what happened two seconds ago" and "History is written by the victors."  I do not know who originally said these words but they were never more applicable than today.  Recently, I have been assailed by critics of my site and accused of being closed minded on issues.  Nothing can be further from the truth.  As a historian I seek facts that lead to truths.  Sometimes my research leads me to challenge popular conceptions of people and events.  Because I chose to support an issue from one side does not make me closed-minded.  If further research produces compelling facts that alter truths, then I assess them and many times change my mind on issues.  Many times, though, I do not change my mind but remain open to alternative truths.

A case in point was the recent brouhaha over Louis Riel.  While I still see Riel as less than a traitor to Canada, I, none-the-less, offered space to writers with conflicting views.

The second reason for this blog is to allow me to comment on issues of the day - because they are tomorrow's history.  I will try to maintain a level field of politics but sometimes that will be impossible.  If I chose to criticize the government of Canada, you may construe that I am anti-Conservative. But because the current government is Conservative criticizing the government does not mean that I am anti-Conservative.

That being said, this blog is not mine, it belongs to the people who participate in Mysteries of Canada.  ENJOY!

Bruce Ricketts
Mysteries of Canada