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.