Deed, mortgage and property assessment documents for the house purchased for McGuinty by the Ontario Liberal Party

Joan's note: Again, sorry for the resolution.

Conservatives continue to rake it in

Seemingly lost in all the Budget news yesterday was the release of the political parties’ first quarter financial returns by Elections Canada.

Through the first three months of 2006, the Conservative party continued to lead in fundraising, raking in $5,371,354 in donations from 37,391 donors. Average donation: $143.65.

This was four times what the Liberals raised. The Martin JuggerNot took in just $1,328,515.12 from 6,493 donors, for an average donation of $204.61.

The NDP raised nearly as much as the Liberals, taking in $1,113,563.26 from 12,850 donors – an average donation of $86.66.

McGuinty’s head still sharper than his brain

An amusing sideshow to the tussle over the new border crossing regulations is Premier Pinocchio’s attempt to pick another sissy fight with Stephen Harper.

McGuinty and his tourism minister Jim Bradley are urging the federal government to reconsider creating an ID card that Americans would find acceptable, instead of a passport.

“I think we should be looking at other alternatives before we go to the passport option because it is a great expense for a family,” McGuinty said.

Like a Liberal who can’t see past the next election, McGuinty can’t see the costs of a new identification card to everyone, not just border crossers.

Creating an ID card with biometric features would require new legislation, new bureaucracy, new civil servants, new software, etc. And there’s no guarantee the cost per card would be less than a passport. They might end up costing more.

McGuinty’s thinking is the kind of Liberal brainstorm that created the $2-billion gun registry, when everyone who owned a long gun was already required to have a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, and handguns and automatic weapons were already individually registered (except the ones owned by criminals, of course).

We’ve seen Ontario Liberals introduce a new form of identification before. In the late 1980s, the Peterson regime introduced the Ontario Health Card – in white and Liberal red, natch.

To an Ontario population then numbering 8 million, the Liberals distributed 24 million of these puppies -- including to an actual puppy. Yes, at least one dog applied for and received an Ontario Health Card. (“How was your colonoscopy, Spot?” “Ruff!”)

The Harper government could do something to make passports more affordable, such as reducing the fee, lengthening the term or introducing a “family” rate for family members applying simultaneously. But creating a new bureaucracy where one already exists? Literally priceless.

D’oh! Re Mi with Ron Schuler

On Saturday April 29th, the Manitoba PCs will choose a new leader through an unadulterated one-member-one-vote process. (The kind that Belinda Stronach suddenly realized was the ne plus ultra of democracy and freedom of speech a few weeks ago. Sorry, I can’t help it.)

This past Monday, the Winnipeg Free Press ran profiles of the three candidates, MLA Hugh McFadyen , MLA Ron Schuler, and Neepawa newspaper publisher Ken Waddell (subscription required).

In addition to the profiles, the Free Press required each candidate to submit to one of those rapid-fire Q&As that are minefields for candidates trying to look hip and intelligent while sticking to their messaging. This was Ron Schuler’s response to the musical portion of the quiz:

Q. Favourite Neil Young song?

A: Long pause, then “Uh, all of them.”

Gulp. And double gulp when I realized that Schuler’s answer was a identical to one of the funniest lines in one of the best Simpsons episodes ever.

It’s the one where Burns sells the nuclear power plant to Germans. In one scene, a German manager is interviewing Homer about his job as the plant’s safety inspector:

Manager: Which safety initiatives have you spearheaded?

Homer: Uh, all of them?

Make that a triple gulp. The name of Schuler’s riding is . . . Springfield.

When is it okay to call your opponents whores? When they’re conservatives

Antonia Zerbisias thinks I’m a whore. (The things you miss when you don’t make the effort to go online on Easter Monday!). The background:

Zerbisias had a bit of an online donnybrook with the Blogging Tories' own aggregator-in-chief, Stephen Taylor, over his blogging last week about the Keith Boag report on the introduction of the government’s Federal Accountability Act. In his report, Boag contrasted the legislation with the new government’s attempts to control media access and questions.

Taylor called foul, saying “I agree that the PPG [Parliamentary Press Gallery]/Boag certainly has the right to be frustrated. However, facile and on-demand media access is not an issue of government accountability (in the context of the FAA [Federal Accountability Act], or the election/mandate that was fought/received on the issue). My complaint is that it was selfish for Boag to complain about his frustration when it was unrelated to the story.”

Zerbisias initially had sympathy for Taylor’s take on the story, but when she realized that Taylor had not posted the video of the entire CBC item, but only a clip showing Boag’s attempts to equate government accountability with how the PMO treats reporters, she went ballistic, calling Taylor’s post “GROSSLY MISLEADING, UNFAIR AND BIASED [her emphasis]:

“That’s because, among his many sins, he only posted video of the top and tail of Boag’s report -- perhaps a minute of what was actually a four minute report to make his case against Boag. Taylor ‘‘footnotes’’ the video but not once does he say that it was heavily-edited -- indeed mutilated -- to indict Boag. And yet he damns Boag for editing the report?”

I am not going to wade into the debate between Zerbisias and Taylor, as they are more than able to fend for themselves, but I was struck by the fact that Zerbisias seemed prompted by the incident to refer to us as “these Blogging Whories” (sourcing Robert McLelland, no less). Perhaps she has called us this before – if so, I never saw it.

I am not sure why Zerbisias uses the term “whore” to describe us, but I gather it is because she regards us as blind cheerleaders for the Conservative party and anything its elected and unelected officials do. This is patently untrue (and in my case I would refer anyone to my February archives).

Nevertheless, the issue I am taking up isn’t whether or not Zerbisias’s inference that we are all unreconstructed apologists for the Conservative party is true; it’s the language she used.

I must say that, as a terminally dateless social misfit, I find the term “whore” to be an odd fit. But I regard its use as a metaphor in the political realm to be inside the foul line. That was also my view when a few Conservative politicians applied the image to Belinda Stronach, when she crossed the floor to the Liberals last May. Many of our political and ideological opponents, however, felt differently about the use of the term.

You may recall that Saskatchewan Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott described Stronach as having “prostituted” herself to Paul Martin. Alberta PC MLA Tony Abbott said Stronach had “whored herself out for power.” (Abbott later apologized for and retracted his comment.)

These comments prompted a firestorm on the left and centre-left, from folks who viewed the comments as sexist and demeaning to Stronach:

Yesterday, I waded through the vicious, sexist blog comments. I listened to the vicious, sexist comments from Conservatives and their supporters on CBC’s The National. My ears are still ringing from the “can I say that on TV?” vicious, sexist comments on CTV News. I mean, “whored herself out for power” as Alberta Con Tony Abbott so charmingly put it?
--Antonia Zerbisias, Blog, May 18, 2005

At least MacKay’s hurtin’ hoedown was gentlemanly, unlike the skank-done-us-wrong reaction from Conservative supporters
--Antonia Zerbisias, Blog, May 19, 2005

Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan and a battery of prominent women in the Liberal caucus yesterday demanded an apology from Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and several Tory politicians for what the Grits called sexist and woman-hating comments about Belinda Stronach’s defection to the Liberals.

“What we have seen yesterday and today from members of the Conservative party, the comments, the comments that have been made about our colleague, that are nothing more than simply sexist and misogynist ...” said McLellan, who yesterday introduced Stronach at the former Conservative’s first Liberal caucus meeting.
--Kingston Whig-Standard, May 19, 2005

In a May 19th op-ed in the National Post, Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla wrote: “There are few who would disagree that the words “prostitute,” “whore” and “attractive dipstick” wouldn’t have surfaced if Belinda Stronach were male. Criticism is acceptable. Sexism is not. To attack her in such a manner not only debases a smart and successful Canadian, it debases the Conservative label.”

Finally, Zerbisias’s mothership, the Toronto Star, ran an editorial on May 19th calling the comments “a torrent of odious and sexist invective.”

Footnote: The inside story of Stronach’s floor-crossing, detailed in a February Toronto Life profile, provides support for the prostitution metaphor. Pimping services were provided by former Ontario Premier David Peterson, who negotiated with Martin chief of staff Tim Murphy on Stronach’s behalf, and insisted on a cabinet position for Stronach.

Ignatieff channels Harper and Harris

“I’d like to be a politician, the public figure who promised little and delivered what he promised, to the degree I possibly can – not 25 priorities but three – and try to be someone at the end of this game about whom you could say, ‘Well, I don’t like that guy very much, but he did what he said.’”
--Michael Ignatieff, Macleans interview, April 10 issue

Pay More, Get Less with Promise Breaker McGuinty

Today saw another item added to the 50-plus list of broken McGuinty government promises, with their announcement that, starting May 1st – just in time for the summer heat – most Ontario homeowners will pay up to 15 per cent more for their electricity. From the Toronto Sun website:

Currently, Ontario homeowners are charged five cents per kilowatt-hour for the first 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity they consume each month, and 5.8 cents above that amount. But that rate will increase to 5.8 cents at the low end and 6.7 cents at the highest after May 1. The lower amount will be paid for consumers who use less than 600 kilowatt-hours during the summer season, from May to October. The threshold increases to 1,000 kilowatt-hours for the winter season of November to April.

Incredibly, this is the second time in less than three years that the McGuinty branch of the Fiberal tree has broken a promise to control electricity rates. Yes, the Fiberals have become so adept at promise breaking, they are now figuring out ways to break previously-broken promises all over again.

This was their electricity pricing promise in the 2003 election: “4.3 cents is the price that we are going to keep on our bills”(McGuinty, scrum, November 18, 2002); and “the price freeze stays until 2006” (McGuinty, Focus Ontario, Global TV, September 20, 2003).

A month after taking office, the Liberals announced the 4.3-cent cap would be removed in April, 2004. They tried to tie the broken promise to Ontario’s finances, but Ontario Hydro’s books and debt have been separate from government finances for two decades.

(Say, did you know it was yours truly who first slapped the moniker “Promise Breakers” on the McGuinty Liberals in the aftermath of the 2003 election? Now you do. (I was working for the PC caucus at the time. Come to think of it, I still am. I mean, I am again.) What’s the point of having a blog if one cannot be immodest once in a while? But then I guess having a blog is kind of being immodest a lot of the time.

No doubt Premier Pinocchio is hoping that raising electricity rates will help him keep demand down and the lights and A/C on until after the October 2007 election, while his energy minister Donna Cansfield scrambles to bring new energy supply on line.

Though it is fair to lay some of the blame for Ontario’s straitened energy supplies at the feet of the Eves government, which in November of 2003 backed off the scheduled electricity market opening, it was McGuinty who promised to shut down all of Ontario’s coal-fired power plants – approximately one-quarter of Ontario’s supply – by 2007. They have already broken this promise; now they say the last coal plant will not close until 2009. (The Eves government’s schedule for shutting down coal power was a more realistic 2015.)

Regardless, when people’s air conditioners sputter to a stop in July, they won’t be blaming Ernie Eves; they’ll be blaming a Liberal government that’s been in power (no pun intended) for almost three years.

The stated motivation for the coal promise is air quality. Yet at the times that Ontario does not have sufficient supply, it will be importing higher-priced power from U.S. coal plants, whose emissions don’t require a passport to cross lakes Ontario and Erie. This was all foreseeable to anyone capable of dressing himself.

So there you have it: three broken promises, higher prices, and more smog. Another bang-up job by erstwhile strip-mall lawyer McGuinty. No wonder his brother isn’t running for federal leader, while his former education minister Gerard Kennedy left skid marks on the cabinet room floor.

As I have said elsewhere, although many aspects of the Common Sense Revolution have survived the change in government, the next big test will be the election in October 2007. Does “doing what you said you would do” still count? Or does “the cupboard was bare” story still fly? Only time will tell.

If you missed the lowlights of the Fiberals’ March 23rd Budget – the one that was going to win McGuinty as many as two of the three by-elections scheduled for March 30th (they won zero) – check out the Ontario PCs’ Pay More Get Less website.

“Me fail English? That’s unpossible!”

Simpsons fans will recognize the foregoing as an exclamation from the hapless Ralph Wiggum, classmate of Lisa Simpson and son of hapless Springfield police chief Wiggum. It immediately came to mind when I came across this story, mentioned in the Wall Street Journal’s “Best of the Web Today” online feature:

Rudy Rios was stripped of his duties as junior varsity baseball coach at Chavez High School last week after using a district copying machine to make a flier encouraging Latino students to attend a rally protesting restrictions on illegal immigration.

Rios, who still retains his duties as an English-as-a-second-language teacher, was copying and distributing a flier that read: "We gots 2 stay together and protest against the new law that wants 2 be passed against all immigrants. We gots 2 show the U.S. that they aint (expletive) with out us (sic)," according to district officials.

IEB: Improvised, Explosive Belinda

As I suggested on Adam Daifallah’s blog this morning, Belinda Stronach’s decision to not run for Liberal leader is the first astute move she has made since entering politics. Then she had – or should I say detonated – her news conference, and proved me wrong.

Oh, she’s not running all right, but her tortured explanation for not doing so dropped a nasty stink bomb on her new party, and further diminished what little credibility she had left with the national media.

She had a good chance to win, Stronach claimed, but her reason for not running is the party’s leadership selection process, which she says renders her incapable of speaking her mind on party renewal. She maintains that she would have been “trapped” in a system in which the grassroots are “ahead” of the party.

This is risible nonsense. In the two months that have passed since Paul Martin announced he would not be leading the Liberals into another election, this is the first inkling we have ever heard from Belinda that she had a problem with the Liberal party’s leadership process.

Briefly, the process consists of a vote at the riding level that chooses delegates and assigns first ballot votes on the basis of one member one vote. The delegates are then free at the convention to vote as they wish on second and subsequent ballots. Each of the 308 ridings will elect 14 delegates. There will also be approximately 850 ex-officio delegates.

The Conservative party’s leadership process is a modified one-member-one-vote process that is similar to the Liberals’, to the extent that it treats all ridings equally, regardless of the number of members in each riding. There is a preferential ballot, but no delegates.

As CBC reporter Julie Van Dusen noted on Newsworld today, Stronach applauded the Liberal leadership rules when they were released last month. As the National Post reported on March 20:

“I was particularly pleased to see the national party executive agree on rules that will ensure the leadership race is a more open, accessible and accountable process from start to finish, that will guarantee a level playing field for everyone who decides to run,” Ms. Stronach said in a statement.

Update: Stephen Taylor has some compelling background on Stonach's position on riding equality in leadership races, when she ran for Conservative leader, here.

Stronach's talking points today, less than three weeks later, are a transparent rationalization for the fact that her weak support among traditional Liberals means she could only win the leadership if she were free to essentially take over the party with new members. Yet Scott Brison, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae do not seem deterred, though they are essentially starting from the same place.

In the Simpsons episode that features the musical version of “A Streetcar Named Desire,” the closing song includes the line “a stranger’s just a friend you haven’t met.” I guess to Stronach, a “grassroots Liberal” is just somebody whose membership she hasn’t bought yet.

I suspect that the leadership rules that are genuinely troubling to Stronach are the financial ones, which would have all but eliminated Stronach’s financial edge. This is the first major leadership race that will operate under the new election financing law enacted in 2003.

The spending limit has been set by the Liberal party at $3.4 million, down from the last race’s limit of $4 million. Under federal law, campaign spending must include travel, polling and personal expenses, items that have been exempted in some previous races. Corporate and union donations are banned, and an individual is limited to donating $5,100 to all leadership candidates.

Candidates are limited to spending $5,000 on their own campaigns. Contrast this with the approximately $1 million Stronach spent on her own campaign for the Conservative leadership in 2004, a figure admitted by one of her spokesmen last fall.

As for her claim that she would not be free to speak her mind – again, ridiculous. Is there any better platform for the discussion of ideas than an opposition party leadership contest with no frontrunner?

When Stronach defected to the Liberals last May, Stephen Harper speculated that the real reason she was leaving was because her leadership ambitions were unlikely to be realized in the Conservative party. Tony Clement was more forthcoming, and his observations at the time have proven prescient:

Mr. Clement did not spare harsh words for his former leadership rival yesterday, saying Ms. Stronach is the political equivalent of soccer player David Beckham and his out-sized ego.

“At some point, Manchester United said ‘We don’t need the distraction. We’re a better team without him,’ “ Mr. Clement said on his way to Bracebridge, where he will be running as the Conservative candidate against Liberal agriculture minister Andy Mitchell.

Mr. Clement said he feels “vindicated” by Ms. Stronach’s departure to the Liberals.

“She has been running a parallel leadership campaign since the day after she lost the last one,” he said. “When she doesn’t get her way, this is the typical response from her.”

He added that Ms. Stronach was a “destabilizing influence in the party” long before she announced that she was crossing the aisle before tomorrow’s budget vote.

“I honestly believe that we are far better off in the long run,” he said. “I know there’s a grey cloud right now, but the silver lining will become more prominent the further we get away from today.”

“I wonder what shred of credibility she’ll have because it’s so obviously about naked ambition rather than public policy or principle,” he said. “Why would you trust a liar like that?”

Prime Minister Paul Martin exercised “the politics of desperation” by inviting Ms. Stronach into his cabinet, Mr. Clement said, but could come to regret the decision once the budget vote is over.

“He will rue the day, I’m telling you,” said Mr. Clement. “Bully for him, he won a 24-hour contest of wills, but I think in the long run he will rue the day. The ego and the constant demands, they just won’t stop. It’s always about Belinda.”

This sorry episode lends credence to Harper and Clement’s views. Stronach could have withdrawn with dignity, offering truthful and credible reasons such as wanting to improve her French and get more Parliamentary experience under belt. But that would be too pedestrian for Belinda. There always has to be some grander – dare I say, Nietzschean – rationale. I can’t help saying this about the atheist Stronach: Thank God we are rid of her.

Footnote: This has been a bad week for National Post columnist Don Martin. On Tuesday, Ralph Klein announced he is stepping down before year end. With Klein’s departure, Martin's contacts in and access to the workings of the Alberta government are sure to diminish. Then Belinda Stronach announced she’s not running, which will not help sales of Martin’s upcoming book on her. He deserves to take a dram or five this weekend.

New economic research institute coming to Manitoba

This may be good news for those of us frustrated with so-called “research” produced by the likes of YWCA Canada, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Caledon Institute and so on: The Manitoba Chambers of Commerce (MCC) are establishing an independent, non-profit research institute to look into economic development-related issues. As the Winnipeg Free Press reported yesterday (subscription required):

For a number of years, the MCC has been calling on the provincial government to conduct in-depth studies into why Manitoba often compares so poorly to other provinces on things like employment, labour force growth and average weekly wages.

But the chambers’ pleas have fallen on deaf ears, so now they’re taking matters into their own hands and moving forward with plans to create a new independent, non- profit research institute that can look into economic development-related issues.

“We got to the point where we simply said, ‘ Let’s go ahead and do it,’” Dan Overall, the MCC’s director of policy and communications, said in an interview yesterday. “ We’re hopeful what this will do is help raise public discussion about some of these issues and provide data and analysis.”

25th Anniversary of Reagan Assassination Attempt

I had forgotten that exactly 25 years ago today, John Hinckley attempted to assassinate U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

The anniversary did not rate a mention in any of the Globe, Post, Toronto Star, or Toronto Sun. National Review Online has a remembrance of the day’s events, as told to Deroy Murdock by Rudy Giulani. On the morning of the shooting, Giulani had attended a White House breakfast with Reagan, as Reagan’s yet-to-be-confirmed Associate Attorney General. The assassination attempt occurred that afternoon. Giulani recalls what he learned from the experience:

“For me personally,” he says, “it was one of those terrible emergencies that I was involved in. And I think it kind of taught me how to handle it. Not just me personally, but watching the other people: the attorney general, how he organized it, the head of the FBI, Bill Webster. And the attorney general, who had been in office at that point two months, handled it brilliantly. He organized all of us. He had us all doing our jobs. We each had our function.”

Does Giuliani call himself a Reaganite?

“Oh, absolutely!” he exclaims. “He had strong beliefs. He knew what those beliefs were. He stuck to them whether they were popular or unpopular. And he did it in a way in which he was civil and nice to everyone. It was a beautiful combination of tremendous commitment to what he believed in, but not anger.”

“Ronald Reagan was a role model for me,” says the man they call “America’s Mayor.” “I consider him a hero.”

NRO Online also has an excellent remembrance of Reagan Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, by Peter Schweizer.

They just can’t help themselves: Cherniak starts Liblog slush fund

I briefly checked out some of the Liberal blogs today and noticed that Jason Cherniak is trying to start a non-profit corporation for Liberal bloggers:

Today I will obtain the final signature on the application to incorporate the list of Liberal Bloggers as an Ontario non-profit company. We have now approached the moment of no return, where I will begin paying the government to make this all official.

For those who do not know yet, this new organization has been created for two reasons. The first is to protect me from liability for what others might post on sites that the Liberal Blogs list will link to. The second is to create an organization that can receive donations and then spend excess money to help the Liberal Party. The main idea is to become a third party advertiser during elections. The other and less certain idea is to create a Liberal Blogger Scholarship. If we go ahead with the second option. We will have to create some sort of board of notable bloggers and possibly other Liberals to judge a contest. That, however, is just a thought at the moment. The main goal is to raise money to pay for startup and hosting.

Wow. I wonder how they’ll decide how the third-party advertising money gets spent. I’d love to hear that conference call. Thirty-seven bloggers arguing over how to spend $187.63 (“Mom! Don’t turn the dryer on! I’m on a conference call!”) Or, as someone once described the Jerry Springer show: two women fighting over a man with one tooth.

But then again, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Liberals will donate thousands of dollars to Cherniak’s endeavour – out their own pockets. Cherniak used the phrase "paying the government" so I guess anything's possible. Only time will tell. I posted this comment on Cherniak’s blog:

You just can't help yourselves, can you?

Riddle me this: what's a Liberal without a slush fund? A New Democrat!

Finally, Cherniak’s comment about “the moment of no return” reminds me of this quote from Macbeth:

I am in blood
Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o’er.
--Macbeth, 3. 4.

YWCA (soon to be an Oliver Stone movie)

Kudos to Joanne at Joanne's Journey, who has been hot on the trail of the YWCA data-fudgers, a la Jim Garrison.

Hitting a dead-end with the report's authors, Joanne had the moxie to call a CTV reporter and politely ask how she came to conclusion that the YWCA's flimsy child care "study" proves that "most" Canadians prefer government-run day care over a $100-a-month direct payment to parents. Interesting reading indeed.

The reporter's conduct cannot really be condemned, as she did what many reporters must do when pressed to report on a lengthy report they don't have time to read: she relied on the honesty of the report's authors.

Goldstein dissects YWCA daycare paper

I have still not gotten 'round to a detailed read of last week's so-called "study" released by YWCA Canada. But fortunately, Toronto Sun senior columnist Lorrie Goldstein has. Goldstein found that the report was gerrymandered from beginning to end:

This left-wing women's group which is virulently opposed to the Conservatives' child-care plan claimed its study showed, as The Canadian Press and others dutifully reported, that "Canadian families, irrespective of where they live or the size of their communities, want their child-care needs met by a nationally funded public system and not a federal cash payout."

Gee. Sounds like they conducted an independent national poll asking unbiased questions which found overwhelming support for a publicly-funded national daycare program, eh?

Uh ... no. In fact, I've read their report, called "Building a Community Architecture For Early Childhood Learning and Care" and YWCA Canada did nothing of the sort.

What it did do was organize task forces of 20 to 30 people each, most of them already highly supportive of a state-funded daycare program, in four communities -- Halifax, Vancouver, Martensville, Sask. and Cambridge, Ont. These people then talked to other people sympathetic to a national daycare program and guess what? This report based on those reports advocates a national daycare program, which just happens to be the YWCA's long-held position as well. Amazing!

Read the whole column here.

Goldstein also notes that the paper was funded by the federal government through Social Development Canada back when the Liberals were in power.

I would add that the report's so-called "expert panel" included longtime government daycare shills Martha Friendly and Kerry McCuaig. Another member is Charles Pascal, executive director of the Atkinson Foundation, an outfit funded out of Toronto Star profits, that is no stranger to bogus public policy research (scroll down to the "Speaking Out" report).

The YWCA report is here.

CP24 response re ethics complaint

Yesterday, I received the following letter from CP24 Vice President and General Manager Stephen Hurlbut in response to my complaint about CP24 anchor David Onley. I am quite stunned by the rationalizations Hurlbut offers for one of his journalists taking a government appointment. I will be preparing a response and invite suggestions.

March 16, 2006

Dear Mrs. Tintor,

As the Vice President of News for Citytv and Vice President and General Manager of CP24 I will address your concerns.

Mr. Onley is indeed the Chair of the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council and the 3 to 4 non-paid days required for him to attend to his duties do not, in our view, constitute any breach of any code or constitute a breach of professional ethics. In fact, we are honoured and fully supportive that David has been asked to work on this very important initiative. CHUM Television and Citytv specifically has been a champion of all minority rights since we first went to air in Toronto and our support of David’s advisory role is consistent with our fundamentals. We believe it is important to recognize that the position is part-time and voluntary and while there is a small per diem of $225.00, Mr. Onley has asked that we direct this stipend to our corporate charity the CHUM Charitable Foundation.

Perhaps if we explain some of the background you may see Mr. Onley’s situation in a different light. The government has clearly explained to all members of the Advisory Council that they are not members of the government nor the Civil Service but rather they are volunteers positioned as experts in an advisory role only. When David and I were discussing the possibility of his accepting the position we were fully aware that the Ontario Disabilities Act was passed with unanimous support from all parties and had there been any issue of partisanship we would not be involved. While indeed the Advisory Council will present a report to the Cabinet Minister, it is representing the requests and enjoys the support of all members of the Legislature.

David Onley offers a very unique and valuable perspective. As I am sure you are aware, David has a disability; he had polio as a child. In his professional role as news anchor and reporter David, to the best of our knowledge, is the only full-time disabled newscaster in Canada. We believe that his level of visibility in his role as anchor/reporter has in itself been a positive statement. We believe that his simple TV presence and his level of consistent professionalism has made a difference and if his television work can draw greater attention to the work of the advisory board we support it totally.

Mrs. Tintor, we are vigilant in ensuring that our ethical lines remain in tact (sic) and that our role as journalists is not tainted by lending our resident expert David Onley to a non-partisan initiative. The work of the Advisory Board is important and our corporate responsibility is to help.

I do thank you for your letter and sincerely appreciate the concerns you raise and I invite you to call me directly should you wish to discuss this further.

Sincerely,

Stephen Hurlbut
Vice President, News Programming – Citytv
Vice President & General Manager – CP24

Sorbara: Yes, I was the Gary Ewing of the family

After Greg Sorbara’s resignation in October, I blogged that his claim of non-involvement with the family real estate business was somewhat at odds with his self-description as a “successful businessman” when running in a 2001 by-election to return to the Ontario Legislature (see “Greg Sorbara: ‘successful businessman’ or Gary Ewing?).

On March 13, the Globe published this (subscription required), in a story about Sorbara’s attempt to have a court remove his name from RCMP warrants executed on his family’s business premises last fall:

Even though he received a salary of $40,000 a year from Sorbara Group, he said his older brothers, Edward and Joseph, made it clear "that I ought not to contemplate becoming involved in the management and direction of 'their' business," Mr. Sorbara says in the court document.

By the time he became president of the Ontario Liberal Party in 1999, he had sold off the baseball and carpet investments and began devoting most of his time to politics.

One so rarely gets a straight answer to the question, “were you lying then, or are you lying now?” I guess this settles it; he was lying then – when he was asking his neighbours for their vote in 2001.

New battle front opens up on Sorbara: pension fund sues over his Royal Group role

On the eve of Dwight "Spanky" Duncan's first budget as Ontario finance minister, Greg Sorbara’s road back to that job has just had another sinkhole appear, namely a $1-billion class action lawsuit against him and other Royal Group figures, stemming from his 10-year tenure as an independent director of the Woodbridge-based firm. The National Post reports:

Former Ontario finance minister Gregory Sorbara and company founder Vic De Zen are among eight former and current officials with Royal Group Technologies Ltd. named in a $1-billion class-action lawsuit filed in an Ontario court.

The Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension Plan claims that Royal Group and the eight company officials were "oppressive" and "unfairly prejudicial" to shareholders because they failed to disclose a series of related-party transactions that ultimately triggered an ongoing criminal investigation.

"Mr. De Zen always viewed Royal Group as 'his' company, despite the massive amount of capital invested in the company by the plaintiff and many others," the claim alleges.

Mr. Sorbara and two other defendants, Ralph Brehn and Ronald Slaght, sat on the audit committee of Royal Group's board and should have exercised "heightened vigilance" in monitoring the company's actions, especially in light of Mr. De Zen's voting control. Mr. De Zen converted his multiple-voting shares to subordinate voting shares last June.

At least five U.S.-based law firms have filed new class actions in the U.S. federal court, seeking relief on behalf of U.S.-based shareholders only. Yesterday's filing marks the first shareholders' class action filed against Royal Group in a Canadian court.

The pension plan, based in Campbellville, Ont., bought shares of Royal Group between Feb. 26, 1998, and Oct. 18, 2004. It claims $700-million in actual damages plus $300-million in punitive damages because, among other things, the company and the executives named allegedly overstated financial results and failed to disclose investigations into related party transactions.

Also named as defendants are Gary Brown, a former director and chief financial officer; Dominic D'Amico, a founder and "significant shareholder" of the company; Douglas Dunsmuir, a former chief executive and director; and Ron Goegan, a former chief financial officer.

The Canadian Commercial Workers’ plan is not the only pension fund that may have been burned on their Royal Group holdings. As I blogged on October 17th (see “Sorbara’s Plea: Incompetent but Innocent”), other owners of Royal Group shares included the working stiffs who contribute to the Canada Pension Plan and Ontario Teachers Pension Plan (N.B. Royal Group's symbol is "RYG". CPP holdings are under "Mutual Fund Ownership" and Teachers’ holdings are under “Institutional Ownership” on the MSN site).

When the Ontario Securities Commission notified Royal Group of its investigation in December, 2003, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) Pension Plan held about 750,000 shares, but no longer owns any shares.

Royal Group recently announced that it won't meet the March 29 deadline for reporting audited 2005 financial results, and may have to restate reports for previous periods.

The last we heard from Sorbara, he was denying that he leaked news of a TTC subway expansion to a local politician. Days before, he was trying to have his name removed from RCMP warrants executed at his family's business offices last fall in connection with the Royal Group matter. It's not clear how far this new suit will go, but having to defend this lawsuit at the same time he is trying to clear his name with the RCMP will likely add additional mental and financial burdens.

A few weeks ago I ran into a longtime Woodbridge resident of of Mr. Sorbara's generation. He was firmly of the view that Sorbara will not run again.

Failure to kvetch: StatsCan says parents mostly okay with adult kids at home

With the Sarah Jessica Parker-Matthew McConaughey rom-com Failure to Launch at number two in the box office, Statistics Canada has made a timely release of a 2001 study about parents living with at least one adult child at home. (People magazine says McConaughey is the Sexiest Man Alive, but, like most of their picks, he does nothing for me).

Some excerpts from StatsCan’s summary of the study:

The majority of parents living with at least one adult child at home expressed no sign of frustration about their living arrangements, according to a new study published today in Canadian Social Trends. But that does not mean there was perfect harmony in all these households.

Most parents agree that having children has made them happier people, and co-residence does not modify that opinion. On the contrary, parents living with at least one of their adult children were more likely to be very satisfied with the time they spent with their children.

However, the study did find that having children at home increased the frequency with which the parents report having arguments with their spouse over subjects such as money, chores and responsibilities, and the children.

Cultural factors were also associated with co-residence of parents and their adult children. Parents born in Asia and South or Central America were more likely to co-reside with their adult children than those born in Canada. This was especially the case for parents who had immigrated to Canada recently. For example, the probability that an Asian-born parent who came to Canada between 1980 and 2001 lived with at least one adult child was 82%.

Finally, parents who themselves had left home at a younger age were less likely to live with their adult children. Parents who left their own parents' house in their teens or early 20s may have provided an example for their own children or, alternatively, could have encouraged their children to leave home earlier.

This message brought to you by Promise Breaker McGuinty

Sunday night seems to be the night for premieres of new McGuinty government TV commercials. Two nights ago was the first time I had the pleasure of viewing their latest, a spot touting the benefits of English language training for immigrants. You don’t say. . .

“Dinner is now being served in the dining car …”

Is still one of my favourite sight gags from the Simpsons. It’s in the episode where Apu Nahasapeemapetilon gets fired from the Kwiki-Mart. Homer then accompanies Apu on a pilgrimage to the Kwiki-Mart HQ in India in an attempt to get his job back. (The episode also features the classic song “Who needs a Kwiki-Mart” and James Woods filling in at the store as research for a film role.)

Anyhow, I was reminded of that gag when I saw this photo at Exprezzo.com (hat tip: Lucianne.com) . In the Simpsons episode, the passengers hanging onto the side of the train start suffling forward – presumably toward the dining car – when the dinner announcement is made.

Go figure: government day care workers on strike

Did you know that day care workers are on strike in Montreal? No? Neither did I, until I read about it last week in William Watson’s column, buried on the last page of the Post’s business section. To be fair, they are only on strike for an hour a day, as Watson writes:

They don't show up for the first hour of the day. This is not to inconvenience parents, they insist, but to put pressure on the provincial government to pick up the pace on implementing a pay-equity settlement brought down last year by the tribunal that handles such things.

Of course, the only way to pressure the government is to inconvenience parents so they'll complain enough to government that it relents and uses (by and large) non-parents' money to pay for daycare. If the non-inconvenience of arriving one hour late doesn't work, they plan to start arriving two hours late -- until things become so non-inconvenient that the government caves. (In fairness, workers in the Laurentian region north of Montreal voted not to join in the pressure tactics. Good for them!)

It's a classic People's Republic of Quebec unholy trinity: public management of an important service, unions run amok, and pay equity. The union's view is that mainly female daycare workers who earn $19.55 an hour should actually be making $21.78 an hour. Why is that? Because men doing entirely different things are paid $21.78 an hour. It's a question of fairness, you see.

"But it's entirely different work," you say. How naive of you! It may not be exactly the same work. Actually, it may not be remotely similar work. But it is work ... of ... equal ... value.

You might think that the media in English Canada would throw some light on this, given: (1) it is less than two months after an election partially fought on the child care issue, (2) the Harper government has named their $100/month child care promise as one of their top five priorities, and (3) the other three parties in Parliament are holding fast to their dreams of a Quebec-style system for all.

My Google search suggests that this story has not broken outside of the Quebec media. Now why wouldn’t journalists want parents in Ontario to know what government day care looks like when it’s delivered by unionized workers? I simply can’t imagine . . .

Compare this radio silence to the wide coverage received today by a YWCA "study" that claims all families want a government day care system. The survey was based on chats with around 100 people, apparently drawn from the YWCA's own client groups, in four communities. A look at the study's "expert panel" reveals the usual big-government day care suspects, er, advocates: Martha Friendly and Kerry McCuaig. (I will read the full report and may be blogging further on it.)

A nice companion piece to this apparent non-story of the day care strike is last week's item about how two day care workers in Laval (that's also in Quebec) left an sleeping infant alone in a day care centre having locked up and gone home at 6:00 p.m. Amazingly, they were fired.

McGuinty dons Promise Breaker mantle again

Journalists have started shining a harsh light on the McGuinty regime for their new crop of government-paid television advertising. Christina Blizzard is the first out of the gate, with a column in Wednesday’s Toronto Sun.

The award for the most money spent on government advertising during the recent Oscars broadcast? The envelope, please. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen: A round of applause for the Government of Ontario.

Yes, you lucky taxpayers. You and your hard-pressed tax dollars, were front and centre during the Academy Awards on March 5.

Remember their ads? You know, the cute one with the darling little baby selling the virtue of immunization and the government's new vaccines? And the one that tells us to quit smoking? Then there's the tourism ad that sells the virtue of visiting Ontario -- to Ontarians.

There were five 30-second spots in all. Two for tourism, two for health and one smoking cessation ad was for the Ministry of Health Promotion. The cost to air them on Oscar night was $44,000 per spot -- for a grand total of $220,000.

As Blizzard notes, among the most highly touted of the Liberals’ 200-plus election promises was this pledge: “We will implement the McGuinty bill to ban self-promotional government advertising and authorize the provincial auditor to review and approve all government advertising in advance.” This promise grew out of the Liberals’ moral (cough) indignation at the Harris government using government-paid TV ads to tout, among other things, their education reforms and health care spending.

According to the Liberals, the auditor approved the McGuinty government ads, leading to the reasonable conclusion that the Harris ads would also have passed muster, as they were no more “partisan” than the Liberals’: they, too, promoted government initiatives, not members of the government or the PC party.

I remember an occasion during the Harris years, when one of Harris’s top strategists mentioned that some of the PC MPPs expressed discomfort with the government-paid ads. His response to the MPPs was “We can stop them, but it would be like cutting off your oxygen.” Looks like the McGuintyites have come to the same conclusion. But I would argue that their hypocrisy, after having explicitly run against the concept of government advertising, sets them apart from the conservatives.

The tally of McGuinty broken promises is now somewhere north of 50.

As I have noted elsewhere (see "Reflections on the Revolution"), many of the Common Sense Revolution’s themes and policies have survived the conservatives’ defeat, but the next big test will be the October 2007 general election. Then we will find out if it is important for a government to fulfill the platform it ran on, or whether other issues will rate higher in voters’ minds.

Among the journalists most critical of the Harris ads was The Toronto Star’s Queen’s Park columnist Ian Urquhart. He is off this week, but look for him to weigh in on this issue soon.

Broadcast Council response to complaint re McGuinty appointee

Yesterday I received the following e-mail from the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, in response to my complaint about news channel CP24. The complaint is detailed in my February 20th post, "Conflict of Interest Complaint re McGuinty Appointee." My e-mail in response to the CBSC is also below.

Dear Mrs. (sic) Tintor,

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) has received your correspondence concerning news anchor David Onley which is broadcast on CityPULSE 24.

Please note that the CBSC is unable to deal with the December 6th interview (since broadcasters are only required to hold copies of the logger tapes for a period of 28 days following the broadcast).?However, we will be dealing with the February 7th broadcast.

Therefore, by copy of this email, we are asking CityPULSE 24 to respond to the concerns you have raised and to hold a copy of the logger tape of the broadcast which concerned you. This is always the first step taken by the CBSC in pursuing a complaint. You should know that broadcasters who are members of the CBSC take their responsibility to respond to audience concerns very seriously. The dialogue between broadcasters and members of their audience is a cornerstone of the CBSC's complaints resolution process. Concerns are often resolved satisfactorily through this dialogue phase. We hope that the response you will receive from CityPULSE 24 within the next 21 days will resolve the issues you have raised to your satisfaction. If, however, after you have received and carefully considered the broadcaster's response you remain concerned, you may request a Ruling by a CBSC Panel by filing the form available on our website at http://www.cbsc.ca/english/complaints/rulingrequest.htm. You should do so within 14 days of receiving the broadcaster's response. More information on the CBSC complaints process is available on our website in the FAQ section (http://www.cbsc.ca/english/faqs/index.htm).

The CBSC is a national voluntary self-regulatory organization created by Canada's private broadcasters to deal with complaints made by viewers or listeners about programs which they have seen or heard broadcast on a member station.?The CBSC administers four industry codes, namely a code of ethics, a code concerning television violence, a code concerning sex-role stereotyping and a code of journalistic ethics, which set out the guidelines for television and radio programming.

Sincerely,

Nicole Lafrance
CBSC Correspondence Officer

****************************************************************************

From : joan tintor
Sent : March 8, 2006 8:01:28 PM
To : nlafrance@cbsc.ca
Subject : RE: Your complaint concerning conflict of interest (CBSC File C05/06-1200)

Thank you for your response to my complaint.

I would like to reiterate that the substance of my complaint is not any particular broadcast or interview in which Mr. Onley participated or may participate in in the future, but the continuing conflict that arises from his being a political appointee of the Ontario government at the same time that he is an anchor who reports news and interviews public figures.

Thank you for dealing with my complaint and I look forward to CP24's response.

Joan Tintor

1st Lt. Garrison on the state of democracy in Iraq

Note: 1st Lieutenant Micah J. Garrison has been serving in Iraq for ten months. He and his unit hope to be home by the end of May.

I've had quite a few people ask my feelings about the state of the Iraqi government, are things really close to a civil war following the mosque bombing from a couple of weeks ago, questions like that. I've decided to try to put things into perspective a little, but of course, these are some of my own opinions and ideas on the state of politics in Iraq.

Things really don't seem that different on our end, on patrol working with the Iraqi people, following the mosque bombing and continued violence. Violence has been a part of the Iraqi way of life for many years, and unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an end in sight any time soon. There will always be bad Iraqis, just like there will always be bad Americans. Unfortunately the bad people here use elevated forms of violence in the forms of suicide bombers, car bombers, drive by shootings, and other types of violence that we aren't accustomed to as Americans. Many of the insurgents we’ve captured weren’t shooting at us or putting in IEDs because they don’t like Americans, but because it’s the easiest way for them to make money, as they get paid large sums of money to carry out attacks. A lot of non-Iraqi insurgents have also been captured who are here for no other reason other than to promote and cause violence because they don’t want to see democracy succeed.

The level of violence and death these people have had to endure is difficult to comprehend. Every Iraqi has had someone they cared about killed due to violent conflict during the last 25 years. Look at the numbers. During the Iran/Iraq War of 1980-1988, an estimated 450,000 - 950,000 Iraqi military deaths. This number doesn't include the countless civilian deaths. During the Gulf War of 1990-1991 an estimated 25,000 - 100,000 military casualties were suffered. And we don't even have clear numbers for the latest invasion. These people have been in a constant state of war and turmoil for most of the last 25 years. It has sadly become part of their culture.

Many of the older Iraqis we have encountered don't really seem to grasp the opportunity they now have as free Iraqis. I remember talking to one tribal chief and he kept saying, “What can I do” or “I can do nothing” when I kept asking for information on insurgents and why he wasn't leading his people to support and embrace democracy. Here I was trying to explain to a guy 2 or 3 times older than me what he should be doing as a leader and what freedom truly meant and how his people looked to him for guidance because people want to be led. I was extremely frustrated about this encounter until I reflected later that he didn't know what freedom was. He hadn't grown up in a free society, nor did he understand that democracy is what the people make it.

On the other hand, most of the younger Iraqis (late teens to 30s) seem to truly grasp the idea of democracy and understand some of what lies before them. They seem more willing to work with us and take the initiative to make their country better. I think this is due not only to the "exuberance of youth" but also to the fact that they haven't been oppressed for as long as the older Iraqis have been and haven't seen or experienced as much violent government action. If they can keep things together long enough for the younger generations to grow up in a free society I think they have a good chance of making it work. When we go on patrol the kids love to see us and wave and smile but in some cases the adults don't really care for us. Why? Because the adults have seen and experienced the war first hand for most of their lives and don't really know what to expect from democracy.

Of course, there people back home that say things like: what about the corruption in the Iraqi government, Army, or police, or, why is it taking them so long to form a government, or, if Saddam was so bad then why do some Iraqis wish he was still in power. I think many questions like this would be easily answered if people would try to be empathetic with the experiences of the Iraqi people and also look at things from a historical perspective. First, there is corruption in some shape or form in just about every type of government in the world. Unfortunately things here are just under a microscope. As the saying goes, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Iraqi government is just going through the same growing pains every other newly formed government has gone through. After the fall of communism in the former USSR corruption was rampant, but over the years a more stable government has slowly evolved.

I also think that most people don't seem to understand that you can't just snap your fingers, form a new government, and have everything work like you want. Take the timeline for the formation of our own government for example. The Declaration of Independence was signed July 4, 1776. The Articles of Confederation were proposed on November 15, 1777, but weren't ratified until March 1, 1781. The Treaty of Paris officially ended the Revolutionary War on January 14, 1784, but the final draft of the Constitution wasn't sent to Congress until September 17, 1787, wasn't ratified until June 21, 1788, and didn't take effect until March 4, 1789. It took 13 years for the fledgling American colonies to draft a document uniting them under one federal government. I admit that the American situation and the Iraqi situation are quite different, but I hope my example makes sense. For a nation to try and develop and implement a form of government it has never experienced before while at the same time trying to govern and fight an insurgency is an extremely difficult and trying process. To be honest with you I'm somewhat surprised they've done as good a job as they have.

I'll use one more example to respond to some of those people who want to know why some Iraqis wish Saddam was still power. I think that is easily explained by human nature. Humans tend to want to do whatever is comfortable or to leave things as the status quo. That is why it is so difficult to change the status quo, especially when it comes to government. People may not always like the results of what they currently have, but there isn't that scary "unknown" or "what if" factor if they were to pursue political change. Humans are also inherently lazy when it comes to self-rule and are more willing to accept inconveniences if it means they don't have to face unknown fears or put their own hard work into changing things. I think history also proves this point. Any time a group of people undergoes significant change as a society there will always be those who wish things could go back to the way they were. Why? Because they knew what to expect. When Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt some wanted to go back. During the Revolutionary War there were many colonists who remained loyal to the British Crown and sided with the British. Following the reunification of Germany I remember reading articles about how some Germans (both East and West) wished they were still separated. Following the fall of Communism in the former USSR there were many people who longed for the return of Communism because of the rampant corruption in the newly formed Russian Government.

I'm also somewhat frustrated because it seems that many news agencies, politicians, and other foreign governments either expect or hope the democracy project in Iraq will fail and I'm not really sure why. Having grown up in America and having been blessed with the freedoms we have, I wish people of other nations could have the freedoms and quality of life that we enjoy.

I hope these examples answer the questions that some of you have asked. Again, what I've discussed here is strictly my own opinions. I wish I had more time to cite more examples and give better explanations of what I see happening here, but spare time is limited for me. I also realize that some of my arguments are somewhat elementary in scope, but it’s the best I could to with the time I have.

We should only have about 8 weeks left here, but we still don't know an exact date. I look forward to seeing all of you when I return home. Thanks again for your continued support. Micah.

1LT Micah J. Garrison
HHC TF 2-130 Infantry
Recon Platoon
APO AE 09381

TO Star holds out football for Kennedy to kick – again

Even before Ontario education minister Gerard Kennedy entered the Legislature after a May 1996 by-election, The Toronto Star was already boosting the food bank director and political neophyte as a potential replacement for Lyn McLeod. The story reporting his by-election win in Bob Rae’s former riding of York South noted that the victory was “expected to launch his campaign to become provincial party leader.” (An interesting footnote is that the NDP candidate was then-Toronto councillor and future mayor David Miller. The PC candidate was City of York councillor Rob Davis.)

Barely a month after his election, a glowing profile of Kennedy, entitled “The Rookie” appeared on page 1 of the Star’s Life section. Three weeks later, Kennedy was a declared candidate. Despite his scanty experience, Kennedy garnered the support of heavy hitters such as long-time MPP Gerry Phillips and Peterson-era finance minister Bob Nixon.

Kennedy enjoyed a paper lead after the delegate selection meetings, having elected the most delegates committed to vote for him on first ballot. A week before the November 30 vote, the Star endorsed Kennedy in an editorial: “Kennedy also possesses – unlike the outgoing leader, the sincere but plodding Lyn McLeod – the vision and the charisma so essential to winning an election. He has a proven ability to attract and inspire people of differing backgrounds to a public cause.”

But three days before the vote, a story appeared on page 11 of the Star, titled “Liberal camps gang up in bid to stop Kennedy: Question loyalty of frontrunner in leadership race.” Queen’s Park bureau chief William Walker reported that “top candidates for leader of Ontario's Liberal party appear to be ganging up on frontrunner Gerard Kennedy in a last-ditch attempt to block a victory by the 36-year-old rookie MPP.”

Then on the day of the vote, a bombshell: a front-page Star story entitled “Frontrunner Kennedy target of surprise attack: Letter from executive of own riding urges Liberal delegates not to back him.” The story reported that Kennedy was the target of a scathing attack from members of his own York South Liberal riding association executive. The executive had distributed more than 1,000 letters to delegates on the convention floor the previous night, urging them not to vote for Kennedy.

Despite last-ballot support from Dwight Duncan – who enjoyed the support of a gaggle of MPPs – Kennedy was edged out by Dalton McGuinty, who enjoyed the support of Tony Ruprecht (and had placed fourth on the first ballot). Due to incompetence on the part of vote organizers, the final ballot was not announced until approximately 4:00 a.m.

Now the Star is boosting a Kennedy candidacy again, this time for federal Liberal leader. On Wednesday, in a story entitled “Liberals eye education minister,” Queen’s Park columnist Ian Urquhart reported that:

Kennedy acknowledged today that he’s spoken privately with supporters about entering the federal Liberal leadership race but said he isn’t making any plans to do so — yet. “People have approached me; I’ve been respectful,” Kennedy said before a cabinet meeting at the Ontario legislature.

Again, Kennedy is being touted by a cabal of heavy hitters, reportedly Senator Terry Mercer, a former national director of the federal Liberals, community activist June Callwood, and writer-philosopher Mary Jo Leddy.

Will Kennedy come running for the Star football again? Or has he learned through bitter experience not to get high on the ink of his Star clippings? Only time will tell.

Take back our public services

In light of recent events, I thought it would be timely to re-post an updated version of this op-ed, which won third place in last fall's Western Standard editorial contest.

In Montreal, a city roads crew was caught spending just six minutes of its nine-hour shift fixing three potholes. In British Columbia, teacher unions are contemplating another illegal strike, just four months after their last one. In Ontario, CUPE President Sid Ryan threatened that municipal workers who clean schools, plow roads and pick up garbage would walk off the job, in protest against the McGuinty government's pension legislation. (A last-minute resolution averted the wildcat strike.)

Organized labour has some clever slogans about all the good it has done for society, such as “Unions: the people who brought you the weekend.” But what have they done for us lately?

Think of the state of our roads, the quality of our education and health care, the cleanliness of our streets. The overall tax burden has grown, but this has hardly been matched by an increase in the quality of government services. Yet the wages and benefits of public sector workers continue to rise. Of course they do: by their very nature, public sector unions tend to drive up the costs and size of government. Union dues – themselves a cost driver – go to employ officials whose full-time work consists of filing grievances, lobbying the government for more workers, coordinating with other unions and supporting sympathetic candidates.

Much of the impetus for contracting out the delivery of public services stems from roadblocks faced by politicians attempting to meet the demands of taxpayers or deliver on good-faith election promises. Unions label such activity "privatization," but it's not. From their point of view, it's de-unionization. Scratch the surface of any of the recent campaigns against health care reform, and you will find that most are organized and funded by unions. They oppose health care reform because they are afraid it will result in new services or facilities outside the current unionized health care sphere.

Of course, nothing is preventing unions from attempting to organize workers in non-unionized facilities, but after 30-odd years of public sector unionization, a sense of entitlement takes hold. And it's easier to protect existing union turf by holding citizens and politicians hostage through work-to-rule and illegal strikes, than to convince non-unionized workers it's worth handing over part of their paycheques to Sid Ryan et al.

Since public servants began to unionize, the public has gradually lost control of its public services. Some have argued for outlawing strikes by teachers and other public sector workers, but this would be mere tinkering. The only way for the public to take back control of the services it owns is by decertifying public sector unions and restoring a direct employment relationship between government workers and democratically elected governments. Here’s why it makes sense:

Once the public has decided that a particular service is to be provided by the government, then that service is, by definition, essential. Many try to make a distinction between services that relate to safety and other government services. But public schools, transit and most other public services are legally or effectively monopolies, in that most citizens have no practical alternative when those services are not available.

Public sector collective agreements take away the public’s democratic right to decide what public services are to be delivered and what terms of employment are to be offered (provided those terms comply with employment standards laws and the common law). The wages, benefits and working conditions of public sector workers should be open to the democratic process as are all other aspects of government. They should not be decided in backrooms in negotiations from which the public is barred and on which the public’s elected representatives are forbidden to comment.

It is not the role of government to engage in unfair labour competition with the private sector. Some people think it is noble for the government to “set an example” for the private sector through higher wages and benefits. Such people don’t understand economics. The increasing taxes that those business will have to pay to support the government’s “example” mean that they will be hard-pressed to pay the employees they already have, let alone pay them more.

Thousands of private firms have policies and procedures for dealing fairly with employees; so would a union-free public sector. If the public through their elected government provides wages, benefits and working conditions that can’t compare with private employers’, then it will find itself with fewer and less capable employees.

Public sector workers would continue to be free to advocate for themselves through the democratic process. But those who interfere with the provision of government services will, like private sector workers, be subject to the appropriate civil or criminal sanctions. Those who fail to show up for work will not be "on strike," they will have quit.

Let’s put the “public” back into the public sector, by putting citizens and their elected representatives back in charge of our public services.

My sister would relate: man kills neighbour over door slamming

I noticed this item on Drudge, about a Florida man whose motive for killing his neighbour was apparently her slamming of her door late at night.

When I lived with my late sister in a townhouse in Mississauga, our next door neighbour would slam the door loudly when he left for work in the morning. I rarely noticed it, but it really irritated my sister, who slept in the front bedroom. I never contemplated killing the guy, but my sister probably did.

This neighbour was a rather bizarre fellow who once gave me the fright of my life when I spotted him walking his dog in full Klingon regalia (him, not the dog). On another occasion, my sister and I arrived home to find his Hyundai in its parking spot, with its front wheels on blocks and the engine running at full tilt in park (or neutral?). I wondered aloud what the purpose of this was, and my sister speculated that perhaps he was trying to get it into warp drive.

On the morning of her funeral -- which was a Saturday -- I had to leave very early to meet my family at my mother's house. In my sister's honour, I slammed our door as loud as could. I hope it woke him up.

McGuinty Memory Lane on Illegal Strikes

In October 1997, Ontario teachers staged an illegal strike (which they billed as a "political protest") against the Harris government's Bill 160. The bill was designed to move education dollars from administration to the classroom by, among other things, requiring teachers to teach an additional half-class per day. The teacher unions' spin was that the bill was designed to allow the government to cut education funding (a specious argument: the government did not require legislation to change the level of grants provided to school boards).

Dalton McGuinty had been leader of the Ontario Liberals for less than a year. Seeking to establish his credibility on education (and perhaps curry favour with teacher unions) McGuinty wholeheartedly endorsed the illegal strike, even appearing at a teacher union rally at Queen's Park. The teacher unions, sensing public support was waning, ended the illegal strike after two weeks.

That was then . . .

"I understand it's not easy. But take heart in knowing you are doing the right thing."
--Dalton McGuinty, Teachers' Rally at Queen's Park, October 29, 1997

". . . I'm . . . saying right here before you that I'll be with the teachers. . . . This strike may very well be technically illegal. . ."
--Dalton McGuinty, Focus Ontario, Global TV, October 18, 1997

"If they walk out, I'll be with the teachers."
--Dalton McGuinty, Focus Ontario, Global TV, October 18, 1997

. . . This is now

I believe that CUPE in particular has every right, and I fully respect and support that right, to protest any action on the part of our government, but at the same time, I think it is wrong to engage in an illegal activity to register that protest.

I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the government, to take it out on Ontario families. I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the government, to keep kids out of school. I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the government, to stop plowing our roads. I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the government, to stop picking up our garbage. I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the government, to stop providing those important services we all count on.
--Dalton McGuinty, Question Period, February 21, 2006

Conflict of Interest Complaint re McGuinty Appointee

David Onley is an anchor at news channel CP24 and long time advocate for the disabled, being disabled himself. He is also the recently-appointed (as of December 2005) chair of the McGuinty government’s Accessibility Standards Advisory Council, a part-time position paying $225 per diem.

Unfortunately, doing both jobs puts him in an obvious conflict of interest as a journalist. Clause 5 – News of the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council says:

“It shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to ensure that news shall be represented with accuracy and without bias. Broadcasters shall satisfy themselves that the arrangements made for obtaining news ensure this result. . . . Broadcasters shall refer to the Code of Ethics of the Radio and Television News Directors of Canada (“RTNDA”) for more detailed provisions regarding broadcast journalism in general.”

According to Article Six (Conflict of Interest) of the Code of Ethics of the RTNDA, “Broadcast journalists will govern themselves on and off the job in such a way as to avoid conflict of interest, real or apparent.”

Being a paid advisor of a sitting government you report on sounds like a clear conflict to me. But if journalists and news outlets won’t behave ethically, then somebody has to bring their behaviour to the attention of the bodies whose job it is to ensure that they do.

You can e-mail your complaints to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council here and the Radio-Television News Directors Association here. I sent the following complaint:

To: the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council and Radio-Television News Directors Association:

I believe that cable news station CP24 is in violation of the RTNDA’s Code of Ethics, due to the fact that one of its anchors, David Onley, has accepted an appointment to advise the Ontario government, yet continues to read news and conduct interviews on CP24, including interviews with ministers of the government that appointed him.

The position is Chair of the Accessibility Standards Advisory Council, an appointment made by the Minister of Community and Social Services, for which Mr. Onley will be paid $225 per diem (it is a part-time position). The details of the council and Mr. Onley’s appointment are at the website of the Ontario government’s Public Appointments Secretariat (http://www.pas.gov.on.ca/scripts/en/BoardDetails.asp?boardID=141221). The December 13 release announcing his appointment is at the website of the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services (http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/CFCS/en/newsRoom/newsReleases/051213.htm.)

On the afternoon of Friday, December 16, 2005, Mr. Onley conducted an on-air interview with Ontario’s Minister of Health. On the afternoon of February 7, 2006, Mr. Onley conducted an on-air interview with Ontario's Attorney-General. As of February 20, 2006, Mr. Onley was still performing anchor duties at CP24. The Code of Ethics of the RTNDA states, under Article Six, “Broadcast journalists will govern themselves on and off the job in such a way as to avoid conflict of interest, real or apparent.” I believe that Mr. Onley’s provision of paid advice to the Ontario government is a clear conflict of interest with his duties as anchor on a news channel.

Thank you for your attention.

Joan Tintor

With a sizeable cohort of former broadcast journalists on staff (e.g. Matt Maychak, newly-anointed Toronto-Danforth candidate Ben Chin, Leon Korbee), odds are the McGuintyites know this is less than copasetic, but think they can get away with it. Onley’s on-air interview with McGuinty’s health minister George Smitherman three days after his appointment suggests that Onley thinks he can get away with it too.

This situation brings back memories of McGuinty’s first hire after he was elected Liberal leader in 1996: his kid brother Brendan. Ontario Legislature rules are explicit that MPPs can’t hire relatives. McGuinty tried to get around it by making his brother an employee of the Liberal caucus services bureau, though he made it clear that Brendan would be working directly for him, telling reporters, “he’ll be of great assistance to me, to have somebody on staff who will be completely truthful.” (I guess his non-sibling staff were all liars), and “I can always count on him ... to tell me when I’m doing something stupid.”

After it blew up in his face, McGuinty cancelled his plans to hire Brendan and blamed the public, telling the Toronto Sun “I regret that I underestimated the extent to which my brother’s appointment would be misinterpreted.” Brendan eventually ended up back in Ottawa, where he spent several years as a top staffer to Ottawa mayor and former Liberal MPP Bob Chiarelli.

Update from a soldier serving in Iraq

Note: 1st Lieutenant Micah J. Garrison has been serving in Iraq for nine months. He and his unit hope to be home by the end of May. He came to my attention through a piece he wrote for AccessNorthGa.com, in response to comments by Senator Hillary Clinton about body armour.

Hello everyone. I hope all of you have had a happy Valentine's Day. I'm sure Hallmark has had a pleasant February 14. Today marks our 14th month away from home and our 9th month in Iraq. It's hard to comprehend how much time that is. My wife Tara put it into perspective in a recent conversation. We bought a house in May of 2004 and in September bought a Boston Terrier puppy to keep her company while I was deployed. Tara recently said, "It's sad that Bailey (our dog) has lived in our new house longer than you have." It's kind of funny to me when I look at it like that. We're definitely looking forward to coming home, but we still have a lot of work to do here.

At times it is very rewarding and we feel great about what we do and at other times it is extremely frustrating and makes you angry. I and two of my men were on a recent three day mission (yes, it was extremely cold) to try to catch insurgents putting in IEDs (roadside bombs) in an IED heavy area. We watched in frustration and anger when, less than twelve hours apart, two different patrols were blown up right in front of us because they wouldn't listen to what we told them on the radio. We were less than 400 meters (about 1 1/3 football fields) away from them when they blew up.

The two IEDs resulted in three casualties, one of which was fatal. It was frustrating because the IEDs had already been put in before we got there and we missed our chance to take out the bad guys. It was also frustrating for us because the patrols didn't listen to what we tried to tell them and we had to watch as they got blown up. We did help call in security and medical assets on the radio, so we did what we could to help afterward. This makes several IEDs we've been very close to when they exploded. The explosions were quite large and very loud. At least now I'll have something to blame my selective hearing (oops, I mean hearing loss) on when I get home.

The reason I've been sending these e-mails is because the most common question I get is "what is it like to be there?" While I'll never be able to fully put into words or express what it has been like, I have tried to explain and describe some of the things Infantry soldiers experience over here and what it takes to insure the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. I hope that I have portrayed some of these feelings and experiences to all of you. Tara said that at least I'll have some new stories to tell when I get home, but I'm sure she'll get tired of them soon enough. We're not exactly sure when we're coming home yet, but we're fairly confident that we're down to a double digit number. We've already started some of the initial work required before we can return (equipment accountability, countless inventories, etc), so we know we're finally getting close.

Our lives have been changed forever by everything we have seen, done, and experienced here. We also realize that we will never take so many things in our lives for granted ever again. It is hard to explain to people how truly blessed we are as Americans to live in the states and enjoy the freedoms we have. If everyone in the states could have walked in our shoes for the last year they would definitely to some re-prioritizing in their lives and wouldn't take so many things, both large and small, for granted.

A quote I read and shared with some of you earlier in my deployment says it best. It says, "You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it life has a flavor the protected will never know." I hope all of you have a great spring, I'm looking forward to seeing all of you when I return home. Take care, and don't work to hard. Micah.

Update/correction: Several people have asked if the patrols we saw get hit were from our unit. No they weren't. Also, the best way I can describe how it felt would be if you had a front row seat to a train wreck back home and could do nothing about it. We were 300-400 meters away. Obviously that is 3-4 football fields, not 1 1/3 football fields like I said. As a teacher I had in high school used to say, I was just seeing if y'all were paying attention.

1LT Micah J. Garrison
HHC TF 2-130 Infantry
Recon Platoon
APO AE 09381

Smart of NDP to take a buzz saw to Hargrove

I am not normally in favour of political parties stripping people of membership (and in light of recent events, it's lucky for some of us that the Conservative Party and its predecessor entities didn't make a habit of it).

But even though it doesn't reflect well on the New "Democratic" Party, I think it was smart of the Ontario NDP executive to strip Basil "Buzz" Hargrove of his membership, for violating the party's constitution regarding provisions against endorsing other candidates. The move also automatically revokes his membership in the federal party.

You can't blame the NDP for being fed up with Buzz taking a buzz saw to their interests in two general elections in a row now. Hargrove did the exact same thing to them in the 2003 provincial election – advocate voting Liberal to defeat the Tories – which may have played a role in the Howard Hampton-led New Democrats falling one seat short of party status in the election outcome. After enduring 11 weeks of negative publicity for refusing to agree to grant some kind of status to the NDP, Dalton McGuinty relented and allowed the NDP a reduced standing and a research budget. A few months later the NDP got their full status back by taking a seat from the Liberals in a Hamilton by-election. That status is again at risk with the resignation of Marilyn Churley to run (unsuccessfully) in the federal election. The NDP has to win her seat in Beaches-East York to retain their party status.

Buzz Hargrove was also a considerable pain in the bum to former federal NDP leader Alexa McDonough during her tenure. She must be smiling today.

In January, I wondered why the media treated Buzz's endorsement of Martin as big news, considering it was Buzz's second time at the Liberal party, and suggested that the NDP should have a nice bag of quotes next time to inoculate themselves against yet another Liberal endorsement from Buzz. Turns out they decided that wasn't good enough.

No doubt the provincial NDP made the move with an eye to the next Ontario election, scheduled for October 2007. If Buzz tries to pull the strategic voting stunt again, perhaps it will have less impact.

Day Five – A way out or two . . .

David Emerson’s floor-crossing and elevation to cabinet is not evidence of deep-seated hypocrisy on the part of the Harper regime. Nor is it fatal to the Conservative party. But it is a misstep that can and should be fixed, thereby minimizing its long-term effects. Here are two ideas of how to fix it.

Read the rest at Elect Emerson.

Day Five -- Media notes

On Thursday night, TVO’s Fourth Reading – primarily a show devoted to Ontario provincial politics – briefly dealt with the Emerson issue. One of the guests was Senator Hugh Segal. Segal said that he is in favour of legislation that would require floor crossers to seek the approval of their voters, and that he would vote for such legislation, but noted there is no law now.

Read the rest at Elect Emerson.

Day Five -- Media notes

On Thursday night, TVO’s Fourth Reading – primarily a show devoted to Ontario provincial politics – briefly dealt with the Emerson issue. One of the guests was Senator Hugh Segal. Segal said that he is in favour of legislation that would require floor crossers to seek the approval of their voters, and that he would vote for such legislation, but noted there is no law now.

Read the rest at Elect Emerson.

Day Five -- Former Stronach riding president calls Emerson appointment “a mistake”

An Aurora Era-Banner story quoting Stephen Somerville, president of the Newmarket-Aurora Conservative association, is posted at www.electemerson.blogspot.com.

Day Four Media Notes -- Adler, Garth Turner's Blog, Mike Duffy Live, Newsworld's Politics

Another post on the Emerson imbroglio at www.electemerson.blogspot.com.

Day Four – You may not be interested in partisans, but partisans are interested in you

Check out my latest post on the Emerson imbroglio at www.electemerson.blogspot.com.

ElectEmerson.blogspot.com

I have started a blog focussing on the need for David Emerson to be elected as a Conservative, including ideas for action. Check it out at www.electemerson.blogspot.com

“How dare u speak to me like that?”

Okay, it’s not quite up (or down) to the level of “Kiss my ass” as Scott Brison was reputed to have said to Sandra McGrath, a long-time Nova Scotia Grit who felt entitled to be reappointed to a government post.

But – as reported in today’s Ottawa Sun – it was Brison’s response to an e-mail from one of his own staffers, who is apparently unimpressed with Brison’s efforts to learn French:

An e-mail message from his personal assistant Adele Desjardins, obtained by the Sun, scolds the outgoing public works minister for falling behind with his French lessons.

"I know you are the best to lead the Party and I am ready to work hard," reads the terse exchange with Brison. "But I am not a machine, and co-operation is needed."

The e-mail, sent out with the subject line, "You will never learn French the way you are doing it," included an angry response from Brison: "How dare u speak to me like that?"

I don’t know what sort of French program Brison is following, but so far his fluency has been best demonstrated by his habit of calling female reporters “mon petit chou” (or should that be ma petite chou?), which he apparently thinks is funny. The female reporters, I’m guessing, not so much (not all women over 30 are fag hags, Scott!).

Despite the intemperate BlackBerrying Brison does have a point. Political staffers who find themselves working for an MP considering a leadership bid need to ask themselves whether they can wholeheartedly support the MP’s campaign, not the other way around: an MP should not have to earn the support of his own paid staff. If the staffers are not inclined to work for their boss' leadership, they should leave the MP’s employ under their own steam. That’s a position I found myself in once upon a time, and I left of my own accord (without telling the MP why).

On the topic of another former Conservative pondering the Liberal leadership, Belinda Stronach’s “En Anglais, s’il vous plait” seems to have set a new bar for the number of words it takes to sink a leadership bid. Last night on TVO’s 4th Reading, Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson added his name to the list of reporters who think Stronach’s campaign is over before it has begun, thanks to her unilingualism.

The Sign of Four*

Thanks to Damian Brooks, I’ve been “tagged” with what I guess is the blogospheric equivalent of a chain letter, but fortunately there is no money involved. So here goes:

Four vehicles you've owned:
I’ve owned only one vehicle, a 1985 gold Honda Civic that I bought in December 1988. I drove it for 10 years and probably could have driven it for more, had I not smashed the front end five years in.

Four jobs you've had:
Mac’s Milk in high school, legal secretary (at various times), freelance journalist, staffer to a Harris-era cabinet minister.

Four places you've lived:
New Toronto, Mississauga, downtown Toronto, west end Toronto.

Four vacations you've taken:
Sauble Beach (childhood – thanks Mom!); Washington, D.C. (high school); Montreal and Québec City (1980s sometime); Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine (which conveniently turned out to coincide with Trudeau’s funeral – so I missed all the sick-making hero-worship and revisionist history. Trudeau loved regular people? Yeah, right!)

* Also a Sherlock Holmes story