A blog about news and politics by Steve Janke

October 31, 2006

On Hallowe'en, Bob Rae is haunted by his past

Liberal Party leadership candidate Bob Rae got into some hot water when it was revealed that he had supported NDP candidates as recently as the last federal election. Irony of ironies, the Liberal candidate who lost to the one of Bob Rae's favoured NDP candidates is now running for the Liberals in the by-election just called in London-North-Centre.

Just how uncomfortable is that?

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:38 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.

October 30, 2006

Revealing who is really in charge of the OSC

The Securities Act, which defines the powers of the Ontario Securities Commission, is undergoing changes because of Bill 151, the Ontario provincial budget bill (An Act to enact various 2006 Budget measures and to enact, amend or repeal various Acts). One of those changes pulls the curtain away that until now hid the true relationship between the OSC and the elected government at Queen's Park.

We now know who is in charge. Here's a hint -- it's not anyone you voted for.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:12 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 713 words, total size 5 kb.

Toronto police arrest contractor for installing surveillance cameras in homes

You'll only laugh if you've ever watched Mike Holmes on Holmes on Homes.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 06:44 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.

Spyware sold on store shelves

At the Gizmo Cafe, a story about how major computer and console gaming companies are bundling spyware with their games in order to target ain-game advertising. Actually, the game is the spyware.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:01 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 693 words, total size 5 kb.

Rogue priest continues to run wild...and now runs for office

Father Raymond Gravel, a controversial Roman Catholic priest in Quebec, is running for Bloc Quebecois.

To me, the fact that this guy is still a priest is more newsworthy than the fact that he's running for elected office.

Update: Maybe this makes sense after all.

Update: Or maybe Gravel is just a liar.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:27 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1554 words, total size 10 kb.

1 Steve, there's some doubt in the Catholic blogosphere as to whether Fr. Gravel got the proper authorization. Here's another relevant post Just so you're up on this. I haven't gotten around to blogging it.

Posted by: SUZANNE at October 30, 2006 12:31 PM (pos4g)

2 Steve- "Colorful" is the spelling used in the U.S. It would appear that the writer or editor was at least educated here. The other answer is it is a misprint. Cheers!

Posted by: CINCIMADDOG at October 30, 2006 02:04 PM (3Ck1Z)

3 Thanks. I knew it was the American spelling. What I was trying to say, and apparently with little success, was that I was surprised to see an American spelling in a Canadian paper.

Posted by: Steve Janke at October 30, 2006 03:38 PM (pFrk8)

4 Mebbe you folks is just finally larnin' some proper english.

Posted by: Jay at October 31, 2006 07:04 AM (HCyzO)

5 I htink thes iz anohtr case of a wurld withoat fonix. Hehehe!

Posted by: DarrenL at October 31, 2006 09:40 AM (323x7)

6 As for the Canadian use of the British spelling of colo(u)r, I've always been interested in this affectation. After all, no one here would dream of using such Britisms as "waggon" or "tyre" or "kerb" or "gaol." If one exams unreflective writing (e.g., hand-written signs in restaurants), a word like "flavor" almost never has the "u." The higher the register, the more likely the "u" is to appear, so it is perhaps a bit surprising to see the "u"-less spelling in a newspaper (though I have some recollection of being told that it is only recently that the G&M adopted the British spelling). As for the substance of the issue, the "u" derives from the Norman spelling of such words, which were borrowed into English in the period after 1066 (cf. modern French *couleur*). As it turns out, these words are all of ultimately Latin origin, and the "u"-less spelling reflects this (and makes more sense in terms of how the words are actually pronounced). Furthermore, any actual Latin derivates like "honorary" or "honorarium" don't have the "u" even in British usage, so the spelling is internally illogical as well. So, unless one is hell-bent on maintaining at all costs a separate Canadian identity that is neither properly British nor American, it would be better to recognize that the spelling reform that led to the dropping of the "u" in the first place was both inherently logical and in any event is the "natural" way for most people to spell these words anyway, and therefore drop the affectation. But maybe that's not the honourable thing to do!

Posted by: Mr. Hono(u)rable at October 31, 2006 01:07 PM (PJjNm)

7 Gravel sounds like quite a piece of business. Who could vote for someone like that? Obviously he's not a serious man of the cloth, more of a maverick. Why would the Vatican worry what he does? He's trying to legitimize himself by saying he has to get permission from Rome. Question is what is his real reason for entering politics? This will be an interesting riding to watch.

Posted by: Biddy at October 31, 2006 09:42 PM (jx11o)

8 I believe Gravel has some real political interest, but I a side-dish of beat-up-Rome seems to be his trademark. This will play well for a lot of Bloc voters in Quebec. I am interested to see what the voter stats will be in this case. I have been wondering out loud to a friend or two about how long the effects of the Quiet Revolution would last in Quebec? The economic and social positions of Quebec have been troubling for some time. The recent comments by Bouchard are reflective of the glaring faults that exist, but are people listening? Sooner or later they are going to have to respond. Sooner if their is a Federal Government that has a backbone, later if the country keeps pandering. P.S. Hey, Stephen. The number of comments per issue is dropping. What gives?

Posted by: DarrenL at November 02, 2006 07:02 AM (323x7)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 28, 2006

Eva Ho's disappearance

The Toronto Police issued an alert concerning the disappearance of Eva Ho, pictured below. Eva was last seen on August 14, but the alert was issued two months later.

A friend of Eva's has contacted me, and has provided more details concerning the circumstances of her disappearance.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:56 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 804 words, total size 5 kb.

1 God help Eva. I get the feeling more and more that our children are flotsam and jetsam in our society. We have a convicted non-citizen allowed to live amongst us for the sake of his family. We have the likes of Whitmore being freed again and again. And then the boogey-man internet is linked to this disappearance. Is it more important to once again point fingers at the internet as the guilty party rather than do all in our power to find this child? Is government control of the internet(what I see as the reason for naming it in this case and many others) more important than protecting our children from the dangers out there? Even if there is foul play here the idea that the internet is somehow involved has been planted. No one mentions that no matter what the scumbags do to our children they are deemed to have rights and are back out amongst us, free to do the same vicious acts again and again. And the Opposition parties of our government see nothing wrong with slowing our one chance to stop these criminals. I pray Eva is safe. But it will not be because of the system that we are ruled by.

Posted by: George at October 28, 2006 02:22 PM (/Zho9)

2 It's always shocking exactly how clueless the media and police are about the internet. They obviously heard MSN and thought internet chat rooms, rather than MSN Instant Messenger, which is one of the most popular IM programs to talk to people you know, rather than talking with strangers in a chat room. That the police didn't treat this all that seriously is fairly understandable. 17 year olds going walkabout during the summer isn't exactly unheard of, and every parent is going to say that there weren't any problems at home. They can usually see something that could make a kid run away (boyfriend she wasn't supposed to be seeing maybe?), especially at the end of the summer. That they didn't ramp this up quickly after Labour Day is the really disturbing part. The Canadian system is deeply troubled, as convicted molesters are released and pardoned as no threat, while children in danger aren't believed to be anythign serious. This needs to be a VERY key piece of the next CPC campaign, especially the obstructionism of the other parties.

Posted by: Hey at October 28, 2006 08:03 PM (E9xh0)

3 It's always shocking exactly how clueless the media and police are about the internet. They obviously heard MSN and thought internet chat rooms, rather than MSN Instant Messenger, which is one of the most popular IM programs to talk to people you know, rather than talking with strangers in a chat room. I think that criticism is most applicable to Steve, who more so than anyone else (including the police, and especially the media, who haven't even reported on this incident) suggested that Ms. Ho's disappearance may have been linked to chatroom predators. It's also interesting to watch Steve shift so effortless from one bogeyman--internet predators--to another--murder conspiracy--all on the word of one anonymous source, and without any critical awareness of his own fear-mongering.

Posted by: A at October 29, 2006 06:38 PM (YK2nB)

4 It's also quit interesting how badly Mr.Janke is in A's head. I wonder if he dreams about him?

Posted by: Levesque at October 30, 2006 03:13 PM (Kr2nu)

5 I've been accused of being "an overly protective parent" on more than one occasion. It's a compliment. When you look at what our kids are dealing with today, any parent who isn't vigilant or protective of their child(ren) needs their butt kicked: HARD. 'Too many kids drifting in our society. 'Too many parents who don't have a clue where their kids are, who they're with, what they're doing, or how they can be reached. 'Too many parents partying and drifting themselves. Parents need to GROW UP. Your kids need you. NOW.

Posted by: 'been around the block at November 04, 2006 07:20 PM (dnGun)

6 Wholesale Cheap Jerseys Direct From Factory - Enjoy Big Discount And Free Shipping Buy Now

Posted by: Bay Buccaneers jersey Cheap at November 29, 2012 10:36 AM (wmdzq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Is Joe Volpe's time almost up?

Joe Volpe has only two days left before he is ejected from the Liberal leadership race. Can he come up with the $20,000 before then, or will he toss in the towel?

Or is this just the calm before the storm?

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:29 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Can't see Joe Volpe going quietly into the night. He has the potential to do major damage to the Liberals. If he's still popular in his riding the revenge could start there. It's all up to him. He's proven he's still deep into Liberal business as usual and he could spill more than a can of worms. Just guessing, but it's possible he has them worried.

Posted by: Biddy at October 28, 2006 03:27 PM (9LDvv)

2 I agree with Biddy. I am guessing that Joe is aware of many skeletons in the closet. My bet is he does not pay the fine and still stays in the race. Any other bets ?

Posted by: Concerened Torontonian at October 28, 2006 07:02 PM (BN2wa)

3 I agree with both. The media in the past has been loath to report on the improprioties of the members of the liberal party. I think that there are those in the party who view him as a threat and will do whatever they can to eliminate him.

Posted by: vieuX loup at October 28, 2006 08:16 PM (dI0RL)

4 I suspect there will be a real pissing contest between Volpe and the Executive of the Party. However, based on Volpe's track record he will not go quietly and we will see him all over the news this week. Of course this is the kind of thing the media love. No need to give any serious thought to the subject but cover it for all it is worth. However, any media coverage will be very sympathetic to the Liberals. The media loves their Liberals and they need to do their part to ensure a Conservative defeat in the next election.

Posted by: hollinm at October 28, 2006 08:39 PM (nlb3O)

5 "Apotex Joe" is Liberal sleaze personified. He will hang in, his beak is too deep in the trough.

Posted by: Mr Dithers at October 28, 2006 10:35 PM (e7atw)

6 20 Ginos for the MADE MAN is chump-change..eh capiche?

Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at October 29, 2006 06:20 AM (Y1ykG)

7 Crouton and Brault can piece that out for their palsy-walsy from that STILL-UNACCOUNTED FOR $48.5 MILLION.

Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at October 29, 2006 06:22 AM (Y1ykG)

8 My money is on Volpe launching a suit against the LPC if they force him out of the race while others also guilty of doing similar misdeeds are given a pass. Volpe has no choice after the stink he's raised about being framed.

Posted by: gimbol at October 30, 2006 10:13 AM (zElnE)

9 "For the good of the party" thats what we will hear! meanwhile Volpe will be bought off by the [in true Liberal style] committee

Posted by: at October 30, 2006 11:26 AM (KqGpk)

10 Dead Meat isn't part of the Liberal vernacular - after all you can still squeeze a vote out of a corpse.

I say he doesn't go!

Posted by: at October 31, 2006 12:35 PM (x4k8S)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 27, 2006

Yasmin Ashareh: Police are still investigating?

If the police have who they believe to be Yasmin Ashareh's murderer under arrest, then why are they still canvasing the neighbourhood in which she lived?

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:23 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 3 kb.

A soldier who won't salute the Queen

A soldier in the Canadian Forces, Harold Kinney, aka Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh, is taking the army to court, demanding that he no longer be forced to salute the Queen, as it runs counter to his political beliefs.

Strange, eh? Maybe not. Look at what we know about his life, and an explanation suggests itself.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:53 AM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 1076 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Wow. Let's just hope he doesn't have the same questions about his loyalty to Canada when it comes time for him to do something in battle...

Posted by: at October 27, 2006 09:11 AM (x4k8S)

2 'He was 16 years old when he enlisted and begrudgingly swore loyalty to the Queen.' Poor baby he swore an oath and now want's to make it meaningless. Charles I,II cromwell on london bridge? Quit the forces and go home then no worries foreigner. The queen is one of the few remaining good pre-trudeaupian things left. Last time the Queen was in winnipeg the boulevards were jam packed with 'fans'. If we were a republic would more come to see harper, martin??? And how many Canadian soldiers uttered the saying god save the queen? Maybe the good soldiers problem is that he isn't canadian enough. He should try the 10,000$ cure. Go home until you remember why you came here. And if you don't like the queen stay there. NO law will stop him.

Posted by: DrWright at October 27, 2006 09:34 AM (bx7wo)

3 As far as I know, we are still part of the Commonwealth. The Queen is the head of state. That's why will still have Governor General. If he doesn't want to salute the Queen then he shouldn't have joined the military. When I joined I had to swear allegance to the Queen, not country. I didn't agree with it, but I did it anyways because I wanted to be in the military. This guys should just suck it up and stop wasting the courts time with this bogus case.

Posted by: Kitchener Conservative at October 27, 2006 09:35 AM (E5pP8)

4 Sure, once you're in just mime the words or whatever. Like most people do when they become canadian citizens for example (i.e. swear allegiance to the queen). But the bigger issue is that Canada as an independent country should rid itself of a foreign head of state. Is the queen even a canadian citizen?

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at October 27, 2006 09:51 AM (oXLd2)

5 Why can't we just say au revoir to the King/Queen legacy? Canada is a proud G7 country - why the heck do we have to cling on to the Queen's aprons (and, in a few days, Charles's kilt) after 130+ years?

Posted by: at October 27, 2006 10:09 AM (6UVPb)

6 "but (not) . . . the obligation to recognize a foreign monarch as having a situation of authority over the Canadian Armed Forces" Legally Queen Elizabeth II is NOT a foreign Monarch... from wikipedia - Canada is a constitutional monarchy and a Commonwealth Realm, with Queen Elizabeth II as its reigning monarch, since February 6, 1952. As such she is Canada's head of state and officially called Queen of Canada. ... ..."Queen Elizabeth II" is the current monarch's conventional title for all her Commonwealth Realms, but is generally addressed as "Queen of Canada" when she is actually present in Canada or when she otherwise performs duties relevant to Canada abroad, on the advice of her Canadian ministers." so when Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh, swore his oath it was not to the "Queen of England" but to the "Queen of Canada" and as pointed out elsewhere was not to the Queen persoannally but to queen personifing the state and government and constitution of Canada. similarly in the US the pledges in the US for military etc are to the constitution and the state.. not to whatever moron happens to be president at the moment.

Posted by: Sierra at October 27, 2006 10:59 AM (CHE53)

7 I find it somewhat appaling that a university proffesor know's less than I do about the canadian constitution and the whole concept of the Queen role in personifying the state.. (i.e. when your swearing alligance to the Queen you in in fact swearing allegiance to Canada as a state in that the office, "Queen of Canada" represents the State not to some old broad living in London) but then from the comments here it appears that most people weren't paying attention that day in Social studies.

Posted by: Sierra at October 27, 2006 11:07 AM (CHE53)

8 Re: "As far as I know, we are still part of the Commonwealth. The Queen is the head of state. That's why will still have Governor General." With the likes of Adrienne Clarkson, I think we need to lose the office of GG. The monies wasted on "pomp and circumstance" is rediculous. Good on this guy for making taking a stand. We are able, as a nation, to stand on our own two feet.

Posted by: Dave at October 27, 2006 11:09 AM (xoXVY)

9 To Johan & ?-10:09 AM: The question as to whether Canada should be a monarchy (constitutional or otherwise) is question that is completely separate from whether or not it is. Like it or not, Canada IS a constitutional monarchy unless and until we change it (and since it would take the agreement of the federal government and ALL TEN provinces to do so, I don't see that happening anytime soon). The soldier in question CHOSE to enter the Canadian Armed Forces. No one held a gun to his head. If he doesn't like the reasonable and direct consequences of his action, he is free to resign.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at October 27, 2006 11:16 AM (Uagor)

10 Family roots can be powerful stuff. I remember discovering that my grandmother was Sinn Fein while my grandfather was serving in the British Army. My father was so troubled that he packed up and came to Canada. I had plenty of trouble with this personal confusion when I was in the Canadian Navy. My own kids are much more clear on their loyalties. It can take generations for a new set of loyalties to coalesce. It's one reason that officer status everywhere (including the position of President of the USA) is available only to native-born citizens. My guess is that Harold, too, was rooting around in the family records, and discovered something startling enough to convince him that his leaders are foreigners.

Posted by: JJ Joseph at October 27, 2006 11:36 AM (1dKxB)

11 The guy is a publicity seeking assh#%e and I guess there is no law against it. With real soldiers in Afganistan (and else where) making Canadians proud I don't consider this clown a member of the Armed Forces. He is your typical tilt to the left acidemic in his fantasy world.

Posted by: RNC at October 27, 2006 11:37 AM (4FLA4)

12 This guy is a jack ass, Either everyone salutes the Queen or no one does! He can't leave because he will lose his entitlements!

Posted by: ian at October 27, 2006 01:08 PM (KqGpk)

13 "Good on this guy for making taking a stand" Unfortunately for this guy, taking a stand, will likely put him behind bars and/or dishonourably discharged.

Posted by: Kitchener Conservative at October 27, 2006 01:56 PM (E5pP8)

14 I'm also reminded of when I was in the Military, my unit did a trooping of the colours in England for Princess Margaret, and we had to salute her. I believe she was the commander and chief of our unit(I may be wrong). Saluting the Foreign Ddignitary or Royalty is just par for the course in the military and a sign of dignity and respect for our country to theirs. This guy should just suck it up or get out

Posted by: Kitchener Conservative at October 27, 2006 02:00 PM (E5pP8)

15 It's too bad the government cut CCP's funding. This has to be a constitional issue worthy of their time and our money.

Posted by: Kitchener Conservative at October 27, 2006 03:26 PM (E5pP8)

16 If I had power he would get a dishonourable discharge. He didn't just suddenly decide he couldn't salute our Queen after all this time. It's a political statement and it is scandalous for someone serving in the Armed Servces.

Posted by: Biddy at October 27, 2006 04:42 PM (nm/q8)

17 As a Canadian of significant Irish descent I can sympathize with this guy. The English were, and in many ways still are, anti-Catholic bastards (for anyone who cites separation of Church and State in Canada, we have an official religion in the Church of England and our Head of State is constitutionally barred from being a Catholic). Still, Canada has provided a home to us Irish where the bigotries and grievances of the past can and should be forgotten. This guy shouldn't allow the sins of the past to ruin his life or livelihood.

Posted by: The Rat at October 27, 2006 05:08 PM (N21pf)

18 I saw "The Queen" with Helen Mirren and really enjoyed it. I would say Elizabeth II is a very respectable woman though I object to the very idea of a monarch. Considering that she is quite the paragon of virtue and has been a very diplomatic queen, what are you people going to do when Creepy Charles becomes King? How could anyone salute that freak? Haha, you guys can be stuck up about the Queen all you want. Sooner or later, she will be gone, and you'll be bowing down to the man who wanted to be a tampon. King Kinky? Ugh!

Posted by: Ryan at October 27, 2006 05:34 PM (WcSkB)

19 A little bit of reality here, he's been a member of the forces in some form or another since 1979. He's made it all the way to Captain (joining as a Lt. no doubt). It's pretty to clear to me, the forces have already figured this guy out! 2 promotions in that time span? Sargeants have 2 more promotions than this butt head.

Posted by: the bear at October 27, 2006 06:05 PM (NIATg)

20 Name calling usually means a lack of... Anyone?

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at October 27, 2006 06:35 PM (oXLd2)

21 I dislike interfering in family arguments but has the good cpt thought about migrasting to Ireland and joining the irish army? In all seriousness, to those of you who think Canada should not even have a monarch, by all means change the constitution. Until then you do have a monarch. suck it up.

Posted by: pacific_waters at October 27, 2006 06:42 PM (i86VG)

22 In any case, even a monarchist must find it a bit strange to have a foreigner as head of state?

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at October 27, 2006 07:19 PM (oXLd2)

23 The anti-monarchists here, as everywhere, still can't present a good case for a replacement for the crown. Who takes the place of Queen? An elected president? What if he turns out to be a wanker like Clinton, or a ponce like the president of France? Or a psycho like Sadam Hussein or Hugo Chavez? Running with a steady monarch of good character is way more valuable than taking a chance on a flake for president. What if we elected that weepy comic-book crook Svend Robinson for president? Don't laugh - it could happen! I'm not against an elected president, but I'm just not convinced it would be better than what we've got.

Posted by: JJ Joseph at October 27, 2006 07:34 PM (1dKxB)

24 He joined in 1976, which means he has 30 years of service. 30 years of service equates to a pension equal to 60% of his average pay over his 5 highest paid years of service. a Captain with 10 years in rank currently makes $81,465.00 per year. If we assume that over his best 5 years of paid service, his average annual salary was $72,000.00 per year, then his annual pension would be $43,200.00 per year. This far more than a seditious little weasel like him deserves, and he should take the money and run. By the way, given the current state of affairs in the Forces, why would we want to have a trained infantry officer teaching physics at RMC?

Posted by: RightJab at October 27, 2006 08:03 PM (0WTy/)

25 She's not a foreign head of state, she's the Queen of Canada. She doesn't do much, but she doesn't cost much, so i think we're making off like bandits. What, should we double our already excessive amount of political posturing and creat a whole new voracious mouth to feed tax dollars into by electing ourselves a President in her place? I thkn if that ever happens I'll take a shot at him (it'll be a him). Just on principle. Because as English Bob said "A president? Why NOT shoot a president?" G

Posted by: Gavin Neil at October 27, 2006 10:43 PM (OHIoY)

26 On the one hand I'm in complete agreement with...whatever his name is. I raise my glass to Canada, not Liz. And I can't bear the thought of that inbred moron Charles as our head of state. This aint the Royal Navy we're running. Let's break with tradition whenever it makes sense. The Monarchy should go, and they can take the senate with it. But on the other hand I'm very thankful this country was set up by WASPs. I'm not a Christian, but I think it's interesting the G8 all have had Christian hands at the helm when they were going from good to great. So I guess if the alternative is Sharia law or some such system I'll stick with the monarchy.

Posted by: Stewart at October 27, 2006 11:52 PM (Uagor)

27 "The anti-monarchists here, as everywhere, still can't present a good case for a replacement for the crown. Who takes the place of Queen? An elected president? What if he turns out to be a wanker like Clinton, or a ponce like the president of France? Or a psycho like Sadam Hussein or Hugo Chavez? Running with a steady monarch of good character is way more valuable than taking a chance on a flake for president. What if we elected that weepy comic-book crook Svend Robinson for president? Don't laugh - it could happen! I'm not against an elected president, but I'm just not convinced it would be better than what we've got." That may be the single worst argument in favour of the monarchy that I have ever seen. Support The Monarchy - Because the Alternative Might Suck I'm running out to buy my Chuck and Horseface commemorative plate as we speak.

Posted by: pheenster at October 28, 2006 02:32 AM (X11u9)

28 In any case, even a monarchist must find it a bit strange to have a foreigner as head of state? Posted by: Johan i Kanada at October 27, 2006 07:19 PM As a Canadian (real one, born here, of parents and grandparents born here), I don't have a foreigner as a head of state. Johan, enjoy your visit, but please make your way to the airport with all due dispatch.

Posted by: Skip at October 28, 2006 07:25 AM (d9bPW)

29 The creep should resign his commission. He can start flippin' burgers at "ROTTEN RONNIE" MacDonald's next week....over and out.

Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at October 28, 2006 10:46 AM (Y1ykG)

30 As a naturalized Canadian, I must say that I find the need in the Canadian psyche to deny the British origins of this country puzzling. This urge even goes so far as to rewrite history by referring to the British legislation that established the federal government here as the "Constitution Act, 1867" rather than the "British North America Act" (the preamble of the law, which is properly described as "30 & 31 Victoria c. 3," was written by the act of repatriation passed in 1982 to change what it was to be referred to as). Because, of course, this country was set up as "British North American" to keep it from gravitating to the United States, and that is simply historical reality. And part of that reality is that the country was established was part of the British empire, with the *British* (not English--there's a big difference) monarch as the head of state. Certainly, it would be consonant with the Canadian desire to sanatize the monarchical aspects of this country (e.g., note the removal of the adjective "royal" from any part of the government apart from the military) to get rid of the monarch. But it's small wonder when a country denies its past that there is no ideal to unify the country apart from the multicultural aspiration to be a country that foreigners can move to and still retain all of their old associations without picking up any new ones (apart, that is, from obeisance to multiculturalism). Everyone should be grateful to our "foreign" monarch, because it was the government of that monarch's great great grandmother that had the magnanimity and foresight to found this country in the first place. If this country has any historical meaning, then the monarchy has to be an integral part of it, and God save the queen.

Posted by: God Save the Queen at October 28, 2006 10:54 AM (PJjNm)

31 Precisely. Non-Canadians bend over backwards accusing us of having no culture, yada, yada, yada, while they are busy attempting to replace my culture with their own. Never had an issue with my identity as a Canadian. Kenney may have difficulty figuring out who he is or where he came from, but no Canadian should have that problem. Time for him to leave the military and forfeit his access to the Queen's purse...

Posted by: Skip at October 28, 2006 03:29 PM (d9bPW)

32 With the scandal and corruption of the past government we should all think twice about getting rid of the Monarchy, it's our safety net in case of Tyranny. We will remain a Monarchy in spite of likes of Harold Kinney, who has the choice to leave if he doesn't like it. He should be booted out of the Canadian Forces in any event.

Posted by: Biddy at October 28, 2006 08:00 PM (YpQ6v)

33 Skip: "As a Canadian (real one, born here, of parents and grandparents born here), I don't have a foreigner as a head of state. Johan, enjoy your visit, but please make your way to the airport with all due dispatch." Is the Queen a Canadian? Further, I made an effort to get to Canada. When I arrived, I invested money in Canada. I work and generate significant tax revenue for Canada. I applied for and was granted Canadian citizenship. You, on the other hand, made no effort to become a Canadian, you did not bring any funds with when you entered Canada, you probably pay less taxes than I do to Canada, and you haven't even applied to be a Canadian. So, who, you or I, is the real and 'best' Canadian? You are pathetic.

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at October 29, 2006 11:23 PM (oXLd2)

34 Johan is the real and best Canadian. You other self-righteous pricks are a bunch of merry wankers! I hope the queen doesn't see you engaged in your singular vice, you canadian miscreants!

Posted by: Ryan at October 30, 2006 12:53 AM (ai6A/)

35 Wow. I think many of you are missing the point. Capt Chainningh does not just want to "mime" the pledges to the Queen and get on with his day. That would be the easy way out. I find him to be very courageous to stand up for his beliefs. Other people say that until we get rid of the monarchy then he just has to take it and pay hommage to la reine du Canada. That is not entirely correct; he has to pay his respect until the monarchy ends OR until he forces some changes. Maybe this lawsuit, whether it is successful or not, is a small step in the direction of breaking from the monarchy. I am not saying that I am for or against having a monarchy. I am saying that I wish I could make a difference in an area that I have strong beliefs in, as Capt Chainningh is attempting to do here. There are more options than "Love it or leave it." You can always "Change it." Imagine every Canadian since 1867 (or even much earlier) was of the opinion of "Love it or leave it"....I really don't think I'd want to live in that Canada in 2006. Oh, and to provide full disclosure here, I actually know Capt Chainnigh as he was a professor of mine at RMC. Canada should be happy that he is helping mould young officers' minds in the classroom.

Posted by: Darin in Calgary at October 30, 2006 05:18 AM (15hDZ)

36 The Queen does not have to be a Canadian. She is our Queen and that is that. Those of you who are confused by the idea that the Queen does not carry a Canadian passport are totally missing the point. Its our heritage. OUR HERITAGE people! Its among other things, what sets us apart from our American cousins. Its what defined our nation. We canÂ’t know where we are going unless we know where we came from. Now, as an individual its my choice to honour my Queen or not. But as a member of the Armed Forces it is not. ThatÂ’s the way its always been and thatÂ’s the way it should remain. There are a whole bunch of Â‘rightsÂ’ that you forfeit to one degree or another as a member of the Armed Forces. Evidently, Captain Chainnigh has forgotten that. Look at saluting an officer. You honour Canada by saluting the rank (not the man or woman) bestowed by the Queen who is the Head of State. He should apply the same thinking. We honour Canada by honouring the Head of State. And the Queen IS the Head of State. The irony is that everyone saluting him is honouring the Queen. It just came to meÂ… With all my yammering about honour. Maybe thatÂ’s the problem. Some people just donÂ’t understand the concept of honourÂ… He Â‘grudginglyÂ’ swore an oath to the Queen, but he wonÂ’t Â‘grudginglyÂ’ take his pension will he? Let him recant. And if he wonÂ’t, let him go. http://gargoylerants.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Gargoyle at October 30, 2006 04:52 PM (VpT98)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 26, 2006

Yasmin Ashareh: Awad Ashareh is her father

I've confirmed with a Toronto Star reporter that Awad Ashareh is indeed Yasmin Ashareh's father. Yasmin Ashareh is the young woman found with her throat cut in the west end of Toronto this past summer. She lived alone in a rooming house, working as a cashier in a local grocery store. Her family is from Somalia, and for some time ago I began to wonder if her father was Awad Ashareh, an important MP in the Somali government and a conservative Islamic cleric who was once the Minister for Religious Affairs in the Somali province of Puntland.

I found a few people who asserted that this was the case, but today I have received confirmation.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 05:22 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.

OSC and Northern Securities: The whole story, and the need for real oversight instead of window dressing

Recently I wrote about a press release that showed how the Ontario Securities Commission was caught helping the Toronto Stock Exchange out of a jam by retroactively changing rules. This was in relation to an action taken against Northern Securities.

Though it was clear from the press release what was going on, I really didn't have any background on the litigation itself, nor did I have a view of the bigger picture. Terry Corcoran at the National Post knows all about this stuff, though, and he's written a column in today's paper on this very case. It's worth reading to help understand the true scope of the issue that I tried to explain.

Clearly, the OSC is in need of oversight. The lawyers and judges on its Board of Commissioners are simply not performing that role.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:55 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1627 words, total size 11 kb.

1 Great work Steve. Thanks for shedding light on the OSC and other regulatory and professional organizations. They behave as if beyond scrutiny. That has to change. I had a chance to speak to Terrence Corcoran at a National Post road show today. He seemed rather unfamiliar with the Blogging Tories but he was certainly aware of you. He is a little puzzled by the fervour of the bloggers he does know, but has taken a stab at it with his new No Pigou Club blog. Check it out.

Posted by: Steve Stinson at October 26, 2006 02:07 PM (TsEN3)

2 Here is UMIR 7.1: 7.1 Trading Supervision Obligations (1) Each Participant shall adopt written policies and procedures to be followed by directors, officers, partners and employees of the Participant that are adequate, taking into account the business and affairs of the Participant, to ensure compliance with these Rules and each Policy. So what is a securities firm supposed to do to comply? Northern Securities has not been alleged to have deprived any client or anyone of one cent. Nothing done in conflict of interest. No shady dealing alleged. Rather, the allegation is that the compliance system was not good enough to catch that a number of trade were improperly filled out, and similar technical deficiencies. (The allegations are available to view on www.rs.ca.) The whole scene reminds one of Roland Barthes' classic, Mythologies in which he describes pro wrestling in Paris in the 1950s--a tag team wrestling match where the referee is preoccupied with the good guy's partner out of the ring having his foot over the bottom rope, while the two bad guys are in the ring (out of the referee's sightline), pinning and beating the other good guy. Plus ca change. By the way, the roster of commissioners mentioned are adjudicators for commmission hearings. They do not conduct the administrative work of the commission.

Posted by: murray at October 26, 2006 06:55 PM (dw9A3)

3 Oops. Meant to say a number of trade TICKETS were not properly filled out. The trades were done properly, but the paperwork is alleged to have been sloppy.

Posted by: murray at October 26, 2006 06:57 PM (dw9A3)

4 Clearly, the OSC is in need of oversight. The new oversight body will be called the OSCC. But of course the OSCC will require the oversight of the OSCCC. And so on. Leave a position open for a master oversight of overseers organization, called (I suggest), the United Confederation of OSCCCC's. Now here's the tricky part - make sure that all of these organizations are on a tight enough leash that they will never run astray of the ruling politicians of the day, but slack enough that their books will be closed to outside auditors and so that whenever one of them goes down in flames of corruption and scandal, the politicians will be distant enough to escape the conflagration. You'll have to get the feds and the unions on side, for sure. But it'll all be worth it. The ultimate goal is to get half the people in Ontario working for various nanny organizations related to the government, and the other half living like ignorant, irresponsible, welfare-receiving lumps under the care of the state. A Cuba with toques.

Posted by: at October 26, 2006 07:24 PM (a0Sy/)

5 The OSC is trash. Anyone notice how in Canada, right before any M&A activity is publicly announced, shares tend to go up in volume and spike? hmmmmmmmm..... This type of thing doesn't happen in the US because they actually have a REAL regulator. If that whole income trust fiasco during the last election happened down there, guaranteed someone would be behind bars by now. Here, we shrug it off and let it go, afterall, no one important lost money, just small time individual investors across the country. No, we don't need someone to oversee the OSC, we need the OSC to do it's job and oversee the markets. I'd give them more teeth, not less, and demand they learn to use it.

Posted by: MrGuy at October 26, 2006 10:47 PM (24x7A)

6 Some of your pieces on the OSC seem to me to be attacking it simply for existing. But here you've definitely hit paydirt. This is the kind of abuse of authority that proves its perpetrators unfit to hold responsible office. I hope you can hold some feet to the fire over this.

Posted by: ebt at October 27, 2006 04:14 PM (7y2db)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 24, 2006

Stephane Dion, actor and con man [updated]

Liberal Party leadership candidate Stephane Dion gives an interview, and puts on quite the show. The thing is, when he's trying to look all deep and introspective, he's really recycling old speeches. But here's the real deal. I'm willing to bet the whole Q&A was a big setup, worked out ahead of time to give Dion a chance to look clever.

I'm not sure who is more pathetic -- Dion for trying to pull this off, or his fans for falling for it.

I've added some thoughts about the nature of propaganda and the new media.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 04:02 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 1198 words, total size 8 kb.

1 Good God. It's tongue in cheek. Have a sense of humour.

Posted by: Jason Cherniak at October 24, 2006 04:09 PM (iaLRu)

2 No, it was a play put on to make Dion look good. Based on the comments on your own blog, people are not impressed with being played for fools. People don't like to be tricked. It's human nature. Now if Dion said "That reminds me of something I said in a speech a few years back...", none of this would matter. But Dion has a real problem when it comes to crediting his ideas. He can't even admit that his own lines are not original, but recycled Dion.

Posted by: Steve Janke at October 24, 2006 04:18 PM (pFrk8)

3 Good eye, Steve. The interviewer was obviously aware of Dion's previous statement about the five people, living or dead, that he'd like to have dinner with, and it's obvious that Dion's thoughtful, chin-scratching consideration of the "very tough" question was faked to augment his profered thoughtfulness and the profundity of what was to come. The real kicker -- and the funny part -- is that Dion's laudatory expression of ostensible respect for the Jews comes from an old joke about Jews that Dion must have heard somewhere in his milieu, wherein Einstein, in the punchline, comes along and obviates the wisdom of the great Jews before him. Perhaps Dion will next illustrate his opinion on ME issues with: "That's a good question, DB. You know, three years ago I walked into a bar with an alligator, a nun, and a Rabbi..."

Posted by: at October 24, 2006 05:24 PM (g98A2)

4 "Cherniak, you're being played the fool." Doesn't take much playing, does it?

Posted by: DCardno at October 24, 2006 06:17 PM (NlY1X)

5 In case you didn't notice, he gave his favourite food too: trout he catches himself. To that I'd say: Nice try Dion, trying to pretend you are a macho fisherman. But, haha, you aren't... a trout. Everyone knows you brag about swordfish. Faker! But the kicker is his sly "8 Below" answer to the last movie he saw. Perfectly planned, a movie about huskies on an ice cap. Pff, what bullshit, I bet you didn't even drop your daughter off at the theatre in your SUV, or Renault (Bien sur!). The movie was by Disney, how fitting - Dion, the Mickey Mouse of Canadian politics. This guy really get's my goat. Pff, you guys have nothing better to do than take a silly Q&A session seriously? You'd tear my dad's corny jokes to shreds! Dumbasses. (Did I spell that right?)

Posted by: petroom at October 24, 2006 06:53 PM (Y49pE)

6 you guys are so fucking stupid you couldn't look south to the backers of the canadian conservative movement in america and see the fucking mess they've made of our country? you guys voted these pricks into office? you all elected a party that is receiving money from American corporations. You've colonized yourselves, you stupid fuckers.

Posted by: ryan at October 24, 2006 07:23 PM (riOfY)

7 Dion is a dual-citizen: France and Canada. Where is Dion's allegiance: France or Canada? Both France and Canada? G-G Jean gave up her French citizenship. Will Dion?

Posted by: maz2 at October 24, 2006 07:35 PM (8EdWp)

8 I don't know mazz, will Ted Morton?

Posted by: bob at October 25, 2006 05:25 AM (Lmg9H)

9 Ah ryan, Thanks for representing the progressive, tolerant left so well! It warms my heart that you and your ilk are stewing in your vitriol juices.

Posted by: Steven at October 25, 2006 07:48 AM (i1frN)

10 There's a game i like to play Ryan.One where moronic leftist trolls can't fail to mention either GWB or PMSH and/or the phrase lap dog or imperialist (in any question or situation )where policies of Canadian national interest merge between our two great nations...you win! thanks for playing!

Posted by: kursk at October 25, 2006 07:50 AM (lqkmi)

11 He answered them in the same order both times, so his memory seems OK just not good enough to remember he'd been asked the quuestion before

Posted by: at October 25, 2006 10:23 AM (KqGpk)

12 Uh, Ryan, corporations are not allowed to make financial contributions to federal political campaigns in Canada. So your false statement is very ignorant of Canadian politics. Your ignorance of Canadian politics probably reflects on your knowledge of American politics. In fact, Liberal Party leadership candidate, Joe Volpe, received financial contributions from the children of executives of the corporation Apotex. It was discovered very quickly, even though it was a only few thousand dollars. American financial backing of the Conservative Party would be discovered just as quickly and exposed in every media outlet.

Posted by: PlaidShirt at October 25, 2006 11:04 AM (F47cQ)

13 What's wrong with a Canadian/U. S. alliance? We need to take care of each other because I promise you, no country anywhere else will do so. Australia is rough and ready but they're too far away and are looking at significant dhimmi problems of their own. Plus, it's sad to see thoughtless acceptance of MSM/Hollywood pap concerning American corporations. Many American corporations are now owned by overseas concerns - Canada included. I suspect General G. S. Patton is rolling in his grave even as I type since the Germans not only own Chrysler, THEY OWN JEEP!! That notwithstanding, corporations provide millions of jobs with which people can earn decent livings, buy homes, have families, send their kids to college, etc. I can't speak for other countries, but in the U. S. corporations are also remarkably generous to local communities, colleges and charities. Besides, the litigious nature of our society requires corporations to continually train their employees to behave like liberals to avoid hurting any delicate sensibilities requiring significant subsequent financial remuneration. They should get some credit for that at least!

Posted by: angryinthecornbelt at October 25, 2006 12:44 PM (0p4xh)

14 Whoa, whoa, whoa there cornbelt. No fair being all logical.....remember the mantra "Corporation bad, Socialism good". Don't EVER bring up the fact that most Canadians have a good chunk of money in the "stock market" in their RRSP's, and expect healthy "corporate" growth to fund their retirement...shhhhh.....

Posted by: JCL at October 25, 2006 03:51 PM (VkBQu)

15 Good on JCL! Excellent stuff on Dion SJ. AC is back too, and rips into PIggy.

Posted by: Rav at October 25, 2006 10:31 PM (KdejH)

16 A-ha, JCL. That's analogous to the whole having and eating of cake, isn't it.

Posted by: angryinthecornbelt at October 26, 2006 12:37 PM (0p4xh)

17 Who interviewed Dion the first time? Bon Appetit? I'm sick of the PMSH equals Bush nonsense. Comparing the CPC with the GOP shows a lack of understanding about the parties, aside from the fact that our system is totally different and all... I've been laughing a lot lately - at the Liberal party and its idiotic behaviour. The 'leadership' race is a hoot. Go Bob Go! Hmmm, the Rosedale Red or the Fella Who Just Doesn't Get It? Who's it gonna be?

Posted by: Selma at October 26, 2006 11:16 PM (ifUn9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Warren Kinsella Ciccone? Adoptions in the public eye

Warren Kinsella delivers a proposition to Madonna. And it makes me think about adoptions, including my own.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:07 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 875 words, total size 5 kb.

1 The father seemed to understand what 'adoption' meant, at least initially. Then the storm erupted, mostly from European sources. It seems the p-c groups have decided that giving money (preferably the no-strings-attached type) is preferable to taking babies away from poverty. In other words, cut the cheques and stay away.

Posted by: Mr Dithers at October 24, 2006 12:18 PM (e7atw)

2 So, now I'm to believe Martin Short is Canadian. Sorry, I can't suspend that much disbelief. Next you'll be trying to co-opt the invention of the telephone or insist that William Shatner is a Canuck. Stop it.

Posted by: angryinthecornbelt at October 24, 2006 01:51 PM (0p4xh)

3 From other sources I have read that in fact the father was told a "nice Christian lady" was going to be adopting his son. Not exactly truth in advertising.

Posted by: Shane at October 24, 2006 02:07 PM (lhpHE)

4 "Let's go to Malawi for a new baby, honey. The fall coloreds are in"

Posted by: alex at October 24, 2006 05:21 PM (lFTq+)

5 Not all modern adoptions are such a wide-open circus. Anonymous adoptions continue to this day. The sad part is that all of the news of Madonna's adoption is archived in the public domain forever, and the child will be able to back-track all of it. The anger and resentments will be unbearable. I, too was adopted, but I don't have the back-track option since my arrival on this planet was kept anonymous. Two of my many offspring are adopted, and they, too, are anonymous arrivals. Everything is fine, their lives are peaceful and filled with accomplishments. There are no explosive back-track strings attached to either one. I think Madonna made a mistake she'll regret. She neglected to speak to other adoptees and parents.

Posted by: JJ Joseph at October 25, 2006 02:37 AM (1dKxB)

6 Speaking of pathetic Hollywood publicity stunts exploiting African misery: http://www.wwtdd.com/post.phtml?pk=1499 Don't think I'll be seeing THAT movie anytime soon if the suits can be so soulless...

Posted by: at October 25, 2006 02:30 PM (x4k8S)

7 When Ewan MacGregor was in Mongolia during his "Long Way Round" journey he met some of the orphans who live under the streets. He was shocked to see how these young children lived. Later, Ewan and his wife Eve, adopted one of these children. No fanfare, no media hordes, no look-at-me photo ops.

Posted by: Ron at October 26, 2006 07:52 AM (DMNja)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 23, 2006

Raising gasoline taxes: Terence Corcoran fighting a really bad idea with the No Pigou Club

Arthur C Pigou was a British economist who espoused the idea that the role of government was to use taxation as a tool of social control. Tax things you don't want people to do, and subsidize actions you want them to do.

Like taxing the heck out of cigarettes, I suppose. Not that high taxes have eliminated smoking.

Heavy levels of taxation is a Canadian tradition. But Terence Corcoran of the Financial Post is fighting the application of Pigou's theories to gasoline consumption, and is using a blog, the NoPigou Club, to do it.

I encourage you to visit it, read the articles, and kick in your two cents. Unless you want to pay $2.50 a liter for gas, of course.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:04 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 736 words, total size 5 kb.

1 "Like taxing the heck out of cigarettes, I suppose. Not that high taxes have eliminated smoking. Heavy levels of taxation is a Canadian tradition." Taxation of cigarettes does indeed help to curtail consumption. I gather you want cigarette taxes lowered? In what way a are Canadian taxation levels heavy compared to other industrial countries?

Posted by: Budd Campbell at October 23, 2006 01:56 PM (ZswGl)

2 People do not need to smoke. Yet many people need to drive. Society will switch over to greener energy sources once they become affordable enough. It might be sooner than we think.

Posted by: Jonny_eh at October 23, 2006 03:21 PM (ZQ7AG)

3 Tax the heck out of cigarettes, alcohol, and gasoline! I've lived in many places with really high gas taxes, and it's actually a lot of fun. For example, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to travel cheaply when gas was through the roof, and usually ended up driving a motorcycle. And that's way more fun than driving my present SUV! In Italy, I had a 150cc road-racer that was incredibly entertaining. In 1974-5, during the great gasoline shutdown, all fuel prices went through the roof while I was based in the Caribbean. My previous experience paid off and I parked the Land Rover and bought a small Honda 90 dirt bike. I drove the kids to school every day on my Honda for two years. Way more fun! No more gas crisis! But the way gas prices are now, and local MV regs, there's no incentive to return to two wheels. Motorcycles are no longer permitted to park on the sidewalk, can't carry small kids up front on a MC, nor permitted to take shortcuts in traffic. It costs the same to drive an SUV or a motorcycle. Insurance is the same, parking is the same, and the modern motorcylces are real gas guzzlers. My Land Cruiser is way more comfy, and here I'll stay until gas prices are a whole lot higher. But be assured that if local MV regs were different, and fuel prices a lot higher, I'd be back on two wheels ASAP. I think high gas taxes, lower speed limits, and scaled licence fees (small vehicles cost less, mopeds are free) are a great idea. Students and working stiffs, especially, benefit from stuff like this.

Posted by: JJ Joseph at October 23, 2006 03:37 PM (1dKxB)

4 JJ: HUH???

Posted by: mike s at October 23, 2006 04:19 PM (crZsW)

5 The problem with high taxes on good that are essential (such as heating, transportation - not everyone lives in a large city) is that they primarily hurt the poor and lower class people. Even if compensation is given to people in the lower brackets to balance this, there still exists immediate barriers to market entry. Taxing gas would be a disaster for low income people. As usual the conservatives have the right idea - we're going to have to regulate phased in emissions controls.

Posted by: langmann at October 23, 2006 04:20 PM (BtmU6)

6 The taxation on the gas should reflect the actual costs involved. This would include hidden costs such as environmental costs and highway costs. A truly flat tax like that does hurt lower income, but is the only fair way of taxing.

Posted by: Fergy at October 23, 2006 05:35 PM (GvTt8)

7 "Arthur C Pigou was a British economist who espoused the idea that the role of government was to use taxation as a tool of social control. Tax things you don't want people to do, and subsidize actions you want them to do." What's your source for this rather remarkable and unusual assertion? What Pigou did was show that, under a given set of assumptions, a central authority could "internalize" the effects of an externality so that the `optimal' amount of the good is produced/consumed (that is, where the marginal cost is equivalent to the marginal revenue). It has *nothing* to do with things you want/do not want society to do. It has with optimally accounting for externalities (the study of which predates Pigou). Pigou's discussion of the topic was never about whether governments *should* do this kind of thing - so your claim that Pigou thinks that the "role of government was to use taxation as a tool of social control" seems absurd. He just pointed out that, under the correct conditions, a central authority could 'solve' the externality problem. Arthur C Pigou was the intellectual heir to Marshall and an absolutely terrific economist. You do a great scientist an injustice by posting such inaccuracies.

Posted by: Mike Moffatt at October 23, 2006 06:00 PM (8Lcgw)

8 I should clarify one thing. Pigou did state that governments should correct externalities (that is, it would be welfare enhancing), but only if the conditions were met (mainly to do with the amount of information the central authority has). I just re-read my above statement and realized that it was somewhat misleading. Mea culpa.

Posted by: Mike Moffatt at October 23, 2006 06:07 PM (8Lcgw)

9 Mea Culpa, indeed Mike. The other thing that you neglect to mention is the problem of where the money goes that is collected to perfect the true costs of the externality. If the money that, say, is collected to pay for the poisoning of the air we all own went to each of us individually and directly then I would say that the correction of the externality is fair enough. However in reality the money goes to the non-entity - the "Government" in the form of a tax. As we have seen in the past with reckless government spending and rent seeking people like me will not see any of that money anytime soon. The externality is not corrected for many of us who will never see the money. In fact some of that money will be leaving Canada to pay for other countries to improve *their* industry... Not to mention that the Pigou tax will be seriously harmful to poorer people as I said before. The CPC has the right idea, as usual.

Posted by: langmann at October 23, 2006 06:33 PM (BtmU6)

10 "Mea Culpa, indeed Mike." Heh.. I admit I wrote something incorrectly. What I meant was that Pigou's work wasn't one of advocacy, rather he was illustrating how an externality could be internalized and what the welfare benefits would be. Of course, he suggested that if there are welfare benefits, then it's probably a good idea (again, given a set of assumptions, etc.) "If the money that, say, is collected to pay for the poisoning of the air we all own went to each of us individually and directly then I would say that the correction of the externality is fair enough. However in reality the money goes to the non-entity - the "Government" in the form of a tax." Well, in any Pigovian system the government would have to act as an intermediary. There may be a member of the Pigou Club who feels the government should take that money and spend it, but the ones I've read have suggested that the government give it back to the populace, either in the form of an income tax cut and/or a straight distribution such as an increase in the U.S. EITC. This wouldn't exactly be a novel approach in Canada. Mulroney replaced the MST with the GST, and Harper reversed a planned income tax cut to replace it with a GST tax cut.

Posted by: Mike Moffatt at October 23, 2006 06:50 PM (8Lcgw)

11 "However in reality the money goes to the non-entity - the "Government" in the form of a tax. ... people like me will not see any of that money anytime soon. The externality is not corrected for many of us who will never see the money." The Government is not an non-entity. It's an institution all of us own an equivalent share of, and its net balance is our's as well. The externality is corrected even without sidepayments when the harmful activity is deterred.

Posted by: Budd Campbell at October 24, 2006 10:49 AM (FAa2V)

12 I think this is a great idea! The Canadian Federal and Provincial governments already collect obscene amounts of motive fuel tax that they just squirrel away into General Revenue, while we all travel on poorly designed, constructed and maintained roadways. Let's just add more taxes to the mix and see how those additional funds can be misused, misappropriated and abused. They've been doing a good job with the current billions, lets see what they can do with more!

Posted by: SoberSecondThought at October 24, 2006 01:00 PM (Gh0+X)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The OSC is waiting patiently to take control of credit unions and insurance brokers and mortgage companies

Six years ago, people were talking up the idea of merging the Ontario Securities Commission and the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. The idea has long since been shelved, if not quite officially, but the OSC has maintained a special account with $12 million in it to use on the day that they take over credit unions, loan and trust companies, pension funds, and insurance brokers.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:58 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 2463 words, total size 16 kb.

October 22, 2006

The OSC acts like a willful child, but this is no laughing matter

When you reach the age of six or so, you learn to respect the rules of the game. Before that, kids make up the rules as they go along, usually in response to losing circumstances. In kids, it's cute. But when adults do it, it's sort of pathetic.

This was what first came to mind when I read about the Ontario Securities Commission trying to win a fight with Northern Securities by changing the rules, retroactively.

Pathetic.

But as I thought about it, I came to think that this is a lot more serious than just a silly attempt to win a case no one is paying attention to.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:07 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 768 words, total size 5 kb.

October 20, 2006

Peter MacKay owes his boss an apology

If Peter MacKay called Belinda Stronach a dog in the House of Commons, he should apologize to his boss.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:47 PM | Comments (71) | Add Comment
Post contains 454 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Really, how much is an apology worth if you have to grandstand to get one? Stronach turned this into a "Conservatives vs. women" issue, which clearly it is not. I as a woman don't feel one bit offended by the comment. It was not directed at women in general. I'm not offended at all that funding for the Status of Women was cut, etc. In fact, I'm quite happy about that. Apologies aren't worth anything if you have to beg and cajole and bring out the dog and pony show (sorry) to get one. It would be absolutely meaningless. An apology at this stage would really seem insincere, but I think he should give one anyway to get it over with. A quicker apology would have been much better for everyone. He should also apologize for the trouble it is causing our PM and caucus. Peter should not have said it in the first place; there are many comments thrown around in the H of C that should not be said. MPs should think twice before they shout something across the floor. All parties are equally guilty of this. Obviously there is unfinished business between these two that should take place privately. The Liberals pretending to be so offended is quite sickening to behold; no one plays dirtier than they do (election ads, anyone?) I'm sure Belinda can handle it; she seems tough enough. But Liberals sure know how to play things up to their advantage. And people fall for it every time. I've been noticing the mainstream media pushing back harder at conservative bloggers. They don't like being told they are biased and we are beginning to pi**them off. Look out ! Check out some recent CTV articles on this issue. I smell an election coming up shortly after their new leader is crowned. They are itching for one. Spring 2007 for sure. Main issue: Afghanistan and the environment. And the mainstream media will be cheerleading them on in a big way.

Posted by: Soccermom at October 20, 2006 11:19 PM (sglp2)

2 Really, I don't think Belinda's feelings are too hurt...but she knows there are political points to be scored here and that is now what this is all about.

Posted by: Soccermom at October 20, 2006 11:27 PM (sglp2)

3 How is MacKay and the other mouthbreather CONs' attitude towards women going to get them one more vote towards a majority next election? They've already lost Quebec, and are losing BC support. Keep it up, Reform/CRAP/Alliance/CONs...

Posted by: ronin at October 21, 2006 12:06 AM (Bpn2N)

4 While I agree this is a stupid waste of time, just remember that it was David McGuinty who opened the door by bringing in MacKay's personal life into the House in the first place. Everyone knows that right after the end of the affair, Peter went home to his dog - 'because they're loyal'. If MacKay said it, perhaps he shouldn't have taken the bait, but it was McGuinty who dangled it there.

Posted by: canadianna at October 21, 2006 12:09 AM (RQr5K)

5 I was a little confused by Belinda's comments today. I'm still wondering if her saying the behaviour was "shameful, very disrespectful, hurtful and insulting to women" was in response to Peter McKay's alleged comments in the House of Commons or her sleepng with Leanne Domi's husband. Perhaps she could clear that up.

Posted by: Bob Frill at October 21, 2006 12:35 AM (7u8uo)

6 It's a small price to pay for endless stories about how the conservatives are fractured because of Garth Turner's departure. Witty Comment + Earned Media for the win. MacKay still refutes Dog comment, page 1. Garth Turner joins Greens, page 9. (didn't spellcheck, sorry)

Posted by: Lore_Weaver at October 21, 2006 01:04 AM (Cthni)

7 Sorry to say it, Steve, but you took CTV's bait. That story you cited is not presentable evidence of any "tide" for you to go against, it's a completely specious transparent slur on Conservatives and a warning shot directed at the non-Lib blogosphere who have been so effective at challenging the hegemony of the former ruling tribe and it's appendages in the media. I mean, hows this for a start to a news story: "Conservatives are not only supporting Peter MacKay, a handful of them on the internet are going even further in comparing Belinda Stronach to a dog." Whhhaa? Would CTV begin a news story "Liberals are not only supporting Ignatieff's 'war crimes' comments -- a handful of them are going even further by comparing Israel to...." Nope. And would the Liberals ever be refered to on CTV, CBC, whatever, as "them"? A handful of "them"? CTV says Conservative bloggers "have no official ties to the Conservative government" but that they have "run the same media talking points as those issued by senior officials in government." In other words, Conservative bloggers who call Belinda Stronach a dog get their talking points from the Stephen Harper government. It's just a handful of them, but it's them. Gee, no wonder you want to buck the tide, Steve /:>)

Posted by: EBD at October 21, 2006 01:34 AM (f3VQV)

8 Hey Soccermon, just read your 11:19 pm, and I feel kinda' relieved -- it's not just me.

Posted by: EBD at October 21, 2006 01:42 AM (f3VQV)

9 Whoa there podner. Whose side are you on? Strong (and possibly wrong) assumptions buried in your "but let's say..." comments. "...I don't care that he called her a name (if in fact he did, since there is some debate, but let's say he did)... " On the other hand, how's this? In the absence of inconclusive evidence to date, LET'S SAY HE DID NOT SAY ANYTHING MORE THAN FUDDLE DUDDLE. When did the Speaker of the House get emasculated to the point that his pronouncements no longer mean anything?

Posted by: TangoJuliette at October 21, 2006 03:55 AM (LL//I)

10 "inconclusive" to read "ANY conclusive..."

Posted by: TangoJuliette at October 21, 2006 04:03 AM (LL//I)

11 It's much ado about nothing. Madam Belinda is getting more attention, this time she's playing it and has the collossal nerve to drag it over to a women's issue. When she was named "the other woman" in Domi's divorce, well, she wanted no part of that story and the Liberal minions in the media obliged. The pathetic pack of fools will drag this on 'til they realize nobody cares, except twits like Jane Taber who disgraced the Duffy show yesterday. WHERE IS THE NATIONAL INQUIRER WHEN YOU NEED IT? Doubtless Belinda has already made the pages of that rag at some point. Hang in there Peter but would you please APOLOGIZE TO OUR BELOVED DOGS!

Posted by: Biddy at October 21, 2006 07:19 AM (+0Mzs)

12 It is my understanding that David McGuinty asked Peter McKay something to the effect "what about your dog?" to which Peter responded "you got her". If Peter's response was actually "you got her" then I think that this has really been blown out of proportion. -If Peter's response is construed to referring to Belinda, then perhaps McGuinty's question is in reference to her also?? -it seems that the vast majority of MPs, including the speaker, did not hear Peter's response. -relative to Trudeau's infamous "F off" comment which many in the house heard, and considering Trudeas's response, and considering that there was not one foul word spoken in the McKay case and only a perceived insult spoken, coming from a broken up relationship, and considering that Belinda was not even present, and considering that Belinda did not show any concern for any other insulting or sexist coments made by others, it shows that Belinda is only concerned about herself and not the cause of women that she now tries to convey. -all in all, is this not making a mountain out of a mole hill for the purpos of scoring political points only.

Posted by: Lewis at October 21, 2006 08:20 AM (1pAl0)

13 I have to say this is quite familiar as a throwback to the "fuddle duddle", but with a little perceived sexism thrown on top. I must admit that the facts are quite unclear. Someone made reference to the speaker's decision. I would appreciate some clarification. All of this aside, Steve your comments are quite fair and I support you in that MP Mackay should apologize if he truly did pass the insult. I hate when such things are blinded by obscurity and denial. It's like disciplining my 5 year old. Although, from a strategic point of view, there is no benefit to admit wrong doing. The damage is done and there will be no "voter" kudos for admitting to ones faults.

Posted by: DarrenL at October 21, 2006 08:28 AM (323x7)

14 No, Steve, MacKay owes no one an apology, for the simple reason that he did not say what he's been accused of. MacKay did not say the word "dog," "bitch," or any other word. All he said, according to the Liberals accusing him, was "You already have her." To a heckling comment about a dog, made by the Liberals themselves. Of *course* the Liberals want to humiliate Peter MacKay. Yesterday, the speaker called them on it -- twice -- during Member's statements. They want to humiliate him because he hasn't done them the favor of getting tied up in scandal. The ironic thing is, the more they try to make this rhetorical molehill into a mountain, the worse the Liberals look. It only adds to the meme that the Liberals believes themselves to be Perfect, Worthy of Respect, and Unsullied by Any Hint of Malice. In other words, too arrogant to realize that they are capable of wrongdoing. It's that attitude that got them tossed out of government. It's the same attitude that they have to lose, if they're to have any chance of getting a majority. And it's an attitude that, unfortunately for the Liberals, they can't get rid of.

Posted by: PhantomObserver at October 21, 2006 08:35 AM (caIEL)

15 I think that the really important, fundamental issue here, tugging on the collective mind of the electorate is..... HOW GOOD IS BELINDA IN THE SACK? DOES SHE SWALLOW?

Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at October 21, 2006 08:54 AM (Y1ykG)

16 Conservatives vs Women ??? Was it 'Liberals vs Women' ,when some liberals during last election decided it would be great fun to post pictures depicting Olivia as a Chow dog.Or to yell 'pork' during QP when Deb Gray was speaking.I think the Libs are making a big issue of this to cover the gaffes and failures of their "B Team" leadership hopefulls.

Posted by: tedf at October 21, 2006 09:02 AM (HlOec)

17 I think the whole incident was a set up in the first place! Aren't there more important issues MSM could be discussing?

Posted by: greenleaf at October 21, 2006 09:18 AM (j+4/C)

18 If this was an issue about 'all women' as Belinda has appointed herself to defend all women, then she would be just as upset with Lib insults hurled at Ambrose and the others women in the House..(as Georgis pointed out on Duffy yesterday) And if this was about equality she would be just as upset about the disgusting insults hurled at men in the House. This is all about Belinda and partisan politics....and the Libs and media are running it with all their might. I do however wonder how PMSH is handling this...I thought at the beginning of this parliament that was a more respectable climate in the House..it has degenerated.

Posted by: vf at October 21, 2006 09:20 AM (8LIVt)

19 Bob Frill, But thats different....that's a woman in power taking something from a woman who was staying at home.....thats allowed..... >sarcasm off<

Posted by: Stephen at October 21, 2006 09:29 AM (PizTn)

20 Bob Frill, But thats different....that's a woman in power taking something from a woman who was staying at home.....thats allowed..... I am woman hear me roar....>sarcasm off<

Posted by: Stephen at October 21, 2006 09:29 AM (PizTn)

21 One has to wonder how many more times Stephen Harper has to change Peter MacKay's diapers before he fires his sorry arse. This is not about Belinda. This is about Peter MacKay and his appalling lack of judgement. This guy should not be in Cabinet, and if he is, certainly not at Foreign Affairs.

Posted by: at October 21, 2006 09:39 AM (1HniE)

22 CTV Poll: They are having a hard time getting the result they "think" should happen. My ten cents worth - truth hurts, a dog is a dog is a dog. What do you think of the latest MacKay Stronach dust-up? Apologize. Sexist behaviour which must be addressed. 4829 votes (34 %) Ignore it. Typical of workplace romance gone bad. 9467 votes (66 %) Total Votes: 14296

Posted by: MaryM at October 21, 2006 09:41 AM (bh66S)

23 Tell you who the dirty RAT is here, it's David McGuinty. He's a slime ball sneak. They all banter in the House. If everyone acted like Mcguinty and tattled there would be nothing accomplished in that place. Belinda Stronach does not speak for me and most other real women. She's a poor example at best and would do well to shut her stupid trap. See a spare muzzle around? Read Christie Blatchford's column in , dare I say The G&M today. Right on!

Posted by: Biddy at October 21, 2006 09:49 AM (zqXGk)

24 The experts in the matter, in the Office of the Speaker of the House, having examined the tapes (and the written record), have found no evidence of the alleged slur. It is "denying the undeniable" (in the words of Craig Oliver, continuing in his attempt to slur MacKay), to continue to posit that what the Liberals allege actually transpired. No apology is required from MacKay, but an apology is definitely to be expected from Mssrs. Holland and McGuinty, for slurring a fellow MP without any shred of evidence.

Posted by: Paul O at October 21, 2006 10:02 AM (isLIk)

25 I think Peter McKay Should apologize to BS. Then he should apologize to all dogs for making them look bad. Some should send BS a box of Milk Bones!

Posted by: Faraday at October 21, 2006 10:09 AM (LA8Fr)

26 I wonder what our troops in Afghanistan think. You think they're pondering the pros and cons of the juvenile, school yard banter going on in parliament? Think they have other things to deal with? So lets refocus here people and get on with the real issues. Please, all the jokes have been used up, all the fake outrage expressed.

Posted by: Bruce at October 21, 2006 11:02 AM (qIQxB)

27 As a grandmother I have a warning for my granddaughters. Girls you will soon become teenagers...grandma has high hopes for you. If you choose to become a politician, do so with integrity. Be honest with your constituents. Work hard...don't expect ANY handouts...YOU have to earn it. Have morals...do NOT become the other woman in a divorce case. In other words girls... Do NOT become a Belinda Stronach.

Posted by: hollinm at October 21, 2006 11:38 AM (nlb3O)

28 It's becoming much more difficult to figure out these little puzzles since the census no longer collects "Religious Affiliation" information. Not so long ago, we could easily find out this key bit of info about an MP, and could figure out who would tend to run with whom within various parties. For example: Belinda is a German-speaking Catholic. Surprisingly, Peter mackay is also German-speaking. Is he also a Catholic? And - whoa, wait a minute - Condoleeza Rice is also German-speaking and attended Catholic school. I offer all this important trivia for no other reason than to stir up additional gossip.

Posted by: JJ Joseph at October 21, 2006 12:06 PM (1dKxB)

29 JJ Joseph, Religious affiliation information is practically useless these days, isn't it? All the "Catholics" in politics who take decidedly anti-Catholic stances on just about every social/moral issue that's brought up have just about eliminated the value of the word 'affiliation' itself. Wouldn't it be nice, though, if politicians actually were what they claimed to be? Why, people might actually know whom to vote for. We may end up with a country led by moral human beings. We may even learn to trust our own government to take care of our interests. Nah, that would never work. Since Canada is so diverse, it's better to just claim to be the most innocuous thing you can think of, and then act however you want. I'm surprised that more politicians don't claim to be agnostic or atheist... then again, that wouldn't make them seem like they have a solid moral foundation. I guess it's all about perception and the gullibility of the Canadian population. I wonder if there ever were days when politicians behaved according to the codes of ethics prescribed by the religions to which they claim to have affiliation. Oh yeah, there was Hilaire Belloc, but he was in England at the start of the last century, and he was French. Best regards.

Posted by: Stephen M at October 21, 2006 03:02 PM (0BGFp)

30 Stephen M "Religious affiliation information is practically useless these days ..." Not when you try to figure out who's likely to run with whom. Just think of what would have happened if Belinda had succeeded in grabbing the Tory leadership. She would have pulled in at least 5% more votes from other lapsed Catholics within Liberal ranks and won a clear majority. You see, lapsed Catholics, being divorced, shallow and insincere, tend to cross party lines and vote for each other. They follow the catholic leaders. For example, Tories never win in Quebec without a Catholic leader (think Clark, Turner, Mulroney). After losing the Tory leadership tussle, Belinda had no more business within the Tory camp, and went home to the Liberals, the home of most lapsed Catholics, where she anticipated a lapsed Catholic win at the polls and a permanent cabinet position. Her endless narcissism, however, prevents her from seeing herself (and the Liberals) like the rest of us do. You see, knowing the religious affiliations of our politicians helps us to foresee their trashy little plots well in advance. But it also should remind us that the Conservatives rarely succeed in Quebec without a Catholic leader. Small wonder that MacKay is ticked - he could have been shagging the Prime Minister in German by now if her plan had succeeded. Ach liebe! Now that Condoleeza Rice, there's a pretty little thing! And, she speaks German, too! And she went to Catholic school...

Posted by: JJ Joseph at October 21, 2006 04:54 PM (1dKxB)

31 Should Peter apologize to his Boss? Should Peter apologize to BELINDA!? Should Peter apologize to Women? NO, No and NO. This is nothing more than stupid, inane nonsense. The desperate Liberals are looking for some much needed attention to their nothingness. Any women who fall for this Liberal crap are not paying attention to the larger picture. It would serve them well to read Christie Blatchford's column in today's Globe and Mail, it's so right on.

Posted by: Biddy at October 21, 2006 05:03 PM (J1Ufi)

32 Janke, This is a domestic spat between to ex-lovers and *DOG* is the mildest of all possible invectives. While Belinda and the Librano$ sidetrack Canada*s wheelhouse with this, we are headed for the rocks. Wouldn*t it be funny if becuase of sensitive times just before an election, the US administration continued to pull punches in the ME, failed to hold the fort against the infidel world fatwa, unleashing an unstoppable avalanche swarm of jihadist cells who quickly, with razor edged shmitars, shaped us into queasy bearded ragheaded bhurka wearing dhimmi slaves? Now theres an exciting cultural shift for you. BTW, I was amazed to learn that Nuclear power plants were being propped up by powerful invested lobby groups and the techplan is outdated, inefficient, costing us a fortune thru it*s specialized secret [security, y*know], fraudulent public funds rip-off. In fact, world class,[Germen tech experts],state that the nuke gen system should have been in the Tech Museum by now. What are Nuke plants for then? They make the greatest bombs you ever saw. Google *BendGovernment* for proof & links. = TG Link to the pro- nuke lobby there too.

Posted by: TonyGuitar at October 21, 2006 05:09 PM (2GVBQ)

33 OOPS, replace "looking for" with "getting some much needed attention for their nothingness" in above post!

Posted by: Biddy at October 21, 2006 05:55 PM (88plK)

34 I'm another person totally opposed to your proposition, Angry, as I have heard far worse in QP over the last 3 years which was totally ignored by the other parties & the MSM. Fact is, Mr. McKay did not do anything except answer that slimeball McGuinty's jibe with a rather witty quip. In no way was this prejudicial to women (or wymin, or whatever the sigruntled members of the S.O.W. want to be called nowadays), and in no way does he owe anyone an apology. Truth be known, ever since that assw**e Truuudeau darkened the Parliamentary Chamber, the Libs have been allowed to bully, smear, steal & plunder everyone and everything, and the MSM has done nothing except to clap them on the back with a "Well done, boys!" Now, with an honest, real government in place, one which is constantly still under attack by the MSM, we have an opportunity to support their policies. If you honestly look at what the CPC has managed to accomplish in less than one year in office, you have to realize that they deserve our support and backing, and not be misled by every false lead the MSM comes up with to bash the conservatives. If we fall for that, it just proves how brainwashed we've all become by over a decade of propaganda by the 'Entitled to Their Entitlements' Party.

Posted by: Alienated at October 21, 2006 07:48 PM (MYChe)

35 Biddy recommended: "...read Christie Blatchford's column in today's Globe and Mail, it's so right on." It costs $4.95 to read Blatchford's column on the Globe's website, and the newstand is all sold out. I guess I'll just have to imagine what she said. Did she say,"Who really cares?" Or that the whiners should just stick it in their ear and move on? Did she join the chorus that insists that MacKay should go down on his knees in public and apologize and resign? Or did she say MacKay should have bellowed out for the record,"You've got the treacherous dog already!" Help us poor bloggers out! We're dying to know!

Posted by: JJ Joseph at October 21, 2006 09:12 PM (1dKxB)

36 Steve, You are out in left field on this one. Peter does not owe Belinda the time of day nor does he owe her an apology. Belinda is a homewrecker, a disgrace to motherhood and a disgrace to females in general. She is a predator who has no morals, integrity, or self-respect. Flaunting her relationship with Ti Domi before the ink on his divorce papers is dry is disgusting and classless. She is an expensive, useless decoration that has only gotten this far in life because of the men who keep her or the men who promote her. Where would she be without Daddy's money? For God sakes, she could not even hold down a gratuitous job in Daddy's company! Belinda is a dog, and that is one on the kindest names that comes to mind. Peter McKay should be applauded for his quick and humorous reparte. If Belinda can't stand the heat, then she should stay home, stick her to knitting, and wear a chastity belt! She does not deserve an ounce of sympathy. The fuss should not be about Belinda, but instead for her kids, who must continually suffer their Mother's all too public pecadilloes.

Posted by: gypsy4950 at October 21, 2006 09:21 PM (MO12c)

37 Lets see if we have this story straight shall we. David McGuinty was the one that made a reference to a dog, not MacKay. Apparently, as the liberals claim, he gestured towards an empty chair and made a comment that they (meaning liberals) already had her. The liberals claim that this implies that not only did MacKay call Belinda a dog (even though she was absent from the house) but that this was also an indication that the conservatives are anti-women. (cue video clip here of last elections leadership debate when Bucky Dither's did his NWSC hail Mary) I guess Harper's comments about liberals being anti-Israel must have hit a nerve eh? Sucks to be them.

Posted by: gimbol at October 21, 2006 09:29 PM (+Xa7m)

38 Peter should have taken the high road and kept his thoughts to himself. This has taken attention away from his and this government's work. It's like dropping your gun for opponents to pick up and use against you. That's the bottom line.

Posted by: dubyadubya at October 21, 2006 09:33 PM (yzOzm)

39 While CTV and the Liberal masses that dominate Canada turn themselves into pretzels over a comment that is not at all unusual for the type of jabs that are tossed across the House floorÂ… Canadian soldiers are dieing while protecting road building crews. Yet, this story, which is a total non-story, has made a bigger splash on CTV and in some of CanadaÂ’s media than the killings of our soldiers in the past few weeks. I personally loath Â“progressiveÂ” journalists for exactly this kind of thing. They are small, tiny, little wieners who can hardly hide their hate of conservatives. And, I am disappointed in rightwing bloggers who fall for MSM disingenuous propaganda. LetÂ’s get back to issues that really mean something. After all, most people who fault MacKay on this one will never vote conservative anyway; so who gives a damn what MSM slime balls think. The CTV online poll says it allÂ… I hope Craig Oliver soiled his Stanfields when he saw the results.

Posted by: Debris Trail at October 21, 2006 09:56 PM (MO12c)

40 Apologize, Peter Mckay should do no such thing, he never made the comments, if he did who cares. It is all about politics, the Liberals trying to get points with the voters. Belinda, forget it you switch parties, sleep with everyone around. Get over it, you are no saint.....

Posted by: Ray at October 21, 2006 11:05 PM (dwd5+)

41 Remember guys, I don't think he owes her an apology. He might do well to offer one anyway -- but that's entirely up to him, because this is a personal and private issue. That's the point. It's personal and private. He owes us an apology for letting his personal and private situation colour his behaviour in the House of Commons.

Posted by: Steve Janke at October 22, 2006 06:50 AM (DbE/3)

42 Debris Trail: Right on!! MacKay doesn't owe an apology to anyone. If they start demanding apologies and apologizing for the crap they banter around behind the scenes in the (MAD) House nothing else will get done. It's a disgrace and the most disgraceful was Duffy's Show Friday with Jane Taber, who talked about nothing else. APOLOGIZE FOR ALLEGED INNUENDO TO AN EMPTY CHAIR? GIVE US A BREAK.

Posted by: Biddy at October 22, 2006 07:11 AM (Mu3a8)

43 Steve, Heckling has always gone on in the HOC and always will. What went on here is an everyday exchange and I don't think Peter's four word rebuttal (which took all of about a second to spew out) to an obvious personal shot by McGuinty, is really that much of a waste of taxpayers time or money. And it can hardly be referred to as "squabbling" which infers an ongoing bickering on the topic. Peter has said nothing more than those few words since, except to briefly respond to an frenzied press with apparently little else of value to report. As for Belinda's indignation, and championing respect for all women - that's rich! Let's move on to matters for discussion that have some merit.

Posted by: Guffman at October 22, 2006 10:23 AM (iqNMD)

44 This is a ridiculous issue....if he apologized for it at the beginning it would have been done with, assuming he needed to. Other than that....the tactics of this are to keep stonewalling and change the channel. It works for every other political party. Liberal, Conservatove or Socialist. The speaker, quite honestly should call all house leaders into his chamber and knock their heads together, the speaker ruled so respect the office and stop it!

Posted by: Stephen at October 22, 2006 11:22 AM (PizTn)

45 Steve Janke: "That's the point. It's personal and private. He owes us an apology for letting his personal and private situation colour his behaviour in the House of Commons." Again, I disagree, as it appears do the majority of your readers. You make it appear that the four parties in the House have behaved civilly to each other during QP & always maintained decorum during what is often a very heated Q&A session. I'm sure you have read Hansard, and watched QP during the Liberal's long reign to remember their arrogance in NEVER answering policy questions to the opposition's queries, their derogatory & snide comments about Preston Manning, Deb Grey, Joe Clark, Stockwell Day, Rona Ambrose & Stephen Harper... the list goes on and on, with personal attacks the accepted order of the day. Now when the shoe is on the other foot, and our government has a chance to do something positive for Canadians, they are STILL being attacked, even seemingly by fellow conservatives, who fall for the Liberal trick that it is all right for THEM to do anything they want, because only THEY can dictate how the H of C will function. When I hear Stephen Harper stand up and tell someone in the opposite side to F*** O**! as that parasite Trooodeau did, and be lauded for his witticism by the MSM, I know we will have reached parity as a Canadian political party.

Posted by: Alienated at October 22, 2006 11:33 AM (MYChe)

46 Would the MSM et al demand an apology if it was a Liberal or NDP member who was being accused? Of course not. However, MacKay should apologize for two simple reasons: (1) It would show a lot of class, something that appears to be sorely lacking in the H of C these days, and could go some ways to restoring a modicum(sp?) of civility in political discourse (boy am I ever being naive now that I think over what I just typed?). The less a person owes someone else an apology, the better that person will come off for nevertheless giving it. (2) It will remove a needless distraction from the government's accomplishments, which are many and positive.

Posted by: at October 22, 2006 04:56 PM (Uagor)

47 Sorry for not including my personal info in the a bove 4:56 PM post.

Posted by: Brian in Calgary at October 22, 2006 04:58 PM (Uagor)

48 JJ Joseph: The Christie Blatchford article on the McKay/dog nonsense is worth digging in the recycle bin for. It started off: "Woof". "I am that one woman in Canada to whom Foreign Affairs Minister Peter McKay should not apologize for the alleged "dog" comment he allegedly made this week in alleged reference to his former girlfriend and now alleged Tie Domi love interest Belinda Stronach". Another exerpt: "As we all know, these days, it's not what anyone actually says that is the issue, but how the recipient of the thing that was or wasn't said feels about what was said, or not, as it happens. It doesn't even matter if a thing was said but how the people it was said about interpret it" Another exerpt: "I found the remark funny when I thought Mr. McKay said it, because it's exactly the juvenile sort of thing I say in the ordinary course of my juvenile life among my juvenile friends, and if there's a better definition of Question Period in this Country, I haven't seen it. You don't believe me, peruse the Hansard of that very day and work your way through all the bizarre references to "low hanging fruit"(no alleged reference to Ms Stronach, though one supposes in a few years it could be, allegedly). No one crying now about unparliamentary language or behaviour has ever sat through one of these suckers." I agree with Christie Blatchford's take on it. You can get the drift of just how damned silly this whole thing is.

Posted by: Biddy at October 22, 2006 05:02 PM (qijPL)

49 You should apologize to Peter McKay, Steve. Do you have any evidence that McKay called her a dog? None. You don't even claim any. You owe Peter a public apology, printed here, on your blog.

Posted by: Christoph at October 22, 2006 09:25 PM (L8rdZ)

50 I have to admit that that I'm with those who don't think that MacKay owes Belinda an apology. It's one thing for an MP to switch sides over a genuine, heartfelt, disagreement over policy. But Belinda jumped ship simply because she lost the Conservative leadership contest and saw her chance to become PM fly out the window. She was a mole, a treacherous dog, within Tory ranks, hoping to lever her Catholic faith into a clumsy grab for power. It didn't work, and she was exposed. Nothing left to do but bail out back to her home side. She wasn't an opportunist, she was a treacherous dog who was exposed. We're seeing more of her character revealed daily, and it's not pretty. Peter MacKay was rightly pissed to have been the inside contact for this deception, which shows some immaturity and recklessness. What we do have to be watchful of now is the possibility that if MacKay, a Catholic, were leader of the Conservatives, he could probably pull off a majority in any election. That is, if he is a Catholic. And that's why it's nice to know what an MP's faith is.

Posted by: JJ Joseph at October 22, 2006 10:26 PM (1dKxB)

51 Why don't the Conservatives check some of Trudeau's bon mots, well documented in Hansard? The Liberals would really have something to feign shock and awe about. Dogs beg don't they? If Belinda is begging for an apology could be she really is a dog. Sorry about that Fido! May as well continue the childish nuttieness, that's what the Liberals prefer instead of the Country's real important business. They're the Opposition, we gotta answer them.

Posted by: Biddy at October 23, 2006 10:36 AM (iXS8P)

52 I think Jack Layton has it right. MacKay should apologize or resign, and failing that, be fired. This isn't MacKay's first sexist outburst, there was his earlier remark to Alexa MacDonough that she should "stick to her knitting", or words to that effect. I used to think MacKay was a pretty smart guy, but lately he's been looking a bit stupid. Time to show some smarts by apologizing and moving on.

Posted by: Budd C ampbell at October 23, 2006 11:06 AM (ZswGl)

53 "This isn't MacKay's first sexist outburst, there was his earlier remark to Alexa MacDonough that she should "stick to her knitting", or words to that effect." That is not a sexist remark.It is a common saying down east about focusing on what you should be doing,along those lines.My wife who's a newfie says it to me sometimes.Should i demand an apology Budd?Layton knows that but is just trying to be his useless slimeball self misquoting the truth.

Posted by: paulsstuff at October 23, 2006 11:32 AM (uOsUo)

54 I saw Ti Domi walking in downtown Toronto, he had his leaf blower with him.

Posted by: RM at October 23, 2006 11:39 AM (Y1ykG)

55 OK, if any one in the present government calls the Member from Newmarket/Aurora a Leaf Blower in the House, THEN.... and only then... will I alter my opinion and agree that an apology should be issued. Mind you, it would be worth it, wouldn't it?

Posted by: Alienated at October 23, 2006 11:48 AM (MYChe)

56 sheesh ..all I was going to do was call her the world richest (and oldest) puck bunny...

Posted by: at October 23, 2006 11:49 AM (zMnsO)

57 One should never apologize for speaking the truth. I thought the left was all about "speaking truth to power".

Posted by: J. Strong at October 23, 2006 01:20 PM (iIvIi)

58 That is not a sexist remark.It is a common saying down east about focusing on what you should be doing,along those lines.My wife who's a newfie says it to me sometimes.Should i demand an apology Budd?Layton knows that but is just trying to be his useless slimeball self misquoting the truth. Posted by: paulsstuff at October 23, 2006 I don't accept what you're saying. The remark is clearly a gender based stereotype, knitting being a typically female activity in which very, very few men take part. I find it hard to believe that your wife says it to you. I think you're stretching credulity beyond acceptable limits with that bald faced assertion. As for your use of the term "slimeball" to describe Jack Layton, I think that's completely inaccurate and totally unfair. I find Layton to be a man of genuine character, an honest and intelligent public man, and I don't appreciate your cheap and crude attempt to make him out as someone rather like yourself.

Posted by: Budd Campbell at October 23, 2006 02:03 PM (ZswGl)

59 Budd Campbell: You are WRONG. "Stick to your knitting"is a very common saying/phrase in the East,came all the way from Ireland. Furthermore Peter got sick of the natter about it and apologized to Alexlax anyway and he did it on National TV when they were both on CTV Sunday Question Period many months ago. Time everybody smarten the hell up and realize it's not about women, it's all about desperate Political opportunism on the part of the Opposition It may be noted, the Bloc are not wasting time on it.

Posted by: Biddy at October 23, 2006 03:25 PM (MDbXo)

60 Hey Budd, Saw yer bud Jackass Laydown on QP today, and must say I was quite impressed. For the first time in months, he was asking one of his pointless questions and wasn't playing with his privates with his left hand! No, really, he can actually talk without holding on to his pecker for inspiration.

Posted by: Alienated at October 23, 2006 03:40 PM (MYChe)

61 Get over it, Budd. If women are the hot house flowers you pretend them to be, none of us would be here. If you insist on "protecting the honour" of thin-skinned, hypocritical, humourless feminists, that's your preogative. But count me and other reality based Canadian females definitely out.

Posted by: lookout at October 23, 2006 04:05 PM (fgQKD)

62 Budd Campbell: You are WRONG. "Stick to your knitting"is a very common saying/phrase in the East,came all the way from Ireland. Furthermore Peter got sick of the natter about it and apologized to Alexlax anyway and he did it on National TV when they were both on CTV Sunday Question Period many months ago. Posted by: Biddy at October 23, 2006 03:25 PM Hey Budd, Saw yer bud Jackass Laydown on QP today, and must say I was quite impressed. For the first time in months, he was asking one of his pointless questions and wasn't playing with his privates with his left hand! No, really, he can actually talk without holding on to his pecker for inspiration. Posted by: Alienated at October 23, 2006 03:40 PM Get over it, Budd. If women are the hot house flowers you pretend them to be, none of us would be here. If you insist on "protecting the honour" of thin-skinned, hypocritical, humourless feminists, that's your preogative. But count me and other reality based Canadian females definitely out. Posted by: lookout at October 23, 2006 04:05 PM If one subtracts the "intellectual contribution" to this discussion of 'Alienated' from that of 'lookout', ... you end up with Zero. Thanks for that, Alienated, you're helping out more than you can ever know. As for Biddy, his "Alexlax" moniker puts him in the same bed as Alienated, which is a shame since he makes what might be a valid point. If it's true MacKay apologized for this on CTV some time ago, that's a good sign that he can dig his way out of this thing yet. All he has to do is issue another apology, and everything's fine. Biddy, how you can pretend that the "stick to your knitting" comment is not a gender based stereo type, I have no idea. But for some the blogosphere is a kind of alternative reality where anything can be true as long three other posters are peddling the same rhubbish.

Posted by: Budd Campbell at October 23, 2006 05:13 PM (FAa2V)

63 I think we're all missing the point. This has nothing to do with Belinda. It has to do with what's OFF TV if Her Blondeness in on - i.e., Rona Ambrose defending her Clean Air Act. Rona's cool, smart, competent and makes every feminist whiner in Parliament look like the screamers they are. She's too good. So look at what we're seeing on TV. Is it Rona? Nope, it's The Bimbo who draws the gawkers and then sits back while that scuzzbucket who's married to another T.O. scuzzbucket named Jack drips venom about Male Aggression, yadda-yadda. (Check it out on Mike Duffy Live.) They'll get back to the Environment. But with Rona defending it against those Male Aggressors from the Libby side of the House? Uh-unh. It'll be Mike Duffy doing "commentary" and the usual media patter. No Rona. It's all about ducking Rona. The operative word isn't Woof-Woof. It's Quack-Quack. Tell Rona she rocks. Don't let them duck her. They want to argue environment, let them argue it with a conservative woman whose qualitifications for being a minister is something other than guaranteed Post Traumatic Strees Disorder when she shows up for Question Period.

Posted by: recovering liberal at October 23, 2006 06:31 PM (+/VlN)

64 P.S., Budd, it's "rubbish".

Posted by: lookout at October 23, 2006 09:21 PM (fgQKD)

65 Hmmmm... Belinda betrayed Peter to almost in almost Shakespearean heights both politically and personally and, demonstrating her character, she's now having sex with Tie, a married man. Dalton brought up the dog comment (Peter didn't even mention it or say the word) and apparently this is yet another common eastern expression and he said, "You already have her." That can be read two ways, both common eastern expression and perhaps a sly put down. Well, I commend Peter for his grace in all of this, he should have said, "That two-timing power-hungry adulterous whore... you've already got her." At least that would have been less offensive toward dogs. He owes Belinda no apology. Belinda only owed him one as she does Leanne. And God, something Budd will have no concern with.

Posted by: Christoph at October 24, 2006 02:16 AM (L8rdZ)

66 Oh, right, and an apology to Tie and Leanne's three children.

Posted by: Christoph at October 24, 2006 02:17 AM (L8rdZ)

67 "Rona's cool, smart, competent and makes every feminist whiner in Parliament look like the screamers they are. She's too good. So look at what we're seeing on TV. Is it Rona? Nope, it's The Bimbo who draws the gawkers and then sits back while that scuzzbucket who's married to another T.O. scuzzbucket named Jack drips venom about Male Aggression, yadda-yadda. (Check it out on Mike Duffy Live.)" Posted by: recovering liberal at October 23, 2006 You're the scuzzbucket, recovering liberal. And I hope the media focus in on Tories like yourself early and often. That will help Jack Layton to win the London area byelection.

Posted by: Budd Campbell at October 24, 2006 10:54 AM (FAa2V)

68 "As for your use of the term "slimeball" to describe Jack Layton, I think that's completely inaccurate and totally unfair" Hey Budd,Layton came on tv and said Afghanistan villages were being bombed as did NDP mp Peggy Nash.He and she both implied it was Canadian troops bombing these villages till they were called on it by Jason Kenney. Any leader of a party who misleads with something as outragous as that to gain political points is far worse than a slimeball,but if i wrote what Layton really is it would not print it. And the knitting comment,as i and others have told you is an eastern Canada expression used towards both men and women down there. And the next time Layton says he speaks for most Canadians,its more like 18%,which is about where they have been in the polls as far back as anyone remembers.Even Bob Rae saw the light,just a little to late for Ontario.

Posted by: paulsstuff at October 24, 2006 03:48 PM (uOsUo)

69 He should apologize for diving into the hurly-burly of Parliament and giving better than he gets? What the hell was he put in Parliament for?

Posted by: ebt at October 24, 2006 04:16 PM (7y2db)

70 Steve, TangoJuliette has a point: Whose side are you on? When you go so far as to say, "...there is some debate [as to whether Peter MacKay really insulted Belinda Stronach or not], but let's say he did," you sound like you are on the side of the Liberals. Or, at BEST, you are conceding WAY to much to the Liberals. We as Conservatives should stop being on the the defensive and start going on the offensive! If the Liberals continue to press this potentially slanderous accusation against Peter MacKay, we should demand that they PROVE IT! We should demand that they either prove the accusations that they have made, or that they admit that they have been lying all along, and that they both formally apologize to Mr. MacKay for knowingly falsely accusing him of something that he didn't do, and to all Canadians for deliberately misleading Canadians with this lie. But above all, we Conservatives should demand that the Liberals do ONE OR THE OTHER! Steve, why aren't you, and other influential Conservatives like you, using your influence to put more pressure on the Liberals to do that kind of thing?

Posted by: Mr_Harvey at October 27, 2006 04:00 PM (sMttz)

71 Steve, TangoJuliette has a point: Whose side are you on? When you go so far as to say, "...there is some debate [as to whether Peter MacKay really insulted Belinda Stronach or not], but let's say he did," you sound like you are on the side of the Liberals. Or, at BEST, you are conceding WAY to much to the Liberals. We as Conservatives should stop being on the the defensive and start going on the offensive! If the Liberals continue to press this potentially slanderous accusation against Peter MacKay, we should demand that they PROVE IT! We should demand that they either prove the accusations that they have made, or that they admit that they have been lying all along, and that they both formally apologize to Mr. MacKay for knowingly falsely accusing him of something that he didn't do, and to all Canadians for deliberately misleading Canadians with this lie. But above all, we Conservatives should demand that the Liberals do ONE OR THE OTHER! Steve, why aren't you, and other influential Conservatives like you, using your influence to put more pressure on the Liberals to do that kind of thing?

Posted by: Mr_Harvey at October 27, 2006 04:00 PM (sMttz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Our Charter rights undermined by Ontario's Liberal government budget bill [updated]

Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government in Ontario has tabled a budget. But hidden in the bill, known as Bill 151, is a change to how the Canadian Public Accountability Board functions. That change to the powers of the CPAB, a creation of the Ontario Securites Commission, destroys any semblance of privacy, undermining our Charter rights against unreasonable search. I'm not sure who to be more angry with, the Ministry of Finance for writing such a bill, or the the Attorney General's office for not putting the brakes on it before it was tabled.

Updated: Added an addendum -- there is a line in the bill concerning CPAB in which the disclosure of information must occur even if the information is privileged. Expect the legal profession to get into the fight now that the government is trying to weaken the concept of privilege.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:17 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 2261 words, total size 15 kb.

1 9/11 changed things...if you don't support giving the government the authority to monitor finances, then it would appear you are with the terrorists...my fault though...I thought this was a conservative page.

Posted by: STS at October 20, 2006 10:06 PM (/QER9)

2 STS clearly has no idea what a Conservative is. One of the cornerstones of Conservatism is -less- government. As in less power to intrude into the lives of citizens, less taxes, less regulation, fewer government employees. We also think there should be more of other things. More personal freedom of speech and action, more privacy, and more personal responsibility to go along with it. Allowing government unrestricted access to all private financial books is not a Conservative idea. It is a Liberal/Socialist idea. It is also a catastrophe in the making. Anybody who thinks government employees don't pass tips and favours around amongst themselves has never worked in a bureaucracy. Hey STS, can you say insider trading?

Posted by: The Phantom at October 20, 2006 10:42 PM (nAMT1)

3 Yes I can...I can also say "that extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice." That little ditty is from Mr. Conservative himself...but I'll let you google it and find out just who that is. In the meantime you feel free to keep coddling those terrorists...and let me say, I have no problem with you being a wishy-washy liberal...but you need to come to terms with that.

Posted by: at October 20, 2006 11:01 PM (/QER9)

4 Yes I can...I can also say "that extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice." That little ditty is from Mr. Conservative himself...but I'll let you google it and find out just who that is. In the meantime you feel free to keep coddling those terrorists...and let me say, I have no problem with you being a wishy-washy liberal...but you need to come to terms with that.

Posted by: STS at October 20, 2006 11:01 PM (/QER9)

5 Well, they have make it as difficult as possible to invest in any kind of private venture in Ontario. This will have many beneficial effects. First, more people will be driven to "invest" in Ontario Savings Bonds, which means more money to divide up between politicians and their buddies. Second, a generally bad economy caused by a poor investment climate will lead to more unemployment and poverty, which will lead to more government dependence and even bigger rent-a-mobs available to attack anyone who threatens the welfare industry. Thirdly, the more people are driven from legitimate investment markets, the more people will become desperadoes - running illegal casinos, smuggling, growing dope, etc. The small fry banditos can be publicly crushed, helping to keep the little people in awe of the power of government. The big-time gangsters however are in a special category and have a special name: political donors. All of these great things can't be accomplished overnight, so they have to do it in baby steps: one regulation at a time. The great thing about Canada is, it's a federal system so the three levels of government can go tag-team on the public: one level beats up "polluters", one beats up accountants, and the other plays "good cop" and builds fancy trains and convention centers. Then when people start to catch on to them they all blame each other, then switch roles. One step at a time - in the long run it'll be great for all of us. Er, if you're in government that is.

Posted by: at October 20, 2006 11:08 PM (a0Sy/)

6 You thought the Attorney General would catch a Charter Violation? He's likely the one who wrote that section, he specializes in eroding the rights of citizens. That's why his ministry is always in court and why he usually loses....

Posted by: Selma at October 20, 2006 11:40 PM (ifUn9)

7 Welcome to the Law of Unintended Consequence. As a business in a marketplace, the more I know about my competition, the better. So a couple of anonymous phone calls, a malicious rumour spread, and the regulators have an obligation to search. They now have full access to my compeditor's books. Not that they find anything out of line, but the mere fact that they are sniffing perpetuates the rumours. Now my competition has a real problem; the stories will affect his market value, making it harder to raise capital. That works to my advantage as his costs go up. The core of his business plan is now no longer priviledged. So he starts making phone calls...

Posted by: john at October 21, 2006 07:45 AM (wyUSq)

8 The Charter only provides protection to individuals, and as such cannot be used to defend most companies from these instrusive regulations. People who own and operate small private buisinesses may have a defense, though...

Posted by: RL at October 21, 2006 09:45 AM (27GYX)

9 Welcome to the Law of Unintended Consequence. Ah, but this *is* the intended consequence. As I told you above, the goal is not to help investors or punish wrongdoers. Its goal is to weaken and destroy certain businesses in order to enhance the money and power available to politicians, bureaucrats, big law and accounting firms and their big-business clients and cronies. Cui bono, my son, cui bono. The Charter only provides protection to individuals In fact a corporation is owned by individuals, and the portion of a corporation for which they possess shares is nothing more or less than their private property. That is why it is wrong to argue that businesses have no rights. To do so is to argue that private persons have no rights. Which, given the pathetically weak language of our constitution, and the extremely, ahem, "liberal" way in which government rights are interpreted to eclipse private rights, is a pretty good description of the Canada we know and love. The fact that corporations are the private property of the individual investors also means that taxes on corporate profits are wrong, since they represent a double tax. But you must always remember this: weakening private enterprise and trampling individual rights is not an unintended consequence of government. It's a deliberate act of plunder.

Posted by: at October 21, 2006 02:06 PM (a0Sy/)

10 Good grief! Does anyone do any background research here? Read the Bill! It says CPAB gets access to the same documents to which a corporation's auditors are entitled to get access under the longstanding provisions of the Business Corporations Act--which have been upheld by the courts. In other words, CPAB only has access to the auditor's file. We are generally talking tax and title opinions for corporations here, which corproations disclose to auditors so they can verify that the financial statements have support on various points. This is hardly a Charter matter. Ontario legal aid has greater powers to review privileged documents--including criminal matters--in their oversight of legal aid funding.

Posted by: murray at October 22, 2006 10:15 AM (dw9A3)

11 The ideological/partisan fog here seems to obscure the fact that the charter applies to only to individuals...not corporations...regualtions on disclosure and search and seizure of corporate records will certainly be a differnt story than a Mom and Pop home biz. However I don't believe there was any distinction in the eyes of the McGuinty regime because limitations on this power did not appear in the legislation as is required to satify the charter protection of individuals. The only consistancy I have seeen in the McGuinty cabal operational mode of the past few years is their total distain for constitutional and charter constrains on big government intrusion and their dyslexic reading of their constitutional duty. Whether it be Bryant making bombast about gun bans or Dolton's redundant taxation of federal jurisdictions to the Doolittle regime's arbirary suspension of the constitutional rule of law in Caledonia.....one common thread runs through all of it....this government thinks it has authority far beyond constitutional constraints...as such it is a danger. I chalk this legislated distain for constitutional limits on their authority as just another example of Dolton's neo-left authoratarian statism.

Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at October 22, 2006 11:31 AM (sdMWv)

12 I take it from M. wlyonmackenzie's comments that the use of corporate auditors is "neo-left authoratarian statism" and that the practice inspection of auditors by the Ontario Institute of Chartered Accountats, for example, is "neo-left authoratarian statism"? Others feel that both producers and consumers of financial reports gain by implementing procedures forindependent verification to enhance the credibility of those reports.

Posted by: murray at October 22, 2006 12:42 PM (dw9A3)

13 Bill 151 does not give CPAB access to any documents other than documents that form part of the audit of a reporting issuer. You must remember that documents given to an audit or accountant, in general, are NOT privileged. If you give documents to your accountant, you have waived any privilege. The only reason auditors of reporting issuers have privileged documents at all is that they already used powers under the Business Corporations Act to COMPEL the corporation to provide them, in order to complete an audit. If a document is compelled, only then is privilege not waived and survives. If the document was not compelled by legislation in the first place, then it would have already lost privilege. Therefore, if a document was not compelled to be disclosed to the auditor, then privilege in it was already waived and CPAB would not need any statutory authority to be able to review the entire audit file on the reporting issuer. For an auditor to possess a document that still has privilege could only occur if the privileged document was compelled by the auditor pursuant to a statutory power to require disclosure of privilegewd documents, such as the Business Corporations Act. Corpoartions prefer that, as it allows them to give documents such as tax opinions to convince their auditors, without waiving privilege. All CPAB gets is the ability to look at the auditor file, which is what the provincial accounting institute already does as part of its practice inspection program. Indeed, CPAB and the provincial institutes coordinate their practice inspection activities. I suspect from the comments here that people are confusing confidentiality and personal information (under PIPEDA) with privilege. The law does not recognize any privilege in accountant-client communications. The PCAOB already gets full access to privileged documents of Canadian audit firms that audit SEC registrants, pursuant to statutory powers under Sarbanes-Oxley. Bill 151 would give CPAB the same statutory power to audit Canadian firms. It seems ironic that, without Bill 151, the PCAOB has greater oversight powers in Canada than CPAB.

Posted by: murray at October 22, 2006 08:33 PM (AVxTV)

14 wlyonmckenzie has the Fibs' number. Actually, Bryant does more than shoot from the lip. In the case of Ontario dog owners, he legislated them into second class status based on news reports, unverified personal anecdotes and a misguided attempt at self-promotion. Reverse onus in a court proceeding, search and seizure without due process, warrantless entry into any building including a private residence based on hearsay or 'belief', restrictions on mobility, discrimination against a visible minority and a law so vague that not only do citizens not know if they are affected, those charged with enforcement are unable to interpret it. If you don't like that one, how about his use of the Civil Remedies Act to seize property from those who haven't been charged with a crime, let alone convicted? His unpopular revamping of the Human Rights complaint process? How about the Access to Justice Act, which many have compared with a Paralegal Ban? Appealing a court ruling favourable to parents of autistic children? What you mention, if it is a violation, is pretty penny ante for Bryant/McGuinty in view of their record.

Posted by: Selma at October 23, 2006 03:00 PM (ifUn9)

15 I like it very much.564651321348545 http://www.cr72012.com

Posted by: Adidas Adipower Predator at December 03, 2012 05:55 PM (ul9Pb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Former NDP spokesman takes environmentalists to task for being unfair to Stephen Harper

James Heath, a well-known spokesperson for the NDP and former communications director for the party and for Greenpeace, takes his fellow party members, Greenpeace, David Suzuki, and the rest of their lot to task for playing politics instead of giving credit where credit is due. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have done more than the Liberals managed to do in 13 years on the environment, and yet Harper can't seem to do anything right. James Heath quite rightly points out that this refusal to recognize progress undermines environmentalists, both in their progress to achieving their goals, and in terms of their credibility.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:44 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 1446 words, total size 9 kb.

1 "Who would listen seriously to the Sierra Club, or Greenpeace, or the Suzuki Foundation? " The CBC, Globa & Mail, Red Star, my first wife.

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at October 20, 2006 02:25 PM (GktUk)

2 Steve, this is great. It really shows two things. How truly biased politics has become regarding the party lines and not what is best for Canadians and how bad the Green Party members must feel is for putting May in power. She is the worst possible choice. She can praise Mulroney when she is with the Sierra Club but as soon as she "joins a team" then it's all out war against the other teams. She says the Tory plan is full of hot air, but these quotes from her past life show us just who is full of hot air. Great piece in the Hill Times.

Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at October 20, 2006 02:58 PM (Xiqvi)

3 excellent work as usual, Steve.

Posted by: Paul MacPhail at October 20, 2006 03:06 PM (paAS8)

4 A great weakness of most environmental groups is that they have aligned themselves so strongly with the political left. Such groups should be apolitical. What does it matter where a government is on the political spectrum? It's the government's policies on the environment that should be count, nothing else.

Posted by: rabbit at October 20, 2006 03:46 PM (wDU3W)

5 I don't suppose there's any chance of this actually being picked up, hey? Not when we've got important issues like "dog-gate" to occupy every media outlet for 24 hours and counting. Down the memory-hole with the Environics poll... Sigh. Well, thanks anyhow. And kudos to Mr Heath for speaking what's a fairly open secret. Now, if we could have someone do the same re: opposition posturing to the effect that our first Kyoto benchmarks are in any way attainable....

Posted by: DMD at October 20, 2006 03:59 PM (KtGiX)

6 I see a bit of a partisan agenda there - you have to admit, there are some pretty hard swipes at the NDP's primary electoral rival and arguably their strongest threat.

Posted by: ottawacon at October 20, 2006 04:42 PM (wa1Xo)

7 "...you have to admit, there are some pretty hard swipes at the NDP's primary electoral rival..." When criticizing a government for their achievements (or lack thereof) it is pretty difficult to avoid criticising the party in power at the time who formed the government. Equally, it is pointless to criticise parties who did not form the government. In any event, the majority of the hard swipes are at the environmental groups, who were so willing to accept inaction from the former government (I won't mention the Party if you prefer) in prior years but are now so unwilling to accept action from the current government. I think the swipes at the Liberals are more collateral damage than partisan shots.

Posted by: DCardno at October 20, 2006 05:34 PM (NlY1X)

8 What "climate crisis" ? The only crisis I could really detect behind all of the screaming and complaining was that government didn't seem to be growing nearly fast enough to satisfy some people. Which Stephen Harper is now well on his way to rectifying. He truly is a progressive conservative, isn't he?

Posted by: at October 20, 2006 06:11 PM (a0Sy/)

9 The Conservative Party should invite James Heath to give some input, he's a very intelligent person, has a lot to offer. It would drive the Leftoids wacky, another bonus.

Posted by: Biddy at October 20, 2006 06:27 PM (JtWJO)

10 Just a word to the zealots that don't think the Harper government is acting fast enough. The condition we find ourselves in globally today did not have its inception with the internal combustion engine. It began two hundred years ago when the west began the Industrial Revolution. This was the very basis of creating the 'Western Lifestyle' or if you will the 'White Lifestyle'. Two hundred years into it we think that less than 1/6 of the world's population are going to be able to turn back the clock, just as the other 5/6 of the world is about to embark on an era to catch up! What fools we mortals be!

Posted by: Antenor at October 20, 2006 06:52 PM (Wd07a)

11 The Liberlas had more than enough time to act on environmental issues and instead we got nothing more than posturing on Kyoto, which is ineffective, yet they whine like hypocrites when faced with real action on such issues to merely deflect neglect while at the helm. Oh how easy it is to lob verbal bombs from the honourable benches of the peanut gallery headed by head Peanut Bill Graham!

Posted by: FedUp at October 20, 2006 07:52 PM (gWREU)

12 We are bombarded with politically driven science. The environmental industry is dedicated to making climate change a crisis and blame us for the problem. If there is no crisis, then folks stop throwing money, and guilt makes more of us throw more money to make the problem go away. Case in point: The Childrens World Welfare Fund latest campaign describes how 185 million African children will die from global warming in the next 100 years. With all due respect, all 6.5 billion of us will pass on within this century, so the ultimate cause of death is somewhat academic. But no panic, no money. Climate panic has been a media staple since the 1930s. I can remember growing up in the '60s with the threat of nuclear winter. Based on the hockey stick, we now face global warming. Sorry, it's now officially Climate Change (just in case the latest model doesn't pan out). So if we all stopped breathing today, stopped driving, stopped working. stopped heating, it might take a few decades to determine whether the amount of CO2 in the atmoshere was lower. To bad nobody would be around to find out if it helped or not.

Posted by: john at October 20, 2006 08:25 PM (9OdDd)

13 the irony here is that if this "crisis" does exist, it is the moonbats fault...in the 70's and 80's, we had a chance, with nuclear and clean incineration, to remedy many of our energy and waste problems...but no, the moonbats screamed, and now we have two fleets of diesel burning trucks picking up our garbage, and in my case, shipping it far away....they all screamed RRR....and we have increased our waste stream(in total)ever since....idiots!

Posted by: kingstonlad at October 20, 2006 10:56 PM (XSF8G)

14 It is interesting that in Canada where the left abhors anything remotely American, they have brought us the same hateful, antics that are demonstrated daily in the US by the democratic party and other far left hate and envy groups. It is the adult members of the political family who must persist on keeping things together. That would be members of the right and other responsible groups who realize that there is alway a job to get done. No guitars required.

Posted by: Duke at October 21, 2006 10:52 AM (kMQ/N)

15 Seems like Harper is getting attacked from all sides. How long will this guy last?

Posted by: PoliticalCritic at October 21, 2006 01:06 PM (9Shuz)

16 Political Critic observes, "Seems like Harper is getting attacked from all sides," then asks, "How long will this guy last?" It all depends on how perceptive Canadians are and whether they can filter the news they're getting from the CBC, CTV, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, etc. They also have to be able to run the gauntlet of all of the lies being told about Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the leadership debates now in full swing. I watched only half an hour ('nothing else to do while on the cross trainer), and could drive a Mack truck through the half truths and outright lies told by pretty much all of the Librano leadership candidates. 'Pretty pathetic that, rather than highlight the policies they would forward if they become leader, they feel the need to bash PMSH and his government's initiatives ad nauseum. Seeing as many of these initiatives either improve upon Liberal versions of same or are based on policies that the Liberals, themselves, brought in (such as Canada's involvement in Afghanistan), their continuous criticism is disgraceful. But, what would you expect from a Party that is morally, ethically, and intellectually challenged? Entitled bullies. If Canadians can figure all of this out, if the left/lib/fem/gay scales can fall from Canadians' eyes, if we can finally see the light through the scum on our windshields, then PMSH and the CPC have a chance of surviving. Whatever happens, however, Stephen Harper has my undying gratitude and respect for doing the right thing in many jurisdictions--not for brownie points, not to ingratiate himself to the MSM or any special interest group, not to be popular, not for the sake of holding power but because he knows that certain things need to be done for the good of the country and all Canadians. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a leader, unlike the string of moral pygmies the Liberals have foisted on us for the past 35 years. God save us if the Liberals get back into power--for that's all that matters to them: pure, raw power, all the better to rob us with, and to H*ll with the Canadian electorate

Posted by: 'been around the block at October 21, 2006 08:45 PM (vBp9e)

17 Environmentalists have credibility? Since when?

Posted by: Phil at October 23, 2006 10:43 PM (Lvekz)

18 And for the real hypocrisy? The plan laid out by the Harper Conservatives is pretty much identical to the one the ChrÃ©tien & Martin Liberal governments were developing, but hadnÂ’t released the details of. (yes I worked on the plan). The only differences are: 1. the Harper plan sets a target of 2010 for industrial reductions to startÂ… the Liberals was targeted at 2008 but anyone actually working on the file knew that it was going to have to be delayed to 2010 in order to fix all the Â“issuesÂ” that were loomingÂ… the biggest of which was how to handle the complex joint interest structure of the oil and gas industry. That work was going to at least take 2~3 years and it hasnÂ’t been started yet. 2. The Liberals were going to let to auto industry off scott free. The conservatives donÂ’t care about union votes so now the auto industry has to at least do their fair share. 3. the Conservatives have dumped the 15$ price guarantee to subsidize industry buying credits, 4. The Conservatives have dumped the buying of foreign and domestic credits by government to meet an unrealistic target, in favor of taking longer and actually reducing reductions. The foreign credit thing is obviousÂ… no point in spending tax dollars to fund Russian mobsters. The Domestic credit thing removes the potential for liberal friendly GHG reduction schemes to launder money aÂ’la Adscam on steroidsÂ… ( the GHG fund was to have $5BILLION dollars in itÂ… makes the unity fund look like pocket change) In a nutshell the conservative plan looks exactly like the Liberals knew their plan would have eventually looked like. And just as a note if you got an environmental activist from the afore mentioned groups, (which I did on numerous occasions) away from a camera they were just as critical of the Liberal plan.

Posted by: Sierra at October 24, 2006 07:17 PM (CHE53)

19 Environmentalist have credibility since when? you fucker, yeah, those evil guys who give a shite about the air you and your kids breathe, the water you and coworkers drink, and the food you put in your corroded gut. fuck those evil fuckers. god, how could they give a shite about the health of such worthless pricks as yourself.

Posted by: ryan at October 24, 2006 07:18 PM (riOfY)

20 Ryan. the same people who in general... (there are exceptions) drive BMW made SUV's, wear polyester, enjoy fast food takout or the latest Chic ethnic resturant the imports live Chilean sea bass, live in million dollar homes in upscale Vancouver neighborhoods, fly on jet aircraft from across the globe and hire charger helicopters, hydrocarbon powered boats to protest the seal hunt, and on and annual basis on average consume 1000 times more resouces the average african villager. like Phil said... credibility!

Posted by: Sierra at October 25, 2006 10:52 AM (CHE53)

21 Nice work, Steve.

Posted by: RP. at October 27, 2006 08:11 AM (NV3wX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 19, 2006

McGuinty is using Ontario tax money to support the federal Liberal leadership campaign

The Progressive Conservatives have levelled a serious charge against Premier Dalton McGuinty -- staff members, using their offices and on government time, are working for the federal Liberal Party supporting the leadership campaign.

Are these guys ever going to learn?!

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 06:13 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Unfortunatly, no one cares anymore and the Libs know it...

Posted by: at October 19, 2006 06:29 PM (zMnsO)

2 The great LIEBeral kleptocracy is alive and well. Go ahead and steal from the taxpayer; that's the purpose of all the sheeple. Baaa..aad, Baaa..aad, LIEBeral.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at October 19, 2006 06:56 PM (uGAAp)

3 I agree. No one does care anymore. It is truly a hopeless country we have become. The constant money squabbles of government, the endless I am a victim mentality, the constant complaining, high taxes, crap pay, crummy healthcare, crap weather, lax criminal justice system, useless politicians, an ineffective government system, waste, endless battles about Quebec.....and on..and...on.....and blah...blah...blah...add nausea. I'm glad I left. Anyone who stays in Canada, in my opinion, is a sucker.

Posted by: missing link at October 19, 2006 07:25 PM (C24CS)

4 Why do Ontarians keep voting Liberal? I simply don't understand how sheeple get brainwashed into their beliefs and mantra, when will Ontario say Uncle? Is it the Press? I don't get it...

Posted by: Russ at October 19, 2006 07:51 PM (fbLXL)

5 Is it just me or does Mcguinty look a lot like Lee Harvey Oswald?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LHO14.jpg

Posted by: at October 19, 2006 08:30 PM (zMnsO)

6 Geez Steve - you wouldnt expect the Lieberals to use their own money. I guess their ADSCAM fund must have dried up.

Posted by: Independent Voter at October 19, 2006 08:41 PM (gwp5/)

7 Ontario is obviously comfortable with McGuinty's non-confrontational style of leadership, and Federal Liberal corruption. "Everybody does it" "All politicians are the same". Ontario will vote Liberal next Federal election,and many of us in the West will join separatist Parties. Most, though, will sigh, and carry on, that's the Canadian way, and that's why we have the leaders we do.

Posted by: dmorris at October 19, 2006 09:40 PM (iNlUz)

8 It wold be great if someone stored the page that was taken down in their browser cache.

Posted by: andrew e at October 19, 2006 10:11 PM (0N76u)

9 Does the RCMP still work for the Liberal Party or can they look into this? This is not just unethical, if it isn't illegal it should be. Liberal crime and corruption will continue unabated if they are allowed to get away with unethical behaviour constantly. Members of the media all hope to get fat 'communications' contracts from the Liberals, so we know they don't like to report Liberal crimes - but that doesn't mean the public has to watch Liberal crimes go on and on. The RCMP federally, and the OPP provincially, are simply poodles of the Liberal Party of Toronto. Perhaps a police force that's not tainted by Liberals could launch their own investigation?

Posted by: Philanthropist at October 20, 2006 12:26 AM (7pBiD)

10 Here we go again - the media have decided to start the campaign to have the federal corrupt liberal party elected again. I thought this was a democratic country but it's evident that when a member of parliament says that his job is to represent his constituents and then have a member of the party say that's wrong as he should only represent the party we no longer are democratic. This simply means that a small number of insiders control what the majority of Canadians do.

Posted by: alonzo at October 20, 2006 11:07 AM (E0G58)

11 So we in the west separate from Ontario, then what. We become North Montana? How long do you think Independence will last? Do you think the US facing problems in Mexico to its south will accept instability to its north. It will just take over.

Posted by: Not a Yank at October 20, 2006 11:31 AM (mMcI1)

12 But they only used it on weekends and after business hours! That's OK, isn't it?

Posted by: Joe Blow at October 20, 2006 04:14 PM (XrEWn)

13 There are a lot of Albertans who are currently occupied with our provincial election (with Ted Morton being the best candidate)to worry about the normal asshole Ontario politics. What will spark our interest is when Harper calls an election in the Spring, and Quebekastan/Ontario bail on him, either reducing his minority or putting Bob Rae into power. At this point, armed with a Premier who has the balls, the door will be shut once and for all. We can get our cheap labour from Mexico, who have better work ethic and personal hygene than our current influx of Easterners.

Posted by: view from the West at October 20, 2006 06:10 PM (Uagor)

14 What else is new? It's crooks and liars helping crooks and liars, it's the Liberal way. The Federal Liberals are short on cash so getting a hand up/out from their provincial cousins isn't a surprize. When did legalities/rules get in the way of anything with that lot?

Posted by: Biddy at October 20, 2006 07:52 PM (xvV6X)

15 "Liberal crime and corruption will continue unabated if they are allowed to get away with unethical behaviour constantly" Trust me on this, Phil: if the progressive - ummm, I mean not the progressive - conservatives don't bother to dismantle any of the federal pork machine, but instead do nothing but add to the stinking pile of ministries, agencies, crown corporations, laws, regulations and bureaucracies, then they will be just as corrupt as the Liberals by the time they are finally kicked out. The entire federal government as it's currently composed, from the tax code to transfers to the latest "sensible" environmental legislation, is nothing but a corrupt, slimy, vote-buying machine. You really think you can elect someone who will hold the steering wheel of a nasty, dirty, socialist election machine for a few years and not get dirty? Hah.

Posted by: at October 20, 2006 11:20 PM (a0Sy/)

16 Genetic kleptocratic tendancies of the neo-lib cult just goes on and on. O can't agree with the former poster who thinks people don't care...they do...they just don't see what the point of geting excited about it is when nothing ever happens to bureaucratic crime...they seem a step aboive white collar crime in that they seldom do the jail time a common theif would, even though their crime is more heinous as it is theft from the public from a position of trust...breach of public trust and public theft should be criminal code charges that are lkaid regularly when these things are exposed and vigorously prosecuted and the convicted sentenced to real jail time and to replace the stolen public property...but it isn't...and this is the saddest thing of all....realizing the police and justice system are so deeply politicized and corrupted by partisan policy.

Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at October 22, 2006 11:53 AM (sdMWv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

220kb generated in CPU 0.0827, elapsed 0.1744 seconds.
113 queries taking 0.137 seconds, 507 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 11830
Files: 28
Bytes: 139.0M
CPU Time: 10:58
Queries: 1033580

Content

Posts: 3596
Comments: 36932

Feeds

October 31, 2006

October 30, 2006

October 28, 2006

October 27, 2006

October 26, 2006

October 24, 2006

October 23, 2006

October 22, 2006

October 20, 2006

October 19, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds