Prime Minister Harper addresses Canadian troops in Afghanistan

Just a week after refusing to entertain the idea of a runoff election, it appears sufficient pressure has been applied to Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai from his international patrons, that he has been forced to accept what many have considered inevitable for the past two months; a second round of voting for the dubious honor of presiding over the beleaguered nation.

The initial results of the original election on September 20, 2009 immediately showed troubling signs of massive voter fraud throughout the country. A two month investigation by a United Nations backed panel, the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC), validated many of the hundreds of officially lodged complaints of widespread vote rigging. According to their statement, the ECC found “clear and convincing evidence of fraud relating to improperly recorded vote totals for candidates,” and ordered ballots from 210 polling stations invalidated.
(more…)

We complain when the government spends money, but we complain when they do not. Take the millions of dollars that the government is spending on the latest round of flu vaccinations. They bought the drugs, which have yet to be proven effective in children or pregnant women, and have opened clinics to help deliver them to the masses. Every newspaper is showing stories of the latest numbers of infections and deaths, a small fraction of the numbers infected and killed by the season flu shot every year. Doctors are stressing that they would rather focus their efforts on prevention rather than treatment – a grand idea.

Everybody has formed their own opinions on this subject. Some of the comments from the CBC website today run along the lines of, and I am paraphrasing here because there are just far too many comments, “swine flu isn’t really a big deal, everybody should get the shot, people are dying from it” to “this is a media-hyped problem, you wouldn’t hear about people dying from the regular old flu”.
(more…)

There’s a familiar joke in my province that “B.C.” stands for “bring cash”. The sentiment is fueled by the far-above average house prices in most of the major urban centres in British Columbia. According to the CBC the average house price in Canada is about $330 000 whereas Vancouver is about $610 000. Prices are above Canadian averages in smaller B.C. urban centres like Victoria, Kelowna and Kamloops as well. Affordability hits Canadians hard, especially in B.C. The joke is that average Canadians can not afford to buy houses. For example, Stats Canada lists the average wage in Canada as $22.21 as of September 2009 or approximately $40000 per year. According to the CMHC’s affordability calculator, a person making this wage can expect (with a 5% down payment; $100 per month heating cost; $250 dollar debt repayment; $150 property tax and assuming 4% over 30 year amortization) to be able to afford about a $200 000 house. I admit that I was generous with the numbers as often people have more than $250 debt especially with credit cards, line of credits, and car payments. With higher debt, the affordability drops significantly. This affordability is about $130 000 less than the average house price in Canada. Where I live, in Kamloops, $200 000 will usually buy you a small apartment or mobile home. This may be adequate for an individual but often these are too small for families who need 3 or more bedrooms. To make up for this both parents work usually work to buy a starter home or townhouse.

This is not new news to anyone. Most people are aware of the crunch and that two people need to work to pay a mortgage. However, are most people aware of how the government’s policy with CMHC may be contributing to this affordability crisis?
(more…)

When I was growing up on the prairie, there was one way I could cure my fix for political knowledge and that was to watch the CBC nightly news and specifically Barbara Frum as she hosted The Journal.

Ms. Frum, the mother of David who south of the border crafted those three infamous words for George W Bush, “Axis of Evil”, provided thirty minutes of grilling questions to the issues of the day by hosting famous political figures and leaving none unscathed from her skill and curiosity. She was known as an exceptional journalist and her profound passion and commitment to that profession dictated her style. She was smart, tough and smart.

Now a days, and with the launch of yet again another attempt by CBC at redesign, we see Evan Solomon and Kady O’Malley trying to truncate the network’s need to pull in new, younger, savvy political fiends. I applaud their attempt, I just don’t think it will work.
(more…)

I recently had the opportunity to visit a Waldorf school. I was intrigued by the earth friendly curriculum and surroundings: natural beeswax crayons, other supplies made with natural fibre, the chemical free garden, and the holistic and artistic approach to learning. However, although I am not one who likes to challenge other people’s personal beliefs, I found the mythical and spiritual thinking a little disconcerting. I don’t believe that there are little gnomes living in the forest. I have always been a bit of a party pooper. Even as a child, I did not believe in things like Santa, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, although my skepticism did not prevent me from accepting gifts from these mealy-mouthed fraudsters.

We all have knowledge that others consider fantasies, whether we are adults or children. As a child, I did not believe in Santa or fairies, but I knew that there were giants who strode across the countryside. I saw them occasionally on television, in newspapers and magazines, in school auditoriums, and in the streets. They were our political leaders who seemed like supreme parents who commanded even our parents. In effect, they were guardians of our country. I still see them that way.
(more…)

S. 13 that CHRC!

Yesterday the Montreal Gazette ran a great piece on free speech pogroms masquerading as legitimate government tribunals. I don’t deny that they were created by proper legislative authorities and passed through proper channels but I will say that general Canadian ignorance and laziness has allowed them to transmogrify in the horrendous apparatus they now are. The article in the Gazette was outstanding, and sadly it echoes much of what I had intended to say, so to avoid plagiarism, I will refer you all to it and echo only this one key point its author so carefully addressed. Canadians are a tolerant bunch. We are, for the most part, proud of our multiethnic nation and proud to live in a tolerant society. As such, when something is called the “Canadian Human Rights Commission” – it sounds good, we like it, and we are suspicious of persons who would be dragged before it. I mean wouldn’t you have to do something obviously intolerant to be brought before one? You would think (read the article then come back to mine).
(more…)

Several cities in Canada now have programs that provide safe crack pipes to drug users with the aim of curbing diseases like HIV. Programs like this and Canada’s government funded safe-injection sites are being criticized by the United Nations for violating the International Narcotics Control Board that Canada signed onto in 1988. The aim of the safe inhalation and injection sites in Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver are to prevent the spread of infectious diseases like HIV and hepatitis C. Laurel Ostfield from the Ontario Health Ministers office said, “The evidence shows — and this is evidence that’s supported by the World Health Organization — … that you really can prevent the spread of infectious diseases through safe inhalation or safe injection sites.”

Safe and Legal crack houses are a controversial topic, and for good reason. Having a government sanctioned spot for people to smoke a potent and dangerous drug can lead one to think that the Canadian government is condoning illegal activity. In Canada, crack cocaine is a Schedule 1 substance which holds a maximum possession sentence of 7 years, and a trafficking, production and exportation sentence of up to life. Critics have been arguing that the safe inhalation sites would further encourage crack addicts and would be diverting money from harm reduction and treatment.
(more…)

Jean Charest is upset with the Supreme Court's ruling on Bill 104

Bilingualism in Canada is undeniably one of the most prevalent aspects of our international identity. All of our federal documents are printed in both English and French, despite the fact that only one of our provinces is officially bilingual (and no, it’s not Quebec – only New Brunswick is officially bilingual, meaning the provincial government prints documentation in both languages). Despite all this, language laws have often been a topic of contention within the country and particularly within Quebec. Almost one hundred years after the first language law passed in Quebec, we still find ourselves unable to reach middle ground when it comes to our languages – particularly in the education system. Up until recently, there was a loophole in the Quebecois language laws which allowed parents to send their children to English public school if they had previously attended an English private school. The majority of children in Quebec, however, are required to attend French public school. In 2002, Jean Charest’s government closed the loophole (Bill 104) thus preventing a much larger percentage of students from attending English public school in Quebec. Without the loophole, only students who passed a lengthy assessment of circumstance were granted permission. Yesterday, a disgruntled group of parents who opposed Bill 104 and had taken their displeasure up with the supreme court won a “partial victory” when the supreme court ruled Bill 104 as “unconstitutional and excessive”. Naturally, the Quebecois government is upset, claiming that by allowing a larger minority of children to enroll in the limited English school system in Quebec, the French language is not being preserved.
(more…)

On October 22 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada judged Quebec’s Bill 104 to be unconstitutional.  The controversial bill was enacted in 2002 by the Quebec ruling party of the day, the Parti Quebecois, and has since been subject of a slew of courts cases, the issue eventually reaching Quebec’s Court of Appeal in 2007, where it ruled against the bill.  Two years later, Justice Louis LeBel of the Supreme Court of Canada has taken a similar stance, calling the bill, “excessive” and giving Quebec a 1 year grace period to address and rectify the situation.

In the province already currently possessing the most restrictive language policies in the country, Bill 104 eliminated the last hope for Anglophones in Quebec to obtain English language education without being subjected to a long and trying process for determining ‘eligibility’ for this right. As a result, a group of 25 families took part in this case to argue for their children’s right to an education in the English language.  As such, the ruling in this case is only a partial victory.  Quebec’s debatable language laws still stand minus Bill 104. Anglophone Canadians and others who express an interest in English instruction are now back to the unenviable and astonishing position of attempting to enrol in English language schools through legal loopholes.  It also leaves the 25 families, and many others, besides in a minimum of a yearlong limbo awaiting the new legislation to take its place.
(more…)

Should polygamy be legal in Canada?

It was our first prime minister Sir John A. Macdonald who told Mormon settlers that their polygamous lifestyle would not be welcome in this country. In fact, until the 1950’s Mormons were mentioned specifically in Canada’s anti-polygamy law. Today a much more generalized version can be found in Section 293 of the criminal code. For the last 60 years or so not a single prosecution had been made but suddenly members of a polygamist Mormon sect in Bountiful, B.C. are being targeted and brought before the court. British Columbia’s attorney general, Wally Oppal, decided that perhaps, before prosecuting these two gentlemen, we should ask the supreme court whether Section 293 (from now on referred to as the anti-polygamy law) is even constitutional.

Now, I did a little research and from what I can tell the anti-polygamy law pretty clearly violates section’s 2. ( a ) and 2. ( d ) of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.( a ) Being the freedom of conscience and religion and ( d ) being the freedom of association. Why ( d ) you might ask. Well, under section 293 it states that if you celebrate a polygamous marriage ceremony you’re a criminal.
(more…)