utrage doesn’t begin to describe what I felt after hearing about the plight of this RCMP officer this morning (see below). I hate the way the RCMP gets so easily turned into a political football — especially in cases like this. The force was dealing with the case of this one Mountie just fine….but when he decided (with the nod from his union) to demonstrate his use of medicinally-prescribed marijuana while in-uniform, the force suddenly reacted as if mental illness wasn’t worthy of “the optics” involved!
And, of course, the Conservatives are once again turning what should be a common-sense issue into political football by seizing upon the opportunity to make some kind of ridiculous statement about their anti-drug policy (another holdover from a long, by-gone era) and making an example of this decorated officer.
Shame on Tony Clement, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives for being more eager to change the channel away from the Senate scandal (just one among several) and punish a loyal public servant in the most crass and medieval manner imaginable!
anadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper got a few more shots in on Liberal Party Leader and upstart threat to the nation’s highest political office Justin Trudeau late last week by complaining that Trudeau’s position on drug de-criminalization amounted to trying to force the nation’s children onto drugs. When will the Conservatives finally realize that such nonsense is out-of-touch with average Canadians (if not average Canadian voters)? I suppose the message might have to await the next federal election – but it’s really difficult to listen to this guy without wondering if his Machiavellian treatments of Canada’s democratic process aren’t ever going to stimulate the electorate out of its apathy just once in my lifetime to bring a sense of reason back into our political process!
o you ever get the feeling that the Government (either of Canada or the United States) might not be totally forthcoming on the question “has Earth been visited by an alien civilization yet?” Well a recent event off Canada’s Atlantic coast (Newfoundland) gives some cause for you being suspicious, if it makes any difference to you.
After reading this, I checked some statistics and learned that a full 93% of respondents to one CBC poll indicated that they were sure aliens existed elsewhere in the universe and, of those, another 70%+ were confident Earth had already been visited. (Interestingly, Stanton Friedman; a Canadian nuclear physicist who’s been on something of a UFO information crusade for the past 40+ years also made the point in a recent interview that most people believe they are in the minority believing in the existence of aliens and encounters here on Earth.)
With the recent acknowledgement of the U.S. concerning the existence of Area 51 and the discovery of planets smaller than Earth in star systems less than 500 light years away from this world — I’m starting to think a larger announcement might not be too far off in the future. At least now there’s some reason to feel confident governments will come clean with what they know; not because of any sudden resurgence of faith in democracy by politicians or bureaucrats previously hell-bent on secrecy…but simply because they’ll have no choice.
arren Kinsella, Sun Newspaper columnist and professional thorn in the side of whoever sits in the PMO has offered a strangely shallow analysis of the Ottawa punditry spending so much time writing about Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s imminent cabinet shuffle. Purported to be the shuffle that will “make or break” a tired, listless government with all but the likes of a rookie Leader of the Opposition (from a party rookie at being Official Opposition) and a rookie Liberal Party leader with Obama-esque expectations riding on his shoulders to restore his party to Government in the next election somehow — Kinsella complains expectations writ of this shuffle are pure fantasy, saying, “And in the specific case of the Harper government, [the shuffle] isn’t important at all,” for five big reasons:
1. Cabinet shuffles don’t change government fortunes. When a regime is drifting (as the Harper government is) or looking tired and old and near the end of their usefulness (ditto), prime ministers will shuffle their cabinets.
They do it all the time, in the faint hope that it will make them more popular, or at least less unpopular. It’s a strategy that doesn’t work.
Can you picture the aforementioned Joe Frontporch at the kitchen table, hollering: “Jane, we’re going to vote Conservative again, because there’s a new minister of Veteran’s Affairs! Hallelujah!” Sounds crazy, no? That’s because it is.
|Harper & cabinet sworn in at Rideau Hall, May 18, 2011. (Image source: Sun News, July 14, 2013.)|
Well, not to defend our misguided PM — but, frankly, I have trouble thinking of him as that stupid.
He’s trying to do what CEOs and managers in business find themselves doing when fortunes begin to sag for no apparent reason. Re-ignite past success by (perhaps) having capable people take on new challenges in a different role. Does it work? It can, though Kinsella might find himself mistakenly thinking he accurately diagnosed the reason because the outcome happens to be what he expected.
2. Stephen Harper is the Control-Freak-in-Chief. Never in our history has there been a prime minister so preoccupied with micromanagement and centralization. Never has there been so little delegation as there has been under Harper, who makes Orwell’s Big Brother look like a dope-smoking slacker.
For Harper and his minions in the PMO, ministers are to be controlled, not given control. With the Control-Freak-in-Chief, who is in cabinet – and who isn’t really doesn’t matter.
It may not be original, but there’s a world of insight to be had in these words. The PMO has never been so large in all of Canadian History — as a software consultant who’s done more than his share of federal government contract work, I can tell you you need only look of the percentage of RFPs that have come out for the PMO in recent years to have a sense of this. It’s as if the whole government had moved into the PMO, and the ministries were only used for PR! (And this, I think, is very, very dangerous.)
But Canadians have been content to let this slide too along with everything else it seems. The mantra “Who else can you vote for?” has become the Conservative’s sure ticket to power and since it’s that kind of slogan that can inspire the electorate, why not the political high-stakes play of a cabinet shuffle too? Optics über alles!
3. L’etat, c’est lui. Harper isn’t just the head of the federal government, he IS the federal government. For the Conservatives, that’s been the good news: A smart, strategic leader ran the show, and helped them win power in 2006.
But, paradoxically, it’s the bad news, too. There are no viable successors waiting in the wings. And there is no minister strong enough to give cover to Harper when he stumbles, as he has indisputably in l’affaire Duffy. If you can name a dozen of his ministers and their portfolios off the top of your head, you deserve the Order of Canada.
He’s right about it being bad news — even withstanding the horrifying picture of Duffy stumbling on the minds of voters. But amid this latest shakeup, even Harper has had trouble maintaining his balance in the corridors of power. And the aftershocks are far from done with the RCMP investigation of the absentee PEI Senator just getting into full swing. And a cabinet shuffle, no matter how cynical one gets about the electorate, will not erase the memory of Duffy’s fall from grace or corpulent expense spending from mind.
One also can remember recent Liberal success with “Team Chrétien”…which might well be something the country can get behind as a distinctive style difference with Harper, should Trudeau take up that approach during a forthcoming campaign.
4. A shuffle won’t change the fundamental problem. And Harper’s problem is well known and not even disputed by smart Conservatives: The governing party has lost its way. There’s no raison d’etre anymore.
There’s no mission statement. Nobody in the Conservative caucus remembers why he or she was sent to Ottawa in the first place.
A cabinet shuffle won’t change that problem, it’ll draw it into sharper focus. None of the many youngsters with “P.C.” appended to their surnames will feel powerful enough, or independent enough, to challenge the boss.
So get ready for same old, same old.
5. Nobody will notice. Forests will be felled to print opinion columns about the cosmic significance of the fashion sense of the newly minted minister of Public Safety. But Joe and Jane Frontporch won’t actually read any of those columns (which is one of the reasons broadsheet newspapers are in a spot of trouble, but that’s a lament for another day).
—— Warren Kinsella, Sun News, Jul 14, 2013
Points #4 and #5 seem to contradict each other somewhat. But on the whole, it all relates back to point #1: cabinet shuffles don’t change election results — but that’s not what this was ever about. It’s more internal management of PR for the Conservatives than anything. And, yes, that’s all that this government has ever really been about. Meaningless Law and Order measures, changing armed forces rankings, and lukewarm gun control rollbacks are the hallmark of Herper’s time in office.
In the end, that’s how history will record this period in Canadian history. No cabinet shuffle will change that one iota.
he measures that have forced people into bankruptcy all over the world have turned out to be the product of a pair of academics screwing up a spreadsheet. No peer review – and the graduate student that brought forward the evidence proving the premise for the changes in public policy we’ve seen are so flawed hasn’t been taken seriously.
But maybe that part of the story is still to come… Here’s hoping!
rotecting consumers from outrageously high cancellation fees (to now be limited to a maximum of $50) and compulsorily requiring customer consent to change cell phone contracts are just two of the measures drafted into long-awaited legislation aimed tabled in the Ontario Legislature today. While consumers and the industry still await a code of conduct for vendors to be brought forward by the CRTC, the minority governing Liberals argue these measures are already overdue.
More details are available here.
|The Canadian Radio-Television and Communications Commission (CRTC) has recently been criticized for making rulings which overtly favour the larger Internet service providers and owners of service infrastructure (which in Canada are one and the same); leaving smaller Internet companies at a competitive disadvantage.|
ow did Canada’s Radio-Television and Communications Commission (CRTC) get the job of regulating virtually every aspect of Internet connectivity in the country? It’s a question a growing number of people are finding themselves asking in light of a recent CRTC ruling concerning mandatory bandwidth caps being imposed on consumers. The plan would also impose a billing system of usage-based billing where the amount of network bandwidth used — or the amount of data downloaded within a fixed period of time — would become the lone basis for which Internet access could be sold. (Meaning no more “unlimited bandwidth” accounts.)
Proponents argue that other services, such as conventional utilities, offer such metered service in the same way and that Internet access should be no different since the amount of network traffic is really what drives infrastructure costs for service carriers. But consumer advocates and smaller Internet companies, including smaller Internet access providers who are already forced to pay larger carriers like Bell Canada and Rogers Communications for the bandwidth they effectively resell to their customers argue that mandating metered or usage-based access inevitably makes access more expensive, and thus limiting their options in terms of the service bundles smaller service providers can offer. The small Internet companies say that this is actually the real aim of of the new rules being advocated by the larger carriers: to eliminate them from the market altogether creating a near-monopoly.
But it does seem to fit the pattern of decision-making exhibited by the CRTC. I can’t think of a single ruling in the past 10 years that has favoured either the consumer or the ideal of improved competition. To answer the lead question of my article superficially; the CRTC regulates not only radio-frequency and wireless technology (who can transmit on what frequency), but also who can have access to property to install infrastructure such as cable or phone lines and under what terms. And it’s precisely because they regulate the infrastructure, they also get to regulate the rates consumers pay for those services. But small Internet companies are distantly removed from any of this, yet their business models are directly impacted when the CRTC and extends its mandate into the world of how much data transmitted over the infrastructure should cost.
But it’s been decades since that infrastructure was laid down and while it is still maintained today and rights of access and other practical concerns need regulation, it’s really hard to see what business the CRTC has in dictating what pricing model a small Internet service can offer its customers.
Yet that’s precisely what it’s doing today.
And so the time has come perhaps to review the CRTC’s role and, in fact, limit its ability to regulate in the area of data and Internet. These newer technologies simply don’t need a regulatory body to involve itself the way the CRTC does and it should be explicitly prohibited from having any say in how the industry is run. It should enforce the right of access to subsidiary carriers to all services which are part of its mandate – for those services exist by virtue of government regulation. But beyond that, there’s simply no need that I can see for them to be involved.
Here’s hoping the upcoming review uncovers this obvious truth and that the Conservative government decides to take a common-sense approach to ensuring consumers are protected and the market remains healthy and competitive.