Vox News :: Politics & Society

Justice may be blind, but people are not

Judges know a good deal when they see one, as does Joe Public.

The judge presiding over Rahim Jaffer’s case didn’t mince words in telling the former Tory MP he was getting a good deal when charges of drug possession and drunk driving against him were dropped.

And because of Jaffer’s position, taxpayers will have a hard time seeing it as anything but a “break.”

via www.torontosun.com

It’s hard to say which is more offensive about this case: that Jaffer was let off with a slap on the wrist for a series of very serious offence, or that he publicly demonstrated on the courthouse steps his belief that Canadians are stupid.

Criminals get off on technicalities all the time. Maybe Jaffer’s drug charges were dropped because of “search and seizure” issues. Who knows? But for Jaffer to proclaim that the cocaine never existed, because the related charges have been dropped, that goes way beyond offensive and insulting. Jaffer essentially said, “Look, the charges were dropped, so the cocaine found in my car, well, that never happened.” Who does Mr. Arrogant think he is? More importantly, how stupid does he think Canadians are?

That the charges were dropped is a technicality; it does not negate the fact of the drugs having been found in his car.

At least, this sorry episode teaches us one important lesson about the next election. No one should vote for Jaffer (if he should decide to run again), his wife Helena Guergis, or for Vic Toews, whose recent outburst shows that he’s prepared to set aside the facts for the sake of “defending” a fellow Conservative.

If being Conservative is more important than the criminal, or any outrageous, acts such a person may have committed, then it’s time for Toews to “recalibrate” his priorities in life. But he won’t change his tune, so that makes Toews as much of a write-off as Jaffer and Guergis.

That “let’s-close-the-ranks-quick” mentality is grossly redolent of the Liberals, and not becoming of conservatives at all.

Kudos, Mr. McGuinty

Ontario's road to economic recovery leads through the classroom, with a new strategy to turn education into an export industry.

The province plans to create another 20,000 spaces this year in its universities and colleges – and hopes to fill many of them by boosting enrolment of international students by 50 per cent over five years.

via www.theglobeandmail.com

Yes, I like what Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is about to do. Education is key to everything today. Government could virtually disappear from almost all other sectors, but education is the one area where government should play a strong, if not exclusive, role in ensuring that everyone has unfettered access to all levels and types of training and education.

This is the century of the Knowledge Society and Knowledge Economy. With artificial restrictions on access to education – in terms of space and finance – being imposed on Canadians everywhere, many promising talents, possibly even future Nobel laureates, are regularly thwarted. Tuition fees are on the rise, and around 80-90 percent of qualified potential students are turned down by the universities they have applied to, because they claim they don’t enough “space” to admit them all. Many of those “rejects” then drop the idea of going to university altogether. A great loss to them, as well as to this country’s economy.

Mr. McGuinty, therefore, deserves two-fold praise. First, for creating 20,000 more spaces, which is an important initial step, and second, for setting up the Ontario Online Institute, a virtual university. This shows foresight on the Premier’s part, as almost all courses of study could easily be completed online or by correspondence. Online education helps reduce costs, both for the schools and the students. The fact that universities still insist on physical structures and students attending classes and exams in the flesh is proof that the leaders of our universities are not as brainy as they’d like to think. By comparison, the University of London in Britain has been very successful with its correspondence degree programs (including law school!) for over a hundred years.

Time for Canada to wake up and move into the 21st century. Thankfully, Premier McGuinty seems to have realized this and is prepared to do what is necessary to become a major player in the Knowledge Economy.

A future for Tories in Ontario?

Ontario needs the Progressive Conservatives to clean up after a “reckless failed” Liberal government, Opposition Leader Tim Hudak said Saturday as he fired up the Tory troops for the 2011 election.

Mr. Hudak unleashed a blistering attack on Premier Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals during his keynote address to about 1,000 delegates at the Conservatives' annual general meeting in Ottawa, with the theme “Ontario can lead again.”

via www.theglobeandmail.com

Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty has made a lot of mistakes over the years. Yet, Ontarians keep electing Liberals in general elections as well as in byelections. For example, Ontarians have made a big fuss about the coming HST (Harmonized Sales Tax), which will see prices go up for consumers in a substantial way, yet in recent byelections, voters in Ontario again opted for the Liberal candidate.

As one newspaper noted today, the Ontario Liberals have been shifting slightly to the right, thus taking over the field normally occupied by the Progressive Conservatives. If McGuinty continues this transformation, voters will find it difficult to differentiate between Liberals and PC. In other words, the next election will come down to personality and leadership. Whom will Ontarians prefer to see in the premier’s chair? McGuinty or Hudak?

With policy differences fading, the voters’ decision will pivot on the kind of leader Ontarians want to see in charge. McGuinty, despite his past mistakes and flaws, does have an advantage, because people know him better than they do Hudak, who is still a relatively green and untested party leader.

Harper wants input on pension reform

The Harper government is launching a cross-country debate on Canada's pension system, asking Canadians what it will take to get them to save more for retirement and what should be done to keep those savings safe.

[…] At the individual level, several studies warn that middle-class Canadians simply aren't saving enough.

via www.theglobeandmail.com

There’s no doubt that the lack of retirement savings and plans among Canadians will create a major problem in the future.

Still, one cannot but chuckle at the way the Globe and Mail (and/or the Prime Minister’s Office?) phrases the question: “What will it take to get Canadians to save more for retirement?”

The thing is that Canadians do want to save for retirement, but they can’t. You want to know why? Because the average Canadian family (“middle class”) pays at least 45% of its annual income in taxes alone (see link1 and link2), making taxes the number-one spending item, ahead of the basic necessities of life – food, clothing, shelter – and most certainly way ahead of any spare change Canadians can afford to put aside for the golden years.

So, to answer the above question: Reduce the tax burden on Canadian families from 45% down to no more than 20%. Canadians are hardworking people who are entitled to keep at least two-thirds of their income. Leave that money in their pockets, and they will have enough to save for retirement.

Simpson is right: 5-year forecasts are for the birds

Five-year forecasts are a mug's game, anyway. Too many things are unknown to carve in stone any prediction.

via www.theglobeandmail.com

The above quote is from Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson, expounding on the nonsense of five-year forecasts in this week’s federal budget in Canada.

While Simpson is absolutely correct in this context, his statement shows him up as the hypocrite that he is. This is the same Jeffrey Simpson who spends almost every other column screaming that the sky is falling, because we’re not doing enough about climate change – a “change” that is predicated on … multiple-year forecasts!

If five-year forecasts are for the birds in public finance, then predictions about the weather and climate five, ten, twenty, fifty or a hundred years from now are just as fraudulent.

Too bad that Simpson, like all lefties, measure the world by double standards – one for everyone else, and one for one’s own (left-wing) agenda.

Actions speak louder than words

The government announced Wednesday in the throne speech that Parliament will explore rewording the anthem and returning it to its original gender-neutral wording.

via www.canada.com

How do you know when your Conservative government has ceased being an actual conservative government? Answer: They waste your time and money with political correctness, which is a mental disorder.

Changing the lyrics of a national anthem is not what gender equality is all about. Actions speak louder than words. Ask yourselves this, all you men out there: Do you treat the women in your life – spouse, girlfriend, co-workers, employees, etc. – as equals? If you do, great, problem solved, and we can move on to other, more important things.

Honestly, this feels like bizarro world: Harper, the “Conservative”, has been afflicted with the disease political correctness and useless symbolism (e.g., an award for volunteerism and other symbolic nonsense), while Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is the only one to make sense and speak the truth on this non-issue:

"Anything that makes a national anthem more gender sensitive is a good thing," he told reporters. "But, with no disrespect (to) those who feel strongly on this issue, but for heaven's sake, we've got some very important challenges. And every time the government is asked to do something real, it does something symbolic."

Could it be that of the two leaders, Ignatieff is actually more conservative than the Prime Minister? There does seem to be mounting evidence of that.

Why we must end the equalization system

Canadians have long been told it is our duty as compassionate citizens to transfer money from the so-called "have" provinces to the have-nots. So they might be surprised to discover the ostensibly worse-off provinces in fact receive more lavish public services. Have-nots can staff their hospitals better, give students cut-rate tuition and fund more day care among other disparities in comparison to "have" provinces.

Simply put, the have-nots have unfocused and large social programs, bigger governments and do so at the expense of taxpaying families and businesses in the have provinces. It's the unfortunate but predictable consequence of federal transfer programs which prop up poor policy in have-nots and hammer the traditional have provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

via www.calgaryherald.com

Mark Milke has written a concise article explaining why Canada’s equalization system is wrong and should be abolished. (Readers are urged to click on the above link and read Milke’s entire article.)

The “have” provinces keep sending huge amounts of money (Alberta’s share last year, according to Alberta’s finance minister: $21 billion) to provinces that are “have-nots” on account of pursuing (unrealistic) Big Government, utopian dreams.

The original idea of equalization was to ensure that all parts and regions of Canada would enjoy similar-type services. But as the example of university tuition shows, the balance that was sought through equalization has not happened – quite the contrary is true:

For example, the average university tuition is $5,040 in B.C., $5,361 in Alberta, $5,643 in Ontario -- and just $2,167 in Quebec for Quebecers.

Equalization has been attempted elsewhere, too, such as in the European Community. There, the experiment has proved the old adage: equalization never leads to better standards for all, but lower and lesser standards instead. As a matter of fact, whenever nations or groups of nations attempt to “equalize” economic and social circumstances, everything and everyone are dragged down to the lowest common denominator.

Ultimatum for Stephen Harper: increase GST, reduce income taxes, or lose my vote

By increasing the GST from 5% to 7%, the federal government would have approximately $12-billion in revenue to reduce income taxes. With that $12 billion, the federal government could eliminate the two top personal income tax rates (26% and 29%) and increase the threshold of the 22% income tax rate to $45,000 from $41,472. In addition, the government could completely eliminate the capital gains tax (and make good on one of its original election promises).

via network.nationalpost.com

Bravo! Every time I read articles by economists who say that the only proper way of doing things is to reduce income taxes (preferably down to zero) while increasing consumption taxes (e.g., GST), I start asking myself why Stephen Harper, an economist, has never thought of that approach.

Imagine: If we restored the GST to its previous level, we could scrap the top income-tax brackets and increase the threshold for the 22% bracket. Canadians, who are robbed of at least 45% of their annual income, would be left with more money in their pockets. This would have two positive outcomes:

1. Canadians could stimulate the economy.
2. Canadians could finally start putting money aside for retirement.

But don’t hold your breath waiting to hear anything even remotely similar from Harper. I have said it before, and I will again urge the University of Calgary: please revoke Harper’s degree in economics. Allowing Harper to call himself an economist (with credentials from the U of C) is harmful to the university’s reputation. Unfortunately, Harper can’t even add two and two. If he could, we wouldn’t be in this mess after four years of conservative stewardship.

Oh, wait. There was no conservative stewardship in the last four years. At best, we’ve seen Liberal Lite. On the fiscal side, Harper has made every mistake he could have possibly made:

• He reduced the GST instead of income taxes and complicated the tax code further by inserting all sorts of useless (read: bogus) “tax credits” (tax credits are not tax relief, but invariably a scam)
• On his watch, government spending ballooned to unprecedented proportions – even previous Liberal governments weren’t as profligate.

I’m throwing down the gauntlet, Mr. Harper. Deliver exactly what these economists propose before the next election, and you’ll have my vote. If you fail to do so, I’ll vote for that guy, er, former Harvard professor, just to teach you a lesson.

Time to deport foreign criminals

The pattern of death is inescapable.

Two young Somali men were slain in Alberta last week, the RCMP confirmed yesterday, marking the 25th and 26th murders of men born in the war-torn country over the past four years.

Yet again, the victims were born in Somalia but raised in Toronto.

Yet again, the victims appear to have had links to a bustling drug trade between Ontario and Alberta.

via www.theglobeandmail.com

This latest incident throws up the following question: why do we allow those criminals to stay in Canada? Every immigrant should be tossed out of the country the first time he or she commits a criminal offence.

Saed Adad, one of the two murder victims, had a long record of violent crimes and drug-trafficking. The first time he showed up on the radar screen of law enforcement, he should have been shipped back to Somalia.

This statement, by Mahamad Accord, who heads a Somali community centre, is simply beyond the pale:

"We must put more resources towards this. Contrary to what some people say, these were Canadian men and this is a Canadian problem; not a Somalian problem."

No, it is a Somalian problem, not a Canadian one. If anything, it’s a “Canada-gets-abused-yet-again-by-foreign-criminals” problem.

The only “resources” that, according to Accord, should be spent on this problem are the necessary funds and logistics to round up those criminals and send them back to their home countries.

Do we have to wait until those Somali thugs start a shootout somewhere and kill Canadians, instead of each other? That would be completely unacceptable. Time for government to act.

The farce that is our immigration system

Mojgan Nadafi arrived in Canada from Iran two years ago, armed with a raft of impressive qualifications as a midwife and a deep desire to resume her career.

She held both a bachelor's and master's degree in midwifery, had worked in her profession for 15 years, taught midwifery at university and authored papers in medical journals.

"I thought when they saw my degrees and my experience, they would ask me to start a job. But they says, `No,' I had to get certified."

via www.thestar.com

Nadafi is a great example illustrating how Canada’s immigration system toys with the lives of people. Before landing in Canada, Nadafi’s credentials had been good enough for her scientific articles to be published in major journals, including in the US. Her degree and professional background had also been sufficient to obtain the necessary minimum points to qualify for immigration to Canada. But like every immigrant coming to Canada with foreign (professional and/or academic) credentials, Nadafi then learned the hard way that her credentials, fully recognized by embassy officials handling her immigration application, became null and void the minute she landed in Canada.

At a cost of $18,000-$20,000, Nadafi had to “re-learn” her skills. Apparently, she was able to find the money and time somehow, but most immigrants don’t. They give up and drive taxis, clean toilets or deliver pizzas for the rest of their lives. Is it any wonder, then, that the income levels of immigrants are so much lower than those for native-born Canadians? Does it surprise anyone that we still complain of skills shortages in every single field and discipline, while we have ourselves chauffeured to a dentist’s appointment by someone who may well hold both a PhD and an MD? How much longer will Canadians accept this travesty – costing taxpayers at least $18 billion a year to support 77% of current immigrants who cannot support themselves and their families – that lures newcomers to Canada under false pretences (i.e., letting them believe their credentials are recognized) and turns them into welfare cases at the expense of taxpayers?

We, as a country, must be upfront: Either stop awarding immigration points to applicants for credentials that aren’t recognized here, or establish a simple rule: when a credential is good enough for approving an application, then it will also have to be accepted and recognized – with no ifs or buts attached – once the individual has landed on Canadian soil, without blackmailing the newcomer into paying $20,000 for “re-learning” his or her skills. (Let’s not forget that most universities and schools outside of Canada actually provide an education that is by far superior to most anything on offer in Canada.)

Or do what the Australians have been doing successfully for ages: prequalify and recognize their credentials before applicants enter Australia. The Australian system is honest, unlike like Canada’s. This way, any newcomer to Australia has all the paperwork he or she needs to be successful in the new country from day one.