Dalton’s folly?

The Dalton McGuinty government plans to offer $4,000 to $10,000 in incentives to those who purchase electric cars, starting next year. The financial incentives are part of the Ontario government’s plan to be in the vanguard of the next generation of the auto industry.

The idea of vehicles powered by non-carbon based energy might be a good one if the alternative energy was not itself generated by carbon-based fuels.

Just where will Ontario’s electricity come from to fuel these electric cars? Ontario’s future electricity supply is not at all assured and will probably be based, at least in part, on carbon-burning sources such as coal and natural gas. Electricity is clean when used as a fuel, but “dirty” when generated by non-renewable energy sources.

This is only the start. Look for millions of Ontario tax dollars to be spent on infrastructure—like charging stations—to support these $40,000 (minimum) autos that only the well-to-do can afford. And by the way, these are short-trip vehicles, with some early models expected to go 64 kilometres on a charge. Say good-by to trips to the family cottage or expect to stop and charge up every 45 minutes or so.

Why not offer a $10,000 incentive to residents to trade in 10-year-old vehicles which pollute the environment? That would be a better investment and would stimulate the purchase of all types and costs of cars as replacements for the old polluters, giving a boost to the economy and a chance for ordinary residents on low or medium incomes to participate in the government give-away.

I’d feel much better about this decision if we had a more credible person calling the shots at Queen’s Park. I wouldn’t trust Premier McGuinty or any of his ministers with a dime of my tax money after seeing them lie, stumble and bumble through the better part of a term and a half in office.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

CFRB’s John Moore gives another of his rants on climate change

The Lib-Left world of CFRB’s late afternoon talk radio host, John Moore contains no worst examples of human stupidity than those who dare question his “truth” about climate change. In Moore’s world, skeptics are called “deniers”—it is easier to label one’s opponents than it is to disprove their assertions.

I read the National Post regularly and look forward to its op-ed pages each morning. Generally there is a right-wing slant to the opinions expressed there, and I appreciate that the Post does try to balance things with pieces from the “left.” But Moore’s piece—Climate skeptic arguments don't hold ice—seems just one more pointless screed that proponents of the theory of Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) have been feeding us for the past couple of decades.

Moore begins with a bit of nonsense about how deniers use anecdotal evidence to question AGW. Then he uses his own anecdotal evidence— crushing heat wave in India and this year’s drought on the prairie—to support his own argument for AGW.

Follow this logic if you can. First Moore offers that:

“The deniers are great at cherry-picking oddball weather but they have a harder time explaining why Manitoba has suffered the worst flooding in a century twice in the last decade. Or why the Netherlands has been forced to come up with a whole new civic architecture because two centuries of sea-level control no longer works.”

Then he engages in some cherry-picking of his own with:

“Earlier this year, I learned that the guys who build and maintain outdoor hockey rinks in southern Ontario were complaining that the number of days they could produce a useable surface had dwindled to so few that it was hardly worth putting up the boards and getting out the hose. Civic administrations had begun to consider purchasing permanent plastic rinks produced in the United States at a cost of about $180,000 each.”

A scientist John Moore is not, but he does not mind dismissing other’s views because he considers them to be unqualified. Take the case of Senior Operations Research Analyst at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Alan Carlin. Carlin is an economist and physicist who submitted a 98-page paper questioning assumptions on climate change and pointing out that climatologists have been ignoring other more important sources of warming.

Moore writes:

“The skeptics have been in a particularly gleeful froth in recent weeks over reports of the suppressed EPA report. This would be juicy stuff ... if it were true.”

But the story is true. Carlin did write the report and it was suppressed—that’s a fact. Other scientists at the EPA and elsewhere might disagree with or dismiss what Carlin had to say, but the existence of the report and the fact its release was held up is not in question.

But Carlin, you see, is an economist so his views on AGW should be dismissed. And Al Gore and John Moore are what kind of scientists? And what are the academic credentials of AGW guru, David Suzuki? Why, Dr. Suzuki is a geneticist. Biology is his area of expertise.

In Moore’s wacky cherry-picking world: Carlin is a physicist so must not be believed, but Suzuki is a biologist and Gore is a failed politician so they should be believed—go figure.

John More is an entertainment reporter, film reviewer and radio “drive home” show host—hardly the background one looks to when seeking advice on scientific matters.

According to Moore:

“The deniers are obsessed with temperature because they can’t explain all the other anomalies. All right, let’s talk temperature. A popular skeptic assertion is that warming has stopped; they insist that 1998 was the warmest year, which is true because 1998 was an especially aberrant year.”

I see. It’s only us “deniers” who are “obsessed with temperature,” not the other guys. And, of course, since 1998 does not fit nicely into Moore’s theory, it is “an especially aberrant year.”

Wow! Can this guy cherry-pick.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

Ezra Levant calls out Jennifer Lynch

Journalist, popular blogger and and super pain in the backside of the Canada’s human rights establishment, Ezra Levant, has called Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission Jennifer Lynch a liar—in fact, he called her a “damned liar” in his blog.

When I read that Ms. Lynch denied that CHRC staff hacked into a private citizen’s Internet account and that commission investigators post hateful messages on the Internet, I wondered how long it would take for her to be challenged. Had she not been challenged, I would have had to reevaluate my opposition to her agency.

Well, the challenge came on Saturday—and it’s a doozy! I have not been on the Internet much for the past few days and missed Mr. Levant’s blog post until this afternoon.

These individuals cannot both be telling the truth—one is obviously not. I don’t know either of them personally, but favour Mr. Levant’s version.

I hope Ms. Lynch will either show documented proof of her version or step aside for her government responsibilities. No one whose veracity has been so directly challenged, and who does not give a successful defence of her good character, is fit to hold such high government office.

PM Stephen Harper or the responsible minister of the crown should step in and either wholeheartedly support Ms. Lynch or relieve her of her responsibility before all dignity and credibility in her office is irrevocably lost.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

Hats off to Jason Kenney for requiring visas for Czechs and Mexicans

The minister of citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism, Jason Kenney, has announced that beginning today Mexican nationals will require a visa to travel to Canada. This move is in response to the fact that refugee claims from Mexico have almost tripled since 2005, making it the number one source country for claims.

Yes, Mexico, the very place Canadians flock to in the tens of thousands. If life is so repressive there, how come so many foreigners visit that country each year?

During 2008, more than 9,400 claims filed in Canada came from Mexican nationals, representing 25 per cent of all claims received, and, of those claims reviewed and finalized in 2008, only 11 per cent were accepted as being genuine.

According to Minister Kenney, each claim cost us about $29,000 including costs at all three levels of government.

This welcome move by the Conservative government comes at the same time that Canada reinstated a visa requirement on visitors from the Czech Republic after hundreds of Roma from that country sought asylum here. The visa requirement for the Czech Republic was only lifted in 2007 and, since then, refugee claims increased several fold. Our government suspects many cases were not genuine as they were withdrawn or abandoned before a final decision was made.

“In addition to creating significant delays and spiraling new costs in our refugee program, the sheer volume of these claims is undermining our ability to help people fleeing real persecution. “The visa process will allow us to assess who is coming to Canada as a legitimate visitor and who might be trying to use the refugee system to jump the immigration queue.” – Hon. Jason Kenney

On TV this afternoon, Minister Kenney said that on some recent flights from Prague the majority of passengers on plane were asylum seekers.

Of course, European Union diplomats and officials have been quick to signal that Canadians could face visa restrictions from member countries in retaliation.

The Mexican embassy in Canada was also quick to react, saying in a statement that the government of Mexico “regrets the decision,” and “Mexico will continue to promote actions toward modifying the Canadian measure as soon as possible.”

Isn’t this a joke? Both the EU and Mexico, by asking Canada to reverse its policy, are sort of agreeing that refugee claimants from their countries have a genuine reason to fear returning to their homelands. Curious that.

Here’s hoping PM Stephen Harper will resist the pressure. Minister Kenney is the first immigration minister in decades to take a Canada-first stance towards those making a mockery of our immigration and refugee policies.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

Moral tales to live by, perhaps, but certainly not literal truths

Growing up, I was taught that one should always have tolerance for all religions and religious beliefs, and I accepted that as a reasonable thing to do. What I have far more difficulty with, however, is the notion that one must always respect the religious beliefs of others. In other words, I tolerate religious beliefs of all, but do not always respect them.

For example, I do not respect a belief that children should be denied blood transfusions, or that women should be denied their proper place as equals of men in every aspect of religious practice—including the Christian priesthood or Muslim forms of everyday dress—or that ancient texts like the Bible and the Koran (Qur’an) should be the end-all in ethical behaviour or secular human relationships.

Not surprisingly, therefore, I am quite appalled at the controversy that PM Stephen Harper finds himself in over a simple religious ceremony for which he may or may not have paid the fullest of respect.

“DID HARPER POCKET WAFER?” screams a headline on today’s front page of the National Post. Good grief, does it really matter?

I, as someone who is inclined towards scientific reasoning, cannot take seriously a religious belief expressed by Neil MacCarthy, director of communications for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto, who is quoted in the Post as saying:

“It’s not a symbol of the body and blood of Christ, but is in fact [emphasis mine] the body and blood of Christ. The Communion wafer starts as a host and becomes the body of Christ.”

I’m sorry, but I cannot—despite trying to do so while being brought up in the Roman Catholic tradition—take such beliefs literally. I have taken Communion in an Anglican Church, but to me it was only symbolic never the actual body and blood of anyone. Such a notion I find quite barbaric and unworthy of any civilized institution.

If there is a God in the Christian sense, She or He must be shaking His or Her head in utter disbelief that after hundreds of years of enlightenment, many of us still believe in a mythology no more convincing than that which was the basis of the beliefs of ancient Egyptians, Greeks or Romans. Moral tales to live by, perhaps, but certainly not literal truths.

“It’s worse than a faux pas, it’s a scandal from the Catholic point of view,” Monsignor Brian Henneberry, vicar general and chancellor in the Diocese of Saint John, is quoted as telling the Telegraph-Journal.

To which I say: poppycock!

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

When OS worlds collide, will Google fulfill Netscape’s dream?

There was a time several years ago when technologists foretold the day when the then dominant Web browser, Netscape Navigator, would become a full-fledged computer operating system (OS) going head to head with Microsoft’s ubiquitous Windows operating system.

That day never came, of course. In fact, Netscape Navigator has all but disappeared. Yet the idea that a Web browser could become the foundation of an OS is very much alive and is set to become a reality in about 12 months—assuming Web search giant and chief Microsoft rival, Google, has its way.

On July 7, the Silicon Valley-based Internet software giant, Google Inc., announced Google Chrome OS, an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks—small laptop-like computers retailing for less than $500. Google Chrome OS will eventually run on desktop computers, offering a realistic and low-cost alternative to Microsoft Windows.

The new OS will be available for consumers in the second half of 2010. The Google Chrome OS project is separate from Google’s other operating system Android, which was designed to work across a variety of devices from phones to set-top boxes to netbooks.

Few technologies in history have had the impact on as broad a cross-section of populations around the world as has the Internet and its most ubiquitous feature, the World Wide Web (the Web), invented in the early 1990s by Sir Timothy Berners-Lee, an English computer scientist and MIT professor.

By the formative years of the Web, 1991 through 1995, Microsoft had emerged as the leader in computer software technology, having vanquished all serious competitors who challenged its supremacy. All competitors, that is, except Netscape which by 1994 dominated the Web with its Netscape Navigator Web browser. Microsoft had failed to recognize the significance of the Web and its emerging technologies and had largely neglected to participate in the rise of the Internet.

Scrambling to recover from its strategic blunder, in 1995 Microsoft used a licensed version of Mosaic Web browser as the basis of Internet Explorer 1.0, which Microsoft released as part of its Windows 95 Plus! Pack. In that move, Microsoft engaged Netscape in a battle for Internet supremacy—a battle to Netscape’s death as it turned out.

During its struggle with Netscape, Microsoft wielded an almost invincible weapon in that it gave away for free a product that competed with the products that made up the great bulk of Netscape’s income: Navigator and its derivatives.

Google Inc. may now be set to turn the tables on Microsoft with Google Chrome OS, which is an open source product and will be free, while Microsoft’s Windows is a proprietary (closed) technology costing hundreds of dollars for its most robust versions.

Some analysts point out that the Google Chrome OS is just another Linux  distribution, and, in the past decade, Linux has failed to gain much traction in the consumer marketplace. Perhaps, but what seems to be different this time is that this Linux distribution has gained the backing of a big outfit, Google Inc., with deep pockets and office floors filled with brilliant computer scientists and engineers, not to mention a level of credibility with consumers that rivals Microsoft’s own.

With the release of Windows 7 set for October 22, Microsoft is sure to be scrambling to adjust its pricing strategies. Currently, a full version of Windows Vista Home Basic retails for US $199.95 and the Ultimate edition costs US $319.95. This profit-rich price structure will not prevail for long if the Google Chrome OS turns out to be a serious product—good news for consumers.

Microsoft already announced that, for a limited time, consumers in the United States, Canada and some other countries will be able to buy an “upgrade” copy of Windows 7 Home Premium for $49 or Windows 7 Professional for $99. The sale began on June 26, and will end on July 11 according to Microsoft. The Ultimate Edition is priced at $219 for the upgrade.

Already we are hearing about a multi-license “family pack” for Windows 7 at US $149.99. At $149.99, the Family Pack would save a buyer US $210 over three separate Home Premium upgrades. Such Windows pricing was unheard of in the pre-Google Chrome OS days when I purchased my retail copy of Windows Vista. Look for more consumer-friendly pricing offers from Microsoft in the next 24 months.

Is Microsoft destined to learn the old adage: live by the sword, die by the sort, i.e., live by the predatory pricing strategy, die by the predatory pricing strategy? I hope so.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

Mr. Simpson: if not Canada, then where?

I spent a few days last week in Ottawa, and while I was there I read a rather boorish opinion piece in the Globe and Mail by Jeffrey  Simpson, that newspaper’s national affairs columnist. Mr Simpson took exception to the fact that, apparently, almost 90 per cent of Canadians believe they live in “the best country in the world.”

Remember that last Wednesday was Canada Day and I was in the capital to celebrate our country’s birthday—I was in no mood for Canada-bashing.

I happen to be one of those who does believe Canada is the best country in the world. If it is not, then I wish Mr. Simpson would tell us which country is. He cautions:

“There are many admirable aspects of Canada, and we exult in them around Canada Day. But the dangers of thinking of your country as the cat’s meow are hubris and, worse still, a stubborn inability to look problems in the eye or to learn from others.”

Apparently, in Mr. Simpson’s world, loving one’s country and believing it is the “cat’s meow” prevents one from looking problems in the eye or learning from others. Who knew these were mutually exclusive?

He also writes:

“If there is one assertion around which almost all Canadians would rally, it is that the ‘world needs more Canada.’ The assumption supporting this assertion is that we Canadians are so worthy, morally upright and generally well-intentioned that the world would be a better place if it were more like, well, us. Which, in turn, leads Canadians to their deadliest sin: an unsinkable moral superiority.”

Yes, relatively speaking, we Canadians are so worthy, morally upright and generally well-intentioned that the world would be a better place if it were more like us. And I write this without the slightest fear it will lead me to the “deadliest sin: an unsinkable moral superiority.” We have an entire year to contemplate and improve upon our faults—the week of Canada Day is one time I don’t feel I have to dwell on our weaknesses much less remind others of them.

Mr. Simpson then parades before us a laundry list of short-comings:

• worst record for emitting greenhouse-gas emissions
• flogging asbestos around the world
• clubbing baby seals and giving ourselves a black eye in Europe
• the tar sands
• blocking agricultural reform to preserve the protectionist supply management system during the Doha round of the world trade negotiations
• commitment of our troops to NATO’s mission in Afghanistan
• a country excessively dependent not on brain power but on natural resources.

In conclusion, Mr. Simpson graciously acknowledges, “There are admirable aspects of being Canadian, and these have all been justly celebrated on Canada Day.”

How sweet of him to give his permission for us to celebrate. But, like the party pooper he is, he just can’t resist one final warning:

“…self-satisfaction can lead to a refusal to acknowledge weaknesses, to allow patriotism to curb critical thought, to refuse to face hard choices, and to cover a slow, albeit comfortable, slide toward international marginality and domestic mediocrity.”

What a load of poppycock. Perhaps Mr. Simpson allows “patriotism to curb critical thought,” but I very much doubt many of the rest of us do. As to the remainder of that paragraph: baloney!

Some of what Mr. Simpson had to say is accurate—though we did outlaw the clubbing of “baby” seals over 20 years ago. He is especially correct when he writes “there are admirable aspects of being Canadian…” But, of course, he never bothers to spell out any of our virtues, only our faults.

What convinced me that Jeffrey Simpson anti-Canada rant was ill-conceived was his lack of evidence that any other country in the world was better than Canada. Sure, we have faults, but they are fewer and less egregious than those of other countries. In comparison to most other countries in this imperfect world, Canada is an utopia.

Canada Day and the days of that week remind us of how lucky we are and give us the opportunity and reason to celebrate publicly the greatness of our land. How ungracious it is to choose that particular week to spell out the few things that make our country imperfect.

Mr. Simpson: if not Canada, then where?

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

So much money, so little time to spend it

One really has to wonder at what the heck is going on in Ottawa these days. The Conservative government of PM Stephen Harper set up a fund to promote tourism and “make nice” with the arts community after seeing the unpleasant electoral consequences to which cuts to assorted arts programs on the eve of last federal election can lead.

However, after handing out $400,000 to Toronto’s gay community for its annual festival, Canada’s Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, Diane Ablonczy, has had her hand slapped and she’s lost responsibility for administering the tourism funding program from which the money came.

Whether or not one agrees with the gay lifestyle, Toronto’s gay pride week does consistently draw many thousands of tourists to that city each year. So what’s the big deal about the feds helping to fund it? Senior members of the Conservative Party of Canada and the Progressive Conservative Party, one of its predecessors, have attended gay events for the past several years. The CPC also chose to let same-sex marriage go unchallenged when it took office—in effect, condoning the practice. So I ask again: what’s the big deal?

If this article at Macleans.ca can be believed, there does not seem to be any shortage of money to fund these so called “festivals.” Ministers of the crown don’t seem to be able to shovel the money out the door fast enough.

In the past couple of weeks alone, James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, John Baird, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Rona Ambrose, Minister of Labour, Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, Denis Lebel, Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Michel Rivard, Senator and Greg Kerr, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs have all announced payouts amounting to millions of federal dollars to support tourist events.

Like it or not, we live in a culturally diverse society which includes practices I find offensive, some of which our federal tax money subsidizes. So why single out this lone event against which to take a stand? I don’t get it. Who are we trying to please?

If anything, this year’s gay pride week was one of the tamest with less of the vulgarity and excess we have seen in the past. So this is not a family friendly event, so what? Many of the tourist events funded by Ottawa are not the sort of stuff to which one normally takes children.

I’m confused: one minute our party’s leaders are falling over themselves to appeal to every group they can find who might someday vote for them, and the next minute they are disciplining and publicly embarrassing a Minister of State for giving money to a gay group.

Liberals are not the only hypocrites about in our land.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

Ignatieff sells himself like a midway freak show

Apparently, the Liberal Party’s leader Michael Ignatieff chose to sell opportunities for potential supporters to see him in person at $40 a head much like was done at carnival midways, where sideshows charged for the opportunity to view freaks of nature.

He could have used his Stampede breakfast as a way of getting to know the ordinary people of Calgary and giving them the opportunity of seeing him in the flesh. In other words, a way of making new friends—and the Lord knows Liberals need all the friends that can make in Alberta. Instead, Mr. Ignatieff chose to ignore the free-flapjacks tradition and used the annual event as a fund raiser.

You can read a reaction from an Alberta, here.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

Taking a break for a few days

I won’t be blogging for the next few days. My next post will probably be next Monday or Tuesday.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

They voted for him, they got him, now they’d love to dump him

With any luck the untenable situation in Toronto will prove to be an eye opener for the voters in that unfortunate city. Toronto is in crisis yet, quite incredibly, its mayor allows himself  to be barred from holding meetings at city hall, acknowledging that he can no longer guarantee public access to the seat of his government.

Garbage accumulates in the parks, Canada Day celebrations are cancelled, participation in a once-in-a-generation federal infrastructure/stimulus funding program is bungled and the city is in the midst of a crippling strike by municipal workers, but still two-term Mayor David Miller does nothing.

A new poll last week suggests Mayor Miller’s support among Toronto voters has “plummeted”—from 69% four years ago to 43% today—to the point where a majority disapprove of his performance, and he would lose in a race against possible challenger John Tory. Almost daily the mayor’s ineptness and inaction is demonstrating how unsuitable he is for the job with which Toronto voters twice entrusted him.

Shame on the mayor for his mishandling of issues such as the island airport bridge, St. Clair streetcar right-of-way project, expanded bike lanes, the future of the Gardiner Expressway, and the botched request for federal stimulus money.

And shame on the voters that put him there.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

Warren Kinsella plays fast and loose with the truth

The Liberal Party war roomer, Warren Kinsella, tells us on his blog on Sunday, how “The newly-minted Ontario Conservative leader wants to get rid of the Human Rights Tribunal.” Then he goes on to imply that the move is bad because:

“…if you are black, and someone has denied you a job because of that. It is if you are a Jew, and a will prevents you from buying a piece of land because of your faith. It is if you are gay, and someone has refused to provide you with a motel room for the night. It is if you are sexually harassed at work. It is if your union won't accommodate you because you are in a wheelchair. It is if a golf course won't let you play, because of your religion.”

Now here’s where he plays around with the truth.

Here’s a direct quotation from the Hudak campaign’s May 12 announcement on the subject:

“Tim proposes that the [Ontario Human Rights] Tribunal be scrapped in favour of a court-based system operating under the rules of evidence. Complaints would go to specially trained judges, similar to the existing Domestic Violence and Family Law Courts.” [Emphasis is mine.]

In Mr. Kinsella’s June 28, 2009 post, he neglects to point out that Mr. Hudak promises to replace the Human Rights Tribunal with “a court-based system operating under the rules of evidence.” To have mentioned this, of course, would have made his paragraph (quoted above) at best, nonsensical, or at worst, untrue.

Tim Hudak’s announcement made it plain that Ontario residents will not only not lose human rights protection, but will gain by having those rights protected by a court of law. As a lawyer, how can Mr. Kinsella see this as a bad thing?

Just more dirty tricks and half-truths from the “modern-day Machiavelli” as Mr. Kinsella is referred to on his blog.

I guess when you don’t have a pound of steak to sell, you package it with pork and pass it off as steak—and Liberals know a lot about pork.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

Tim Hudak and OHR reform

The champion of Canadian human rights commission/tribunal reform, Ezra Levant, reviews the past Ontario PC Party’s leadership campaign in terms of proposals made to maintain, reform or eliminate the human rights establishment in Ontario. This is an important conversation to be having for what happens in Ontario will almost certainly have a major impact federally and in other provinces.

I’m not 100 per cent sure just where new PC Party Leader Tim Hudak stands on the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (OHRT). I’m pleased that one of his promises during the leadership campaign was to scrap the OHRT and instead move to a court-based system. But his May 12 announcement also mentioned:

“Complaints would go to specially trained judges, similar to the existing Domestic Violence and Family Law Courts.”

Frankly, I would have been happier if the announcement had not added this reference to “specially trained judges.”

Why do our judges have to be specially trained? Are human rights so complicated or subtle that experienced judges have to be specially trained to adjudicate infringements? If our current judges have to be trained up to understand human rights legislation, what are the implications for the average citizen who is expected to understand the law well enough to comply with it? After all, ignorance of the law is not a defence.

We should be simplifying the law rather than training the judges. Surely human rights should be obvious and basic, not in any way complicated or subtle. Our intent should be to protect fundamental freedoms, not to enrich lawyers and the human rights establishment with its cadre of activists.

The language in Mr. Hudak’s May 12 announcement sounds a bit too much like the gobbly goop we have been hearing from the currently entrenched human rights establishment—you know, the likes of Barbara Hall of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and her Ottawa counterpart, Jenifer Lynch.

Human rights, as they exist in Canada, are pretty well spelled out in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And so I fail to understand why an average judge is not already competent to interpret the Charter well enough to adjudicate complaints? And, if an average judge is not up to the task, doesn’t this call into question the competency of our judiciary—the very judges currently trying all sorts of complicated, subtle cases of great importance.

I hope that with Mr Hudak’s proposals we will not be swapping one form of judicial tyranny for another.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

A conservative leader for a progressive conservative party

So, our newly minted party leader is the 41-year-old MPP for Niagara-West Glanbrook, Tim Hudak. He was considered the front runner from the start of the campaign, taking a quick lead over two-time leadership hopeful MPP Frank Klees, MPP Randy Hillier and MPP Christine Elliott. By voting day, most saw him as a favourite to win on June 27.

And Hudak did not disappoint.

After round one votes were counted, Hudak emerged in first place, closely followed by Klees and Elliott. He widened his lead in round two and won convincingly in round three, garnering more Elliott second-choice votes than many expected: on the third ballot, he needed 5,125 votes to win and got a comfortable 5,606.

Tim Hudak was born at Fort Erie, Ontario on November 1, 1967. In 1990, he earned a bachelor of arts (economics) from University of Western Ontario and a master of arts (economics) from University of Washington in 1993.

Before entering politics, Hudak worked in tourism and economic development. He has been a member of provincial parliament since 1995, serving as Minister of Northern Development and Mines, 1999-2001; Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, 2001-02; and Minister of Consumer and Business Services, 2002-03.

Hudak is married to Deb Hutton—a former chief of staff to Mike Harris—and they have a 20-month-old daughter, Miller.

PC Party of Ontario members voted on Thursday or Sunday, using a preferential ballot where they were asked to rank their top three candidates in order. Of the 43,981 PC party members eligible to vote in this election, a very disappointing 25,424 cast ballots.

The member turn-out on the two voting days signals a clear number two priority for our new leader—his first priority being party unity. The less than 60 per cent level of voter participation does not augur well for the 2011 general election. Party leaders talk often about grassroots, which is well and good so long as you have them. Currently, our roots may be deep, but there certainly aren’t many of them.

Riding associations must be energized to become hyper-active between now and the 2011 general election, for if we wait until the writ is dropped, we will have already ensured Dalton McGuinty his third majority [shudder].

Tim Hudak is reported to have said: “I’m somebody who doesn't believe that we need to choose between being conservatives and winning general elections.” That would not be a bad choice as one of the guiding principles in developing our 2011 election platform.

Hudak ran a very effective campaign, especially with the use of technology. He beat three terrific conservatives and deserved every vote he got. I wish him well.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

Tim Hudak wins PC Ontario leadership race

Well, it’s official, MP Tim Hudak has won the leadership of the Ontario PC Party.

Congratulations Tim!

Hudak widens his lead in PC Ontario’s leadership race

The second ballot results are in at the PC Ontario leadership convention, and Tim Hudak remains in first place with 4,128.5 votes to Frank Klees’s 3,299.8. Christine Elliott is in third place with a respectable though disappointing 2,903.6 votes, not enough to keep her on the third ballot. Obviously, Hudak picked up just over 600 of Randy Hillier’s 1,014 first ballot votes to strengthen his lead going into the third ballot.

This means Elliott will be dropped for the next round, and it’s anybody’s guess how her vote will split. Most would put Elliott and Hudak at opposite ends of the political spectrum—at least the PC Party’s spectrum of left- vs right-wing—and Klees would be somewhere in the middle of that. So I’d guess Klees will benefit more form Elliott’s third place finish.

Klees, however, will need to pick up more than 60 per cent of Elliott’s support to win. This may be a lot to expect, but I won’t start congratulating Hudak just yet.

It has certainly been a close race so far and I’m expecting this to continue with Hudak winning by a narrow margin.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

Hudak is Burlington’s first choice for PC Party leader

According to my source, 41 per cent of the Burlington Ontario PC Riding Association’s members voted for MP Tim Hudak as their first choice. Christine Elliott came second with 34 per cent of the first choice votes followed by Frank Klees and Randy Hillier with 20 per cent and 4 per cent respectively.

It’s interesting that this is just about the breakdown I had predicted in discussions with my wife, and is about what I had expected to see on the first round for Ontario overall. Frank Klees, however, surprised many with his strong second place finish.

Hillier’s four per cent won’t be of much help to Elliott or to Klees so Hudak will go into the third round with a strong lead. And he’ll need it for, in Burlington, it’ll be a toss-up for the final round.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

PC Ontario leadership race: Hudak leads after first round

First round results of the PC Party of Ontario’s leadership vote are now in. Tim Hudak heads into the second round with 3,512 votes, followed by Frank Klees with 3,094 and Christine Elliott with 2,729. Sadly, Randy Hillier with 1,014 votes will now be removed from the ballot and his votes redistributed based on his supporters’ second choice.

I fully expected Christine Elliott would be in second place at this point, but I congratulate Frank Klees on such a strong showing in the first round. This will surely go to three rounds since none of the three remaining candidates can win the second round with even 100 per cent of Hillier’s vote. The second ballot will decide who will make it to the third and final round.

I believe Hudak will benefit most from Hiller being dropped. Look for him to pick up about 700 former Hillier votes, moving him to the final ballot in a strong position to carry the day. Christine Elliott will benefit least from Hiller’s votes—about 100 votes or less. That leaves about 200 votes to go to Frank Klees.

The real question now looks to be how Elliot supporters’ second choice will break down, as she will almost certainly be dropped after the second round. When that happens, I fear for Tim Hudak’s chances, for it seems to me Elliott supporters will go more heavily to Klees.

For now I’ll keep my fingers crossed that Hudak will prevail.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.

Toronto’s image: slip, slip, sliding away

When did the City of Toronto lose its edge? When did the world-class wannabe cease being a model for North American urban planners and become just another so-so urban sprawl looking to cities like Chicago for inspiration? The slide, I believe, started more than a  decade ago, but it seems to have accelerated in the past half dozen years.

In fact, Toronto has lost much of its lustre since it elected David Miller as its mayor. Just as Premier Dalton McGuinty has greased the skids under the Ontario economy to the point that the province has become a “have not,” David Miller has bungled his time as mayor to the point that Toronto has become a “have not” city always whining and begging for handouts.

Miller’s term in office has been marked by gun violence with innocent people being shot in the streets, a public transportation system that has become a money pit into which taxpayer dollars disappear faster than the province can shovel them over, and a public school system that enriches teachers, but which is in desperate need for facility repair and proper security in its halls and playgrounds.

Political correctness has replaced common sense and forthright debate. Corruption and mismanagement at city hall has become common place; accountability is but a dim memory there.

Toronto cares more about its employees’ welfare than ever it does about its hard working, long suffering residents. Rather than maintain some sanity in its pay scales, Toronto closes school pools and extorts land transfer taxes and regular annual increases in real estate and business taxes. Entry level workers such as those who cut the grass are paid almost twice the Ontario minimum wage. Receptionists are paid at private sector management wage levels.

Who can point to one single thing that David Miller has done for the real betterment of the city and its residents since he took office in 2003? Other mayors left their marks, Miller will leave only scars.

Employees who are on strike, ludicrously, are allowed to dictate who can and who can not enter city property to drop off their garbage. Garbage piles up on the streets and the city’s managers and its mayor sit on their fat butts and suck their thumbs. Where are the replacement workers? Where are the private firms who are available to replace the fat-cat city employees who withhold their services in the midst of the country’s worst recession in decades?

Pickets have effectively seized control of the city. In Nathan Philllips Square, the city banned the weekly farmers’ market, but let the strikers hold a rally there. Meanwhile the mayor has abandoned his responsibilities at city hall and fled to the Metro Toronto Convention Centre to hold city council meetings instead of in the council chamber.

“Toronto the Good” has become “Gun Town” and “Toronto the Dingy,” with weedy, litter-strewn sidewalks and streets with some of the worst pot holes of any major centre in North America.

And it’s getting worse each day.

Return to Main page »
© 2009 Russell G. Campbell
All rights reserved.