Who will replace Michaëlle Jean?

Not that I matter much, or anyone else -- the choice is entirely Steve's, after all.

But my choice for Governor General ...

Oh what the heck, William Shatner!!!



Happy Canada Day, everyone!!!

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Waiting for the shoe to drop (a Big Six failure, that is)

I have mentioned several times here, and I am still amazed, that we Canadians still seem to be so darn complacent about the "safety" of our financial institutions.   While there are statutory limits to how much risk can be carried against a bank or trust company's capital the fact is that the Big Six and the Mouvement Desjardins still do have major investment and insurance arms as well as trust companies under their wings.

While they are technically separately incorporated from the banks which own them (and in the case of the trusts and mortgage companies, are also separate members of deposit insurance, allowing Canadians to increase their protected deposits sometimes by a factor of up to five) there is really no longer any such thing as the "four pillars" -- the idea that banks, trusts, brokerage houses and insurance companies neither truck nor trade with each other, aren't allowed to go into business together, are not even allowed to acknowledge that the others even exist.

And of course, there is no protection from those who have their savings stolen by scam artists.

We've seen how some investment houses in the states, really "investment banks" have had to, during the economic crisis, reincorporate as a "regular" bank taking commercial and retail deposits so the US government will cover their customer's assets in case of disaster (to avoid a repeat of the Bear Stearns debacle).   With some really clever paperwork, our banks here could do the same to cover their brokerage houses' customers.

We haven't had a major failure here since 1996 at the federal level, although at the provincial level there seems to be a credit union that is seized about once every six months.

However, in the last few years, we've become quite heavily invested in the States, as our banks have picked up bargains -- either smaller banks willing to sell, or "failed" (really seized) banks for pennies on the dollar.   A new customer base, new local markets.   The benefit -- the new customers have access to a much wider branch and dealer network.   The downside -- far greater risk in case too many people default.

It's just a matter of time.   Our banks may be "safer" but they are not one hundred percent safe any more than "safer sex" does not equate with one hundred percent safe sex (i.e. abstinence).   It will happen sooner than we think.   And while deposit insurance will ensure the vast majority of deposits are safe, there could also be a panic run by those few but many who do not understand the concept of insurance nor want to.

Maybe then the idea of a supertax or a transactions tax will then make sense.   Of course, it will also mean even less competition as six go down to five or even four.   Then Harper, or whoever is in power, will have to explain how our system is safe or competitive.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

What were they expecting? Kumbaya?

While I cannot condone violence in any way, one say to say that this past weekend's events were unavoidable and indeed entirely predictable.   Surely "Steve" should have known that there's something wrong when a summit which should be an intimate gathering of leaders and their closest advisors turns instead into a massive mostly "white guys in suits potlatch" with 600 delegates from each of the 19 countries involved plus the European Union.    At our expense.   And of course, the fact several reporters were roughed up by the police, and one even claims she was raped while under arrest in Toronto's temporary gulag (I heard this on the radio earlier but haven't seen a link yet).

Set aside the fact Mainland China, Saudi Arabia and Russia aren't even democracies (and shouldn't even be allowed into the group).

Or the fact that over the weekend, while the world's eyes were on Toronto, another three banks failed in the United States.

Or that around the world, 72,000 children died from easily preventable childhood diseases.

Or that the 18 "other" countries did not, or will not, insist that the United States finally give up its sole and absolute veto over the IMF and the World Bank.

And to think I was in a church yesterday, at the invitation of some "friends" and the minister actually appeared (from my view) to condone the police actions.

What kind of country are we living in, when due process doesn't mean anything anymore ... where habeas corpus is seen as an impediment, an inconvenience?

Oh, and the real insult -- the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, says he can do next year's event in his home country for about €80 million, or USD 100 million; about a tenth of what we paid.

Next time we have our turn, let's just have it on a military base, say Cold Lake.    Easier to secure, and  way less expensive.   Not to mention, far fewer civil rights violations will happen.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

More proof Hamilton just doesn't get it

Wind energy seems to be the way a lot of governments want to go -- and while it is clean there are still quite a lot of questions, such as those raised by my fellow bloggers at Wind Concerns Ontario. But aside from the environmental concerns is that on the business side of the equation as well as on the local level.   Many municipalities have rightly raised about the push towards one kind of generation at the expense of others, while others in their determination to promote production shoot themselves in the foot in not creating the kind of space in which such businesses can flourish.

Take Hamilton which has lost another an "incubator" business, this time to Toronto.   The company, Cleanfield Energy, also makes solar panels and power inverters in addition to turbines.The reason for the move:   Our excessively high commercial property tax rate, high water rates and what is perceived as a generally nasty attitude by city officials.   And there's that other thing:   Hamilton is still seen as Steel City and is sneered at compared to more well known places like The Big Smoke.

Okay, the recognition factor, I get.   But the tax system is something I do not.   Just because provincial rules prevent "bonusing" (that is, companies such as start ups can't get preferential treatment) does not mean that the local rules can't be relaxed for all.   Companies consistently complain about payroll taxes, but property and other levies also act as a hindrance to being able to hire people.   It's little wonder why companies like Consolidated Glass, Otis Elevator and Siemens have quit Hamilton.   Now look at all the little companies that have for the same reason.   It's amazing BMW stays in town, and that's only because of the very popular Mini.

At the rate things are going, we may just have to pave over the brownfields -- with soil, grass and trees.   But then again, that would make Hamilton a lot cooler temperature wise, which would cut down energy costs for everyone -- and reduce the need to have to build all the turbines and solar panels so many are complaining about.    And there's that mistake downtown that should never have been built at all -- Jackson Square.   Imagine if the area bounded by King, Bay, York and James had been an urban park instead.   Jack high rates for parking and the mall closes at 5:30 pm on Monday to Wednesday while all the other malls are open until 9 pm with free parking.   Perhaps the absentee landlords in Montréal don't know the by-law extending early week hours was passed -- twenty-five years ago!!!!!  

No wonder downtown is a ghost town most nights.   Wow.   City Hall never ceases to screw things up.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Special police powers = (you fill in the blank)

I'd kind of expect this kind of thing from Harper.   But Pointy Head McGuinty?   An executive order, passed quietly and without any legislative debate, giving police special powers during the G-20?   It's not of course the War Measures Act, but if it looks like an armed camp and feels like one, chances are it is.

I still for the life of me can't figure out why last year's gathering in Pittsburgh only cost about $30 million in security and this year's edition is a billion -- and it's not just the mid-course change in venue.   And there are still security breaches happening.

UPDATE (3:20 PM EDT, 1920 GMT):   Thanks to Scott Tribe for linking to this post.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Black, Skilling get huge break (maybe Blago too)

I have always said that everyone -- even the most powerful and hated -- should get a fair trial.   So today's news is quite interesting.   And it involves a subject I have brought up before -- the Baron of Crossharbour.

In two major decisions today, the US Supreme Court has said a very contentious law -- the so called "honest services" provision of a law regarding wire and mail fraud -- was misinterpreted by the trial courts that convicted Conrad Black, Jeffrey Skilling and their cohorts at Hollinger and Enron respectively.    For Black, three of his four convictions were quashed and the fourth has been remanded back to Chicago for re- sentencing.   For Skilling, he might either get a re-sentencing hearing or even a new trial.

The law -- twenty-eight words added in 1988 to 18 U.S.C. §1346 -- says: "For the purposes of this chapter, the term, scheme or artifice to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

Writing for the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that properly constructed the law was only supposed to deter bribery or kickbacks.   To go any broader would make the law too vague and therefore unconstitutional.   In Black's case, it should be clear, neither bribery or kickbacking was alleged, only that his conduct led to Hollinger's shareholders being deprived of fair value for their stocks.

In Skilling's case, the court ruled for him 9-0 on the main constitutional question (with three -- Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy JJ. -- voting to strike down the law all together) but also against him 6-3 (in a separate vote) on his claim that the extensive pre-trial publicity surrounding the collapse of Enron prejudiced his right to a fair trial (interestingly Stevens, Breyer and Sotomayor JJ. said he could not have possibly have gotten a fair trial in Houston and at the very least the venue should have been moved from Houston, Texas, the scene of the alleged crime).   Black's case was simpler, and the vote was also 9-0 in his favour (with the same three conservative justices voting to strike down).

In a third, unrelated case, the court also ruled in favour of an Alaska state legislator named Bruce Weyhrauch who claimed that the "honest services" law was misapplied when he failed to disclose a conflict of interest -- namely that he did not say he solicited business from a company with business before the legislature.   The court said simply that the federal law could not be applied if no state case calling him out on any alleged corruption had been filed or prosecuted.

This may or may not be good news for disgraced former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich who stands accused of selling President Obama's vacant Senate seat.   The feds already hedged their bets and amended their charges on the presumption that today's court ruling might go the way it did (Blago also has filed a "void for vagueness" claim) but if Rod is grasping at straws he got a huge lifeline.   At best, the honest services charges could get tossed but he still faces serious charges ... although possibly now with less jail time if convicted.

What does it all mean for Black?    Well, obviously, Conrad just might get a reduced sentence, even time served.   It's going to be very interesting to see what Judge Amy St. Eve does when this matter is returned to her docket probably sometime in August.   Back at the original sentencing, as I wrote, she was clearly exasperated and even upset that the Lord had, in her view, put so much on the line.    And many people are still waiting for an adequate explanation of what he was doing when he and / or his colleagues "borrowed" files from his Toronto office and was caught on tape doing so.   What was he taking?   What needed to be copied?   Was there anything shred?

Upon remand, Judge St. Eve has to ask Black these and other very tough questions.   If he is entitled to a lesser sentence he needs to prove it.  The scales of justice may have tipped in his favour today, but it's up to him to pull it all the way.

Far as I'm concerned, though, he still hasn't offered the major proof of all -- an explanation as to why he's entitled to get back the Canadian citizenship he forsake.   He should go to the back of the line and apply for landed status then wait three years, just like every other immigrant.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Did the earth move? (June 23 '10 5.0 earthquake on ON-QC border)

I'm in Hamilton, and I didn't  although a lot of people here did ... but the USGS got reports of the earth moving from as far away as Nebraska and Texas!   And this isn't exactly earthquake country either, although there are several fault lines that we have to be worried about ...

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Rudd out

It's not often that a prime minister is forced out by his own party for reasons other than his or her choosing.   They're usually forced out ... such as when Margaret Thatcher "voluntarily" resigned as the "leader of the free world" twenty years ago (remember the poll tax)?

Today, facing almost certain defeat at a leadership review just months before an election, Australia's Kevin Rudd threw in the towel, and the new PM is Julia Gillard, originally from Wales and the first female to hold Oz's highest office.

Hard to believe that it was just three years ago Rudd won a landslide victory.   He kept his promise to withdraw troops out of Iraq, and two years ago he offered a much belated apology to the "stolen generations" of the country's Aboriginal populace.

Why his sudden fall?   Let's see ... he pretty much abandoned his environmental promises.    He didn't go near far enough to reverse the anti-union legislation of his precessor John Howard.   His stimulus package, consisting largely of rebate cheques to those who only had to prove they paid taxes during the year, was a joke.   A home insulation retrofit program went way over budget -- a two and a half billion dollar boondoggle it was -- and at least four installers were killed by heat stroke or electrocution before the plug was finally pulled.   Oh yes ... all the troops pulled out of Iraq were merely redeployed to the equally unpopular war in Afghanistan.

No wonder Labour thought they had to clean the slate fast.   But an otherwise unopposed candidate?   That could be trouble.

I can't imagine what lessons there are for Canada ... I only note that if he right-wing ruling party seems to schlep from one scandal to another without batting an eye, and the latest public opinion poll suggests that over half of solid Conservative voters would rather stay at home than vote for their second choice if they had one, then the left has to figure out a way to make the PTFE stick.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Another "unfunded mandate": Truth in sentencing

My beef today is about unfunded mandates. This is a common complant in the States, that the feds will impose new programs on the state governments, or transfer costs to businesses or consumers without providing adequate funding as an offset.   This has been an issue with poorer states who have no plausible or meaningful way of enforcing federal clean air and water regulations.   Or with business owners who have had to make their facilities wheelchair accesible without getting any tax credits (of course, they should).

It was also a big beef in the early days our social safety net was created in Canada, that the feds would not fund medicare, social assistance etc. or not do so to make the programs sustainable.

But unfunded mandates also apply to state obligations like prisons. Unlike the US which has separate federal and state correctional facilities, here in Canada the system is integrated. Those sentenced to terms up to two years less one day wind up in a provincial or territorial correctional institute while those doing two years or more become the responsibility of the federal government.

To alieviate overcrowding the rule up until now has been that one can get two days credit for each one day of pre-sentencing custody. Now, however, it's going down to one. Fair enough -- but two problems arise. One, there has been no really trustworthy costing from the feds as to how much this would cost. And second, the Conservaties appear to not want to adequately fund the increased costs provinces will face, especially as we get out of recession.

Things have gotten so bad with overcrowding in the United States, especially with the misguided "war on drugs" that has seen the prison population surge by a factor of five over the last thirty years that many courts now issue consent decrees saying if jails cross over a certain threshold they have to release some prisoners. Will that happen in Canada? I suspect it will.

Too, many states are on the verge of bankruptcy because of these policies. And it's not just drugs. Many prosecutors are now ignoring mandatory minimums and are very willing to cut plea deals to ensure their states stay in compliance. Many of the same are also not seeking the death penalty anymore because of the explosive costs there. True, we abolished capital punishment decades ago but where a life sentence unless otherwise tarriffed usually means seven years in jail followed by parole for life we're asking for major, major trouble.

We should be tough on crime as well as on its causes. But if we are going to get tough on both, then we need to make sure it's funded properly. Otherwise, it's just a counterproductive exercise. And I think it will wind up costing way more than the $2 billion over five years the Cons claim it will be, or the $5 billion the province say it actually is. And that's just to build new jails.   Then you have to feed prisoners as well as try to reduce the chance of recividism with all sorts of programs -- and the current political climate is to allow inmates to rot and not get a chance to improve their lives or turn them around.
 
This is trouble waiting to happen.   Simple as that.   The general trend in violent crime has trended downwards over time.   It will go up gradually unless the money is coughed up.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

UK coalition wastes no time in axe-cutting and revenue raising

What would Jesus -- excuse me, Stephen Harper -- do?

In an attempt to get Britain's tattered finances back on track, the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition today announced some pretty tough austerity measures that even by Canadian standards are quite draconian.   The sales tax has been raised to a mind-boggling 20% (up from 17.5%), and the government is vowing to cut public service spending by 25%.   In addition, child benefits have been frozen, and seniors' pensions de-indexed to be raised only to a maximum of 2.5% per year -- but oddly enough sin taxes are also being held where they are.   Capital gains taxes are up, though not as much as some Cons had feared; and in an interesting bit to the surfing community, a proposed tax on landlines to speed up the rollout of 100% broadband is being scrapped.   Finally, there will be a banks profit "super-tax."

At least this coalition has a definite target to balance the budget which is no later than FY 2016.   Can we expect to see such a promise from PMS?   Let's see.   Slowing down the rate of growth in "net debt" as Slim Jim calls it just doesn't cut it.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Hamilton's boondoggle (?)

So the city fathers and mothers here in Hamilton are finally going to let us residents see what over $70 million in renovations bought for the city hall built just fifty years ago.   And it's worth keeping in mind that after all that money was spent, several city departments will still be scattered around downtown and other parts of this sprawlling megacity.

Obviously, the artwork needed to be saved, but wouldn't it have been less expensive just to have built a whole new civic centre from scratch, one that would have had all the employees in it too?   Sure, the "new" old hall is plugged into the community co-energy project that Sheila Copps made sure the federal building was not connected to (even though the plant was right across the street!) and other things have been done to make the hall as close to net zero-emissions as possible -- but you knew this project was doomed when several "wow" factors had to be cut and the marble cladding (part of the reason city hall originally got a heritage designation) was replaced by cement.

The only thing redeeming about this is that it was "under budget."   I could think of a number of ways $72 million could be better spent, especially in a city with chronic unemployment.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

A conservative news channel for Canada? I thought we already had one (CTV News) ...

... but if Quebecor, the parent company of Page Three Girl masters Sun Media, wants to bring entertainment masquerading as news to Canada, so be it.   Just let us have the choice of whether or not we want to subscribe.   And please, include it in the comedy package, not news and information.

It's just that we are already too saturated with information as it is.   And besides, we really can't call it consumer choice when only three or four media conglomerates provide all the choices.    There is no effective firewall between print and broadcast outlets anymore.   What we need is to break up the oligopolies and allow more players into the game.   This would mean more innovative programming, more informative news, and most importantly a broader variety of voices -- to lessen the chance Canadians are brainwashed from either the left or the right.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Dlaczego?

Why?

That's the simple one title of Judge Thomas Braidwood's report into the death of Robert Dziekanski by electro-shocking from four Mounties.   There's no question this would have happened with any party in charge of the executive, but I believe we can expect more of this the longer we have leaders of any stripe with a shoot first, ask questions later mentality -- rather than with respect for those who come to Canada, especially immigrants who just want to start a new chapter in their life.

BC's Premier has referred this matter to a special prosecutor.  I hope it's not a Crown from outside the province but rather a respected defence attorney who can look at the findings as well as the facts with an open mind so as to better able to determine whether the four cops involved should face charges.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

No answers for Air India 182

We're twenty-five years removed from one of the worst acts of terrorism ever and, despite a much delayed investigation into the Air India 182 bombing and a 3000 page report that was released yesterday by retired Supreme Court of Canada Associate Justice John C. Major, we still don't know whodunit.    What we do know is that there were major and massive clues that something was going to go down, there were several informants who told the police something was up, and nothing was done to follow-up.

Worse still, the fact that most of the victims were South Asian and not white is a big reason why it took so long to even begin the criminal investigation, let alone this judicial inquiry.    There is no doubt that racism and an attempt to appease business interests in India was the reason those who did it got away with it.

The next time someone takes flying lessons but doesn't want to learn take offs and landings, or if someone flies first class but doesn't want the drinks or gourmet meals, or if someone fires off a "practice bomb," would it hurt so much to look into it.

The skies aren't so friendly any more, are they?   We spend all this money on security and do not feel any safer.    And the worst part is, there were several opportunities in three different Canadian cities to stop this disaster before it happened -- the day it happened.

UPDATE (1:56 PM EDT, 1756 GMT):  Yes, it was 25 years ago, not 15.   Too much on my mind this weekend.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Mandatory drug testing, now

This week's news that the University of Waterloo suspended their entire football team after nine tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs reeks of "collective guilt," which is banned under the principles of international law, is rather troubling.   I can understand the reasoning (that if some players were doping then others knew about it but did nothing to stop it) but it's also wrong to give the truly innocent the same punishment as the guilty.

The CIS claims they have major funding problems which have avoided random drug testing (up until now, they only tested at the regional bowl games and the Vanier Cup, which gives players plenty of opportunity to cheat early in the season as well as the off-season).   Too, there's also pressure not to test too much since major league sports don't test as vigorously as the international organizations that govern the same sports elsewhere.

This isn't a matter for collective bargaining or for economy.   A cheater is a cheater.   If it means more government funding to ensure such tests, fine.

Also, the players unions in the big leagues as well as in NASCAR must understand that just because they're jocks that entitles them to a lesser sentence than what amateurs would get.    It's a matter of right and wrong.   If it means busting the anti-trust exemption under which the leagues operate, fine; but it must be done.   It's the world anti-doping code, period, and it must be imposed too at the collegiate and high-school levels.    A two year suspension for a first offence may not deter those who are determined to cheat no matter what but it will make those who are hoping to get a scholarship or advance further really think.

But strict enforcement, including random tests anytime and anywhere around the planet, will ensure the innocent will be able to continue to play as they have the right to.  They, after all, have nothing to fear from a false positive -- they will be better able to prove their lack of guilt then a guilty athlete will to prove they were "framed."

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.