The Political Gambit Of A 5 Point Liberal Lead

Photo: Globe and Mail

There’s no denying that the chances of the Liberals succeeding in electing a minority government are slightly better than even. A recent Ekos poll showed that the Grits have pulled to within a five point lead federally, and it coincides well with Michael Ignatieff’s current political gambit in Ottawa. After the Conservatives released their economic “report card” last Thursday, the Liberal leader indicated he would need to mull over whether he would support it until Friday. The following day led to rampant speculation about another possible election, but Mr.Ignatieff said he would delay any decision until Monday. Then the weekend passed, and today Mr.Ignatieff appeared to demand a series of conditions for support of the economic report which faces a no-confidence vote on Friday.

It’s clear that the Liberals are angling at something. But what? The stimulus from the budget is finally being pried loose from Ottawa after months of sitting around waiting for Parliamentary approval. The government has already indicated there have been changes to Employment Insurance, and even now Stephen Harper has suggested he is open to changing eligibility for self-employed Canadians. Surely the Liberals can’t be serious when they say that the isotope shortage, while certainly an important medical conundrum, is worthy of toppling the government over?

I fail to understand how the changes to eligibility for employment insurance is really worth fighting an election on either. The program can’t possibly be seen as a legitimate stop-gap measure for families suddenly without an income. Payouts are generally calculated at 55% of income, and maximized at around $447 per week. In today’s market, that’s practically welfare. And how do changes to eligibility help the already hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work now? By delaying the stimulus funding and fighting an election that costs $300 million? Is that how it’ll help them?

No, the only calculable reasons the Liberals would be willing to gamble with the economy at this time is their insatiable thirst for governance. Because Stephen Harper is seen as finally being weak, the party stumbling in the polls, the deficit projections in the news, there are those in the Liberal war room who see it as a political advantage. They are entirely willing to roll the dice at this critical juncture for the opportunity of a tiny minority government, even if it means they throw Canada’s current silver linings in the economy under the bus. Could the ruthless ambition of Michael Ignatieff’s ascendancy to the PMO really be worth what would undoubtedly be a record low voter turnout, as apathetic Canadians deliver the Liberals into the halls of power in order to “standardize Employment Insurance”? This is our raison d’etre?

“I am responsible to millions of Canadians, what they expect of me is to do my job properly … We’re not going to keep people hanging around. We’ll make a decision and it will be clear: Up or down.” Michael Ignatieff, Thursday, June 11, Montreal

There is, of course, another reason to force an election. A coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition. The opposition parties have already indicated they are going to vote down the economic report, which gives the Liberals a chance to finally topple this government. The enduring shame of Stephane Dion is that he never did wind up opposing the government; Stephen Harper broke his own fixed election date law in order to topple his government when he saw the political opportunity as being ripe. Mr.Ignatieff has the chance to put some teeth to his party, and enter the election with the same contingency plan it had the last time. If the Liberals win, they can pass most of their policies with the assistance of the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP. But if they lose, and particularly if they lose a close race that restores the seats the Liberals lost under Dion, they have a far stronger coalition government to wrest power from the Conservatives, and force the kind of stimulus plan down the throats of Canadians that, apparently, we all really want.

Your Human Rights Commission Tax Dollars Hard At Work

Although truth be told, I’d call in the military if I couldn’t get a Timmy’s I’d lined up for:

A man from Lower Sackville, N.S., says he will take Tim Hortons to the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission because he can no longer get his coffee.

Dave Matthews needs a motorized scooter to get around because of a physical disability.

He used to get his coffee at the Tim Hortons drive-thru in Lower Sackville. But at a new location, in Bedford, he ran into trouble.

The attendant wouldn’t serve him because of a company policy banning pedestrians, bicycles, and wheelchairs, including motorized scooters, from using the drive-thru. Matthews says that means no coffee for him, because he can’t manoeuvre his scooter through the front door.

An inconvenience? A public complaint to a corporation? Worthy of calling the city for required access bylaws?

Yes, yes and yes.

A “human rights” complaint? Only in Canada.

The CHRC Defenders Of Censorship

Although I applaud Ezra Levant’s attempt to deal with what was obviously a difficult situation in being snubbed by Jennifer Lynch and the Canadian Human Rights Commission when she refused to do an open debate on CTV, I feel that there are many people who still don’t quite understand the liberties being threatened by the existence of such a Commission. Ms.Lynch confirmed in an article she contributed to the Globe and Mail on Friday, that she isn’t interested in debate about who should choose what constitutes free expression in this country. It is at the sole discretion of the government, and it is they who will decide what is hateful and what is not.

Many of those who defend the Commission as being something that roots out hatred and discrimination inherent in our society are fighting against an enemy which is largely illusory. Many of the complaints that the commission investigate turn out to be benign, and yet there are those who are forced to defend themselves against the terrible accusation of breaching “human rights”. The problem with human rights, as defined in the Canadian Human Rights Code, is that it isn’t all that well defined whether speech rights supersede the right not to be offended by speech. For instance, the CHRC exists to investigate possible breaches of human rights, and in particular has investigated and gone after people expressing their views on the internet:

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The main problem with the CHRC is the underexposure they have in the media. People quite simply don’t know, or don’t care about their existence. They believe that the commission exists to prosecute hate speech and investigate human rights, and so they believe that only speech that constitutes hatred is likely to be subjected to investigation. Fortunately, thanks to the case with Ezra Levant, brought before the CHRC for nothing more than publishing the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, we know this to be untrue. The commission has the power, and it is an abusive power, to bring forth frivolous charges against members of the press for expressing their opinions, and reporting on commonly distributed information.

The idea that it can’t happen to me, is the greatest fallacy in accepting governmental restrictions on free speech. And it isn’t just about “free speech”, as the term is tossed around, but that the government gets to decide based upon arbitrary and discretionary powers, what is allowable and what isn’t. People think that only racists and Nazis will be brought before these commissions, but instead we’ve seen witch hunt after witch hunt of people being prosecuted and investigated for things as ridiculous as a man being turned away from an all-woman’s gym because he hadn’t had a sex change operation yet.

The worst aspect of all, indeed the most nefarious, isn’t whether someone actually said something hateful or whether they meant it in a hateful way. No, the point that so many people miss when arguing about the CHRC, is spelled out in Section 13.1 of the code. Any matter that is “likely” to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, can be subject to an investigation. In other words, if any persons who belong to a group of a prohibited discrimination [to be announced, of course] are “likely” to be exposed to hatred as a result of something said on the internet, that is a crime against the Canadian Human Rights Code. So when Tamil demonstrators, a prohibited group to discriminate against, decide to block parts of Toronto and disrupt traffic, if you fly a plane over the city with a banner reading “Protect Canada, stop the Tamil Tigers”, that can be investigated as a possible hate crime. Not because it is a crime, but because of the loose definition of discrimination in the code as being an incident in which that group is likely to be exposed to hatred as a result of the act.

A Smiley Face Emoticon For Your Electric Bill

This has to be one of the silliest things I’ve read in a while, which when you consider the vast depths of silliness which the internet offers, is really saying something. Toronto Hydro, among other Canadian utility companies, are considering a program that would “grade” customers in their energy consumption habits with smiley faces, or frowny faces, on their utility bills. Those people who are economical with their energy will receive their bill as per usual, but with a happy face staring up at them, validating them, soothing them in their responsible choices. Those who consume as much energy as, for instance, a Nashville mansion belonging to Al Gore would see an unhappy face. Perhaps even one close to tears. The background:

The program, which is the brainchild of U.S. firm Positive Energy, has been picked up by 15 utility companies south of the border. Both the Sacramento Municipal Utility District and the Washington-based Puget Sound Energy use it and both have reported drops in energy consumption of two per cent.

The program also compares the energy use of power customers to their neighbours.

Alex Laskey, president and co-founder of Positive Energy, said his company is saving enough energy to power a city of 100,000 people.

Laskey said Positive Energy’s bar graphs, charts, and yes, even smiley faces, heighten the awareness level of power customers.

“The overwhelming majority of Americans, and Canadians too, think that saving energy is important and that wasting energy is bad,” he said.

“Yet, next to no one has any idea whether they’re actually doing a good job.”

That’s right, ladies and gentlemen, a “good job”. Being socially evaluated by a company you pay for their delivery of energy is just one of the perks of living in the modern era. It could work, however. Perhaps the Joneses will try to consume less than the Smiths [or the Singhs and the Wangs if you prefer an inclusive example], and so on and so forth until they’re both living by candlelight in a kind of 19th Century Emily Dickinson hermitage. Imagine waving that smiley face in the face of your envious neighbour.

I’m not quite sure how that would work. But it would be interesting to see whether the disapproving smiley faces get sad or enraged. Imagine the effectiveness of receiving your $500 energy bill with a smiley seething with primal rage for your wanton wastefulness. In fact if the smiley scale has more levels than happy and not happy, you’ll likely have people competing with one another for the saddest or angriest smiley face as well. Especially if you can see the energy consumption of your neighbours, and then try and best their “high score”.