Ontario legislature expected to pass bill ordering TTC strikers back to work this evening

The Ontario legislature are meeting today in a rare Sunday session in order to pass legislation mandating striking TTC employees back to work immediately.

The opposition NDP and Progressive Conservatives parties have indicated that they will support the legislation, thus ensuring its quick passage and royal accent by the end of today.

Conservative Leader John Tory called the strike "outrageous."

NDP Leader Howard Hampton said the legislation being proposed is similar to a bill used to end the 2002 garbage strike in Toronto.

"This is legislation we voted for before,' Hampton said Saturday. "It's fair, it's balanced and we can support it again."

The back to work order will:

• Call for the strike to end immediately after Royal Assent is given

• Impose fines of $2,000 per day on individuals and $25,000 per day for the union or employer if they ignore the back to work order and remain on strike.

• Refer outstanding issues to a mediator or arbitrator

So it looks like the TTC service will be back in operation for tomorrow morning's rush hour commute.

Although I disagree with Ontario Premier, Dalton McGuinty on many issues, he deserves commendation for his quick response and effective leadership on this issue.

Update:

TTC strike officially over as Ont. passes legislation

TTC Strike In Toronto - Unbelievable!!

After being offered a contract that guarantees that their drivers will be the highest paid in the GTA, they reject it? Not only have their members rejected the generous contract negotiated by their union bosses, they have also broken a major commitment they made with the public.

The union by last night announcing a strike beginning at 12:01 am this morning, broke an agreement that they made with the public to give at least 48 hours notice in the event of a strike. Unbelievable! Especially when they have people manning ticket booths making $25 an hour.

I think this time they have gone beyond what is reasonable and it will not get them much sympathy from the public. Especially since their action will inconvenience approximately 1.4 million transit users a day.

One of the things that irk me as a Torontonian is the contempt that exists for car drivers by the municipality. They are always asking people to get out of their cars and take public transit, but instead of improving it by making it more reliable and convenient for the public to use it, they make it more difficult for the car drivers by increasing parking fees, restricting parking, imposing new taxes, etc. If the TTC had the infrastructure that would allow people to reliably get to where they needed to go within a reasonable time frame, a lot more people would use it.

Unless there is a major improvement in the reliability and the service offered by the Toronto Transit Comission, the acronym, TTC, to me will mean "take the car"

More Liberal arrogance and hypocrisy

As I pointed out in a previous post there seems to be a lot of hypocrisy among members of the Liberal and NDP parties who are condemning the Conservative Party for doing exactly what they did in previous elections with campaign advertising. Some were even asking out loud whether the election advertising money in dispute, the $1.2 million bought the 2006 federal elections for the Conservative party.

I have not seen such arrogance displayed. It's as if the Sponsorship Scandal, former Liberal Prime Minister, Paul Martin's woeful campaign performance, the "Beer and Popcorn gaffe" and the "Soldiers in our streets, with guns" advertisement never happened and had no effect on the outcome. Canadians were tired of 13 years of Liberal rule and wanted change, but of course you will never hear those words coming out of a progressive's mouth.

I came across an interesting comment in the Climbing out of the dark blog by commenter, Ardvark. He asked a question, which I think should be examined, as its implications are much bigger and more far reaching than the dispute over the interpretation of the Elections Canada rules on campaign advertising, which is presently engulfing the Conservative Party and Elections Canada.

The Liberal Party of Canada was never investigated by Elections Canada for all that money that went into numerous* Quebec ridings?

Is this true?

We know that $40 million of Canadian taxpayers money is still missing more than 3 years after the Sponsorship Scandal broke out. We know that some of that money made it into Quebec ridings, while some of money was placed into envelopes and distributed among members of the Liberal party hierarchy.

Up to now, we have not been able to find out which ridings the money went into and how much money went into each riding. We still have not be able to find out whether some of that money helped elect some Liberal MPs and helped change the outcome of previous Federal elections that the Liberals won. More than 3 years later the missing $40 million still has not been returned to the Canadian taxpayers.

You would think given the serious implications there would have been at least some kind of investigation by Elections Canada. But I am not holding my breath, as Progressive parties have more than often received the benefit of a doubt and a lot less scrutiny than the Conservatives.

Elections Canada still have not been able to explain the inconsistency in its campaign advertising rulings, in which candidates from *all* political parties did the same exact thing, but only the Conservatives were found to have broken the Election rules, while the NDP and Liberals were given a free pass. They still have not been able to explain why they traveled 4 hours from Ottawa to Toronto to get the search warrant signed by a Liberal appointed judge when there were many available just a few blocks away in Ottawa. They have not been able to explain who leaked news of the raid on the Conservative party's headquarters so that the CBC and Liberal party cameras were conveniently on site and recording the whole event as it unfolded, even though the search warrant was still sealed.

I really do hope that this case goes to court so that we will be able to learn on what basis the rulings by Elections Canada have been made and whether they have been applied in a fair and consistent manner across the board to members of all political parties. Hopefully this case makes it way into the court system sooner rather than later. I have a feeling though that even if the Conservative party is vindicated, the opposition and its friends in the MSM will still find a way to put a negative spin on it. Stay tuned.

Tony

Natives begin blockade in Desoronto,Ontario - déjà vu Caledonia?

Aboriginal protestors began occupying a construction site owned by Nibourg Developments and blocaded the main street through Desoronto, Ontario while the police stood idly by.

Emile Nibourg, an employee with the company, said that a work crew arrived at the site to finish clearing brush from the property when a group of Mohawks arrived to claim the land as their own. The work crew were then ejected and left the property escorted by police.

When will the OPP start enforcing the law? Have we become so politically correct as a country that we now have different standards of law enforcement for natives when compared to other ethnic groups? The only reason why these thugs continue to unlawfully occupy property and intimidate its inhabitants is because they know that the Provincial government is ineffective and the police force does not have the balls to challenge them.

Hopefully they will prove us all wrong by enforcing the law and preventing another Caledonia from occurring, but I am not holding my breath on that occurring.

Tony

Liberal hypocrisy over the Elections Canada Campaign Advertising Issue

Sometimes it is very difficult to believe the hypocrisy coming from the Liberal party and members of the MSM over the 2006 Federal Election campaign advertising expenses dispute between Elections Canada and the Conservative Party.

In previous federal elections, all 3 federal parties have had candidates who accepted money from them, gave it back and then claimed a rebate on it from Elections Canada. While Elections Canada has accepted the election campaign submissions from the Liberals and the NDP, it has rejected the submissions from Conservative Party candidates. Because of this issue, the Conservative party has taken Elections Canada to court because of inconsistencies in its rulings.

The Liberals party has for the better part of this week, been accusing the Conservatives of everything from having a personal vendetta against Elections Canada to not respecting it and trying to undermine an independent institution, because they have refused to accept its ruling.

What the Liberals have failed to mention is that they have had disputes with Elections Canada in the past and even challenged them in court over it.

Just 2 months ago, former Liberal leadership candidate, Bob Rae successfully challenged an Elections Canada decision in court because they had ruled that it would be illegal for the Liberal party to reimburse the $50,000 deposit that he paid to the party as a requirement to enter the leadership race.

Even though the Liberal party had taken Elections Canada to court, there was no RCMP raid on the Liberal party’s headquarters.

Only 2 month later, just one day before the court proceedings between the Conservative party and Elections Canada is set to begin, there is a televised RCMP raid on the party’s Ottawa headquarters in front of conveniently placed TV cameras from the MSM and also from the Liberal Party headquarters. A raid was conducted, even though the Conservative party had promptly complied with and provided all documents that were requested by Elections Canada. Something just does not add up. Why were both federal political parties treated differently by Elections Canada?

Below is an exchange between Conservative house leader, Peter Van Loan and Liberal MP, Ralph Goodale in the HOC over this issue.

(You tube link - HOC -Peter Van Loan/Ralph Goodale) - Climbing Out Of the Dark blog:

Peter Van Loan:

Mr. Speaker, we share the same curiosity, because as we said, we provided every document that Elections Canada has sought with regard to our dispute, on ahh… how the elections spending should be interpreted. And you know what? Elections Canada does make unduly rigid interpretations. I know that because the guy that this member from Wascana supported for the leadership, the member for Toronto Centre now, actually took Elections Canada to court too on an interpretation. Guess what? He won and he is $50,000 richer as a result and so is his party leader and so is his deputy leader from Lakeshore.

Ralph Goodale:

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister has a personal vendetta against Elections Canada. Back in 2001, he called Elections Canada “jackasses.” His words, not mine. Time and again,

Peter Van Loan:

Apparently, that member should look to his left, look to his right because every single one of those front benchers who ran for the leadership of his party other than him, who never ran for the leadership of his party in the end. Every single one of them benefited from the fact that they said that Elections Canada doesn’t know how to interpret the law. That they took Elections Canada to court. I guess that they don’t respect that institution either. And you know what? They won because guess what? Elections Canada makes mistakes sometimes.

(You tube link - HOC - Peter Van Loan/Marlene Jennings) - Climbing Out Of the Dark blog:

Latest Liberal arrest puts a damper on its plans to bring down the Federal Government

The arrest of, Benoit Corbeil, former director-general of the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal Party, in connection with the Sponsorship scandal on Friday, has put a serious dent in the Liberal Party’s plans of forcing a spring election. Especially after the RCMP hinted that more arrests may be imminent.

Corbeil's charmed life as the go-to guy in Quebec began to unravel in 2005 when his fellow Liberals began ratting him out before the Gomery commission investigating federal Liberal campaign financing.

Corbeil was fingered as the man through whom the Liberals funnelled thousands of dollars in secret cash contributions from 1995 to 2001. The funds were kicked back to the party from federal contractors working a sponsorship project designed to polish the federal government's image in Quebec.

For the Liberal party, this arrest could not have occurred at a worst time, especially at the end of what had been a difficult week for the Tories. Many Liberals had believed that their party’s fortunes were on the rise and were eagerly anticipating the prospect of defeating the Conservative government and forcing a federal election in June. On Tuesday, members of the RCMP seized several items from the Conservative party's head office in Ottawa after Elections Canada had obtained a search warrant in connection with a dispute over advertising spending limits during the 2006 general election

Liberals, particularly those in Quebec, do not want an election campaign that might feature fresh headlines from that scandal.

Privately, some Liberal MPs seemed crestfallen at the news.

"Now what?" said one Ontario Liberal MP.

Both the NDP and Bloc Quebecois now believe that a federal election is unlikely until at least the fall.

"I think if this was forest fire season, the hazard just went way down for an election this spring. The Liberals' balloon just got burst once again," said NDP MP, Pat Martin.

My feeling is that the Liberals will back down from forcing a spring election, especially with the Sponsorship scandal coming back in the news, just when the Liberals thought that it was behind them. The Liberals know that in an election campaign, this issue would seriously hurt their chances of gaining additional seats, especially in Quebec, where under Dion, they have failed to make inroads in terms of popular support. Not having a spring election could also work positively for the Conservative government, as it will give them an opportunity to get more of its legislation through the HOC and senate. Stay tuned.

Tony

When we become the elected government, we will...I think I have heard that before

Liberal opposition leader, Stephane Dion has signaled that the immigration reform bill and other measures introduced by the Tories, that the Liberals do not agree with, will most likely be overturned by an elected Liberal government.

Dion explained that when the Liberals boycott confidence votes to avoid an election, they're signaling which Tory policies they would like to overturn when they become the government.

It reminds me of when former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, when he was the opposition leader, saying that an elected Liberal government would roll back the GST. Of course it never happened during the 13 years that the Liberals were in power.

Memo to Dion: If you disagree with government policies, it is your duty as the opposition to vote against it. Isn't that the purpose of the opposition?

John Ivison from the National Post in the article titled, The mind says no, the body says yes, eloquently expresses this point:

It prompts the question if not now, then when? And over what? The Grits may be waiting for the economy to sour, in order to present Mr. Dion as the saviour. Yesterday, the Liberal leader said, "Time is our ally, so why not wait...?" But that's optimism bordering on delusion. Does anyone really think the nation is going to turn to the bookish, untested Liberal leader in its hour of economic crisis? Even his colleagues have their doubts about his husbandry skills.

Mr Dion at some point needs to stand up for something he believes in. Under his leadership, the Liberal party has degenerated into a party that no longer has any principles worth defending.

The Merritt, BC murders are yet another failure in Canada's justice system

Allan Dwayne Schoenborn, the 40 year-old prime suspect in the murder of his three children in Merritt BC, was arrested three times in the days leading up to their murders, but each time, our justice system released him. Previously both he and Darcie Clarke, the mother of his three children lived in Vancouver, but last fall Ms Clarke moved to Merritt to start a new life and get a fresh start away from the turmoil and abuse that had previously engulfed her family.

This did not stop Mr Schoenborn from following her. He arrived in Merritt, BC just one week before the murders, despite a court order baring him from contact with Ms Clarke. In that week, he was arrested 3 times.

Schoenborn's initial contact with the Merritt RCMP came when he was arrested for driving while under disqualification because of an earlier impaired- driving conviction.

In another incident, police officers encountered Schoenborn when he was intoxicated in a public place.

Then, on Thursday, police were called by the principal of Schoenborn's daughter's school, Diamond Vale elementary.

Schoenborn had allegedly threatened a student and the principal.

The police sought to keep Schoenborn in custody after the school incident, arguing that he was a flight risk who had a history of failing to appear in court. A provincial court judge ordered him released - against the recommendation of the police.

Just 2 days after Mr. Schoenborn's release from police custody, Ms Clarke arrived home and made the gruesome discovery of the bodies of her 3 children. After I read the story, the first question that came to my mind was why did the BC Provincial judge not take the recommendation of the police seriously? Why did the BC provincial judge feel it was ok to release this man against the recommendation of the police, despite his violent past and previous convictions?

This incident is yet another cloud hanging over our justice system. What I find most appalling is that we Canadians continue to tolerate a lax justice system that is controlled by judges who seem to care more about the rights of criminals than ordinary law-abiding citizens. Any attempt to toughen or reform our laws or criminal penalties is met by howls and cries of protest from the usual bleeding heart groups.

The pain of losing a child is tremendous, but what makes it even worst is knowing that they would still be alive had the justice system done its job. My heart really goes out to Ms Clarke, as she is going to need a lot of support to get through what must be her worst nightmare. For me, I really do hope that the day will come when Canadian judges are held accountable for their actions, because there does not seem to be any accountability among a lot of them.

Why Can’t the MSM and Opposition Parties Accept MP Tom Lukiwski's Apology?

I have been following the Tom Lukiwski story over the past couple of days and I applaud him for publicly apologizing for those derogatory comments he made against gays 16 years ago. While I believe that his comments were hurtful, I think it is time for the MSM and the HOC to accept his apology and move on.

The thing that I find distasteful is the attempt by the MSM and those on the left of the political spectrum to bash the Conservative Party as being homophobic bigots, while giving a free pass to the Liberals and NDP.

Take the following examples of comments made by MPs from other political parties
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Homosexuality is statistically abnormal, it's physically abnormal and it's morally immoral." Liberal MP Tom Wappel - 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's sort of corny, but a constituent phoned up and said, 'God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.’ "If it's two adults, where do we stop? What about a grandma that wants to marry her grandson or an uncle that wants to marry his niece? Where do you stop?" - Liberal MP Roy Cullen - 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NDP's Tommy Douglas's Opinion on Homosexuality (link to video)

"And if we ever needed in this country to adopt a new attitude towards homosexuality, this is the time. Instead of treating it as a crime and driving it underground, we ought to recognize it for what it is. It is a mental illness. It is a psychiatric condition, which ought to be treated sympathetically. Which ought to be treated by psychiatric s and social workers"

- NDP’s Tommy Douglas - recognized of one of the greatest Canadians
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As a student, Telegdi often raised quite a stir with his emotionally charged attempts to raise student interest in issues such as housing and enumeration. His statements published in the then-student newspaper the chevron were often controversial and have contributed to Telegdi's Feds legacy.

"Students are niggers because they want to be niggers," he told the chevron in the December 6, 1974 issue, after a low student voter turnout in that year's municipal election. (University of Waterloo's Imprint Newspaper)

- Liberal MP Andrew Telegdi, while he was a student at the University of Waterloo- December 6th, 1974
---------------------------------------------------------------------
My point here is not to slag political parties over comments that some of their members made years ago, but to point out that members of “ALL” political parties are guilty of politically insensitive or hurtful comments. I don’t understand why the Liberals and NDP are always given a free pass whenever this happens, but somehow the MSM and special interests groups only choose to paint the Conservative Party as bigots.

Some Liberals, NDP and their supporters in the MSM are arguing that Mr Tom Lukiwski was 40, when the video was made 16 years ago and by that time, his beliefs are set, so he cannot change. It is one of the most ridiculous arguments that I have heard. People's attitudes and beliefs change all the time and age is no restriction.

If people's beliefs are set at 40 and cannot change, no matter the circumstances, then why did the Liberals accept former NDP Premier Bob Rae, as a leadership candidate? Did they believe that his views on economic policies that deverstated Ontario in the 1990's when he was Premier had not changed, even though he was 47 when he was finally voted out as Premier? I don't think so.

What about NDP's former MP Svend Robinson who was 53 when he stepped down after admitting to stealing a ring for his lover? Did the NDP think that his views regarding stealing had not changed when they allowed him to run again as one of their candidates in the 2006 federal election?

If we don’t accept Tom Lukiwski’s apology for a comment he made 16 years ago, then how far are we prepared to go back when it comes to past comments made by our MP's? Are we going to go into every MP’s closet and drag up every politically incorrect comment or off-color joke that he or she ever made and use it against their party? I really hope not. What I, and most Canadians are interested in is good governance, fiscal responsibility, sound policies and good judgement by the government, and adequate representation by our members of parliament. Not what a MP said 16 years at a private party after he had one too many.

Kyoto Koolaid

I have never been able to understand the “obsession with the Kyoto protocol” from those on the left of the political spectrum. They paint it as the most logical and effective way for the world to reduce its greenhouse gasses, thus combating global warming, but as soon as you start challenging their arguments, you are treated as an uneducated and mis-informed individual and almost immediately get accused of being "in the pocket of the oil companies" "not caring for the environment" and referred to as a "global warming denier"

I came across a post in the Conservative Hipsters blog titled, Rethinking Kyoto, in which he noted the pollution on a visit to China and when he questioned the effectiveness of the Kyoto protocol without involving China, a commenter gave the following response:

...You also misunderstand Kyoto. It was never intended to fix global warming, merely to get the developed industrialized world committed to taking the first concrete steps to curbing emissions. This has to begin somewhere, surely you can grasp that....

Well, if it is not intended to fix global warming, then we should all forget about implementing the protocol then, since it will be very costly to our economy, right? Shouldn't the first concrete steps to curbing emissions involve "all" of the major polluters?

Recently I bumped into a friend who is an ardent supporter of the Kyoto protocol and a member of one of the other opposition parties. I asked him point blank, “Why do you support the Kyoto protocol?” He gave me the usual speal about the world reducing greenhouse gasses, rising sea levels, flooding and how much of the world was not going to be habitable in 50 years.

It was pretty much the same hysteria expressed in Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. But unfortunately for Mr. Gore, while he is urging Americans and others to conserve and to save the world, he and others like him are not practising what they preach. His household is consuming more than 20 times the electricity consumed by an average American household.

When other prominent Kyoto activists are pressed on why they are not personally trying to reduce their own carbon footprints, many of them give the excuse of purchasing carbon offset, which in effect allows them to continue their way of life without making any sacrifices for what they supposedly believe in. Many of these activists "talk green", but their lifestyles and behaviour are anything but green, as observed in the article by Steven Milloy below.

The Greenest Hypocrites Of 2007

This is what I am getting to. Not everyone is required to make the necessary sacrifices, only the select few, who can buy their way out of implementing any meaningful changes, which is why the Kyoto protocol will never work.

I then asked my friend, if the global warming was such a big problem and would affect the world in the way he described, why then would the Kyoto protocol place binding targets on only 35 of the 129 countries that signed the agreement and exclude major CO2 emitters such as India, China, Russia, etc.

I advised him that the CO2 emissions produced by those excluded countries would easily surpass the CO2 emissions reductions of countries like Canada and the EU if they were to achieve their targets, so in effect would negate billions of dollars in expenses and taxes that the tax payers of the industrialized countries would have to pay to achieve these targets. I asked him that of global warming was such a big problem as described, then why not have binding targets on “all of the major CO2 emitters, including China and India”

He about lost it at that point and started saying that the industrialized countries were the ones who created the problem and that they should fix it. He said that countries like China and India should be given the same opportunity to develop their economy as those countries in the west.

So now he has abandoned the most logical principle of solving a "worldwide problem". If this problem affects the whole world, then "all the countries of the world" need to take steps to resolve it. When we had world war 2 in the 1930's and 1940's, countries who agreed to participate with the allies were not given exemptions from supplying troops.

I then asked him how prepared was he and his family to make the sacrifices necessary for Canada to go 6% below the 1990 emission level? When I advised him that if Canada got rid of its entire manufacturing sector, got rid of air traffic, took all the cars off the road, it still would not be able to achieve its target he really got agitated and started talking about how Canada could achieve its target by buying carbon credits and developing new technologies.

I then pointed out to him that under the present Kyoto protocol, worldwide CO2 emissions would increase, rather than decrease and the carbon credit system would only facilitate money being paid to third world countries, which would have no incentive to reduce their emissions. I advised him that any reduction in manufacturing and economic activity in Canada and the industrialized world would be replaced by manufacturing and economic activity in China and other developing countries, thus negating any positive effect. So in effect, Kyoto was just a scheme designed to transfer wealth from richer countries to poorer countries.

You definitely see where this argument was going. In the beginning it was about how the world was in danger and how the world needed to reduce its CO2 emissions, but as soon as you question the mechanisms of the Kyoto protocol in achieving this, you start getting ridiculous arguments.

It was obvious to me that the protocol in its present form would not work and would cause unnecessary hardships on the citizens of our country if implemented. For that observation, I was accused of supporting the “oil companies” by not going along with his line of thinking. And that seems to be the problem with a lot of supporters of the Kyoto protocol. They have just not thought it through.