This article by FAIR makes sense PR
Canada has also made little use of whistleblower protection—a highly effective method of combating misconduct and fraud. A 2007 PricewaterhouseCoopers study showed that whistleblowers uncovered far more fraud than internal audit and all other management control systems combined. The study, which polled 5,400 senior executives from 40 countries, found that 43 per cent of corporate frauds had been initially detected by employee tip-offs.
The lesson is clear: top-down controls such as regulatory oversight and corporate governance standards are not sufficient: they need to be augmented by strong mechanisms that enable employees to safely report suspected misconduct.
This is why the U.S. is moving to strengthen its already wide-ranging whistleblower protection legislation. However, on this important front we Canadians are essentially naked.
For government whistleblowers the Accountability Act’s much-touted “ironclad protection” has been a huge disappointment, as predicted by critics even before this loophole-ridden legislation was passed into law. The new whistleblower watchdog, the public sector integrity commissioner, watches over approximately 400,000 federal public servants in a secretive bureaucracy that spends about half a billion dollars every day. It defies belief that, during her first year of operation, with a staff of 21 and a budget of $6.5-million, commissioner Christiane Ouimet has been unable to find a single occurrence of wrongdoing in the entire federal public service.
As for private sector whistleblowers, the government has not even made a pretence of any effort to protect them. While Canadians who work for corporations listed on a U.S. stock exchange may have some protection under the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, Canadians in the private sector have no such shield against corporate reprisals.
What this means in practice is that conscientious employees who courageously come forward in an attempt to halt misconduct not only have their allegations ignored, but are typically subject to the most determined and vindictive reprisals, orchestrated by their bosses, in order to silence and punish them. Most lose their careers and their livelihood, and in the process many also lose their families and their health.
We all lose as a result. Our government departments and corporations, unable to purge themselves of these self-serving actors, lose touch with their values and their purpose. And both investors and employees lose as our businesses stumble, shedding jobs and market value while our governments fumble.
In tough economic times it becomes even more important to ensure that scarce resources are available for vital services like education and health care, rather than being wasted.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper should follow U.S. President Barack Obama’s lead by providing real protection for both government and private sector employees who report misconduct. By doing so he would not only help to safeguard his multi-billion dollar stimulus spending, but would help protect the integrity of our institutions, our economy and our democratic way of life.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Canada is free, but what about you?
Canada is free, but what about you? Good question .I am less free because I do not do enough to protect my freedom. I let others take away my rights by not speaking out , I deserve what I get because of my lazy complacency and blind indifference to abuses. Thank you for reminding me that I have a personal responsibiity to keep Canada and myself free by voicing my opinions and making a tipping point and pivotal difference through real action. PR
FREEDOM
Posted By Christi Chartrand Brantford
The more I think about Canada, and look around at all of the wars going on around the world, I am truly grateful to be where I am. I am free ... well, at least more "free" than others.
It's true, I don't have bombs blasting all around me, but the guns in schools and on the streets still frighten me.
It's true, I am free to believe in whatever religion I choose, but I must be careful, because even the slightest thing can offend my fellow freedom fighters (such as a nativity on my front yard).
I am free to live on a peaceful street, but must be sure to lock my doors at night, too many children disappear these days. I am a woman, and even though I have many rights, I am still scared to go out alone at night.
I am free to have children, but not necessarily free to keep them. I am free to vote and I do, but the majority of the country doesn't. Canada is free, it's true, but how free are you? Christi Chartrand Brantford
FREEDOM
Posted By Christi Chartrand Brantford
The more I think about Canada, and look around at all of the wars going on around the world, I am truly grateful to be where I am. I am free ... well, at least more "free" than others.
It's true, I don't have bombs blasting all around me, but the guns in schools and on the streets still frighten me.
It's true, I am free to believe in whatever religion I choose, but I must be careful, because even the slightest thing can offend my fellow freedom fighters (such as a nativity on my front yard).
I am free to live on a peaceful street, but must be sure to lock my doors at night, too many children disappear these days. I am a woman, and even though I have many rights, I am still scared to go out alone at night.
I am free to have children, but not necessarily free to keep them. I am free to vote and I do, but the majority of the country doesn't. Canada is free, it's true, but how free are you? Christi Chartrand Brantford
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Gridlock Myth Busters
Lets start a new group called Gridlock Myth Busters- everyone can add value with suggestions to break or slay the need more to solve gridlock myth. Be a dragon slayer get involved
Gridlock Myth Busters- Comments on the age of golden health Care
There is a grass root movement growing that wants to fix institutional service and product delivery lapses and problems. Gridlock Myth Busters is such a group of enlightened people. They participate in the system, hear and see the challenges and make constructive actionable suggestions to solve common problems and public challenges.
These public system challenges, artificial or real, are often gridlocked by the inability of the in place service providers to make constructive alternatives available to those they serve. A combination of factors, such as a lack of focus, lack of urgency, lack of economic necessity often ensures that customer service gridlocks and their resulting poor service results become the accepted and tolerated public practice.
Gridlocks are expensive
Scarcity ensures high prices and even higher delivery costs
The marginal return of more public funding is low, despite apparent self serving and aggressive denials of those that profit and administer the often self- imposed service /product gridlocks that they provide
The Hospital gridlock myth
Common cited hurdles for poor end user service
• Not enough beds and money
• Not enough qualified health care providers
• Cannot do because of restrictions and red tape
• A buck passing attitude of” Not our responsibility”
• Blind do nothing complacency rewards
The result -a hardening of the public care artery
The hardening , gridelock or constriction of services is the result of limiting care capacity to hospitals and government Long term care beds. All resources are not used to solve the capacity challenge. This ensures limited high cost publlc funded care .
Why do we always need more ? The need more money myth explored and busted
Solutions
Necessity is the mother of innovation.
Reality check suggestion
Manage your resources better
• Use all available beds
• Use all available care resources
• Change restrictions and delayer overlapping administration services
• Use new technology
• Maximize existing plant and equipment use
• More suggestions available….
How would you solve the gridlock problem?
The Gridlock Myth Busters can be confidentially reached at
respondfeedbacknow@yahoo.ca
With your consent -we will pass your suggestions on to those that can make a difference for both comment and action
Canadian Justice-fact or a process fiction?
A friend of mine showed great courage and fortitude by seeking justice and redress in the Federal Tax Court yesterday.With a intelligent layman's skill. he sought a resolution of 63 vexing rights issues in Judge Woods court in Hamilton . We wait to see what happens.Whose justice will be served? Will there be real precedent setting law making based on merit with a thinking justice or more of the same - the checked form list legal process?
I admire those that stand firm to their convictions - my friend is such a champion. He is a person who has no fear and is proceeding to defend his beliefs with honour and conviction. Lets see what his critics and the paid drones say and remember Thomas Jefferson.
"He who fears criticism," declared Thomas Jefferson, "is hopeless. Only those who do things are criticized. The idler is lost sight of in the march of events—but the doer is watched and criticized. To hesitate for fear of criticism loses the battle while the doers march on to victory and triumphs.
"If your cause is right, be not afraid of criticism: Advocate it, expound it, and, if need be, fight for it. Critics always will be, but to the strong-minded they are a help rather than a hindrance. As the horse spurts forward when prodded with the spur, so the doers forge ahead under the lash of criticism. Take your part on life's stage and play your part to the end. Stand for that which is good [that which is right]. Be a doer, not a drone. Look the world in the face and let the critics criticize."
In my view, my friend is the victor no matter what the ruling.PR
I admire those that stand firm to their convictions - my friend is such a champion. He is a person who has no fear and is proceeding to defend his beliefs with honour and conviction. Lets see what his critics and the paid drones say and remember Thomas Jefferson.
"He who fears criticism," declared Thomas Jefferson, "is hopeless. Only those who do things are criticized. The idler is lost sight of in the march of events—but the doer is watched and criticized. To hesitate for fear of criticism loses the battle while the doers march on to victory and triumphs.
"If your cause is right, be not afraid of criticism: Advocate it, expound it, and, if need be, fight for it. Critics always will be, but to the strong-minded they are a help rather than a hindrance. As the horse spurts forward when prodded with the spur, so the doers forge ahead under the lash of criticism. Take your part on life's stage and play your part to the end. Stand for that which is good [that which is right]. Be a doer, not a drone. Look the world in the face and let the critics criticize."
In my view, my friend is the victor no matter what the ruling.PR
Monday, February 09, 2009
Trade you. Barter is back in Russia - International Herald Tribune
Trade you. Barter is back in Russia - International Herald Tribune: "Trade you. Barter is back in Russia
By Ellen Barry Published: February 8, 2009
MOSCOW: Does the Taganrog Automobile Factory have a deal for you! Rows of freshly minted Hyundai Santa Fe sport utility vehicles are available right now. In exchange — well, do you have any circuit boards? Or sheet metal? Or sneakers?"
Barter-Problem or opportunity? Should GM,FORD ,et al barter the excess car inventory? Can the government barter redundant fixed resources that cost money to hold and vield no return ?Are inflationary mega government bailouts any better?PR
By Ellen Barry Published: February 8, 2009
MOSCOW: Does the Taganrog Automobile Factory have a deal for you! Rows of freshly minted Hyundai Santa Fe sport utility vehicles are available right now. In exchange — well, do you have any circuit boards? Or sheet metal? Or sneakers?"
Barter-Problem or opportunity? Should GM,FORD ,et al barter the excess car inventory? Can the government barter redundant fixed resources that cost money to hold and vield no return ?Are inflationary mega government bailouts any better?PR
Top judge adds voice to debate over legal fees
McLachlin's nudging of the legal profession was part of a speech in which she decried the lack of affordable legal help in Canada. She said that some courts report that more than 44 per cent of cases involve self-represented litigants.
Unbundlingis thriving in the U.S., but is in its infancy in Canada, where the concept is being promoted by law societies in British Columbia and Alberta. Lawyers effectively act as consultants for their clients for any work that the clients can do themselves.
In a 2008 report, a Law Society of British Columbia task force described unbundling as "a midway option between full service representation and no representation."
The report notes that lawyers must come to terms with the fact that self-representation is not going away because legal information is easily obtainable online. The "cultural shift" of the information age is making legal information easily obtainable online by a new generation of computer-savvy litigants.
"Many of these litigants will not see the value in hiring a lawyer to collect and process information they might easily collect themselves."
Canadian Lawyer magazine, in a survey published last summer, reported that the average "going rate" in Canada for a two-day trial civil is $25,220. It costs an average of $1,250 for a bail hearing, $4,820 for a separation agreement and $6,600 for a child custody and support agreement, said the survey of 300 lawyers.
To cope with an escalation in go-it-aloners, courts are scrambling to offer how-to guides, tip services, checklists and some are even setting up storefront kiosks that offer legal help.
Knowledge empowers people and breaks expensive traditions -Good for the Inter-net knowledge which is affordable and available- PR
Unbundlingis thriving in the U.S., but is in its infancy in Canada, where the concept is being promoted by law societies in British Columbia and Alberta. Lawyers effectively act as consultants for their clients for any work that the clients can do themselves.
In a 2008 report, a Law Society of British Columbia task force described unbundling as "a midway option between full service representation and no representation."
The report notes that lawyers must come to terms with the fact that self-representation is not going away because legal information is easily obtainable online. The "cultural shift" of the information age is making legal information easily obtainable online by a new generation of computer-savvy litigants.
"Many of these litigants will not see the value in hiring a lawyer to collect and process information they might easily collect themselves."
Canadian Lawyer magazine, in a survey published last summer, reported that the average "going rate" in Canada for a two-day trial civil is $25,220. It costs an average of $1,250 for a bail hearing, $4,820 for a separation agreement and $6,600 for a child custody and support agreement, said the survey of 300 lawyers.
To cope with an escalation in go-it-aloners, courts are scrambling to offer how-to guides, tip services, checklists and some are even setting up storefront kiosks that offer legal help.
Knowledge empowers people and breaks expensive traditions -Good for the Inter-net knowledge which is affordable and available- PR
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Liberals avoided financial oblivion with Iggy's coup - Brantford Expositor - Ontario, CA
Liberals avoided financial oblivion with Iggy's coup - Brantford Expositor - Ontario, CA: "Liberals avoided financial oblivion with Iggy's coup"
intereting assessment of Real politics in action- and the strategy that caused the change came form the Frontier Centre - small focused intelligent people are the tipping point. PR
intereting assessment of Real politics in action- and the strategy that caused the change came form the Frontier Centre - small focused intelligent people are the tipping point. PR
Monday, February 02, 2009
Equalization- we are not equal in Canada
The entitlement debate continues- Who shall have,and who pays for the entitlements? PR Some think that we can do better and that our regional subsidy system is not transparent, it is not sustainable and it is driven by excess.
"Expressed another way, without a federal equalization and transfer payment program, Ontario “keeps” its $981 per person and much more, while the traditional have-not provinces would suffer revenue hits akin to recently plunging equity values.
This is high risk stuff for all. We have entire populations that see their economies in very unrealistic ways, have a complete sense of entitlement to the subsidies and have little real understanding of the full extent of their dependence on B.C., Alberta, Ontario taxpayers. (Saskatchewan is more complicated. It is a “have” province for the purposes of equalization; it is a “have-not” when all federal transfers are calculated.)
To the extent that the current crisis weakens the capacity of the principal contributing jurisdictions to pay for all this, populations in the recipient jurisdictions are open to all the risks associated with a sudden disruption. "
Bubbles normally have at least four distinct characteristics.
First, the arrangements which lead to bubbles are not transparent and are complex to the point that they are incomprehensible to most people. Observers have agreed for decades that our system of regional subsidies qualifies on this score. So also does the sub-prime mess.
Second, bubbles are driven by expectations and entitlements that have no realistic basis in history or actual need. Again, there is little doubt that the recipient jurisdictions qualify on that score, to judge by their public sectors and expectations for generous government programming which greatly exceed general standards elsewhere in North America. The similarity to American and European housing expectations – the root cause of so much of the current financial turmoil – is remarkable.
Third, bubbles are unsustainable. Equalization payments to other regions in the past four years, largely from Ontario and Alberta taxpayers, have grown four times faster than Ontario’s growth. And equalization payments to Quebec have grown over that period by ten times the rate at which Ontario grows. Now, with Ontario joining the equalization recipients, such growth in payments will fall hard on BC and Alberta.
While Flaherty’s decision, also announced Monday, to limit growth in equalization payments to the growth in the economy helps in the short-term, it does nothing to address ridiculous imbalances of the sort where Ontario (to say nothing of Alberta or other provinces which are net payers) loses massive amounts of money through overall federal redistribution even though and at the very time Ontario’s economy takes a hit.
Fourth, the bursting of bubbles is not controlled by anyone and its actual timing is unpredictable. If we’ve learned nothing else in the past two months, we’ve learned that.
The federal role in all this is analogous to the role Wall Street bankers played in the current financial crisis. Ottawa has put in place a wide variety of subsidies for regions without ever examining, in a public way, the aggregate impact of them. It also took no steps to measure the largest of these – equalization – against its intended impact because it didn’t even bother to measure program comparability, the avowed goal. Finally, Ontario’s federal legislators took no serious steps to understand the problem, a governance failure that ranks with the failure of boards of directors and regulators in the United States to understand the full impact of securitization and the packaging of sub-prime loans.
Our regional subsidy system is not transparent, it is not sustainable and it is driven by excess.
"Expressed another way, without a federal equalization and transfer payment program, Ontario “keeps” its $981 per person and much more, while the traditional have-not provinces would suffer revenue hits akin to recently plunging equity values.
This is high risk stuff for all. We have entire populations that see their economies in very unrealistic ways, have a complete sense of entitlement to the subsidies and have little real understanding of the full extent of their dependence on B.C., Alberta, Ontario taxpayers. (Saskatchewan is more complicated. It is a “have” province for the purposes of equalization; it is a “have-not” when all federal transfers are calculated.)
To the extent that the current crisis weakens the capacity of the principal contributing jurisdictions to pay for all this, populations in the recipient jurisdictions are open to all the risks associated with a sudden disruption. "
Bubbles normally have at least four distinct characteristics.
First, the arrangements which lead to bubbles are not transparent and are complex to the point that they are incomprehensible to most people. Observers have agreed for decades that our system of regional subsidies qualifies on this score. So also does the sub-prime mess.
Second, bubbles are driven by expectations and entitlements that have no realistic basis in history or actual need. Again, there is little doubt that the recipient jurisdictions qualify on that score, to judge by their public sectors and expectations for generous government programming which greatly exceed general standards elsewhere in North America. The similarity to American and European housing expectations – the root cause of so much of the current financial turmoil – is remarkable.
Third, bubbles are unsustainable. Equalization payments to other regions in the past four years, largely from Ontario and Alberta taxpayers, have grown four times faster than Ontario’s growth. And equalization payments to Quebec have grown over that period by ten times the rate at which Ontario grows. Now, with Ontario joining the equalization recipients, such growth in payments will fall hard on BC and Alberta.
While Flaherty’s decision, also announced Monday, to limit growth in equalization payments to the growth in the economy helps in the short-term, it does nothing to address ridiculous imbalances of the sort where Ontario (to say nothing of Alberta or other provinces which are net payers) loses massive amounts of money through overall federal redistribution even though and at the very time Ontario’s economy takes a hit.
Fourth, the bursting of bubbles is not controlled by anyone and its actual timing is unpredictable. If we’ve learned nothing else in the past two months, we’ve learned that.
The federal role in all this is analogous to the role Wall Street bankers played in the current financial crisis. Ottawa has put in place a wide variety of subsidies for regions without ever examining, in a public way, the aggregate impact of them. It also took no steps to measure the largest of these – equalization – against its intended impact because it didn’t even bother to measure program comparability, the avowed goal. Finally, Ontario’s federal legislators took no serious steps to understand the problem, a governance failure that ranks with the failure of boards of directors and regulators in the United States to understand the full impact of securitization and the packaging of sub-prime loans.
Our regional subsidy system is not transparent, it is not sustainable and it is driven by excess.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
What we need is leadership, not gigantic deficits - Brantford Expositor - Ontario, CA
What we need is leadership, not gigantic deficits - Brantford Expositor - Ontario, CA: "ADDING BACK THE DEBT
Over the next six years, the budget office estimates, we could easily add back the $105 billion in debt that we dropped between 1997 and last year. Canada's debt-to-GDP level, the economists keep repeating, is the lowest in the G-7, at about 30 per cent. Not for much longer.
Here's the amazing thing: Nobody cares. Not the Conservatives, not the Liberals, and of course neither the New Democrats nor the Bloc.
They all want Harper to spend, spend, spend. Indeed, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has indicated that if Harper doesn't borrow and spend enough, he'll invoke the coalition and topple his government."
And it's not just them. Most nominally conservative think tanks, and all the economists, are singing from the same song sheet. Their mantra: Canada is in a sound position fiscally, relative to the rest of the G7. We can afford to incur some debt; indeed we must do so, if we are to avoid an economic apocalypse. As long as the spending is "wise," and "targeted," and as long as the resulting deficit is "cyclical" and not "structural," the experts tell us, it's all good.
My question (which I concede is impolite and possibly annoying when we're all about to receive new bridges, roads, hospitals, schools, community centres, hydro towers, sewage treatment plants, windmills and clay pots for our gardens) is this: Why are we doing it?
The message -end the age of unproductive entitlement-re-invent ourselves through leadership and learning how to compete- PR
Over the next six years, the budget office estimates, we could easily add back the $105 billion in debt that we dropped between 1997 and last year. Canada's debt-to-GDP level, the economists keep repeating, is the lowest in the G-7, at about 30 per cent. Not for much longer.
Here's the amazing thing: Nobody cares. Not the Conservatives, not the Liberals, and of course neither the New Democrats nor the Bloc.
They all want Harper to spend, spend, spend. Indeed, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has indicated that if Harper doesn't borrow and spend enough, he'll invoke the coalition and topple his government."
And it's not just them. Most nominally conservative think tanks, and all the economists, are singing from the same song sheet. Their mantra: Canada is in a sound position fiscally, relative to the rest of the G7. We can afford to incur some debt; indeed we must do so, if we are to avoid an economic apocalypse. As long as the spending is "wise," and "targeted," and as long as the resulting deficit is "cyclical" and not "structural," the experts tell us, it's all good.
My question (which I concede is impolite and possibly annoying when we're all about to receive new bridges, roads, hospitals, schools, community centres, hydro towers, sewage treatment plants, windmills and clay pots for our gardens) is this: Why are we doing it?
The message -end the age of unproductive entitlement-re-invent ourselves through leadership and learning how to compete- PR
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Ottawa set to increase national debt by over $100 billion: reports - Yahoo! Canada News
a poor return on our investment
Ottawa set to increase national debt by over $100 billion: reports - Yahoo! Canada News: "The federal government is facing a series of massive deficits that together will completely reverse the past decade's paydown on the national mortgage and set Canada's finances back more than $100 billion, new forecasts suggest.
Two separate budgetary projections"
Ottawa set to increase national debt by over $100 billion: reports - Yahoo! Canada News: "The federal government is facing a series of massive deficits that together will completely reverse the past decade's paydown on the national mortgage and set Canada's finances back more than $100 billion, new forecasts suggest.
Two separate budgetary projections"
Can we afford to look the other way?
a bad precedent
Say sayonara to good Samaratins reported by William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Did you feel that? It was our society sliding a little closer to the abyss. Recently, the California Supreme Court ruled that a good Samaritan who pulled an injured passenger out of a wrecked car could be sued by that passenger.
This twisted ruling represents the death of that state's law, which says that "no person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency car at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission."
But now the court says that Lisa Torti can be civilly liable for the permanent spinal damage suffered by Alexandra Van Horn, the passenger she dragged from that car wreck. Van Horn is now a paraplegic, and claims her condition is Torti's fault – and Van Horn wants to sue; the fact that Torti believed she was saving Van Horn's life seems not to matter to Van Horn – or to the court.
In a decision that could only be rendered by a group of lawyers, the court ruled with Van Horn, claiming that the original state statute only applies to people providing "emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency." Torti's rescue of Van Horn from the car wreck doesn't count.
Nice, huh? It's true: no good deed goes unpunished.
If there's any true justice in this world – and I'm growing increasingly doubtful that there is – Van Horn will lose her lawsuit against Torti when it goes to court this coming summer. I'm hoping for a quick and unanimous decision in Torti's favor.
But regardless of the outcome of this particular trial, I'm sure that by ruling with Van Horn, the California Supreme Court has already done plenty of damage; you can be sure that people in that state – and all over the country – will be sure to think twice next time they see a chance to help someone in need. And I bet many of these people will decide that it's safer to just look the other way.
You can thank a lawyer for that.
Say sayonara to good Samaratins reported by William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Did you feel that? It was our society sliding a little closer to the abyss. Recently, the California Supreme Court ruled that a good Samaritan who pulled an injured passenger out of a wrecked car could be sued by that passenger.
This twisted ruling represents the death of that state's law, which says that "no person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency car at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission."
But now the court says that Lisa Torti can be civilly liable for the permanent spinal damage suffered by Alexandra Van Horn, the passenger she dragged from that car wreck. Van Horn is now a paraplegic, and claims her condition is Torti's fault – and Van Horn wants to sue; the fact that Torti believed she was saving Van Horn's life seems not to matter to Van Horn – or to the court.
In a decision that could only be rendered by a group of lawyers, the court ruled with Van Horn, claiming that the original state statute only applies to people providing "emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency." Torti's rescue of Van Horn from the car wreck doesn't count.
Nice, huh? It's true: no good deed goes unpunished.
If there's any true justice in this world – and I'm growing increasingly doubtful that there is – Van Horn will lose her lawsuit against Torti when it goes to court this coming summer. I'm hoping for a quick and unanimous decision in Torti's favor.
But regardless of the outcome of this particular trial, I'm sure that by ruling with Van Horn, the California Supreme Court has already done plenty of damage; you can be sure that people in that state – and all over the country – will be sure to think twice next time they see a chance to help someone in need. And I bet many of these people will decide that it's safer to just look the other way.
You can thank a lawyer for that.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
mega casino a no go
Charest bail out fails
Brant MPP Dave Levac's proposal to build a new casino and sports complex in the city's northwest and hand the current gambling hall and civic centre over to Laurier Brantford to redevelop is dead.
City council on Monday rejected a request to open discussions on the idea.
"I'm saddened, but council has spoken and they drive the agenda," Levac said in an interview after councilors voted 6-3 against opening discussions with Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. and other potential partners about the broad strokes of his proposal.
"It was unfortunate that there was some over-exaggerated rhetoric and personal shots, but I won't play that game," the MPP p>"Having said that, I accept the decision and let's move on."
Voting in favour of the ill-fated resolution were councillors John Sless, Vince Bucci and James Calnan.
Opposing it were Mayor Mike Hancock and councillors Mark Littell, Greg Martin, Richard Carpenter, Dan Mc- Creary and John Bradford. Councillors Marguerite Ceschi-Smith and Jennifer Kinneman were not at the meeting.
Brant MPP Dave Levac's proposal to build a new casino and sports complex in the city's northwest and hand the current gambling hall and civic centre over to Laurier Brantford to redevelop is dead.
City council on Monday rejected a request to open discussions on the idea.
"I'm saddened, but council has spoken and they drive the agenda," Levac said in an interview after councilors voted 6-3 against opening discussions with Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. and other potential partners about the broad strokes of his proposal.
"It was unfortunate that there was some over-exaggerated rhetoric and personal shots, but I won't play that game," the MPP p>"Having said that, I accept the decision and let's move on."
Voting in favour of the ill-fated resolution were councillors John Sless, Vince Bucci and James Calnan.
Opposing it were Mayor Mike Hancock and councillors Mark Littell, Greg Martin, Richard Carpenter, Dan Mc- Creary and John Bradford. Councillors Marguerite Ceschi-Smith and Jennifer Kinneman were not at the meeting.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Frontier Centre is a source of high quality information
The Global “Go-To Think Tanks”In a world saturated with information, connected by the web and challenged by complex issues that often hit like a meteor from outer space, there is a growing need to know where to turn for high quality information and analysis on critical policy issues. Increasingly policy makers and the public are turning to the close to 5,500 public policy research organizations around the world for assistance. This report, from the January 2009 edition of Foreign Policy Magazine identifies and ranks the leading think tanks in every region of the world. The Think Tanks And Civil Societies Program releases its 2008 Report. The Frontier Centre ranks 22 of top 284 nominated North American (non-USA) think tanks. Special publication.
"The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is an independent public policy think tank whose mission is "to broaden the debate on our future through public policy research and education and to explore positive changes within our public institutions that support economic growth and opportunity."
"The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is an independent public policy think tank whose mission is "to broaden the debate on our future through public policy research and education and to explore positive changes within our public institutions that support economic growth and opportunity."
Frontier
The Global “Go-To Think Tanks”In a world saturated with information, connected by the web and challenged by complex issues that often hit like a meteor from outer space, there is a growing need to know where to turn for high quality information and analysis on critical policy issues. Increasingly policy makers and the public are turning to the close to 5,500 public policy research organizations around the world for assistance. This report, from the January 2009 edition of Foreign Policy Magazine identifies and ranks the leading think tanks in every region of the world. The Think Tanks And Civil Societies Program releases its 2008 Report. The Frontier Centre ranks 22 of top 284 nominated North American (non-USA) think tanks. Special publication.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Gaurdians of accountable government
Frontier Centre gets well earned performance endorsements for performance from its peers and the public;
Frontier rated as the 22 top think tank in North America
Western Standard’s “Liberty 100” Top 10 for 2008
It has been said that “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” and 2008 was no exception for Canadian friends of liberty.
Many Canadians worked hard in 2008 to fight the advance of big government and the erosion of economic and personal liberty. Some worked in relative obscurity in their own communities, while others were high profile or filled leadership roles in prestigious organizations – but all were important.
The Western Standard is putting the finishing touches on “Liberty 100,” a list of 100 Canadians who distinguished themselves in 2008, or over a lifetime, in the defence of liberty.
Creating the "Liberty 100" list wasn’t difficult. Ranking the 100 friends of liberty who made this list according to the significance of their contribution has, however, been extremely difficult. The "Liberty 100" will be released soon, but we need your help. Below is our Top 10 list, but we are asking our readers to let us know who they think deserves to be recognized for their contribution to economic or personal liberty.
“Liberty 100” Top 10 list:
1. Ezra Levant
www.ezralevant.com
The issue that dominated 2008 was the attack on freedom of speech and expression by human rights commissions across Canada, and Ezra Levant was at the centre of this issue as a pro-free speech newsmaker, advocate, lawyer and blogger. Levant has written "Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights." His single-minded defence of free speech makes him the Western Standard's choice for the #1 spot on our Liberty 100 list for 2008.
2. Dr. Michael Walker
The Fraser Institute
www.fraserinstitute.org
Dr. Michael Walker is a senior fellow of The Fraser Institute and president of the Institute’s Foundation. He served as executive director of The Fraser Institute from its establishment in 1974 until 2005. He has done more in his lifetime to advance economic liberty than any other Canadian.
3. Marc Emery
Cannabis Culture
www.cannabisculture.com
Marc Emery is the Vancouver-based publisher of Cannabis Culture magazine and an internationally recognized opponent of drug prohibition. He faces a possible lifetime in an US prison for openly selling marijuana seeds, should he lose his extradition hearing scheduled for early this year.
4. Mark Mullins
Fraser Institute
www.fraserinstitute.org
Mark Mullins is executive director of The Fraser Institute, Canada's largest and most important free market think tank. His efforts and the work of the Institute are essential to the freedom movement.
5. Peter Jaworski
Institute for Liberal Studies
www.liberalstudies.ca
Peter Jaworski is editor of the Western Standard, executive director of the Institute for Liberal Studies and the organizer of the annual Liberty Summer Seminar, an event that has energized the pro-liberty youth movement. He is Canada's most important and prominent libertarian activist.
6. John Williamson
Manning Centre for Building Democracy
www.manningcentre.ca
John Williamson is a Manning Centre for Building Democracy fellow and outgoing federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, resigning in 2008 for academic pursuits. Williamson continues to keep pressure on the Harper Conservatives to reduce taxes and government spending.
7. Peter Holle
Frontier Centre for Public Policy
www.fcpp.org
Peter Holle is the founding president of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is a consistent advocate for policy reforms that enhance personal and economic freedom.
8. Dennis Young
Libertarian Party
www.libertarian.ca
Dennis Young is leader of the Libertarian Party. A veteran of NATO operations in Bosnia, Young's personal experience as a soldier has made him a capable and credible advocate for a libertarian non-interventionist foreign policy. His law enforcement background has also made him an effective critic of the war on drugs.
9. Mark Steyn
Maclean's Magazine
www.steynonline.com
Mark Steyn is an internationally recognized columnist and the author of "America Alone." Excerpts from "American Alone" published in Maclean's magazine were the subject of a human rights complaint, which Steyn and Maclean's successfully fought. Steyn has put Canada's struggle for free speech in the international spotlight.
10. Jean-Serge Brisson
Ontario Libertarian Party
www.libertarian.on.ca
Jean-Serge Brisson is former leader of the Libertarian Party who made news in 2008 by winning his personal court case against the mandatory bilingual sign bylaw in Russell, Ontario. He was also sentenced to 90 days in prison for his ongoing refusal to wear a seatbelt while driving. He is currently serving his time on weekends.
Congratulations to the “Liberty 100” Top 10 – and thank you for your work in the defence of liberty.
Stay tuned for the complete "Liberty 100."
Frontier rated as the 22 top think tank in North America
Western Standard’s “Liberty 100” Top 10 for 2008
It has been said that “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” and 2008 was no exception for Canadian friends of liberty.
Many Canadians worked hard in 2008 to fight the advance of big government and the erosion of economic and personal liberty. Some worked in relative obscurity in their own communities, while others were high profile or filled leadership roles in prestigious organizations – but all were important.
The Western Standard is putting the finishing touches on “Liberty 100,” a list of 100 Canadians who distinguished themselves in 2008, or over a lifetime, in the defence of liberty.
Creating the "Liberty 100" list wasn’t difficult. Ranking the 100 friends of liberty who made this list according to the significance of their contribution has, however, been extremely difficult. The "Liberty 100" will be released soon, but we need your help. Below is our Top 10 list, but we are asking our readers to let us know who they think deserves to be recognized for their contribution to economic or personal liberty.
“Liberty 100” Top 10 list:
1. Ezra Levant
www.ezralevant.com
The issue that dominated 2008 was the attack on freedom of speech and expression by human rights commissions across Canada, and Ezra Levant was at the centre of this issue as a pro-free speech newsmaker, advocate, lawyer and blogger. Levant has written "Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights." His single-minded defence of free speech makes him the Western Standard's choice for the #1 spot on our Liberty 100 list for 2008.
2. Dr. Michael Walker
The Fraser Institute
www.fraserinstitute.org
Dr. Michael Walker is a senior fellow of The Fraser Institute and president of the Institute’s Foundation. He served as executive director of The Fraser Institute from its establishment in 1974 until 2005. He has done more in his lifetime to advance economic liberty than any other Canadian.
3. Marc Emery
Cannabis Culture
www.cannabisculture.com
Marc Emery is the Vancouver-based publisher of Cannabis Culture magazine and an internationally recognized opponent of drug prohibition. He faces a possible lifetime in an US prison for openly selling marijuana seeds, should he lose his extradition hearing scheduled for early this year.
4. Mark Mullins
Fraser Institute
www.fraserinstitute.org
Mark Mullins is executive director of The Fraser Institute, Canada's largest and most important free market think tank. His efforts and the work of the Institute are essential to the freedom movement.
5. Peter Jaworski
Institute for Liberal Studies
www.liberalstudies.ca
Peter Jaworski is editor of the Western Standard, executive director of the Institute for Liberal Studies and the organizer of the annual Liberty Summer Seminar, an event that has energized the pro-liberty youth movement. He is Canada's most important and prominent libertarian activist.
6. John Williamson
Manning Centre for Building Democracy
www.manningcentre.ca
John Williamson is a Manning Centre for Building Democracy fellow and outgoing federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, resigning in 2008 for academic pursuits. Williamson continues to keep pressure on the Harper Conservatives to reduce taxes and government spending.
7. Peter Holle
Frontier Centre for Public Policy
www.fcpp.org
Peter Holle is the founding president of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is a consistent advocate for policy reforms that enhance personal and economic freedom.
8. Dennis Young
Libertarian Party
www.libertarian.ca
Dennis Young is leader of the Libertarian Party. A veteran of NATO operations in Bosnia, Young's personal experience as a soldier has made him a capable and credible advocate for a libertarian non-interventionist foreign policy. His law enforcement background has also made him an effective critic of the war on drugs.
9. Mark Steyn
Maclean's Magazine
www.steynonline.com
Mark Steyn is an internationally recognized columnist and the author of "America Alone." Excerpts from "American Alone" published in Maclean's magazine were the subject of a human rights complaint, which Steyn and Maclean's successfully fought. Steyn has put Canada's struggle for free speech in the international spotlight.
10. Jean-Serge Brisson
Ontario Libertarian Party
www.libertarian.on.ca
Jean-Serge Brisson is former leader of the Libertarian Party who made news in 2008 by winning his personal court case against the mandatory bilingual sign bylaw in Russell, Ontario. He was also sentenced to 90 days in prison for his ongoing refusal to wear a seatbelt while driving. He is currently serving his time on weekends.
Congratulations to the “Liberty 100” Top 10 – and thank you for your work in the defence of liberty.
Stay tuned for the complete "Liberty 100."
fix health or you could lose your life
The future consequences of uncontrollale inflated health costs
Government questions the dollar value of human life
Dear Friend,
Recently, a depressing story from England provided a glimpse into America's not-too- distant (and oh-so-grim) healthcare future as it could be in the looming Age of Obama. A cancer patient in Britain was denied the drug that could have held his kidney cancer at bay for six months, because treatment was deemed to be too expensive by British healthcare authorities.
And you thought life was a priceless gift from God. Guess again. In Britain, at least, the "priceless gift" has a price tag. And to the British government, Bruce Hardy's life is not worth the $54,000 cost of cancer treatment.
The drug in question is Pfizer's Stutent, which according to clinical trials, can delay the progress of cancer for as much as half a year.
This shocking decision was made by the British government agency called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (which creates the incredibly ironic acronym of "NICE," even though this particular decision is anything but). According to the guidelines set by this agency, the British government can only "afford" about $22,750 to prolong a person's life – except in rare cases.
Of course, only true apparatchiks could so dispassionately make such an outrageous statement in public, and there's been massive public protests over the ruling throughout the UK – as there should be.
Government questions the dollar value of human life
Dear Friend,
Recently, a depressing story from England provided a glimpse into America's not-too- distant (and oh-so-grim) healthcare future as it could be in the looming Age of Obama. A cancer patient in Britain was denied the drug that could have held his kidney cancer at bay for six months, because treatment was deemed to be too expensive by British healthcare authorities.
And you thought life was a priceless gift from God. Guess again. In Britain, at least, the "priceless gift" has a price tag. And to the British government, Bruce Hardy's life is not worth the $54,000 cost of cancer treatment.
The drug in question is Pfizer's Stutent, which according to clinical trials, can delay the progress of cancer for as much as half a year.
This shocking decision was made by the British government agency called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (which creates the incredibly ironic acronym of "NICE," even though this particular decision is anything but). According to the guidelines set by this agency, the British government can only "afford" about $22,750 to prolong a person's life – except in rare cases.
Of course, only true apparatchiks could so dispassionately make such an outrageous statement in public, and there's been massive public protests over the ruling throughout the UK – as there should be.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
PM had 'no choice' but to appoint senators: Greene Raine
lets see what happens in 8 years.... Pr
PM had 'no choice' but to appoint senators: Greene Raine: "In a release, Harper said all incoming senators had promised to support eight-year term limits and other Senate-reform legislation. Harper said he made the appointments at this time to prevent a potential Liberal-NDP coalition government from getting the opportunity to fill the seats."
PM had 'no choice' but to appoint senators: Greene Raine: "In a release, Harper said all incoming senators had promised to support eight-year term limits and other Senate-reform legislation. Harper said he made the appointments at this time to prevent a potential Liberal-NDP coalition government from getting the opportunity to fill the seats."
Thursday, December 18, 2008
speaking outon faceook
Chatham Daily News - Ontario, CA: "Spinning wheels on laws
Posted By SUN MEDIA
Posted 2 mins ago
The politics of protest works just fine in Ontario, especially if it's done over a keyboard.
After the announcement backing off on some restrictions planned for young drivers, we now know which way the Ontario Liberals will go when there are political tradeoffs to be made.
The decision by Transportation Minister Jim Bradley to back off on some restrictions proposed for young drivers was based on backlash, not on the merits of driver safety, which, ostensibly, was the reason for making the changes in the first place.
Not that young protesters didn't have a point, but the province didn't exactly blink on this one -- it withered."
Posted By SUN MEDIA
Posted 2 mins ago
The politics of protest works just fine in Ontario, especially if it's done over a keyboard.
After the announcement backing off on some restrictions planned for young drivers, we now know which way the Ontario Liberals will go when there are political tradeoffs to be made.
The decision by Transportation Minister Jim Bradley to back off on some restrictions proposed for young drivers was based on backlash, not on the merits of driver safety, which, ostensibly, was the reason for making the changes in the first place.
Not that young protesters didn't have a point, but the province didn't exactly blink on this one -- it withered."
Monday, December 15, 2008
Home values seen losing over $2 trillion during 2008 - Yahoo! News
Home values seen losing over $2 trillion during 2008 - Yahoo! News: "NEW YORK (Reuters) – Homes in the United States have lost trillions of dollars in value during 2008, with nearly 11.7 million American households now owing more on their mortgage than their homes are worth, real estate website Zillow.com said on Monday.
U.S. homes are set to lose well over $2 trillion in value during 2008, according to an analysis of recent Zillow Real Estate Market Reports."
What next hyper deflation? Wake up people-the getting more for doing less as illustrated by " protected" interest groups in all sectors of the economy is over. Perform or pay the consequences - merit and economic supply and demand rules will once again rule - Pr
U.S. homes are set to lose well over $2 trillion in value during 2008, according to an analysis of recent Zillow Real Estate Market Reports."
What next hyper deflation? Wake up people-the getting more for doing less as illustrated by " protected" interest groups in all sectors of the economy is over. Perform or pay the consequences - merit and economic supply and demand rules will once again rule - Pr
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)