Freedom 67?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s speech in Davos yesterday signaled changes that may not be palatable to some Conservative supporters who are approaching 65 and counting on OAS to offset decreases in modest private pension plans that were originally constructed with that age of 65 in mind.

The Globe explains after citing the relevant quote:

“We’ve already taken steps to limit the growth of our health-care spending. … We must do the same for our retirement-income system.”

He [PM Harper] said he plans to make Canada’s old-age supplement program sustainable. What that means is unclear. He did not spell out whether seniors will have to wait longer to receive the benefit or whether clawbacks would be increased for higher income earners.

Unlike the Canada Pension Plan – which is supported by a separate and well-financed pool of savings – there is no pot of cash to support the OAS program, which is paid out of government revenues. A recent actuarial report pointed out that the cost of OAS will climb 32 per cent between 2010 and 2015, and OAS payouts to retirees will rise to $108-billion in 2030 from $36.5-billion in 2010…

CTV and others have bandied about the age of 67 as being the new possible age before OAS would kick in.

Is this a trial balloon? If so please kill it now – or else make sure that there is something put in place to rescue seniors who would otherwise suffer in  poverty for those two years. It’s not right to pull the rug out from under their feet so abruptly.

One thing for sure: Those seniors would have no money left for such frivolities as let’s say, party contributions.

*   *   *   *

Related

Reluctantly I now provide a link to a Barbara Yaffee column – Time ripe to rein in cushy pensions for MPs, bureaucrats.

Heal thyself first, oh politician.

Posted in Canadian economy, grassroots power, Seniors | 73 Comments

Time to let First Nations grow up

The concept of ‘Racism of lowered expectations’ can certainly be applied liberally in our multicultural society, but nowhere more so than when it comes to aboriginals in Canada.

Here we deal with natives with a kind of collective angst and guilt that may deliver immediate gratification on both sides but does little to address the long-term problems.

Basically we expect less of the native population in terms of responsibility, as if natives were some kind of ‘special needs’ class. This was brutally apparent in Richard Smoke’s light sentencing.

Christie Blatchford has the details but it all boils down to the pressure on judges to take into effect ‘special’ aboriginal circumstances:

R. v. Gladue was a 1999 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada which formalized the principles judges must use in sentencing aboriginal offenders in line with changes made just three years before to the Criminal Code of Canada.

Those changes, brought in under then Liberal justice minister Allan Rock, were fairly sweeping. Among other things, they codified for the first time the purpose of sentencing, acknowledged the failure of prison to rehabilitate offenders and ushered in conditional sentencing (where sentences are served in the community, not jail) and enshrined in law the notion that judges must pay “particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders” in order to correct the over-representation of natives in the justice system.

This is certainly an example of racism of lowered expectations in criminal law but it also is apparent in how we treat natives in general – that of an indulgent parent doling out money and making excuses when Johnny misbehaves.

The recent meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and native chiefs will hopefully be a new beginning in helping our native population to attain some form of self-sufficiency and self-respect.

As John Ivison opines in today’s Post, “Our best hope must be to encourage the spirit of self reliance that sustained native communities before they had a federal government to blame – a spirit that has been smothered by a welfare system gone mad.”

And so the roles must change. The child must be allowed to grow up – and accept all the privileges and responsibilities that go along with that independence.

 

Posted in Accountability, Caledonia, Multiculturalism, Native Issues, PM Stephen Harper, Political correctness | 38 Comments

Gendercide in Canada: a clash of values

In today’s National Post, Margaret Somerville explores the effects of sex-selective abortion on society – Focus on the fetus.

I was really hoping she would weigh in on this topic and was not disappointed:

And, cumulatively, abortion decisions have an impact on society and are not just a private matter. This is most clear in sex selection abortion. It’s estimated that there are at least 100 million missing girls in India and China as a result of sex selection abortion and female infanticide. In one Indian study in which 7,000 consecutive abortions were followed, 6,697 were of female fetuses. In some areas of China it’s reported there are 160 young men for every 100 girls. This is harmful to both sexes: Women are devalued, treated as objects, abused and harmed. And men cannot find wives.

In some South Asian societies, females are seen as a financial liability (requiring dowries) whereas males are an asset. So as Kelly MacParland observes in that case, “abortion reduces birth to a question of economics and commerce.”

I’m sure Canadian feminists are tying themselves up in knots trying to rationalize the “rights” of the woman vs. the dehumanization of females.

Canada is a multicultural, immigration-dependent country so this issue is not going to disappear.

Only the unwanted females will.

Posted in Abortion, Feminists, rights of the unborn | 30 Comments

Canada being used by U.S. Big Green

This is a MUST-READ column in today’s Financial PostForeign influx in oil sands top issue:

According to  [Forum Research President]  Mr. Bozinoff, environmental organizations enjoy higher credibility than the oil industry because they are perceived to be fighting for the environment and not gaining monetarily.

This is nonsense and Canadians should know better.

Foreign green organizations do not have and should not have the same standing as foreign corporations in discussions about major infrastructure projects because they have no skin in the game other than views – some valid, some loopy – about what makes a better planet. Their main contribution to Canada? Fear.

 ( . . . )

…The major environmental organizations campaigning against the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL are as strategic, self-serving and political as their Big Oil counterparts. They exploit the Canadian sector’s ineptness at telling its story, as well as Canadians’ ignorance, to push their competing anti-oil, pro-green energy industry agenda, stretching facts and magnifying risks. Meanwhile, they raise money.

Unlike Big Oil, they are not transparent about their motives…

Wake-up Canada! Don’t be sucked in by Leftwing Greenies and the Obama re-election machine! [Read to the end of the column to see the connection.]

As Kevin O’Leary often says, it’s all about the MONEY.

Let’s protect our jobs and our economy. Don’t let the U.S. ruin our country too.

*   *   *   *

Related

U.S. unlikely to fully recover, Carney warnsVancouver Sun:

Canada needs to look beyond its southern neighbour for markets because the United States economy is unlikely to ever fully recover, Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney said Sunday.

In an interview with CTV’s Question Period, Carney said that it is vital for Canada to look for new trading partners in the Asia-Pacific region and elsewhere to prevent the economy from being dragged down by the U.S.

“It’s going to take a number of years before they get back to the U.S. that we used to know – in fact, they are not, in our opinion, ultimately going to get back to the U.S. that we used to know,” he said.

Apparently that’s what Steve Jobs had told Obama too.

And Obamacare marches on – no matter what. (Not really related, but interesting nonetheless.)

Obama chooses American declineWashington Times:

The United States has, in essence, surrendered its place at the front of the line to purchase Canadian oil.

Sandy has an excellent post up exposing the hypocrisy of the Anti-Oilsands crowd – Environmentalists targeting Northern Gateway would destroy Canada’s economy.

I am reminded of carbon emissions stats that Lorrie Goldstein often quotes (this time in his ‘Dear America‘ letter:

If you’re worried about climate change, stop ranting about the oilsands, which account for one-10th of 1% of global carbon dioxide emissions, and start worrying that you generate almost half your electricity from coal, which has an impact on the planet up to 70 times greater than the oilsands.

And another MUST-READ from Friday – Follow the money, then expose the misinformation – Peter Foster, FP.  (Some real zingers in there especially regarding the ‘unofficial CBC opposition’.)

Posted in Barack Obama, Big Environment, Big Green, Canada-U.S. Relations, Canadian economy, environmentalists, U.S. politics | 54 Comments

Who has the REAL Hidden Agenda?

Isn’t it curious how Warren Kinsella can put out a whole column opining on pros & cons of third party advertising without once ever mentioning the Working Families Coalition?

No worries. Lorrie Goldstein has done that for him – Attack ad double standards:

Unlike in federal campaigns, there are no limits on third-party advertising during Ontario elections.

In the last one, Hudak wasn’t just under constant assault from the WFC — including an ad that portrayed him as a stooge of Bay St. — but a broad array of left-wing special interests.

As Maclean’s reported Sept. 20, 2011 at the height of the Ontario campaign:

“As of last week, all six third-party advertisers registered with the province’s election watchdog were either labour organizations or coalitions who have in the past run attack ads against Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak. Meantime, an array of environmentalists, NGOs and green entrepreneurs have joined forces in hopes of saving (McGuinty’s) two-year-old Green Energy Act, with plans for unprecedented forays into the ground-level campaign. Leaders of the ad hoc group deny they are acting for or against specific parties or candidates. But Hudak is the only leader committed to undoing the act’s key provisions.” During the 2011 Ontario election, McGuinty and the Liberals didn’t have to run ads attacking Hudak because the WFC and others did it for them.

In the 2007 Ontario election, Maclean’s reported, 90% of the $2.3 million raised by third-party advertisers went to groups opposed to Tory policies.

The Ontario Tories charge the WFC is a front group for the Liberals, which the WFC, composed of teacher, nursing and other unions, denies.

While there are political links between the Liberals and the WFC, Elections Ontario and the courts have rejected the Tory allegation the WFC is a Liberal front.

In the latest chapter, the Tories have been granted leave to appeal the court decision.

Please read the whole column. It’s a real eye-opener.

Christina Blizzard has written extensively on the need for Ontario election spending laws to be reviewed. This column is especially intriguing – Link between unions and Libs:

But the presentation leaked to me shows that top Liberal campaign organizer — and fellow Sun columnist — Warren Kinsella actually made a presentation to United Association Local 46 — a plumbers’ union — where he pitched the idea that they should become politically involved.

The 28-page presentation laid out talking points about the record of the Mike Harris and Ernie Eves governments, and tied them to Tim Hudak.

The last two slides tell the union members to act:

“Not just a lawn sign,” it says.

“Contact your local newspaper. Submit letters to the editor. Open line radio shows.” It also tells them to get involved with social media.

“Use paid media, such as radio or television ads,” says the presentation.

It said, “politically-charged campaigns launched by other unions have been successful in the past” — pointing to the controversial Working Families’, “Not This Time Ernie,” campaign of 2003.

When I contacted him Thursday, Kinsella said the union requested the presentation.

“I was asked by the union to come and speak to them before the election about how to avoid a Hudak-PC government. I spoke to about 200 people, and they were introduced to me as members of all of the political parties,” he said in an e-mailed response.

“I encouraged them to get involved in the democratic process in any way they could. One way they could do that is to advertise, and to, of course, ensure that they followed all of the Elections Ontario rules

We need some public pressure to change those Ontario rules and make them more fair.

And BTW if the National Citizen’s Coalition was really trying to help the CPC’s political fortunes, why would they be running an ad against Bob Rae now?

Think about it.

However they’re probably very grateful for the ‘earned media’ – especially from Kinsella.

Joe and Jane Frontporch of the Liberal Party have now been duly warned.

 

*   *   *   *

Update

That Warren Kinsella is one smart dude. He gets to look so wise and principled when he tells the Libs to fight back, even though just like the NCC he is warning the Liberal Party about the dangers of a Bob Rae coronation.

Amazing. Volumes will be written about this man someday.

As Google is to searching on the internet; as Kleenex is to tissues, so will Kinsella be to genius political strategy.

Posted in 'Working Families', Accountability, Big Unions, Bob Rae, Dalton McGuinty, democracy, Follow the money, Liberal entitlement, Liberal machine, Liberal Party of Toronto, MSM bias, Ontario election, strategy, Your tax-dollars | 49 Comments