The Last Exile

When news of Federal Conservative cabinet Minister Helena Guergis had her public tantrum at airline security officials in PEI hit the news I wasn’t among the almost the chorus calling her out for rude, boorish behaviour. Not because it wasn’t rude, boorish and at the very least unbecoming public conduct for a cabinet minister. It wasn’t even out of sense of sympathy for one who has many times been caught being rude, loud and obnoxious in public. I took a different view of the matter from most Canadians and thought she had a point – not in being rude but in objecting to not receiving ’special’ or ‘different’ treatment by airline security officials. She is a Canadian MP and a cabinet minister representing the highest level of government, and if a Canadian MP and cabinet official comes under the same insane intense scrutiny as a potential terrorist we are all in a great deal of trouble. It seems there is no place for common sense when it comes to the conduct of airline security officials which is why the government keeps raising airport taxes way beyond the actual threat level.

But I get why most Canadians were very vocal in their disgust of her public meltdown. Canadians like to think everyone gets treated the same and they like to see everyone without exception being treated the same by the government bureaucracy. Somehow it makes the indignity and foolishness of the matter far more palatable for the rest of us to endure with a measure of good grace.

Now there is a reason for our criminal justice system is conducted openly and members of the public are welcomed to attend almost without exception the sitting of any criminal court. Not only do we need to see justice being metered out but we also want to ensure that those who we entrust enforce and administer justice are not behaving in an incompetent or shoddy fashion and we need to believe all of us will be treated equally as well as fairly before the criminal justice system.

All of which brings me to the Rahim Jaffer matter and the general outrage by the public over the resolution which I also share. This backroom plea deal which saw a former MP and current spouse to cabinet Minister Helena Guergis charged by police with a DUI, possession of cocaine and a traffic violation. The Crown in this case worked out a backroom deal with the defense counsel which saw all the charges; including the very serious charges of DUI and possession of cocaine withdrawn in exchange for a guilty plea to ‘careless driving’ and a small fine.

The Crown suggests this is the best possible outcome and there was a reasonable chance of not being able to successfully win a conviction for the more serious charges of DUI and possession of cocaine which is all very well and good – possibly even a realistic evaluation of the situation but justice was not seen to be done in an open and public manner and the public needs to know why there was no reasonable chance of conviction.

What we do know is there was a backroom plea bargain offered and accepted and public is left entirely out of the loop in a matter. Police are public servants and we need to know they are doing their job competently. We do know Mr. Jaffer was administered a breathalyzer test in which he did not pass hence to laying of a DUI charge. If there is a procedure loophole or the breathalyzer tests are somewhat unreliable – it is within the public interest to know. The police allege they found cocaine and the public needs to know the police are not setting up evidence willy-nilly but are operating in a fair and impartial matter within the bounds of applying the law equally to all. If the police officer(s) involved made procedure mistakes the public which foots the bills needs to know – we also need to be reassured that is nothing more than a one-off incidence. The public also needs to know there isn’t a two tiered justice system operating under our very noses and lady justice blindfold doesn’t slip depending on who appears before her.

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams comes clean on his healthcare. Toronto Sun.

ST. JOHN’S, N.L. – Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams had his mitral valve repaired in Florida – a procedure he says was not offered in Canada.
However, Dr. Asim Cheema, a cardiologist at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, told QMI Agency that mitral valve repair is routinely performed in Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto.Williams told NTV that his doctor recommended he have it done at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami, Fla., where the procedure is minimally invasive. The ailing premier talked about his medical ordeal for the first time Monday in an interview with NTV, a private TV station in St. John’s, N.L.

(…)”I just said, ‘Look, our communications plan here is going to be quite simple: This is my heart, it’s my health and it’s my choice’,” Williams told NTV.
Williams said his doctors in St. John’s diagnosed him with mitral valve regurgitation about a year ago. His cardiologist told him his condition was moderate and he might eventually have to get the valve repaired or replaced. Just before Christmas, doctors told him his condition had become severe. “The mitral valve is a special surgery,” Williams said. “It’s not a typical open heart surgery where your arteries are replaced … so, they recommended that I look at going outside the province.”

The premiere’s office confirmed that his procedure is, in fact, available in Canada, but could not confirm why Williams’ chose instead to go to Florida.

But to get the money quote we have to go to the Toronto Star:

The premier also said he paid for the treatment, but added he would seek any refunds he would be eligible for in Canada.

And this is why I shall forever call him Danny Millions.

Newfoundland Premier is a wealthy man with a heart condition who has elected to seek medical care within the United States rather than avail himself of the provincial or national health care system. Medical tourism among the wealthy has always been with us and I expect it always will be.

While I can laud his decision to ‘opt’ out of provincial or the national healthcare system and consequently free up the medical resources within the country by the factor of one. Unless of course, his medical adventurism is paid for out of the public purse. Although, there is no evidence this is the case and I would expect the man who donates his premier’s salary to charity would also be paying for his own out of country medical expenses. We simply do not know and his office is rather silent on this who is footing the bill.

As an individual I completely support his right to do whatever with his own money but…and isn’t there always a but? As premier of the province and as one of the gatekeeper of the public health care system within this country I expect better – not only for him but for all the citizens of this country. Failure to address any deficiencies of the public health care within his home province or even within the country is a gross betrayal of the public trust and therefore; it is simply time for him to resign his office.

According to this Globe and Mail article political ‘insiders’ are suggesting the Prime Minister has no desire to call a spring election. And you know what? With the kind of work ethic the Harper Conservatives are showing; I am not surprised in the slightest.

Forget all that speculation about a spring election.

Stephen Harper has no intention of calling an election or engineering the defeat of his minority government any time soon, insiders close to the Prime Minister say. “The chances of hell freezing over in March are better than us doing something to trigger an election,” one source said flatly.

“There’s no appetite [for an election] in the government, there’s no appetite in the PM and there’s no appetite in the Canadian public.” Rather, Mr. Harper intends to keep his focus resolutely fixed on the “issues that matter to Canadians,” first among which is steering the country through the fragile economic recovery, the insider said on condition of anonymity.

How Harper intends to keep his focus resolutely fixed on ‘issues that matter to Canadians’ when he just decided to not show up for work for a few months boggles my mind. Maybe its because I am a conservative but there is something fiscally irresponsible and morally offensive about being forced to pay the salaries for a group of slackers who just decided they cannot be bothered to show at work for a couple of months. Maybe everyone else in this country is fine with this – but it just doesn’t sit well with me.

I haven’t written about the proroguing of the Canadian Parliament for the second time in less than a year out of disgust. Instead of spewing the bile of more than a few expletives; I suggest you read Putting the Olympics before the House of Commons. Alan at Gen X is much nicer than me and he still manages to gets the point across rather succinctly.

Maybe I missed it, but as far as I know there has yet to be a terrorist who has attempted to hijack, crash or implode an air plane with the use of a book – even a good one – at any point in the history of the world. This Toronto Star article on the pitfalls of Airport staff trying to implement the new ’security’ rules reveals this new twist.

Under rules for Canada-U.S. flights imposed by Transport Canada on Monday, no carry-on baggage is permitted – except for a “small purse” or “tote bag,” or laptop bag. But how small is “small”? If a laptop bag is also a backpack, is it a laptop bag or a backpack? What is it about a purse that gives it its pursiness? And most important and most vexing of all: Why? Why? Why?

“I don’t think it’s going to do anything,” said Jennifer Morrison, 26. “It’s ridiculous.”

Flying partner Colin Taylor, 28, held her laptop bag as they approached the check-in counter; he had to carry it with him, since she already had a purse. An airline employee, Morrison said, told her the book and magazine she had stored inside the laptop bag were acceptable even though the new rules said only computer accessories were permitted. “As long we don’t have `lots of books,’” Taylor said. “That’s what she said,” added Morrison.

For frack’s sake – now they are limited the amount of books any individual can fly with? I would be remiss if I didn’t point out there is no point in banning ‘large’ purses while still letting one carry on a ‘tote bag’. Thank G-d, there is more to the world than America.

As the war for television entitlements heats up Michael Geist explains just how far broadcast networks want to go beyond just a fee for carriage increase at the current CRTC hearings. Toronto Star:

Fee for carriage is only part of the story, as broadcasters are also seeking to: block U.S. signals; leave some Canadian communities without over-the-air television; and delay the transition to digital television transmission until 2013. The prospect of blocking U.S. television signals will come as a shock to many, but both CTV and CanWest, Canada’s two largest private broadcasters, have asked the CRTC to establish a new program-deletion policy.

For many years, Canadian broadcasters have benefited from simultaneous substitution, which allows them to air U.S. programs at the same time as U.S. broadcasters but to substitute their broadcast (complete with advertisements) on both channels. That policy is the reason programs such as House or Desperate Housewives air simultaneously in the U.S. and Canada, creating an important commercial advantage for Canadian broadcasters.

The broadcasters now wish to expand the simultaneous substitution policy with program deletion. It would provide that when a Canadian broadcaster purchases the rights to a U.S. program, they would have the right to air it whenever they choose within a seven-day window. The hook is cable and satellite companies would be required to block the U.S. broadcast of the same program if it did not air simultaneously. The proposal, which would lead to millions of Canadians regularly encountering blank screens instead of expected programs, would perversely increase the attractiveness of U.S. programming.

Geist goes on to suggest this will lead more Canadian television consumers turning to the internet as a viable alternative, and in this I agree. Once that happens, and its felt in the pockets of broadcast networks as well as cable and satellite providers -a big push will come to regulate the internet to control not just how we are watching but what we watch.

The CRTC began hearings on Monday. The Canadian Broadcast Television Networks are demanding a Fee For Carriage from cable and satellite providers. For my US and Int’l readers, the CRTC is the government body which licenses and regulates the use of all public air waves in Canada (specifically radio and television). It is probably one of the most hated institution in the country – right after Revenue Canada Taxation but before the CBC.

The Broadcast Networks came out swinging and CTV has threatened to cut transmission to the cable and satellite providers unless the CRTC allows them to charge a Fee for Carriage to cable and satellite broadcasters. Broadcast Networks revenues are primarily based raised from advertising. The more viewers the greater the rate the Broadcast Networks can charge for advertising. Since the recession hit, advertising revenues are down by at least 40% and the networks are complaining they will have to start closing local stations unless they get a ‘fee for carriage’ fee. Of course, Cable service provider seems to have very little issue funding local programming….

Cable and satellite providers are objecting to the FFC, and threaten- if they have to start paying a FFC fee now; the cost will be pass immediately unto their customers whose rates have all recently been raised as per the CRTC decision allowing an increase in their services. Cable and satellite providers suggest it makes no sense to negotiate a FFC fee when Broadcast Networks broadcast free, and furthermore, without cable and satellite providers carrying their networks in their cable satellite line-up; it increases Broadcast Networks revenue stream substantially. And it’s an interdependent relationship which has mostly worked to the benefit of all concerned.

First things – first. I cannot believe the absolute chutzpah of the CBC for climbing on board with the other broadcast networks. It’s bad enough that Canadians have been forced to fund this government stain to infinity and beyond but demanding a fee for carriage on top of taxation dollars already received – is equivalent to stabbing the back of the hand of all Canadian taxpayers.

No one in this country forced the major broadcast networks to buy all out those little local stations; so why should we Canadian consumers have to pay for the poor business judgment of Broadcast Networks? Thirdly, no one forced any of the broadcast networks to get into bidding wars for the Canadian rights to air shows like Jeopardy, CSI or House. I could never really understand why Canadian broadcast networks wanted to broadcast exactly the same television fare which could be found on any cable provider in the country who also carries ABC, NBC, CBS, or FOX. Ask yourself this; -does anyone really need two stations to broadcast the same episode of ‘Survivor’? Apparently, in Canada we do….

In the end, I suspect the CRTC will be forced to impose FFC on the cable and satellite providers in order to save the broadcast networks from the consequences of their own worst judgment. Remember the phrase ‘big to fail’ is just another way of saying; “give me more, more, more!” The cable and satellite providers will dully pass on the increased costs to consumers. I expect many consumers will look at the increases in their cable and satellite bills as kind of new fangled accelerant and start the process of disconnecting from cable and satellite services for their television viewing. Boxed set series/movie DVDs, internet and old fashioned television antennas can be easily and cheaply made to work in lieu of either cable/satellite providers. Then, of course, the Cable and Satellite providers will demand a hearing in front of the CRTC to ask permission to raise fees to make up for declining revenues because bail outs are what we do.

It would be bold and innovative; if the CRTC were to allow Cable and Satellite providers to offer Canadian consumers some real choice if some version of the FFC is introduced. The CRTC could start by demanding 65% of all Canadian Broadcast Network television must be produced in Canada to justify the FFC charge, and any aired television shows which are already broadcasted on a US Network carried by the Cable and Satellite provider will results in a rebate from whatever the full FFC charge is. Finally, let the consumer decided how far the knife is to go by allowing us to purchase individual channels without the cumbersome and costly bundling which goes on now. There is something deeply sadistic in making consumers pay for 100’s of channels when potentially there are only 10 stations we want to watch.

Apparently, really, really, stupid. The Toronto Sun:

A Bloc Quebecois MP who once accused Israel of war crimes racked up more phone charges than any other MP last year, largely the result of a trip to Lebanon.

However, Maria Mourani says the $34,205 tab is justified because it allowed her to keep in touch with her office during the month-long trip that she paid for out of her own pocket.

Of course, she could have used ‘Skype’ or ‘Google chat’ or even just texted her office at a tiny fraction of the cost of cost she is asking Canadian taxpayers to shell out for her cell phone bills. If there was actually any ‘conserve’ in the present ruling Conservative party, Prime Minister Harper would direct government accounting clerks to only pay out the cost of sending one text per phone call and send the bill back to Mourani with an admonishment to seek reimbursed via the Bloc Quebecois for the balance.

I realize this isn’t incredible generous of me but I can’t help smiling that come this fall Southern California place host to 1,300 plus Palestinians from Iraq. And may I suggest Irvine as a final destiniation spot in Southern California where the Palestinians will probably feel the most at home. Speaking as a Canadian; its a welcome change not to be playing the world’s hotel manager to this latest crop of refugees. CS Monitor gets full kudos for raising American concerns for Israeli sensitivities.

While the US generally doesn’t accept Palestinians, Todd Pierce, a spokesman for the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, says that the Iraqi population of Palestinians falls under a different category from those in Gaza and the West Bank. Each applicant will be carefully scrutinized for terrorist ties, he adds.

The US reluctance to accept Palestinians is because it “doesn’t want the refugee program to become an issue in its relationship with Israel,” says a diplomat in the region, who requested anonymity because he is not cleared to talk to the press. But these Palestinians, he says, will be processed as refugees from Iraq.

While I realize its presumptuous of me to speak on the behalf of country of which I am not a member; I doubt you could find any Israeli (with the possible exception of Amira Hass like characters) who would lose any sleep over the USA opening its arms to the Palestinians, and if I could be so bold to suggest – there are plenty more to spare, and could be yours just for the asking.