80,000 Job Cuts

That's the number that is being thrown around -- usually in indignant tweets and facebook posts claiming that the Conservatives will cut 80,000 public service jobs.  Even the MSM is quoting this figure as if it is a fait accompli.


The reality is that the number is taken from a quote by Stephen Harper on April 8th, 2011 during the unveiling of the Conservative platform.  He said

"We've got 80,000 public servants retiring over the next few years, we don't need to replace all of them"

That's it.  That's all he said.  The budget tabled by the Conservatives before the election forecast a deficit of $300 million for 2014-2015 without any savings in government spending.  Assuming an average salary of $50,000 (these are people at the end of their careers, so the figures would actually be higher in most cases), that is 6000 jobs.  2% of Canada's 283,000 public servants and we have a balanced budget.  Surely we can manage that without the system going to hell.


The thing that upsets me most (as usual) is the way the MSM is reporting this figure!  TheStar.com published an article last Friday with the following misleading information:

The savings can be achieved through “modest” cuts in government operations and by allowing the federal public service to be reduced by one-third through attrition, Harper said.

Notice there are no quotes around this supposed quote?  This is just a gross paraphrasing of Harper's April 8th statement.


In another part of the article it says:

He says the Conservatives can eliminate Ottawa’s $40-billion annual budget deficit by 2014 rather than 2015 as forecast by Flaherty in March. 

This $40-billion dollar figure has been out of date for almost a year.  It is the estimated deficit from last year's budget.  By the time Flaherty tabled this year's budget, the number was already down to $34-billion, and mid-way through the campaign the government was on target for a $28-billion deficit.  The inflated figure was used in the article to make it seem less likely that the Conservatives could pull off balancing the budget by 2014 without slashing the public service.

Keep Your Hands Off My Internet!

One of the key planks in the Conservative election platform was the omnibus crime bill -- a bill that would combine all of their pre-election bills into one uber-bill.  Much was said about the tough-on-human-trafficking legislation, the tough-on-child-porn legislation, and the tough-on-elder-abuse legislation.  Not so much was said about the tough-on-internet-hyperlinks legislation.

According to the Library of Parliament's Legislative Summary to Bill C-51 clause 5 of the bill

"provides that the offences of public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred may be committed by any means of communication and include making hate material available, by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted, for example."

That is the summary.  Here is what is actually being changed according to the text of Bill C-51:

5. The definition “communicating” in subsection 319(7) of the Act is replaced by the following:
“communicating” means communicating by any means and includes making available;

Clause 5: Existing text of the definition:
“communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

That little change from 'by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means' to 'by any means and includes making available' seems innocent enough.  If the language of the summary hadn't mentioned hyperlinks, I'm sure this would have passed without a debate.

Why are we doing this?  Because in 2001, Canada became a signatory of the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime, and in 2005 we became a signatory of the Additional Protocol concerning Acts of Racist and Xenophobic Nature Committed on Computer Systems.  In that protocol (Chapter II, Article 3):

"Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right, the following conduct:

distributing, or otherwise making available, racist and xenophobic material to the public through a computer system."

So, there is a reason behind this seeming madness.  And other countries (presumably) have done this before us without destroying the internet or exposing everyone with a blog to the threat of lawsuits. 

And the Criminal Code hasn't changed the section on defences against hate crime accusations:

Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

So you can safely link to a site for the purpose of stating an opinion on a religious subject.
You can safely link to a site that is relevant to any subject of public interest (what doesn't that cover??)
You can safely link to a site to refute its content and point out the need for its removal.

There is one thing that all this legislation (in Canada and in Europe) seems to miss: the dynamic nature of the internet.  Websites are constantly changing.  If you link to the front page of the National Post because you want to share the headline, it will only be relevant for a day at best.  More than likely the top headline will have changed in a matter of hours.

If you link to someone's blog because you liked one article, you may not know that in 2003 he wrote a rambling Gibson-esque anti-semitic manifesto.  Too bad.  You've just made hate material available.

I don't know how to ammend this to make it right.  That's what the bureaucrats and politicians are supposed to do.  All I can do is urge you to contact your MP and tell them that this needs to be looked at before the Omnibus Bill becomes law.

I Reject Your Reality and Substitute My Own

In a press conference yesterday in downtown Toronto, Jack Layton talked as if the new parliament was another Conservative minority.

“We will try to convince Mr. Harper to do what he should,” he said. “And with the mandate we received, it’s his obligation to listen to us.”

I agree that it is the duty of the opposition to influence the government.  But Mr. Layton faces a majority government, not another minority.  Technically, the Conservatives don't have to listen to the opposition at all. So the best way to make the government listen is by changing public opinion (any government that doesn't respond to the will of the people will not find themselves in power for long).

The problem is, 60% of the NDP's new-found 'talent' was elected on a protest vote.  Quebec didn't vote for the NDP, they voted against everybody else.  Mr. Layton had better gauge the mood of his new constituents quickly before he tries to bend their will to suit his own agenda.  Try to bend it too far and he may send Quebec running back to the Liberals, or worse, the Bloc.

Fortress Toronto

Did anyone catch Global TV's Fortress Toronto graphic during the election coverage last night?

The map of TO had a wall around the 17 ridings that make up the core of the city.  Arrows began to appear from the blue Conservative ridings surrounding it and advanced into the city.  Then arrows sprung up in the NDP orange lakeshore ridings and attacked on the Liberals' flank.  Finally red arrows began to spear outward from Liberal-held ridings into the Conservative's encircling ridings.  

As an avid wargamer, it looked like they were analyzing one of Rommel's battles or troop movements in the Bulge.

But most bizarre was the commentator's remarks about 'mobilizing the Jews'!  I'm fairly certain he misspoke and meant mobilize the 'Jewish vote' in York Centre.  But it certainly sounded sinister!

Dennis Had It Right

"Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."

Dennis had it right after all.  


Ignatieff, Layton, and Duceppe thought they had been handed Excalibur by divine right and were ready to use it to make themselves kings.  But the masses had other ideas and gave the mandate to Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.


While many of my friends are now gnashing their teeth and lamenting the imminent destruction of Canada, what the opposition needs to be doing is getting their acts together.  


The NDP has made an historic move into 2nd place, and they need to take full advantage of it. They literally have dozens of inexperienced MPs marching off to Ottawa with no clue what is in store for them.  Take the next four years and train them (some of them in French) to become politicians.  Learn something about these constituents that you may never have met.  If you don't, the Quebecois are not going to give you a free ride in the next election.


Elizabeth May has also done the seemingly impossible and has won the first seat for the Green Party.  If nothing else, the networks are going to have to give her a place in the debates!  Good for you Elizabeth!


The Liberals have the most soul-searching to do.  Ignatieff today said that he would stay on as long as the party wants him to, but I think he should be working on his resume.  There are only four months before the start of Fall semester.  Scott Brison and Bob Rae might want to start prepping for the next Liberal leadership convention.


Finally, the Bloc?  I could probably squeeze the whole party into my van between the kids' booster seats.  You guys need a lift anywhere?