What on earth is the Liberal Party of Canada and Liberal Leader Stephane Dion thinking to suggest that, if elected, they would create a “Commissioner of Gender Equality?” The very idea is Orwellian in the extreme — where big brother government is always watching and controlling everything that happens — a type of social engineering that is completely offensive to me as a woman.

Now, where does this idea come from? Who has been clamoring for such a “commissioner?” For those following the U.S. democratic primary process, no commissioner was needed for there to be an African American and female on the ballot. As Hilary Clinton said in her exit speech yesterday, it is no longer remarkable for a women to think about being President of the United States. And, such equality came about just as it should — gradually over time, on the basis of qualifications and suitability — not on the basis of quotas.

And, before anyone suggests I don’t know what it feels like to experience gender bias, let me explain that I know all too well. I came of age in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s at a time when we still had gender-based help wanted columns in all major newspapers. One side of the page would clearly state ”Male Help Wanted,” while the other side of the page would state ”Female Help Wanted.” And I can confirm that all the good jobs were on the male help wanted side of the page.

Although I was born in Toronto, I grew up in Ottawa and I can clearly remember when the first female disk jockey was hired for the all-night CFRA program. Until that time, only men had held such jobs. I can’t remember her name now, but that young woman was a pioneer as she paved the way for many others and the very idea of hearing only male voices on radio and television is long past.

In fact, my guess is that there is far more gender discrimination nowadays for white males. I know of a couple of young men who, in recent years, applied to the RCMP but couldn’t even continue their applications because they didn’t fall into the correct categories — minority, aboriginal or female.  Is a Commissioner of gender equality going to help those young men or is the position just about women?

Read the rest of this entry »

SOR is an occasional guest on this blog.  She uses the handle “SOR” because we both share the same first name. Today she has responded to the latest Nik Nanos research poll regarding its “Economic Projection Study:” (1) whether respondents feel the economy will become weaker, stronger or stay the same; or (2) whether interest rates will increase, decrease or stay the same. Here is the e-mail SOR’s sent to Nanos earlier today.  Used here with her permission.

Nik:

Greetings.  I find it interesting on how numbers mean different things to different people.  For your first question you highlight the large negative difference between whether the economy will get weaker or stronger.  You’re right, there is a large negative difference but if you look at all of your information and include the ‘stay the same’ numbers the results show a 50:50 split.  In other words just as many people see the economy as remaining on an even keel or improving as those that see it deteriorating.  To me that is a positive response.
 
Your second question on interest rates shows something completely different when you include the ‘stay the same’ response into the analysis.  There we see a -7 difference rather than the +24 that you highlight.  More people see interest rates staying the same or going down which, in my humble opinion, is a positive response. 
 
By reading your interpretations without looking at the data I was initially left with the impression that this poll was not a good news story.  In fact, it is.  Cheers.  Sandra

When and if SOR gets a response from Nanos, I will post that as well. And, of course Nik is always welcome, as he has in the past, to respond here.

[...]

Update: Here is Nik Nanos’ response to SOR and a further follow-up e-mail from her.

Hi Sandra,
 
I think most business people would look at the net loss $4 and pick up $1 means a net loss (assuming all other revenue is unchanged).  Someone could also lump the negative with the stay the same and infer that things are negative – they are either staying the same or will be worse….that’s why I focus on the net impact, it is not biased in favour of one direction or another.

Cheers,
NJN
___________________________________________________________
Nikita James Nanos, CMRP
 
 
Nik:

It boils down to the glass half full/half empty theory.  Neither is more correct than the other, it just depends on your perspective.  I’m a glass half full person myself and will stick with my suggestion of a better explanation of your findings would have been helpful.  By leaving it as is you are leaving out some important information.  Cheers.  Sandra

 

Alberta Girl’s letter to the editor and my link to the Harper Government Record of Accomplishments was published in the Hill Times. Well done. We have to keep getting the word out.

[...]

Bill Curry of the Globe and Mail quotes Finance Minister Jim Flaherty as saying “I don’t pretend that it’s easy to draw the line.” The line he is talking about is between independent films that are socially acceptable and contextual compared to those that include “gratuitous violence, sexual content that lacks an educational purpose, or denigration of an identifiable group.”And, I would suggest that most people over the age of 18 know hate and pornography when they see it. 

Yet, independent film makers like “David Cronenberg and Sarah Polley are leading a campaign against the bill, describing it as a form of censorship.” To my mind the only censorship that is involved is access to public money, our money, taxpayers money. Moreover, as Curry writes:“Canadian Heritage officials said the law will trigger consultations on new rules that will expand the criteria for denying the [tax] credits….”

In other words, once it is law, C-10 would allow Heritage officials to: (1) deny certain tax credits for certain films so that public money, taxpayers money, is not paying for them; and (2) provide for public consultantion to set new rules on what is art compared to hate, gratuitous violence and pornography.

So, while David Cronenberg and Sarah Polley and others say C-10 is about censorship,  I would suggest it isn’t because the law would NOT stop anyone from making independent films.  Rather, what C-10 would do is provide a mechanism to deny public money.

C/P at Jack’s Newswatch.

So the layers of the Elections Canada campaign spending issue are being peeled away and, along with those layers is the obvious hypocrisy in some federal political circles. Yesterday I wrote about Andrew Coyne’s article in Macleans with respect to opposition parties hyperventilating on the so-called “In and Out” scheme. Now, today, we are hearing about the Bloc Quebecois — the party who yesterday put forward a motion to support Elections Canada.  

Well, if you want further evidence of in and out schemes, read this piece by Elizabeth Thompson in the Montreal Gazette.  She writes:

When the controversy first erupted about the Conservative “in and out” transfers between their local and national campaigns, the term had a vaguely familiar ring to it. Listening today to one Bloc Québécois MP after another get up to denounce “in and out” financing and praise Elections Canada,  those bells started to ring even louder.

Finally it came to me. The term “in and out” in connection with election financing was first used by my former colleague and classmate Andrew McIntosh to describe a lucrative arrangement cooked up by the Bloc to take advantage of a loophole in election financing laws to extract the maximum amount of taxpayer-funded refunds from Elections Canada.

I seem to recall that the Bloc weren’t as great fans of Elections Canada then as they seem to be now. Who knows. Perhaps the Bloc is now denouncing a practice it inspired.

 While the hypocrisy is truly breathtaking, I am glad the truth is finally coming out.

* Update: Related. Tories blast Elections Canada.

[...]

Yesterday, Barbara Yaffe wrote in the Vancouver Sun that neither of the main parties were doing much to impress the voters. I sent her an e-mail questioning her comments. Although I can understand that Canadians are not impressed with Liberal “gotcha” politics and their desperation to get back into power to be “entitled to their entitlements,” the notion that the Conservative government isn’t doing much is ridiculous and misleading. Perhaps if the media got the message out about exactly what the governing party WAS doing or HAS DONE, Canadians would indeed be impressed!

So, I will remind all mainstream journalists, here are some of the things the Harper government has done so far.   I will also remind mainstream journalists that this list of accomplishments does not contain any spin or promises. It is reality. Moreover, there is no manipulation or misleading of the facts because the only sources I used were from government websites and government search engines and the mainstream media itself.

The bottom line: The conservative government has been in power only a little over two years. If Canadians are not impressed, then I challenge the media to get the message out explaining exactly what the Harper Conservatives have done.

[...]

C/P at Jack’s Newswatch.