This is my second year volunteering with the CBC Calgary Reads book sale. After seeing the humongous selection of books last year I was hooked. I’m an avid reader and this is right up my alley! If you haven’t been yet, and you live in or near Calgary, I highly recommend going. But if you need a bit more persuasion here are 5 reasons you should check it out.

1. There is a huge, and I mean ginormous, selection

I was awe struck when I saw how many books there are, and that’s after volunteers weed out all dirty/old/worn ones. The books are well categorized too. Fiction on one side, non fiction on the other, and then sorted into groups such as art, travel, humour, ect, ect. I can almost guarantee everyone can find a subject that would interest them.

2. Your supporting an amazing charity

All of the funds raised go to Calgary Reads which is an early literacy initiative devoted to changing the lives of struggling grade 1 and 2 readers and their families in Calgary and area schools. Increased literacy in Children can boost their confidence and academic achievement and also enables curiosity, creativity and critical thinking. Happier and healthier kids turn into happier and healthier adults. Yay!

3. You could meet that someone special

Ok, this one might seem a little far fetched but I heard a story on CBC Radio 1 about a couple that met at a Calgary Reads book sale, he asked her out for coffee and they ended up getting married! Maybe you might connect with someone over your shared love of sports trivia or vegetarian cooking. Maybe you might reach for the same book, your fingers touch, and sparks fly. Hey, you never know!

4. It will help you stay young

Confucius says “you cannot open a book without learning something.” Patty Berg, founding member of the LPGA says “Always keep learning. It keeps you young.” So therefore read a book and stay young!

and if reading doesn’t appeal to you….

5. Book crafts!

If the thought of cutting into a book send shivers down your spine skip this one. There are some books out there that might not get chosen to read but have very pretty covers or would be perfect for that craft project you’ve been meaning to try. Why not use a book to make a lamp, clutch, or table runner. there’s even a book all about making crafts using books!

So do I have you convinced that you should head down to the Calgary Curling Club from May 10-12? If you want more information about the hours, address, or how you can get involved next year check out the website. www.calgaryreads.com or follow them on facebook or twitter!

Looking at the haul I brought home I think I might be spending a lot of time on the deck this summer with a book and a cold beverage.

For more info go to http://www.cbc.ca/q/2013/05/10 Click “Listen” on the top right hand side to catch the show.

By Dano

• What do you feel defines “uniquely home-grown canadian content”? I just genuinely wonder about that. If the CBC is meant to be a reflection of Canadian culture I guess I would believe we need to further democratize it. And in this case, ceding partial control to the government in power seems like a step in the wrong direction. My point here I guess is that the CBC has the potential to be an invaluable resource, but is not perfect. Maybe we all need to take a more active role simply because it has such a unique power to define our country. At the end of the day who really gets to decide what programming is on the CBC? Journalism free from government influence still is problematized by the familiar divisions like class. How much does a journalism degree cost? Are those who can afford them the only one who get to decide what goes on the CBC?

   
• SECONDLY. I am certainly not apologizing for the bad things Don Cherry has said about French-Canadians, Russians, women, take your pick. BUT, Hockey is part of Canada. something like 80% of the country watched the gold medal hockey game. And Don Cherry is hockey. SO instead of simply calling for the rolling head of an individual we need to look at how the game is shaped by our country and how we teach, watch, and talk about it. I love hockey so much. Shinny on Emerald Lake behind my house in Whistler this past year was some of the most fun I have ever had. Yet the game is ill and need of reform. Most glaringly, violence in hockey makes me really sad and confused. I don’t know how to fix this one either. But there are numerous points of power that need to change. Reckless violence in the NHL needs to be eliminated, for good (lookin’ at you Raffi Torres, Aaron Rome, Brad Marchad, Matt Cooke, the list goes on), young kids starting out need to be taught that life-long injury to an opponent is not worth winning the game, and the rules/equipment/refereeing needs to reflect a genuine desire to change for the better. The CBC could easily play an active role in this, and if that means Don Cherry has to go, so be it. But really, we still buy the tickets, contribute to ratings, congratulate our children on scoring or wins despite dirty play. Far better for us to look inward. I see hockey as a reflection of Canada that I feel has lost its way.

By Vandee

I’ll open with: please comment!  I want to know more about this issue, and learn what others have to say…

When I was in high school, I read Michael Moore’s Stupid White Men, and learned a lot about partisan politics from Michigan’s favorite unkempt whistle blower.  He has a chapter that outlines a list of offenses committed by top members of the Bush administration across their political careers (this being pre-9/11).  He’ll list a string of scandals, corruption accusations, and war profiteering, and without taking a breath, add all the times that each Bush appointee voted against Pro-Choice legislation.  By strict definitions, I’m quite Pro-Choice – I don’t believe the government has a right to tell a woman what she can do with her body, and ultimately defer to doctors (rather than religious leaders, or politicians) on health issues.  That being said, there’s nothing corrupt about taking a Pro-Life stance.

Pointing out corruption is a means of objectively proving to people of any political leaning that a politician is bad at their job.  I don’t believe that anyone can lump a legitimate political position in with a corruption accusation, and expect it to be rhetorically sound.  Being Pro-Life is just what Republicans do – engage them in debate, show them facts to convince them of your point of view, but don’t accuse them of being corrupt just because they see fetuses in a different light than you do.

This is the crux of partisan politics – the inability to differentiate between corrupt practices, and the expression of a political view that’s different from yours.

Enter Stephen Harper v. the CBC.

I wake up one day, and the internet-o-sphere has exploded because Harper is looking to cut CBC funding.  Holy shit, stop the presses, a Tory wants to cut spending.  Cutting spending is what Tories do – hell, that’s why 40% of the 60% of Canadians who turned out to vote in 2011 voted the Tories in.

I read some more, and it looks like changes to the CBC don’t stop at spending cuts.  The following is a quote from the CBC, so recognize the bias:

“The new changes would allow the government to directly interfere in the day to day running of the Corporation. At the heart is a plan for direct interference in collective bargaining between the CBC and its employees. The legislation even goes so far as to place a member of the Treasury Board at the bargaining table. CBC’s government appointed Board of Directors would now have to seek government approval to reach any agreement with CBC employees.

The legislation tabled yesterday effectively eliminates the arms-length relationship with government that’s at the heart of public broadcasting.

“This is an outrageous and unnecessary violation of the principle of public broadcasting. It undermines nearly 80 years of public broadcasting in Canada and around the world by meddling with the essential arms-length relationship between the CBC and the government of the day. The change is disturbing as it has all the markings of an attempt to turn the CBC into a state broadcaster,” said Carmel Smyth, National president of the Canadian Media Guild (CMG), the largest union that represents CBC workers.”

I have enough Tory friends to know they’d say something like, “it’s all about controlling the amount of taxpayer money that goes into the public broadcaster – we need to ensure belts are kept tight.”

Conversely, my lefty friends are probably saying, “this is step one on the path to state-sanctioned propaganda – Harper is looking to control the media in this country.”

Unsurprisingly, I’ma assume a middle position.  Controlling spending is important for any government, but is taking the hatchet to the CBC highest on the priority list?  Plus, they’re a media outlet with a long-standing beef against the Tories – understandable, given the fact that Tories generally want to hatchet their budget.  So I guess it makes sense that these parties would be at each others throats: one looking to keep its funding and freedom, and the other assuming the divine mandate of saving Canadian taxpayers money at every opportunity.  I don’t think Harper has a grand propaganda scheme (he’s too much of a reactionary lame duck to have anything like that up his sleeve), he just has zero sympathy for the CBC and likes doing things that make the government’s bottom line look better.

That doesn’t make him an evil mastermind, it makes him a Tory.

As for the CBC, I’m wondering how much of the sympathy it has gotten from the Left is on principle, and how much is genuine interest in CBC programming.  I’m a huge CBC Radio fan, and don’t want to see my favorite programs cut from the air, but to a hatchet man Tory, I can see why it looks like an ideal target.  The only statistic I could find after a quick search: CBC receives 1 Billion dollars annually in government revenue (taken from Wikipedia).  That’s no small chunk of change.

For every hipster I see on the bus with a CBC messenger bag, I’m wondering if he/she/zhe watches Heartland or Being Erica or Mr. D.  Do they listen to Tapestry on Radio 1?  Likely they’re Radio 3 fans of Ghomeshi subscribers.  Fair enough – that’s a legitimate political position: you like program x, you want to see it stay on the air, and you’re willing to get political to see that it does.  Well done!  But hipster, would you be upset if the CBC, without government intervention, axed the programs you don’t pay attention to as a means of limiting their spending?  How much of this debate is principle, and how much is you wanting your favorite podcast to stay on the air?  Should it matter?

Enter CBC’s most popular program: Hockey Night in Canada, bringing the nation together since 1931.  Specifically, long-time hipster antithesis Don Cherry.  I couldn’t find how much CBC pays him per Coach’s Corner, but I did find his listed net worth to be $12 million, most of which I imagine comes from the CBC these days.  The Left in licking their lips in anticipation of this guy getting the axe, especially in light of his outspoken right wing stance on many issues.  When I tuned in to a recent episode last night, Grapes let slip one of the worst soundbites I’ve ever heard, “I don’t feel women are equal.”  Jesus.  Left-wing lynch mobs now mobilizing.  The full quote, in reference to female reporters in male locker rooms (and the suggestion of male reporters in female locker rooms), “I don’t feel women are equal.  I feel they are above us.  I think they are on a pedestal and they should not be walking in when naked guys are walking in. And some guys take advantage of it and I don’t think (they) should be.”  Full quote is more understandable from a “he’s 79 years old” POV, but no more acceptable to the Left.

So it’s clear that the Left would have no problem squeezing Grapes out.  Now, if I’m in charge of the CBC, and I’m running it like a business, I’m likely to keep the bro who generates the most ratings and brings in the most advertising money, it just makes sense.

Now let’s paint two extremes:

1. Tories celebrate their biggest moral victory to date when they axe the CBC entirely, forcing it to operate as a regular old private broadcaster.  Shelagh Rogers is out of a job, and the Left freaks out.

2. A hypothetical government gives the CBC carte blanche, they being practically-minded business folk pour most of their money into their reliable, popular programming and up Cherry’s budget.  They also spend more on arts, culture and music programming on CBC Radio, and make 5 new seasons of Heartland.

Is the Left happy under scenario 2?  They want Cherry gone, but recognize the CBC’s actions as making business sense.  If only there were some way they could put one of their people in charge of what the CBC spends money on.  Wouldn’t that be awesome?  Like a really cool person who values Canadian music and will promote the programs that matter to us.  Of course there would have to be some government body overseeing everything to make sure the programming is kept artsy, relevant, and left of center – no more Cherry-bombs up in here!

Now, how is that different from what the Tories are doing in principle?

http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/2013/04/29/canadians-overwhelmingly-reject-don-cherrys-sexist-remarks/

http://rabble.ca/news/2012/05/cbc-crisis

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jj-mccullough/harper-bashers_b_3221173.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation#Television

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/don-cherry-net-worth/

Muitos daqueles que nos rodeiam, especialmente os mais velhos e a quem devíamos ter o máximo de respeito possível, sempre nos fizeram gostar do Bem e a odiar o Mal para nosso bem. Sempre nos ensinaram que aquilo que temos é nosso e de mais ninguém e não vale a pena chorar porque o outro tem isto ou aquilo porque ou haveremos de ter ou não nos cabe a nós tê-la porque será mau. Mas o problema nasce quando não queremos ouvir a voz da experiência, quando, apesar de todos os avisos, estamos tão cegos ao ponto de brincar com aquilo que não devemos e cair numa espiral de jogos manipuladores e de atirar areia para os olhos daqueles que mais gostam de nós, sabendo que podemos fazer deles o que quisermos desprezando os seus sentimentos.

Na Natureza é necessário um equilíbrio. Para, rigorosamente, tudo. E, hoje em dia, esse equilíbrio não existe ou está desviado para as coisas do Mal, para as coisas que sempre tentámos deixar de parte. E talvez isto aconteça devido aos tempos pelos quais passamos, tempos em que os espantalhos da ignorância, do medo e da cegueira teimam em crescer em cada recanto da nossa cidade, da nossa casa e nós, sem saber que fazer com eles porque não nos assustam, vamos permancendo impávidos e serenos como se nada nos afectasse. No entanto, a inveja cresce dentro de nós, como uma planta parasita. E quando damos conta, ou estamos consumidos por ela ou a nossa vida deixa de fazer sentido. E depois? Onde está o alento para continuar? Onde está a força para nos mexermos a fazer alguma coisa?

Uma pessoa muito especial para mim, já no outro dia, me dizia que eu precisava de um pequeno empurrão para me obrigar a mexer, para me obrigar a actuar perante um problema. Será que todos nós não precisamos desse pequeno empurrão? Será que, se nós tentássemos demolir esta inveja que se contrói dentro de nós, não seríamos (um pouco) mais felizes apesar dos maus tempos que vivemos? Há mais cores numa palete de tintas que o verde e o preto, cores tão características da inveja que nos cobre a alma e o coração. Que tal pintarmos a nossa vida com uma cor mais alegre? Se não formos nós a pintar, será a nossa cara-metade, o nosso melhor amigo, a nossa mãe, irmã ou pai… porque, repare caro leitor, nenhum de nós é uma ilha e até mesmo uma simples palavra torna a nossa vida mais colorida e talvez seja esse o patamar, o princípio da força e da vontade para nos levar muito mais longe.

According to the Hill Times, the government would have the ability to approve (or deny) collective bargaining, salaries and working conditions for employees of Canada’s public broadcaster. Critics are concerned that the move will turn CBC from a public broadcaster into a state broadcaster.

The union representing CBC workers are calling it “an outrageous and unnecessary violation of the principle of public broadcasting.”

Twitter users imagined what a CBC run by Harper would look like (Arctic Unbreathable Air, The Unfriendly Giant) but Truth Mashup has taken it a step further with this hilarious, if terrifying, parody:

Out? Rick Mercer, David Suzuki and Terry Malewski.

In? Justin For Laughs Gags, eight hours of news from Kevin O’Leary and Harper Kids! hosted by Diefenpuppet.

The parody was put together by Truth Mashup a comedic current affairs show hosted by Toronto comedian Dan Speerin. It tags itself as “either high brow comedy, or low brow journalists.”

Meanwhile, the #HarpersCBC hashtag is still getting some love.

This Hour Has O Minutes #HarpersCBC—
attica furnishings (@atticahome) May 04, 2013

#HarpersCBC "Rewind" where we play Canada's Action Plan ads backwards!—
Bob Chandler (@leftylabourtech) May 04, 2013

#harperscbc "Under the Bad Influence" – a show about how to preach family values while seducing the babysitter.—
Michelle Langlois (@michellel) May 04, 2013

The cracks in the investigation of the missing girls is notable, but if you don’t know the full story, here’s what The Globe and Mail had to say about it today.

Activities & Events

ROMwalks

The Royal Ontario Museum offers free walking architectural and historic neighbourhood tours of Toronto.

Wed May 15 6 p.m. ROM & Its Neighbours

Sun May 19 2 p.m. The Annex

Photography in the Junction

All May head to Photography in the Junction presented by the Junction BIA. Enjoys the works of 25 artists in 18 venues in the city’s west end.

Victoria Day Fireworks

What’s a weekend without fireworks!  The City of Toronto will light off over 2000 fireworks at Ashbridges Bay. Sunday starting at 10 p.m.

Artfest Toronto, Spring Art & Craft Show

Artfest will feature 85 artists at the Historic Distillery District over the May long weekend. The festival will include pottery, glass, jewellery, artisan clothing, paintings, photographs, wood products, gourmet foods, live music and more.

CBC Toronto Canada Lives Here Experience

All Victoria Day weekend take the opportunity to meet your favourite CBC personalities. This interactive event will feature events, Q&A’s and contests.

Blue Jays vs. Rays

Monday afternoon, head down to the Roger’s Centre to watch our Toronto Blue Jays take on the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

Toronto FC vs. Columbus Crew

Saturday May 18, the Toronto FC will host the Columbus Crew at BMO fields.

MEC Bikefest Toronto

Head down to Trinity Bell Woods Park May 18, 2013 featuring informative clinics, kids’ activities, bicycle demos presented by Mountain Equipment Co-op.

Food and Drink

Dundas Street West/Ossington Food Tour (Best of the West!)

Saturday May 18, discover the best spots for food and drinks in trendy Dundas West and the Ossington Strip. The tour will last approximately 4 hours.

Festival of Chefs

May 18: Chef Zielinski Executive Chef at Hot Stove will be at Cheese Boutique from 12-4 p.m.

May 19: Chef Amanda Ray, Chef de Cuisine at Biff’s Bistro will be at Cheese Boutique from 12-4 p.m.

World Cafe
Located at the Harbourfront Centre this event will feature a variety of international cuisines.

…And don’t forget to read our  Toronto May Concert Listings 2013 for concerts going on the Victoria Day weekend!

“It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that an editorial decision to go easy on the government could be made in the heat of a contract negotiation, if the prime minister is, in effect, seated on the other side of the bargaining table,” Ian Morrison, with the advocacy group Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.

“Even subtle influences on story line-ups affect the quality of news decision-making. Without a strict, arm’s-length relationship and independence from government, the CBC will lose its credibility,” Morrison told a news conference in Ottawa Wednesday.

The group presented an online petition with 130,000 signatures to NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau calling on the Conservative government to remove controversial measures affecting the public broadcaster from the omnibus budget implementation Bill C-60.

The proposed changes would allow the Treasury Board Secretariat to set the mandate for contract negotiations at Crown corporations — including the CBC, VIA Rail and Canada Post — and sit as an observer at the bargaining table.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood by the move Wednesday.

“The government remains the underwriter, the backstop, for all financial transactions of all Crown corporations on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada,” Harper said during question period in the House of Commons.

“We have some Crown corporations that have very serious financial problems going forwards. We will ensure the measures they take adequately reflect the needs of Canadian taxpayers and respect the rights of Canadians,” Harper said.

The New Democrats view the changes as a part of a pattern of the Conservative government taking an aggressive stance on labour relations and appeared alongside union representatives at a news conference in Ottawa on Wednesday to underscore that point.

“This new attempt by the government is consistent with their war on workers and war on unions in regard to bargaining for their members,” Hassan Yussuf, secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress said at the news conference.

Alex Levasseur, president of the Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada, which represents about 1,000 workers at the French-language service, explained how the proposed changes affect the public broadcaster in particular.

“CBC/Radio-Canada is called upon daily to question the government, to shed light on what the government is doing, so how will we be able to continue doing this work and sit down at the bargaining table with the government and (have them) explain where they intend for the negotiating process to go?” said Levasseur, whose union is asking the board of directors at CBC/Radio-Canada, as well as the CRTC, to intervene.

CBC/Radio-Canada has about 8,600 employees (including approximately 7,200 unionized workers) and about 500 of them are involved in news gathering, which does not include program hosts, anchors, presenters or reporters working in sports and weather.

CBC spokesman Angus McKinnon said in an email Wednesday that management wrote to the federal government to ask for a meeting to talk about concerns they have about the proposed amendments and is hopeful they will agree to meet.

NDP labour critic Alexandre Boulerice suggested the move is politically motivated.

“They are there to criticize the government, but I think Harper doesn’t really like to be criticized,” Boulerice said.

Boulerice said that in addition to continuing to ask questions on the topic in the House of Commons, the NDP is also organizing a petition and urging employees at Crown corporations to write Conservative MPs about their concerns.

Kyle Hay, 23,  suffered a concussion and required three staples in his head after he was allegedly knocked out cold while leaving the TD Garden after Toronto’s Game 2 win over the Bruins on Saturday night. Hay was wearing his Leafs jersey along with a mask and blue mohawk for the game, but witnesses say the assault wasn’t provoked by him or any other Leafs fans.

After the story went national, a few Maple Leafs blogs began a movement to get Hay tickets to Game 4. The team caught wind and reached out to Hay via Twitter on Tuesday, and after a phone call that night they offered him two tickets for Wednesday night’s game at the Air Canada Center.

Read: Bruins-Leafs Game 4 Preview

“Words can’t describe how pumped I am,” Hay told the CBC. “There’s the two tickets and I’ll be taking my younger brother, who’s on Cloud Nine as well.”

Hay told the CBC he is still dealing with headaches, but has a special outfit planned for Wednesday night.

Listen: CBC’s Tim Wharnsby On The Adam Jones Show

“I’ll be wearing my traditional Wendel Clark jersey and my Leafs hat — very superstitious, I’ve worn it to five games this season so far and we’ve won three out of the five and one of them was in Boston,” he told the CBC. ”So, either wear that or wear a Leafs jersey and make my own name bar and put ‘knocked out in Boston’ [on it].”

Jian Ghomeshi interview with Blair Koenig

On the surface, it’s one of those topics that doesn’t seem so relevant to ordinary life; I mean, if parents on FB want to post too much information about their kids, so what?  I’ll just ignore it along with so much other junk that’s on there every day.  However, this story caught my attention because it addresses the ways that the Internet changes how we do things.  Think about it: Koenig started a blog, got submissions from her readers, and ended up writing a book about it.  It’s not necessarily a new phenomenon (there must be lots of examples of journalists, for instance, writing books based on their stories/letters), but without the internet–no blog, no Facebook, ergo no book.  Would it have been so easy for Koenig to be successful in her job without the Internet?

Relating it back to our class, though, I think it is relevant to education because we need to consider these new ways that things are done.  If people are able to carve out careers for themselves in these new ways, shouldn’t we be taking that into account as we’re planning their education?

The CBC occupies a unique position of trust. Not only is it the most substantial and broadly-based broadcast journalism organization in Canada, it is funded, through Parliament, by the people of Canada. The CBC therefore considers it a duty to provide consistent, high-quality information upon which all citizens may rely. [emphasis added -hro]

From CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Policies

In my CBC News Online – British Columbia Morning Digest – 2013-05-07, the following had “top billing”:

For readers not familiar with the British Columbia political scene, there will be a provincial election on May 14; currently the BC Green Party has no seats in the provincial legislature. So they would need to jump from 0 to 4 in order to achieve “official” party status. As I have noted previously, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Lead Author, Andrew Weaver, is a candidate – and the Deputy Leader of the BC Green Party.

Needless to say the headline grabbed my attention, so I followed the “more” link.

This was at approximately 10:00 AM PDT or in CBC-speak (as I discovered a few minutes ago when I saw that the video had changed and the page Last updated read 7:19 PM) PT. The text indicated that the Party Leader, Jane Sterk, does not stand much of a chance in her riding, followed by:

A conscience in the legislature

But the party might have a better shot in neighbouring ridings, namely Oak Bay-Gordon Head, where Nobel-winning climate scientist Andrew Weaver is representing the Green Party.

“We’re really pleased,” he said. “It’s exciting. It’s been a really, really solid campaign. The momentum is building, there’s a lot of volunteers, a lot of enthusiasm.”

Oh, my … there he goes again: resting on Nobel laurels he knows has not earned! Because the CBC has a “duty to provide consistent, high-quality information upon which all citizens may rely“, I felt it incumbent upon me to advise the CBC of this error. So I posted a comment:

“where Nobel-winning climate scientist Andrew Weaver”

Sorry, someone needs to do some basic fact-checking, here. Weaver, a climate modeller, is NOT a “Nobel-winning” anything. To describe him as such is to allow him to rest on laurels he has not earned.

He is (in addition to being a candidate and Deputy Leader of the BC Greens) a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And as far as I can tell, he sees no conflict of interest between the requirement that IPCC Authors be objective and his political affiliations and aspirations.

It was the IPCC that – along with Al Gore – was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (in 2007). And we all know how tarnished that award has become.

Voters in Oak Bay Gordon Head might also be interested in knowing that Weaver is not particularly open to, well, inconvenient questions and observations. In the virtual world, his response (via twitter) is to “block” those whose questions and observations he does not like.

Which suggests to me that, in “real life”, he just might slam the door in your face, if he doesn’t like your questions or views!

What a way to win friends and influence people, eh?!

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/ipccs-andrew-weaver-cant-stand-the-heat-in-his-tweet-kitchen/

Posted: 05/7/2013 10:16 AM PDT

And I waited for my comment – or at least a correction to the above article – to appear. Neither event had occurred by 3:00 PM PDT, although several other comments had certainly passed moderation. Consequently, I decided to repost with the following preface:

I wonder why it is that CBC’s “moderation” practice is so, well, untimely!

I had submitted a comment at 05/7/2013 10:16 AM PDT At that point, the timestamp on the Most Recent Comment (of approx 50 as I recall) was 10:05 AM ET.

Comment count is now up to 117, with the timestamp of the Most Recent Comment showing as 2:35 PM ET. So, I’m not sure why my [1:16 p.m. ET] comment is nowhere in sight! Oh, well, perhaps its just one of those inexplicable gremlin generated glitches. Hence, this repost:

For the record, my reposted text was the same as the above – except for the timestamp, and a slight reformatting of the last two paragraphs, in order to stay within their character-count:

Which suggests to me that, in “real life”, he just might slam the door in your face, if he doesn’t like your questions or views! What a way to win friends and influence people, eh?!

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/ipccs-andrew-weaver-cant-stand-the-heat-in-his-tweet-kitchen/

May 7, 3:15 PM PDT

And here I sit several hours later (and the Comment Count up to 134, and most recent timestamp is 2013/05/07
at 10:34 PM ET from “Meggy”) Now I’m sure that the ET moderator must be fast-asleep by now, so – according to the CBC’s Submission Guidelines – my guess would be that “Meggy” is a “Trusted” member whose comments can bypass moderation.

I read these Submission Guidelines, btw, and I didn’t see anything in there that I might have violated. So the continued non-appearance of my comment is somewhat of a mystery.

Oh, well … maybe tomorrow the moderator will release my comment. My past experience has been that whenever I decide to post on their practices, eventually my comments have appeared.

Of course, considering the timestamp – and depending on how many other comments are waiting in the moderation queue – it’s quite possible that few (if any!) will ever see it.

In the meantime, I was going to share the video they’d evidently uploaded at 7:19 PM PT, with a cameo of Weaver and a voice-over telling viewers that he is a “Nobel-winning climate scientist”. But WordPress doesn’t seem to like the CBC’s embed code. So I leave you with this screen capture from the video:

Is CBC censoring comments – or honking for Weaver?!

Stay tuned, folks!

UPDATE: 05/8/2013 12:18 PM

Comment count on CBC’s “false news” item is now 135, and (surprise, surprise) there’s no sign of either of my comment submissions, so I have just submitted the following:

Well, it seems that when an opportunity to wear its green heart on its sleeve presents itself, CBC has no shame about being remiss in its “duty to provide consistent, high-quality information upon which all citizens may rely”

Setting aside the fact that for some inexplicable reason (well, certainly none that I can see in their submission guidelines) my now twice attempted comment submission is nowhere in sight, how can we rely on the quality of CBC’s “information” when they choose to continue to perpetuate the meme that Andrew Weaver is a “Nobel-winning” scientist?

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/cbc-censoring-again-or-honking-for-ipccs-andrew-weaver/

Posted: 05/8/2013 12:17 PM PT

UPDATE 2: 05/11/2013 12:22 AM PDT So my third attempted comment has not appeared.

I wonder if I’ve made CBC’s “blacklist” for daring to question their sloppy (to be kind) “reporting” [see Morley Sutter's comment below for yet another instance of CBC's green heart on sleeve recycling of the "Nobel" meme]

And see also this SunTV video CBC IS WATCHING YOU :-)

• Electronic voting machine selects Romney even when you choose Obama, by Anne Penketh, Independent.co.uk, Tuesday 06 November 2012

So I was watching Power and Politics on Wednesday, when I heard a lot of discussion about Elections Canada. In a report that was not a surprise to anyone, we found out that Elections Canada is having trouble in carrying out its main function: running elections. On average, polling officials are said to have made about 500 serious procedural errors in each riding in the 2011 election. (Harper under fire for Elections Canada budget cuts amid rampant voting problems, by Canadian Press, published by National Post, Last Updated: 13/05/01 4:05 PM)

Now the pundits on Power and Politics were all non-partisan in their anger, while Ian Capstick was particular dismissive of the organization. However, one can hardly find fault with any of their positions. The basis of a strong democracy is having an agency that can run elections in a non-partisan fashion. We used to have one and we all – Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat, Green and Sovereigntist and other – want a return to that standard.

However, the technological prescription given by most pundits on Power and Politics is misguided. The Americans in the 1920’s started a movement toward voting machines. Yet in 2000, more than 80 years after their first use, their Supreme Court had to rule on the outcome of an election using them. For those who do not remember, “Bush v. Gore” is an important case in the US. But for Canadians, that case should serve as a warning: technology does not solve election problems.

For it was a technological problem, I would argue, that got us into this mess. For those who don’t remember, we started having election problems after the 2000 election. I will admit, most of my evidence is subjective. I have been participating in elections since 1993; consequently, much of the evidence resides in my head. However, it seems to me that there has been a remarkable degradation in the quality of the federal electoral list since the creation of the National Register of Electors in 1997. As Mr. Capstick pointed out on Power and Politics; presently, the electoral list has become a poor source of data.

The National Register of Electors was a good idea in theory. It was developed after much conversation within Elections Canada. In 1995, Elections Canada established a working group to look at the issues that could be created by establishing a permanent register. This includes technical, legal and financial issues. This culminated in a report submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer in March 1996. It “indicated that such a register would be both feasible and cost-effective, could shorten the election period by eliminating enumeration and could significantly reduce costs and duplication of effort across Canada.” (Elections Canada website, May 2, 2013)

Given that the Liberals were looking for cost reductions and more effective ways to manage government, they were onside. When many argued that there would be a degradation of the electoral list, many government members point to an older report that said that the “current approach assumes that an enumeration must be as complete as possible if voter registration is to achieve full coverage. This ignores the fact that revision and election-day registration are integral components of a comprehensive process of registration.” (Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, and Party Financing, Final Report, 1992) Or put differently, if we move to an on-going registration system, it would be as good as having an election specific system.

Additionally, the timing could not have been better. In 1995, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario had gone to the polls. British Columbia would follow in 1996; while Alberta and Prince Edward Island had elections in 1997. Given the lax nature of privacy information, at that time, one could easily see a situation where information was shared by electoral officials, provincial and federal political parties. For we were just understanding the need for privacy legislation and data was being mined by private and public organizations. With all of this being said, when Elections Canada conducted its final door-to-door enumeration, it had a lot of resources to turn to. Information was easy to get and it easy to verify. Consequently, it was not a surprise that that election occurred without a hitch.

However, it is easy to see that as the years have passed, the original data has become less valid. Life happens; People move. I know I have. I have moved five or six times. One move was an interprovincial move. The problem has been that the updating procedures have not been as effective as one might have assumed. Therefore, while the National Register of Electors was a good idea in theory, its continued relevancy is dependent on its real world implementation.

While Elections Canada has many data-sharing partners –including its provincial counterparts in British Columbia and Quebec, provincial and territorial motor vehicle and vital statistics registrars and, federally, the Canada Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Canada Post – it turns out that their system has not been good enough. Therefore, for years, I had to update my election address or received postcards for people who were no longer at the address that I was living at.

Or ask political party volunteers, we have a visceral understanding that something is wrong.  Why else would former Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj have launched a court case? I would argue that he knew something was wrong. Why else would he have gone on a legal adventure through the Ontario Superior Court and the Supreme Court of Canada? He knew that his team would be able to find dozens of votes that were cast without proper paperwork. Given that he lost by 26 votes, it is clear why the Ontario Superior Court found reason to overturn the election.

However, we all know how that story ends. The Supreme Court of Canada castigated the election officials but overturned the lower court decision. So we are here trying to figure out what is wrong. As a Liberal, I will turn to the report ordered by Chief Electoral Officer Mayrand and discussed by the pundits on CBC’s Power and Politics.

The Elections Canada report found widespread administrative problems in the last election, largely caused by out-dated legislation.  It noted “that Elections Canada has system-wide problems with the roughly 15 per cent of voters who show up to vote without being properly registered.”  (Elections Canada report on voting problems likely to delay election reform legislation, By Stephen Maher, National Post, May 1, 2013).  In fact, the report says “the 200,000 workers who run elections across the country struggle to administer the complex rules for dealing with problem registrations as laid out in legislation”. But this is only the start.

While the report recommends that Elections Canada moves to an electronic registry, I would argue that that would only compound the issue. For the change assumes three things. Firstly, it assumes that all Canadians have access to computers. Secondly, it assumes that all Canadians would be familiar with the particular database created. And thirdly, it assumes that most Canadians are aware of all the ins and outs of Canadian Political Life. Just given my friendships with every day Canadians, I know that those three assumptions are false ones. In talking to my poorer or non-political friends, I know that there are citizens who cannot afford the data plans that come with cellphones, let alone having a separate computer. Therefore, poorer Canadians would have trouble accessing this new electronic registry. Furthermore, in talking with my non-political friends, I know that they would not be interested enough to verify that their information on some database is okay. On top of that, any system would have to have a way of identify citizens on a national basis. To date, we have no such national system. The closest proxy might be the federal Social Insurance Card System. However, that system includes many people who are under the voting age and/or people who are not citizens. Therefore, the federal Government would have to create a specific system for registering people. Given that the Gun Registry was the last attempt, I would suggest that an online voter registration system is a waste of both time and money.

My argument is simple. We need to go back to verifying every citizen before each election; we need to go back to hiring enumerators. In learning about election database management, one thing has been made clear to me time and time again: garbage in, garbage out. Or put differently, if Elections Canada through its data-sharing process is collecting bad information, there is no way one can produce a solid voter’s list. For, within the process of data sharing, there is likely no way to verify the quality of the data. For the system in question depends on quality control.

In the old days, the quality control happened at the doors. Enumerators would come to your door and register you. Given that the person at the door would likely be the resident, one could see the advantages to an enumeration system. This is especially true if the enumerator asked for ID. While, if a person had to register on election day, they would have to prove their identity. This system meant that the list was strong. IF there was a mistake, it could be changed at the polling station at the time of voting. This meant the system was strong and secure. However, the elimination of the enumerators has meant that they system has no quality control.

Therefore, let us bring back enumerators. Enumerators could incorporate 21^st century tools. Like Political Parties, they could use smartphones, tablet or laptop computers to input data. However, having a human hand go door to door would allow for a quality control mechanism to ensure that there are fewer errors. For, an enumerator would know that a house has been missed. An enumerator could correct names in high turnover areas. True, this would lengthen elections; but it would also mean that politicians would have to talk about substantive issues and not try to demonize the other. Adding enumerators back into the system is worth both the time and money spent.

Before, one might say I am crazy; this type of solution is no unheard of. A number of different jurisdictions still do it. For example, I received the notice from Calgary’s City Clerk’s Office. They have hire enumerators that do a census and verify the quality of their election list. I would argue it is the solution for the Federal Government.

For, enumeration is an objectively better system that ensures the quality of a democratic tool. Enumeration would allow the best possible outcome for all Canadian Elections, without limiting the freedom of individuals. It would apply the right tool to the problem and that is what Liberals are supposed to do. So to the pundits, and Mr. Capstick, the human touch, and not technology, is the proper answer to the issue at hand.

The Inspector’s Hearings in the Town Hall have concluded and the outcome, due August/September 2013, will be anxiously awaited.

Great thanks must go to the people involved in putting forward Euxton’s representations at the several Hearing Sessions – they were received by the Inspector in a fair and balanced manner. Particular acknowledgement must go to Euxton Residents Terry Cook, Ian Watson and Geoff Guy who joined with Parish Councillor Vyn Thornhill in the tremendous amount of preparation, culminating in their presentations. Also, thanks to Parish Councillor Katrina Reed and several Residents who attended in support, together with Euxton Borough Councillors Mark Perks and Peter Goldsworthy who spoke at the Hearing Sessions supporting Euxton’s case.

Anyone who made representations at the final consultation stage will receive notification of the Inspector’s decisions. Chorley Council are looking to adopt the plan in September 2013. The decisions will be posted on their website;

http://chorley.gov.uk/Pages/AtoZ/Chorley-Local-Plan-2012-2026.aspx.

This website will also be updated.

Fingers crossed for a favourable outcome for Euxton, but it can’t be said we haven’t tried!

John Bamber

Thanks for Jesse Kline’s well-argued piece supporting the legalization and regulation of the sale of human kidneys. As an economist, I have long shaken my head in disbelief that lawmakers, the transplant community, and much of the public, find anything unethical about a well-regulated market for human organs. Markets improve our well-being by allowing mutually beneficial transactions to occur between willing and fully informed parties. I can think of no more worthy a transaction than one that saves one life while raising another out of poverty.

There are serious reasons to oppose current practices in the black market for organs. But a well-regulated market can ensure that the sellers of organs do so willingly and safely.

When I hear arguments that a market for organs makes people uncomfortable for ill-defined ideas related to the “commoditization” of body parts, I think of my close friend and neighbour who languished on dialysis, unable to work, for years. His family was supported by the charitable efforts of the community, and his young sons suffered with the uncertainty of how long their father would live.

If anything is unethical, it is a public policy that condemns people on waiting lists to die, while refusing poverty-stricken families the opportunity to feed and educate their children.

David Goldreich, associate professor of finance, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.

As a family that experienced the power and beauty of organ donation, we find the idea of individuals selling/buying organs for transplantation to be repugnant. It smacks of crass commercialism and brings into question the ability to pay. It is also morally and ethically wrong and is inconsistent with established organ and tissue donation protocols.

Organ tourists should be aware that a study done by a major Canadian hospital found a 50% failure rate in transplants received by Canadians oversees. The study concluded that patients considering this method of acquiring live donated kidneys should be counselled of the inherent risks and possible adverse outcomes, including diminished dialysis free survival.

Transplantation is viewed by the majority of Canadians as a necessary and important part of our health-care system. That said, in Canada there is a large gap between support for organ transplantation (more than 95%) and willingness to donate (50% to 60%).

It is incumbent on Canadians to educate themselves about organ and tissue donation and talk with their families and friends about their wishes. It is time for that many more Canadians to step up to the plate and do the right thing.

Beth and Emile Therien (organ donor family), Ottawa.

Should our alcohol laws be relaxed? Send us a 75-word response by 6 p.m. EDT on May 9 at letters@nationalpost.com. Responses to be published on May 13.

Canadians need to study their history

Re: Scrutinize Our History, Please, Andrew Coyne, May 7.

As president emeritus of Canada’s History Society, I too am puzzled by the reaction of many to the government’s commemoration of the War of 1812. I was involved in 1812 matters as early as 2008, working at PBS’ affiliate in Buffalo, WNED, in preparing its outstanding two-hour production, “The War of 1812.” Through that experience I learned a great deal including the failure of the British authorities to retain the Ohio Valley for Canada when negotiating the peace. Just think how different our country’s history would have been if we had the Ohio Valley.

Subsequently I learned through studying business history that the creation of the Bank of Montreal in 1817 was a direct reaction to the elimination of Army Bills [paper currency] after the peace in 1815.

We need to re-examine our history and include business and labour as well as political and social history. Today’s generation thinks that if you cannot find it on the Internet it didn’t happen.

As Jack Granatstein pointed out years ago, there is a need to do something about Canadian history. Let me lend my support to Andrew Coyne (and presumably the Post) in support of the Commons Heritage Committee’s original decision to enquire into provincial education policies.

Joe Martin, Director of Canadian Business History, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto

Andrew Coyne is correct when he asserts that Canadian history is not boring; what is boring is the manner in which teachers present the material. Inasmuch as the provincial governments have domain over education in their jurisdictions, it falls to the teachers to present history in its entire colour and not as “rote memory drills.” If Canadian history appears to be boring, then the teachers are to blame for this downfall.

Bob Orrick, Richmond, B.C.

Andrew Coyne is somewhat put out that that the Heritage Committee’s hearings into how Canadian history is taught has been kiboshed. Rightly so; the Prime Minister should have delegated this responsibility to the Minister of Education’s department for study. There is no Minister of Education? Never mind.

Brian Caines, Ottawa.

Auschwitz funding not enough

Re: Time Ravaging Auschwitz, May 6.

I find it ironic that Canada is now taking pride in giving financial support to the preservation of the most infamous of the Nazi death camps when Jewish refugees were turned away from our shores during the Second World War. The amount pledged is minuscule when compared to amounts pledged by other nations; is this indicative of the embarrassment still felt over this shoddy chapter in Canadian history?

Tom Singer, Burlington, Ont.

The fruit of sexual liberation

Re: Rise Of The ‘Orgasmic Utopians,’ Barbara Kay, May 6.

“Orgasmic utopians” is a fitting name for the culture extremists that have pushed their valueless agendas into all parts of society. Some media, much of public education, even Canadian courts have played a role in bringing a blight upon society.

The amount of “unwanted” pregnancies, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, the increased sexual abuse of children and the billion-dollar child- and adult-porn industry all are a result of those progressives Barbara Kay refers to. Sexual liberation, like any corruption, decomposes society into a behavioural cesspool.

The use of totalitarian methods by the extremists goes reasonably unchecked when governments and courts endorse such behaviors.

Brian Rushfeldt, president of Canada Family Action, Calgary.

After reading Barbara Kay’s lengthy diatribe about sex, I am unsure whether the cause of her disgust is sexual or political. I never before thought of sex as a right wing/left wing issue, perhaps because I’m single-minded during sex. In any event, it sounds like lefties have more fun — assuming that they can keep their minds on politics.

Allan Strader, Toronto.

No free lunches with big government

Re: In The Long Run, Historian Not So Clever, May 6.

This was an interesting if gossipy article about John Maynard Keynes, proving once again that ad hominem attacks are never productive.

What Keynes thought or believed is probably lost in time. The popular version espoused by governments and the populace in recent times is that big government is good and that there is a free lunch to go with it served piping hot with supper to follow. No wonder it is so popular — in spite of the fact that it doesn’t work.

J. Lee Mississauga, Ont.

Jews need another CJN

Re: The Typewriter In The Kitchen, April 24.

As this story notes, the Canadian Jewish News (CJN) will close operations on June 20 after more than four decades of publication. Following a decision of the paper’s board, 50 or so employees received their termination notices, just eight weeks before their jobs would end. It is not clear what community and employee consultations took place before taking the decision to shut down the paper.

A replacement for the CJN will be necessary, so that the Jewish community has a voice throughout Canada. The challenge print newspapers face from the digital media must be met so that they continue in formats that meet the new reality.

Bev Spanier, Montreal.

Bank governance

Re: BoC Process Sadly Lacks Transparency, Andrew Coyne, May 4.

This column demonstrates Andrew Coyne’s ability to argue both sides of an issue and yet provide only one viewpoint. Referring back as far to the non-reappointment of John Crow (the fifth Governor of the Bank of Canada, from 1987 to 1994, a period that included some draconian but necessary financial measures) without referencing the political stripes of the appointers, is a comment on the commenter.

The brush aside of the backgrounds of the subsequent governors of the Bank of Canada borders on sophistry; ignoring the reality of the increasing encroachment of globalization is a move towards fooling, not communicating the necessity of judiciously using expanded experiences for the future.

Mike McCallion Sr., Wainfleet, Ont.

Industrial relations vitally important

Re: The Union Blight, Conrad Black, May 4.

Conrad Black’s characterization of the study of labour relations as “ludicrous” and “anachronistic” is as perplexing as it is disturbing. People who are employed over most of their adult lifetime spend a large proportion of their lives in the workplace and their well-being, the efficiency of firms, and the productive capacity of the country all depend very much upon having equitable and efficient employee-employer relations.

As W.A. Mackintosh, the noted former principal of Queen’s noted in 1938: “no excuse is needed for making industrial relations a subject of university study and investigation … In no field do the significant problems of social control arise more sharply and in more complex form than here. Whether one assesses it by the intellectual effort required, or by the worthwhileness of results achieved, university work in this field is amply justified.”

That is why the study of industrial relations continues to figure so prominently at major universities in Canada and the United States.

The laws of our society support the rights of Canadians to freely contract in matters of employment; likewise, the freedom to collectively contract with employers. If there are legitimate concerns about the policies governing labour relations, in the public or private sectors, let us identify the problems, analyze the current policies and options, and then have a serious policy debate. It is the privilege and important responsibility of universities to support an informed industrial relations policy-making process.

Richard Chaykowski, professor and Master of Industrial Relations program director, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

The CBC has fans

Re: The Twilight Of Public Broadcasting, Robert Fulford, May 4.

This is one of the rare occasions where I must disagree with Robert Fulford, particularly when he refers to CBC radio as “a place where old ideas come to die.” I listen to the radio broadcasts often and believe that it is still a vital source of social unity, information and ideas, especially new ones. It is the only station that can be enjoyed without the inane commercials that spoil so many others. Despite its left-wing bias (never missing a chance to support any protest or slander Israel), it remains a valuable cultural asset for Canada and deserves continued support.

Asher Sadeh, Richmond Hill, Ont.

… and detractors

With the notable exception of the At Issue panel and Rex Murphy’s informed and respectful approach to the affairs of the day, the tacit thrust of the CBC’s news and current affairs programming is to harbour community discontent. This has been the national broadcaster’s flawed journalistic emphasis, especially in its radio and local television offerings, since the loss of the irreplaceable Barbara Frum and Peter Gzowski.

The CBC’s constant pursuit of the seemingly limitless lamentations of those interviewed makes the world appear populated almost entirely by innocent victims and their unconscionable abusers. Whether it’s the municipal, provincial or federal governments, the police or armed services or the perceived amalgam of unholy and conspiratorial private corporations, those who are judged insufficiently “progressive” are consistently portrayed as pernicious purveyors of misconduct, corruption, and injustice.

Whether by accident or design, the unremitting emphasis on abuse is slowly encouraging a national culture of victimology. The CBC’s remedy for this problem of their own making is to advocate for those portrayed as disenfranchised, bullied, and dispossessed.

Is this the inevitable inclination of a left-leaning editorial board, or are Canadians the reluctant recipients of a compromised and immature form of journalism? Whatever the limitations shown by the national broadcaster to date, change is long overdue.

Mark S. Rash, Winnipeg.

Our government’s funding of the CBC has always been an inferior formula. In the United Kingdom, anyone who has a TV set pays a base annual licence fee. The current cost is 145.50 British pounds ($226.21) per year. BBC runs six TV Channels and a myriad of radio services.

The big difference is that the “BEEB,” unlike our CBC, is commercial free. The second difference is that the BBC produces better results with its programming.

CBC-TV would be far more popular with viewers without commercials. Then the CBC could partner with BBC and PBS and other world public broadcasters to produce higher quality programs.

Collecting a TV licence fee is a simple process; we do it every month when we buy our sports channels and movie channels. Viewers can choose a monthly fee or an annual license per home.

The dye is cast. The model that works best is easy to emulate. Its time has come.

Wendell Wilks, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.

A reflection of age (87) and of efforts to reduce long distance travel (Sri Lanka) for Her Majesty will see Prince Charles in her stead for this biennial session. Cheers to a bit of a break for a monarch that has certainly taken seriously every moment her “I vow to thee my country….”

Speaking about “public service” and “civic duty” there is some controversy these days around Canadians much beloved CBC and the role it should be playing in today’s Canadian society. “Once upon a time”, an article goes on to say that “CBC not only expressed Canadian values, but shaped them.”  Today it seems apparent that many are even questionning just what those “values” might be….

The article sums it all up this way: 

Ask yourself this: Is the CBC in crisis or is Canada in crisis? If there was an authentic crisis there would be an outcry. And there isn’t. It’s just the way we live now. So many noble ideals are so over. Crisis, what crisis?

A valid question I think…..O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!

….just what all can or should that mean, I wonder……

As Tuesday greets Wednesday and the days ahead, let’s all sing, as those who choose to sing can always find a song!…..

The entities he singled out for careful examination in search of budgetary economies were Canada Post, Via Rail and the CBC. These all present different administrative challenges, but the idea is a first positive step in the long-overdue overhaul of this entire process.

The largest problem here, and doubtless the last one that will be tackled, is that there simply should not be any collective bargaining at all in the public sector. Former Quebec premier Maurice Duplessis was correct when he said 65 years ago: “The right to strike against the public interest does not exist.”
[/np_storybar]

In his Saturday National Post column, Conrad Black declared public-sector unions to be a blight upon society. He has given voice to what Prime Minister Stephen Harper was thinking when the federal government launched its recent offensive against trade unions (and Crown Corporations) through proposed amendments to the Financial Administration Act.

Some Canadians may agree with Mr. Black; others may not. But surely that should be the basis for a healthy, democratic debate — not the heavy-handed intervention proposed by the Conservatives.

Both Mr. Black and Prime Minister Harper are betting that “hard-working, tax-paying Canadians” (as this constituency invariably is described) will not rouse themselves to oppose the government’s offensive against unions and Crown corps.

But Canadians should care. And here’s why.

[related_links /]

First, it is not just the CBC that is being targeted by the new legislation, but also other Crowns, including VIA Rail and Canada Post. All of these Crowns are covered by the Canada Labour Code (CLC), which governs labour relations and collective bargaining in the federal sector. The Preamble of Part 1 of the CLC states, in part: “And whereas the Parliament of Canada desires to continue and extend its support to labour and management in their cooperative efforts to develop good relations and constructive collective bargaining practices, and deems the development of good industrial relations to be in the best interests of Canada in ensuring a just share of the fruits of progress to all…”

The proposed changes to the Financial Administration Act, which give government the power to approve bargaining mandates of Crown Corporations and supervise collective bargaining at those Crowns, are contrary to both the spirit of the CLC’s Preamble and the Code’s detailed provisions. The proposed changes, if accepted into law, would reverse decades of free collective bargaining in Crown Corporations. If that happens, can changes to private-sector free collective bargaining be far behind?

It is unclear exactly what “problem” the government is “fixing” with its radical proposal

If there is to be an industrial-relations policy change of this magnitude, surely there should be a commensurate public-policy debate to examine the proposed changes. Only then should the appropriate statute, the Canada Labour Code, be revised.

But it is unclear exactly what “problem” the government is “fixing” with its radical proposal. CBC has had an exemplary labour-relations record since the very public lockout of 2005. In fact, management and labour have been working together to deal with a steadily declining budget (courtesy of this same federal government) and pressures imposed by a competitive, rapidly-changing media environment. CBC wages and benefits are competitive with CTV and Global. Their pension benefits are below the level of public-sector pension benefits, and their pension plan is extremely well-run.

In the case of Canada Post, this government intervened in 2011 by forcing Canadian Union of Postal Workers members back-to-work, while at the same time legislating wages over the outcry of union leaders and employees. The Tories themselves are responsible for the wage levels at Canada Post; and the interest arbitration process, which replaced the right to strike as a dispute resolution process, was not successful.

Imagine the resistance of Conservative MPs if Post Offices in their rural ridings were to be closed

Perhaps allowing Canada Post to modernize its operations, consistent with its competitive environment, would be a better solution. But, just imagine the resistance of Conservative MPs if Post Offices in their rural ridings were to be closed.

These are all facts that suggest the agenda of the Conservatives is other than advertized. This isn’t about forcing responsible industrial-relations practices on rogue Crowns, as the government would have Canadians believe. It is about taking control of those Crowns in a way that is not supported in legislation, and attacking unions and their members.

Since May, 2011, the Conservatives have been heavy-handed in their approach to free collective bargaining. They have intervened in negotiations, often pre-emptively, at Canada Post, Air Canada (three times) and CP Rail. They have worked around the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, all in the name of “protecting the economic recovery.”

This approach is part of a pattern that threatens the free collective bargaining rights enshrined in our laws and labour culture. Whether you support unions or not, it is time to recognize the need for a debate before a fundamental Canadian freedom is taken away. All Canadians deserve a say in that decision. Let’s start the debate now.

National Post

George Smith is a Fellow in the School of Policy Studies, and an Adjunct Professor of Industrial Relations, at Queen’s University. He was the Vice-President HR at CBC/Radio-Canada from 1996-2010.