Profit is once again a dirty word at Queen's Park. Ontario's Liberal McGuinty government is demonstrating its dislike for the commercial sector by funnelling federal childcare money exclusively to the not-for-profit sector. The move is at odds with parental rights, good fiscal stewardship and the experience of the only province in the country to experiment with publicly funded universal daycare.

At issue is something called the Multi-lateral Framework on Early Learning and Child Care, signed last year by federal and provincial social services ministers. The agreement will see Ottawa hand over $900-million to the provinces in the next five years. The money is to be spent on improving childcare access and quality.

The province has decided to spend this year's portion, $9.7-million, on capital expenditures such as health and safety upgrades. But in an unpublicized move that surprised the operators of the province's 900 privately owned daycare centres, no for-profit childcare centre need apply. The health and safety of the 55,000 kids who attend private daycares is important, no doubt, but ideology more so.

This decision on the federal money is unsettlingly reminiscent of the actions of the old Bob Rae NDP government in Ontario, which went out of its way to bury private sector daycare operators.

OTTAWA - Health Canada approved expenditures of more than $153,000 at a Caribbean jewellery store and $8,000 for two tombstones by the president of the Virginia Fontaine Addictions Centre, an internal audit by the department has revealed.

The audit shows close to $1.2-million in vacation pay and perks were paid to Perry Fontaine.

"It's a horrific scandal," said Judy Wasylycia-Leis, a Manitoba NDP MP who has been following the story since it was revealed in 2000 that then-assistant deputy minister Paul Cochrane, his wife and other Health Canada officials went on a Caribbean cruise with Mr. Fontaine and staff of the native addiction centre in Manitoba.

Opposition MPs intend to use Question Period this week to call for a full public inquiry into how senior Health Canada officials were allegedly allowing government money to flow to Mr. Fontaine in exchange for such perks as Caribbean cruises and SUVs without raising red flags in the offices of the minister or deputy minister.

A $2-million Health Canada audit began in late 2000 and an abbreviated 40-page version was released on Health Canada's website late Friday. However, the full version contains roughly 500 pages of new information regarding questionable spending at the centre.

The audit found Mr. Fontaine billed the centre for $153,064 spent at a Caribbean jewellery store by his wife, Dolores, and his daughter Vera Bruyere, including five pairs of gold earrings, five gold pendants, six gold chains and two gold bracelets. The audit found Mr. Fontaine and his wife also billed $8,024 for two tombstones. The couple listed the inscription to be placed on each granite cover, but that information was blocked from the public release.

The audit found several instances in which Mr. Fontaine received direct financial gain totalling close to $1.2- million over a 29-month period. The largest payment came in September, 1999, when the centre paid Mr. Fontaine $661,500 in compensation for lost vacation time over the next 20 years due to a policy change at the centre.

"Less than 28 days later, effective Oct. 1, 1999, Perry Fontaine effectively terminated himself from [the foundation], providing a two-year termination payment of $163,286 to himself. Given the timing, the parties to the agreement and the fact that Perry Fontaine was not going to be an employee of [the foundation], it is difficult to comprehend why Perry Fontaine effectively paid himself $661,500 for the future loss of vacation entitlement," the KPMG audit stated.

The audit found the October, 2000, Caribbean cruise for 75 people cost $135,015, while the centre also paid $154,179 for a number of trips to and from New Zealand related to a cultural exchange with the Maori people.

[. . . .] "The real nub of this whole scandal is that this was happening within the bureaucracy at the highest levels of the department," she said.

[. . . .] "There won't be a public inquiry. The department has put in place a wide-ranging set of measures to ensure this won't happen again," Mr. [Sebastien] Theberge said.

At least Paul Martin is consistent. His government's first Speech from the Throne followed the same long-on-platitudes, short-on-specifics formula of his many leadership campaign addresses: Promise something to everyone, postpone detailed policies as far into the future as possible (preferably until after a leadership vote or general election) and never, ever put a price tag on anything, lest you scare away taxpaying voters.

[. . . .] Cliches abounded. A Martin government will be "changing the way Ottawa works," forging a "partnership for a healthy Canada," "caring for our children," "creating opportunities for Canadians with disabilities," helping aboriginal Canadians "fully share in our nation's good fortune," implementing a "new deal" for cities and towns, "building a 21st-century economy," making Canada a "global leader in the commercialization of bright ideas" (if you can figure out what that means), encouraging "lifelong learning" and enhancing "Canada's role in the world." At one point, we were told, "the world needs more Canada," which is actually a marketing slogan used by Indigo bookstores.

[. . . .] Kyoto is to be honoured, child welfare enhanced, but there was almost no mention of lower taxes, and none at all of debt reduction, deregulation or privatization. In fact, the only tax relief offered will be for the disabled, aboriginals and municipalities. Ordinary taxpayers are to see no decreases, nor apparently are corporations. All of these grandiose schemes are apparently going to suck up every available tax dollar, "expenditure reviews" or not.

Perhaps in Ottawa, where symbolism trumps substance, the Throne Speech's string of Hallmark-worthy platitudes will pass for meaningful policy prescriptions. But in the real world, we expect most Canadians will ignore this bottle of syrup and wait for details.

The hijacking of innocent people, the suicide bombing of young children, the kidnapping and torture of the helpless. . . . [When] it comes to such monsters claiming Canadian citizenship, our very liberal governors entertain the thought of a possible homecoming. Such appears to be the case with a certain Fawzi Ayub. He was one of 436 Arab prisoners exchanged for one kidnapped Israeli businessman and the tortured remains of three Israeli soldiers.

Mr. Ayub's devotion to the group of militant barbarians known as Hezbollah has been extensively documented. As one of the world's A-Teams of terror, their mission statement is simple-minded, simply stated and simply inhuman: the death and destruction of Israel, Jews and friends of Jews, at all costs and without ever accepting peace of any kind.

Apparently at some point, Mr. Ayub was able to slip into Canada and acquire Canadian citizenship while thousands of law-abiding immigrants from around the globe wait in long lineups for years.

How people like Mr. Ayub slither through the cracks is a question that demands an answer. The questions for today, however, are why our governing Liberal defenders of everything Canadian have not rejected Mr. Ayub's demands to return here, and why he has not been unceremoniously stripped of any pretense of Canadian citizenship.

[. . . .] Foreign intelligence agencies now tell us that terrorist networks see Canadian citizenship as tantamount to a get-out-of-jail-free card for their operatives apprehended in the course of their homicidal pursuits.

The moment is now for our Liberal leadership to put a resounding end to this ghastly notion. The moment is now to let the world know that Canadian citizenship is far more than the curious exclamations of a "Joe" in a beer commercial.

Citizenship in Canada needs to be restored. If our Liberal governors cannot struggle to their feet to say "no" to the likes of Mr. Ayub, we will lose the international moral authority and pride of ownership that has always come with citizenship in this greatest of nations.

[. . . .] "The Canadian government must cut off aid funding to the Palestinian regime until its terror networks, which operate under Arafat?s nose, are finally shut down," Day added.

Day noted that since 1993, the Palestinian Authority has received over $215 million in Canadian taxpayer support.

[. . . .] The knock on Stephen Harper is that he doesn't excite people. His aloof, pragmatic style may make for accomplishment, but it is said to put voters to sleep. As one who knew Mr. Harper before he became Alliance leader, I consider this an unfair knock; I have found him lively, engaged, and with a subtle self-deprecating wit. But it is hard to deny that these qualities do not exactly shine through. Ever since that dashing disaster, Pierre Trudeau, Canadians have looked for "charisma" in their leaders, and they have not found it in Mr. Harper. The leadership campaign is young, but I do not expect to see teenage girls jumping up and down and sobbing hysterically when Stephen Harper enters the room.

[. . . .] Mr. Harris, and most of what was the Conservative party establishment, is supporting the wonder woman of auto parts, Belinda Stronach. Just what Ms. Stronach could bring to the office of prime minister, apart from big-name endorsements, an impressive wardrobe and money, is not clear. [. . . .]

Now here is a curious thing: when I Googled Tony Clement, the first site that popped up was Belinda Stronach's campaign home page at belinda.ca: [. . . .]

Recent opinion polls suggest that the NDP, under Smilin' Jack Layton, are increasing their support, not least by courting disaffected Liberals, while Conservative party support is, at best, static. If these polls are correct, it won't matter much who wins the leadership; Canadians are destined for more years of single-party rule.

While this is not good for democracy, Canadians don't seem to care much for democracy. We want Nanny to provide daycare; Nanny to tell us where the line forms for what passes for health care; Nanny to guarantee pensions for our twilight years. And if we occasionally are troubled by moral questions, or wonder how to raise our kids, we can always ask the omniscient Supreme Court. Democracy --who needs it?

Toronto, ON, February 1, 2004 - According to the latest Ipsos-Reid/CTV/Globe and Mail poll released today, Canadians are somewhat divided when it comes to Federal policy issues such as the Federal gun registry, same sex marriage, and Prime Minister Martin's healthcare plans. Only a very slim majority (52%) agree that Paul Martin should scrap the Federal gun registry. Matched up
against four in ten (43%) who do not believe it should be dismantled.

When he ran for Tory leader, way back in 2003, [Scott] Brison advocated blowing up the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and using the money to provide tax cuts, thereby actually providing opportunity, instead of another agency, to Atlantic Canada. More broadly, Brison has been an advocate of eliminating "corporate welfare" — subsidies, overt or thinly disguised, to business.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has estimated the annual savings from eliminating corporate welfare at a cool $4 billion, which would be almost enough to shut up both the premiers and Bono if spent on health care and African aid.

The politics of it are golden: Cut billions in a way that appeals to Tories. Spend it in a way that wipes the smirk off Jack Layton's face. Inoculate Martin from the (Laytonite) charge that his only priority is greasing the palms of his fat-cat leadership-campaign donors.

[. . . .] And so far the arithmetic doesn't suck: Martin has gained an Alliance MP, a Tory and a Bloquiste. And even if he loses Sheila Copps, he won't lose her seat. His main enemy, at this point, isn't Layton or Tony Clement; it's the creeping suspicion, eagerly championed in this corner but fast spreading to every corner of the punditocracy, that Martin is a talker who can't make a big decision.

Instead of meeting with the police chief and getting out in front of the issue — together — the mayor has lingered in the background, taking comfort in what, he says, is a future, planned, comprehensive approach to a perennial problem.

"Gun violence is not new," he said yesterday, then added that Mammoliti is, in effect, a Giorgio-come-lately on the file.

It matters not. We could use several Johnnys-come-lately on this issue.

Mammoliti presented the issue to city council Wednesday in a motion seconded by Councillor Case Ootes. He needed a two-thirds vote of council to debate whether or not a special meeting on the violent crime issue was indeed warranted. Failing that, the issue would be sent off to a committee where it would languish for months in bureaucratic obscurity.

In all, 22 councillors wanted the debate. The mayor and another 19 voted against, so the motion failed to get the two-thirds majority. Dumb.

[. . . .] Many of the 400 mostly Afghan prisoners to be released from Sheberghan jail, near Afghanistan's Uzbek border, under an amnesty offered by the country's president, Hamid Karzai, say that they intend to return to the fray against the West, according to prison officials and the word of the detainees.

The disclosure of their plans coincided with a Taliban suicide bombing in Kabul that killed a British soldier and injured four other people and came despite assurances from Mr Karzai that dangerous followers of the fundamentalist movement would not benefit from the amnesty.

"God created me a Talib," declared Khal Mohammad, 55, an Afghan Taliban commander freed under the amnesty. "He [a Talib] is one who struggles for the happiness of Allah. This is the order of the Almighty Allah - to fight the infidel. It doesn't matter if they are American, Russian or British."

[. . . .] The prisoners are highly adept at tailoring their views with an eye on gaining release, presenting one view to Mr Karzai's envoys and the opposite to other visitors. Mr Hadi recounted: "A few Americans were here recently and after they had gone these Talibs called them imperialists, and said that if they were released they would come back and kill Americans."

Western diplomats in Afghanistan have warned Mr Karzai not to compound the task facing international troops in a misguided attempt to build bridges with opponents.

British Airways cancelled five flights to the United States [particularly to Washinton Dulles] yesterday after American intelligence officials warned of the threat of new attacks by al-Qa'eda terrorists.

[. . . .] Air France also cancelled two flights that were due to leave Paris for Washington today and tomorrow.

American intelligence officials said that the terrorist threats had been picked up in the past few days from an informant and other sources.

Elhanan Tennenbaum was transferred last night to the Neurim police facility for interrogation in isolation.

[. . . .] Hezbollah almost completely cut off any connection between Tennenbaum and the outside world, the source said. Tennenbaum was not allowed to listen to the radio or watch television and until his plane landed in Germany, he was unaware of major developments that have occurred since October 2000. Among other things, Tennenbaum did not know about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States or about the war in Iraq.

[. . . .] Hezbollah withheld letters written to Tennenbaum that the Red Cross tried to deliver. He was allowed to read the letters, and view the picture of his newborn granddaughter, only in the last stage of his captivity. Nor did medicine relayed by family members to the Red Cross reach Tennenbaum. However, Hezbollah provided its own medicine and treatment.

[. . . .] No matter how big our tax bill is, there never seems to be enough to provide the things we really need: top-quality health care, a properly-equipped military, adequate education resources, etc., etc. As a result, most of the country has become either apathetic or apoplectic about the inability of politicians at every level to be responsible custodians of the public purse.

[. . . .] At every level, politicians treat our money as though it's theirs. As though they, and not we, earned it. And we let them get away with it. How dumb is that?

If I could make one change in the way in the way politics operates in this country, it would be to take the credit cards away from the politicians (figuratively speaking, anyway).

Reduce every expense account to a bare minimum, forbid any expenditure that doesn't demonstrate a direct benefit to the taxpayer, and cut off funding to every special-interest, gimme-gimme gravy train in the country.

Then let's see if we have enough money for the things we really need.

MONTREAL -- On a cold autumn morning, Sûreté du Québec Sergeant Pierre Boucher stood by a bedroom closet, staring at half a million dollars in drug money.

[. . . .] the Nomads, the Angels were waging a savage turf war to take over Montreal's drug trade. The city's criminals had a simple choice: Side with the Angels or die.

More than 50 died.

No one seemed immune. They plotted to kill one of their lawyers. They planted bombs. Crime reporter Michel Auger was shot five times in the back. The police even heard on their wiretaps that the Angels had a bounty scale, paying $25,000 to $100,000 for each slain enemy.

"They're psychopaths!" one biker could be heard to say, explaining how recruits were eager to do anything to rise in the ranks.

But on that November morning, Sgt. Boucher had outwitted them. He snapped photos of the $500,000 stash he had discovered. But as he turned to check the safe he had also found, officers outside warned a suspect was heading toward the building. Sgt. Boucher darted out.

That close call was one of many incidents in a colossal three-year joint investigation by the Quebec provincial police, the Montreal police and the RCMP.

For the past year, a jury in Montreal has been hearing tales of secret police operations, dead informants and multi-tonne international cocaine deals, in a trial of nine bikers now nearing its end.

The police wiretapped more than a quarter of a million phone calls, trying to find clues in the bikers' cryptic remarks. Surveillance teams followed suspects for days, hoping to spot some patterns from their hectic, secretive whereabouts. At least three turncoat bikers were recruited, though one was unmasked and killed. The work began with Project Rush in 1998, an investigation into biker-ordered killings. It gave birth to other operations, each conducted in isolation from the others to prevent leaks: Project Ocean looked at how the gang collected drug money; Project Scout probed the logistics of hit squads.

[. . . .Read about the] Colombian Connection [. . . . and ] Project Ocean [. . . .]

Ms. Antelo wasn't the only criminal who helped the police. Some of the turncoats risked their lives, wearing hidden recording gear for up to 14 hours a day. It wasn't safe work. The bikers stole the laptop of an OPP biker expert and used it to deduce the identity of one mole, drug dealer Claude De Serres. He was lured to a remote cottage and shot in the head. He had been wearing a wire, and police later recovered a blood-curdling audio tape of his death.

[. . . .] "They never disciplined her at all," she says. Sure enough, the little brat is now a big brat, doing drugs behind the school and turning tricks to get them. She runs rings around her folks, poor schnooks, who are still in deep denial.

In other words, there are worse things than spanking.

[. . . .] Anti-spankers pretend that little children are rational beings, like the rest of us, and that disciplinary measures should be designed to make them "think." Actually, little children are more like puppies, most of which are innately loving and aim to please, but need to internalize the norms of civilized conduct. Brute force is a last resort, but sometimes a smack with a rolled-up newspaper wouldn't hurt. In fact, the principles of training dogs and training children are more or less the same, and it strikes me that if parents were required to attend dog-training courses, we'd all be a whole lot better off. There's nothing worse than being around a dog that's got its owner cowed, unless it's being around an eight-year-old who likes to scream, "You're not the boss of me!"

In a culture that has elevated violence against children to the greatest of all human evils (and redefined violence to include just about everything), the harm that spanking does has been ridiculously exaggerated. Among the happiest and most grounded kids I've ever met belong to families that believe in physical discipline. I know equally splendid kids whose parents never laid a finger on them. It's not the spanks or lack of them that matter. It's the clear expectations, the consistency, the ability to set boundaries, the time their parents spend with them, and the steady love. The best parents I know are the ones who spend great amounts of time attending -- really attending -- to their children. They put in the mileage, and there's no substitute for it.

And yet, an astonishing array of lobby groups, made up of children's aid societies and children's lawyers and children's rights advocates, have fought for years to criminalize spanking. Even the United Nations is on our case. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is not too busy with child exploitation, child starvation, and child sex slavery in more benighted parts of the world to administer a few verbal slaps to Canada.

[. . . .] Personally, if I were in charge of the anti-child-abuse lobby, I'd find lots of other things to worry about. How about a culture that's producing kids so obese that some of them are getting weight-reduction surgery? How about kids who spend all their waking hours glued to their PlayStations and their computers? How about parents who are so obsessed with their busy and successful lives that as soon as they have a kid, they hand it over to the hired help to raise? They're like the people who get dogs and then hire dog-walkers and dog-sitters because they're never home. Why, you wonder, did they bother? Or how about a culture that's so fearful of physical contact between children and adults that grownups who work with kids aren't even allowed to give them a hug?

French was no problem for Belinda Stronach as she made her Quebec political debut yesterday.

She spoke mostly English, and most of the people she met at an early evening reception at Montreal's crusty St. James Club spoke to her in English.

She did manage to read a few sentences in French from her scripted speech and repeat a carefully rehearsed promise to learn French.

[. . . .] Asked point blank if she thinks Quebec is a nation, as Quebec sovereignists and many federalists in the province maintain, Stronach replied, "Let me just say that there would be no Canada without Quebec."

When asked again, she repeated her answer, adding: "I believe as we go forward with policymaking, we need to reflect Quebec's heritage, cultural institutions and language."

[. . . .] Stronach is bucking a trend in Canadian politics that has taken hold over the past 30 years, in which time it has become an unwritten rule candidates for national party leadership, and even more so for prime minister, must be functionally bilingual to rate serious consideration.

[. . . .] It started with Pierre Trudeau, whose seamless bilingualism was central to his star quality, and critical to his electoral success. Perhaps as much credit for cementing the bilingual convention should go to Joe Clark. He upheld it without Trudeau's natural advantage of being born in Quebec to a bicultural household.

FREDERICTON -- A 12-year-old child threw such a serious tantrum that his stepmother was forced to call RCMP for assistance, police said yesterday. The child started the confrontation with his stepmother in a vehicle in downtown Fredericton. Police spokesman Sgt. Gary Arbour said a cellular telephone call from the stepmother at about 11:40 a.m. yesterday alerted police and they intercepted the duo at an intersection to assist.

The child, who earlier had been dismissed from his school due to a temper tantrum, was being transported home by his stepmother when the two exchanged words over the boy's desire to go skating in the afternoon, Arbour said.

Are you ready for exciting news in Paul Martin's first throne speech? Well, forget it -- 'don't rock the boat' will be the PM's motto until an election is behind him

[. . . .] Indeed, the Liberals have spent most of first two months of Martin's leadership diligently pushing potentially hot political issues to the back burners long enough to get through the election.

[. . . .] the explosive case of Maher Arar, [. . . .] ministers can no longer comment on this embarrassing political fiasco until after the inquiry.

Ditto for same-sex marriage, [. . . .] All other criticisms and questions about Canadian foreign affairs and defence issues will be answered by the Liberal policy review announced by Martin his first day on the job. Promise. After the election.

Dodge: The Martin team did its best to bury this story by sandwiching it between the Arar inquiry and gay marriage in the same news-cycle but you can bet that we haven't heard the last about the previous government's fraudulent report on government contracts with Martin's CSL. Martin's claims that he didn't know anything about it at the time are ludicrous. Expect Martin to be grilled on this when parliament resumes.

Dodge: Speaking of ticking time-bombs, this one's about to blow. I'm refering to the B.C. drug raids that involved some Liberal campaign strategists and some dubious selling of memberships tied in with Martin winning his party's leadership. The police have been pretty hush-hush stating that they cannot reveal the facts because the investigation is on-going despite the pressure being applied for disclosure by many news outlets. I haven't posted much about this except the original story but I expect this will become headline news in little time.

How Super Bowl was shocked from top to bottom

The Super Bowl proved a super embarrassment after Janet Jackson's right breast was exposed to 89 million US television viewers watching America's most prestigious sporting event