Questions and comments are of course welcome.

Of course, the teaching industry is pretty messed up. Established teachers in the public system, regardless of ability, are entrenched in their positions. New teachers can find it incredibly difficult to find full-time work. There is a new hiring system and can ensure that viable candidates have the remotest of chances of finding work in the province. (Would this be a good time to mention that if the province offered parents more choice in the education of their children it would allow for more dynamic education administration?)

With this glut of teachers, it seems logical to choke off the supply at the source. All those teaching students aren’t going to be able to find work, so it seems irresponsible of the government to train them, doesn’t it?

There’s an underlying assumption here that is just wrong, though. The government does not owe a teaching job to everyone who graduates teachers college. In most every other field, upon completion of one’s education, it is incumbent on the individual to find a job. Many people find jobs outside of their field of study. Why do we think teaching is so much different?

Further, why do we think the government owes teaching jobs to anyone with a few years or few decades worth of experience? The current system rewards seniority. You get to have a job because you already had a job. Again, in few industries does seniority trump ability. If Ontario were to move towards a merit-based system of hiring teachers (or offer more school choice!), we wouldn’t have this trap waiting for new grads. There would actually be an opportunity to enter into their chosen field.

Such a system would not just reward the best teachers, it would also reward students. They wouldn’t be stuck with whatever teachers happened to stick around. They’d get the teachers that were deemed most appropriate to instruct them. Yes, there would be some displacement, but the rest of the world has to deal with such things, what is so different about teaching?

Stephen Harper was a promising leader when he took over the nascent Conservative Party. It had been so long since we had a federal Tory leader that was worth much excitement (jet-ski fetishists, aside). You should always know that you’re going to be disappointed by politicians, but that doesn’t mean we can’t hold out a little hope that they won’t disappoint us too much.

Sadly, Stephen Harper is too much, and he has been too much for quite a while. He’s been weak on fiscal policy. His foreign policy is quite lacking. He’s a mess on civil liberties. He’s abandoned transparency. He’s sanctioned torture. He’s suffered scandals. He’s covered them up. He’s been found in contempt of Parliament.

But what might actually take him down? The Duffster.

And Pamela Wallin. The scandals surrounding the celebrity senate appointments look like they might actually sink the Harper government – scandals that are about, primarily, something as silly as lying about one’s address. Sure, there’s more than that, but it’s writing down the wrong addresses which kicked all this off.

A silly scandal for a silly institution.

We shouldn’t have our Senate. Oh sure, maybe we should have a second legislative body, but we shouldn’t have the Senate that we currently have. We shouldn’t have a bunch of appointees, brought in as a reward for political service or as a means of gaining future electoral success. We should have Senators that are chosen by the people, not by that one person. We should have a legislative body that actually resembles a democratic institution.

Once upon a time, there was a political activist who knew this.

Our Prime Minister has campaigned for Senate reform. He has long been a proponent of a democratically-elected upper chamber. For years in a minority government, there was very little he could do about. He’s had a majority for two years now, and what has he done? He has appointed Senators who may turn out to be criminals. And these appointments may drag him down.

It’s poetry. It’s art. The first Prime Minister who demonstrated that he gets it when it comes to the Senate may just get skewered for turning his back on principle. This is wonderful. And if it helps lead to the reformation or abolition of the senate, I’ll be over the moon.

There’s a sad twist, though. An aspect of this that reinforces my cynicism about democracy.  The scandals are enough to bring Mr. Harper down. They are a valid reason to throw out a Prime Minister, but they are not the greatest transgression here.

No, the bigger sin is that Stephen Harper fully understood that an appointed Senate was wrong, but when given the power to change it, he chose, instead, to use it for his own political gain. He is contemptuous of democracy and, by extension, contemptuous of us. He values power above all else. These are the reasons he should fall, not some stupid lie told by a retired journalist.

The benefits of open trade are well established in economic history, practical application and Canadian history. The debate these days is never about implementing free trade; it’s just a discussion about how free our trade should be. Luckily (for those of you who can’t stand the indignity of an upright windmill), the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario is ready to throw common sense and economic prosperity out the window.

Enter Carleton-Mississippi Mills MPP Jack MacLaren.

The Tory, tired of seeing Quebec construction workers in his native Eastern Ontario is trying to revive the Fairness Is A Two-Way Street Act – a silly piece of legislation implemented under former Tory Premier Mike Harris that would block any construction companies or workers from working on provincial or municipal projects in Ontario if they also do construction work in Quebec.

There’s a typical gripe that runs through Eastern Ontario. Those darned workers from Quebec can come here and take our jobs, but we’re not allowed to work on their side of the river. It is frustrating, certainly. Even thought the provinces have tried to implement trade agreements that would allow for workers on both sides of the border to work in either province, Ontario workers have, once again, been faced with more and more red tape as they try to get work in La Belle Province.

The gripe is so well-established, it’s a cliche. It has been around as long as I have been following politics. What has never surfaced, however, is an explanation as to why trade barriers – which do little but reduce our overall prosperity – are an appropriate response. And, make no mistake, this will hurt us; we will pay. The Tories don’t seem to care. The law is punitive, and it doesn’t matter if they punish Ontario, as long as they punish Quebec more. This is no way run a province. Hell, it’s no way to live.

There’s also a sick underlying philosophy to this idea. Anytime you read about foreign workers taking “our jobs”, you must understand that the author of that argument no longer sees the rest of us people, living lives that are ends unto themselves. No, to people like Mr. MacLaren we are little more than economic cogs. Our wants, needs and desires are only of any worth if they enhance the economic well-being of some chosen group.

Some construction companies could make big money from this law. Reduced competition will lead to higher profits, but it won’t be those dastardly Quebec workers who are paying for the new inflated public infrastructure contracts. It will be the residents of Ontario. But that’s okay, it would seem, because our purpose is not to live our lives, it is fill the pockets of construction companies.

There’s no other way around it. Ontario construction workers have been deemed of greater value than Quebec construction workers. And the rest of us are of lesser value than the construction workers, for we must be forced to pay the rents blessed upon the construction industry.

The Ontario Tories are the personification of the stereotypical bond villain. It does not matter what advantages they have. It doesn’t matter how much they have the Liberals on the ropes. The moment it looks like they should finally but 007 in the ground, they pause, open their mouths and give away the game.

There is only one valid reason to put this sort of protectionist racket in place, and that is to coerce the other province into loosening their trade barriers. But Ontario tried that 14 years ago, and it didn’t work. Why on earth do they think it will work now? It’s as if they think the laws of politics and the laws of economics have suddenly been suspended.

Until Tim Hudak can get that party’s act together, his prospects to succeed as Premier are laughable.

Don’t get me wrong; this whole affair is an insult and embarrassment to Canada, but the problem here is not Mike Duffy; it’s not Nigel Wright; and it’s not Pamela Wallin. The problem is our Senate.

It’s a rotten institution. It’s been a joke for years. It eschews representative government and assumes us all children. This type of legislative body is contempt for democracy manifested. Sticking the institution with the likes of Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin is wonderfully appropriate.

So don’t blame Duffy, Wright or Wallin (though feel free to blame the Prime Minister), blame the institution.

For those not familiar the TFWP allows Canadian employers to import non-Canadian workers. These privileged few are allowed to enter our company, work their job and, eventually, leave. They are given no greater tie to the nation; they’re just hired guns.

This program rubs some people the wrong way. With so Canadians looking for a job, why, we might ask should we bring in foreigners to take the relatively few jobs there are? Even if we ignore shortages of specific skills, or job openings in regions of low unemployment, there’s a very simple answer.

“Foreigners” are people.

Our current immigration system doesn’t worry about this. We have established a system in which we automatically value Canadians more than we value anyone else. We determine worth based on your citizenship. When you break it down, it’s pretty abhorrent. It may not be bigotry, but it’s right next door.

When we speak of foreigners taking jobs from Canadians, we are making a ridiculously simple mistake. We are deciding that these jobs belong to Canadian workers. They don’t. A Canadian citizen has no greater claim to the potential wealth these jobs promise than any non-Canadian – except that we have created a political and legal regime that intentionally disadvantages these foreigners.

This is why the Temporary Foreign Worker Program doesn’t need to be fixed; it needs to be trashed. We need to overhaul our immigration system so that we are no longer excluding a vast pool of resources from our labour market. All the time that we are spending debating the TFWP is a real waste. We’re just arguing about how we should express our xenophobia.

And that’s what this comes down to. Let’s forget about the economic benefits of free trade. Let’s ignore the vast amounts of human capital that would be available for Canadian industry if we opened our labour market. Let’s even forget that we really do have some skills shortages throughout the country.

Instead, let’s remember what we’re talking about when we’re talking about these foreigners. We’re talking about people. We’re talking about locking people out from opportunity. We’re talking about robbing these people of wealth. We’re talking about furthering their impoverishment.

We need to realize that this quasi-bigotry must end. We need to reform our immigration system so that we accept as many immigrants as we possibly can, acknowledging the practical limitations of an open border policy. We need to accept that these are foreigners are people, just like you and me.

We need to learn to value those people a little bit more. Anything less is bigotry.

What’s the value of Peter Mansbridge?

The Tories have made the decision that Crown Corporations need a new strategy when dealing with upcoming collective bargaining (contracts will be ending in 2015). The government will be taking a fairly hard line in negotiations as they attempt to bring compensation levels in line with the private sector. The government has listed 49 Crown Corps that will be subject to this new strategy, but Canada Post, Via Rail and the CBC have been called out specifically. There is, as you can imagine, much hand-wringing about this. The government will be taking a much more hands-on approach, potentially even sitting in on negotiations. Labour activists see this as inappropriate intrusion into the collective bargaining process. Personally, I’d much prefer organizations like Via Rail and the CBC become self-sufficient, private entities.

What’s the value of privacy?

The Canadian Constitution Foundation has announced that they have been given intervener status in Elizabeth Bernard vs. Attorney General of Canada, et al. Ms. Bernard is federal civil servant. She has refused to join public sector unions during her time working for the government (as is her right). However, since she is covered by the collective bargaining agreement (and, thus, forced to pay union dues), her employer (the government) has been compelled to give the unions her private information, including home address and phone number. The CCF notes that there have been cases in the past where such information has been used by unions to bully workers. It is a sad statement that we have put greater value on the power of unions than on the rights and freedoms of workers. That’s not the sort of thing the labour movement is supposed to be fighting for.

What’s the value of safety?

After a five day wildcat strike, a deal has been reached to get workers back into Alberta’s prisons. The government will, thankfully, begin a review of the health and safety issues in Alberta prisons. This should be seen as a modest win for the union (though at a cost of $350 000 in fines). It doesn’t appear that any concrete steps have been taken to make things safer for jail guards, but a review is better than nothing. Hopefully, this strike has made it clear that the workers aren’t going to suffer silently. That might, just might, encourage the government to actually do something.

What’s the value of booze?

We’re about 5 minutes to midnight on the doomsday clock. May 17 is the strike deadline for workers at Ontario Liquor Stores. Talks are, allegedly, ramping up, but is it possible that we’ll see a dry long weekend? Well, at least beer and wine stores will be open.

Comments and feedback are of course welcome.

As a sidenote, please note that the editor chose the title for the article as it originally appeared, not me.

Now, it turns out, there was a clerical error that resulted in soldiers receiving danger pay accidentally. There was an administrative error that lead to an extra, now we can say bonus, payment to some members of the Armed Forces:

“This issue results from an administrative error and not from any fault on the part of these soldiers,” MacKay said in an e-mail sent by his office. “It would not be right to penalize these families for the department’s error, so we will not be asking soldiers to pay back the difference. Our government is eternally grateful for the dedication and sacrifice by our men and women in uniform who serve and protect our country.”

The letter demanding soldiers reimburse the defence department is separate from the recent controversy over a recommendation to cut the level of danger pay military personnel get.

Once again, the white hats in the Conservative Party came to the rescue.

Tell me, though, is this appropriate? This was a simple mistake. It was separate from the proposed policy change. The government was not asking people to return danger pay that they had earned. Why should they not be asked to repay it?

Is this a policy throughout the government? If your average Joe Bureaucrat got overpaid, would the government let it go, or would they demand repayment? If it was someone in the private sector, how do you think such a situation might be handled?

If you think soldiers deserve special treatment, try to reflect on why they deserve it.

If you think soldiers deserve special treatment, what does say about what they’re fighting for?

“He got a lumber, or some kind of big thing… and then charged me. I had this chicken masala and I threw it on him. He was pushing me, holding my neck and grabbing me. Then I broke free and I ran out of my backyard,” Mr. Polapady said in a 2012 statement on the incident.

Now, unfortunately, the article I’m citing isn’t particularly clear in presenting the events of that night, but it appears that Mr. Polapady reacted as he did in part because he had been recently robbed. When he saw his past assailant back again, he became understandably worried.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t the same person:

As it turned out, the victim of Mr. Polapady’s spice-throwing, Manuel Belo, was not the car thief Mr. Polapady believed he was. Days earlier, Jason Mitchell — who ultimately pleaded guilty to the crime — had broken into the Bloor Street West restaurateur’s car and stolen several items, including a laptop and GPS device.

It is unclear if Mr. Belo was, in fact, a thief. From the various reports I’ve read, he may have been, or he may have just been loitering. What is definitely clear, however, is the Mr. Polapady thought he was Jason Mitchell and confronted him, broomstick in hand. I caught a lot of flack a couple years back when I argued that infamous shopkeeper vigilante David Chen should be found guilty for chasing a man down, tying him up and throwing him in a van, hours after he had been shoplifting, but my main concern was exactly what has happened in the “Spiceman” case.

We cannot assume that every citizen will perfectly remember the appearance of someone who committed a crime either hours or days ago. Mr. Chen tried this and got the right person. Mr. Polapady tried this and did not. We know that Mr. Chen attacked a guilty person. It is not so clear with Mr. Polapady. And even if Mr. Belo was a thief, Mr. Polapady’s mistake demonstrates that these sorts of vigilantes could easily attack innocent people.

Now, there may be more to the story than has yet been reported, so perhaps Mr. Polapady was truly acting in self defence. But from all the information we have right now, he should be found guilty. Just as David Chen should have.