Abortion considered an illness under EI

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation:

The assertion about 'abortion being a private matter between a woman and her doctor' has been made a lot this week, mostly by proponents of the Supreme Court ruling that struck down Canada’s abortion law 20 years ago. It’s a clever jingle, but not entirely true. At least not as far as taxpayers are concerned...

While few Canadians are clamouring for legislative restrictions on abortion, it is doubtful those same voters would support government promoting it. Hence, the pro-abortion lobby employs language that implies the state has little to do with it. They say it’s about the freedom to choose, an individual’s choice, and the state has no business interfering in a private decision. It’s a position that satisfies small-government libertarians as well as those claiming to be both fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Yet, government is more involved in promoting abortion than Canadians realize.

We’re familiar with provincial funding of abortion (with the exception of New Brunswick). Of course, it’s not terribly expensive – it is estimated $50-million a year is spent on the medical procedure from a $100-billion public health budget. Ultimately, it is for provincial legislatures to decide whether or not to fund it under Medicare.

But what might Canadians say about the federal government offering unemployment benefits to women who have an abortion? It is worth asking because Ottawa’s employment insurance (EI) program does just that.

According to EI guidelines, when a pregnancy is terminated within the first 19 weeks it is considered an illness and benefits can be collected. Ottawa does not distinguish between a miscarriage and an abortion. If an abortion occurs in the 20th week or later benefits are paid out under the EI maternity program despite there being no mother or child. According to the federal government, the 'birth mother' need only sign 'a statement declaring the expected due or actual date of birth.' Illness and maternity benefits are paid for up to three and a half months...

Ottawa should move to undo its spending policies that either encourage or reward having an abortion. It should certainly not pay out EI illness or maternity benefits when there is no child.

For those seeking a clear definition, Termination of pregnancy as defined under the rules outlined by Service Canada is as follows:

When a pregnancy terminates within the first 19 weeks of pregnancy, it is considered an illness under EI. If that is the case, sickness benefits may be paid as long as the qualifying conditions for sickness benefits are met.

On the other hand, if the pregnancy terminates in the 20th week or later, the claim for benefits can be considered for maternity benefits if the qualifying conditions for maternity benefits are met.

It's bad enough when the Government of Canada uses statist coercion as a means to shape the daily lives of all Canadians. But let me tell you, they have sunk to an all-time [unethical] low if they believe the gift of life is something so insignificant that a woman can give it up after a few weeks for a couple of bucks. Shame.

*entire post gerrymandered from Sobering Thoughts. Hope Paul will forgive me.

Harper: No corporate welfare for auto industry

Finally, a leader of a government that doesn't capitulate to the regional demands for more corporate subsidies. I can't begin to explain how huge this is for our federation. (Hat tip Daifallah)

New Brunswick's obsession with dualism

I agree wholeheartedly with Andrea Mandel-Campbell's comments in the Telegraph Journal today, in that, if we are ever to move forward as a strong province, both economically and socially, then it is essential that New Brunswick look past it's petty division, particularly when it comes to language:

"With a population of just 750,000 you're still talking about whether it's a French-English divide, or an urban-rural divide or a north-south divide," she said in an interview Sunday.

"You're up against the whole world, like China and India. What are you doing wasting your time with trivialities like that? You should be banding together, seeing where your strengths lie and using them to your advantage."

For the record, here's a brief post I wrote on the subject last May just after Justin Trudeau spoke to a group of educators against the current "separate schools" approach of our education system wherein he said "a single bilingual board would be more efficient" (my brief touches a little more on the type of global demographics required in order to have a strong economy, not on education):

I agree with Justin Trudeau, there's no question we need to push past our “thirty year old” dualistic approach wherein we move to a more multicultural, tolerant model. Our resources are scarce in this province and investing too much in old failed policies has left our province [and region] in the global dust.

It is common knowledge that in the next five years, immigration will account for 100% of net labour force growth in Canada. And furthermore, province’s that have a larger number of people born within, for example the province of Newfoundland, tend to have weaker economies as opposed to those stronger ecomomies who rely more heavily on an outside influx of immigrants. [i.e. Toronto, Calgary, and Ottawa]

So there is no question that New Brunswick, whose french and english populations are dwindling [death rates outnumber bithrates] need to change the way they view themselves and their society so that our region can become a more fertile place for immigrants to live, work and pay taxes. In other words, old dualistic policy approaches which maintain the status quo and [keep our society insular] are no longer viable in a global economy anchored by a knowledged based economy [KBE]. We must find a way to convince the people and the powers that be that we need a policy overhaul in order to move ahead in a global society. In other words, we must follow the “3 Ts” recommended by Canadian economist Tom Corchene whereby he said:

“The regions who come out on top will be those who fare best in terms of Technology (as measured by innovation and high-tech industry concentration), Talent (as measured by the number of people in creative occupations) and Tolerance (as measured by the amenities afforded and opportunities available for every possible lifestyle). Cities and regions that score well, especially with respect to the tolerance index, will become places where the creative class will cluster.”

I can't stress this more. And it is a huge reason why I support [Corchene's] notion, in that, I believe we are wasting our time with old policies that have left our society insular and in decline. In other words, we will either ride the momentum of the global wave or sit idly by and watch it crash over our heads. We have a choice.

Mandel-Campbell also agrees with yours truly on the lack of boldness from the current government, not to mention, their uncompetitive tax policies:

"It's all very nice and well meaning, but I don't see anything particularly bold there," she said of Graham's much-lauded Self-Sufficiency agenda.

"The entire province is on welfare and always has been, (and) you have a declining population - that seems pretty serious to me."

Mandel-Campbell said the province should make its business tax regime competitive by international standards, not just by Canadian standards.

Nevada feculence

You'd expect such goings on in a state where gambling and prostitution are legal, but not from political organizers whose leaders are looking to control the country's purse strings. It's not surprising, although shocking just the same. (Hat tip The Daily Dish) Read it and weep:

I've just finished talking on the phone with my husband, Samuel Bartmess, about his experience today in the Nevada caucus in a town called Pahrump. He was in charge of one precinct; however, three other precincts were placed in the same cafeteria. Thus, four precincts (about 600 people) were all in one room. In this cafeteria he witnessed voter fraud and slime politics at its worst from the Clinton organizers and precinct captains.

The doors officially opened at 11 a.m., but by 10 a.m. Clinton voters swarmed the place. They had been told to arrive early because there were not going to be enough ballots to go around for everyone; thus, first come first served. By the time 11:20 rolled around Clinton organizers were shutting the doors even though this was not supposed to happen until noon. Samuel ran back and forth from his precinct to the door trying to make sure it stayed open and, thus, started the war of words between him and the Clinton people. Cheating followed. Obama supporters were told that there were no more ballots even though extras were around. Clinton voters were counted more than once in differing precincts. Temp chairs refused to register Obama voters. Undecided voters got their preference box marked for them as "Clinton" by Clinton people even though the undecided did not express a preference for the Senator. Overall, the four precincts were taken advantage of by the Clinton team because everything was so disorganized.

When Samuel tried to make things fair and organized he was told time and again that he didn't get to have an opinion because he was not from Nevada. He took the topic up with his Obama precinct captain who was unable to sway others into having a fair count. He had a number of arguments with those who were causing chaos and those who did nothing to stop the chaos. Overall, Samuel does admit that if the Clinton organizers had played fair that they probably would have won the precinct in the first place. However, they disenfranchised voters and out maneuvered the other campaigns by playing dirty politics. It was a Mob-ocracy of ruthless Clinton organizers. For Clinton's team, today was not a day about respect, it was not a day about uniting a country, it was not a day about people working together as one, it was a day of winning for the Clinton team. This mob intimidated and pushed their neighbors around. Samuel firmly believes more than ever that our campaign is about bringing the country together and the Clinton camp is for division.

Tom Brady v. the Chargers

My brother has been a huge Patriot fan since the days of Steve Grogan, not to mention, during their big 3-0 win in the "snow plow game" over the Miami Dolphins in '82 (a moral victory at the time for a very bad team). Let's just say, I haven't heard the end of it since their very first superbowl win back in 2002. You can just about imagine how it is [for me] now that they are looking to write history with an undefeated season.

Which is why today is going to be huge as I am a longtime Chargers hopeful (going back to Dan Fouts and the "air corriel" era). However, on the brightside for me, if the Chargers do lose as expected, at least Junior Seau will have a chance at a Superbowl ring. ;-)

Oh, btw, I'm sure this video describes every New Englander and their man [and women] crush for Tom Brady right about now. My picks:

Hopeful: Chargers 21 Patriots 17
Reality: Chargers 14 Patriots 42

Let's hope the pats leave reality in the locker room. lol

Curbing free speech: a case against the CHRC

Good to see someone still has a backbone in the conservative ranks, other than Gerry Nicholls that is. lol

Anyway, for freedom fighters across the globe, this is definitely must see tv. Enjoy.

Top that Mike Huckabee

You know yours truly would never go on record as being supportive of long winded, wasteful, taxpayer funded PR campaigns; but man, this one is good.

Seriously folks, how could anyone possibly pass up the chance to establish a new home office in Balls Creek.

Ghiz says "no" to politics as usual

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation Blog (posted by Kevin Gaudet):

To the victor go the spoils - no more in PEI.

The revolving door of patronage in PEI is being slowed down by new PEI Premier Robert Ghiz. The Globe and Mail reports that Ghiz will not fire hundreds of government workers hired by his predecessor.

This patronage is not just about high-profile public appointments to boards and agencies. It is patronage of hiring friends and family and friends and family of friends and family of party supporters and contributers for jobs at any level of government. On an island where jobs have been scarce, government jobs of any kind have been precious. So, it has been a historical practice for incoming premiers to sweep clean the losing party's government-employed supporters and contributers, replacing them with his or her own. Ghiz's father was no exception to this when Premier.

My family is from the Island, my granddad was Mayor of Charlottetown for a time and I have lived there. This is a practice widely known and only grudgingly suffered.

Good for Ghiz for planning to put and end to this practice. Merit, not party affiliation or friendships, should be the primary driver in any employment placement. It is about time Canada's red-soiled Island got rid of this red-communist practice.

I have to admit, after this questionable deal was struck just before Christmas with Atlantic Beef Products Inc., I thought it was politics as usual for Ghiz on the island. Let's hope that there is more good news, like this anti-patronage stance as Islanders deserve it.

Taking a bit of a break

Because of work and other projects demanding my attention, I will not be blogging here for the next few weeks or so. I will probably return the week after the end of the month (still up in the air). In the meantime, I will continue to contribute (every now and then) to It's the Economy Stupid!, Spink About It, Adam Daifallah, Gerry Nicholls, Wolfville watch, the Independent, the Hipster, NBpolitico and of course, Gypsy. Anyway, see you all there.

Iowa Caucuses

For Up To The Minute Coverage click here!

Iowa voters tomorrow night will go to their local precinct caucuses to cast their ballots for the presidential candidate of their choice. Let's just say, the winner is hardly guaranteed his/her party's nomination, not to mention, it's quite possible that neither Iowa winner will come out as the favorite for the nomination -- but the caucuses will certainly be the end of the road for some candidates. Anyway, here are some excellent analyses of the races in both parties (with my take as well ) and how things will shape up in the end:

Democrats

• The Edwards camp has released a memo which averages the nine Iowa polls released since Christmas (MSNBC/McClatchy, Strategic Vision, Insider Advantage, the average of the Zogby/C-SPAN tracking survey, Research 2000, another Strategic Vision, Des Moines Register, CNN, and Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg). As you can see, it's way too close to call as the average has Sen. Hillary Clinton at 28.2%, Sen. Barack Obama at 27.5%, and John Edwards at 26.3%. Athough cold weather may not be a factor [after all] in favour of Edwards (as I once predicted).


• I don't often agree with what Markos Moulitsas says or predicts over at the Daily Kos, but he is dead on about Joe Biden: "This is the only second-tier candidate that stands out, and has a shot of breaking into the top three. He is confident, knowledgable, humoress, and passionate about politics. In addition, his Iraq plan shows to people that he knows about this conflict more than any other candidate. These factors make it very easy for people to caucus for him." I caught Biden's speech to potential caucus goes on CNN's Ballot Bowl yesterday afternoon and I was seriously impressed (I'm sure NBpolitico would be happy to hear that his predictions/scenerios on both sides are still alive). If he ends up sitting around 14 to 15 per cent in Iowa, he could end up as a longshot after all instead of just throwing his support over to a desparate Hillary campaign after NH.


• If I'm Obama, I wouldn't be all that happy with this endorsement, especially since he already has the strongest organization on the ground: "Kucinich said Tuesday that he would like his supporters to back Obama in places where they are not in large enough numbers to be viable." It's funny, but that sounds an aweful lot like the deal Dion made with Elizabeth May in Central Nova.


• The pre-spinning coming outta Hillary's camp makes me think that their insider tracking has them with a good shot at winning the caucus or at the very least coming second. This undersell will almost all but ensure Hillary of momentum going into New Hampshire. Although, if she is sitting in third (like many polls have shown), this strategy has the potential to backfire if a guy like Biden surges into third due to apathy amongst her supporters created by such a statement. I just don't think her strategist are that careless.

My Predictions:

1st Place: John Edwards
2nd Place: Hillary Clinton
3rd Place: Barack Obama
4th Place: Joe Biden
5th Place: Bill Richardson

***

Republicans

• I agree with Bill Kristol's Iowa predictions, "Ron Paul will outperform his poll numbers, but McCain should still be able to take third on the GOP side[...]" However, a Romney victory (which is looking more likely) will cause a few problems for John McCain's message in NH (even if he is on a roll).


• There has been a lot of talk about McCain's come back to Iowa, Huckabee's incredible surge and Romney's flip flopping, but where the heck is Rudy?? Can his wacky nomination strategy actually work?? Michael Barone actually thinks it could, but he also believes that individuals like Giuliani "who live by the delegate count" could actually "die by the delegate count" as well. As for me, his absence these last few weeks in key primary states has hurt him way to much (even nationally). I think he's done.


• One of the key rules in campaign strategy is if you're going to run an attack ad against your opponent, make sure you are willing to stick by it. Because pulling it not only damages your credibility and your campaign, but it also makes it difficult for you to raise money down the road. Let's just say this campaign flap by Huckabee could result in more damage than you think as [he] has a lot riding on Iowa. If he loses, he can all but pack it in. But if he wins, he could possibly hang in there a bit longer with the big boys (Romney and McCain). But he must win big.

My predictions:

1st Place: Mitt Romney
2nd Place: Mike Huckabee
3rd Place: John McCain
4th Place: Ron Paul
5th Place: Fred Thompson