Michael Hardner

We need no more evidence than this to prohibit Democrats from coming to Canada. Come to think of it, anybody in favour of democracy too. Or against it.

It was uncommon nonsense, though as I pointed out it was necessary because of government tendency to overspend. We elect smart-talking lawyers to head up a multi-billion dollar organization and then are somehow surprised when it doesn't work out.

Most media knows better than to confuse correlation and causation, yet today the Metro newspaper again showed why they give it away for free: Today's Metro I'm pretty sure they didn't establish a causal relationship here. The CBC Story describes a link - which seems to be more correct.

Not that much of a surprise, since there are only two types of groups that we have seen do this lately. This is one of them.

Thank you. I will never contest that Harris' way was made possible by inaction, budget cuts.. and furthermore that the McGuintys of the world are to blame for creating these situations in the first place. And... in all cases the amount of time that governments spend polishing their image should be spent looking at operations and improving things, but that seems to be impossible in an environment where marketing campaigns deliver the verdict on government performance. His way, Rae's and McGuinty's are all wrong. Analyzing, consulting, discussing, rightsizing, communicating, and making difficult decisions... these are the stages of getting things done. Of course, government already has a problem in doing these things quickly and efficiently - indeed all of these things are being done all the time and nothing changes. Blowing up and starting over is indeed an option, but it needs to be done with intelligence.

As a Democrat who tells it like it is and doesn't toe the party line on all matters, I consider her a sister-in-arms.

Doubly idiotic for a Republican to go out on his own, on a guess, and martyrize the president.

Depending on what you're saying, and what you're citing... How many Canadians watch television, for example ? My guess is that many do.

This is confusing. The SC ordered them to establish whether they themselves had jurisdiction ? It seems that the SC would establish that.

Choosing between heritage and healthcare is a false dilemma: we don't have to fund one or the other. And - yes - I do believe that general disinterest will cause the profile of this country to fade, without support.

Seriously, though, .5% is nothing. As much as Harris messed up Ontario with gross mismanagement, it shouldn't be a big problem to get costs down by that much.

Really ? HRTs are above the Supreme Court now ? Says who ? That's really a new idea, I think.

I surely hope that politics doesn't play any significant part in announcing whether this is a terrorist related event or not. They either know, or they don't. They either suspect, or they don't.

You're wrong. I'm not saying the Koebels are not to blame. But Harris' responsibility was different and he is culpable.

1) The system is designed to account for failure of any kind. 2) "It was assumed..."... assumption review is an essential part of risk management. Assessing risks is a collaborative and inclusive process, but often can be squashed by interference from above. Such appears to be the case when Harris threw Ontario's Chief Medical officer out of a meeting. Google News Archive I have worked with types like this before - ham-fisted know-it-alls who think they know best, and can't discern the alarmists from those who are highlighting real risks.

Seems like a rather plain treatment. Not much information. Then there's the disabling of the comments. I find that a little strange, but I have no idea whether it's normal to do so.

That's a strange take on it, i.e. because they weren't caught the extra level of safety didn't work. The lack of deaths doesn't count in there somehow ? If Harris had any idea how to manage things, he would have undertaken a top-to-bottom audit of the system. Mike Harris deserved to be vilified to a degree, because more is expected from the ones at the top than the button pushers at the bottom. This is why we have safety systems that don't depend solely on individuals doing the right thing. This is why we have levels built in there.

Hmmm... I think the funds they bring in are $ -7B, according to this. I don't think it's a defense force either, currently. There are implications to reducing the size of the military, of course. Have a look - maybe there are other things on there that could be reduced.

Maybe. But it's generally been acknowledged that the military is underfunded for their commitments. As such, we could commit to do less I suppose. I finally found some substantial information on expenses: http://www.fin.gc.ca/fiscmon-revfin/2010-01-eng.asp $7B each on Indian & Northern affairs and Crown Corporations. $2B on 'health' which doesn't figure into the $30B in transfer payments. And all of that is so far this year. Thoughts ? Ideas ? Dumbfounded murmurs ?

Globe and Mail Article With this comment underneath: I guess you could comment here, for example, if you had thoughts on this story.

No.

Not much of a case, there. Removing a level of safety necessitates the most critical type of change management there is. I stand by what I said. Harris' arrogance, coupled with his inability to actually do anything is something that the people of Ontario should have seen coming. It's not like there wasn't any warning. We expect more from a Premier, especially one who sells himself as Harris did. Thankfully, he's done like dinner. Last time I heard of him, a friend saw him drunk in a bar in Florida. Meanwhile, Bob Rae has atoned for his errors and moves forward - just steps from power. I will grant you that I find it difficult to be personally objective about Harris. I think it's because I consider him a complete fraud, and it still depresses me that he was able to do what he did in Ontario. That said, it's because of do-nothings like McGuinty that we end up with Harris' in the province.

As ever, it's difficult to provide specifics as to how this change would happen. To me, it seems difficult to imagine that the change we have already experienced could happen much faster. What change ? - Respect for diversity - Increased productivity - Explosion of culture - More choices for all I had a discussion with somebody who was trying to say that we'd be better off if we got rid of banks and carried big bags of grain around all day. Like you, she was a romantic.

The disaster wouldn't have happened had the Koebel brothers been doing their jobs, nonetheless the Harris government removed a measure of security without adequately researching the effects. It's kind of like removing seat belts from cars, then blaming other causes (for example drunk drivers) for the resulting deaths. So, it's not as simple as some would say. Judge O'Connor did conclude that the actions of the government did further the harm done by the local yokels, too. The Harris government is a great reminder as to what happens to large organizations, and why 'quick fixes' are always a bad idea in safety-related areas. Of course, Harris was an uneducated ignoramus of a leader with no experience and business, with the attendant arrogance of an accomplished CEO so the results was, sadly, to be expected. Now we have McGuinty, who is a whole other kind of problem.

Also, $1.7B sounds like a lot, but with a budget of $280B in expenditures, it would be like an average wage earner of $40K/year cutting less than $5/week from his budget. Really, not that much. If the Conservative government ever gets the ball rolling on rightsizing government, then I may actually vote right-of-centre for the first time ever.