Ontario: Refurbishing its way to prosperity

"Ontario’s plan to pour colossal amounts of money into nuclear, wind and solar could bury the province", so says Lawrence Solomon in the Financial Post (Nov. 27). Ostensibly the McGuinty Liberals in Ontario want cleaner air and greener energy production. McGuinty has bought into the global warming alarmist's view that we must reduce our carbon emissions to save the planet and stop air pollution to eliminate the deaths of Ontarians with respiratory problems. The former is ridiculous and the latter well, lets just say a lot of our pollution comes across our southern border so we would have to persuade our American cousins to do likewise. The fact is our air quality is rather good most of the time, and certainly does not warrant mortgaging the future prosperity of Canada's once richest province.
Mr. Solomon's column describes how McGuinty has decided to refurbish the old and build new nuclear generation facilities even though our previous experience with nuclear power plants has shown them to be extraordinarily uneconomic. 
The temperamental and pricey nukes will be assisted by wind and solar energy "power-plants" (when they are working!). It boggles the mind, but Mr. Solomon offers hope. The final paragraph of the article states: "It isn’t too late to turn things around. Just bury the long-term plan, none of which passes muster, and resurrect the privatization of the power system. Power rates would drop and Ontario’s economy would soar." The emphasis on privatization is mine, and it cannot come soon enough.

Cooling on Warming

We are just days away from the next big global warming conference in Mexico. I'm missing the hype that preceded last years Copenhagen debacle. Things are a bit different now, as I predicted in several earlier postings, the economy is beginning to trump the environment. Some of the European countries that went headlong into Green overspending are now on the brink of bankruptcy, Spain most notably.
An opinion piece in today's National Post nicely sums up the recent changes in attitude and opinion regarding anthropogenic global warming. Its worth a read, because it puts the next conference in Cancun into focus, that is of course if you still think global warming is a problem.

Religion a force for good? Not so much.

As a followup to my Oct. 12th posting, the Munk Debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens took place last night (Nov. 26/10) in Toronto.
The online video of the debate is not available as yet, but the results are in.
Apparently two-thirds of those polled believe that religion is NOT a force for good in the world. The NOT group had a 35% lead pre-debate, and a 37% lead post-debate, so not a significant change I would say.
In a debate of this sort I would have expected the atheists to be more numerous attendees than the believers, and that is what the results indicate if I can be that simplistic about the issue.
The CBC calls this a win for Chris Hitchens, looking at the results I'd say that was a stretch.
At some point when the online version is released, I will post it.

The rights of smokers etc.....

The other day I was invited to do an interview by a local television broadcaster to be broadcast on their digital service. I was representing the Ontario Libertarian Party (OLP) and I was on together with the president of Smokers-Choice.org, a group that OLP had supported financially in a legal challenge.
In May 2006 the Smoke-Free Ontario Act (SFOA) came into effect which essentially prohibits smoking in all enclosed public areas except your home, your hotel room (if allowed), and your car (if there are no children present).
I have never smoked and I find it a repugnant habit so I don't like to be around smokers, nor does the OLP advocate smoking. That of course does not preclude my support (along with the OLP) of anyone else from smoking if they wish, as long as they do not offend those nearby. In fact my attitude is, that smoking is a voluntary choice as ill advised as it is, and it's a personal preference not an issue that needs to be regulated in law. Certainly enclosed areas, workplaces, public buildings, transit facilities and so on, can and should be designated as non-smoking areas and smokers (if they have any sense) should realize that their habit is obnoxious to many and they should seek permission before lighting up. Voluntary restraint is the best option and that is best done for each local situation. A smokers right to smoke stops where it threatens the right of another to breath clean air, at this point all smokers should be aware of that without the use of coercive force by law.

Unfortunately this law (SFOA) is quite draconian, with very broad implications, which is where the Smokers Choice group gets involved.

The group is centred in the Ottawa area, and they attempted to establish an exclusive smokers club, with signed membership who consented to be within an enclosed room for the purpose of socializing, smoking, whatever. The SFOA is written so broadly that forming such a club in any premises is prohibited. The point of law in question is: what constitutes a public place? Is a public place anywhere that members of the public gather? If that is true than even your home filled with invited guests, is considered a public place because once an individual leaves their home they become a member of the public. Your private party isn't private at all, because members of the public are invited.  That was the interpretation applied to the Smokers Choice case, and after one trial and one appeal, the next higher court refused to even hear the case with no reason given.  The broad implication is that police can come to your home if you are having guests over, when there is complaint or for whatever reason, enter without a warrant because they have probable cause, and charge guests for smoking in a public place (if indeed they are smoking, otherwise the police can be embarrassed).  
Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and there are several parts of the Charter that could be used to defend Smokers Choice, but of course the process was halted when the case was refused to be heard.
As it stands that's the end of this issue until someone else raises a challenge.
The second century Roman Senator Tacitus said it best, when he pointed out that "....laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt."  Simply put, the more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state. In Ontario as laws that regulate behaviour have proliferated, those who are normally law abiding citizens are given more opportunity to break laws, making us all criminals and eventually undermining respect for ALL laws.