Politics-Provincial

Why Now?

Mulder

I understand that 150 years ago unions did their part by equalizing the playing field and giving workers an advantage of numbers over the establishment or owners.  But in this day and age it always seems strikers hold people hostage in order to get their way.

The OPSEU strike of Ontario educators is a classic example of this.  The strike was started just before the school year ends for 150,000 college students.  This timing brings the issue to light but it doesn’t make any friends among the students or the tax payers out there.  The risk of losing the school year by students has repurcussions beyond just a repeat or extension into the summer.

  1. Students often are on 8 month sublet leases.  This puts many in the awkward position of having to extend their leases or find other accommodations.
  2. The reduction in student summer length limits the amount of time they can make money to help pay for their education.  This can dramatically affect a person on a limited income
  3. The loss of a school year for 150,000 is a bit economic bust too as it, in essence, took the student out of the tax paying pool of citizens for a whole year.
  4. How many of those 150,000 won’t even go back to complete their degrees if they can’t afford to repay for an extra year?  (I am not sure that they would lose the money, I have not seen any confirmation of what the financial hit would be or who would pay should a year need to be redone)

Why the teachers would not choose to strike a couple of weeks before the school year started is beyond me.  It would help save the students the risk of losing a year.  It would give them time to prepare for accommodations as needed when the school year starts (if it starts late) and it gives many of them the opportunity to extend their existing summer job to help pay for things when the year does eventually start.

Instead they try to stiff the taxpayer while OfficiallyScrewing 150,000 students.

I have never been pro union, but in this case the timing of the strike is what really gets my goat.

Ontario Teachers, Do The Math

Mulder

In relation to the OPSEU teacher’s strike, I heard a college professeur call Lowell Green today.  He mentioned some numbers that relate to his story.  Let me restate these (along with my assumptions)

  1. He has 18 hours of teaching time a week
  2. He has at least 1 hour of prep work for every 1 hour of teaching time (let’s assume 1.25)
  3. He has 32 weeks of teaching a year (i.e. 20 weeks of no classes)
  4. He makes $70,000 a year
  5. He does some prep work over the summer. (let’s assume 1 day a week, because after all it is summer)
  6. Let’s assume a veteran equivalent to 10 years in other industries and give our teacher 4 weeks of full paid vacation annually.  This would be complete down time with no prep work, no teaching, no marking, etc.

Now for Math 101 – Adding and multiplying
40.5 (x32 weeks)=1296 (the hours of teaching and prep for teaching)

8 (x16 weeks)=128 (the hours of work in off teaching weeks)

Total hours?  (1296+128)=1424

Now for Math 102 – Dividing and Crying
$70,000 / 1424 = $49.16 per hour worked  (note minimum wage in Ontario is currently $7.75/hr and moving to $8.00/hr on January 1st, 2007)
1424 / 48 weeks = 29.67 hours per week (not on vacation)

Now for Strike Assessment 101 – There is never any subtracting

And that, my friends, is Officially Screwed

OfficiallyScrewed Events Calendar Goes Live

Mulder

Do you have an event coming up that other conservative minded people might want to know about? OfficiallyScrewed.com is proud to announce your political event online. Elections, By-Elections, Fundraising dinners, Burmashaves, etc. Just Email Me with the following:

  1. Your name
  2. Your organization name (please ensure accuracy as it will be public)
  3. Your event name
  4. Your event date
  5. Your event time
  6. Your event URL or affiliated website
  7. Your organization contact information (for confirmation)

Please feel free to share this link with friends so they can promote their events too.

West End Ottawa Citizens About To Get Dumped On

Mulder

What do you call a west end Ottawa resident who may be at the whim of a deal City Council inked back in 2001?

You call them Officially Screwed.

In an Ottawa Sun article, Derek Puddicombe reports on an agreement that was entered into by our Council around the time of amalgamation which called for them to expedite valid landfill expansion claims. What does this mean? It means if Waste Management shows it’s expansion will be handled as per environmental guidelines, there probably isn’t much that all the yelling and screaming by local citizens will accomplish.

Carp Mountain will likely have no problem expanding and reaching higher than the 20 storeys it currently climbs.

In a related article, Torontonians may have a louder voice than West Ottawa when the Michigan border closes to Toronto trash leaving the province very few options other than to approve the landfill expansion.

Today I heard a statistic on Lowell Green’s show that said if a high efficiency incinerator was put to work on the landfills current pile of trash, and the heat used to generate electricity, it could power the city of Ottawa for 5 to 7 years. With expectations that another 300 Million tons a year will be coming our way, I see this as being more and more logical. The going rate for power would mean the city of Ottawa could sell the electricity, use the proceeds to pay the costs of the incinerator and the added cost per ton to dispose of it, and eliminate the mountain in less than a decade.

But that would be too logical.

Ottawa City Council Prepare Carp Mountain Motion

Mulder

The City Of Ottawa is putting up a front regarding the Carp Mountain expansion plans that Waste Management has proposed.

I received the following email from Mayor Bob Chiarelli’s office. This came unsolicited as I had already received a reply to my original email, but I assume they are sending this out to everyone who complained about the dump expansion in an effort to look good before the pending municipal elections.

As you may or may not be aware, the City has said this is a Provincial matter, and the Province has said that it is a municipal matter. Talk about getting officially screwed twice on one subject!! I am making the assumption that this motion is supposed to be a token effort by our politicians to let everyone know they don’t want the dump. But it really just tells Waste Management to look at all options regarding the disposal of waste.

In case you were not aware, Waste Management can look all it wants but the bottom line is that they own the land, and can pretty much do what they want with it. If the City of Ottawa wanted to put some teeth into this, they would have made a motion simple. Something like “The City of Ottawa hereby agrees to take legal recourse should Waste Management expand the Carp Rd. landfill.” Period. Nothing more. Why they would sue, who they will include in the suit, what the basis of the suit is should be determined after a few dozen lawyers get together. Not after our City Council meets. If Waste Management knows they will have a lawsuit on their hands, albeit one they may win, they would still think twice about the expansion.The uproar over this site expansion is just starting. 1100 people packed a gym when the info session was held March 1st. To be honest, I think the residents should just email WM and tell they they will boycott using the Carp facility if they expand it. This may make WM turn to the alternatives like Plasma Gasification.

Ok, enough ranting. On to the email and motion the City has plans to put forward later this month.

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the proposed expansion of the Carp Landfill by Waste Management.

Mayor Chiarelli has called a special City Council meeting for late March for a discussion and a vote on the attached motion dealing with the Carp landfill.

The motion speaks to the concerns raised by our communities and also about the environmental challenges and solutions the City of Ottawa and its residents face in reducing, recycling and reusing our waste. This motion was drafted by Councillors Stavinga, El Chantiry, Feltmate, the Mayor, and the City’s Legal department.

While final approval for any expansion rests with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the City of Ottawa is an important stakeholder and will be involved at every stage of the proposal.

Mayor Chiarelli applauds your efforts in expressing concerns about an issue which is extremely important to all residents in our city.

Thank you,

Jacques Larouche
Assistant to Policy Unit
Adjoint à l’unité des politiques
Mayor’s Office/Cabinet du Maire
City of Ottawa/Ville d’Ottawa

(613) 580-2496
email/courriel: Jacques.Larouche@ottawa.ca

City Council and Standing Committee

Motion

Conseil et comités permanents

Motion

Moved by/ Motion de

Councillor Stavinga

Seconded by/ Appuyée par

Councillor El-Chantiry

RE: Carp Road Landfill

WHEREAS in mid-January, Waste Management of Canada Corp. (WM) announced its proposal to expand its Ottawa waste management facility (WMF), currently located near the intersection of Carp Road and Highway 417 to meet growing recycling, composting and landfill capacity needs;

AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa, through its Integrated Waste Management Master Plan, is taking steps to achieve a 60% waste diversion target; to monitor, test, evaluate and implement alternative technologies and other environmental initiatives for waste management; and to continue to reserve landfill disposal capacity within Ottawa for locally-generated solid waste;

AND WHEREAS WM has access to provincial legislation to apply for an expansion under the Environmental Assessment Act;

AND WHEREAS the draft Terms of Reference (ToR) establishes the framework for the preparation and review of an Environmental Assessment (EA);

AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa, Federal and Provincial agencies and local residents are key stakeholders in the development of the draft ToR for the Environmental Assessment for the proposed expansion of the WMF;

AND WHEREAS the draft ToR appears to indicate that WM will conduct a full EA, but the ToR is so finely focused on the existing site and lands in the immediate vicinity that WM is actually proposing to conduct a very limited, or “scoped”, EA and is therefore not in keeping with the spirit of the EA Act nor is it in accordance with the expectations of the Ministry of the Environment as outlined in its “Guide To Preparing Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessments, Draft” and “Guideline on Consultation in the Environmental Assessment Process, Draft”;

AND WHEREAS the draft ToR proposed by WM provides an Environmental Assessment framework that is limited in scope, unclear, imprecise and deficient in adhering to EA planning principles, and does not examine many important issues;

AND WHEREAS in the description of the undertaking, it is clear that WM intends to accept non-hazardous waste “generated in the Province of Ontario” and expand the current service area to include the Outauoais region of Quebec;

AND WHEREAS WM has made a public commitment to not accepting waste from Toronto at the WMF at Carp Road;

AND WHEREAS City Council is seriously concerned about the proposed expansion of service areas to Quebec and other parts of Ontario;

AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa and affected residents must have effective and meaningful input during all phases of the Environmental Assessment process;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ottawa request that WM conduct the broadest Environmental Assessment to ensure the examination of all major issues including but not limited to an examination of other lands/facilities owned by WM in Ontario and Quebec, lands/facilities owned by the City of Ottawa, alternatives including emerging technologies such as waste diversion, incineration, energy from waste, stabilized landfilling, and plasma gasification;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the community, social, economic and environmental issues including but not limited to the listing in Schedule “A” be also incorporated in the review;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that effective and meaningful consultation (as further defined in Schedule “B”) on all aspects of the draft ToR and the EA be included as part of that process;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that WM be requested to redraft the proposed draft ToR so that all of the above concerns are included and that an independent peer review of both the draft Terms of Reference and the full Environmental Assessment be included as part of the workplan; and that the revised draft ToR and the draft EA be brought forward to Planning and Environment Committee and City Council for review prior to being submitted to the Ministry of the Environment;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, in an effort to reinforce the need for each municipality in Ontario to work towards a home-grown solution for their own waste management issues, both WM and Ontario’s Minister of the Environment confirm in writing that the Carp Road Landfill will not be permitted to receive waste from an expanded service area, including Toronto, the GTA and the Province of Quebec, and that should any additional landfill capacity be approved anywhere in Ottawa, that the City retain 90% reserved capacity for Ottawa waste;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the staff report that is being prepared on the issue include a detailed explanation of the City’s plan and timelines to meet Ottawa’s 60% waste diversion target.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that WM be asked to agree to a facilitated Environmental Assessment process involving a broad representation of interested parties, including citizens, community associations, environmental and public health organizations, the City, local conservation authorities and WM.


SCHEDULE A

PRELIMINARY LIST OF COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

FOR THE DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE

Issues include but are not limited to:

§ Social, economic and cultural impact assessment

§ Visual impact assessment

§ Groundwater/surface water impact assessment, including existing contamination issues

§ Impact on the development of the Ottawa/Carp Airport

§ Environmental health concerns, including odour, dust, noise, litter, migration of waste off site

§ Environmental and ecological impact assessment

§ Public health concerns

§ Height of the landfill

§ Leachate management

§ Traffic

§ Bird and pest control

§ Independent reporting/tracking of customer base, yearly tonnage and annual intake by source and origin, and waste mix

§ Alternative technologies/sites

§ Description of the geographic area


SCHEDULE B – PRINCIPLES OF MEANINGFUL CONSULTATION

Meaningful consultation should, at a minimum, involve representatives of affected constituent groups and the wider community in meaningful dialogue with the proponent throughout the EA decision-making process.

The consultation process for the entire EA should adhere to the following guiding principles:

· identifying before undertaking the consultation the group(s) and/or individuals to be consulted;

· build understanding (not just provision of information);

· provide timely and adequate information for the purpose of the consultation;

· seek best-balanced decisions for the undertaking, taking into account positive and negative impacts;

· actively seek views and engage in dialogue with a variety of interested, affected groups and/or individuals and key sources of information;

· respect opinions and input;

· communicate clearly to all contributors the results, including the decision reached, the action taken, and the rationale for the decision;

· include a means of assessing the effectiveness of the consultation, and to provide for follow-up;

· recognize that constituent groups may have their own constraints (e.g., neighbours may be at a disadvantage because they lack independent advice on the EA process and the scientific

· details of the EA impact assessment studies); and

· include consultative dialogue consisting of mutual listening and sharing of information and views by the consulting body and the group(s) or individual(s) being consulted (e.g. workshops on specific topics for specific themes or interest areas)

For this process, meaningful consultation should include but not be limited to the following:

· Establishing a stakeholder liaison committee consisting of representatives from the local community and the City of Ottawa to liaise with the proponent and its consultants and have dialogue with government reviewers, at all stages in the EA.

· Conducting consultations on the work plans for the specific impact assessment studies – early in the EA, before those studies commence.

· Establishing milestones for tabling a draft of the EA for public comment

· Establishing the means for a meaningful dialogue with the public, including many or all of the following:

Ø newsletters/newspaper supplements that would serve to provide interested stakeholders with more detail than they would receive in a standard EA newspaper notice, but less detail than in an EA report component

Ø identifying and reaching out to interested citizen organizations to provide presentations or EA updates

Ø central public information centre where people can arrange to visit the proponent’s operations to learn more about the EA, read reports, drop off comments, etc.

Ø workshops with neighbours to enable them to meaningfully provide detailed input against each of the milestones, or on EA impact assessment work plans.

Ø plan to resolving issues with stakeholders

Ø process identified for tracking – and sharing – issues and proponent responses to those issues so that all interested parties can participate in tracking how the proponent is addressing issues as the EA progresses

Ø provisions (or funding) for independent advice to be made available to stakeholders to help them understand the EA process

Ø provisions (or funding) for independent peer reviews of the EA criteria, impact assessment study work plans, or EA impact assessment reports

Ø reports to committees of Council and City Council

Ø provisions for reports/presentations/workshops for local environmental and community organizations that might normally be very interested in a EA of this nature (e.g. Ottawa Sierra Club, community associations)

Ø provisions for those immediately impacted by mitigation measures, impact management measures or possible compensation program(s) to be involved in consultation on the details of same

Waste Management Gets A Whiff Of Carp Mountain Disgust

Mulder

Last night over 1100 residents took part in an information session on the planned Carp Rd. Landfill expansion plan. And I get the impression 1100 residents are against the expansion. As I noted here, and here, and here, I am also against the proposed expansion. CTV covered the meeting and I caught most of it.

Carp Mountain Video (file is approximately 2Megabytes so it may take time to popup)

POI: This landfill is a less than 5 miles from the heart of Canada’s high tech community, rises 20 storeys and is 1km x 1km (approx.)

Carp Mountain Revisited – A Councillor And A Mayor Reply

Mulder

In followups to my posts here and here, I have received additional responses.

First from Peggy Feltmate, the councillor for my own Ward in Kanata.

Thank you for your message regarding the proposal to expand the Carp Road Landfill. Like you I am concerned about what this will mean for Kanata and other nearby communities.While it is the provincial government that have the power to stop or approve the landfill expansion, I do feel that the City needs to be speaking out about potential problems.

In response to a request from my council colleague Janet Stavinga, Waste Management agreed to extend the deadline for comments on the terms of reference for the Environmental Assessment from March 20 to May 12. This will provide more time to highlight the problems with the proposed expansion of the Carp Landfill.

City staff have also agreed to bring forward a report providing information on the impact of the proposals for the Carp Landfill. The report will provide an opportunity for city council to take a position. The report is scheduled to come before Planning and Environment Committee on April 25.

I will be supporting a strong response from the city and I will be encouraging my council colleagues to do the same.

Because the final decision on whether the Carp Road Landfill will be expanded will be made by the provincial government, people need to be letting the provincial government know how they feel. If the provincial government feels that people in Ottawa don’t care or that they can escape blame for the decision, then the province is more likely to allow the landfill to expand.

It is worth contacting both our Member of Provincial Parliament and the premier. Norm Sterling can be reached at 1-888-253-1171, 1-800-267-1020 or norm.sterling@pc.ola.org. Dalton McGuinty can be reached at Dalton.McGuinty@premier.gov.on.ca.

There is also a community open house on the proposals for the Carp Landfill next week in Stittsville. It is a change to get information and voice your concerns. Details are:

Community Open House:
Waste Management proposes expansion of Carp Rd. landfill
Wednesday, March 1
6 – 9 pm
Presentation at 7 pm, followed by Q & A session
École élémentaire catholique Jean-Paul II (gymnasium)
5473 Abbott St, Stittsville

Sincerely,

Peggy

I have to commend Peggy for her response. It was both thorough, informative, and tells me a lot about her view on this subject. I have a slight issue with her wording “I will be supporting a strong response from the city and I will be encouraging my council colleagues to do the same.” This expression does not make it clear to me that Peggy is against the expansion. I would normally assume with all the surrounding information that she is against it, but I emailed her for clarification anyway.

The second response I received today was from Mayor Bob, himself.

Thank you for your email concerning the landfill site in Carp.

The Carp landfill is privately owned and operated by Waste Management of Canada Corporation.

Waste Management Corporation is preparing an environmental assessment on providing additional disposal capacity at the Carp landfill site. The City of Ottawa does not approve the terms and conditions set out in the environmental assessment. This responsibility lies solely with the Provincial Ministry of the Environment, which determines when and how members of the public like yourself can voice your thoughts and concerns about WM’s plans to expand the capacity of the landfill site.

Thank you again for your email.

Jacques D. Larouche
Assistant to Policy Unit
Adjoint à l’unité des politiques
Mayor’s Office/Cabinet du Maire
City of Ottawa/Ville d’Ottawa.

I realize this response is from his Assistent to Policy Unit, but compared to Peggy’s, this response says nothing except the City does not approve the terms and conditions set out in the environmental assessment Waste Management is providing. Thanks for the slough off Mayor Bob. You must be conceding the election in October with chintzy responses like this.

Responses To My Request That The Carp Mountain Expansion Not Be Passed

Mulder

It didn’t take long for Councillors El i El-Chantery and Janet Stavinga’s office to return my email request. I had emailed all of city council and the mayor of Ottawa asking them not to allow this growth.

Response from Eli El-Chantiry:

Thank you for your e-mail. I know this expansion is a real concern for all of us — it is in our community and we have to live with it every day. Our office was advised of WM’s proposed expansion plans in early February and that there would be an Open House held on Feb. 7th at the West Carleton Meeting Centre. I attended this Open House and talked to WM’s staff, concerned residents, and City Staff. Prior to this Open House I contacted City staff to confirm what involvement/authority we would have in this process. I was told that it falls under the Ministry of the Environment for approval and that this open house is part of the requirements for the Terms of Reference for the expansion. I was told that City staff will be in attendance each step of the way and that they would keep City Council apprised. As you know, it is very important that residents attend all the advertised information meetings and express their concerns so that they are documented with the data being sent to the Ministry of the Environment. It is also important to write to the Premier, Dalton McGuinty and your MPP, Mr. Norm Sterling. The contact at the City of Ottawa is Ken Brothers, P.Eng. who is the Director, Utility Services Branch should you have questions. There is also going to be a Public Meeting by WM held on Wednesday, March 1, 2006, 6-9:00 pm (presentation at 7:00 pm) followed by Q&A, at the Ecole elementaire catholique Jean-Paul II (gym), 5473 Abbott St., Stittsville. Please spread the word about this meeting to your neighbours. I will do my homework and I will represent my constituents’ views. I will continue to be your voice and support in our community. See you on March 1st and please keep me informed. Regards, Eli El-Chantiry.

Response from Janet Stavinga’s Office:

Thank you for your e-mail to Councillor Stavinga. This information will be brought to the councillor’s attention. In the interim, it would be of tremendous benefit to receive your permission to forward your message to Michael Walters, WM’s (Waste Management) Senior District Manager of Landfills for Eastern Canada, on this and any future correspondence you would be sending to Councillor Stavinga. This would enable your concerns and suggestions to be brought to Mr. Walters’ immediate attention and would also ensure your correspondence is placed on the public record required for the Environmental Assessment Review Process. Again, thank you for taking the time to express your concerns. Debra Belle Assistant to Councillor Janet Stavinga

Now I have no idea who to contact. One tells me my MPP, Norm Sterling, the other says the Sr. District Manager of Landfills for Waste Management, Michael Walters. i guess I will do both.  I gave Stavinga’s office permission to forward my email. I will contact Norm Sterling directly.  I urge you all to now contact your MPP’s to stop the chances of the growth of the Carp Mountain (of trash).

Potholes need the touch of a child

Mulder

I used to fish a lot. But through all my fishing excursions, I never, EVER, touched a catfish. Call me squeamish, but those guys have nasty whiskers and are bottom feeders. I won’t eat them, touch them, and heck, I would rather not even think about them. It’s just one of those things. So, whenever I caught one I would just cut line and let it go. This had me wondering things like what happens when the fish tries to eat? Would the hook rust? Would other fish look at mine and laugh? Or is that hook sticking out of his lip going to set a trend followed by the youth of today?

Well a young boy was wondering the same thing and asked his dad the same questions…..sort of. The father and son were so touched by this thought that they worked and developed a dissolving fish hook. And now we have law mandating this.

Well today I was reading about the Pothole problem that has afflicted Ottawa, most likely due to the January thaw we have had, and I got hit with deja vu. This has tricked our asphalt into thinking spring has sprung early. Let’s hope Wiarton Willy is tricked as easily.

The city is filling as many of the nasty road holes as possible.

“We have 20 crews out day and night,” said John Manconi, the city’s acting director of surface operations. They’re also contracting out the job to keep up with the number of potholes.

Manconi blames the early arrival of potholes on the extreme variation in temperatures.

The reason I bring this up is because I saw a show years ago with a young lady named Gina Gallant, who started a science project to use plastic we put in landfills in our asphalt, instead of burying it all. As it turns out, her roads are outlasting even the best road scientists approach.

Gina’s new paving material is called “PolyAggreRoad,” or “PAR.” After much experimentation, it was determined that an optimal mix consists of 6% plastic, 6% asphalt, and 88% aggregate (crushed rocks).

Engineers expect that PAR will be able to withstand more movement than regular road surfaces without cracking. Pavement should last longer and require less maintenance since there will be less opportunity for destructive freeze-thaw cycles that occur when water gets into cracks.

Gina approached Prince George Mayor Colin Kinsley with a plan to use her system to pave local roads. The Mayor was impressed. The project moved forward.

You can read all about Gina here.

Stories like Gina’s give me great hope for our future.

In a weird twist the research that had me talking to officials at one of the biggest construction companies in Eastern Ontario, and three or four people at the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, led me to the location of the MTO test road (500M stretches of various aggregate mixes) which is nearby in Petawawa. I think I may be taking a short drive in the near future to take a peek and some photos. (It’s near the military base so I hope I am not arrested or anything snapping shots of the salty highway.)

Stay tuned

Why does this give me, and Stephen Harper, grey hair?

Mulder

I am surprised I haven’t heard more about this from the Tories out there. Manitoba MP Brian Pallister is thinking about stepping down to run for the head of the Provincial Tories.

When referring to “the Orphan”, Adler means Brian Pallister.

Memo to Manitoba: The orphan was never on the list.

Fact: The Harper government will have fewer people in cabinet than its predecessor.

Fact: Several members of the Harper caucus in Alberta, who are far more qualified than the orphan, won’t be in cabinet.

Fact: Harper wants to give some seats to less qualified members in Central and Eastern Canada. Call it geographic balance.

Fact: The orphan knew all this before the election.

Fact: Manitoba Tory boss Stuart Murray announced last fall that he was surrendering leadership. That’s when the orphan started mapping out this strategy.

Pallister now has the chutzpah to tell Manitobans that he has made a sacrifice in not accepting a cabinet invitation that he never had.

He has the chutzpah to tell Manitobans that he is only now seriously considering a departure from federal politics despite telling political intimates months ago that he was eyeing the job of provincial Tory leader, and despite taking a poll to find out whether voters could stomach the words “Premier Pallister.”

I hate to admit this, but I think Adler is right on this one. If Pallister does resign to run for the Provincial big chair in Manitoba, it will put his riding into a bi-election. For the sake of his constituents, I hope he stays on through this parliamentary session. He is a bright, well spoken MP, and he would definately be an asset in Harper’s caucus.

I hope other Tories out there don’t ostracize me for feeling this way, but I do think we owe more due diligence when our party of choice is in power because we put them there. You might call it being ummm… for the sake of argument… being accountable.