Welcome and goodbye

If you’re stumbling across this blog for the first time you may be wondering what this is all about.

For nearly two years this blog has been running counting down the 101 people who are screwing up Canada (and then the 10 who are not). There were lots of suggestions and I like to view it as a bit of a group effort but any beefs you have with the order or names listed here ultimately rest with me. The 101 names were chosen in the fall of 2006 and the 10 who are not in the fall of 2007. If some of the names seem a bit dated, they probably are. If I were to do the list today, there would without a doubt be different names and in a different order. That’s how I felt at the time.

With that being said, that’s it for now at least. Thanks for reading and if this is your first visit, feel free to scroll down the list in order and even throw your two cents in the comments. Some of the older ones may be in the archives but they’re numbered for your convenience.

All the best and thanks for reading.

Spinks
May 31, 2008

Number One (who is not) – The Canadian Soldier

At the end of 2006 the Canadian Press got it right naming the Canadian Soldier newsmaker of the year. The men and women who serve this country, and put their lives literally on the line to help others, do us all proud.

The current war in Afghanistan has sparked controversy and discussion across the nation, but that shouldn’t take away for the work these individuals are doing. Our Canadian soldiers are doing a noble thing, trying to help people and make their lives better even if it is half a world away. There’s nothing more Canadian than that.

#2 (who is not) General Rick Hillier

What can one say about General Rick Hillier? Canada’s soon to be former Chief of Defence Staff could arguably run in any riding in this country for whatever political party he wanted (or none at all) and easily win the seat.

This is a man who has been able to rally the troops and win the respect of the soldiers in the Canadian Military. Sure the rank structure brings a certain amount of respect but the rank and file view Hillier not as a bureaucrat but a soldier’s soldier. When you’re at war, this is type of person you want leading the troops and he goes to bat for them.

When he was appointed Chief of the Land Staff, he referred to cutbacks to the military like this, "Any commander who would stand up here and say that we didn't need more soldiers should be tarred and feathered and rode out of town on a rail."

When he took over his current duties during the change of command ceremony a few years ago he said, "In this country, we could probably not give enough resources to the men and women to do all the things that we ask them to do, but we can give them too little, and that is what we are now doing. Remember them in your budgets." He said that with then Prime Minister Paul Martin and Defence Minister Bill Graham looking on. That’s gumption on your first day on the job to take your bosses on. But he knew that was the way to rally the troops and make it clear he was their leader. He has done that time and time again.

Last month, General Hillier announced he’ll step down from his position on July 1 of this year and he’ll be a tough act to follow.

Even his official bio shows the kind of man he is, humble with little pretension. The bio talks about his accomplishments and strengths like most bios do but it ends with this, “General Hillier enjoys most recreational pursuits but, in particular, runs slowly, plays hockey poorly and golfs not well at all.”

The man’s a class act and whatever he does after life in the military I have little doubt that he will continue to do Canada proud. He’s almost the best.

#3 (who is not) – The Terry Fox Family

My own rules preclude me from listing Terry Fox (a nominee has to be alive) but it doesn’t stop me from listing his family. Mom Betty, Dad Rolly and brothers Fred and Darrell and sister Judith have kept Terry’s legacy alive more than 25 years after cancer claimed him at 22.

Travelling across the country in a variety of ways to fundraise is common place these days but Terry Fox was a pioneer. Not only was he one of the first but he of course did it by running with one artificial leg. He never finished, ending his run in Thunder Bay when the cancer forced him to stop. It could not have been easy. To lose one’s son and brother at such a tender age is tough enough but Terry Fox had become a hero around the world. Canada felt the Fox family’s pain.

For that they rallied around the Fox family and have stuck with them since to keep Terry’s legacy and his Marathon of Hope alive.

Terry's younger brother, Darrell is the National Director of the Terry Fox Foundation. Betty Fox still gives talks across the country promoting cancer research and the legacy that is Terry Fox. The rest of the family is also involved in remembering Terry.

Canadians continue to support Terry Fox’s dream of finding a cure for cancer. Thousands take part in the annual Terry Fox Run and to date have raised more than $400 million for cancer research, greatly surpassing Terry’s dream of raising a $1 for every Canadian.

The Foxes have had offers from a number of corporate sponsors over the years, those that would offer millions to be part of Terry Fox and ultimately to sell their own products. The family has almost always rejected the offers, keeping it simple much like Terry Fox kept his run simple. Just a man on a mission, a mission of hope that the country got behind and has remained behind thanks to a family which has kept his legacy alive…for all of us.

#4 (who is not) – Sheila Fraser

Who ever thought an accountant could become one of Canada’s most respected people? Yet Sheila Fraser has done just that.

Sure, one could say she’s just doing her job as Canada’s Auditor General but she’s done such a fine job. When she releases a report, the Government gets nervous and the opposition parties lick their lips in anticipation…well at least until they’re on the government side.

Since being appointed in 2001 to a ten year term, Fraser has let Canadians know about several problems in the way taxpayer dollars are spent but most notably was the sponsorship scandal. Fraser was the first to confirm the then Liberal government’s mismanagement of the Sponsorship Program, a situation which was arguably the last few nails in the coffin to the Liberals.

Fraser releases her reports in plain language and is frank when addressing what she perceives as problems. One can’t help but feel that Fraser is looking out for us, in many ways better than most elected politicians and here’s the good news. She still has three years to go. Well…good news as long as you’re spending the taxpayer dollars wisely.

#5 (who is not) Chief Clarence Louie

For all the doom and gloom, people like Phil Fontaine (#25 on 101 people who are screwing up Canada) say about the plight of Canada’s native people, there are people like Clarence Louie who are looking to the future…respecting the past but not letting it consume them.

Have aboriginals in Canada faced challenges and injustices? You better believe it. The problem is too many are caught in the victimization mode and failing to take responsibility for themselves.

The Chief of the Osoyoos Indian Band, Clarence Louie isn’t mired in the past and hoping the government will fix all of the problems. He’s taking responsibility and it shows. Since he was elected in the mid-eighties, Chief Louie has pushed economic development, providing jobs for band members, improving the lives of the band’s people and providing inspiration for aboriginal people across Canada.

Chief Louie passes on a no-nonsense message that would get any non-native accused of bigotry. From Chief Louie, it’s because he cares, pushing a message of personal responsibility (kind of a Bill Cosby for Canada’s native people and arguably for many non-natives too) .

Some of his quotes to other aboriginals;

“If your life sucks, it's because you suck.”
“Quit your sniffling.”
“Join the real world — go to school or get a job.”
“Get off of welfare. Get off your butt.”
“Our ancestors worked for a living. So should you.”

It’s a tough love message but Chief Louie has the evidence to back it up. His band has been self-sufficient for the past several years and in fact contributes tens of millions of dollars to the local economy.

It’s not a message that goes over with everybody but Chief Louie doesn’t care. He’s out to tell his people the truth and sometimes…the truth hurts.

#6 (who is not) – Paul Brandt

Confession time. I’m no fan of country music and while I have no doubt the man is talented, I have no Paul Brandt CD’s in my music collection. (Sorry Paul.)

That doesn’t take away from what the man does. Unlike some of the “celebrities” who were on the 101 list, Brandt does good work with his celebrity status. Sure he isn’t the biggest Canadian star but he’s kept his nose clean, respected his fans and helped some people along the way.

The charities he has helped personally (not just writing a cheque) include the Alberta's Childrens Hospital, Samaritan's Purse, World Vision, and the Brandon Cole Memorial Fund to name a few. He helped motivate his fans in 2007 to donate enough money to help 22,000 people in the developing world have safe water through “Turn on the Tap.”

But his impact may best be illustrated by the letters he receives from his fans which you can read here. These aren’t your typical, “I love your music” letters. This is a man who is making a positive impact in people’s lives, with music and with the celebrity his fans have given him and he hasn’t taken that for granted. Other celebrities could learn a lesson from Paul Brandt.

#7 (who is not) - Kevin Newman

When Global National signed on for the first time just days before 9/11, few media critics gave it much of a chance. Global’s local newscasts for the most part (with the noteworthy exception of the British Columbia juggernaut formerly known as BCTV) flounder in the ratings and while Global had national reporters, they contributed solely to the local newscasts.

Global National Anchor and Executive Editor Kevin Newman may at first seem an odd choice for 10 people who are not screwing up Canada but he’s played a vital role in recent years in providing Canadians with a much needed alternative in English language media.

Most people get their news from television. Yes those numbers are declining, but television is still where the masses get their news. For years CTV has laid claim as “the most watched newscast” and CBC’s National was never far behind so it came as a surprise to most that within just a few short years, Global National was laying claim to the title Canada’s #1 Newscast.

How could a brand new newscast do this?

Two reasons. One, they take a different angle with stories and attempt to balance the reporting better than CBC and CTV. Sure there are still biases and as long as humans are doing the reporting there always will be but Global National is much better at keeping those biases in check than CTV and CBC. Seriously when was the last time you heard a complaint of bias at Global National?

A lot of that is owed directly to Kevin Newman. He brought instant credibility to the newscast and has clearly helped shape the direction the newscast has gone in.
This is by no means a ringing endorsement for Global. Much of their programming stinks and in my region of Canada, the Maritimes, Global has all but abandoned local news laying off dozens.

But on the national news side, Global has built a much needed extra voice for Canadians. Canadians have rewarded them by tuning in to Global and tuning out CBC and CTV. That speaks volumes, and shows that Canadians want their voices heard and want reporters to do their job; report ALL sides of the story and let the viewer decide. Kevin Newman, who won Gemini Awards in 2005 and 2006 as best news anchor has helped that become somewhat of a reality and helped our country in the process.

#8 (who is not) – Dale and Diane Lang

I cannot imagine what it is like to lose one’s own child to a disease or an accident and I hope I never find out.

But to lose your child because they were murdered must make that pain even harder.

Yet that’s what happened to Dale and Diane Lang on April 28, 1999. Just days after the Columbine tragedy in Colorado, the Lang’s son 17-year old Jason was gunned down in his Taber, Alberta high school for no other reason than he was walking down the hallway at the time a 14-year old boy carrying a semi-automatic rifle thought it would be “cool” to shoot somebody.

Now I don’t know about you but most people would want blood, their child dying at the hands of another because of a whim.

Yet the Langs showed incredible mercy and forgave the boy who had snuffed out their child’s life at no less than Jason’s own funeral. They have never sought legal retribution against their son’s killer or his family (although I’m sure there’s many a lawyer who were frothing at the mouth to take the case).

When asked how the family could forgive someone who had done them so much wrong, Dale, an Anglican Priest, told a reporter, “When God gave me the grace for the freedom to forgive the boy who killed Jason he freed me from being trapped. If we end up staying in the place of anger long it is like a prison. He (the shooter) would still be controlling my life because of anger.”

The Langs have turned a tragedy into a positive and they take the message of forgiveness across the country and North America impacting thousands of people in a positive way. It is one thing to preach forgiveness, it is another thing to live it. The Langs truly are positive role models for all of us.

#9 (who is not) - Craig Kielburger

101 people who are screwing up Canada is rife with a litany of social activists. There’s a difference between those and Craig Kielburger. Kielburger is focused on stopping the exploitation of children and putting an end to it. That is a noble cause.

Kielburger has been at it for a long time even though he’s only 24 years old. The Ontario man was only a child himself, when at the tender age of 12 he formed the group “Free the Children” after learning of the murder of a child slave in a third world country who spoke out against child labour.

Kielburger is not simply demanding government fix all of the problems. Free the Children works itself to fix the problems by ensuring children have access to education, that moms and dads have dependable jobs so that their children don’t have to work and that the basics like heath care, water and sanitation which we take for granted in Canada are in place.

To date more than a million children have been involved in Free the Children programs in 45 countries. Kielburger has also raised awareness here at home to consumers to think about where some of those cheap goods we buy come from. He’s also raising awareness about child soldiers and child sexual exploitation.

Kielburger has done a lot of good in his short life. He may not have yet changed the entire world but he has changed the world in which a lot of children live.

#10 (who is not) - Wayne Gretzky

I was asked on more than one occasion why so many hockey personalities (6) made the list of 101 people who are screwing up Canada. The answer is a simple one. Hockey is a major part of the Canadian identity. Millions of Canadian children play hockey formally and informally. For decades those children have looked up to the professionals as heroes and role models. The personalities that made the 101 list let the fans and most particularly the young fans down.

Not so with Wayne Gretzky.

There are some people who don’t like the guy for whatever reason (I can only guess jealousy) but it’s impossible to argue that Gretzky was one of, if not the best, hockey players of our time. However being a good athlete isn’t enough, Gretzky was also an inspiration and a role model for children.

Even today, although kids playing street hockey may yell out they’re going to be Sidney Crosby first, the name Wayne Gretzky still often comes out.

Controversies involving Gretzky have been few and far between and none have stuck.

Sure he’s made gazillions of dollars lending his name to seemingly everything under the sun but he’s given back too. Since 2002, the Wayne Gretzky Foundation has helped provide poorer children play hockey. It has also supported a number of other charities such as the Heart and Stroke Foundation, CNIB and many more. He is frequently in Canada and often doing charity work when he was here or simply serving as an inspiration.

Gretzky may live in the United States now and has for the past two decades but there is no denying that Gretzky is still Canadian, proud of it and is an example of a positive role model we all need more of.

The Power of Ten

My apologies for taking a bit longer than I had hoped to compile the 10 people who are not screwing up Canada. It proved to be a little more difficult than the 101 people who are screwing up Canada list. Thanks to a larger audience than when 101 began, I had lots of input from readers across the country. That's great but it was more food for thought and obviously took longer to do. Plus...well I have a life and other things to do as well including writing another blog.

The list however is now complete and I plan on beginning to post the 10 people who are not screwing up Canada very shortly (honest). Thanks for sticking around.

Last call for your nomination for Canadians making a positive impact

If you've been waiting to throw your two cents in for 10 people who are NOT screwing up Canada, this is the last call. Just as an update, I have about seven solid picks and I'm just deciding on the order and who will be the other three.

The criteria is simple. They have to be alive and they can't be on the list of 101 people who are screwing up Canada. Also please give your reasons or reasons why you think they're having a positive impact on Canada.

I know it's hard. Finding 101 people trying to screw up the country was fairly easy. A handful of the entries even seemed to have a consensus with no one throwing in a comment for or against the pick at all. However it is all in the eye of the beholder as the 10 people who are not screwing up Canada will surely be. Still, your input is welcomed and appreciated. Thanks!

Then there were ten

Following nine months, 101 entries, 75,000 page hits and more than a 1000 comments (often the most interesting part of any blog) that was that.

Almost.

I’ll get to that in a moment, first a few frequently asked questions.

There are people some thought were a lock for this list and as I've always said I doubt you could find two people who would come up with the same list in the same order so don’t be surprised. This list is after all one person’s opinion.

Where's Pierre Trudeau I've been asked? He's dead and while I would agree he's screwed up this country, one of the criteria was that the person be alive when the list began.

Where's Stephen Harper? Where's Stephane Dion? They are both leaders of a political party and while I'll grant you the two both have great potential to put the screws to us, at this point the jury is still out. Although they both did indirectly get named at #30.

Why is Karla Homolka on the list and not Paul Bernardo? Bernardo is locked away with no public contact. If he came back to the public eye to torture his victims like Clifford Olsen does (#8), he would be on here too.

What was the deal with Santa Claus at #85? My only regret. I'm sorry Santa. I take it back. Please put me back on your list.

Then there was my favourite. Where is Spinks on the list? I wish I had that level of influence to merit being on a list like this but I don't. Sorry.

There were also questions about the order. Do I really think Jean Chretien is a worse person than mass murderer Clifford Olsen? No. This wasn't about how "bad" someone was. If it was it would have been a list of 101 murderers and people who abuse women and children (although a few of them made it on too). This was based on the person's actions and their influence or impact on us all. #2 David Suzuki probably isn't a bad guy but his methods have a huge impact when we start trying to buy our way out of pollution with some unregulated carbon credit scheme (please take your debate about that down to #2).

The entry I took the most heat on was easily #64 Nelly Furtado. She has millions of fans and some were livid with Fan message boards on both side of the Atlantic weighing in on how she could make such a list. The number of young girls who e-mailed me swearing their keyboards off to a total stranger was frightening.

However despite the tone of this project, I'm a pretty positive guy and always wanted to leave this project on a high note so here we go.

You will notice that the name of the blog is now 101 people who are screwing up Canada (and 10 who are not). Like the 101 list back in its infancy I need your help to find the 10 people who make Canada or are trying to make it a better place to live. In the comments or by e-mail list the name of the person (or people) you think is helping make Canada a better place and why you think that is. They need to have an impact or be an inspiration. Think of someone who makes us proud to be Canadians. Same criteria as 101. They have to be alive and leave the people who are already on the 101 list out. They won't make it and you're wasting your time.

Like the 101 list, while I welcome your input, this is my list and I have final say because I have to live with it and obviously agree. Keep it short and sweet, 200 words or so and if your entry is longer send me an e-mail. Keep the rant to a minimum. If you want to rant start your own blog. I'm the only one who gets to rant here. :)

Please spread the word and get those nominees in because we'll be starting in the near future.

And thanks for reading.

Number One – Henry Morgentaler

Please hold your applause...or your boos for a moment and hear me out before you start typing in agreement or disagreement.

Before we get into why I think Henry Morgentaler is #1 here on the list of people screwing up Canada, a little background on the issue of abortion itself. This is background rarely seen in media stories if you see stories about abortion at all.

Since 1969, when then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau allowed provisions for abortion, there have been 3,000,000 abortions performed in Canada. That's about 10% of our entire current population. Currently there are more than 100,000 abortions performed each and every year in this country. That's about 30 for every 100 live births. I think we can all agree that's a lot. The baby (or fetus for some of you) is either mummified or dismembered. The procedure itself isn’t pretty.

There are no laws in Canada restricting abortion. NONE. We’re one of only a few nations that have no restrictions. If you could find a doctor willing to perform it, you could legally have an abortion up to the second before the baby is born. That's why when, for example, a pregnant woman is murdered; there are no charges in connection with the baby's death. To lay charges, the courts would have to recognize that the baby was a person. That would then mean that all of those abortions being carried out are also murder and the Court has decided that’s not the case.

Abortion hasn't just come down to not wanting the baby (by the way adoption of babies is never an issue. The waiting list is a decade or more in most areas) it's now selecting your baby. The number of Down Syndrome babies has dropped by 90% in recent years for the simple reason that they're being systematically removed in the womb. There are a few issues with this. A) The testing isn't perfect and perfectly healthy babies are being killed too, and B) The message to those with Down Syndrome is that they don't deserve to live because society has deemed them defective. Want a boy instead of a girl or a girl instead of a boy. Get an abortion if it didn’t go the way you want and that DOES happen.

However I think there are two very distinct camps on this issue and to understand one, you must understand where the other is coming from even if you don't agree. Those who agree with abortion don’t view the unborn baby as a baby. They view it as an extension of the women. I’ve debated this issue many times and I have yet to meet a supporter of abortion who wouldn’t agree that they would be a monster if they thought the unborn child WAS a human being and killed it anyway. But they don’t believe the baby is a human being so it’s been rationalized. For that reason I don’t think supporters of abortion are monsters but I do disagree with the rationale. On the other side are those against abortion. These are people who believe the baby is a human being and as such it’s the equivalent to murder. Naturally they’re going to speak out as anyone would in a murder situation. Sure it’s a bit more complicated but in a nutshell that is the view of both sides.

The background is important and brings us to the most public face of the abortion issue in Canada, Dr. Henry Morgentaler who almost single handedly has brought Canada to this point.

Henry Morgentaler runs eight abortion clinics across the country. In 2002 it was estimated that his abortion clinics made $11-million dollars in gross revenue. There is money to be had. Planned Parenthood knows this. In the United States where Planned Parenthood actually runs abortion clinics, abortions are their number one revenue generator accounting for more than a third of their money (donations and government funding make up the rest). Morgentaler wants the government (through Medicare) funding him too by paying for the procedure at HIS private abortion clinics. This already takes place in most of the country even though Medicare already pays for the procedure at hospitals. Currently Morgentaler is fighting the last province, New Brunswick to pay his private clinic to do the procedures. People may be waiting in line, literally dying of cancer and unable to go to private clinics paid for by Medicare, but Morgentaler wants his private clinics to have a special privilege and be paid for by taxpayers anyway.

Okay there’s disagreement there but here’s where we should all be at least a bit concerned. Anyone with a god complex needs to be paid close attention to. Crime is down in this country. Do you know why? Is it good police work? Is it communities acting together to rid their streets of crime? Nope. According to Henry Morgentaler, you can thank him for taking out the criminals before they breathe their first breath. “The decrease in crime will continue as long as access to abortion remains good,” wrote Morgentaler. “The fact that fewer unwanted children were born who may have been abused or brutalized has resulted in a drop in the number of young men with a rage in their hearts. The decline in crime has continued unabated over the last eight years and I predict it will continue. This has resulted in fewer unwanted and abused children, a decrease in crime and most probably a decrease in emotional and mental illness as well.”

Has Morgentaler removed criminals from our society before they can commit the crime? Probably. The law of averages would suggest that. However he may have also removed the person who would cure cancer. There’s a great ethical question that ethics professors sometimes use to illustrate this conundrum. If a woman was pregnant, already had eight children and of those children three were deaf, two were blind, one mentally retarded, and the mother had syphilis, what would you recommend? Someone, if not several students, always recommends an abortion. They are usually floored when the professor informs them that they just killed Beethoven.

That's the problem when you start playing god and believe you have that type of impact on society. The stakes are too high and the risk is that you do more harm than good. How much harm has Henry Morgentaler done to Canada? It’s enormous and will continue long after he’s gone. Number one? There was never even a contest.

(Wrap up on 101 still to come)

Number Two - David Suzuki

Like a great number of Canadians I grew up watching David Suzuki on CBC. The guy had a knack to explain things, even if they were complicated in a simple way. That's endearing for kids and helped make him an icon in this country. He's a smart guy. But even a smart guy who is an icon needs to be questioned when his actions are...well...questionable.

This past winter, the David Suzuki super enviro-bus roared into New Brunswick as it did across Canada with the “If I were Prime Minister” campaign. The first thing that struck me as odd was that the King of Canadian environmentalists was touring the country in a gas guzzling bus. I raised the question at a blog and was jumped on by Suzuki supporters with the “how dare I question Suzuki's methods”. Besides, they pointed out that it was a special environmentally sound bus run on bio-diesel or something that didn't include dinosaur bones.

Not so

The "green" bus ran on diesel and in fairness Suzuki never said it didn't although it spoke volumes that so many of his supporters merely assumed it did.

However here's where the problem begins and why Suzuki lands on 101 at number two.

Suzuki didn't have a problem taking the behemoth across the country and spewing out pollution because he says he took steps to make the tour carbon neutral.

It's the same argument Al Gore made for the pollution he produces at his mansion, a house far less environmentally friendly than (surprising to many) President George Bush's.

Gore and Suzuki dabble in something known as carbon credits to still be able to spew out pollution while telling others they have to stop.

Carbon credits in a nutshell is figuring out how much pollution you're putting out, give it a monetary figure and take that money and do something environmentally friendly like planting a tree or putting up a windmill on the other side of the world. The theory goes that you've done some good to make up for the bad.

Except what proponents of this such as David Suzuki seem to forget is they're still doing the bad.

The pollution still goes out and this carbon credit thing isn't really regulated so it’s nearly impossible to know if that money actually did go to do what you think it’s going to. Did the tree get planted in South America at all or does the money go to run some environmental organization? Hard to tell and the mainstream media has been amazingly silent in asking those questions. One thing is for sure, purchasing carbon credits buys off your guilt and makes you feel warm and fuzzy (or look good if you’re an environmental crusader) but in reality it does little. The pollution still goes up, the offender's money goes somewhere and they didn't have to do anything to change their lifestyle except make a cash donation. This message that Suzuki is sending with the "carbon credits" philosophy is incredibly irresponsible at best and hypocritical at worst, but he looks good all the time while doing it.

Well, most of the time.

During a stop in Alberta, Suzuki gave a talk to elementary school students which I'm sure the kids were excited about. If David Suzuki had come to my school as a kid I would have been thrilled to hear and see Canada's most publicized scientist.

Instead what the kids got was Suzuki going on a politically motivated tirade about how Prime Minister Stephen Harper doesn't care about the environment.

Now I could see Suzuki making some points about what everyone has to do to clean up the environment (stop driving diesel sucking buses with half a dozen people on board might be one) including government and more importantly the kids themselves but using the kids as a backdrop?

It was during the same tour that Suzuki got up and walked out of an interview with a Toronto radio station when the host suggested the entire climate change/global warming situation may not be a "totally settled issue". Instead of arguing and debating the reasons he believes it is, Suzuki left but not before he said Canada should be branded as "international outlaws" for going back on Kyoto, a plan that was already headed for failure long before Canada bailed on it. Canada is criminal in the mind of David Suzuki.

This next one doesn’t really land Suzuki on this list but it is still worth pointing out because, well, this my list and this one just ticks me off.



Clever...perhaps but also classless. Dad in the ad is portrayed as a beer swigging idiot who would not only give up his second fridge so that he could buy more beer but turns out the juice on his kids and wife so that he can get inebriated more often. Beer first, family second. Subtle but the message is there. I'm surprised Mothers Against Drinking and Driving didn’t censure this one.

How much control mankind has over climate change, I don't know. Regardless, anytime you can make the air cleaner and the water cleaner, I'm all for that. That's never a bad thing. On that side I’m with Suzuki. We should do what we can to reduce waste and pollution. But for his message of do as I say not as I do when it is convenient, politicizing talks to kids, calling our country an outlaw and leaving the message that you can just buy your guilt away with carbon credits if you don't want to make serious changes in your lifestyle, David Suzuki is screwing up Canada and is almost the worst at it…almost.

Number Three – Maurice Strong

I'm going to give some benefit of the doubt here and assume that most of the people on this list don't wake up in the morning and think to themselves, "What can I do today to screw up Canada?"

But with Maurice Strong it appears to be a conscious effort. Although he’s added the entire world to his list of places to screw up.

If you haven't heard the name, you're not alone. Strong prefers to work behind the scenes…well at least away from the little people.

That would be you and me.

The Manitoba born Strong is by best counts a billionaire, that is to say filthy rich. For some when you get that rich, money is no longer the driver, the driver becomes power and that is what Strong craves.

Think power like “Dr. Evil take over the world” power.

Strong found it in his business dealings over the years but he tapped into the power he really craved with the United Nations.

As journalist Elaine Dewar once wrote, Strong loved the UN because, "he could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda. He told me he had more unfettered power than a cabinet minister in Ottawa. He was right: He didn't have to run for re-election, yet he could profoundly affect lives."

And Strong wants to affect YOUR life. Ideally Strong craves a quasi if not directly one world government led by the United Nations or some other entity like it (see the book of Revelation for more). The world in Strong’s Utopia would essentially be run by an unelected group. "What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?" said Strong. "In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?" Essentially Strong is talking about a worldwide redistribution of wealth. You and I know the concept better as communism.

Another Strong fantasy is a license to have babies although he's toned that down in recent years to some "restriction on the right to have a child."

Strong has handed over big money to both the Democrats AND the Republicans in the past. It might sound strange coming from a self avowed far-leftist but when asked why he gave money to both political parties, the answer was clear, "Because I wanted influence in the United States."

Influence was something he already had in Canada where early on he entwined himself into Canada's Liberal Party. He always had the ear of the Party which has been in power the majority of the past 40+years. He even ran once for the Liberals (well almost). He bailed a month before the election.

In recent years Strong had greater influence as a senior advisor to former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, but left after an investigation began into Strong’s possible involvement with the Iraq oil for food scandal. He was also running some kind of New Age environmental retreat called Baca in Colorado with his wife.

These days Strong is in China where along with his U.S. far left billionaire counterpart George Soros (who likes to call those who disagree with him Nazis – see Bernard Goldberg’s 100 people who are screwing up America for more) is trying to export the Chery car. Hopefully the car is better than the lemon ideas Strong has been peddling up until now, but given his track record, I wouldn't count on it.

Number Four – Gilles Duceppe

I could go into a mini-essay about why Gilles Duceppe, the leader of the Bloc Québécois is screwing up Canada but I won't insult your intelligence. This one is just too obvious.

The man’s raison d’être is to break the country up. Sure separatism is on the wane a bit now but anyone who thinks the issue will simply be laid to rest is dreaming. Duceppe and the BQ will continue to push and attempt to do what it takes to break up the country even if it is to the detriment of the people within Quebec.

Fortunately the people of Quebec are smarter than that and have begun to turn their back on the separatist movement.

Hopefully next election they turn their back on Duceppe too…for trying to screw Canada up.

Number Five – Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin

One of the reasons we elect politicians is to create laws. Sure a lot of politicians are lawyers already but there is a cross section that in theory at least are to be representative of us all and create laws for the greater good.

However the work elected legislators do can be unraveled by a handful of unelected people who are supposed to be interpreting and applying the law. Instead they're creating it.

And Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin wouldn't have it any other way.

McLachlin, who was first chosen to the Supreme Court in 1989 by former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (#45) became Chief Justice in 2000 chosen by former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien (#7).

McLachlin has become a judical activist along the way by not just interpreting the law but creating it and she’s proud of it.

In 2005, she told an audience at a New Zealand University that the rule of law requires judges to ignore the actual written law which is passed by elected legislators in favour of some unwritten ideological principles known only to the judges.

Laws must be interpreted according to the individual preferences of judges for “norms that are essential to a nation's history, identity, values and legal system,” said McLachlin. "The rule of law requires judges to uphold unwritten constitutional norms, even in the face of clearly enacted laws or hostile public opinion.”

She’s certainly done that plenty of times.

In 2002, she ruled that a school board in Surrey, B.C. should provide pro-homosexual material in schools for all ages including kindergarten even though the School Board upon review had found the books in question unsuitable for the age group. McLachlin mused, “Who is better placed to make the decision, the board or the court?”

She ruled the court thousands of miles away was better than an elected school board.

Also in 2002 McLachlin helped shoot down a law passed by the elected Parliament that banned prisoners from voting.

McLachlin has also struck down the rape shield law which limited accused rapists of examining rape complainants past sexual history.

She’s helped strike down a provision in the Criminal Code which prohibited the publication of false information or news in the case of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel.

In fact she’s helped turf quite a few laws and makes no apologies telling the same audience in New Zealand that judges must be bold “even in the face of clearly enacted laws” and even if it means trumping the Constitution.

McLachlin doesn’t think she and her colleages on the Supreme Court of Canada are above the law. In her mind clearly she thinks they are the creators of the law.

But they’re not supposed to be.

McLachlin is the epitome of activist judges, unelected and pretty much doing what they wish.

It’s time to reign them in and hold them accountable.

When asked about what has become an ever growing political role of courts, McLachlin would only say, "It's an interesting debate." It sure is. It is also one we as Canadians need to have and do something about before McLachlin and those like her screw this country up further.

Number Six – Robert Rabinovitch

Casual readers at my regular blog, Spink About It may find this hard to believe but I actually like CBC and my preference would be for it to continue but not on its current path. Over the years, the public broadcaster has become a leftist, elitist network with fewer and fewer Canadians tuning in despite costing those same taxpayers a billion dollars a year.

There’s a joke I once heard about CBC that if you’re tuned into any interview with a panel on CBC, there’s always three panelists; a moderate left person, a far-left person, and a loonie left person. Sadly not far from the truth.

Which brings us to number 6, the CBC’s President and CEO Robert Rabinovitch who has been in the CBC head chair since 1999.

In 2005 he oversaw a lockout of 5,500 CBC employees. Broadcasting came to a virtual standstill but instead of outrage from the public, there was a collective yawn. The masses simply didn’t care. They has already tuned out a while ago.

Take my province of New Brunswick. About a decade ago, CBC Television’s New Brunswick newscast had respectable ratings, 60,000 or so a night. Today the audience is 1/10 of that, on the verge of being able to thank each viewer for watching by name. Similar ratings disasters have happened in other markets as well and most of that erosion has come under Rabinovitch’s watch. Budget cuts are often cited by CBC supporters as the reason but here’s the main reason…it’s unwatchable. The stories are slow moving and more importantly don’t resonate with the average Canadian just like most of the programming at CBC. That has to rest ultimately at the top and that goes to Rabinovitch. Since he’s come in the CBC has in fact gotten worse as it continues down its leftist, elitist path on your dime. The examples are virtually endless.

This isn’t me saying a leftist, elitist station can’t exist. There’s nothing wrong with that but let that segment of the population pay for it through fundraising drives or subscription fees. Having every Canadian pay for it is ridiculous. Rabinovitch should start producing something that Canadians want to listen to or watch, or it should be turfed and the billion dollars a year coudl be spent in a better way for the population as a whole. Better yet, turf Rabinovitch and bring in someone with some leadership skills who can make the necessary changes at CBC that are long overdue.

Number Seven – Jean Chrétien

I’m still a firm believer that much of former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s success at the polls was due more to disdain with Brian Mulroney (#45) and a split in the conservative vote between the Progressive Conservative and the Reform/Canadian Alliance parties than any huge voter love for Jean Chrétien.

Let’s take a look at his record.

From 1993 to 2003, Chrétien managed to nearly split the country in two, set a stage where the words liberals and corrupt became synonymous and set major social changes in place with no forethought such as same sex marriage and openly mused about trying to emulate the Netherlands with talk about legalizing pot.

We really should have known what we were in for right at the beginning in 1993. Just look at the now infamous Red Book.

It promised an independent ethics commissioner to report to Parliament but that didn’t happen until 2004. A promise to reform the Young Offenders Act. That finally happened in 2003 with the Youth Criminal Justice Act but is so loosey goosey that many argue it’s worse than before.

A promised national pharmacare program and national home care program never happened.

The one that really still resonates was a promise to at abolish the GST. It never happened and only Liberal Cabinet Minister Sheila Copps had the integrity to quit over the lie (she ran in a byelection and won). The only change was in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador who now have a flat 15% Harmonized Sales Tax combining PST and GST. The total is lower than before but its on everything. Previously there were more exemptions on things like clothing and school supplies. The bottom line is we’re still paying it and Jean Chrétien promised we wouldn’t.

Then there’s the sponsorship scandal. It leaves one wondering if Chrétien shouldn’t be in prison along with the others who took the fall.

He defended the program in 2002 saying, “Perhaps there was a few million dollars that might have been stolen in the process; it is possible."

How’s that for understatment?

That program which saw kickbacks and illegal contributions to the Liberal Party drove separatist support to the highest level seen in more than 10 years.

Where did the money go? Even the forensic accountants who exposed the Enron scandal said even they weren’t sure, it was such a web of deceit. Some of the things however included $50,000 in maple leaf ties, Montreal Grand Prix tickets for senior Grits, $100,000 worth of Christmas decorations, a TV series that aired in China (that should help national unity), a $16,000 plaque and flag in a store in Chrétien’s Quebec riding and 1,200 golf balls with Chrétien’s signature which he used to taunt Justice John Gomery during the inquiry into the sponsorship scandal.

In addition there of course was also the National Gun Registry which was supposed to cost $2 million and climbed to $2 billion (hmmm, maybe it’s a good thing the Liberals didn’t install the national pharmacare program and national home care program. Clearly their math stinks)
There was the HRDC $1 billion boondoggle on a number of questionable job-creation projects; one was a fountain in Chrétien’s riding.

I really could go on. The list is long and even Liberals have to be at least slightly disgusted with the egomaniacs that played out here. The lesson is never take voters for granted…or for suckers. Still the former Prime Minister managed to win three successive majorities by out and out lying to us. It’s too bad he quit before we could turf him ourselves.

Number Eight – Clifford Olsen

You've probably already noticed a trend here at 101. I have no time for those who victimize or exploit children. Enter number eight.

There’s not a whole lot of background that’s required here. If you want the details there are plenty of places to find it. In a nutshell, Clifford Olsen went on a murderous rampage in British Columbia killing 11 children in the early 1980’s. There’s always been suspicion that he might have been involved in more.

Olsen concocted a controversial deal for confessing to the crimes. In 1981 he agreed to confess to the 11 murders and show police where the bodies were buried if the authorities paid $10,000 to Olsen’s wife for each of the victims he killed. Due to little evidence and a desire by families of the victims to give their loved ones a decent burial, the authorities hesitantly agreed and Olsen’s family actually ended up profiting from his killings. Olsen was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to 11 concurrent life terms.

In Canada however a life sentence doesn’t always mean life. If you’re convicted of second degree or first degree murder, you automatically receive a life sentence. However in the case of second degree murder you are eligible for parole after 10 years and in first degree after 25.

So in 2006, Olsen reached his 25 years and applied for parole. This was after his failure in 1996 to receive parole during his “faint hope” hearing at 15 years. Olsen is not allowed to communicate from prison due to his taunting of victim’s families so he uses the odd opportunity he does get to do just that. Although he failed to receive parole in 2006 he has the right to go before the parole board every two years now and no one believes for a minute that he won't. It’s easy to see why few except maybe the John Howard Society thinks Olsen deserves that right. After all it was Olsen who once said, “I’d take up where I left off,” if he ever got out of prison. I don’t use this word lightly but Olsen is a scumbag who wants to make his victims suffer as much as possible and he’ll use every opportunity to do that.

It’s easy to blame the system and I agree the justice system is messed up to even allow Olsen to be able to continue to torture his victims. Still the blame must ultimately rest on the one who did the crime and continues to try to hurt his victim’s families. Olsen has played the system every step of the way. He has no conscience and relishes in hurting his victims as much as possible even more than 25 years later.

Number Nine - Belinda Stronach

First up, my sympathies do go out to Belinda Stronach who is dealing with breast cancer. I hope it all goes well. However her suffering an illness and what she’s done to screw up this country are two separate issues. My sympathies for the illness but I have no desire to see her return to politics. She’s already done enough damage.

In May of 2005, two days before a vote that many expected would bring down the Liberal government, Stronach crossed the floor from the Conservatives to join the Liberals but not just as any Liberal. Stronach instantly joined the Cabinet as Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister Responsible for Democratic Renewal. There was of course lots of speculation that a desperate Paul Martin (#19) promised the Cabinet post in exchange for the defection. The Ethics Commissioner refused to investigate so we’ll never know for sure but it certainly smells bad. Stronach did all this without going to the people who voted her in as a Conservative. It smacked of nothing more than opportunism, propped up a government that was on its death bed, and pretty much stabbed her party and even her boyfriend at the time, Peter MacKay (#98) in the back.

Speaking of MacKay, let’s talk about the dog incident. As I wrote in MacKay’s entry I don’t think MacKay called Stronach a dog directly but I have little doubt that MacKay made some kind of reference that meant the same thing. Stronach feigned indignation at the time, got up in the House and said that MacKay’s comment was refelective of all Conservatives attitudes towards women. Give me a break. Yes it was inappropriate and yes MacKay should have apologized, however it was an off the cuff gesture by MacKay about a former girlfriend who publicly humiliated him, not a statement on behalf of an entire political party. Even Stronach knows that but trying to score cheap political points has never been beneath her.

I try to stay away from the personal side of life but her relationship with Tie Domi (#100) just plain looks awful. When you’re a public figure, a politician no less for crying out loud at least wait until the guy is divorced. Until the paper is signed its still adultery.

There is no evidence during her short political career that Belinda Stronach was looking out for anyone except Belinda Stronach. She gives politicians who are actually trying to do good work a bad name and continued the perception that people enter politics only for power. I’m sorry for the reason she left politics but we’re all better off having her gone.

Number Ten – The National (Parliamentary) Press Gallery

Last year when Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced he was finished with having to deal with the National Press Gallery, I stood up and cheered.

It was about bloody time. Finally someone with the guts to put the elitist journalists of this country in their place.

This country has a lot of really decent journalists and I suspect there are a few even within the National Press Gallery but they’re harder to come by there. Most are used to getting their own way and have the equivalent of a temper tantrum when they don’t.

For example, May 2006 when a number of national press gallery members walked out of a news conference with Harper because he refused to take their questions.

Okay I understand the reporters perhaps being a bit ticked off personally but here’s the thing, it’s not the media’s news conference. The person or organization holding the news conference makes the rules and that’s the case with any type of news conference. If the news organization doesn’t like the rules that is their choice, but this was a lesson in humble pie for many of them. Their importance was brought into question by many and most Canadians just plain didn't care about the National Press Gallery...at all.

The problem is the National Press Gallery has been spoiled rotten over the years. Many members are used to being spoon fed the news and being handed leaks from political operatives. Following this spat, Harper didn’t say he wouldn’t deal with the media as many members of the National Press Gallery tried to portray. He simply said he wouldn’t deal with THEM. “Unfortunately the press gallery has taken the view they are going to be the opposition to the government," said Harper. "They don't ask questions at my press conferences now. We'll just take the message out on the road. There's lots of media who do want to ask questions and hear what the government is doing." That of course would leave the National Press Gallery having to actually start working to dig up the stories, depend on local media sources and probe the different angles instead of being spoon fed scrum after scrum. Oooh the horror.

And really who can blame Harper for being a little cautious with this crew.

The blog The Black Rod described the spat well with the following write-up.

During the race for the Liberal leadership, Yves Malo, a director the president of the Parliamentary Press Gallery was expressing his joy about the Liberal Party. "We are very happy," Malo, a reporter with the French news network TVA said. "I think that it's good news that the one who may be the next prime minister won't hold a list."

Then there was the very “grown up” actions of our finest journalists.

CBC's Julie Van Dusen running past security guards and hammering on the door of the Prime Minister's office disrupting a private meeting of cancer-stricken children with the Canadian Cancer Society giving daffodils to Stephen Harper.

CBC's Terry Milewski (#93) calling Harper a liar ("with respect") at a news conference in Vancouver and falsely denied that the Press Gallery had shouted down a reporter who wanted to ask the PM a question.

Marie-Paul Rouleau from Radio-Canada swearing at Stephen Harper's press secretary at a photo-op in Vietnam.

The CBC's Larry Zolf (yes I sense a CBC theme too) wrote that "Harper's treatment of the media is that of an ingrate." The media made Harper, said Zolf. They also made Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney and eventually made their parties suffer at the polls. "A similar fate awaits Harper"

The media plays an important role in this country and around the world. However the National Press Gallery often think its exempt from any rules and any criticism. Therein lies the problem. The PM’s office and Press Gallery have since decided to more or less make nice and hopefully it is a wake up call for the media. Check the biases and egos at the door and start reporting the news...in a balanced way. Otherwise expect Canadians by and large to tune you out again the next time you start whining that you didn't get your own way.

#11 – Ivan Fecan

Ivan Fecan isn’t exactly a household name but he is one of the most powerful people in Canadian television. Fecan is President and CEO of CTVglobemedia and CEO of CTV.

Fecan has been in the television business for a long time. NBC in the United States, CBC for almost a decade and then he joined Baton Broadcasting in 1994. Baton went on a buying spree of CTV affiliates until it finally became known simply as CTV coast to coast (although NTV in Newfoundland and Labrador has held out from being gobbled up.)

It makes money but morally Fecan has run CTV right into the sewer.

Fecan not only went on a buying spree, he went on a cutting spree as well. The news and production staff at CTV stations in Saskatchewan, Northern Ontario and the Maritimes were decimated under Fecan. Watching the programming today it shows. Here in the Maritimes for example, there is virtually no locally produced programming short of the local newscasts. The news staff however has been so decimated that the quality of the local newscast is suffering. They’re better than what the competition (CBC and Global Local) have to offer but that says more about the low quality of those two than a high quality at CTV.

Still high quality really isn’t what CTV is about. Due to the high cost of production, CTV (like Global) purchases most of its primetime shows from Hollywood. Make no mistake. With CTV, Fecan is clearly looking for sensationalism. CTV purchased the rights to air The Sopranos and put it on the air in primetime with language, violence and all. That’s fine on HBO but a supposedly family friendly television station like CTV is another story.

However that’s nothing compared to The Osbornes. Even MTV which originally broadcast the show bleeped out the real nasty words. Not Ivan Fecan’s CTV. Looking for shock value, CTV ran it uncensored and uncut during primetime.

I don't agree with censorship but CTV is a bit different than a cable station where people pay a fee to watch. If you have a set of rabbitears, you can pick up CTV. Because of that ease and the accessibility to children there should be some responsibility as to what they show. Saying it is unacceptable and that CTV is above that kind of smut would be a good start.

Although don’t count on it. This is after all the same man who has subjected us to Ben Mulroney (#101).

Even now, Ivan Fecan’s CTVglobemedia continues to go on a buying spree of assets, recently acquiring a number of CHUM/CITY TV properties. Given Fecan’s track record, don’t expect to see a better product the larger CTV grows. Instead, expect to see more people lose their jobs, more crap on television and a man at the top of CTV continue to screw up Canada.

#12 – Danny Williams

I’m about to become one unpopular guy among a majority of people from Newfoundland and Labrador but folks, it can’t be helped. Danny Williams is screwing up Canada.

Let’s be clear. Williams is the proverbial big man on campus on The Rock. His approval rating at home is huge. One poll in 2005 pegged it at 86% but it’s consistently around the 75% level. Williams paints himself as the guy fighting for Newfoundland and trying to get the best deal for his province. I can’t fault him for that but his methods leave a bit to be desired.

Right now Williams (and in fairness Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald) are locked in a dispute over Prime Minister Stephen Harper over the details of the Atlantic Accord. Who’s right and who’s wrong will probably end up being a matter for the courts but this fact is certain, Newfoundland and Labrador will not lose any money.

Will they get as much as they would like? Probably not but who does? We’re in this together as a country. The theory of equalization is so that each province (and territory) can deliver roughly the same services. The key word is of course roughly. Some things are better in some provinces than others but generally it’s all the same. We don't have third word service in one and top notch in the other no matter what the anarchists will tell you. When a province prospers, the others get to share the wealth (at least eventually). With that being said I understand Williams wanting the best deal possible so that’s fine.

However the method used by Williams to get his message from the province desperately seeking cash to the rest of the country was to spend $250,000 on newspaper ads across the country slamming the federal government. The federal government retaliated with the same low brow tactic, also using taxpayer dollars. Shame all around.

If that was it, well Williams might not be on this list but big displays of grandeur are his calling card and it’s a pattern of behaviour which leads one to wonder what he’ll do next. Although easily the worst was during Christmas 2004.

It was then that Williams ordered all Canadian flags removed from provincial buildings in a dispute with then Prime Minister Paul Martin (#19) over really the same thing he’s in a dispute with Stephen Harper right now; offshore oil resources.

All of them were ordered down by one man.

Look, duke it out all you want with the federal government but when you haul down the Canadian flags, you’re saying you have no respect for this country and that was exactly the message Williams sent out. The flags eventually went back up and Martin cut a deal.

While Williams did tell reporters earlier this year he has no “thirst for separation”, he added “the fans of sovereignty are here” although he did say he was trying to dampen them. Forgive me for finding it difficult to believe a guy who uses the Canadian flag as a bargaining tool. Canada needs another Quebec situation or even the threat of a Quebec situation like a hole in the head. It looks like we might need Danny Williams even less.

#13 – Heather Mallick

If someone wishes to call someone on their actions then by all means go for it. However when all someone has is name calling and vitriol then I don’t care whether you’re on the right or the left side of the spectrum, I have little time for it and frankly no one should give you the time of day either. #67 Norman Spector is on this list for exactly that reason but at least he doesn’t do it constantly. Heather Mallick is another story.

Elitist and condescending is probably the best way to describe Ms. Mallick’s writing (others may have other words to describe it). If you don’t agree with her point of view than you’re an idiot and she has no problem saying so in so many words.

I really don’t know where to begin. Pick any column and the mean spiritedness is rampant. I’ve read Mallick’s articles in which she’s gone on about Stephen Harper’s hair. Good grief there’s plenty of real stuff to challenge any politician on without making fun of how they look.

A 2005 Globe and Mail column was revealing of Mallick’s hate for the United States (although she’s bashed America plenty of times before and since). It was during the CBC lockout and Mallick revealed the left leaning CBC was virtually all she watched. "Thanks to the CBC lockout, I no longer watch television at all, except for BBCWorld to see how Americans are at least buggering up their own country even as they damage the rest of the planet," wrote Mallick. "For all that we mock Americans, we must wonder why they bankrupt themselves, kill so lavishly, turn their children stupid and keep black citizens at the level they were at just after the Civil War." You can just feel the love.

The column went on to talk about the U.S. Military arming dolphins (cue the Austin Powers “sharks with laser beams” music) and taking potshots at the Americans for that. Oops, one problem. The story turned out to be a hoax, but Mallick’s never really let facts get in the way of her columns.

I really liked one of her CBC columns in which she questioned blogs, on-line forums, etc. and figured it was time to clamp down on them. (I’m assuming she means the ones that disagree with her) “Why should everyone have a voice? They don't in daily life,” wrote Mallick. “There are some people you wouldn't sit next to on the bus. Online, clever and perhaps sensitive letter writers with an actual point to make are driven away by the ignorance and sheer hatred displayed by the other posters.”

CBC still allows commentators and the commentators let her have it with one writing, “As it is, she (Mallick) attracts vitriolic feedback because she writes vitriolic ill-considered screeds that parade a collection of personal bigotries masquerading as opinion...the quality of the feedback all too often reflects this. It's a bit much for her to claim that her sensibilities have been hurt when she doesn't respect others.”

After years with the Globe and Mail, Mallick is now a columnist with CBC online (not exactly doing anything for their far-left reputation) and also contributes to the far-left website Rabble.ca (by the way, the folks there are no fans of the 101 project, probably less now). Her aims with her “journalism” according to her Rabble bio are to “advance the cause of feminism, leftyism and Canadian nationalism, while adding to the gaiety of the nation.” Thanks to her employment with CBC these days that’s your tax dollars at work folks. You’re paying a self proclaimed activist to advance her causes with a tax sponsored forum (the CBC) to do it. The examples of what Heather Mallick has done and continues to do to screw up Canada are almost endless. At least when she was with the Globe and Mail, taxpayers didn’t foot her salary. Now, we’re getting screwed and paying for it.

#14 – Svend Robinson

In Bernard Goldberg’s 100 people who are screwing up America (which this blog pays homage to), there are several entries for pioneers.

Svend Robinson is a pioneer for screwing up Canada. He’s been doing it for a very long time.

I’ve been trying to think for the past few months what to write about Svend Robinson but it always come back to the December 19, 2005 issue of MacLeans with its cover headline, “Svend him Packing.” I can’t say it any better all that’s wrong with Svend Robinson so here it is from MacLeans.

"Despite his affection for grandstands and public office -- he served 25 years as MP for Burnaby, B.C. -- Robinson has never shown much respect for the law or the conventions of Parliament. He was fined $750 for his part in an anti-logging blockade in the Queen Charlotte Islands in 1985. He embarrassed himself and earned a reprimand from his leader, Ed Broadbent, by heckling U.S. President Ronald Reagan in Parliament in 1987. His defiance of a court order prohibiting the obstruction of forestry practices at Clayoquot Sound brought him a two-week jail sentence for criminal contempt in 1994. That same year he witnessed the illegal assisted suicide of Sue Rodriguez and attended a press conference to discuss it. In 1999, NDP leader Alexa McDonough demoted him to the backbenches for petitioning to have the word "God" stricken from the preamble of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 2001, he joined the mob that tussled with police during the Quebec City free-trade summit. In 2002, he resigned as NDP foreign policy critic after making intemperate remarks about the state of Israel. The ring theft occurred in 2004.

Yet however much he behaves as a law unto himself, Robinson has been quick to appeal to the justice system when it suits his purposes. After being tear-gassed and having his pants ripped in Quebec City, he encouraged anyone who had been "illegally attacked" to sue the RCMP. This year he received $10,000 for "general damages, pain and suffering" from the Mounties as a result. He also sued a newspaper that ridiculed his performance at the Quebec summit. He is currently suing a Vancouver radio station for comments made on-air.

Is it too much to ask that a Canadian legislator revere and uphold the law in all circumstances, not picking and choosing when to play by the rules? Yes, principled dissent is fine. Civil disobedience, too, has its place. But that's not what Robinson is about. He's a self-aggrandizing lout with a disdain for parliamentary and judicial institutions.

Forgive us for also doubting Robinson's handling of the ring theft. He turns himself in to the authorities only after the deed has been caught on tape. He resigns his seat. He enters a guilty plea but argues that a mental illness and the effects of a 1997 hiking accident made the incident less a theft than a cry for help (he was fit to be NDP deputy House leader in '03). The judge grants a conditional discharge, meaning Robinson does not have a criminal record. He is given a year's probation and ordered to continue psychiatric counselling and perform 100 hours of community work. The moment his probation is over, Robinson declares his mental illness under control and talks of a political comeback. Unfit for prison in '04. Ready for Parliament in '05. Will wonders never cease.

The presence of Svend Robinson in an election that has government ethics as a key issue is a blight on the New Democratic Party and an insult to the public at large. The voters of Vancouver Centre are obviously free to elect whomever they please. We trust them to see Svend Robinson's opportunism for what it is and make a stand for higher standards of political, ethical, and legal behaviour. In other words, to send him packing." MacLean's Editorial - Dec. 19, 2005

The voters of Vancouver Centre during the 2006 election were really between a rock and a hard place. Hedy Fry (#37) or Svend Robinson. Granted they picked the lesser of two evils.

A few years ago Svend Robinson would have sailed into the top 5 here at 101 with flying colours but his influence has waned in recent years (thank goodness). Still he’s musing about running provincially in British Columbia. Hopefully the voters there also, “Svend him packing” if given the chance.

#15 – Francine Lalonde

Francine Lalonde is the Member of Parliament for the riding of La Pointe-de-l’Île in Quebec. She’s a member of the Bloc Quebecois but she isn’t on this list for being a separatist.

Nope, splitting up the country isn’t the only thing on Madame Lalonde’s mind.

She wants to make assisted suicide legal across the land.

Now on the surface a number of people look at this issue and say, well if someone is suffering greatly than shouldn’t they be able to decide if they want to live or not? This issue goes far deeper than that and has massive potential reprecussions.

Madame Lalonde’s bill introduced in 2005 would have allowed a medical practitioner or someone assisted by a medical practitioner to help another person to die if that person has a terminal illness or is experiencing severe physical or mental pain and "appears to be lucid" when he/she requests death.

Feeling depressed and you can’t take it any more? Madame Lalonde wants you to be able to check out of this life permanently with the help of a publicly funded medical professional. Never mind that there might be other treatments and perhaps you might change your mind later on. You’re just not worth that effort anymore in Madame Lalonde's books and she thinks the government should help you end it all.

So under Madame Lalonde’s proposal, taxpayers would begin paying to kill people intentionally and it doesn’t necessarily stop there. If you’re feeling that you’re a burden on your family you could also end your own life and that is likely exactly what would happen.

A recently released study which interviewed nearly 400 palliative care patients in Canada between 2001 and 2003 found that only 22 seriously considered intentionally dying, and of those 22, 12 felt killing themselves was the best thing to do because they felt they were a burden to their family or a drain on health care.

A burden? We should kill people because they feel like they’re a burden? How about helping them not to feel like a burden? Sad to say but if assisted suicide was in place there are family members out there who would try to convince relatives that the time has come for them to get a final doctor’s visit. That’s why we have laws against that sort of thing, to protect the most vulnerable. This isn’t the family pet and although some say we’re more compassionate to pets when it comes to this issue, I tend to think it’s more because most of us place a high value on human life.

Doctors and medical professionals for the most part are in their field because they want to save people’s lives not kill them. If assisted suicide became the law of the land, how long before doctors would be forced to perform them? (Don’t say that wouldn’t happen, there’s already a move a foot to force doctors to perform abortions whether they want to or not).

Will people still take their own lives? Yes, they do every day and it’s a tragedy. People deal with pain every day and that is also a tragedy without a doubt. However killing them with state sponsored assistance is incredibly immoral with ramifications that would last forever. Death is permanent.

Dr. Joseph Ayoub, an oncologist and professor of medical ethics at the University of Montreal, told the Ottawa Sun last year that assisted suicide is a “slippery slope. First you start with patients with a severe disease like cancer at the end of their life, then you come to disabled people, then you come to handicapped children and old people in homes. It could become like you are selecting people to terminate their lives.”

Francine Lalonde's bill was fortunately shot down but that doesn’t mean she’s given up. She was relected in 2006 and has sworn to reintroduce the bill to have others legally kill people.

#16 – John Robin Sharpe

Warning – Some readers may find this one disturbing…or at least you should because John Robin Sharpe is one sick puppy.

Let’s call him what he is, a convicted pedophile. He likes young boys sexually. The man is proud of what he is and would prefer to have unfettered access to this nation’s children. While that hasn’t happened yet, the courts have given him a lot of leeway.

Sharpe likes to write. In the past he’s written for gay magazines including one called Sodomite Invasion Review and pushed for the legalization of recreational drugs and sexual relations between adults and children.

In 1995, police raided Sharpe’s apartment and charged him with various child pornography charges when they found pictures and sexually charged writing involving children. Sharpe claimed it was “art” and his right under the Charter of Rights and Freedom. That “art” written by Sharpe described acts of rape and torture against children as young as six years of age.

The British Columbia Supreme Court (which included entry #33 here at 101, Mary Southin) acquitted Sharpe. In 2001, the Supreme Court also sided with Sharpe and let him go.

The case ended up going back to the B.C. Supreme Court which in 2002 found him not guilty of possession of child pornography in relation to his writings, but guilty of possessing pornographic pictures of children. He got house arrest for four months. The Judge did call Sharpe's writings "morally repugnant" but said it was allowed because they "[did] not actively advocate or counsel the reader to engage in the acts described" and had "artistic merit".

Except this stuff wasn’t just in Sharpe’s head. He acted on it.

Later that same year, Sharpe was arrested on gross indecency and indecent assault charges dating back to the 70’s and 80’s. Pictures of the boy abused were among the 500 police had seized in 1995. It is incredibly unlikely that boy was or is Sharpe’s only victim.

These days Sharpe is living in Montreal where he says he’s more accepted, like Karla Homolka at #22 (Note to Montreal, a reputation of anything goes may not be the message you’re trying to send out). Sharpe settled in Montreal after returning to Canada from a “visit” overseas with a young (I’m guessing very young) friend.

The mere existence of child pornography puts children at risk from pedophiles. Child pornography often leads pedophiles to act and when a court is saying it's okay, other people start getting the idea that it’s okay too. As mentioned at Mary Southin’s entry, a poll last year suggested that 1 in 5 Canadians don’t think pedophile is morally wrong. Why the change? Part of that I believe is owed to John Robin Sharpe who has taken his crusade to have easy access to boys to the mainstream. Despite still being a minority that think pedophilia isn’t morally wrong, those types of polls and people defending the likes of Sharpe is disturbing. Children are off limits and always should be. Anything else screws Canada up.

#17 – Murray and Peter Corren

When activists are able to get a hold of the education system and start dictating what is being taught, we have a problem.

Yet that’s exactly what Murray and Peter Corren have succeeded in doing.

The gay married couple (Corren is an amalgam of their surnames Cook and Warren) complained in 1997 to the BC Human Rights Tribunal that public schools in British Columbia were discriminating against gays. Why? Was there something anti-homosexual in the curriculum? Not at all. The Correns wanted prominent homosexuals promoted in the classroom not based solely on what they did but to make them prominent but based on the gender they liked to sleep with.

The Tribunal accepted their case, but before the hearing could take place last year, the B.C. government negotiated a settlement with the Correns. In the agreement, the province would review the school curriculum and introduce a new elective course on social justice that would include sexual orientation. Okay but get this, the Correns are to be exclusively consulted about the section of the new course on sexual orientation and about the presentation of gays in all school curriculum in British Columbia. The government would also have to ask for feedback from groups identified by the Correns. Although the new course would be an elective, students would be unable to opt out of topics revolving around homosexuality.

So to sum up, two activisits are now controlling the curriculum being taught in school and have significant input, if not the final say on what children get taught.

What about other parents? What about parents who support traditional marriage? Do they get equal time to say how great the straight lifestyle is and the benefits that has? If the retelling of an historical figure must include his or her sexuality if they were gay, must it be pointed out that other great characters were straight?

Forget the religious aspects of this because far too many people focus this debate solely on that. This is just an incredibly bad idea. You want to teach homosexuality in school, fine, teach it, what it is, the good and the bad. However when the focus of the people that are being taught about is who they like(d) to sleep with and you’re letting a couple of activists with an agenda tell you what kids are to be taught, there’s a serious problem.

Murray and Peter Corren can push whatever agenda they want and are free to lobby for whatever they want. However dictating the agenda for all students is crossing the line. They won’t be satisifed with British Columbia. The rest of the country is next. It's also setting the stage for the next group of activisits who want to get their agenda into the public school system.

#18 – The Canadian of Convenience

Okay, show of hands. How many of you were at least a little surprised last year to learn that 50,000 Canadians (about the population of Fredericton, New Brunswick) were living in Lebanon?

Me too.

In fact it’s not just Lebanon, more than 1.5 million Canadians or pretty close to 5% of our entire population lives or works abroad.

Some people are there for specific periods of times, but others it appears have no intention of ever returning to Canada. The Canadian Passport appears to be merely a “get out of trouble” pass.

And that’s troubling.

While that certainly wasn’t the case with all 50,000 people in Lebanon it did appear to be the case for a significant number who returned shortly after the evacuation back to Lebanon.

The Canadian Government at least appeared to be taking (in fact some would say more than taking) steps to get those holding a Canadian Passport who wanted to get out out of harm’s way. However, the complaints reported by some of the evacuees were a little hard to take. This is a war situation and evacuation isn’t easy. There were complaints by some of the evacuees about the boat ride out. This was no cruise ship but few would expect it to be. One evacuee however went so far as to say she would have preferred to stay under the bombs, while another said she was ashamed to be Canadian (as if Lebanon was going out of the way to ensure their safety). In fairness though most evacuees expressed gratitude for what Canada did for them.

Good thing because there were reports of Canadians who were in Lebanon genuinely for a visit who got bumped by people with Canadian passports who hadn’t set foot in Canada for years and who returned to Lebanon once the immediate danger had passed.

One has to ask if people don’t live in Canada, haven’t paid taxes here for years and seemingly have no desire to come back, does Canada have a responsibility to them?

A Canadian passport isn’t merely an insurance policy…or at least it shouldn’t be. However for some it has become just that. There’s no obligation to file an income tax return if you’re living overseas and there’s no obligation to give up your Canadian citizenship regardless of the length of time you’ve been away from Canada.

But when trouble comes, those Canadian credentials get dusted off fast.

In MacLean's last year they reported the story of Ghazi Falah, a man who holds Israeli and Canadian citizenships. He was arrested in Israel on suspicion of spying and was held without charges for 22 days. Sure he lived in Ontario for eight years but these days he calls the State of Ohio home. Yet one of his first complaints when he was released was that Canadian officials didn’t visit him in jail. Would he have been asking the same of Israeli officials if he were arrested in his new home, the United States?

Canada should do all it reasonably can to protect its citizens and help them in times of trouble even when abroad. However as with everything in life, there’s risk with all we do and its not always the government’s fault or even the government’s responsibility to fix everyone’s problems.

As a frequent commentator at this blog wrote one time, “Dual citizenship is like being married while having bedroom privileges with the girl next door.”

It can be but sometimes you get caught with your pants down.

#19 – Paul Martin

Let’s be fair.

I think Paul Martin was a pretty decent Finance Minister. He had to make some shrewd decisions to finally stop the deficit and start actually paying some money on Canada’s enormous debt. Sure he could have done more. Who couldn’t, but all in all not bad and that keeps him from being higher on this list.

However Paul Martin as Prime Minister? The record isn’t as good.

Politicians love to be politically correct but Martin took it to brand new heights during his short tenure. It was difficult to find if he believed in anything as he tried to please everybody...kind of. Sounds great but when you believe in everything, you essentially believe in nothing and he took it to some silly extremes.

Just one example.

When you can’t call a Christmas Wreath a Christmas Wreath or a Christmas Tree a Christmas Tree because of…well Martin never actually said why he couldn’t bring himself to do so when he was Prime Minister. However it certainly had the appearance of political correctness run amok. His political correctness had a whole bunch of government offices second guessing themselves on whether they should even use the word Christmas. Crazy stuff.

However, most political watchers agree that it was the legalization of same-sex marriage that Martin will be most remembered for. Martin opposed the idea when it was put to a vote in 1999 but changed his mind in 2004 when courts began weighing in on the issue.

I have to admit same-sex marriage on the surface has a romantic notion. If two people want to be married even if they’re the same gender than why not? That was certainly the logic of Paul Martin and a majority of MP’s when they voted to legalize SSM in 2005.

Here’s the problem.

Anytime you tinker with an institution like marriage which is essential to the well being of children there are ramifications. As with anything, some of those outcomes are good and some are bad. A responsible government needs to weigh the pluses and minuses to arrive at a decision which is fair, just and ensures the well being of society.

Paul Martin didn’t do that.

He shut down the Parliamentary Committee on Same Sex Marriage ending virtually any debate or the gathering of information on what the ramifications might be. They put on a brave face but the Liberals themselves were concerned if this would begin a slippery slope, so concerned that they asked for reports on what the ramifications could be including the possibility of legalized polygamy.

By contrast, France, arguably one of the most liberal countries in the world put the brakes on SSM when they studied it and determined that SSM was not in the best interest of children. France instead has civic unions for homosexual couples and common-law heterosexual couples.

Are the issues the same in Canada as France?

Who knows? A government may study the mating habits of a beetle for decades but Paul Martin’s Liberals refused to hear the debate at all, making their decision solely on the rulings from a handful of judges.

I can appreciate that those who were for same-sex marriage were happy about the decision but to think that this decision would have no negative impact and required no study was incredibly arrogant of Paul Martin. France found a balance by actually studying the issue as any responsible government should. Paul Martin did not.

#20 - Aly Hindy

Aly Hindy has lived in Canada for 30 years. You would think in that time he might find some redeeming qualities here.

Apparently not.

While no one has ever called Hindy a terrorist per se, the Iman of Scarborough's Salaheddin Islamic Centre knows lots of folks involved or suspected to be involved with terrorist activities and he seemingly has little problem with that.

The founder of Hindy’s mosque was a man named Hassan Farhat who CSIS believes is directly linked to Al-Qaeda. Regular attendees at the mosque have been the Khadr Family (#38 here at 101), members of the so-called Toronto 17 suspected for plotting all kinds of atrocities on Canadian soil and Mr. Hindy counts Amer el-Maati, a suspected terrorist, as a very good friend.

Nice company.

Like #43 here at 101, Naomi Klein, Hindy believes the blame for terrorism completely rests on the shoulders of you my North American friend. Hindy however goes even further than Klein saying that 9/11 was done on purpose by the United States Government so that they could have an enemy. "After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West had to have a new enemy. And Islam became the enemy."

That’s right, Hindy puts Michael Moore to shame for conspiracy theories. 9/11 and the London bombings had nothing to do with Islamic fascism according to Hindy.

Perhaps the worst Hindy line was in 2005 when Hindy warned the Canadian government, "If you try to cross the line I can't guarantee what is going to happen. Our young people, we can't control."

What the heck does that mean?

What line is that? Calling Hezbollah a terrorist organization? Being nice to Israel and the United States? Who knows. Hindy wouldn’t elaborate but many Canadians took it, rightly so, as a threat.

When other Muslims and government agencies asked Hindy to clarify his “threat”, Hindy said, "The police came to me and said, 'This is a kind of threat,' and I said yes. But it's for the good of this country. And they said, 'Do you know some of the names of those people you expect to cause some problems?' And I said, 'You just open the telephone directory."

However it looks like Hindy was doing a little foreshadowing into the Toronto 17 who are accused of plotting to blow up all kinds of stuff at various targets which would have included loads of civilian casualties.

Yes I know, all innocent until proven guilty but let’s admit that it looks really bad, well except to Hindy.

He says the evidence was planted on the 17 and it was all the United States fault.

Uh-huh.

Hindy sadly is listened too and while he’s free to say whatever half-cocked thing he wants, it’s when those half cocked ideas start getting treated as fact that we’re in trouble. The Pakistani Daily Times actually reported that police planted the evidence on the Tornto 17 and they reported it as fact. Their source? Aly Hindy. "The charges are to keep George Bush happy, that’s all,” said Hindy.

Hindy has long complained that CSIS is spying on him, his family and his mosque. I’m not sure if that’s true or not but given what’s gone on there, I would be concerned if someone wasn’t keeping an eye on Hindy. He’s given Canadians plenty of reason to be concerned. People like Hindy are the ones who give other Muslims a bad name.

Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress said it best about Hindy, "Imams like Aly Hindy are holding the entire Muslim community as a hostage. A vast number of Muslim Canadians don't want to have their leadership from almost medieval imams."

Or ones who are out to screw up Canada.

#21 – Karla Homolka

Unlike the United States, Canada does not have very many celebrity criminals.

Thank goodness.

Karla Homolka however is just that, a celebrity. She is famous for nothing else than being a murderer.

She and her husband Paul Bernardo killed at least three teenage girls including Homolka’s own sister. That’s cold.

I’m not going to delve into the details of the pair’s crimes. There’s plenty of information out there on it if you wish to look for it. Suffice it to say they were grisly, calculated and brutal.

Bernardo is a psychopath without a doubt, however he’s a psychopath who is locked up with virtually no chance of getting out or at least not for a very long time.

Karla Homolka however is walking the streets a free woman.

In the early 90’s Homolka was given a plea bargain in which she would serve 12 years in prison by pleading guilty to manslaughter and providing evidence against Bernardo.

It turned out the plea bargain was unnecessary and it was clear early on during the court proceedings that Homolka should be doing the same sentence as Bernardo for her role in the crimes.

She didn’t and she won’t.

In the summer of 2005, Homolka was released with a number of conditions because during her release hearing the Judge ruled that Homolka still posed a risk to the public-at-large.

Those conditions included notifying police where she was living and if she would be away from her home for more than 48 hours. She was also to have no contact with Paul Bernardo, the families of her victims or any violent criminals. She couldn’t hang out with children under 16 or consume drugs other than prescription medicine. She was required to continue therapy and counseling and provide police with a DNA sample.

It didn’t take her long to fight those restrictions and she won rather quickly. Just months after being released, Quebec Superior Court Judge James Brunton lifted ALL of the restrictions imposed on Homolka. As a result there is no legal way to keep tabs on her despite being tagged a threat to the public.

Despite claiming she just wanted to be left alone, upon her release Homolka headed almost immediately to Radio-Canada to give an interview entirely in French (something she learned during her time in prison). Perhaps it was her way to try to stick it to the English media but in the end she did nothing but hurt the families of the victims even more as Homolka was once again given more infamy by this action.

Homolka settled in the Montreal area, clearly a long standing plan of hers with her desire to learn French. She said she chose to move to Quebec because she found people there more accepting of her than people in Ontario. (Note to Quebec residents, if that’s the perception that vous fermez vos yeux to criminals, you may have a problem. More on that soon here at 101)

Homolka is and probably always will be news. She’s a murderer, and a manipulator who got off easy for heinous crimes. Due to her celebrity status the families of the victims have to relive those crimes far too frequently.

There are those who of course will say, well that’s the fault of the media and the fault of the court system. The media and courts play a major role, without a doubt, but in the end the responsibility for all of it rests on Homolka. She helped commit the murders, not the media and not the courts. Three families will never see their daughters again while Homolka walks free.

#22 – Peter Whitmore

Sadly every community has its fair share of pedophilies.

Pedophilia afflicts almost exclusively men and thankfully most of these people keep their rather sick fetish in check.

Some however don’t. They are often also predators searching out their next victim sometimes little girls, more often little boys and sometimes both.

Do these people have a disease, a mental illness or were they born like that?

I have no idea and I’m going to be quite frank…I don’t care.

It may not be politically correct and the bleeding hearts who like to cry for the criminal can frankly say what they want; when a crime involves children I get really mad.

Peter Whitmore is one of those who have destroyed numerous children’s lives that we know of and likely many more that we don’t.

In 1993 Whitmore was convicted of abduction and five sexual offences involving four young boys in Toronto.

In 1995 Whitmore posed as a professional babysitter and committed sexual offences against an 8-year old girl and a 9-year old boy.

In 2000, less than a month after his release, Whitmore is found in a downtown Toronto motel with a 13-year-old boy.

In 2002, Whitmore fled Ontario for British Columbia with a five-year-old boy.

In 2004, a National Parole Board report noted that it was believed Whitmore who had refused treatment had a "100 per cent probability of recidivism."

As such Whitmore served every day of his three year sentence and in 2005 was released and moved to Chilliwack, B.C.

In June of 2006 since there’s little else legally that authorities can do, the RCMP takes the unusual step of notifying residents of Morinville, Alberta that Whitmore will be in town for a few days. (since he’s on the sex offender registry. Whitmore has to inform authorities when he goes to other towns).

The next month Whitmore pops up in Winnipeg, allegedly befriends a 14-year-old boy and takes him to Brandon to buy a truck. The boy is not returned as promised. A missing person report is filed and by the end of the month Police issue an Amber Alert and then a Canada-wide warrant for a 10-year-old Saskatchewan boy who is believed to have been abducted by Whitmore.

Police manage to capture Whitmore after a tense standoff and rescue the boys. Whitmore is charged with abducting and sexually assaulting the two boys.

Whitmore is now winding himself through a court system he has plenty of experience in.

His lawyers have argued in the past that Whitmore doesn’t belong in prison because he’s suffering from a mental disorder.

Bull and fortunately no court has yet bought it.

Whitmore once appeared on CTV’s Canada-AM claiming he wanted treatment and that it was, “…very hard to take treatment if I'm moving from town to town."

However when he’s had the chance to receive treatment during his numerous sentences he has refused it each and every time. The man is a danger to any child he can get access to yet the system is set up to release him anyway time and time again. Whitmore knows it.

Despite what Whitmore and his lawyers claim, Whitmore knows the difference between right and wrong. He knows raping children is wrong and he doesn’t care. He will play the system out and be back on the streets looking for his next victim. He surprisingly has his supporters too but more on that later here at 101.

As the father of one of Whitmore’s victims said, “It’s now time for the people to say to your politicians, We need the laws changed. No one needs to go through what we’ve been through.”

No they shouldn’t. It’s time Whitmore and those like him were held accountable and not allowed to manipulate the system so he can continue to search out children and ruin their lives.

#23 - David Ahenakew

Why is David Ahenakew, the former National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations on this list?

Well first let’s get some context.

In 2002, Ahenakew was delivering a speech to a meeting of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. During his talk he said, “But ah, the Germans used to tell me, and I got to know them well because I played soccer against them and with them and so forth. But they used to tell me that you guys are blessed. What we know about the Indians in Canada. They are blessed. But that blessing is being destroyed by the, by your immigrants that are going over there. Especially the Jews, they say, you know. The Second World War was created by the Jews and the Third World War, whatever it is, right now that war ... that wages on Israel in the Arab countries. I was there too. But there’s gonna be a war because the Israelis and the “Bushies”, you know, the bully, the bully, the ah the bigot and so forth in the United States that tells you that if you’re not with me you are against me.”

This obviously peaked the interest of a reporter named James Parker with the Saskatoon StarPhoenix. To ensure he got the story right, Parker asked Ahenakew to clarify what he had said. Ahenakew replied that, “The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war. ... That's how Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany or Europe. That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the goddamned world. And look what they're doing. They're killing people in Arab countries.”

Parker probed a little deeper to see how Ahenakew could justify the Holocaust. Ahenakew’s reply?

“How do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?”

Suffice it to say outrage ensued. I’m all for free speech because for one reason it allows you to find out people’s true feelings. That’s especially important when you’re choosing political leaders like Ahenakew. However freedom of speech can also come with consequences and it doesn’t mean everyone has to like or agree with what you say. Ahenakew was stripped of his Order of Canada and charged with promoting hatred.

Here’s where Ahenakew actually managed to make a bad situation even worse.

Shortly after making a quasi-apology after the incident was first reported, Ahenakew did an about face and has since refused to take personal responsibility for his outlandish statement. He has blamed everyone and everything except himself. His lawyer went as far as to blame the reporter for reporting the facts. Lawyer Doug Christie said during Ahenakew’s trial, "If a tree falls in the wilderness is there a sound? Similarly, if the story hadn't been published, no one else would have heard it, (The reporter) had no legal or moral duty to publish. Had he not, there would have been no public hatred."

That’s right, Ahenakew’s lawyer says the reporter should have simply ignored the drivel coming out of Ahenakew’s mouth and gone on his merry way without challenging this political leader.

Ahenakew then went further blaming his comments on his diabetes, saying he was suffering from low blood sugar at the time of his comments and interview with the reporter. The Judge didn’t buy it either and Ahenakew was fined $1000.

However Ahenakew has continued to battle the verdict and a new trial has been ordered meaning we haven’t heard the last of Ahenakew or likely a new list of excuses for why he said what he said. This from the same man who also told the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations that if he were still the chief he would lead First Nations people to war against every other race in North America.

Given that maybe Ahenakew isn’t racist. He may just hate everyone.

#24 – Jane Taber

Perhaps someone can explain how on earth a news organization such as CTV/The Globe and Mail continues to employ Taber as a “journalist”? Her “stories” are often full of bias as she attempts to lead the reader/viewer in a direction she wishes. If her employers were passing her off as a columnist, well okay, but the stuff she pumps out is supposed to be journalism without bias.

Supposed to be.

The examples are plentiful and show up pretty much every week. Here are just a few.

Here are a couple from just one of the episodes of CTV’s Question Period last year.

During an interview with recently rejected Appointments Commissioner Gwynn Morgan, Taber began the interview with this; “Mr. Morgan are you a bigot?”

It’s pretty much up there with, “When did you stop beating your wife?” but it actually got better with questions such as;

"You were considered a patronage appointment Mr. Morgan.....you're the bagman for the Tories."

"Bagman?”

Then; “Are you still in favor of the process? It's something the Tories seem to like... this transparent or “congressional” (yes Taber even did the quotation gesture) type of process?”

So during that interview Taber attempted to paint Morgan as a racist, corrupt akin to the mafia and desiring some American type system.

Heck the same day, she decided to do a little more editorializing with then Environment Minister Rona Ambrose with, "Is it not hypocritical and dishonest of you to continue as chair of these talks in Bonn when your strategy is to basically kill Kyoto?" Wow, opening question she calls Ambrose a liar. Classy journalism.

Last month, the National Post’s Lorne Gunter caught a Taber faux pas over the story about Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May making a pact to not run in the other’s riding next election in a bid to oust Conservative Peter MacKay (#98 by the way). Taber wrote in the Globe and Mail that, “The agreement between Mr. Dion and Ms. May appears to have been well received by voters looking for a fresh approach to politics.”

In fact the opposite was coming out of MacKay’s riding and even from Liberal circles. Gunter pointed out that it appeared to be, “wishful thinking on Taber's part. Or transference: Projecting one's own personal version of events onto the mindset of the public as a whole. Jane may like the deal. Perhaps she thinks it shows courage and out-of-the-box thinking. Maybe most of the people she associates with at and outside work think that, too. So she assumes millions of voters believe as she does, rather than just her and small group of friends and colleagues.”

That kind of writing is a little more acceptable if you’re a columnist but not when you’re purporting to be a journalist who is supposed to be presenting the facts and letting the reader decide.

But never fear Taber seems to be lining herself up to be the next Governor General if Paul Martin ever comes back as Liberal Leader. This was Taber's take as a journalist about the appointment of GG Michaëlle Jean. “The rationale for a Quebec woman is that, with the minority government Liberals substantially behind the Bloc Québécois in the polls, the appointment of a high-profile Quebecker as the Queen's representative could be politically beneficial. Plus, history has shown that women by and large have a better feel for the job — either as governor-general or provincial lieutenant-governor — than men.”

What was Taber’s basis for making that unattributed statement? Who knows? Maybe its’ true, maybe it isn’t. But just like most of Taber’s “reporting” (quotes mine) it’s hard to tell fact from her wishful thinking.

#25 - Phil Fontaine

Here's a brief rundown of life for an aboriginal living on a First Nation in Canada.

The life expectancy is 7 years lower for aboriginals than other Canadians. The suicide rate for young women is eight times higher than the national rate and five times higher for young men.

Aboriginal people are more likely than other Canadians to have hearing, sight and speech disabilities.

62% of First Nations people say alcohol abuse is a problem on First Nations and 48% say drug abuse is an issue. Solvent abuse which by comparison is almost non-existent in the non-aboriginal population is rampant among aboriginal youth particularly in isolated communities.
Poverty is incredible for a wealthy country like Canada. Although comparisons to a Third World country may be a slight stretch, on some First Nations it’s not far from the truth.

Yet there are two solitudes. With rare exception on First Nations there is virtually no middle class. There are the haves and the have-nots. If your family happens to be in power, life is good, if not you’re often out of luck. Most are out of luck.

Clearly the system as it stands doesn’t work. The problem is no one really wants to fix it and while governments obviously have a responsibility so does the aboriginal leadership. However significant change doesn’t seem to be on the menu.

Which brings me to Phil Fontaine, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations.

Fontaine is often the public face on a host of native issues in Canada. He is the leader voted for by the Chiefs to assist on a host of issues. However he’s not delivering much in the way of leadership. His solution to all of these problems? Throw money at it without offering any other changes.

In this interview with Canada AM’s Beverly Thomson, at least he was honest that that is all he’s looking for.

Fontaine : But we’ve been severely under-funded now for the last decade, uh, there’s ...

Thomson: But it can’t be that money is the only answer. I mean, when you talk about the billions of dollars that have already been committed and spent. Some would say though that the issue is more accountability and transparency. It can’t all be about money if the situation isn’t getting any better.

Fontaine: But it … it is about money. In fact there’s a myth about the 9 billion dollars that’s allocated by the federal government for aboriginal people. Actually, 5.4 – only 5.4 billion of that 9 billion – actually is delivered or transferred to … as grants and contributions to First Nations governments. And that represents … because we’ve operated with a 2% cap for the last decade, that represents a loss of, in real dollar terms over this decade, of 14 billion dollars. That’s a significant issue of under funding First Nation governments, and …

Thomson: But even if it is under funded, 5.4 billion dollars still. Where are the improvements? Where did the money go?

Good question but Fontaine really doesn’t have any answers, however that isn't stopping him from demanding billions anyway.

While he does that anger continues to rise on First Nations regarding the current situation. Illegal blockade after illegal blockade, and threats of violence and sometimes real violence.

Fontaine has further stoked those fires calling for a national day of action on June 29 of this year against the federal budget. What does that mean? Fontaine says he is not calling for cross-country blockades, but many First Nations are already planning just that, possibly targeting key infrastructure, from rails to roads. That type of action should be condemned but Fontaine is staying virtually silent.

That type of confrontational stance is one many aboriginal people have realized over the past several years just isn’t productive. More often than not it ends up turning off non-native supporters putting the brakes on any progress.

A solution is a joint one. A willingness by non-native governments to work with First Nations and provide the necessary tools to effect real change. At the same time there needs to be a willingness in native communities to want to change and accept personal responsibility for making those changes take place. There also needs to be a native leadership that recognizes those things so that life can be made better for their own people. That's type of accountability is something Phil Fontaine and far too many First Nations Chiefs have either forgotten or choose to ignore. Throwing only money at the problem clearly isn’t the answer…neither is illegally blocking roads but it does screw up Canada.

#26 – Conrad Black

Lots of people probably have different reasons for placing Conrad Black on a list like this one. For me there’s only one.

Black’s decision to flip off Canada.

In 1999, Black’s name was put forward for a seat among the unelected Lords in the British Parliament by then British Tory party leader William Hague.

Originally the Canadian government said it was okay if Black, a Canadian citizen, became a lord, as long as he didn’t use the title in Canada and became a British citizen, which he did in 2000.
But not long after Black was named to the British upper chamber, then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien weighed in using a rarely used power that bars Canadians from receiving foreign titles, thereby stopping Black from accepting the Lordship title.

Black fought hard through the courts. Chrétien ended up spending $170,000 taxpayer dollars to battle Black. In the end Black lost.

Was Chrétien being a petty jerk? Sure he was. While I’m kind of iffy on dual loyalties, I don’t for one minute believe that if it was a Liberal being bestowed a Lordship that Chrétien would have made a peep. Besides Liberals these days have a leader who thinks its just dandy to ask Canadians to vote for him as Prime Minister of Canada when he holds at the same time a citizenship in France.

However I digress, this entry isn’t about Jean Chrétien or Stéphane Dion, this is about Conrad Black.

When Black lost his battle, he figured he would still have the final word and he renounced his Canadian citizenship, "Having opposed for 30 years precisely the public policies that have caused scores of thousands of educated and talented Canadians to abandon their country every year, it is at least consistent that I should join this dispersal."

This was poor, poor, poor behaviour. I understand the frustration and wanting to try to stick it to Chrétien but in the end this was nothing more than the antics of a spoiled child who didn’t get his own way. For a leader in this country to think so little of his Canadian citizenship, something millions take great pride in, that he would act so selfish was to say the least unbecoming.

However it appears we might get the last laugh after all. Last year Black began the process to gain his Canadian citizenship back. As Rick Mercer said during one of his rants about the subject last year, we should let Conrad back in but, “we never ever let him forget it.”

#27 – Jack Layton

For a long time I thought that the NDP made a pretty decent opposition but usually lousy government. New ideas are great and the NDP are full of them. Unfortunately they tend to also have an attitude of tax and spend which of course most socialists do. If you think your taxes are high now, imagine if the NDP were running the country.

At least that isn’t a concern these days with Jack Layton running the show. The NDP aren’t even providing decent opposition.

Layton can make all the wonky promises and statements he wants knowing that he has a snowball’s chance in Al Gore’s hot tub of becoming Canada’s Prime Minister (if his party ekes out fourth place next time, it will only be thanks to Elizabeth May of the Green Party going completely off the deep end, which given her moves lately is possible), but that doesn’t mean he isn’t doing things or at least thinking of things to do to try and turn Canada into Bolivia North.

Layton paints himself the champion of working Canadian families and I suppose he is. If he was ever successful in implementing some of his ideas, the WHOLE family would have to work to pay the taxes, not just Mom and Dad but Little Johnny and Suzie too and if you can hook up Rex to a tractor and get him pulling in some dollars that might not be a bad idea too.

During the 2006 election, their promises according to CBC would have totaled 87.5 billion dollars, the most expensive of all the political parties and that's in the first four years. How would they have paid for that? Well we know they’re not about to cut any social programs since that’s not their style so they would have had to hit their favourite target…working Canadian families. Although look at the brightside, at least the kids would have had a government run daycare to go to while mom and dad are working their two jobs each to pay their tax bill.

Okay that’s a little doom and gloom. Who are we kidding? An NDP government was never going to happen anyway. Canadians are fortunately too smart to get the wool pulled over their eyes but that doesn’t stop Layton from trying and boy does he try.

Let’s take the War on Terror in Afghanistan. Last summer Layton said he wanted the Canadian troops out and that the joint forces should start negotiating with the Taliban. The same folks who terrorized their own people and harboured numerous terrorist cells including Osama Bin Laden, Layton want to sit down have a cup of coffee and negotiate? Diplomacy 101 says don’t negotiate with terrorists or those who support terrorism because once you do, every terrorist in the world comes knocking on your door making demands. What I can’t figure out is why would Layton who claims to stand up for everybody’s rights want to negotiate with a group that is notorious for their poor treatment of women to the point where they would execute women who disobeyed Taliban law?

I get the feeling Jack was more worried about who might shovel his Toronto driveway during another snowstorm if the soldiers stay in Afghanistan.

If you still don’t believe how messed up the NDP is under Jack Layton, how far-left they have swung and how out of touch they are, take a look at this clip of an NDP news conference this past winter. This wasn't a guest appearance on CBC Kids, this was a news conference...seriously. Thanks to NBPolitico for pointing this clip out.

#28 – Paul Watson

When the top environmental group in the world, Greenpeace, begins to distance itself from you, that’s not a good sign.

Yet that’s exactly what has happened to Canadian environmentalist Paul Watson. Watson is what happens when environmentalism runs amok. He’s known in most circles as an eco-terrorist. Often when you stick a nice word like eco or environmentally friendly on it, the word at least sounds warm and fuzzy but terrorism is still terrorism.

Watson was involved in the beginnings of Greenpeace but left (or was kicked out depending on who you ask) in the late 70’s. He’s been terrorizing the waters ever since.

Watson’s Sea Shepherd boat these days is called the Farley Mowat, named after the Canadian author who coined the phrase, “never let the facts get in the way of a good story”. The Farley Mowat travels the waters quite literally looking for trouble. Watson in his quest to protect sea animals has used such tactics as ramming other ships, even scuttling two ships in Iceland. In Canada, Watson uses such inflammatory claims such as, “the government is trying to exterminate the seal population” to try to make his case and gain support. He says this despite the fact that the hunt in 2007 was about 250,000 out of an estimated herd of more than 5 million. Doesn’t sound like an extermination to me. To also gain support, Watson’s supporters often point to the whitecoats, the cute baby seals you see in all the commercials against seal hunting. One problem, it’s been against the law to hunt those for about 20 years. Like Watson’s boat’s namesake, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story…or commercial.

Watson often engages in violence and puts people’s lives in jeopardy to try to achieve his goals. He’s wanted around the world for ramming boats and/or interfering in activities such as whaling and seal hunting, sometimes those hunting activities are illegal, sometimes they're not. Watson has been successful thus far at avoiding being sent to prison. He claims his actions are taken in international waters so no one has any jurisdiction. So far he’s largely gotten away with it.

There’s some middle ground between a reasonable hunt and the slaughter of an entire species. People can also protest whatever they want but ramming boats and risking people’s lives (arguably his own crew as well) isn’t the way to do that. That kind of action is terrorism .

I leave the last word to Jim Bohlen, one of the founders of Greenpeace who had this to say about Watson, "I've known the guy for 15 years, and he's absolutely insane, out of his mind."

#29 – Jaggi Singh

I have to hand one thing to Jaggi Singh, at least he’s upfront about what he is. The Montrealer is an anarchist and he’ll be the first one to tell you that.

An anarchist (and I’m digging out my dictionary here) is someone who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom; usually they use violence to overturn all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.

Now Singh calls himself a peaceful anarchist which is almost an oxymoron but there appears to be little to no evidence that he’s engaged in anything violent directly.

The leaders never are.

That doesn’t mean that where Singh goes trouble doesn’t follow.

APEC 1997 in Vancouver, The Summit of the Americas in Quebec City in 2001; the list is actually pretty lengthy. Singh has been arrested numerous times; although here’s an interesting point, the charges have nearly never stuck. He’s a smart guy. He usually knows just how far to go without personally crossing the line, although he bends that line as far as possible.

Everyone in this country does and should have the peaceful right to protest, but there’s a distinct difference between being a protestor and being an anarchist.

Singh gets the masses together but it’s not merely to get a point across or send a message. He wants to shut down anyone who disagrees with him and he does it time and time again.

For example, last June, Singh and his compatriots were able to disrupt a speech by Immigration Minister Monte Solberg at an Ottawa church. Singh wasn’t there merely to protest, get a point across or debate Solberg. He didn’t want Solberg to speak at all. Singh and a dozen others shouted down Solberg during the annual meeting of Citizens for Public Justice, a group that lobbies on behalf of refugees. The anarchists surrounded Solberg at the podium, and then blocked his exit. When Solberg managed to slip out the back, the group followed circleing his car. Police had to eventually clear the route.

Bruce Voodg, a spokesperson for the Citizens for Public Justice (a group that Singh and his friends claim to support) had this to say, "It probably will make this minister and perhaps his colleagues think twice about coming to public events. I think that's sad, because our politicians are required by the virtue of their position to speak to the public."

The Citizen's group had planned to give Solberg a petition calling for stronger protections for refugees. Singh’s disturbance prevented that. Nice work Jaggi.

Courts have tried to strike a balance a number of times in allowing Singh to protest but not disturb the peace. He's been in and out of jail, and on bail repeatedly told that he's not to engage in violent or potentially violent protests. The man is an anarchist (his word) which means he wants society to crumble and be replaced...well by nothing. He's well spoken and the media love him and rarely are honest about exactly what an anarchist is. I don't have that problem. An anarchist is someone who is screwing up Canada and Jaggi Singh is #29.

#30 - 266 Members of Parliament

First up, I like the province of Quebec. Just like the other nine provinces and three territories I want it to remain a part of Canada. The parts really do make the whole stronger. Sure, Quebec is unique in the second biggest country in the world but in their own ways so are every other region of this country. In the end though, we’re all supposed to be Canadians first and foremost working towards the same goals.

266 Members of Parliament thought otherwise on November 27, 2006 when they passed a motion introduced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that defines the Quebecois as "a nation within a united Canada." The definition can differ depending on who you ask but generally, Quebecois doesn’t mean all those people who live in Quebec. It means French speaking Quebec residents and then usually only those who were born there. An Acadian who moved from Nova Scotia to Quebec doesn’t count.

Those 266 MP’s included a majority of Conservative and Liberal MPs, along with the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democrats. (Here’s some 101 people trivia for you, #50 – Garth Turner and #69 Ken Dryden were among those who voted against the motion).

What does the motion mean?

Politically it’s said to be brilliant and seemed to appease a great number of French speaking Quebeckers but does the end justify the means?

Conservative MP Michael Chong who resigned from Cabinet in order to vote against the motion said it best, that the motion, "…is nothing else but the recognition of ethnic nationalism, and that is something I cannot support. It cannot be interpreted as the recognition of a territorial nationalism, or it does not refer to the geographic entity, but to a group of people."

In other words, where does the line get drawn? What’s stopping another region or another culture from demanding, and based on precedence, receiving the same thing?

Very little.

There are a lots of people in Canada who love to slam the United States for just about everything. However there’s one lesson we could learn from our neighbours to the south. They have great pride in their country. When they sing the Star Spangled Banner, they mean it. Their Pledge of Allegiance is clear that they are “One Nation under God”. We need to start taking some pride in being Canadians, not being “insert your title here” Canadians but simply Canadians. When we start dividing and creating little nations, figuring out what being a Canadian is all about becomes a whole lot harder.

#31 – Marc Emery

Marc Emery is often referred to in the media as the “Prince of Pot”. It’s a handle he wears proudly since he is probably one of, if not the most visible proponents of making marijuana legal in Canada.

The crux of his argument is that cannabis is no worse than tobacco or alcohol so why is it a banned substance? On that point proponents of marijuana are right. It isn’t any worse but it’s hardly harmless.

Generally you smoke it although it’s eaten too. Smoke in the lungs from anything isn’t a good idea health wise and marijuana contains some of the same cancer causing substances found in tobacco. In some ways it’s a bigger health threat because people inhale deeply and hold the smoke in their lungs as long as possible to achieve maximum high. It also impairs judgement. Drugged driving is on the rise and the results can be and have been just as deadly as drunk driving. To try to purport that marijuana use is no big deal is misleading and dishonest.

But those are the facts Emery doesn’t delve into. He ran a business called Marc Emery Direct Marijuana Seeds until it was shut down in a raid by Vancouver Police in 2005 who were acting on a request from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. The U.S. is currently trying to extradite him where Emery faces a possible life sentence for his activities.

Those activities include not just selling marijuana seeds but being what Emery himself describes as a major financial backer of almost every pro-pot effort in North America and many more around the world. He was a member of the Marijuana Party of Canada, and is leader and founder of the British Columbia Marijuana Party.

Emery has travelled throughout Canada blatantly lighting up joints in public places in an effort to get charged and be taken to court. His reasoning is that eventually he can find a liberal judge who will rule that marijuana should be legalized (he’s probably right).

Controversial statements along the way from Emery have been the norm. In 2004 he said about then Liberal Minister of Justice, Irwin Cotler, "Cotler was a life-long human rights advocate, and as Justice Minister, he has presided over a record number of prosecutions of marijuana possession, prosecutions of marijuana cultivation, and marijuana selling. I thought the term Jewish-Nazi, or Nazi-Jew, was an oxymoron until Cotler became the Injustice Minister. What a disgrace he is to his Jewish roots."

In addition to making pot readily available to all, Emery is also against spending tax money for health care for anyone over 70. (wanna bet he changes his tune in a few years?) . "We spend far too much of our taxpayers' money on a rapidly growing population of old people. We're spending lots of money keeping many many millions of old people alive when it would be much more honourable to let them die in a dignified way".

In 2005, he had nothing nice to say about residents of Langley, British Columbia. During the provincial election he referred to many in the riding as, "old people who are intolerant and bigoted and hate young people". No Marc, but you certainly united them against you.

Emery is also a big fan of the NDP since leader Jack Layton favours the decriminalization of marijuana. Yet another reason to question your local NDP candidate when they come to your door during the next election.

Emery would like to see marijuana readily available and out in the open. Part of the argument is that the billions spent fighting the drug war is a waste because it will never be won. True, illicit drugs will always be available but normalizing something else known to have detrimental effects on society isn’t the answer either. Saying it's no more harmful than tobacco or alcohol also doesn’t cut it. We’d all be a lot better off with less booze and less tobacco given the social and health problems the two things cause. Adding marijuana to that mix would only make things worse. Teenagers are one of the main target markets of drug dealers, but with that being said, more teenagers don’t smoke pot than do. The goal should be to increase the number of teenagers who don’t do drugs not make it more readily available. Emery clearly doesn’t care about that (nor arguably do the political parties who would like to see the drug out in the open).

Emery’s supporters often say his critics are trying to infringe on his free speech. Let me be clear that Emery is free to say whatever he wants. In fact I encourage it. It helps the rest fo us know what he’s up to and what he would turn this country into if he was given the chance; a nation of potheads who don’t care about the health of senior citizens, teenagers...or even their own.

#32 – Chuck Guité

I fully believe the overwhelming majority of civil servants are good, hard working people who believe in doing what is right.

Then there are the Chuck Guité’s.

Guité was the public servant in charge of the now infamous federal Liberal sponsorship program from 1996 to 1999. The idea of the program seemed like a good idea. In an era when the likelihood of Quebec seceding from Canada was high, counter the message of separatists by letting Quebeckers know about the contributions Canada was making to Quebec.

Unfortunately it turned out to be a nightmare, to taxpayers like you and me who ended up footing the bill for quite literally nothing.

The misuse of the program was astronomical. Of $250 million, $100 million went to ad firms in return for little or no work, firms which were Liberal friendly, and which in some cases donated some of that money back…to the Liberal Party.

Along with some ad executives, Guité was eventually charged with fraud. He admited to bending the rules with the ads contracts but said that was okay because, “We were basically at war trying to save the country... When you're at war, you drop the book and the rules and you don't give your plan to the opposition.”

The court and arguably a majority of Canadians disagreed. Last year, Guité was found guilty on all five counts of defrauding “legally” the Federal Government, but in reality, he defrauded all Canadians. He’s appealing that sentence and is out on bail.

The political ramification of this was huge. It undoubtedly at least aided the fall of the Liberal Government last year. Now, without a doubt there were many players involved (more on one later) but Guité was the one entrusted by the Canadian people, as a public servant, and who violated that trust by handing out millions inappropriately with Canadians receiving nothing in return. His actions helped aid a resurgence of separatist feelings in Quebec which have only recently been somewhat abated. The fact that he is appealing a sentence with a mountain of evidence which clearly proves he was responsible for violating that trust reveals something more about his character, and why he’s on 101.

#33 – Mary Southin

If she hasn’t retired quite yet, Justice Mary Southin of British Columbia is due to retire sometime this year…and that’s not a moment too soon, although it is several years late.

Southin has been the leader in a host of controversial cases which only serve to take this country down one screwed up path. Let’s take a look.

In a British Columbia Supreme Court decision, Judge Southin ruled that it was okay to possess child pornography, as long as it is the product of one’s imagination in a case involving admitted pedophile John Robin Sharpe.

In the mid-90’s, police found computer disks, books, stories and nude photographs of children in Sharpe’s possession. One was a collection of stories written by Sharpe describing acts of rape and torture against children as young as six years old.

During the hearing, heard by Southin, she repeatedly interrupted the Crown Attorney to say she was not comfortable “pontificating” about whether street children in Brazil should be victimized by pornographic pedophiles. “Some of these people, whether we like it or not, isn’t it a fair assumption that they did it for money?...What right do we have pontificating about what street kids do in Brazil?” She compared child pornography laws with liquor prohibition in the 1930’s in the U.S., “Look at the results. It did not stop anything. It just made it worse.”

She ruled in Sharpe’s favour. Any wonder 1/5 of this country doesn't think pedophilia is morally wrong when we have Judges making rulings like this?

Again in her role with the B.C Court of Appeal, Southin ruled against Darrell Trociuk, a father who wanted his three sons to bear his last name. The couple were split up, Trociuk had won joint guardianship but a Judge later gave the mother sole custody. There appeared to be an agreement to have a hyphenated last name for the boys but that changed and it went to Court. The Tribunal which Southin was a member ruled against the Dad saying mothers had the sole power to name children (although the Supreme Court of Canada ruled later unanimously in his favour) with Judge Southin writing in her decision, "The legislature no longer considers that marriage ... is a social institution of paramount or, ... any importance.” (Those who think traditional marriage isn’t under fire in this country need to read that sentence again.)

The one dissenting Judge in the Tribunal, Justice Jo-Ann Prowse said it is unfair to place Trociuk in the same category as fathers who have "raped, assaulted [or] otherwise abused or abandoned the mother…This is a denial of rights which would likely not be tolerated by society if the roles were reversed and it was the mother who was unilaterally excluded from the registration and naming process…The implications of this decision extend to all fathers and their children." (Yes there are decent Judges with a head on their shoulders out there).

But Southin hasn’t just tried to legislate marriage as irrelevant. During a marijuana case, she once wrote, “While at one time I accepted the received wisdom that marijuana offences were serious crimes, I now am of a different opinion. In my years on the bench I have sat on over 40 cases which had something to do with this substance, which appears to be of no greater danger to society than alcohol.” (maybe except what she fails to mention is that alcohol causes a whole lot of social ills too). She went on to pontificate about Government making changes to the laws.

Now, if Southin wants to start CREATING laws, that’s her business, but she should have retired from the Bench, run in a an election and won a seat in the House of Commons to do so.

But let’s face it Southin isn’t exactly health conscious. When the laws changed that made it against the law to smoke in a public building, Southin had a fit, saying she had no intention of quitting smoking or going outside with the peons. The BC Government instead of telling her too bad, so sad installed a special air filtration system in the judge's chambers…at a cost of $19,000 to taxpayers.

Judges do need some discretion and can’t simply be arms of government but the latitude they currently have has caused judges like Mary Southin to think they are omnipotent. She has repeatedly tried to not simply interpret the law but create it and by doing so has taken this country into the gutter at the same time.

#34 – Jacques Parizeau

It would be impossible to create a list of people screwing up Canada without listing people bent on the destruction of Canada, separatists such as Jacques Parizeau.

Parizeau and his ilk have consistently pushed Quebec’s secession from Canada despite being told repeatedly that a majority of those within the province don’t want to leave.

Parizeau was heavily involved in both the 1980 and the 1995 referendums to try to achieve Quebec sovereignity. They don’t come much more staunch as separatists than Jacques Parizeau. In 1984, he resigned from politics when he had a disagreement with then Parti Québécois leader and Quebec Premier Rene Lévesque. Lévesque had thought it might be wise to actually start governing Quebec instead of just trying to break the country apart. Parizeau disagreed.

However Parizeau came back just a few years later and in 1994, the PQ’s won a solid majority. Parizeau had promised to hold a referendum within a year and he did.

He was almost successful.

With a difference of just a few thousand votes, Quebec voted no to the referendum question in October 1995. During his speech that night. Parizeau said, “C'est vrai, c'est vrai qu'on a été battus, au fond, par quoi? Par l'argent puis du vote ethnique, essentiellement." Translation - Money and the ethnic vote were the reasons for the loss according to Parizeau. Clearly in Parizeau’s mind there were two camps, Québécois Francophones and everyone else (even though 40% of Francophones voted NO to the referendum question.)

That shouldn’t come as a great surprise. Parizeau has repeatedly supported policies to attempt to drive the English speaking minority out of Quebec and he’s been largely successful. The number of Anglophones in Quebec has dropped significantly in the past 30 years despite their being one of the most bilingual groups of people in the country.

Parizeau retired shortly after the referendum but continued to be critical of new PQ leader and Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard because Quebec independence wasn’t being pushed hard enough in Parizeau’s mind.

While he may lay a lot lower these days, Parizeau still holds political sway in the province, wants the country broken up and remains well connected. His wife Lisette Lapointe won a seat in the National Assembly in this year’s Provincial election for the separatist Parti Québécois.

#35 – Monica Lysack

Monica Lysack is the Executive Director of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada. The group lobbys for a national childcare program which would have cost overruns that would make the National Gun Registry look like a bargain. Lysack doesn’t like the Conservative plan to assist parents with the Universal Child Care Benefit. Fair enough, but here’s where she goes off the rails.

“A family allowance is great, but to call it child care is an insult,” said Lysack. “When the numbers are analyzed, it's like an allowance you would give your children."

No that’s not true, for some families it means a great deal by assisting them in paying a neighbour, or a family member for in fact child care. Granted it’s not Monica Lysack’s vision of child care but the insult is Lysack belittling the millions who don’t fit her mold of child care.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise though. The one-size should fit all child care lobby is pretty extensive. The Childcare Resource and Research Unit has come out with a booklet which examines eight what it calls “myths” about one-size fits all child care. What are some of the myths? Young children need full-time care from their mothers. (Needed? At least desirable and not downplayed as insignificant), Parents always know best (not in extreme cases but let’s give some benefit of the doubt that the vast majority of the time parents have their own children’s best interests at heart), stay-at-home mothers are discriminated against in public policy (can’t say I’ve seen a lot of supporting policies for stay at home moms or dads), and mothers would prefer to stay home (certainly not all but creating policies that allow that option shouldn’t be looked down on.)

When Lysack appeared last year before a government committee to answer a few questions about how much money her group had received from the previous Liberal Government over 13 years, she at first said she didn’t know. (Hmmm, the Liberals gave money to someone and the recipient couldn’t say how much. Yes I know. Shocking!) When pressed to estimate, she responded maybe half a million. Earlier this month when she reappeared before the same committee it was revealed that over the last five years of the Liberal government alone her group has had two projects which it received nearly a million dollars for. Since 1993, the group has received $2.2 million…a far cry from $500,000! One would think the executive director would know that or gee at least be in the ballpark.

How much of all that money was used to create child care spaces? Not one cent. However that’s okay since Lysack says her group’s mandate isn’t to create child care spaces, it’s to lobby the government with interesting enough…government money.

But hey money well spent right, since as Lysack put it, “Support for a national child care strategy was high across the country in both rural and urban communities, in all provinces and across all demographics." Actually that’s not quite true. Poll after poll actually showed that the Conservatives plan to give money directly to all parents of young children was in fact wildly popular among the group that counted...the parents. Political experts say that policy helped the Conservatives win the last election. Besides Lysack’s vision of daycare was focused on urban areas and parents who worked 9-5. If you were in a rural area and couldn’t access the government sanctioned daycare or worked shiftwork, you would be out of luck. You’re one of those stay at home moms or dads that a child care advocacy group says isn’t discriminated against? Zero for you and your kids.

Lysack is also well connected with the federal Status of Women where the bulk of her group’s money was funneled through.

When a campaign by the women’s group, REAL Women along with grassroots supporters (not funded by government by the way) was launched to urge the Feds to axe the Status of Women (SWC) because of questions over how taxpayer dollars were being spent, Lysack, whose group received big bucks through SWC called the campaign to eliminate the agency "distasteful." "There's both anxiety and nervousness out there, but there's also a really solid resolve to ensure that doesn't happen," said Lysack. "When you look at women in Canada and their human rights compared to international standards, we have a long way to go."

Actually according to the World Economic Forum out of 58 countries Canada is #7 in a survey of closing the global gender gap. Not quite as grim as Lysack would portray.

Then again, Lysack has good reason to defend SWC. She seems more concerned with her group losing access to the taxpayer funded tap than creating child care spaces. Just don’t ask her how much of that money she’s received.

People can lobby for whatever they want and present their cases but when the taxpayer is funding those lobbying efforts? Those kinds of lobbyists screw this country up because we all have to foot their bill. Lysack can continue to lobby whatever she wants but crying foul because the taxpayers are starting to question just what she’s doing with their money? Give me a break.

Personal note : I had lots of help from across the country with the 101 list. This entry was suggested by Sara at Choice for Childcare who presented a great case and provided some background information. Sara is one of this country’s leading advocates for parents having a choice for childcare and yes that includes parents who decide to put their children in childcare facilities. She has been an effective advocate and does it all with zero funding from government.

#36 - Alan Park

When Jessica Holmes joined CBC’s long running comedy show Royal Canadian Air Farce, she figured it would be a good idea to keep up to date on current events so she got a subscription to The National Post, a right leaning newspaper. When she started discussing the issues in the Post with her castmates, they flipped. "They tend to read newspapers that veer to the other edge of the news," Ms. Holmes said in an interview.

It shows.

However over the years the cast has been able to keep their biases more or less in check and still pump out some pretty entertaining Canadian comedy.

Until Alan Park joined in.

When this guy appears on screen the laughter generally dies or seems to be more polite than anything. I wondered why but after watching his bits like, “Driving with Alan Park”, it became pretty clear.

He’s not funny.

Merely using Stephen Harper or George Bush as a punchline every time gets pretty tiresome. Sure it gets laughs but it’s getting laughs not because it’s funny but because those laughing can’t stand Harper or Bush or anything remotely considered conservative so it gets cheap laughs.

For example, on the October 6, 2006 episode, Park does his “Driving” bit talking about last year’s war between Israel and Lebanon, first admitting he knows little about it but then says, “the Israeli codeword for ceasefire is reload.” Nice slam at the Jews who also suffered casualties. The next bit has Park talking about presidential assassinations in the United States as something the U.S. has “going for it”. Park then draws a correlation that George Bush is due to get shot with a bullseye marked on a picture. Calling for someone to get killed and laughing about it? Tasteless, yes. Funny, no.

The blog Officially Screwed analyzed last year’s Air Farce New Year’s Eve Special. Conservatives were targeted 25 times, Liberals were made fun of 4, the NDP once and the BQ not at all. Even most of the punchlines about the Liberals turned out ultimately aimed at Conservatives. That could be all right if there was humour involved and not just cheap shot after cheap shot.

Don’t get me wrong, the Party in power should be the target of a lot of the heat and Craig Lauzon’s sendup of Stephen Harper as a robot is funny stuff. Still the show has transcended comedy and now instead wanders into political activism way too often that leaves many viewers not laughing but scratching their heads.

The correlation between that and Alan Park’s arrival is far too obvious and he has greatly assisted in the demise of a once funny show which far too often these days is turned into something cheap. The show’s sagging ratings show that this new style doesn’t work and that the Farce has become a Farce of itself. Thank you Alan Park.

#37 – Hedy Fry

Given that in the 2006 federal election the voters of Vancouver Centre really had a choice between Hedy Fry of the Liberals and Svend Robinson of the NDP, I suppose they chose the lesser of two evils.

Still, that doesn’t explain why Fry has been getting in every election since 1993. Members of her own party regard her as a fruitcake and is it any wonder?

Hedy Fry was one of the most vitriolic to go after former Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day. Was it because of some policy he had announced that his party would implement if it were to form government? Nope. Day said in an interview that he personally believed that, "Jesus Christ is the God of the whole universe." Day’s personal beliefs according to Fry were, "An insult to every Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, everybody else who believes in other religions."

That’s when folks started running not walking away from Fry.

The vice-president of the Muslim Canadian Federation called Fry's remarks "ridiculous." The Rabbi of a Synagogue in Ottawa said, “The expression of a person's individual faith affirmation is a sacred part of the Canadian context and no one should be denied that right and be accused of anything untoward in expressing that."

This is the same woman who’s campaign slogan for the Liberal Party Leadership last year was, "Canadians speak every language and understand every culture. This is our secret weapon, our weapon of mass inclusion."

Well unless you’re Christian, then don’t darken Hedy Fry’s doorstep.

Besides Christians, Fry also doesn’t seem to care for Israel or the United States.

In 2003, she lumped Israel in with North Korea as a country violating human rights.

Mere weeks after 9/11. Fry attended a speech by Sunera Thobani, a women’s studies professor at the University of British Columbia and a former president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.

During Thobani’s rant against the U.S., Thobani said, "U.S. foreign policy is soaked in blood," and that "other countries of the West -- including, shamefully, Canada -- cannot line up fast enough behind it." Americans in Thobani’s words are, "bloodthirsty, vengeful and calling for blood. They don't care whose blood it is, they want blood...There will be no emancipation for women anywhere on this planet until the Western domination of this planet is ended. "

Wow! There’s Hedy Fry, the federal Secretary of State for the Status of Women on the podium and she doesn’t raise one objection even after it’s over. In fact she applauds.

Last year, Hedy Fry joined the leadership race for the Federal Liberal Party. At the time the Globe and Mail reported it as, “…an opportunity for her to shed an image she now has among many in the Liberal ranks as a bit of a fruitcake often snickered at in private." A few months later, she bailed when it was clear she had next to no support.

Legalizing prostitution, marijuana and making sure junkies have a safe place to shoot up and kill themselves is also on Fry’s agenda.

But it would be impossible to look at Hedy Fry without mentioning the incident in 2001 when Fry stood up in the House of Commons to say that racism was so rampant that in Prince George, British Columbia, crosses were burning, “as we speak”. One problem. It wasn’t true. When Fry was challenged on it, she said the Mayor of Prince George had told her that. The Mayor’s office in response was pretty clear that no such event had taken place and the mayor had said nothing of the sort. That makes Fry a liar or…well actually I don’t know what else that makes her. You decide.

#38 – The Khadr Family

It’s not exactly a badge of honour to be labeled Canada’s First Family of Terrorism but that's the title that goes with the Khadr Family of Ontario.

Most of the family members make it abundantly clear they can't stand Canada, yet they’re baffled why they’re almost constantly under surveillance and why a lot of Canadians just don’t trust them.

Well let’s see.

There’s the direct links to Osama Bin Laden. The family lived with him for a while, prior to 9/11 and he attended Zaynab Khadr’s wedding. Clearly not a crime but a few red flags have to go up since the Khadr’s haven’t exactly distanced themselves from Bin Laden’s actions.

Zaynab’s father, Ahmed who was killed in 2003 in a Pakistani raid on the compound he was in, was linked to the terrorist group al-Qaeda. He originally came to Canada from Egypt in the 1970’s but took his family to the Mideast in the 80’s. He was arrested by Pakistani Police in the mid-1990’s in connection with the bombing of the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad and accused of financing the deal by funneling money through a Canadian Charity. Then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien lobbied to get Khadr released. He was and then took the family to Afghanistan where he put all four of his sons into weapons and explosive training. One son claimed his father wanted him to be a suicide bomber but the son claimed he didn’t have the guts for it.

Zaynab has been one of the most outspoken members of the family. In a now infamous CBC interview she said, “I don’t have the guts to do that yet”, referring to being a suicide bomber. When asked about accusations against brother Omar that he killed a U.S. Army media, her response was, “Big deal”, and when asked about being a martyr? “I’d love to die like that.”

Zaynab’s brother, Abdullah Khadr was indicted in Boston last year on four charges including conspiracy to murder a U.S. national outside the United States; conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction against U.S. nationals and U.S. property overseas; possession of a destructive device to advance a crime of violence; and conspiracy to possess a destructive device to advance a crime of violence. According to the FBI, Abdullah has already admitted he was an al-Qaeda weapons broker.

Another brother, Abdurahman Khadr has been arrested as a suspected member of al-Qaeda as well. He’s sold his story to Hollywood for a reported half a million dollars for a film called “Son of Al Qaeda”.

Some of the so called Toronto 17, part of an alleged Islamist terrorist cell who are charged with a variety of terrorist offences consider members of the Khadr Family some of their closest friends. The Khadr’s have shown up during court appearances repeatedly to show support for this group who were allegedly targeting amongst a host of targets, Canadian civilians.

In a MacLean’s interview last summer, Zaynab said she wanted out of the Canada but the RCMP seized her passport in a raid so she’s not going anywhere. When asked by a reporter if fellow Canadians should consider her a threat. “I wish,” she replied, before quickly retreating by saying, “no, I’m not.”

Do authorities keep an extra close watch on the Khadr Family? I suspect they do and if they’re not, they’re being remiss in their duties given the comments and actions by so many members of one family.

#39 – David Emerson

Like Garth Turner at #50, Vancouver Kingsway Member of Parliament David Emerson gives other politicians a bad name and for pretty much the same reasons.

There are lots of reasons people vote for a particular candidate. Sometimes they just like the person running, maybe they like the person running to be Prime Minister and often it’s for a political party regardless of who’s running (not the best method in my books but that’s up to the voter).

So when you decide to run for a party, your intention should be to be part of that party if you win and if you decide to change parties, go back to the people who voted you in to get their approval.

Or sheesh at least wait until the ink is dry on the ballots.

David Emerson was first elected MP for Vancouver Kingsway in 2004 under the Liberal banner. He was reelected by a wide margin in 2006 again for the Liberals capturing nearly 43.5 % of the vote. The Conservatives by comparison came in third with just under 19%. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the Conservatives in this riding.

On election night, Emerson announced, "We have got to look at this as Ground Zero for rebuilding a stronger, more vibrant, healthier, winning Liberal Party…I would like to be Stephen Harper's worst nightmare."

Those are nightmares I would love to have.

Two weeks later Emerson crossed the floor joining the Conservatives becoming Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics. He goes down in the history books as the first Canadian MP to cross the floor after being officially elected, but before being officially sworn in.

The voters in his riding, understandably, were ticked off. Polls showed 2/3 or more of the constituents in his riding wanted him to step down and run in a by-election. He refused and few believe he could win in the riding in a future election regardless of the party he ran for.

Plenty of politicians have crossed the floor but few have been as blatant as David Emerson. It smacks of opportunism and total disregard for the constituents of his riding. Canada doesn't need that.

#40 – André Boisclair

It would be pretty much impossible to do a list of 101 people who are screwing up Canada without including a few of the folks bent on the country’s destruction.

Meet Exhibit #1, André Boisclair, the leader of the provincial separatist party in Quebec, the Parti Québécois.

Following his election as party leader (far from a ringing endorsement as he captured just over 50% of the delegate votes), Boisclair made a speech in which he promised that there would be a sovereignty referendum within two years of the PQ becoming the government in Quebec.

Boisclair has called Canada’s Clarity Act (a question on independence would have to be clear and a clear majority would have to be behind it) as unacceptable and has vowed he would ignore it despite the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada on it.

Fortunately (at least for now) we won’t find out how Boisclair plans to flip off Canada since last month he led his party to its second worst showing at the polls and the worst since 1973. However, the PQ’s aren’t dead just wounded. Boisclair will continue to push to remove Quebec from Canada even if such a move would be detrimental to the province of Quebec itself.

His rather dismal (for the PQ anyway) showing in the March 2007 provincial election has caused his stock to plummet both inside Quebec and here at 101 (he was originally higher on the list). It is difficult to say how much longer he’ll be leader of the PQ’s, but rest assured he will continue to play an important role in trying to orchestrate the breakup of Canada as we know it even if it is behind the scenes. That's enough to place him in the Top 40.

#41 – Sue Johanson

Sue Johanson is a grandmotherly looking sex educator where no sex topic is too taboo. She’s a smart lady. If it’s a sexual topic that she doesn’t know about, well you probably have some weird fantasy involving aliens, because she has talked about EVERYTHING over the years in newspaper/magazine columns, her radio show and TV shows, “Sunday Night Sex Show” and “Talk Sex with Sue Johanson” in which people can call in with their questions.

And you know something, that’s okay.

Lots of people have lots of questions about lots of stuff. Sue Johanson’s biggest audience is in fact university aged students who appear incredibly curious given their questions. Johanson in fact frequently gives talks to full houses at campuses across North America. Johanson however faces little if no criticism admittedly thanks to her grandmotherly image.

Well at least until now.

I’m not sure if Johanson coined the phrase “safer sex” or not, but she uses it A LOT. Then again so does every other sex educator these days. The reason the term is used instead of the previous “safe sex” is because “safe sex” was…well not true. Good luck finding a sex educator to admit they were wrong but that’s why the change to the term “safer” which even in itself is misleading. It’s a spin word which still gives people a false sense of security that they can continue doing pretty much whatever they want with little to no consequence. Hey I wish I could tell you that were true but sadly its not.

Young people especially need to know the truth and they’re just not hearing that message from folks like Sue Johanson. Sure if you wade into the information on her website or for a few moments at the beginning of her advice you’ll get the precautionary warnings. Take anal sex, for example, which is increasing in popularity among heterosexuals. Johanson almost always predicates her advice on this subject with, “I don’t want to offend” (why the truth offends I don’t know) and that “anal sex is a high risk behaviour”since the risk of tearing is high which leaves one vulnerable to infection and a host of health concerns, many of which can’t be cured and can leave one in a lot of pain or worse, dead.

Now in fairness, Johanson does suggest don’t do it because of the risk, buuuuttt (no pun intended) then tells you how to do it safer (there’s that word again). It’s kind of like the dentist handing you a bag of chocolate bars when you leave because the alternative is that you might sit down for a five pound bag of sugar so hey the bars are better for your teeth, right? Oh and if that’s not enough, (remember Johanson supposedly highly recommends against this type of activity because of the serious health risks) you can buy the Sue Johanson endorsed anal stimulator (I’m not kidding).

Look, this isn’t some rant against sex education so if you're about to go there don't bother. Sex education is needed more than ever today with the way we’re all bombarded with sexually charged messages especially targeted at children, youth and young adults. However when folks like Sue Johanson go out to talk to these groups, they’re saying well on one hand, yeah “x” activity is kind of hazardous to your health but on the other hand, what the heck you’re going to do it anyway so if you do it this way, well it’s less likely you’ll get a life altering disease, oh and have you purchased my latest sex toy to help?

Those are some serious mixed messages and they’re clearly not working. Diseases such as gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia among university aged students in Canada have been steadily on the rise since the late 1990’s (hmmm, the same time Sue Johanson’s popularity began to rise among this age group, go figure). Johanson’s not solely responsible for this cavalier attitude which is resulting in what is becoming an epidemic but she’s not helping and that’s too bad...because she could.

#42 – Gary Bettman

Down at entry #59, Eric Lindros, someone in the comments section alluded to there being several hockey personalities on the 101 list (#100 – Tie Domi, #99 – Peter Pocklington, #79 Todd Bertuzzi and of course #78 – The crazed Hockey Parent). The commentator argued that hockey is unimportant and that most Canadians could care less.

Obviously I beg to differ.

Up until 1994, lacrosse was Canada’s official national sport. That changed when lacrosse became Canada’s official summer sport and hockey Canada’s official winter sport. We can argue semantics but more Canadians than not would agree that hockey is our sport. More than 750,000 Canadian children play organized hockey. Most dream of making it to the NHL and they follow the sport religiously. So do their parents. There was a good reason CBC didn’t want to lose Hockey Night in Canada. It’s a cash cow with millions of Canadians tuning in. While perhaps of little significance in the cosmic realm, hockey is still part of our national identity.

That brings us to NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman.

Bettman has the dubious distinction of being one of two Americans on this list (the other is Judge Thomas Kolbert at #80).

Bettman came in as Commissioner in 1993 with a goal to try to sell hockey to the U.S. Since then, the NHL lost almost $2 billion dollars over ten years. Four franchises went bankrupt and two of our Canadian teams packed it in and moved to the United States. The Winnipeg Jets headed to Phoenix and the Quebec Nordiques to Colorado. Calgary and Edmonton were even said to be on Bettman’s wish list of teams to move south although they’ve managed to remain viable and so far out of his reach.

Bettman locked out the NHL players twice. Once in 1994-95 which saw the schedule reduced to 48 games and then again in 2004-2005 when the entire season was cancelled. That was the first time the Stanley Cup has not been awarded since 1919 when a flu outbreak forced the cancellation of the Stanley Cup Final.

And what was the deal with the blue glowing puck with the orange comet tail Bettman approved for Fox Sports? There’s good reason that idea didn’t last long.

The NHL is the dream of nearly every kid playing hockey in Canada. Naturally only a few make it, but messing with that dream is tantamount to treason among hockey fans in a nation where hockey reigns supreme. In that regard, Gary Bettman is screwing up Canada by continuing to find ways to mess the NHL up.

#43 – Naomi Klein

There’s a lot of talk about people who hate their country. I don’t know how often that is true but people like Naomi Klein certainly make me wonder.

Born in Montreal, Quebec, the far-left Klein has made a pretty successful career of (ironically) selling all that is wrong with Canada and the United States and pretty much anywhere else capitalism reigns supreme.

Her book “No Logo” has become the manifesto for hoards of young people (mostly university students) who are against so called globalization which in this case means mostly big business. It was released about a month after the World Trade Organization riots in Seattle in 1999 and Klein has been worshiped by anarchists ever since.

Don’t get me wrong, Klein has some good points in her book worth pondering such as sweatshops in third world countries (that stuff you buy at dollar stores and a lot of department stores are cheap for a reason).

But Klein isn’t just trying to raise awareness so that corporations ensure they’re being ethical in their business practices. She wants them gone from the landscape and if it takes anarchy to do that…well, so be it.

In recent year's Klein has gone beyond just trying to remove capitalism; she’s waded into the political arena as well.

Why are some fascist Islamics resorting to terrorism? Well according to Klein, that’s your fault because you my western hemisphere friend are a racist. If you were less racist, Al-Qaeda would embrace your western ways in Klein’s mind. Uh-huh.

Klein is also against the war in the Middle East but then again so are a lot of people. What's different about Klein is that she attempted to encourage people to riot in New York City during the 2004 Republican National Convention (fortunately she was unsuccessful). "As I write this, days before the Republican convention, the plan for the demonstration seems to be to express general outrage about Iraq, to say 'no to war' and 'no to the Bush agenda.' This is an important message, but it's not enough, " wrote Klein. "There is only one chance for Americans to express their wholehearted rejection of the ongoing war on Iraq: in the streets outside the Republican National Convention. It's time to bring Najaf to New York." (Najaf is a city in Iraq where Islamic terrorists have been trained. Sounds lovely doesn't it).

So how would Klein “fix” North America?

"An amalgam of environmentalism, anti-capitalism, anarchy and the kitchen sink." (I suppose as long as that kitchen sink didn’t come from a major corporation. )

It would be far easier for Klein to have the country she craves by moving to a communist or socialist nation. She has so much sympathy for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda perhaps a move to one of those nations might even be in order. What she seems to forget is that in those countries she wouldn’t have the freedom to even walk outside without a man or call for anarchy as she does now. Maybe North America isn't so bad after all, eh Naomi?

#44 - Winston Blackmore

When you take a social institution like marriage and begin tinkering with it, as the courts have already done in Canada, be prepared for more than you might have bargained for.

Meet the next step. Winston Blackmore.

Tucked away in the Creston Valley of British Columbia is the tiny community of Bountiful led by Bishop Winston Blackmore. Polygamy is the name of the game in Bountiful. Blackmore himself admittedly has more than 20 wives and more than 100 children. Perhaps even more concerning is the age of some of the girls being married in Bountiful. 14 or 15 year olds who often are impregnated almost immediately following their wedding.

Many polygamists keep a low profile, but not so with Winston Blackmore. He’s pushing it and would like nothing more than polygamy to be common and accepted throughout Canada.

Blackmore is counting on the Charter of Rights and Freedom to make that happen. As Blackmore told CBC a few years ago, “You certainly ought to be able to understand the Charters allowance for freedom of religion. And you certainly ought to be able to understand that we all have the right to freely live so long as we honour the code of decency which allows that everybody mind their own business.”

Yep, that’s a common one. It only affects me so why should anyone else care what I do? Well that’s simple. Anyone who thinks that making such changes to the very fabric of families only affects certain individuals has their heads in the sand. Even if you agree with polygamy, there has to be recognition that making it not only legal, but endorsed and promoted by government has an impact on society. Since Blackmore is on this list, I obviously argue that impact would be a negative one.

Polygamy is illegal in Canada but Blackmore has been able to flip off the legal system so far. Authorities are turning a blind eye to what’s going on in Bountiful. I suspect they know that if charges were laid, our liberal, lenient court system would further change marriage and any investigation would only result in another major shift in marriage and Blackmore being let off the hook.

A major reason for marriage is to give children a stable home to grow up in. How well can a father know more than a 100 children on a personal level? More than 20 wives? That’s not love. The women in a community like Bountiful are merely objects, trophies. This is a society where the man with the most wives has the most power and multiple wives help you get into a higher realm of heaven. (Why feminist groups aren’t up in arms about this daily, I don't know.)

But that’s the type of Canada Winston Blackmore wants and make no mistake, he can’t wait to be criminally charged and set the stage for a major shift that will leave marriage as we know it even more unrecognizable and with little meaning.

#45 – Brian Mulroney

Even after 15 years of being out of office, there aren’t too many corners in this country that former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s name is spoken of positively.

And who can blame them?

The Mulroney negotiated Meech Lake accord to try and bring Quebec into the Constitution failed miserably. It’s failure resulted in Lucien Bouchard leaving the Progressive Conservatives and forming the seperatist Bloc Quebécois, a political party with the sole goal of breaking the country up and they’re still at it today.

The Reform Party was also spawned during Mulroney’s Reign, also a largely regional party with a prime focus on Western Canada and further splitting the vote for years to come.

Mulroney brought in the hated 7% GST. Polls at the time had 80% of Canadians disagreeing with the tax. Ironically today a Conservative government has reduced it and promises to reduce it further while the Liberals who said they’d eliminate it are defending it tooth and nail. (More on that later here at 101)

In an attempt to achieve a zero rate of inflation, Mulroney allowed the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates, prolonging the recession, making mortgages for many unaffordable and causing many to lose their jobs.

He finally said he would step down as leader but he did it too late. The PC’s were decimated keeping just two seats after the 1993 election. Today the Progressive Conservative party as it was no longer exists.

If all that wasn’t bad enough, for years he foolishly let Peter Newman tape conversations with him over the years and came across looking well…foolish when Newman published a book about it. To make things worse we were subjected to a CBC special about it. Ugh.

For you die-hard Conservatives out there who still love the guy, at least think about this. Due to Mulroney, Canada had a Liberal government for almost 13 years. Based on that and everything else, certainly we can get some unanimous agreement that Brian Mulroney screwed this country up.

#46 – Justice Gerald Jewers

There’s a reason talk of minimum sentences for horrific crimes and tougher crime legislation is getting a lot of positive response from the general public. People by and large are sick of stories like the following.

In Winnipeg, a couple named Terry Ladouceur and Lynette Traverse ran what police called a “House of Horrors”, luring young girls in and then using them as sex slaves in some of the most horrific ways imaginable.

Last year, a Crown Prosecutor called the couple “evil incarnate” and wanted up to 18 years for Ladouceur and eight years for Traverse.

Manitoba Justice Gerald Jewers instead sentenced Ladouceur to 7 years in addition to two years served and Traverse walked away a free woman as she was sentenced to time served.

Ladouceur's conduct throughout his pre-trial custody and trial was even described by Jewers as "appalling". Ladouceur would make obscene gestures at the families of the victims, mutter comments and smile and laugh during emotional testimony. During the trial, Ladouceur wrote a letter to Traverse, which was intercepted by jail officials, containing a plan to try to manipulate the justice system to give them a lighter sentence.

Although his plan didn’t work, Ladouceur didn’t need it anyway, thanks to Judge Gerald Jewers.

The family members of the victims broke down when the lenient sentence was read and Ladouceur smiled as he was led away knowing he had been handed a slap on the wrist. Manitoba Tory justice critic Kelvin Goertzen said it well, "If the courts won't protect our children, who will they protect?"

What’s really concerning is that in our justice system precedence can mean everything. Next time (and Lord help us there will be a next time) it will be difficult to justify giving a sentence more than one these two psychos received.

We’re not talking about some loony 485 year sentence being handed out here. We’re talking about at least coming close to what the law says you can hand out to the most violent offenders. It doesn’t get much worse than what these two did to these young innocent girls, scarring them for lives.

I hope Justice Jewers can sleep soundly at night. I’m sure Terry Ladouceur and Lynette Traverse do knowing this is how the Justice System deals with their heinous crimes. Unfortunately their victims will live out their nightmares forever made worse by knowing a Judge freed one of their tormentors and ensured another one will be free in a short time.

#47 – Alexandre (Sacha) Trudeau

First off let me end a little bit of suspense. Those of you clamouring for Justin Trudeau to be on this list are going to be disappointed. He isn’t here. While I have strong suspicions that he would qualify in the years to come, he just hasn’t done anything yet to justify putting him on this list. His brother Alexandre though is a different story.

Alexandre may not have quite the high profile brother Justin has but when he speaks people still listen. If he wanted to hold a news conference on anything, he could fill a room with journalists in half an hour merely on his name.

That’s fine, it’s what he has to say that is…concerning.

Sacha calls himself a journalist and I suppose he is but he's a poor one. Anyone can be a journalist just by saying they are and young Mr. Trudeau has no problem finding a vehicle to carry his messages.

Those messages however are not just full of far-left wing bias, they’re intellectually dishonest as well.

Last year Trudeau virtually fawned over Cuban dictator Fidel Castro in an essay. A whole essay about Castro where Trudeau refers to him as a Superman but leaves out the little details like, oh you know, the torture of citizens, murder, you know... little details that just don't look so nice.

Sacha actually compares Castro to his father, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Ouch! "Indeed, like my father, in private, Fidel is not a politician. He is more in the vein of a great adventurer or a great scientific mind. Fidel doesn't really do politics. He is a revolutionary.”

Sacha goes on, "But Castro's leadership can be something of a burden, too. They do occasionally complain, often as an adolescent might complain about a too strict and demanding father.” (yeah if your dad would kill or torture you if you look at him the wrong way.)

But Trudeau's love for communist dictators is nothing compared to his fawning over known terrorists.

In 2004, Monsieur Trudeau, put together a documentary called "The Fence" which ran on CTV's W-5. The story profiled Palestinian terrorist Zakariah Zubeidi and WOW, poor innocent Mr. Zubeidi, at least if you were to believe Trudeau. What Trudeau fails to tell the audience is that Zubeidi targets civilians through suicide bombings and whatever other means he can think of. He’s a man who wants to instill terror in people by murdering innocents but Trudeau doesn’t think that little fact is important.

But in Trudeau’s world apparently just because you target and kill innocents to instill terror well, hey that doesn’t mean you’re a terrorist. "Granted, the term 'terrorist' has been sorely misused over the years, but in essence it usually means someone who uses violence or the threat of violence against civilians to try to influence political realities when other means of change are available."

Yep in Trudeau's mind, if there isn’t anything else, than violence against civilians is not terrorism.

Defending communist dictators and terrorists who purposely target civilians? If you’re sitting there scratching your head wondering what’s wrong with that then you must be Alexandre Trudeau.

#48 – Heather Reisman

Heather Reisman is the President and CEO of Indigo Books. If you’ve ever been into a Chapters, Indigo or Coles, you probably have seen shelves with books and signs which say "Heather’s Picks". That would be her.

It’s a massive company and THE powerhouse when it comes to bookstores in Canada. They can make or break a book and suffice it to say a large percentage of the reading material in this country is purchased from one of Reisman’s stores.

There’s strength in numbers and with that type of volume the Indigo chain has layed waste to a number of small bookstores. That’s unfortunate because I personally like the little bookstores but Indigo is out to make a buck so that’s their right.

There are however two problems.

1) While in the quest to build monster bookstores, Indigo has closed a number of smaller bookstores, not because they weren’t making profit but because they couldn’t make enough profit to keep Reisman satisfied. Take my province of New Brunswick. Several years ago in Bathurst, the Coles store was closed leaving the community without a bookstore at all. It made money but Reisman wanted more so instead of being a good corporate citizen (remember the store made a profit) she shut it down. Fortunately some local entrepreneurs opened a bookstore to serve their local citizens and they’re still in business today. They wouldn’t be if they weren’t making money. This same scenario played out in a number of communities across the country although not every community was fortunate like Bathurst to find a replacement.

2) Indigo gets their books in bulk. Unlike the little stores which may receive a few copies of a book, Indigo receives a tonne. Here’s the problem. If those books aren’t sold, they go back to the publisher for a full refund and Indigo sends back tonnes of books. If you’re a little publisher, that’s a major problem when your inventory is tied up. This hasn’t been good for the book publishing industry (at least the little guy) .

But that’s business. They’re factors in Reisman’s entry here at 101 but not the main one. She’s here because of what is becoming a trend for her, censorship.

Censorship is one slippery road. While I don’t believe in censorship, I do believe people need to be informed about what they buy. That’s part of the reason for this list. Take #64 – Nelly Furtado. She can make whatever music she wants and people can buy it but they should know what it is. If enough people agree it’s garbage, Furtado is out of business but that doesn’t mean she can’t sell it or at least try.

Heather Reisman has however engaged in not educating the public but censoring what they can buy.

In 2001, she removed Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf from Indigo stores. By no means am I advoctaing a book written by a murderous dictator and I can kind of understand the reasoning but this started the old slippery slope for Reisman to go further down the censorship road. Last year she refused to sell copies of Harper’s magazine and the magazine Western Standard because they reprinted controversial cartoons with the prophet Mohammed which had ignited violent demonstrations in several countries.

I’m not crazy about cartoons which seem only meant to offend , althougb there never seems to be a problem with books which offend…oh let’s say…Christians, (hello DaVinci Code) but that doesn’t mean you start pulling stuff because someone gets offended. Sheesh, there would be nothing left on the shelves. Thus the problem when you stary cherry picking.

Reisman can run her business as she wants but when she pulls the only bookstore out of a little town even when it’s making her money and starts engaging in censorship, that’s turning a page which screws this country up.

#49 – Mark Wainberg

Mark Wainberg is a scientist and one of Canada’s leading researchers into AIDS. Anyone familiar with the disease knows it’s a devastating disease killing millions and infecting millions more particularly in Africa which has seen the brunt of the disease. It’s a global problem and requires a number of solutions to try to at least get a handle on it. It’s unfortunate that Mark Wainberg like so many others who say they want to rid the world of AIDS won’t utilize all solutions possible.

Last year, Wainberg was the co-chair of an International AIDS conference held in Toronto. You might remember it. It was the one that Prime Minister Stephen Harper didn’t attend because he had other commitments. Conference organizers suspected he didn’t want to go. I suspect they’re right. Given the attitude of those there, I can’t say I blame Harper. Wainberg along with many others there seemed only interested in bashing the Prime Minister, not having a reasonable discussion.

That’s easy to tell with what they did to Bill Gates who has in fact poured millions into AIDS research. Remember, Gates is one of the best friends in the world to AIDS research, although given the initial reaction by the crowd at the conference, you wouldn't know it.

During Gates' opening remarks, the room erupted into a chorus of boos. What brought this dissent against a man who has given arguably so much to the cause of these people? Gates made the carnal sin among this crowd of “suggesting” that abstinence and sexual fidelity could be possible solutions to AIDS. Not the be all and end all, merely “possible” solutions and he got BOOED. When latex, drugs, and better acceptance of prostitution and hard drug use were raised by speakers, the room erupted into overwhelming applause every time while abstinence and fidelity (the few token times it was mentioned) was booed every time. Did the co-chair, Mark Wainberg get up and at least raise this discrepancy with the crowd and ask for respect for all points of view since after all this is a worldwide epidemic known to be caused by having sex with an infected partner, sharing infected needles or an infected mother passing it to her baby in utero? Nope, he nodded in agreement with the crowd when they booed and when they cheered.

As blogger Mark Peters noted at the time, the message sent out from this crowd was, “Don't ask me to stop using drugs, sharing needles, bareback riding, sleeping around, swinging, coupling ecstacy and viagra for hours of frenzied unprotected sex, having anonymous sex with multiple partners, shaking and baking heroine in the back alley, and the like. Just give me the damn drugs already so that I can continue to pleasure myself while not suffering any consequences...stop your endless moralizing and start giving me money and cheap drugs, and BY GOD don't throw any speed bumps into my hedonistic highway.”

Maybe a little blunt, but that was the clear message sent out from this conference. A multi-pronged problem like AIDS requires a multi-pronged solution and to completely discount the one thing that in fact does work seems…irresponsible to say the least.

But gee, Mark Wainberg is a smart guy. He must know that abstinence and fidelity are at least tools which can be used in the arsenal to fight AIDS, right? “Anyone who would articulate that being faithful is the solution to this problem is clearly putting their heads in the sand,” said Wainberg.

Well, someone’s got their head in the sand when the one sure thing isn’t given any consideration…at all. I wish Wainberg all the best in finding a cure. It is a terrible disease. It’s too bad that in the meantime, millions will die and so many folks like Wainberg won’t even admit that the right to do whatever you want sometimes comes with consequences, and advocating personal responsibility in an effort to save lives may not be such a bad option… to at least consider.

#50 – Garth Turner

Oh Garth, it didn’t have to be like this. You shouldn’t even be anywhere near this list. You were setting yourself up as the crusader of the downtrodden; standing up for what is right and staking out territory unseen by so many politicians…a politician with integrity.

…and then you threw it all away.

Turner was one of the most vocal people regarding politicians crossing the floor to join another party. His reasoning was sound. Sure, voters may have voted for their local candidate but just as likely is the fact that many voters base their choice on the political party that candidate is running for. If a politician decides to change parties for whatever reason, Turner believed that person should have to resign his/her seat and run under their new party’s banner in a by-election. He’s right and I couldn’t agree more, but when it came time for Turner to walk the talk, he weaseled out.

Last year, the Conservative caucus suspended Turner and while the reasons have never been made official, it’s safe to say there was some kind of falling out between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Turner. Turner then began to sit as an Independent and although rumours swirled that he might become the Green Party’s first MP, he ended up eventually joining the Liberals.

I always found it odd that an MP who advocated so strongly for things like income splitting would join a party deadset against such notions, but he’s free to join whatever party he wants;

After the voters say they’re okay with it.

Or at least that’s what Turner always said.

When David Emerson crossed the floor from the Liberals to join the Conservatives, Turner denounced Emerson saying, “Anyone who crosses the floor ultimately should go back to the people for ratification and I stick by it and hopefully in this case that will happen."

But when Turner joined the Liberals, he said sure he’d run in a by-election IF Stephen Harper called it and IF other MP’s who had crossed the floor but not faced the voters resigned and ran in by-elections as well.

I don’t recall Turner making conditions when he called on other MP’s to have to go to the voters if they switched parties. Oh that’s right, he didn’t.

It’s politicians like Turner who don’t do what they say they’ll do that give politicians a bad name. Is it any wonder so many people don’t trust politicians when people like Garth Turner who claim to have integrity are then given the chance to prove it and fail to walk the talk?

Halftime

As we’re at the half-way point here at 101 people who are screwing up Canada, it seemed like a good time for some frequently asked questions about this project, so here goes.

Q : Who came up with the idea for this blog?
A : 101 pays homage to the book by American journalist Bernard Goldberg called 100 people who are screwing up America. The genesis of the idea rests with him. I wrote 10 people who are screwing up New Brunswick at my regular blog, Spink About It last summer. It proved popular so I expanded it to include the entire country.

Q : Where did the names comes from?
A : Last August this blog went up and I asked people to submit names and their reasons why they thought their nominees should be on the list. People submitted names through the blog and sent me e-mails. Ultimately this is my list and I had to agree with the names and reasons given. Some people presented pretty compelling cases and people I didn’t think would end up here did while others I was sure would didn’t.

Q : You have a lot of folks with liberal ideals compared to those with conservative ones?
A : Sure do. I’m a right of centre guy and tend to think more far-left folks are doing things that screw this country up. However that doesn’t let anyone off the hook. Right-winged folks are on the list too. If you’re screwing this country up, get ready to be called on it regardless of ideology.

Q : I think you have it wrong and I like some of these people.
A : Great! But this isn’t a poll, it’s my opinion. Feel free to disagree or agree with the choices in the comments section but if you want a list you agree with create your own. It would be tough to find two people who agree with a list of 101 people and their order.

Q : How often does a new name go up?
A : Usually every other day but sometimes it’s every day and sometimes longer. It all depends on when I have the time to put up a posting.

Q : Are you looking for more nominees? I have a few ideas.
A : No, the names were chosen before the list began in December. The order has been fiddled with mildly along the way but the names are in place. With 50 more to go, your choice may end up here anyway so stay tuned.

Q : I would like to comment. Do I need an account?
A : No, you can tick the anonymous box if you like but my preference would be for you to pick a nickname however I leave that up to you. The only rules are, no profanity, keep it on topic, no spam and no rudeness to other commentators. Those types of comments are generally deleted. A simple, I agree or disagree with the choice because… gets your point across very well. If you have a problem with it, you can e-mail me (check the blogger profile) and present your case. Otherwise it’s my blog so I make the rules.

Q : I have a blog and would like to promote 101 people who are screwing up Canada.
A : Great, several people already have. There are banners and buttons for your website or blog available HERE. A link is also always available at the top of the sidebar. Feel free to use them wherever you see fit.

That’s it gang. Thanks for spreading the word. 101 has so far been featured on CBC Radio and 940AM Montreal as well as several blogs and message boards across the country. It continues to grow in popularity each week and that’s due to YOU! Enjoy the top 50!

#51 – Mario Charlebois

WARNING to by-law enforcement officers throughout Canada! If a car comes into your community, illegally parks and you find out it belongs to a man named Mario Charlebois, DO NOT give him a ticket. Just let it go. He’s not worth the ensuing headache.

Charlebois is a Moncton, New Brunswick businessman who appears to be on a crusade to set back English and French relations 150 years. He tries to portray himself as language rights activist but in the end, his goal is hardly a noble one. His crusades aren’t about language rights at all. They’re all about Mario Charlebois.

Several years ago, Charlebois owned a number of apartments in Moncton. Building inspectors had several concerns about the quality of his buildings and told him he had broken some of the city’s bylaws. He went looking for a way out of making sure he followed the law or paid a fine, and he found it. The bylaws were all in English. Charlebois grabbed the issue by the horns crying discrimination and equality when it comes to language rights, and he won big-time. His crusade eventually forced a number of other cash-strapped New Brunswick municipalities to start translating bylaws even where it didn’t make economic or common sense...and it gets worse.

Charlebois decided to take a trip to Saint John and Fredericton but he wasn’t checking out the tourist sites. He went purposely looking to receive English only parking tickets and he found them, which enabled him to cry discrimination (never mind that he purposely broke the law). French community leaders in Saint John called Charlebois’ crusade “divisive” and added that he was “inflaming language tensions where none exist”. I suspect the French speaking people in a predominantly Anglophone community like Saint John would know if language rights were an issue.

Now let’s be clear, New Brunswick is officially bilingual, about 70% Anglophone and 30% Francophone (6% unilingual French, well over 50% unilingual English) and there needs to be equal access to service. However that doesn’t mean every single person in the Province has to be bilingual, otherwise the spirit of bilingualism becomes a moot point. None of Charlebois’ action seemed to be about making things better for his fellow Francophones anyway. It was either to feed his massive ego or to get around the law.

The latest case has Charlebois fighting a speeding ticket his son received last year in Dieppe, New Brunswick. According to media reports, the police officer spoke to Charlebois’ son in French and issued the ticket in French…but the officer was an Anglophone. Take that as you will. As one Francophone put it in an interview to a reporter, if Charlebois really wanted to help the French people he would be happy that his son was ticketed before he ran over a Francophone.

Back when I wrote 10 people who are screwing up New Brunswick at Spink About It last July (the predecessor to 101), Mario Charlebois topped the list and settles in nicely here at 101 in the middle of the pack at 51.

#52 - Tomasz Winnicki

Way too often in our society the word racist gets tossed around to describe someone who questions the actions of someone who happens to be a visible minority. It’s called playing the race card and it’s a cheap ploy to try and end debate on an issue. It works because calling someone a racist is a strong, strong word…and it should be, but it needs to be used properly…on people like Tomasz Winnicki.

Winnicki calls London, Ontario home these days and calling him a white supremacist isn’t going too far. To call what this guy spews out hate speech is probably being too kind. He has been the subject of several complaints before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Last year he was sentenced to nine months in prison for violating a court injunction which was meant to stop him from posting hate speech on the Internet.

Winnicki was writing numerous posts on a site based in the United States quite literally run by Nazi wannabes. Winnicki was noted for his angry tone posts which were almost always laced with profanity and racial slurs. He’s not alone. The stuff posted on the site by others of his ilk is… incredulous. No one’s off limit (unless you’re white) but if you’re white and call them on it then you too are a target because in their mind you’re a traitor to your own kind.

Winnicki’s supporters say that his right to free speech has been violated. I’m a big supporter of free speech. For one thing allowing people to spew whatever they want lets you know where the nuts in society are lurking, but when you’re advocating and suggesting violence against others, that’s not free speech, that's a threat.

One interesting foot-note in this is that even Winnicki isn’t spared this type of despicable behaviour. When he used a Chinese-Canadian lawyer to defend him, his fellow white supremacists started writing hateful stuff about Winnicki on the Internet. It's true what they say, what goes around comes around.

#53- Jean Daniel Lafond

You just have to feel a bit sorry for Michaëlle Jean.

Our Governor General has weathered enough controversy in her own right but that pales in comparison to her husband, “His Excellency” Jean Daniel Lafond.

You just have to wonder about a guy who’s very loyalties to Canada constantly are questioned.

Right after Jean was chosen to be the next G-G, the questions began from members of parliament, and even some premiers about Lafond (and in fact Jean at the time) on whether they supported a united Canada. Then Prime Minister Paul Martin said yes they did and the couple confirmed Martin’s assertions (eventually) but with Lafond, one still has to wonder.

In his book, La manière nègre (The Black Way), he wrote, "So, a sovereign Quebec? An independent Quebec? Yes, and I applaud with both hands."

In a 2005 interview with Radio-Canada, he recanted a bit, saying he fought for the "cultural independence" of Quebec, but that was it. However he also said he was a Quebecois before he was a Canadian. Hmmm, not exactly a ringing endorsement for “I Am Canadian” is it?

That aside, you still have to wonder what’s going on in Lafond’s head.

In Lafond's 2006 film "American Fugitive:The Truth About Hassan", and the accompanying book he co-authoured with Fred A. Reed called, “Conversations in Tehran”, Lafond calls David Belfield a, “passionate, outspoken seeker after truth.” Belfield was an American who converted to radical Islam and in 1980 shot a former Iranian Diplomat and then fled the United States. The man Lafond fawns over in his book says he has “no problem” with the 9/11 attacks but he would have picked the “White House” as a target. Delightful.

There are lots of people in this country and in fact around the world who like to bash America for just about everything. That’s their opinion and that criticism can even be legitimate sometimes. However cozying up to terrorists and terrorist sympathizers is unacceptable particularly when you're in a role (by marriage or not) like the Governor General’s office.

#54 – Wendy Cukier

I’ve never owned a gun, I don’t own a gun and I don’t want a gun but I do know the Canadian Firearms Registry has been one big boondoggle costing Canadian taxpayers BILLIONS and Wendy Cukier wants to keep shoveling money into it.

The Ryerson University Professor is the President and co-founder of the Coalition for Gun Control and on the Board of the International Action Network on Small Arms.

Her involvement in gun control certainly appeared to have started with good intentions. Following Marc Lepine’s shooting rampage in 1989 at École Polytechnique in Montreal, Cukier became a crusader against guns.

Her efforts however have resulted in little tangible except a massive costs to taxpayers for the Firearms Registry, money which arguably could have been used to actually catch criminals.

Last year when Sharon Gregson, a British Columbia mother of four and school board trustee who also happens to have a handgun permit in the state of Utah spoke publicly that she thought Canadians should reconsider their stand on handgun ownership, Cukier went…well nuts.

Gregson mused on a radio program that she thought it should be easier to carry a concealed gun, especially for women who feel threatened. She suggested that the outcome for Lepine’s victims might have been different if one of them had been packing heat.

Not sure if I agree but an interesting point and worthy of debate unless of course you're Wendy Cukier.

Opposing point of views don’t get debated with Ms. Cukier, they get trashed. "It's an absurd comment,” said Cukier about Gregson. “It's completely contrary to Canadian traditions. It has no basis in fact, and for someone who is associated with schools to be making those comments is particularly alarming, especially a woman."

Especially a woman? Okay coming up at 101 we’re going to get into this odd groupthink that to be a woman you have to think a certain way or you’re betraying your gender but that’s for another day.

The bottom line is that there are lots of facts Ms. Cukier conveniently dismisses such as…

…the use of so called longarm guns in crimes began dropping BEFORE the registry came into effect. Today, handguns account for 2/3 of firearm homicides, up from ½ in the 90’s and 1/3 before that.

…of all the handguns used to commit homicide that were recovered by police since 1997, 72 per cent were not registered.

…gang related homicides are twice as likely to involve firearms as those not involving gangs. Rest assured, the gang members aren’t registering their weapons of choice.

Then there’s the Auditor General’s report.

The report questioned the effectiveness of the gun registry, and if it even improves public safety. The report said, “The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms."

The report also showed that 86% of firearms used in homicides are unregistered and 80% of the murderers were unlicenced firearm owners making the gun registry well virtually useless.

If criminals would obey the law, then perhaps Cukier’s strategies would work but well, they don’t, that’s why they’re criminals.

Ms. Cukier is pushing a certain agenda and that’s fine, she is entitled to her opinion. However for Cukier there is no other opinion on this issue worth hearing…and there are facts Canadians should be aware of and which should be presented in a fair, open debate without being called “contrary to Canadian traditions” (whatever that means), “absurd” or that a woman shouldn’t say it.

There’s compelling evidence to the old adage that when you outlaw guns only the outlaws have guns. After Britain outlawed handguns in 1997, the criminal use of handguns shot up 40% in 3 years and has continued to climb ever since. Don’t bother telling Wendy Cukier that though, because well…it’s apparently not Canadian to do so.

#55 - Libby Davies

Given the opportunity there is little doubt Vancouver East MP Libby Davies would transform this country into something unrecognizable…

..and that’s not a good thing.

Just be glad that Davies is a member of the NDP and the chance of the NDP forming the government is about as likely as David Suzuki buying a hummer that runs on whale blubber.

However, Davies if given her druthers would like to….

…legalize the soliciting of prostitution but make sure that girls under 18 (I’ll assume that goes for boys too) are not allowed into prostitution. Um, that’s against the law now Libby and the criminals are breaking it now. No fear though, once it’s decriminalized Davies would set up government programs to help women get off the streets, kind of like how the government collects oodles of taxes through liquor, cigarettes and gambling and then has a bunch of programs to tell you not to smoke, drink or gamble. Those mixed messages work really well.

Davies is also a major supporter of drug users having safe injection sites. One in Vancouver runs taxpayers about half a million a year. Davies would like to see many, many more open across the country. The theory goes these people are killing themselves anyway, so we might as well make it as safe as possible. It’s touted under the term “harm reduction” which at first sounds pretty good until you realize, wait a minute, this stuff is still harmful. The government now is just helping these people kill themselves more slowly. How about sinking that money into addiction services which actually work at getting people off drugs and are constantly saying they’re underfunded? At least that’s actually trying to help people change their lives instead of keeping them in the same pattern.

Then there’s childcare.

The NDP may say they’re standing up for working families but those families better be working 9-5 in an urban centre and both parents had better work.

Libby Davies has been one of the most vocal against anything that means a mom or dad could stay at home with their young children, shift workers who might pay a relative to look after the kids or daycares which are for profit.

Take income splitting. According to Davies, “To allow significant income splitting across the board, for seniors is one thing but to allow it across the board it would be a serious erosion of public funding for things that are critically needed, whether its education or childcare program. I think it would undermine women who are in the work force and treating people as individuals."

Oh…kay. So spending millions to make sure drug users have a safe place to do their drugs and legalizing the soliciting of prostitution and then creating a whole other level of bureaucracy to help women get out of prostitution which would then of course be okay by society is fine, but giving families a financial option to stay at home with their children is too expensive?

How about this? Instead of trying to normalize problems like drugs and prostitution because they’re difficult to tackle, let’s continue to try to help those people who want the help with programs to get them off drugs and off the streets. You can’t force someone to obey the law but condoning destructive behaviour, particularly with a government sanctioned program behind it is counter-productive at best. Libby Davies though wants to give everyone a big warm teddy bear hug and tell them no matter what they do, even if its killing them, its okay, but let's make you comfortable while you're doing it. I'm with Davies on helping these people but condoning the behaviour which got them to this stage only screws Canada up.

#56 – Ben Johnson

It ranks up there as one of the saddest days for Canadian pride. For years before and unfortunately often still today, Canada’s fourth place finishes at the Olympics are a running joke. Winter Games generally are our sports and Summer Games...well, not so much, so when Ben Johnson took the Gold medal at the Summer Olympics in Seoul, Korea in 1988 in the 100 meter dash, we were mesmerized.

For about two days.

It turns out Johnson was using steroids, and he was disqualified. His Gold Medal was stripped from him and he became the running joke as comedians nicknamed him “Ban” Johnson. Canada and unfortunately by association, our other Olympians, became a target of ridicule.

Johnson actually made it worse denying at first that he had taken performance enhancing drugs and then eventually came clean since, well, duh, it was obvious.

Johnson ended up not only losing his Gold Medal but his 1987 world record was also revoked and he was suspended from the sport for life. The suspension was lifted in 1991, because Johnson has tested drug free for 2½ years but that didn’t last. In 1993, Johnson tested positive for steroid use after a Montreal meet and received another life suspension.

Every time you think this sorry Canadian saga is behind us, Johnson pops up again. Just last year Johnson was again denying any guilt, this time blaming sabotage for him losing the Gold Medal. “People can put things in your food and drinks to sabotage you, like they did to me in Seoul in 1988,” said Johnson. “I'm not a cheat - I do what I am supposed to do to win.”

Although two months later, there’s Ben Johnson peddling an energy drink called, "Cheetah Power Surge". In the ad Johnson is asked, "Ben, when you run, do you Cheetah?". "Absolutely," says Johnson. "I Cheetah all the time." Sure its an ad and meant in jest but if I’m actually trying to convince people I’m not a cheat, well c’mon.

A sad chapter in Canadian history that every so often Johnson seems to keep popping up to remind us of. Every time he does, it’s a reminder what he did to screw up Canada.

#57 – Michael Sabia

These days Michael Sabia is the CEO of Bell Canada. It’s a big job. BCE Stock is the most widely held in Canada and millions of people receive their phone service, Internet, cell phones, satellite TV, television stations, newspaper, etc. from Bell.

Those customers also pay a handsome price for Bell’s products.

Let’s just look at Bell ExpressVu. At the end of 2000, a basic programming package would run you $8.95 a month. As of February 1, 2007, it is now $31.00 a month. That’s a 289% price increase in 6 years. Just a wee bit more than the cost of inflation. Sure there are a few more channels to be had, but mostly BCE is blowing smoke when customers ask why the increases have been so exorbiant. Other Bell services (short of long distance) have also seen lots of increases over the same time although admittedley not quite as blatant as ExpressVu.

Hey but those hikes are needed, to make sure Bell still exists right?

After all, it was a year ago that BCE announced it would be laying off 3-4000 employees by the end of the year. Those rising customer rates and job cuts were needed to keep BCE competitive and profitable, so the company said.

But less than 3 months after announcing the layoffs, BCE announced that CEO Michael Sabia would receive a 555% pay increase. A salary increase from $1.21 million a year to $6.71 million a year. *cough*

I have no problem with the big guys making money and lots of it, but if you’re asking your customers to swallow big rate hikes and your employees to lose their jobs for the betterment of the company, well…lead by example. A 555% raise isn’t leading by example, it’s corporate greed.

Oh and if that’s not enough for you, Sabia was also the Director-General of Tax Policy in the Department of Finance when the GST was brought in in the early 90’s. He may not have driven it but he was one of the key architects behind the political scene. If you’re wondering why he’s on this list, come back after the next time you pay GST/HST or your Bell bill and then ask again.

#58 – Edward Greenspan

If I’m ever guilty as sin of a crime, I’m calling Edward Greenspan. It seems every guilty as sin criminal flocks to him. The more high profile the case the better for this Toronto criminal lawyer.

A few of the high profile cases Greenspan has been involved in are;

Garth Drabinsky for a whole bunch of fraud charges adding up to half a billion dollars in Canada alone;

Steven Williams who blatantly violated a publication ban to write about the horrors of the Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka case;

Michael Rose, a member of the Hells Angels in Quebec charged with seven counts of murder;

Robert Latimer who killed his disabled daughter;

…and the current case involving Conrad Black.

Look, everyone deserves a fair trial and if they’re innocent, I’m glad there are people like Greenspan who are willing to defend them. If guilty, they should receive no more or less a punishment than they deserve for that particular crime.

Greenspan however is a showman. He’s happy to do media interviews about the cases he’s involved in ad nauseum and explain why his client is in fact innocent or at the very least justified in their actions. The media eats it up because often Greenspan may be the only one talking about the case and he is almost always accomodating. Saying those things is fine in the courtroom. That’s to be expected. It’s not fine when he shows up on television saying the same things. That only serves to cause more hardship for those who are victims of the crimes his clients are accused of.

The victims have been tortured enough without having to relive it every time they open a paper, turn on the radio or watch the TV. There’s enough of that already without Edward Greenspan adding to the mix.

#59 – Eric Lindros

Every year millions of kids hit hockey rinks honing their skills and hoping that with that skill and some luck they might make the NHL. The odds aren’t good.

But for the best the NHL will come knocking down your door.

Eric Lindros is one of those players. As a teenager in the late 80’s and early 90’s his talent was obvious. He was a big power-forward who dominated everyone else who was on the ice. Clearly he was headed to the NHL.

Eventually.

Eric Lindros' parents, Bonnie and Carl knew he was great, and let’s make the safe assumption that they wanted what was best for their son. However, early on they unfortunately taught him some lessons that he has carried throughout his career and that’s one of greed.

At 16, Lindros was drafted by the Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds of the Ontario Hockey League, a dream for most young hockey players but he refused to report because his parents wanted him playing closer to home. Lindros ended up playing with a junior team in Detroit until he was traded to Oshawa. He was just a kid so who can blame him but it set up a series of things to come.

In the 1990-91 season, the Quebec Nordiques finished in last place. To say they were terrible is being generous. They won just 16 of their games. The good news is that gave them first pick in the 1991 entry draft, the same draft which has one of the most sought after young players in years, Eric Lindros.

The Nordiques were told, don’t bother drafting young Eric because he wasn’t interested in playing for them. The Nordiques drafted him anyway. A last place team in a French market meant fewer endorsements, so Lindros refused to report instead going back to the OHL for a year. Unheard of at the time that a player would refuse to play for the NHL.

In June 1992, Eric Lindros was traded to the Philadelphia Flyers for six players, draft picks and $15 million US. It turned out to be a blessing in disguise for the Nordiques who quickly became a powerhouse before moving to Colorado in 1995.

In the fall of 2000, Eric Lindros demanded to be traded to Toronto. The Flyers GM, Bobby Clarke refused and Lindros sat out the entire 2000-2001 season. He was eventually traded to the New York Rangers and then the Toronto Maple Leafs and now plays for the Dallas Stars.

Lindros is a talented hockey player without a doubt, but the driving force from him and his dad Carl (also Lindros’ agent) always appeared to be greed. The Quebec deal always struck me as a poor way to behave and I’ve always wondered that if he had played by the rules like so many other NHL players and so many wannabe NHL players would love to have a chance to, if Canada wouldn’t still have an NHL team in Quebec? His attitude in 1991 was poor and that poor example set by him and what appears to be the motivator of greed continues to drive so many Crazed Hockey Parents (see #78) and that's just sad.

Lindros certainly isn’t alone in the egocentric world of professional sports but he’s one of the sport’s worst examples of how to behave. Fortunately there are bright lights such as Sidney Crosby and fans who feel that Lindros has flipped them off can take solace in this. The Colorado Avalanche have won two Stanley Cups since moving from Quebec thanks to some of the players who were part of the Lindros trade. Lindros has yet to win a Stanley Cup ring.

#60 – Valerie Scott

It’s the oldest profession in the book and if Valerie Scott has her way, you won’t have to search very hard to find a prostitute. Her goal is to have the whole thing decriminalized and out in the open.

Scott, who speaks for a loosely based coalition of prostitutes called the “Sex Professionals of Canada” says she’s worried about the high number of violence against prostitutes and the number of murders involving prostitutes. She uses the Robert Pickton saga most famously as an example of that violence.

At first blush, it sounds pretty good. Anything to stop women from being victims of violence is a good thing, right? It’s high-risk behaviour to say the least. Violence, pregnancy, STD’s galore, and a drug culture that is through the roof. So Scott must ultimately want to help prostitutes get on their feet and get out of the trade, right?

Not a chance. The sex trade pays way too well so she wants the government off their backs…no pun intended.

Scott wants prostitution to be a considered a legitimate career choice. Imagine career day at the local high school when the local pimp has to be given equal time or it would be considered against the Charter as he tries to sign up young women and young gay men (the #1 and #2 commodities of the sex trade) into the business.

There’s a real tendency in this country by some that when a problem seems insurmountable to simply normalize it instead of continuing to tackle it because it’s the right thing to do. That happened in the 70’s when governments decided gambling was a problem so they made it legal…for them, through lotteries. The current push by some of those looking to screw this country up is to allow marijuana and frankly every other illicit drug going into the open because, well, we haven’t stopped it so why even bother trying.

Some people would be very happy to see Canada become a North American Netherlands, sink further into moral relativism and do whatever you want and have society condone it at the same time with a rubber stamp. Even the Netherlands has had second thoughts about their, “do what you feel” attitude as the number of underage prostitutes in the country has exploded in the last ten years and there’s little which can be done to stop it. We’d be wise to not even go there. Let’s help the women (and men) involved in prostitution by getting them out of it, not condemning them to a life that no decent parent would wish on their child. Clearly, following Valerie Scott’s vision would only serve to screw this country up.

#61 – MP’s Gone Wild

A handful of times in this list, a single name just doesn’t cut it but a group of people still needs to be hauled on the carpet for well…screwing up this country. Since this is 101 people not 250 or 300 people screwing up this country, well that’s the way it has to be.

Take some of our "distinguished" Members of Parliament.

Our MP’s earn a base salary of around $150,000. Frankly I think they’re worth every penny, well maybe not the members of the Bloc Quèbecois since their raison d’être is to destroy Canada but I digress. I’ll deal with them later.

No, the MP's I'm referring to are the ones who when you tune them in in the House of Commons, they’re booing, hissing, making unnecessary noise, being rude or pretty much acting like children. Amateur night at your local bar is usually more classy.

Last week I was listening to CBC Radio and a clip of a Minister responding to a question. I could barely make out his answer given the noise from the opposition benches trying to shout him down. Disgraceful.

However, its not just the opposition benches that seem to be dealing with this malady.

No, take our poster child for #61, Quebec Conservative MP Daniel Petit telling someone on the opposition benches that they’re, ahem, #1 during question period.

Then there’s of course Peter MacKay’s (#98) dog incident.

And then there’s the non-stop heckling which is rampant. Take for example, Liberal MP John Cannis going at former Environment Minister Rona Ambrose about her…hair. C’mon there’s plenty of real ammo there. That’s all you got? This Canadian doesn’t care about Rona Ambrose’s hair. I care about the department she’s responsible for.

There are lots of other examples from every party and feel free to write yours in the comments.

This epidemic if you will is hardly new among politicians. This type of behaviour happens at provincial legislatures across this country and typically around the world. That doesn’t make it right. There needs to be decorum and respect and sometimes just silence in the House of Commons when someone is speaking. We have some good respectful MP’s but far too many get caught up in this game of acting like kids. Fair enough, you want to act like a kid, let’s treat you like one. Misbehave and it’s time to start fining these men and women or kick them out for the day or afternoon with a proverbial time-out and make sure its publicized across the stratosphere. They’ll learn quickly what the House of Commons is supposed to be for, doing the country’s business not engaging in ruffian behaviour. Start behaving gang and stop screwing this country up with your antics.

#62 - Martha Bailey

Martha Bailey is an Associate Professor at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario with the Faculty of Law. Her name is hardly a household one but you certainly know her work. Bailey has consistently been one of the architects of a plan to redefine marriage so much that it becomes absolutely meaningless.

At the beginning of last year, Bailey delivered a report requested from the former Liberal federal Government. The government had asked for reports on polygamy following their concerns that opening the door to same-sex marriage could lead to opening the door to…well, just about anything. Yeah I know, the Canadian Justice Minister at the time, Liberal Irwin Cotler said, “We don’t see any connection, I repeat, any connection between the issue of polygamy and the issue of same-sex marriage.” He talked a good game but given the request for the reports clearly he and his colleagues weren’t so sure.

Out of those four reports, one said no changes were required, two said more study was needed and a fourth suggested Canada throw caution to the wind and dive head first into polygamous marriage. The author of that report was Martha Bailey.

It shouldn’t come as any surprise. In 2004, Bailey published an article called Regulation of Cohabitation and Marriage in Canada”. She wrote that after the legalization of same-sex marriage, Canadians could then look at the possibility of abolishing marriage itself. Given that attitude is it any wonder Bailey wants polygamous marriage made the law of the land? If you can marry whoever and how many ever of whoever you like and get a quick and easy divorce (after you pay the lawyers of course which Bailey is one by the way) when you’re through with them like a commodity, then marriage means zero.

Martha Bailey at least is somewhat honest in her reports agreeing that opening one form of marriage is a slippery slope and that essentially everything must now go. The only difference is that she’s encouraging that slip and attempting to speed it up. Even Bailey recognizes in her reports that many same-sex marriage advocates actually wanted to “reform” marriage out of existence.
What Bailey omits from her arguments is the impact on children of changing what marriage has been in Canada since before confederation, and more often than not especially in polygamous situation, children are involved.

To say, what the hey, it doesn’t affect me and the kids will probably be fine is incredibly irresponsible, but the attitude comes as no surprise. Folks like Martha Bailey could care less about the children. They’re out to redefine this country into something that is completely unrecognizable and focused on adults' wants and desires regardless of any other impact. We should be able to have an honest discussion in this country about decisions like this that ultimately affect society as a whole. However once someone tries, they're labelled a bigot. There are good arguments that should be heard, I would argue, from both sides but that argument should take place. Just don't expect Martha Bailey to listen. She's quite content to go about her business largely unchallenged in the name of political correctness and change society drip by drip regardless of any potential consequences.

#63 – Tony Merchant

While it’s pretty common to refer to lawyers as bottom feeders, I don’t believe that to be true. For every one that is, there are nine who aren’t…well maybe seven but you get the point. Every profession has those who are problems and the law profession isn’t any different.

Exhibit A - Tony Merchant.

The Regina lawyer is loaded with a capital “L” and he’s about to get a whole lot richer, or at least he’s trying. I’m a capitalist and that’s okay. He can make as much money as he wants and if he’s successful, all the more power to him, but when it comes to tapping into taxpayer dollars, well you better prove you did the work.

Here’s the story.

Merchant's firm, Merchant Law Group, claims to represent about 10,000 former students of native residential schools. For years of abuse, the federal government is looking at offering in the neighbourhood of $2,000,000,000 (that’s billion) to the victims of that abuse. Merchant’s firm could receive $40-million dollars and maybe a whole lot more when the dust settles. A generous payday to say the least.

Maybe Merchant is worth every penny and maybe his firm did a lot of work on every one of those10,000 people’s files. Merchant says 50 -100 lawyers (depending on what media report you believe) worked on the file for 10 years. If he did the work, then pay the man.

Ottawa however is a little suspicious and wants to make sure that any money paid directly to Merchant is reasonable. Ottawa wants to verify two things. 1.) Was the work done and 2.) do the clients actually exist? After the sponsorship scandal, who can blame them? Those are two reasonable questions, no?

Apparently not according to Merchant. Verifying if work was done and if clients exist would violate client-solicitor privilege.

Huh?

When we’re talking about billions of dollars in taxpayer money going to people who have been abused, every penny imaginable should go to the victims. Lawyers who did work should be fairly compensated as well, but there does have to be proof they did work. That is hardly too much to ask.

Class action lawsuits are a huge deal in the United States and more often than not, the victims receive pennies while the lawyers buy private jets. Fortunately here in Canada someone is asking some pretty reasonable questions and demanding accountability, in this case from Merchant.

And with Merchant, the government has some pretty reasonable grounds to be cautious.

The Law Society of Saskatchewan has found Merchant guilty of conduct unbecoming a lawyer three times during the last 20 years. One of those times was for providing misleading information to…former residential school students.

Asking for proof of services provided before handing over a MASSIVE cheque is completely reasonable particularly when you and I are paying for it. If the work was done than simply prove it and write the man a cheque, otherwise Merchant doesn't deserve a single penny.

#64 - Nelly Furtado

Nelly Furtado’s debut album “Whoa Nelly” became a smash thanks to its lead off single, “I’m like a Bird.” Millions bought the CD, largely kids. Based on a pretty innocent song and a pretty wholesome look especially compared to the likes of Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera at the time, parents were more than happy to dish out the money for Furtado’s CD. It was a heck of a lot better than some of the other female artists who were on the market.

What a difference a few years make.

Maybe we should have known the Victoria, B.C. singer was looking to sex up her image. There were hints in her video for “Turn off the the Lights” from “Whoa Nelly” when she decided to engage in some mud wrestling but it turns out that was nothing compared to the moves she made for her latest CD.

The CD was called “Loose”. Take its meaning as you will but given the lyrics to several of the songs and the accompanying videos, well….

Let’s look at one, the monster lead off #1 single from Loose, “Promiscuous”, which Furtado sang with rapper Timbaland. Any hopes that this was a positive message for kids cleverly disguised goes out the window as soon as you watch the video. Furtado is on screen grinding it with whoever is closest. Then there are the lyrics…

Timbaland: How ya doin' young lady The feeling that you gave me really drives me crazy You dont have a player on your trunk I was at a loss of words First time that we spoke
Nelly: If ya lookin' for a girl that’ll treat you right If you lookin’ for her in the day time in the light
Timbaland: You might be the type if I play my cards right I'll find out by the end of the night
Nelly: You expect me to just let you hit it But will you still respect me if you get it?
Timbaland: All I can do is try, gim'one chance What’s the problem? I don’t see no ring on your hand I be the first to admit it, I’m curious about you, you seem so innocent
Nelly: You wanna get in my world, get lost in it Boy I’m tired of running, lets walk for a minute
Timbaland: Promiscuous girl Wherever you are I’m all alone And it's you that I want
Nelly: Promiscuous boy You already know That I’m all yours What you waiting for?
Timbaland: Promiscuous girl You're teasing me You know what I want And I got what you need
Nelly: Promiscuous boy Let's get to the point Cause we're on a roll You ready?

…and it goes on like that.

Furtado has painted a picture to her listeners (again largely teenagers) that men are nothing more than sexually driven and women are objects who have no problem giving “it” up to them. Furtado feigns that respect is a factor briefly but the rest of the song seems to suggest otherwise.

But perhaps the worst part of the song has nothing to do with the sexed up image Furtado has fostered.

It’s the use of a pretty derogatory N-word to describe Black people that got Michael Richard (Kramer of Seinfeld fame) in serious trouble. Furtado has left off the word in her offical lyrics (wisely I would say) but they’re still there.

Timbaland : N**** Don't be mad, don't get mean
Nelly : N**** Don't get mad, don't get mean
Timbaland: Hey! Don't be mad, don't get mean
Nelly: N**** Don't get mad, don't be mean

Millions have bought “Loose” and I suspect lots of parents have no idea what their kids have bought into, especially if they remember Furtado from “I’m like a Bird. “ (Although every parents should check out what their kids are listening to).

However, don’t count on Furtado to tone it down anytime soon. She’s been rewarded for driving these messages to kids with millions of dollars and she gets to host the Junos. She also ends up here at #64. Although hopefully she wears that label with less pride.

#65 - Andy Scott

Despite what some may believe, simply driving me nuts isn’t a good enough reason for someone to end up here on the 101 list. If that’s all it took, Fredericton Liberal MP Andy Scott would be a lot closer to the top.

No, to make the list you have to actually exhibit a behaviour that cheapens this country. Enter Andy Scott.

Mr. Scott is a self-described “career politician”. When that is your career you do whatever it takes to save it, something Scott has proven time and time again and he’s a great salesman. He’s convinced the people of Fredericton to return him to office five times.He’s done this despite proving himself untrustworthy time and time again and hey, nice work on his part because he hasn't made it easy on himself.

Like…“We will abolish the GST,” Andy Scott, 1993

In fairness, all Liberals said that but there’s still my personal favourite that the voters of Fredericton have an extremely short memory for…

"None of it is true.” Andy Scott in 1998 speaking inside the House of Commons regarding NDP member Dick Procter overhearing a conversation between Scott and a friend on a plane, talking about confidential information about the RCMP investigation into the APEC affair.

Later that same day…

Reporter : Who were you speaking too?
Scott : I don’t remember.
Reporter : Was it a man or a woman?
Scott : I don’t remember.
Reporter : What did you talk about?
Scott : I don’t remember.

Next day:

Scott : It was Frederick Toole. (They’d known each other for 15 years. I’ve seen better amnesia acting on soap operas.)

Eight weeks later Scott resigned (finally), but never really admitted any wrongdoing or apologized for so obviously lying to the Canadian People.

In 1999, he voted to preserve the institution of marriage between one man and one woman. A short four years later his vote set the stage for overhauling marriage as an institution without studying the possible ramifications. Government will study the mating habits of the northern wombat to death, but apparently this issue wasn’t important enough for Scott to at least request a study. (We’ve never had one by the way.)

In 2002, Scott voted against a motion to raise the age of sexual consent in Canada to 16 from 14 and prohibit the "creation or use of sexually explicit materials exploiting children.” Some things are no-brainers like this one which protects children from sexual predators. This was a good idea if the Marxist-Leninist Party had raised it. Oops, a Conservative did, so Scott voted it down.

After implying repeatedly to the New Brunswick Provincial Government that federal money would flow to refurbish the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station in southern New Brunswick, in 2005, Scott said the Feds would not fund it because…well, it really wasn’t their area of responsibility. However, if you live in the Fredericton riding you’ll often receive Scott’s mail outs which contain him taking credit for all kinds of stuff that isn’t in the Feds area of responsibility.

Scott redeemed himself slightly this past year by pushing for a National Autism Strategy and giving credit where credit is due, kudos for that but in the end I don’t trust the guy and he’s never given me any reason to trust him.

Andy Scott is the stereotypical politician who gives politicians who are in it for the right reasons a bad name. Scott’s done lots of things to end up on this list but lying during the plane incident is without a doubt the worst. If he admitted he had lied and asked for forgiveness I could let it go. However, he manipulated the truth to make it unrecognizable and the voters let him get away with it. Hopefully next time they don’t.

#66 - Pat Fiacco

There’s a saying when bad news comes in, “Don’t shoot the messenger.” Regina Mayor Pat Fiacco not only shot the messenger, he ran the messenger through a wood chipper…literally.

It all began with a story by MacLean’s magazine on the Regina neighbourhood of North Central. MacLean’s called it the worst neighbourhood in Canada. That might be up for debate but suffice it to say the neighbourhood isn’t good. Crime, drugs, gangs, prostitution, poverty, etc. are extremely common place. MacLean’s highlighted the problems and Mayor Fiacco went nuts.

His anger unfortunately was misdirected. Instead of looking at the story and going, “hey, here’s an opportunity to sit down with those involved and work towards some solutions”, his spin machine went into overdrive. The real story, according to Fiacco, was that MacLean’s would do such a negative story. Fiacco wouldn’t dispute the facts of the story (he couldn’t, they were true) but he felt civic pride in Regina had been wounded and MacLeans owed the city an apology.

A MacLean’s reporter was brought into town under the auspices of showing him the good work being done in North Central. MacLean’s said sure and the reporter was immediately driven to a meeting with community leaders and the Mayor where he got sandbagged and was more or less told he needs to write more positive stories about Regina. There was little talk about the very real issue of the problems in North Central. It was all about not liking the MacLean's article.

Mayor Fiacco was so mad about the MacLean’s coverage he ran a few copies of the magazine through a wood chipper to show his disgust.

This is not what our country needs for leaders. There was absolutely no dispute that the concerns and issues raised by MacLean’s were real. A leader would have recognized that. Despite still crying foul, the good news in this is that some action is being taken to fix up North Central seemingly thanks to the MacLean's coverage.

It really drives me nuts when our leaders start spinning to try and eliminate a bad story. That strategy rarely if ever works so I’m surprised some are still arrogant enough to try. Fiacco’s spin job was (and is) completely ridiculous. Address the real issues, pull your head out of the sand and don’t shoot the messenger, or in Fiacco’s case run them through a wood chipper.

#67 – Norman Spector

I am no fan of Belinda Stronach for a whole host of reasons that...well I’m hardly letting the cat out of the bag by saying I’ll explain later. Still, Norman Spector, the Globe and Mail columnist and media pundit stepped way over the line when talking about her last year and then he made it worse.

During the Peter MacKay (#98) debate of did he directly or indirectly refer to his former girlfriend as a dog, Norman Spector decided to chuck his two cents in in one heck of a classless way.

In October, during a live radio broadcast on CKRW in Vancouver, Spector said about Stronach, "You know, I'm not in politics, I can say it, I think she's a bitch and I think that 90 per cent of men would probably say she's a bitch, for the way she's broken up Tie Domi’s home and the way she dumped Peter MacKay. She is a bitch."

Another guest pointed to Spector that it was unacceptable to use that type of language to describe Stronach. Spector’s response? "Why is it unacceptable? That's what I think about her. I think it was much worse - a few years ago - when one of the Liberal members referred to Deb Grey as a slab of meat quite frankly. I think that was totally unacceptable. But bitch is a word that I would use to describe someone like Belinda Stronach. It is a word that I use regularly."

Delightful, but it gets better.

A few weeks later, Spector launched a lawsuit against the Vancouver Sun for libel for alleging that he made up the definition of the word, “bitch”.

Spector said he was relying on the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of the term as a "malicious or treacherous woman" and that Vancouver Sun columnist Daphne Bramham said he made up the definition of the word in a column.

Well he’s right that Bramham is out to lunch that his definition isn’t in the dictionary. It is, but he wants to continue to parade his bad behaviour even further with a lawsuit to prove what…that he made an idiotic statement?

There’s lots of ammo to be used to describe Belinda Stronach and by no means does she deserve a free ride but acting like a child as Spector did is completely unacceptable behaviour. He's supposedly a respected columnist, should know better, and set a far better example than he did.

#68 – The Trailer Park Boys

A friend of mine who is a comedian once told me if you have to depend on swearing to get laughs, you’re really not very funny.

Meet the unfunny Trailer Park Boys.

That doesn’t mean they’re not popular. They are. The Maritime grown “comedy” trio have been on the air for several seasons and spawned a feature film that by Canadian standards did really well at the box office.

But popular doesn’t mean good or Paris Hilton would be the greatest entertainer on the planet.

The show has its moments and Bubbles can be entertaining from time to time but the gratuitous use of the “F” word gets real tiresome after about the 10th time of hearing it in 20 seconds. I’m convinced if you removed the foul language the show would be over in about 5 minutes.

Don’t get me wrong. The show theoretically has some potential and actually has a few positive messages. The drug and crime subculture never pays off for the boys and they keep winding up back in jail thus paying their dues (well until next week). Still, the redeeming qualities of this show are few and far between. Now CBC has jumped on the bandwagon by letting this foul mouthed threesome host the East Coast Music Awards for the second time in a row. (No wonder Maritimers are stereotyped if TPB passes off as our best representatives.)

With the Trailer Park Boys, drugs are cool and using an expletive after every second word is even cooler. Is it any wonder people have no respect for themselves and are foul mouthed even in public these days when this is the crap that’s passing for entertainment on TV?

#69 – Ken Dryden

No entry on this list hurts as much as this one.

Ken Dryden is this blogger’s childhood hero having helped lead the Montreal Canadians to six Stanley Cup rings in the 1970’s.

But even that only carries you so far here at 101. Maybe there were one too many pucks to Dryden’s head during that illustrious career because after being elected Member of Parliament for York Centre in Ontario, he seemed to let a few get through the proverbial five-hole.

Dryden campaigned for the Liberal leadership as wanting to be the Prime Minister for 100% of Canadians. Virtually impossible, but I’ll give him credit for some nice political spin. Too bad he blew even the remote chance of that happening before he even started when he flipped off stay at home parents.

Dryden was one of the leads on the Liberal’s National Child Care Program, something the Liberals had promised since 1993 and never delivered on. Seeing the writing on the wall with the Conservatives sniffing around with a program for all parents (the monthly $100 childcare cheque) and the NDP promising some kind of child care program, the pressure was on for the Liberals to do something…well anything. They came up with a different vision than the Conservatives and that’s fine.

However, that vision was chock full of incredible arrogance with Ken Dryden leading the pack.

The Liberal plan (as vague as it was on details) would at best support families in urban centres if they worked 9 to 5. It appeared to offer little to nothing for rural areas, shift workers or parents who decided that one of them should stay at home to raise their own kids.

The last was apparently a big no-no among some Liberals with Dryden being the most vocal.

The Liberals one-size-fits-all bureaucratic scheme would work according to Dryden but apparently only if every single child was in daycare where he obviously thought they belonged. A survey in 2004/2005 showed that when working moms were asked if they would prefer to be at home to raise their own children, the majority said “yes”, that would be their preference. Dryden’s response as the Liberal Minister of Social Development? "If we asked them if they would like ice cream once a week and chocolate twice a day, about the same percentage would say the same."

That kind of arrogant attitude should come as no surprise. Just a few months earlier on CFRA Radio, Dryden completely dismissed any kind of government assistance to help parents who chose to stay at home with their kids. He compared parents who decided not to put their children in daycare with parents who try to treat their children at home rather than take them to a doctor or to a hospital.

A disagreement on a government policy or program is fine, but for having the “big government knows better than you do how to raise your own children” arrogant attitude, Dryden lands on this list. *Sigh*

#70 – Margaret Trudeau

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms looks really good on paper, but I’m convinced for every bit of good it does, it causes ten other problems by those who abuse it.

Take Margaret Trudeau.

In May of 2004, she was stopped by police and charged with impaired driving. She registered a blood-alcohol level of 0.107. The legal limit is 0.08. She was nailed for drunk driving. For that there is no dispute.

The following year, a judge threw the charges out saying that Trudeau's rights were violated by police because they didn’t really have any reason to pull her over and denied her a lawyer, a violation of her rights under The Charter.

Trudeau came out of this praising The Charter up and down for her getting off the hook, The Charter which was created by her ex-husband, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Was there any remorse from her for drinking and driving and putting every person on the road in jeopardy including herself?

Nope. She left the courtroom saying she felt “good” and that her ex-husband’s Charter had served her well.

No kidding!

Should the police officer involved faced some disciplinary action for not obeying the rules? Absolutely! However, what was lost in this was the indisputable fact that Margaret Trudeau was driving drunk. The police officer did everyone traveling that road a favour by getting another drunk driver off the road. Margaret Trudeau can bring up the points against the police officer but at the end of it all, she was still driving down the road tanked. She should have taken her punishment for being in the wrong and fessed up, not try to find some dumb loophole to get out of her guilt.

The blind supporters of The Charter who in the past have liked to use the phrase, "It's the Charter, Stupid" (I'm looking at you Young Liberals) to defend all kinds of nonsense were undoubtedly getting hammered themselves to celebrate this "victory" for Canadians. They should go talk to some people whose lives have been destroyed by drunk drivers. They might then sing another tune. Margaret Trudeau certainly should. It's the Stupid Charter when it gets abused and Trudeau proved why in spades.

#71 – Guy Fournier

I frequently write at Spink About It about problems at the CBC. In some fairness to the people who work there, there are lots of good employees. The vast majority of the issues at the Mother Corp rest with management. Management, which until last year included Guy Fournier.

Fournier was the chairman of Radio-Canada until he made some pretty bizarre remarks. It started in May 2006 when he appeared on the most popular TV show in Canada, Tout le monde en parle (Everyone’s talking) and went on that he enjoyed…um defecation more than sex. That must be one heck of a dump he has, but still do we really have to know that from the head of French CBC?

It turns out his love for the toilet was kind of tame.

In the magazine 7 jours, during his bi-weekly rave he wrote, “In Lebanon, the law makes it possible for men to have sexual intercourse with animals as long as they are females. To do the same thing with male animals could lead to the death penalty! ”

One problem. Not a word of that is true and understandably so the Lebanese community went wild.

How did Fournier respond? He said he was amused by the controversy: “I do not understand how that can insult people. In any context, it is rather funny.”

Only when the heat got unbearable did Fournier finally apologize, appearing on Tout le monde en parle. And rest assured the only reason he apologized is because the heat was on. He finally offered his resignation which was welcomed by nearly every MP on Parliament Hill…and most of Canada.

Hopefully we’ve said au revoir to Monsieur Fournier for the final time.

#72 - Anne-Marie Losique

Anne-Marie Losique is Canada’s answer to Paris Hilton and folks, that’s not a good thing.

Since the mid-nineties, Losique has beceome famous for…well…being scantily clad, doing interviews with strippers, porn stars and pretty much making out with actor Ben Affleck during a giggly, gropefest of an interview.

She’s also been involved in shows called Hot Parade, Sex-Shop, Sex Shop Extreme and Culture du X (XXX Culture), where you could learn everything you never wanted to know about Internet Porn and also meet the spouses and kids of the people who work in the industry. Little Johnny’s “Bring your Parent to school day to talk about their career” was never the same again.

Admittedly Losique at least knows she doesn’t have a good image but she’s still mighty proud of the smut she peddles. She made sure to bring Canadian culture just a little further in the toilet when she starred in a french version of the Paris Hilton hit (yeah, I'm just as surprised), “The Simple Life” called “La Vie Rurale”. Need I say more?

What the heck, why not?

This month, Losique is starring in Adventures of a Real Life Bimbo. One of the scenes includes four women who are all topless (except Losique who somehow managed to keep her clothes more or less on for a change) passing around a cherry using their tongues. Even CBC called it right when they referred to it as “banal, tacky soft porn.”

Her next project is a TV series about women’s rights. Yes ladies, Anne-Marie Losique should represent you well. Lord help us all.

#73 – Bob Rae

Note to Liberals. While I tend to think Gerard Kennedy was a better choice as leader than Stéphane Dion, at least you didn’t pick Bob Rae.

The man who had the arrogance to think that he could spend Ontario out of the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression as the province’s first and only NDP Premier left a lovely legacy for Ontarians…a massive multi-billion dollar debt and virtually nothing to show for it! Casinos? Another one of Rae’s doings. Sure they bring in revenue to the provincial coffers but the negative social impact is simply not worth the price. Wisely the voters in Ontario turfed him after one term.

However Bob Rae is back and any doubt that the Liberals are headed in a further left and more socialist direction was put to rest when more than 20% of the Liberal delegates supported the former NDP MP and NDP premier on the first ballot of last month's Liberal Leadership convention. Socialism at the Liberal Party while perhaps not dominant yet is alive and well.

Rae's work at taking this country into uncharted territory is hardly over and if he has the opportunity he would undoubtedly love to tax and spend the entire country like he did Ontario.

At the very least, let’s agree on this. Bob Rae skinny dipping on national TV? That image is enough to put him on this list. *shudder*

#74 - Laurence Lewin

Okay two things to get out of the way first before I get into why the co-founder and currently President and Chief Operating Officer of the La Senza lingerie chain is here on the list of 101 people who are screwing up Canada.

First off, while I generally don’t care for most CBC programming, I actually like the show Dragon’s Den which Lewin is part of and he’s one of the stronger parts of the show.

Number two, I also like La Senza, well that is when my wife shops there and brings something new home (ahem).

So he’s not here because he’s on CBC and he’s not on this list because he runs a lingerie store.

Nope, he’s here because he’s marketing a sexed up image to children as young as five.

The sexing up of our society has been hitting a younger and younger target for a while but Lewin’s La Senza Girl chain of stores really got things booming. Size 30 AA bras? C’mon.

Lewin’s stores want little girls to look and feel grown up, but is trying to make 6-year olds look like they’re 25 really a good idea?

La Senza Girl has been exceptionally successful, so much so that some less reputable clothing manufacturers have taken it even further going where fortunately La Senza Girl doesn’t. (An article a few weeks ago in MacLeans listed such lovely T-shirts for kids made by other companies with slogans like “Jailbait” and “My Mommy’s a M.I.L.F.” on them).

Sure the blame ultimately rests with the parents. Without them buying this stuff, Lewin would be out of business but shouldn’t some things be off limits? Sexing up kids should certainly be one.

#75 – Mel Lastman

Back at #96, I wondered what was in the water in Mississauga that kept people there voting for Carolyn Parrish. I’m now starting to wonder if Mississauga gets its water from Toronto. How else to explain the popularity of Mel Lastman.

Before retiring from public life in 2003, Lastman served as Mayor of Toronto and previously Mayor of North York (before amalgamation) from 1972-2003.

During his tenure, gaffes became Lastman’s middle name. In 2001, before going to Mombasa, Kenya to support Toronto's bid for the 2008 Olympics, Lastman told a reporter, “What the hell do I want to go to a place like Mombasa?... I'm sort of scared about going out there, but the wife is really nervous. I just see myself in a pot of boiling water with all these natives dancing around me." Whether Toronto losing the Games bid can be squarely placed on Lastmna is debatable, but it certainly didn’t help.

During the 2003 SARS crisis, Lastman did an interview on CNN. When he was asked about what the World Health Organization's was doing about the crisis, Lastman asked on live television, "Who is the WHO?" *Sigh* I was waiting to hear him say, "They ROCK. I love My Generation. Are they coming to Toronto?” Yes world, this was the leader of Canada’s largest city.

During his tenure, Lastman was also photographed giving a warm welcome to members of the Hells Angels, and threatened to kill a CITY-TV reporter unless he stopped reporting about an incident in which Lastman’s wife was caught for shoplifting.

I once had a friend from Toronto say that for most Torontonians Canada consists of southern Ontario and they’ve annexed the island of Montreal. Past that they really don’t care what goes on in the rest of the country. While I don't believe that is true for most Torontonians, while Mel Lastman was Mayor, certainly the rest of Canada had to wonder whether Toronto had lost its collective mind. In his last municipal election bid, Lastman won with 80% of the vote. There have been rumours Lastman may yet return to politics in some fashion. Hopefully voters don’t let that ever happen again.

#76 – Ashley MacIsaac

In 1995, I remember being in a CD store with a copy of Ashley MacIsaac’s CD, Hi How Are You Today?, in my hands. I put it down and in hindsight it’s one of the best moves I ever made. Supporting this guy even if it was for $1.50 or whatever he received for the CD would have been a bad idea since MacIsaac went into self-destruction mode shortly after.

It all seemed to begin with MacIsaac’s appearance on Late Night with Conan O’Brien, when he decided to do a lovely little kick while wearing a kilt which showed the audience he had gone commando. “I didn’t mean it,” said MacIsaac. Yup, and Justin Timberlake didn’t mean to rip Janet Jackson’s top off during the Super Bowl either.

MacIsaac decided to follow that stunt up shortly after by doing a tell all interview in which he discussed his sex-life with his underage boyfriend and his fetish for…um…urine. The less said about that the better.

During his shows (when someone was actually stupid enough to let him perform), he has been less than professional to say the least. During an Ontario performance in front of children he decide to let the expletives fly although that was nothing compared to the Halifax show in 1999 in which he went on a 20-minute profanity laced, racist rant.

Then in March 2006, MacIsaac told a Halifax newspaper he would be running for the leadership of the federal Liberal Party and, oh wait…after the sponsorship scandal, that might have actually been an improvement...for the Liberals anyway.

Trying to come up with ways to shock people is nothing new in the entertainment business. Britney Spears does it approximately 3 times a week, but that doesn’t mean it’s acceptable behaviour and we should just turn a blind eye and say, “well, hey they’re entertainers so that’s okay”.

Ashley MacIsaac once told a reporter that his goal in life was to be "weirder than Michael Jackson.” A lofty goal to say the least and while I don’t think he’s there yet, full marks for trying.

#77 – Katy McIntyre

Universities are supposed to be a place to exchange ideas but this past Fall you’d find that hard to believe at Carleton University in Ottawa.

Universities have a lot of different people with a lot of different ideas. Essentially, most are bastions of liberal thinking (they don’t call it liberal arts for nothing). That’s fine as long as there is openness to other perspectives as well.

Someone should have told that to Katy McIntyre, the Vice-President Student Services for the Carleton University Students Association.

On November 21, 2006, Ms. McIntyre proposed a "Motion to Amend Discrimination on Campus Policy. Sounds pretty warm and fuzzy however here's what the motion would do.

1) CUSA and CUSA Inc. respect and affirm a woman's right to choose. (okay, fair enough)
2) No CUSA resources, space, recognition or funding be allocated for anti-choice purposes. (That essentially means barring any group from forming a club opposed to abortion. That’s right folks, this is groupthink at its best.)

Ms. McIntyre was specifically targetting one group she didn't like who were pro-life called Carleton Lifeline. The motion however, if agreed to, would have also banned Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish and Muslim clubs too since of course they also oppose abortion.

The Carleton University student newspaper, The Charlatan wrote an editorial in November taking Ms. McIntyre to task, “Restricting pro-life and anti-choice discussion is not healthy for the university or condusive to an individual’s right to autonomy. CUSA, of all groups, should recognize this. After all, the organization fought fervently for academic amnesty, arguing that all students have the right to uphold their own views without fear of penalty. Should some students be silenced while others are not?"

The controversy obviously brought enough people to their senses when this month the Carleton University Student Association voted to give Carleton Lifeline club status. Sadly, it seems the proverbial gun had to be put to their head to do it. It’s unfortunately this type of groupthink mentality that most of our universities are churning out these days at alarming speed.

In her bio, Ms. McIntyre uses a quote that says, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

True enough, but Ms. McIntyre needs to remember that those small groups can come from a number of perspectives before she goes on her next crusade to try and silence those she doesn't agree with.

#78 – The Crazed Hockey Parent

You know who I mean. They exist at every single hockey rink in this country from Stephenville, Newfoundland and Labrador to Prince Rupert, British Columbia. They are quite frankly insane.

Let me be clear, crazed hockey parents do not make up the majority of parents you’ll find watching Little Johnny or Little Suzie play hockey. They are the minority but given their loud obnoxious attitude to those both on and off the ice, it’s sometimes hard to tell.

These are folks who yell, belittle and swear at referees, coaches, other players and yes, sometimes even their own kids. Occassionally they even get violent.

Sadly when the ice comes out the Crazed Hockey Parent gives way to the Crazed Baseball, Soccer, (insert sport here) parent.

I really wanted to put a distinctive name to #78, but there are so many stories that this one just can’t be pinned to one person, however feel free to leave your own personal story in the comments. I’ve seen enough of them in my day to know the Crazed Hockey Parent is screwing this country up royally and I just can’t let them off the hook. We really don’t need this type of behaviour. If I want to see people yelling and screaming at each other, giving each other the finger and generally misbehaving, I’ll turn on the House of Commons. Hockey is only a game.

#79 – Todd Bertuzzi

Todd Bertuzzi is one of the NHL’s largest and most feared players. He should be. He almost killed a man on the ice. I’d be scared of him too.

In March of 2004, during a Vancouver-Colorado game, Bertuzzi playing for the Canucks began following the Avalanche’s Steve Moore trying to instigate a fight. Apparently this was retailiation for an incident Moore had been involved in against a Canucks player in a previous game. Moore ignored Bertuzzi which really irked the hothead. Bertuzzi sucker punched Moore in the side of the head, falling on him and driving his head into the ice. Moore suffered three fractured vertebrae in his neck, a grade three concussion, vertebral ligament damage, stretching of the brachial plexus nerves, and facial cuts. Moore doesn’t play hockey anymore. In fact he’s lucky to be alive.

Bertuzzi received major fines and suspensions, was charged criminally and is still facing a hefty lawsuit from Moore. Bertuzzi claimed to be remorseful (hey, what else are you going to say, you committed asssault in the first degree in front of 20,000 witnesses while on videotape.) There is no doubt Bertuzzi intended to hurt Moore. The fallout is likely the only thing that surprised him. This kind of stuff is what Bertuzzi is known for…being a hockey goon.

Like Tie Domi at #100, guys like Bertuzzi cheapen hockey immensely. They should be banned from the sport when something like this happens. You wouldn’t keep your job at the office if you pulled the same action on a colleague.

However the NHL is far from the real world. These days, Bertuzzi skates for the Florida Panthers making significant dollars. Bertuzzi’s behaviour and that of others like him is really no surprise though. Given the actions of #78 on this list, guys like Bertuzzi will unfortunately continue to flourish.

#80 – Judge Thomas Kolbert

Okay, first of all Judge Thomas Kolbert isn’t Canadian. In fact, he’s an American Judge but don’t let a detail like that stop him from screwing up our country.

In April 2006, 35-year-old Malcolm Watson, an English teacher at an all-girl school in Buffalo, New York, was arrested and charged with sex abuse and endangering the welfare of a child after he was caught in a vehicle in a mall parking lot with a 15-year-old female student.

In August, Watson went before Judge Thomas Kolbert in Cheektowaga, New York Court who gave Watson a choice... spend a year in jail in the United States or spend three years as a free man in Canada. (Watson is an American Citizen by the way although a Canadian resident – yes we pretty much do let anyone in). There was by all accounts no consultation with any Canadian officials. No surprise, Watson jumped at the offer and here he remains with his wife and three children.

Ironically what Watson was convicted of in the U.S. wouldn’t be considered a crime in Canada. Thank you Liberal lawmakers but more on them later.

Judge Kolbert went WAY over the line. Canada isn’t a dumping ground for people who abuse children or anybody else’s criminals for that matter. We’ve got enough people here trying to screw up Canada. We don’t need any foreign aid, thank you very much. Kolbert should have put Watson in an American jail (as the U.S. law calls for) not send him to Canada to smile for cameras.

#81 – Scott Reid

Not to be confused with the MP from Ontario, this Scott Reid is a mostly behind the scenes player of the federal Liberal Party. Given his actions when he steps from behind the scenes, he should probably stay behind the curtain.

Scott Reid was the deputy chief of staff (operations) in former Prime Minister Paul Martin’s office. During the last election campaign he acted as director of communications for the Liberal campaign…and quality communications it was. If he didn’t cost the Liberals the election he certainly didn’t win them many brownie points.

During an interview with CBC, Reid slammed the Conservative’s plan to issue cheques of $100 a month directly to parents of children under six. Why was he against it? Well because as Reid put it, the parents might decide to spend the money on "beer and popcorn".

Stay-at home parents, rural parents who have no access to daycare and parents who work outisde of the regular 9-5 job had been pushing for choice in childcare and took Reid’s comments as a major slight…and it was. Anyone who thinks that was just a glib comment from Reid has never hung around politicial strategists. Clearly this kind of talk, although probably with more colourful language, was going on behind the scenes at the Liberal warroom as well. Given their policies the Liberals clearly had no interest in anything for parents who didn’t fit the urban, 9-5, both parents working mode. On a Toronto radio station the year before, Liberal MP and Cabinet Minister Ken Dryden tossed out any thought of helping stay at home parents by comparing it to parents who tried to treat their children at home rather than take them to a doctor or to the hospital. Classy!

The Liberal talking points were pretty clear and Reid just forgot that he wasn’t among just Liberals. He was talking to the country!

It wasn’t the first time Reid had made explosive gaffes. Paul Martin had to apologize when during a dispute with Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams during a dispute over offshore oil revenue sharing, Reid said Williams was "making a mistake of historic proportions and he is doing it on the backs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians... He may get some short term gains, but he will pay for this in the long run." Newfoundlanders took it as a threat and Martin had to step in.

Then there’s my personal favourite in class and a clear misunderstanding of anything beyond Ottawa Liberal circles by Reid, when after he made several comments that even the media thought to be insulting, he responded by telling Don Martin of the Calgary Herald that, “Alberta can blow me."

Yes folks, a class act all the way and one of the key advisors who was directing this country. Fortunately for all of us, thanks to the Liberal loss last year, Reid is out of politics, at least for now, otherwise he’d be far higher on this list.