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.