Section 17 of the Online Surveillance Bill (C-30)

You may have heard that the government, as proposed by the Arch Twit, Vic Toews, has a section that would permit "any police officer" to get information about you from your ISP without the benefit of a warrant.

The CONservative government has couched this in a Child Protection blanket designed to make us feel all warm and cuddly.

Obtaining private information on Canadian citizens without the oversight of a judge via a warrant is the top of an ugly and slippery slope that erodes personal freedom.

There cannot be any cases so urgent that a judge won't sign a warrant when woken at 2 in the morning if really needed by the "exceptional conditions" stated in the bill.

National Be Really Nice to Telemarketers Week

I propose that during the week of March 12 to March 16 we all be especially welcoming of Telemarketing calls.

For example, you can be REALLY NICE when you keep a telemarketer on the phone for at least 15 minutes before saying no thank you! This can be fun and profitable - well at least you save money by not buying things you don't need.

So, please join me in an all out effort to show our appreciation for being called during dinner time, despite being on the do not call list, to be offered the latest and best price on new carpets and duct cleaning and so on.

Will you join me?

Please pass this around - if it goes viral we could really show the telemarketers how much we care about them.

And if it really does well we could repeat it every month or so. Telemarketers could be the most loved callers in the world!

Protest

I drove by this house the day the federal election was called and noticed a single Canadian flag hanging upside down. I figured he was not happy with the calling of the federal election (neither was I). Then a few days later he upped the ante to 5 flags upside down! See the photo.
Then another week goes by and I find an article in the Journal de Montréal. It turns out he was protesting the nasty federal government all right. But not for political reasons.
He claims the government of Canada are terrorists! Yes, they are terrorizing him! They have slapped a $1.8M mortgage on his house! (It's worth about $600K). And since then, the Quebec government has slapped him with another $1.5M bill for their share of unpaid taxes. Also seized were some $728K and a Rolls-Royce.
Per the Journal de Montréal, he's alleged to have not paid taxes (including payroll taxes collected from employees) in 2001 through 2005.
Various arms offenses and other criminal charges related to organized crime have also been brought against the owner.
Other items seized include "valuable family property".

He said (translated from French), "As Canadians we have the right to defend ourselves and be treated equally under the law."

In fair turnabout he is suing the government for, get this, $385 million dollars.

Per the Quebec government (as reported in the JdeM), he managed to acquire a home, businesses, a Rolls-Royce and other luxuries here since his arrival in Quebec in 1991 and citizenship in 1995, yet he has never filed a tax return in Quebec!

The Rolls-Royce was in the name of a Florida company, and the beater car (a mere Mercedez) was in his wife's name. (She has been ordered to leave Canada - presumably to her native France).

The city of Lorraine is owed some $8K in municipal taxes too...

The kicker? He claims he's not subject to Canadian tax since he's a citizen of Dubai...

What's worse than that? He hasn't paid his lawyers. So he'll represent himself in court.

Obituary - l'indépendance du Québec

I found an interesting new tool on Google today. I had heard about it, but never tried it. Then while reading an article about false new normals in economics, I discovered the joys of ngram.google.com. In a nutshell you enter words or phrases and it graphs the usage of that word out of English (and some other languages) books for each year. You enter a range of dates and voila.

Of course I began, like a schoolboy with his first dictionary, looking up all the words that used to be called 'dirty'. After that amusement died down (why is there a near 20 year gap in the peaks between fellatio and cunnilingus in English books? Maybe that sparked the woman's movement after all), I moved on to more serious issues.

I switched the search to French books and entered the phrase indépendance du Québec and there was a marked drop in interest after the 1980 and 1985 neverendums with the occurrence for 2005 about equal to 1968 and still trending down. One can't read too much into these numbers. We don't know if all of the Québec literature has been scanned for the past few years, for example, and perhaps the database for recent years is France biased. Perhaps we need to try this again in 3 years to see where we were at, er, today.

Here's the chart.

Or, replace the word indépendance with souveraineté, and you'll get quite a different result (an exercise for the reader) due to shifting language of the land when selling the idea needed a softer language. But still, since about 1995, the decline in the literature remains.

With an aging population, immigration and the success of various liberty reducing laws in Québec, perhaps it is true that L'indépendance est morte.

Important note: for the above it is critical that spelling be accurate, to the inclusion of accents.

Fracking fracas

Three solid reasons to put a moratorium on shale gas "fracking" in Quebec.

1. Rules and Regulations. Until the government establishes appropriate rules and regulations, there should be a halt to operations. To its credit, the government has begun the process. I would urge the government to consult with their counterparts in Texas, Utah and Pennsylvania (etc.) where fracking is underway, as well the State of New York which has a moratorium in place. In the meantime, write your MNA and the minsiters of the environment and natural resources.
2. Full disclosure. There should be no drilling at all until the drilling companies reveal, publicly, the exact content of the chemicals injected into the ground. Since the shale lies under a large portion of Quebec's agricultural lands, the danger to soil and water is too great to leave to the trust of the oil and gas industry.
3. Market Value. Shale gas extraction in North America has already resulted in a glut of natural gas in the pipelines. There is no urgency to add even more NG which would only depress prices further. On the other hand, use of natural gas is projected to grow continuously over the next 20 years in North America. Prices will rise and so will the royalty that the province can demand from the gas producers. Quebec will more desperately need higher royalties in 20 years than lower royalties now. Let it sleep. The gas is not going anywhere.

Sept-Illes, idiot doctors and uranium mining.

The doctors of Sept-Iles, a city of 25,000 or so, have threatened to quit if uranium mining is permitted at a nearby uranium source.

I ask a simple question: Given that Sept-Iles has a death rate of approx. 34 people per year due to cigarette smoking[1], why haven't these concerned doctors resigned over the fact that tobacco is sold all around the Sept-Iles area?

[1]ref: http://www.smoke-free.ca/health/pscissues_health.htm
45,000 Canadians per year die from smoking related causes - with Sept-Iles' population, that works out to approx. 34 people per year.

CBC: please release "The National Dream" and "The Last Spike"

I recall Mr. Broscomb at Elmwood Elementary sending notes home with us to our parents to make sure we were allowed to stay up and watch The National Dream, the dramatization of Pierre Burton's popular historical treatment.

It was well presented and only had one brief commercial interruption (Bank of Montreal).

CBC: please release "The National Dream" and "The Last Spike" on DVD.

Debt and Economics

Recently a story has been circulating around the web. It goes something like this:

A small, isolated town in the country has never been rich but has always drawn tourists to its bucolic setting. But, in the recent economic downturn, things got a little, well, depressing. Everybody was borrowing from everyone else.

Finally one day, a tourist comes along and visits the hotel. He's told a room for the night will be $100. He puts a $100 bill into the hands of the hotel owner and heads to his room.

Immediately, the hotel owner runs down the street to his most important supplier, the butcher, and pays off the $100 dollars that he owes to him.

The butcher gets in his truck and drives outside the town to a farmer, and pays him the $100 he owes for meat he bought the week before.

The farmer drives into town and visits LuLu, a whore, and pays the $100 he owes her.

Finally, closing the circle, LuLu goes to the hotel and pays the hotel owner the $100 she owes for the several times she has rented rooms by the hour.

The tourist comes out of his room, grabs the $100 from the hotel owner saying that he's not satisfied with the room, gets in his car and leaves. All debts are satisfied. So goes the story.

Now a friend of mine jokingly suggested that the tourist wasn't needed for the story. Had the townspeople spoken together they could have swapped debts until all was settled.

So, let's see how that works:

The hotel owner has in his hands an IOU from LuLu the whore for $100.

He takes that note and goes to the butcher. The butcher agrees to erase the hotel owners debt in exchange for the note. [ for simplicity, we'll not discount the IOU .. yet ].

In turn the butcher goes to the farmer and the same transaction occurs: the farmer erases the butchers debt but now holds the $100 IOU.

Happily (and I know you could see this coming) the farmer goes off to see LuLu to erase the $100 he owes her by giving her the IOU.

This is why trading IOU's is "discounted". Here is the final story:

The hotel owner possesses an IOU of $100 from LuLu, a whore, who occasionally rents rooms in the hotel by the hour when she sells her trade in the hotel bar.

The hotel owner despairs of ever collecting $100 from LuLu and the butcher is demanding payment. The hotel owner goes to the butcher and hands over the $100 IOU. The butcher is only partly satisfied, takes the IOU and reduces the hotel owners debt to $33.

The butcher then drives out to see the farmer, and a similar transaction takes place. The butcher's debt is reduced to $33 as well in exchange for the $100 note.

The farmer goes to visit LuLu. LuLu agrees to take the IOU but at discount! So the farmer still owes LuLu $33!

In the end:
The hotel owner has no money, no receivables and a debt of $33. ( -33)
The butcher has no money, a debt of $33 and receivables of $33. ( 0)
The farmer has no money, a debt of $33 and receivables of $33. ( 0)
The whore has no money, no debt and a receivable of $33. ( +33)

Who is richest?

The whore of course. She has $33 in receivables AND more inventory to sell.

The oldest profession just keeps the economy going, doesn't it?



< . . . >

Automobile technology that will really save lives and energy

Hybrid-shmybrid.

A couple weeks ago a driver in Ontario got caught doing 250 km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone. (For you yanks that's about 155 mph in a 65 mph zone).

Wow. $10,000 fine.

Question is, if Canada's top speed limit is I believe 120 km/hr, why are street legal vehicles able to exceed that by over 100%?

Here in Quebec, cruising at 120 km/hr in a 100 zone is very unlikely to result in a ticket. Let's say that 120 is a reasonable top speed.

So, first thing that automobiles should be required to have when delivered at the dealer is a throttle cutoff at, say, 140 km/hr. Period.

Pushing this a little further, highways could have transmitters that broadcast the top legal speed of the road. In a 100 km/hr zone, the car would not be able to exceed, say, 120.

And as a benefit to highway maintenance and construction crews, orange zones would transmit appropriately lower limits with only a small overspeed allowance. (if the zone is 80, then the top speed cars would go would be 85).

Tamper with the device and the car is seized and destroyed at the owners expense.

Now that we've got the idea going, let's take it a step further: tax the fuel hog - reward the miser. Here's how it works.

1) Every car has a province issued transponder (a digital two-way radio). Whenever you pull up to a gas pump the transponder and the gas pump have a conversation. The car reports the car model, mileage since the last fill up and the number of litres at that fill up.

2) The gas pump assigns a tax according to the efficiency of the vehicle. The less efficient, the heftier the per-litre tax. The more efficient, the less tax. For the really efficient a tax rebate is given.

3) Every year or so, the mileage requirement to get a rebate increases. The tax for the fuel hogs increases. The rebate for the efficient goes up more and more (since the returns will be slimmer and slimmer, you have to reward more for those who push the limits).

4) Now the above is a bit harsh on some vehicle operators such as car pools, schools, businesses and so on. So a method to soften the blow needs to be built in.

Summary: the above is the way to go if you really want to reduce fossil fuel consumption at the pump.

Junk Heat

Some industries use a lot of energy to heat cold water for use in various processes.

Some industries reject heat as a by product of their operations. One of these is the server farm. A server farm consumes a lot of electrical power and generates enormous amounts of heat. This is typically 'rejected' to the atmosphere by large coolers (basically radiators: a coil with a fan).

Quebec is an ideal place for server farms. Lot's of relatively cheap electricity and very high speed optical networks.

Further Quebec has many industries that heat water for use in many processes.

As a means to getting more out of our electricity (freeing up more to be sold to the US, for example), we should co-locate server-farms with industries that take in cold water and then heat it for use in their processes.

In this way the enormous heat generated by a server farm could be used to pre-heat the cold water for the co-located industry. This would reduce the energy consumption of that industry while providing a heat sink for the server farm.

The server farm would charge the industry for that heat, say 2 cents per kWh. This is much cheaper than what the industry is paying for the same amount of heat (whether electric or natural gas). In turn, less 'new' energy is consumed, costs are less and the carbon footprint is reduced for both companies.

As an example, a 1000 server farm consumes about 500,000 W for annual cost of about $175,000. That same 500 kW can be sold as heat to the adjacent industry at, for example, 2c / kWh. That would be a return of about $87,000 per year.

Further, the need for air conditioning would be avoided - in effect the cool water used by the adjacent industry would be the air conditioning for the server farm.

Don't junk heat - recycle it.

Auto Emissions - physical realities

As the twin evils of over consumption of fossil fuel to power cars and the resulting emissions seem to be finally (after over 20 years of insanity) getting new attention, let us review a few inescapable facts surrounding automobile design.

More fuel is used during highway acceleration at any rate than while cruising down the highway at 110 km/hr. And the more vigorously one accelerates, the worst this is.

Why? Mainly because gasoline and diesel engines are horribly inefficient in cruise and much worse during acceleration. In cruise an engine delivers about 25% conversion to mechanical energy. That is to say that for every 100 litres of gasoline you buy, 75 litres is wasted as heat, never providing a benefit. As if that were not bad enough, it is even worse during acceleration, especially if the driver has a heavy foot. During acceleration all kinds of parsitic drag act on the engine. This includes induction air resistance (which the engine has to use more fuel to overcome), accessories (alternator, air conditioning, power steering, power brakes, etc.) and a richer mixture of fuel to air required when the engine is accelerating not to mention getting the exhaust out of the engine which adds a load just pushing it through the tailpipe (erroneously called 'backpressure'. It's simply resistance).

In effect, during highway cruise an automobile only needs a fraction of its installed horsepower. In turn it is wasting energy transporting that headroom horsepower around. Funny. (and wasteful).

It all comes to roost based on a very simple high school physics equation that is a result of the second law of motion from Sir Isaac Newton.

F = ma

Force, the 'strength' that something is pushed with is equal to the mass times the rate of acceleration.

Some people like to acclerate like crazy. 0 to 100 km/hr in 5 seconds! ("a" above). Well, to achieve that a powerful and high torque engine is required. (That's the "F" above).

Some people, often in the same group as above, also like their large vehicle and to have it lushly appointed for comfort and entertainment. That's the "m" above.

So, people want a lot of "a" and they like the comfort of "m". This means a big "F" under the hood that gobbles fuel whenever "a" is greater than 0.

Could it be worse? Well of course! In the real world there is no such thing as constant speed, at least as far as the engine is concerned. Huh? Well, it's like this: in the real world the auto faces wind resistance and rolling resistance. Wind resistance follows another equation derived from the equation above. I won't write it out here. Oh, okay, since you insist. It's:

Drag = Cd D S V^2 / 2

Where Cd is a constant representing the drag coefficient, D is the density of the air, S is the surface area of the car (seen from the front) and V is the speed (^2 means "squared").

When cars are less aerodynamic (as they've tended to become over the last 10 years) then "Cd" goes up. Cars have gotten large, so "S" goes up too. (Eg: a Jeep Cherokee is quite high compared to an automobile of the same width).

Drag goes up as a square of the velocity. There is 4 times as much aerodynamic drag at 100 km/hr than at 50 km/hr. Compound that with poor aerodynamics and large area and the Drag is really high.

Back to the top. Drag means that if you take your foot off the gas, the car will slow down. When at constant speed on the highway, your foot is always on the gas. The power of the engine is working against the deceleration (-a) due to the wind and rolling resistance. The engine is always applying a force to overcome the force of drag. It is a hidden "F=ma" if you will. Funny how that crops up to use more gas.

Clearly, other than reducing speed (say 100 instead of 120, you do the math, remember to square) a large improvement can come from improving the aerodynamics of the car, esp. by reducing the frontal area of the car and making the rear tapered so it doesn't pull a roiling mass of air behind it (notice that airliners have pointy tails?).

Next, consider rolling resistance. This is the tires against the road. Tires are soft compared to the road so energy is lost in continuously reshaping the tire as it rolls. (This is why the temperature of the tires rises as you drive). The faster you go, the more resistance. The softer the tire, the more resistance (as there is more deformation/reformation as well as more tire in contact with the road.) The larger the car, the larger the tires and even more is in contact with the road. (Trains are about 3x more fuel efficient than trucks in part because they have very high wheel pressure on the rail)

This is where things compound and make cars horribly inefficient.

As vehicles get larger they obviously get heavier. As cars get heavier, they need larger engines. Larger engines mean larger transmissions, drive trains and support structures. Larger cars have larger wheels, larger tires and larger brakes.

All of those "largers" also mean more weight. More "m" from the first equation above. And to make it worse, we seem to want a lot of "a" meaning bigger engines and the consequences of that.

Clearly it is past time to put childish things asside.

Smaller cars with moderate acceleration requirements mean a lot less surface area to resist the wind, a lot less rolling resistance against the road, a lot less weight to accelerate and stop and smaller engines that require less fuel to accelerate the above. It is a compounding effect.

The wrong use of recent engine efficiencies.

Ironically, engine efficiency has improved remarkably over the last 30 years. Electronic fuel injection, microprocessors, variable valve timing, aluminum block engines, advanced induction and exhaust systems and more have combined to get more power out of the same sized engine. However, while the power to weight ratio has improved, the consumption per hp has not improved as much.

Car makers have taken advantage of the higher power to weight ratios to push around heavier vehicles even while giving them the "desired" performance in acceleration.

One has to ask the question: since power to weight ratios have improved, why not keep power constant and make the engines smaller, lighter and cheaper? That would result in improved fuel efficiencies as it would contribute to lighter transmission and driver train, smaller wheels and brakes. Instead, led by the former "big 3", Mercedez and BMW, automobiles post records for more and more power every year with scant (if any) improvements in fuel efficiency.

Turbochargers.

Turbochargers could help, however they are most efficient as a function of exhaust gas flowing through them (called volumetric efficiency). This means that they are very good at increasing the horsepower of an engine, but that is only a benefit during acceleration. And during an acceleration the turbocharger only helps the engine use more fuel. (Note that on piston powered aircraft turbochargers have only a beneficial effect: they allow operation at high altitude where the density of the air is lower, hence less drag [same equation above applies]).

Next: let's discuss electric vehicles for Canada. It's not a clear cut case.

Bank of Montreal cash grab on mortgages

For the last 7 years or so I've used variable rate mortgages for my home mortgage.  Variable rate mortgages usually have lower rates than comparable term fixed rate mortgages at the time they are agreed to, but carry the risk of a rise in rates when the Bank of Canada adjusts its overnight rate.

My variable rate mortgage would always be 1% above the BoC overnight rate.

I've been more lucky than not with my variable rate mortgage and over the last year nearly delighted with each down tick in the Bank of Canada overnight rate as it was applied directly to my variable rate mortgage.  So on Dec. 9 when the BoC cut the overnight rate by a whopping 3/4 of a percentage point I was self smug in knowing my mortgage rate would fall to 2.5%.

Until this morning, that is.

The "Mortgage Rate Change Update" that came from the Bank of Montreal (and later than usual following a BoC rate change) showed only a 1/2% decrease in my rate (to 2.75%).

Now you might say, "2.75% on a home mortgage, Wow! that's great!!"

But what I say is, "no way bubba, this is a NAKED CASH GRAB BY THE Bank of Montreal". They are pocketing that 1/4%.  On a $100,000 mortgage that's over $225 / year that they are taking from their customers.

Why is this so?  Well, variable rate mortgages are based on the BoC overnight rate.  The bank adds 1% to cover its own costs and to make a little profit (Never forget that banks NEVER lend you their own money, it is always someone else's, in this case the government's).

So now they are borrowing at a very cheap rate but keeping a larger chunk for themselves and not passing it on to their customers.  In the end we pay more, but it goes into the banks pocket, not back to the government.

If you have a variable rate mortgage with BMO, be sure to protest and spread the word.

Kafka meets RBC insurance

Recently my son obtained his driver's license.  Obviously, he would like to borrow my car from time to time.

So, I telephoned my automobile insurer, RBC Insurance and explained the need.  The lady took the info and then quoted a price.  (sucking sound here - he's 18).  I told her I would get back to her.  She asked, "when?"  I replied "When I can."

She phoned twice in the same week asking for an update.  On the last call, I said, "NO.  Do not insure him."

Then I received a packet in the mail showing him as an occasional driver on my insurance.  I phoned up RBC and said, "NO, this is not wanted.  Take him off."

"Well Sir, you'll have to sign a form."

"Why?"

"Well to remove him from your insurance."

"But he's not on my insurance."

"Yes, he is."

"Why? I told you 'No, don't put him on."

"Well Sir, that's not how it works."

"All I asked for was a quote, I didn't confirm.  In fact I said, 'No'"

"Sir that's not how it ...." 

I used the RBC 'comment' site.

I got a phone call from someone who could do nothing as they were not authorized to actually do anything when customers had issues.

I received a packet in the mail to sign to CONFIRM that my son was insured.

I received an e-mail reminding me to sign what I received in the mail to CONFIRM that my son was insured.

But I have yet to hear from ANYONE at RBC Insurance acknowledge that in fact I never asked for my son to be added as an occasional driver.  I said "NO".  What is so hard about the word "No" for RBC Insurance?

I can only assume that RBC Insurance excels in creative incompetence.

Not only is RBC insurance incompetent, but I suspect a degree of unethical sales behaviour, perhaps driven by commissions.

Imagine calling Ford and asking for a price on a Mustang, and the next day a Mustang appears in your driveway with a demand for payment.

I've told RBC to fix this quick.  But I suspect I'll be shopping for a new insurer very soon.

Deepest known vaccuum: Trudeau airport sucks

I spent a couple weeks in the US this July on Holiday.  Flying back I was quite relaxed in the full to capacity A-320 to Detroit and thence the RJ-900 to Montreal.

Oddly, my stress level increased only as I got close to Montreal, not as I navigated the inanities of the US air travel experience.

For some reason (mainly business travel) I seem to arrive very often at Trudeau around 17:00 - 19:00.  Just about the same time that B-747's and A-330's disgorge hundreds of passengers each.

There are a lot of Canadians on those flights, however there are an awful lot of Europeans and Africans as well.

Trudeau airport marshall all of this cattle into a long lineup at the end of which you are guided towards a half dozen to dozen customs lineups (about 10 deep) to await your greeting home.

In most other countries and certainly the EU and the US (when you clear in the US as opposed to Montreal or Toronto) there are two customs clearing areas:  those for visitors and those for nationals returning home.

There is nothing like ending up behind a family from the middle east or Africa.  You will wait behind them for a long time.

Why are Canadians being punished having to wait for visitors to clear customs?

It is time for Canadian customs to do what almost all other countries do:  have agents dedicated to Canadians returning home.

Yes, I know there is the CANPASS line for frequent travelers.  However, I was with my girlfriend who travels at most once a years by air...  and in any case that should not matter.  All Canadians should have a faster lane to return through.

Another thing that SUCKS at Trudeau:  where are the baggage carts in the US baggage area these days?  There used to be tons of carts all over, but I had to go all the way to the opposite corner of the baggage area to find one of a remaining dozen carts.  Maybe, as this flight was at 19:30 most of the carts were all over the parking lot.  Trudeau needs more people to marshal and return carts.  (At least there is no fee).

Trudeau is getting worse and worse while Plattsburgh beckons. 

I want to pay 33% on my mutual funds...

It is very often said that mutual funds managers have little incentive to work hard for returns.  After all the customer will pay.  He has no choice.  The mutual fund just skims it off the capital.  The customers capital.  My capital.

The mutual fund managers will be paid and the mutual fund provider will make money.  

Here's a better idea.  I want mutual funds ("you") to operate this way:

1. If you lose money on my funds you get 0.

2. If you make money on my funds, but you don't beat the market, you get 10% of the gains.

3. If you beat the market, you get 10% of the gains, plus 33% of the gains that are above the market.

Let lose the Alpha-Bulls.

Immigrant Accommodation - Immigrant first.

Offhand from a recent CBC report on "reasonable accommodation" and the Bouchard-Taylor commission I see too much of what "Quebecers" should do to accommodate immigrants and not enough about what accommodations immigrants should make to integrate into society here.

Chiefly among the things that immigrants should have to agree to, in writing, in their mother tongue before being accorded any right to live here, is:

-They must read (or have read to them) the complete Charter of Rights (Canada and Quebec), (in their own language if necessary) and sign a form saying they have read it (or had it read to them in their language) and understood it and understand that it applies to them and to their behavior with respect to the rest of their own family.

-agree to and commit to respect that the law here has precedence over the laws of the country they left, most especially laws enshrined in religion or in the traditions of where they left.

-that the above is perhaps much more protective of women's and children's rights than where they came from needs to be clearly understood.

-that the cost and effort of "preserving their original culture and heritage" is their own to bear and that no person, organization, company or government entity at any level is obliged, nor can be compelled to help them in these pursuits.

-that if they are not content to live by the law here, they are very welcome to exercise their absolutely unimpeded right to leave, including a return to wherever it was that they came from.

-that if they or their immigrating children are found guilty of committing a crime in the 5 years after they arrive, then they are collectively exposed to immediate expulsion to their country of origin regardless of "refugee" claims.

-that they must, at their own cost, all take French and optionally English lessons until reaching a functional reading, writing and oral proficiency allowing them to function autonomously within 2 years of their arrival. Failing which, they will be fined some amount monthly until reaching that level.

If they can't wholeheartedly agree to the above then please have great luck in finding somewhere else to live or in returning home. Next!

The above may sound unfair, tough and impractical, but the consequences over the long term are worse. I would guess that at least 75% of immigrants probably adapt well and willingly. 

But they're not the ones who cause any issues or problems after they arrive.

Bell Canada's last bill

Bell Canada have reacted with poor manners to my cancellation of their over priced land line to my house.  Since the landline is paid in the month in advance, whatever number of days were not used are credited back to the account holder.  So Bell owed me a credit of $15.29.

Then they clawed back:

$5.57 -fee: cancellation of long distance plan

$4.17 -fee: cancellation of network fees.  (eg: a fee to cancel access to a fee).

Bell Canada's ability to get their fingers into my pocket never fails to surprise.

And as Bell lose customers by the hundreds every day to cable-phone operators, they should not be surprised that none will ever come back.  There are now over 2 million Canadians with cable phone systems, a large portion of which were former Bell Canada customers.

The Ontario Teachers Pension Plan should take a sharp look at why Bell are losing customers by the hundreds every day.  I can give them one area to focus on: Bell's abusive pricing.  There is absolutely no justification for charging $2.80 per month for touchtone service, for example, not to mention a $5.95 network access fee.

Videotron charge me a mere $16.95 for the same service that Bell provide at $28.69.  All tolled, I will be saving $160 per year (with tax) by canceling Bell.  So their petty last cash grab is a sad note of their desperation.

In the 2007 annual report, BCE notes that the "churn" level went from 0.9% in 2005 to 1.2% in 2007.  This is customers voting increasingly with their feet and leaving.

Bell Canada is clearly not competitive.  But I don't care.  I'm gone.

I paid my last Bell Canada bill yesterday.

US Strategic Oil Reserve - Idiotic Senators and House members

Today I read that the US Senate has voted 97-1 in favor to stop filling the US Strategic Petroleum reserve in order to slow rising prices.  

The House is set to overwhelmingly vote for a similar house bill

How stupid can elected Americans be?

The US Petroleum reserve is taking in about 70,000 bbl of oil every day.  This is about 0.3% of US consumption and less than 0.1% of world consumption.

This symbolic act will have absolutely no effect on the price of oil and certainly no effect on the poor consumption habits of Americans.

“this is one little thing we can do, and I think we should go ahead and do it," said Sen. Pete Dominici of New Mexico.

It is LONG PASSED TIME for the US Congress to stop doing 'little things' and start doing real things to slow the exorbitant 21 M bbl of oil per day of US consumption, ( 1 out of 4 barrels consumed worldwide.)

Canada in Afghanistan - stop the puffing

A recent CBC article lauds the Canadian military for re-building housing for Afghan military families in Afghanistan.

Commendable, however, anyone who believes that "re-building" in a place like Afghanistan carries any enduring memory or loyalty is regrettably deluded.

Afghanis have been the serfs of local warlords for millennia. Their hearts and minds are connected directly to their stomach and living for another day. 

Canada and allies could build them anything required to cover basic needs, help them with water, farming, education, light industry, commerce and local government.

And a month after Canada and allies leave it will all fall to pieces again. Whatever of value is built up will be plundered or destroyed because the people of Afghanistan do not have the desire or courage as citizens to take and hold their own country.

The tribal mentality of these people is burned-in in a way that would take at least 3 generations to fade. To expect them to convert to a western democracy within 10 years or 20 is foolhardy, wasteful and dangerous.

The real mission in Afghanistan is only to find, arrest or kill Al Queda and then leave. The fate of Afghans is for Afghans to determine. And if they are not determined to take and hold their own government and to hold it against religious or tribal fanatics, then they do not deserve the fruit.

Canadian and allied countries should be burning the poppy fields that fund the Taliban and Al Queda. Every dollar earned for heroin and opium is a dollar being used to kill Canadian and allied soldiers.  Put our underemployed CF-118's to work: napalm the poppy fields.

Al Queda is hiding in Pakistan. We need the Pakistanis to step up as well as allow Canadian, American and other allied troops to hunt there. And if they won't do that, they are not allies.

The Canadian military has done us extremely proud in their Afghani mission. The first time that Canadian soldiers have been engaged so hard, so deep, so long and so tough in combat since Korea. Some have paid the ultimate price and their families continue to pay the price.

It is sickening not because soldiers make sacrifices, but that they are doing it for the wrong ends. The goal is Al Queda. NOTHING ELSE.

And if the "average" Afghani won't fight for his own country why should Canadian soldiers?

Some will reply that the Afghan military is being trained and becoming effective in fighting its own battles with the Taliban and Al Queda.  I've yet to see anything resembling concrete proof. (A little hint here: CDN or US military press officers are not purveyors of concrete proof).

Toyota Canada's despicable pricing practices

My girlfriend has had her sights set on a Toyota Prius.

If we were to saunter down to Plattsburgh, NY, the price for the most basic US model is US$21,000 (plus NY state tax and a few other minor fees).

However, the best price for the most basic model Prius in Quebec is CAD$30,000, plus tax and fees.

I spoke with Toyota and they explained that, get this, the Canadian "most basic model" comes with air conditioning, electric-windows and a few other doo-dads.  The US "most basic model" does not (I do have to check that out).  This is not worth $9000 by any stretch of the imagination.

As we all know, the exchange difference between the US and CAD is on the order of 1 or 2 cents of late with no sign of the US dollar recovering significantly.

Further, Toyota's US warranty is not honored in Canada if the car is sold to a Canadian resident.  (Honda have the same sleazy policy; Ford and GM honor the warranty without conditions (I don't know about Chrysler, but I suspect they have the same policy as Ford and GM)).

I don't know why Toyota have this sleazy policy, but I suspect part of their excessive Canadian price is their raking in of the Canadian tax credits for highly fuel efficient vehicles.  The owner is supposed to get that benefit, not the car maker.

While I've always driven Japanese cars, their pricing policy and their cross-border warranty restriction (based on supposed differences in models) is absolute sleaze.

It is anti-competitive.

It is gouging.

It is wrong.

While I am the last person to urge people to eschew the quality of Japanese cars, it is also certain that the quality of the US "big three" has improved markedly over the past decade.

And as the US "big three" seem to understand cross border competition, I urge you:

To not buy from Toyota and Honda.

To buy US brand cars... from New York state.  (Vermont sales taxes are higher and I don't know if the sales tax can be avoided from either for Quebec sales).

Hydro-Quebec policy stunts home alternate energy

I had heard recently that Hydro-Quebec would allow home owners who generate their own power to 'sell' the excess to Hydro-Quebec in the same manner that so many American utilities have been practicing, some for over a decade.

In fact, what Hydro-Quebec really offers is a 'trade'.  If you provide so many kW-h to Hydro Quebec, then you can draw them back when needed at no charge.  So if you generate 50 kW-h per day and only use 40, then you have a 10 kW-h "credit".  This is all fine and dandy if your average consumption outpaces your average power generation.

But what if you generate more that you use?

While solar might not get Quebecers into this regime, wind and micro hydro might.

For serious transformation to take place, HQ will need to credit, in cash, for excess beyond need generation of hydro power.