Could the City of Ottawa soon consider banning laser printers?

In the city where banning things is very much in vogue, apparently under the guise of "public health", one might soon see a Councillor or three proposing a ban on yet another "health hazard". The culprit?

The laser printer.

Yep, that piece of office equipment that spews out paper at record speeds nowadays has been identified as being a "significant health threat" by Australian researchers. It should be noted, however, that these so-called researchers haven't bothered to analyze the chemical composition of the tiny particles which are emitted when a printer does its dastardly deed... but they seem to be able to note with some certainty that the "problem" is worst when toner cartridges are used for the first time.

I know that tree huggers like Clive Doucet abhor the very thought of a laser printer in every Ottawa home simply because of the amount of paper that they can process these days. Could it be that this new "study" might be the linchpin that spirals a bunch of "well meaning" politicians to force a discussion on whether printers should be allowed in public places or whether they should be banned?

Despite the City's fiscal predicament, its Council's priority list has focused quite a bit on regulating the private lives of its citizens since 2000 or 2001, so it indeed might only be a matter of time before they force us back to the dark ages of daisy wheel printers. A professor is quoted in the article (link below) as saying that these printers are sources of indoor pollution and that there should be regulations.

What do you say, folks? Who wants to circulate the first petition for or against banning laser printers in Ottawa homes and offices? Don't laugh - the saddest thing in all of this is that none of us can be 100% convinced that Ottawa City Council wouldn't waste time discussing and debating this.

Who knows... maybe I know nothing about priorities at all...

Link to the CTV News article: http://tinyurl.com/29hfyq

Is bringing pre-cooked food to Parliament Hill taking frugality a bit too far?

Is this pick on federal politicians day? One newspaper article goes on and on about chauffeured vehicles for senior elected officials and public servants, another seems to be lauding a move where the Parliamentary Restaurant as we all know it today will soon be but a mere memory.

How many people out there love institutional food? Anybody? What's the cafeteria food like in the local hospital? Has anyone ever been trampled on the way to the dining room in retirement homes? How exciting can a menu be anywhere that food is trucked in from some off-site "meal manufacturing site"? More importantly, exactly how nutritious is the food that comes out of these so-called kitchens?

That last question, more so than those preceding it, is what I can't help wondering after reading an Ottawa Citizen article this morning.

In what seems to be a surprise to many working in our Parliamentary Precinct, geniuses have decided to "substitute fine cuisine and meals prepared for MPs and senators on site with warmed-over pre-cooked meals trucked in from a 21,500-square-foot food plant in Ottawa's east-side industrial sector." That sure sounds yummy.

The story goes on to characterize the move as going from "fresh spring lamb and mint sauce" to "airline fare". Apparently the intent is to have a company build this plant from the ground up and then somehow sell it to the government. What the point of that exercise really is, I cannot fathom. If the government will own and operate the facility, it will have to pay in one way or another for the bricks and mortar, as well as for the staff and the food they will prepare. Don't forget the transportation from the "east-side industrial sector" to Parliament Hill. I wouldn't want to try that at rush hour!!! Where will the savings come from? The transportation will be more expensive than it currently is, I can't see how major savings can come from the staffing budget line --- will it come from food costs?

I'm all for cutting taxes and finding savings wherever possible. Having said that, I do have some difficulty coming to terms with condoning the characterization of a "fat cat" lifestyle that members of the media like to cast upon our Parliamentarians.

I also have a problem with this move because it cannot be a "move up" in food quality - if the kind of food we're led to believe is currently being prepared there on a daily basis and if the cost of that food is as high as we are led to believe by media zealots, any change has to be for the worse. Moreover, it would take a mountain of evidence from some nutritionist to make me believe that the nutrition value isn't going to take a hit. Let's be serious here.

With all the attempts on the part of doctors and politicians (such as Ontario Health Promotion Minister Jim Watson) to get Canadians to eat better, exercise more and lead a better and balanced lifestyle, I cannot fathom how anyone can believe that our Members of Parliament who work 12-18 hour workdays and many of whom live on fast food deserve this treatment.

Pierre Poilievre, a member of the governing party knew nothing about this when approached by a Citizen reporter. That in itself says quite a bit.

Come on, guys!! Sure, us plebes don't get the luxury of dining in the Parliamentary restaurant very often, if ever. If this isn't a cost cutting measure that could potentially help compromise the health and well being of elected officials and their staff, I'll eat my hat. This flies in the face of everything these very people are trying to have "regular Canadians" do. Cafeteria food was never much good and nobody likes it, so if it is generally accepted that it usually isn't the healthiest choice, why is bringing this fare in even being considered?

Who made the decision anyway?! There's still time to change

Petro Canada Q2 profits nearly double last year's take

The crooks... I mean Petro Canada reported their 2nd quarter earnings today. In Q2 last year, profits totalled $472 million. This year, the profits earned in the same three month period soared to $845 million. It won't be long before the benchmark will be $3 billion in annual profits or the year will be deemed a dismal failure. Any bets if that'll happen in 2009? 2008? This year?

How did the head crook... I mean Petro Canada CEO Ron Brenneman explain the earnings surge? According to a CBC News report, he cited "a strong integrated portfolio, solid operations and a robust business environment." That must be business slang for "sucking more people into our stations and screwing them at the pump".

I don't get it - crude oil is nearing its all-time high price today and yet we're paying less than a dollar per litre. Don't get me wrong - I'm loving the "bargain price" of 93.9 cents per litre... but it wasn't so long ago that we were told that the reason we were paying $1.10 or $1.20 a litre was due to high crude prices and the expenses associated with getting the raw materials to refineries. If that's the case, why aren't we still paying record prices at the pump?

Again - I'm not complaining.

The thing is, it's hard to understand what makes the petroleum industry tick. It wasn't so long ago margins went way up because Imperial Oil had a little fire in southern Ontario. Other companies saw an opportunity and seized it. Good on them, shareholders would say, but the poor consumer at the end of the "food chain" took it across the chops for several weeks each time he or she filled up.

Somewhat lower prices at the pump are a recent phenomenon - it will be interesting to see how the next two Petro Canada earnings report go. If profits are down for some unknown reason, it will be pretty easy to see that they only made $600 million in profit because the pump prices weren't as "solid" or "robust" in July and (hopefully!) August.

There's nothing we can do about it, I know. Not everyone can afford to "offset the pump price shock" by buying thousands of petroleum company shares. Maybe there's something to the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

Got a job for me, Petro Canada? Esso? Anyone?

Why try to ban handguns if banning murder hasn't worked yet?!

Murder has been a criminal offence in Canada for years. If murder is bad and yet people keep insisting on killing for one reason or another, in spite of the well-known consequences that follow the act of murder, what exactly do politicians and bureaucrats think a law banning hand guns in Canada will achieve?!

From what I understand, acquiring and owning a handgun for a law abiding citizen is not exactly easy... if one chooses to do so legally. If the law of the land isn't a factor, it has been shown on countless television shows that getting one "on the street" requires little if any effort.

How many people who hold up banks, kill rival gang members or deal in the drug trade acquire their firearms legally - and then register them? How many of these people who obviously have a complete disregard any or all laws will obey a new one?

They say a new law banning handguns should be passed. That will make it impossible for me to own one. That's fine - I want an XBox 360 before buying my first 9mm. Does anyone know what this law will ever truly accomplish? Will it have an impact on potential murderers, drug dealers or bank robbers who clearly could care less about criminal laws? Anyone who thinks so must be smoking the drapes, as Lowell Green often said.

Just to further make the point about how short-sighted we seem to be on this issue, look at an excerpt of today's Toronto Star editorial. Check out one of its main premises: "If pistols were made harder for criminals to obtain – if they were less prevalent in society – the bullets that ripped through 11-year-old Ephraim Brown on early Sunday might never have been discharged." Are they serious? Pistols made harder for criminals to obtain? Please.

How about we identify and address the real root of the problem? Lock up criminals and stop releasing them. If they kill once, they'll never kill again. Repeat offenders will be a mere memory when it comes to major crimes including those involving use of prohibited weapons. Further regulating prohibited weapons won't alter their frequency of use on the streets!!

After a while the numbers will start to drop. Banning guns isn't going to stop murders! If putting laws in place worked, there wouldn't have been any murders in Canada for years! Besides - given the penalty for murder (in theory) is much more severe than any other crime as it is, and we can't stop people from killing, how can we stop criminals from breaking a "lesser" law? We can't.

Think about it, people.

City council no longer condones criminal activity - finally!

So Rick Chiarelli managed to table a motion to end the controversial City of Ottawa crack pipe distribution program on July 11th. An overwhelming majority of City Council supported the motion, killing the program once and for all. Or did it?

It seems that a number of community groups are falling all over each other, vying to pick up where the City left off. Some of these groups will likely look to the City to fund the program, thereby defeating the vote's intent.

I was always taught in school that nobody was above the law. It didn't matter if you were a famous movie star, a hockey player, a politician or a so-called "community leader" - the law was equally applied to everyone.

It seems that this edict largely is true... most of the time. It seems that if you are really famous or have tons and tons of money in your bank account, the application of the law might vary a little in your case. For example, while nobody can be certain "beyond a reasonable doubt" whether OJ Simpson did it or not, it seems that it was "more likely than not" that he did - the burden of proof was eventually met in a civil case. Odds are decent that had it been you or I who had been charged with OJ's crimes, we would have been criminally convicted. He was acquitted because he had virtually unlimited resources available to hire a defence team.

That's the exception to the "nobody is above the law", right? Well... let's look at section 462.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Under this section, it is stated that it's a summary conviction offence to import, export, manufacture, promote or sell instruments or literature for illicit drug use. OK, so it's not a super serious (or indictable) offence to "promote or sell instruments for illicit drug use" but if I were to try and start up my own little business promoting and selling crack pipes, how long would I last on a street corner?

Not very long, I suspect.

The law might have decided to turn a blind eye on the City of Ottawa's actions, all in the spirit of "public health promotion". Statistics that show that there are more crack smokers in Ottawa as compared to when the program had yet to launch, and in addition, these crack smokers actually consumer more illegal drugs (including crystal meth, something I'm sure the left leaning councillors and bureaucrats hadn't intended when making crack "safer" to consume) as compared to the pre-launch months and years.

I'd just love to know how more people smoking more crack (and meth!!) can be a "healthy" or "positive" outcome of this so-called public health program. It's gone. Let it die a peaceful death, councillors.

If we have to raise taxes every year - that's another story for another day - let's raise them for the greater good of all the citizens of our grand city, not the crack heads and meth addicts.

And obey the law of the land, eh?! The criminal code applies to all of us!

City of Ottawa transit committee got it right

OC Transpo recently lost a court case. It was ordered to start/reinstate the announcing of major or requested bus stops. Company officials went to City Hall, cap in hand, asking for $8 million for some sort of electronic solution to the "problem".

I'm not sure how this system would have worked, but it likely would have involved some sort of global positioning system that would be enhanced with OC Transpo staff programming - after all, I'm sure that no GPS system knows where the Tunney's Pasture Transitway stop really is. Would this really have only set the city back $8 million? Not likely.

When I first read this story I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Why? OC Transpo already spends millions on sentient beings that already are found on each and every bus one might find on Ottawa's roads... they're called bus drivers!!! As far as I know, all bus drivers have eyes (thus giving them the ability to recognize these major or requested stops) and a mouth (thereby giving them the tools required to make the announcements as ordered by the courts).

The good news is that the city's Transit Committee rejected the request yesterday, citing the fact that announcing stops is part of some existing agreement or contract - in other words, it's already part of each driver's job description.

Nobody has yet brought this up, but I can't help wondering if OC Transpo administration had its hands tied by the Amalgamated Transit Union. It likely wouldn't be beyond them to take a position that forcing bus drivers to make regular announcements is a stress or some "extra" that should require tremendous raises for the "bus operators". Fat chance.

Come on, guys - this was a no brainer! To the supervisors and managers over at OC Transpo I ask: make your employees do their jobs! If they don't want to, find someone else who will do it. If the Councillor who was quoted on the news this morning is correct, and this making announcements has been part of bus drivers' job descriptions for the better part of the last twenty years, circulate a memo.

It'll cost far less than $8 million (that can be better spent elsewhere, I'm sure) and with a little bit of effort, the conditions of the court order can be satisfied tomorrow morning - not some time next year or however long it would have taken to get this thing "fixed" had the funding come through.

It's not rocket science folks.