Ontario "Healthy Schools Strategy" Has Failed

Well, surprise... surprise. Ontario high school students aren't eating at their local cafeteria because the food sucks.

Three years ago, the province of Ontario put in place what they called the "Healthy Schools Strategy". Chocolate bars, burgers and soft drinks were outlawed and replaced with apples, rice and corn in high school cafeteria's.

Ontario's annual Auditor General report was released this week and found in part, sales at High school cafeteria's are down by as much as 45% and vending machine sales are down by as much as 85%. This making it very difficult for Ontario to reach their goal to reduce childhood obesity by 20% in 5 years.

When the government forces people to do things they don't want to do, they go elsewhere. High taxes on tobacco products have forced people to go underground to get their fix. Many people cross boarder shop because prices are cheaper... even when you factor in the price of gas (which is also significantly cheaper in the US). In this case, high school students are ditching their local cafeteria's for fast food options across the street.

When I was in high school, I rarely ate at the cafeteria as I usually brought my lunch from home. Healthy eating starts at home, not with the government telling us what we can and can't eat.

The auditor general's report also found that many cafeteria's aren't even following the healthy eating plan either. Of the three schools tested for this report, some entree's had two times the amount of allowable fat and one dish had 40% more sodium than was supposed to be called for.

In addition to the undesirable options, many students say their local cafeteria menu prices are just too high and the fast food dollar menu across the street is more appealing. I bet the next step is banning fast food establishments near high schools. Sorry... I don't want to give the government bureaucrats any ideas.

The Reform Act: Two Sides To Every Bill

There has been a lot of talk lately about The Reform Act. Last week, Conservative MP Michael Chong put forth a motion which would give more power to your local MP. It sounds like a good idea on the surface but as with most things in life, there are two sides to every story.

There are things about this bill that are good, like allowing a party's local riding association to pick their own candidate. Too many times these days, your local election candidate could be a parachute candidate. The leader of the party will pick high profile candidates and put them in ridings they know they can win, even if that riding is 1000's of miles away from where that person lives. I personally believe that a candidate should live in the riding they are running in. This is an issue that people care about, the 'where do you live' question seems to come up in most debates I watch. The whole parachute thing is dishonest politics, this is exactly how Green Party leader Elizabeth May got elected in 2011.

So there is definitely some good stuff in this bill. But... has anybody seen they part where only 15% of caucus MP's can overthrow their leader?  This concerns me. Take the Liberals for example, the federal Liberals have 36 seats in the house of commons right now. So this would mean if 5 MP's don't like him, he can be kicked out? 81, 000 card carrying liberals voted for Justin Tredeau earlier this year at the leadership convention and if only 5 people don't like him, those vote will be null and void?

But wait there's more, party MP's will have the power to choose the replacement. And this vote occurs in secret and with only 50% + 1 of the vote, a new leader is voted in. And it's not mandatory that every MP attends the meeting either. So in theory, a new leader could be voted in by literally a hand full of people as well. And this is supposed to be more democratic? If you are a card carrying member of a political party, you should think twice about supporting this bill.

There are two sides to every story. Whenever you hear about a piece of legislation, especially something you think is going to benefit the voting public, ask yourself this question: What is in it for the person (or people) proposing the bill? Everything government does by its very nature is political. Politicians will rarely do anything that benefits the people, everything they do is ultimately for their own political gain. In this case, it's a few back bench MP's who don't see eye to eye with Stephen Harper and they want to overthrow him. Sure, Michael Chong says this won't come into effect until the next election in 2015 but he could very well get re-elected and then.. It's on.

Be very wary of this proposal, It's gives more power to government bureaucrats and less power to you, the voting public. Remember, ask yourself: What's in it for me? The answer... nothing.

Inside The Mind of a Liberal

I can't sleep tonight so here I am wondering aimlessly around the interwebs. I came across an interesting article speculating why the Occupy Wall Street movement never really took off. There are a number of reasons for this but this article suggests that the 'left' hasn't embraced the OWS movement the way the 'right' has taken to the tea party movement. The article reads in part:

"Liberals tend to think they’re each unique in their ideology, while conservatives and moderates have the perception that most other people think the way they do."

It's an intresting article... take a look:

Link: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/02/study-suggests-occupy-wall-street-movement-undone-by-liberals-need-to-feel-unique