I don’t know about you, but I am really tired of being threatened with violence and other unpleasantness by some native leaders. I’m also pretty tired of hearing that I’m never doing enough to help fix native problems.

I did find yesterday summit particularly annoying. Stephen Harper gave an embarrassingly groveling speech, which was immediately followed by a speech from chief Shawn Atleo demanding more… “We see today’s Gathering as only the first step in a commitment to a renewed relationship. Next must come new fiscal relationships that guarantee and deliver sustainable, equitable services based on mutually agreed standards and shared responsibility.” Why do I have the feeling someone’s about to reach deeper into my pocket?

Stephen Harper can talk about economic self-sufficiency until he goes blue in the face, as long as the federal government keeps handing out billions of dollars to band councils without normal levels of accountability, nothing will change and we all know it. But for some weird reason, nobody ever seems willing to tell the chiefs to put a sock in it and fix their own problems themselves. We grovel and promise more, more and more. Why?

Are we afraid? Chiefs like Terry Nelson don’t seem to mind making threats – he said, back in 2007, that there “were only two ways of dealing with the white man. Either you pick up a gun or you stand between him and his money.” Or Chief Stewart Phillip who warned Monday that an Arab Spring-like aboriginal uprising was inevitable unless Stephen Harper gives clear indications that he takes his concerns seriously.

You know, a native uprising is not a pleasant prospect. One such scenario is detailed in the novel Uprising by military expert Doug Bland (a book I helped edit), and I don’t think I’m going to spoil the book for you by telling you it doesn’t end well for anybody. An uprising would be a disaster for everybody. But this endless blackmail some chiefs subject us too isn’t pretty either.

Canadians – aboriginals as well as non-aboriginals – deserve better.

Should we extend the ban on burkas and other face coverings beyond citizenship swearing-in ceremonies, as some Muslims are asking of Immigration Minister Jason Kenney? Yes.

What the Muslim Canadian Congress is asking for is federal legislation making people remove any face covering when working in the public sector or doing business with government officials. More or less like Quebec’s Bill 94, which was introduced almost two years ago, with the support of the province’s largest women’s group.

As Premier Jean Charest explained at the time: That bill is “a symbol of affirmation and respect — first of all, for ourselves, and also for those to whom we open our arms. This is not about making our home less welcoming, but about stressing the values that unite us.” And two fundamental values that have to be respected are the equality between men and women, and the secular nature of public institutions.

The Muslim Canadian Congress is not asking Jason Kenney to consider banning the burka or the niqab from the streets. It’s only asking for the current ban on face coverings to be expanded to public-sector jobs and dealings with government officials. Kenney said he was prepared to consider the suggestion, and added that he didn’t see the existing ban to be controversial, and neither do Canadians. In fact, his recent move to ban face coverigns from swearing-in ceremonies is supported by 81% of us.

I would like to see the existing ban expanded. I might even push it all the way to a full ban on veils and other face coverings, like they have in France. I don’t have a problem with head scarves. But I draw the line at the niqab and the burka. I don’t care what your religion is – in a free and open society like Canada, honest people show their faces when they interact with one another.

It’s not about religion, it’s about culture. In this country, men and women are treated equally under the law, and both go about their business in public the same way. Our behaviour should reflect that. We shouldn’t settle for anything less.

Yes, they’re out of office – mostly. But even with just a handful of MPs after a historic thumping in the last election, the Bloc Quebecois still manages to make our blood boil. And yes, of course, it has to do with money. Our money, which they’re taking and abusing without even so much as a thank you.

There was an explosive story in La Presse Saturday morning claiming that between 2004 and 2011, Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe had used money from his House of Commons budget to pay the salary of a top party staffer. We’re talking about amounts that get very close to $1 million in total. Of money that’s supposed to be used for parliamentary purposes – gone instead to the party, which is a big no-no.

The party is trying to defend itself. Mr. Duceppe and his former chief of staff saying all this had been “known” for many years, that the Bloc had never tried to hide anything. I’m sure this will impress investigators. Some people are even suggesting that the party or Mr. Duceppe ought to repay that money. Well, yes. Absolutely. Take it out of Mr. Duceppe’s lavish, $140,000/year pension, maybe?

There is, however, a little bit of good news in this story. The fact that the party didn’t have enough money to pay everyone and was “forced” to divert funds from parliamentary sources to pay its own staff shows you that normal people in Quebec don’t give money to separatist parties. As my friend and Sun News colleague Eric Duhaime explained just before last year’s election, about 80% of Bloc funds come from taxpayer subsidies. Oh, and also: The Harper government is finally getting around to canceling some of those subsidies, and the Bloc will soon be weaned off this free taxpayer money.

Left to its own devices, the Bloc will die a slow painful death (or at least suffer greatly) because without money you can’t keep the dream alive for very long. It sure makes it hard to win elections when you have no budget for ads. Or staff. Or signs.

So the bad news is, you’re still being played for chumps, with your own money. The good news is, it’s almost over. I don’t know about you, but I can’t wait.

How old are you? If, like me, you’re 45 or younger, chances are you’re not really thinking about retirement. And why would you? You’re unlikely to be able to afford it. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. We do our best to save anyway – we contribute to RRSP or other investment vehicles, and if we’re lucky we work for an employer who chips into our retirement savings, usually dollar for dollar.

The idea of retiring at 55 with a pension of $53,000 a year is almost comical it’s so far-fetched. Yet that is what our members of Parliament get on average, some are entitled to less, but some are entitled to much more – Gilles Duceppe is entitled to $140K a year… And as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation explained yesterday, us taxpayers contribute $23 for each dollar MPs contribute to this fund, making it the richest pension fund on the planet. Oh! And MPs qualify for their pension after only 6 years on the job.

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, obscenely unfair. Why should people who have nowhere near that kind of retirement plan pay for such a lavish scheme? Are MPs so special that they deserve something that’s several orders or magnitude better than what the average Canadian gets? No. And it’s high time we made them give it up. And what kind of system should we demand they put in place instead? I’m so glad you asked.

Here’s my idea: Let’s increase the base salary for MPs, from the current $157K a year to, say, $200 a year, and kill the pension fund altogether. Just eliminate it. Let MPs save their money by themselves, like most of us do. With such a generous salary, they should be able to put something away fairly easily, right?

See, the system as it is now encourages MPs to stick around as long as they can – because the longer they stay in office, the bigger their pension. What’s good about that? I don’t want to encourage people to become career politicians. Politics should be something you do as a service to the nation – as a way to give something back. It shouldn’t be seen as winning the retirement lottery. It’s high time we got rid of this ridiculous scheme.

There is a debate these days over a suggestion by a leading Canadian medical journal to withhold information about the sex of your fetus in an effort to curb sex-selection abortions in this country. I am both delighted and amused.

Delighted because I welcome any and all debate on abortion. We’re kind of overdue… But I’m also amused, and not because the issue is funny. Not remotely. But it is weird to see the efforts on the part of nice polite people to square a logical circle that just won’t lend itself to the exercise. It’s kind of cute to hear people try to explain why abortion in general ought to be legal because women should have the right to choose what they grow in their tummies, but at the same time insist that this choice shouldn’t include killing a baby just because it’s a girl.

Why not? We let women kill babies just because they have Down Syndrome. Or Spina Bifida. Or a cleft palate – seriously, this happens. Plenty of women and girls also use abortion as a form of birth control, and we let it happen without much fuss. We also don’t seem to mind when women choose to kill their baby because the timing of the pregnancy isn’t quite right. If they’d gotten pregnant in six months or something, that’d be fine. But not now! Have to finish that degree first, right?

Seems to me aborting a baby because the timing isn’t right or the father’s an idiot or because the mother couldn’t be bothered to use a better form of birth control is even worse than aborting a baby because she’s a girl. At least parents have a reason to prefer having a boy – it’s a reason that has no place in a modern, equal society like Canada. But at least it’s not trivial.

Sex-selection abortion is a real problem. And yes, it’s happening here. If you’re interested in learning more, I recommend the book “Unnatural Selection” – it will give you chapter and verse. But you know, the reason sex-selection abortion is wrong is because all abortions are wrong. Trying to claim otherwise leads to nothing more impressive than a few amusingly illogical contortions.

Some of you may have heard the name Stephen Woodworth. He was on Byline with Brian Lilley just a few days ago. He’s the Conservative MP for Kitchener Centre, and he’s been in the news lately for trying to get Canadians to start a national debate on Section 223 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Why should we care? Because that’s the section that defines who is, and who isn’t, a human being in Canada.

It says: “A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother…” And that’s true whether the child keeps breathing, or whether the cord is severed. It has to be born alive.

Stephen Woodworth says this definition was formulated more than 400 years ago and he wants us to review it. “I’ve concluded that 21st century modern medical science informs us that children are certainly human beings before the moment of complete birth,” he said, adding that “If there’s justification for a law which defines anyone as less than a human when that person is clearly a human being, let Canadians hear it.”

I think it’s a splendid idea. Yes, that means reopening the abortion debate. Bring it on, I say. We don’t debate it nearly enough in this country. That doesn’t mean we must criminalize it – I agree with the prime minister on this: The way to reduce abortions in this country is by changing hearts and minds, not by making the procedure illegal.

So let’s engage hearts and minds, and let’s make sure we have the right definitions to discuss the issue. I hate it when people claim to be in favour of “choice”. When women go to the clinic, do they ask for a choice? The least people can do is spell out what it is they’re in favour of. Me, I’m in favour of not killing babies. If you are in favour of killing them, you should have the guts to say so, instead of hiding behind neutral-sounding euphemisms.

Is a fetus a human being? Well, duh. It’s not a cucumber, is it! Is it a “person” in the legal sense of the word? No. It has no rights according to Canadian laws, and many Canadians don’t know that. For that reason alone Stephen Woodworth’s initiative is well worth it.

Happy Birthday Sir John A. Macdonald! Happy Birthday Jean Chretien! What, you didn’t know both men shared the same birthday? Yes, they have that in common. And something else, too: Both former prime ministers remind us why, generally speaking, we’re not wild about MPs who cross the floor and switch allegiances too easily.

Sir John A. was a good old Tory. Jean Chretien is the ultimate Liberal. Both valued loyalty – almost above everything else. Just ask John Nunziata. Sir John A. used to call independents “loose fish and shaky fellows”, and I’m pretty sure he didn’t mean that in a good way.

Neither would be impressed by former NDP MP Lise St-Denis crossing the floor to join the Bob Rae’s Liberals. The relatively unknown MP said she left the New Democrats over a number of policies, including Canada’s role in Libya. “I didn’t imagine I could stay there for three years just listening to options I didn’t believe in,” she said.

Well! She could have realized that earlier, no? And run for the Liberals instead? When asked how she thought her constituents would take the news, Ms. St-Denis said: They voted for Jack Layton. Jack Layton is dead.” Yikes. I guess they didn’t cover tact in her Politics 101 class…

While I would not limit MPs’ ability to cross the floor (let their constituents punish or reward them as they see fit, I say), I understand why a great number of people dislike political turncoats. The main reason, of course, is that unless you’re a political junkie or you get paid to pay attention to such things, most people have precious little time to devote to the finer details of politics and policies. So to save time, normal people will observe party leaders and have a look at party platforms. Then vote for whichever local candidate agrees with the platform they prefer. It’s not particularly subtle, but it works.

If someone has a very serious, principled reason to switch parties, and explains it properly, that’s one thing. But crossing the floor out of sheer opportunism is something a lot of Canadians find distasteful, and I agree with them.

Hearings into the Northern Gateway pipeline begin today in British Columbia, and they’re schedule to last 18 months. Why so long? Because the review process encourages everyone who feels like it to come and say what they want about the project. And about 4,500 people – including a few fictional characters and more than a few non-Canadians – signed up to air their points of view.

It’s obvious what’s going on – opponents to the project are using the review process to stall it for as long as they can, perhaps hoping that the company behind the pipeline, Enbridge, will get discouraged and abandon the idea. Whatever their goal, it sure is annoying. Most Canadians agree we should review such projects thoroughly, making sure risks are kept to a minimum. But this shouldn’t take 18 months.

National Resources minister Joe Oliver knows this, and yesterday he criticized environmental “radicals” for stalling the project and threatening Canada’s economic interests. He is calling for a faster and more effective review process, but so far he hasn’t produced any specific proposals. So: I put my thinking cap on and here are a few ideas for the minister to consider.

First of all, let’s focus on the people directly affected by the project. Those who live near the projected pipeline should get their concerns heard. And we should listen to them carefully. There should be a pre-hearing process where applications are collected and similar presentations combined to save everybody time. No point listening to the same argument 700 times.

Then we should hear from scientists and real experts – people who actually know what they’re talking about – and process their applications the same way. And finally, we should have a few slots open for other Canadians who have opinions to share. There should be a fairly thorough pre-hearing process at this stage to weed out frivolous or repetitive arguments and make sure that only those people who have compelling and well-prepared arguments get to go in front of the panel. There! You’re welcome!

Those of us who followed the 2008 presidential election will no doubt remember Sarah Palin and the attacks directed against her by certain left-wing commentators and comedians. Not that there weren’t reasons to make fun of Sarah Palin. But when you start attacking a politician’s children you cross a line that shouldn’t be crossed.

One of the most memorable attacks on Palin was comedian Louis C.K. saying Trig, her fifth child who has Down Syndrome, had just fallen out of her “retard-making…” well, I’m not going to repeat the word he used. You don’t need me to.

And no, that didn’t make him unfit for polite company. Louis C.K. was just picked to host the 68th Annual Radio & Television Congressional Correspondents Dinner in June, a very fancy event typically attended by the President, top Congressional leaders and the usual Washington media crowd.

So I’m not holding my breath waiting for prominent left-wing commentators Alan Colmes and Eugene Robinson to be ostracized for their attacks on GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum over the way his family dealt with the death of their baby in 1996.

Gabriel Santorum wasn’t expected to live more than a few hours outside the womb and indeed died two short hours after his premature birth. His parents had him baptized, and spent time with his little body, mourning his death. Then they let their other children meet and hold Gabriel – even though he was dead – so they could say goodbye to their baby brother. The American Pregnancy Association recommends this to help families come to terms with their loss. Is it what I would do if I lost a newborn? I don’t know – I hope I never have to find out. But would I call it crazy and weird like Alan Colmes and Eugene Robinson did? Nope.

Dennis Miller once explained that he considered “everyone and everything to be comedic fair game, except for the helpless.” You’d think Down Syndrome kids and dead babies would count as helpless. But no – some people simply have no shame.

Former Liberal MP David Dingwall will always be known as the guy who said he was “entitled to his entitlements”. But he wasn’t the only one who ever felt this way – far from it.

We told you yesterday about the millions of dollars a year you and I spend on senior bureaucrats for fancy trips around the world. The purpose of these trips? To gain insight into the world, learn leadership skills, and leverage common knowledge (my favourite) so they can learn to do their job better.

Well, yes, of course! We have to send those people on fancy trips because, you see, they have no other way of gaining insight into the world, the poor dears. There’s no Google where they live…

Yeah, that was sarcasm. And yes, I realize many of those public servants work long hours and do their best every day to serve Canada’s interests. But that doesn’t mean they should be entitled to expensive “learning experiences” on our dime. There are many hard-working Canadians in various professions – doctors, engineers, lawyers – who have to keep up or upgrade their skills and knowledge on a regular basis and – this is the crucial part – they have to do this on their own time and dime!

But wait, it gets worse. As our Kris Sims reports in today’s Sun papers, the CEO of the National Capital Commission, Marie Lemay, has been expensing thousands of dollars worth of meals while in Ottawa, including $3.68 for a coffee. Madame Lemay got to go on two leadership trips last year, to the US, Brazil, Europe, and India, that together cost over $45,000. I’m sure she’s worth every penny, right? Oh, never mind – silly me. It doesn’t matter what we think. We’re only expected to pay the bill and shut up.

There’s a bubble somewhere in Official Ottawa where this sort of stuff makes sense. But out here in the real world, it doesn’t. It’s past time to scrap those entitlements and make bureaucrats live like the rest of us. Pay them a reasonable salary and let them learn how best to do their job on their own.