Andrew Spicer's Other Weblog

Election Called

2008-09-07T20:44:00.000-04:00

I probably won't be blogging this one, seeing as I haven't been blogging at all in the past couple years and am mostly out of the loop about which blogs are even worth reading these days beyond a few.

However, I thought it might be worth making a few points...

The issue of Stephen Harper violating the spirit of his own election scheduling law isn't going to get very far. The opposition needs to welcome the election if they want to form the government. Personally, I never liked fixed election dates, but I do see it as another example of the Conservatives' holier-than-thou approach in opposition being pretty close to hipocracy.

On the bigger question of what to expect, people seem reasonably satisfied so that looks good for Harper. But anything can happen. The factors that are going to matter are:

-How will Dion come across? Can he connect?

-Which way will the wild card, Quebec, turn?

-What positioning will the Liberals take and how will it fly?

If I was working for Dion, I'd advise him to run on the economy and suggest that Harper is less trustworthy when it comes to fiscal management and has deficits on the way. The economic prognosis is quite different in different parts of the country and the new Environics poll shows people are feeling it. Harper hasn't played nice with Ontario, so Dion's chances depend on what he can do with that.

Comments on the 2007 Ontario Election

2007-10-11T00:07:00.000-04:00

Several times during the election campaign, I was tempted to break my de facto retirement and make a comment or two on this blog. But... I wasn't tempted enough since this election was over before it really began.

John Tory is now finished, and before more people comment on what a nice guy he is and what a shame it is that he nuked his campaign with a single moronic issue, we need to recognize a pattern in his behaviour. While he likes to play the nice-guy red tory role, he has a habit of taking this sort of turn.

I group his religious schools wedge issue promise with his making-fun-of-Chretien's-face ad for Kim Cambell. In both cases he was making a (mis)calculated move to win votes by polarizing voters. And both times he should have known that Canadians would reject him solidly.

I don't know if he has a bad ear for Conservative Party advisors, or if he isn't the nice guy he appears to be. In any case, his showing this time suggests he's not the leader many (including myself) thought he could be. The schools issue was not a small thing. To make a mistake like this is to be utterly out of touch.

Now that he has lost his seat and is most likely through with politics, he has handed Dalton McGuinty a double victory. Not only will Dalt have 4 more years in power, he already has a promising hope for a third majority in 2011. If he can continue his basically competent management he will have the lead over whichever unknown the PCs select as new leader.

The biggest surprise for me was the showing of the Green Party. Approximately 8% of the vote shows these guys have really arrived as a mainstream party. Certainly some of these votes were just protest votes by people who didn't feel comfortable with the other alternatives. On the other hand, it's probable there are others who would have been more likely to vote Green if they thought the party could win (or if we have proportional representation).

Speaking of PR, I have mixed feelings about the solid defeat of the MMP referendum tonight. At the last minute, I changed my mind and voted for it (swayed in part by Spacing's editorial). But it was a system with flaws and (more importantly) was a solution for a problem that most voters didn't really feel was that serious or important. So, it is done and election reform in Ontario is off the table for a while. It's going to get complicated if we have four parties that can break into double digits.

We now face four more years of Dalton McGuinty. The past four, I felt, were basically competent management but with mediocre leadership on some critical issues. Hopefully he can do better in his second term.

Toronto's New Pay-As-You-Throw Plan for Garbage

2007-05-23T16:44:00.000-04:00

This blog has been pretty much dead for the past 15+ months. Sometimes I regret that. But I can't really imagine my life changing enough to get me back to continuous blogging. Still, occasionally something interesting comes up and I feel like writing a quick note. It won't be very often, so I suggest subscribing to an RSS feed and forgeting about it. (I use Bloglines.)

Anyway, I noted an article in the Globe and Mail today about Toronto's proposed new fee structure for garbage. Basically the plan is to:

Remove waste management from the property tax system
Give you a special City of Toronto garbage can that will be the only can you're allowed to use
Charge you an amount dictated by the size of can that you select

The stated benefit is that this will encourage residents to recycle more or pay the consequences. The other significant benefit that will come once the province allows it is that people living in homes downtown won't have to pay more to have their garbage removed just because their property value is higher.

In the Globe article, City Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong is quoted complaining about the new rules. It's a bit strange to me, because critics on the right frequently claim to want to run government services more like "business", and that's exactly what this is.

The question I am left wondering about is whether people can opt out entirely. The smallest can they plan to offer is $209 per year for 75 litres (picked up every second week). What if I produce less garbage than that? What if I (or a neighbourhood cooperative) can responsibly dispose of our garbage for less than that price? Allowing people to opt out could really produce some interesting changes.

The other question I'm wondering about is whether they will step up enforcement of dumping bylaws.

Transit City

2007-03-17T01:01:00.000-04:00

Today's announcement of the TTC's Transit City plans was a complete and happy surprise to me.

After years of seeing little good news and little inspiration on the transit front, this concept was remarkably right. Unlike the recent Vaughan subway announcement, this plan uses funds efficiently and brings transit to the areas where we need to be driving growth.

I recommend reading Steve Munro's comment today to get a feel for how surprisingly good this plan is.

I have to wonder how this came about and to what degree the new City of Toronto Act, the new leadership at the TTC, and the influence of bloggers (led by Spacing) played roles. (On that last point, note the Spacing-style buttons that decorate the Transit City website.)

If there was anything I'd like to add to the design, it would be connecting the Jane and (especially) Don Mills routes to downtown or Union Station.

Anyway, $6-billion over 14 years is not a crazy expense. We can do this if we put our minds to it. And our city needs it so that we can grow, and so that we can face our current transportation challenges.

(Sorry for the lack of links in this post. I couldn't get blogger.com to work today and had to post by email.)

Census 2006: Toronto City Slow Growth

2007-03-14T09:45:00.000-04:00

The 2006 Canadian census results are coming out, and there is lots of interesting data to look at.

One thing I've noticed is this:

Toronto CMA growth (2001-2006): 430,252
Toronto City growth (2001-2006): 21,787

Over the years, I've spent a lot of time arguing on this blog that, for Toronto's economic and environmental health, it should be a city policy to compete for and win the lion's share of new growth coming to the region.

Well, in the past 5 years the city proper has received only 5% of Greater Toronto's net population growth.

I don't have access to (or don't know how to find) the data that will tell me more specifically where the changes have been. But, given the condo developments in the core, I imagine that downtown has actually grown by more than 20k and we've seen decreasing populations in Scarborough and the other inner suburbs.

Rush-hour TTC Jams

2006-12-12T12:10:00.000-05:00

For almost the entire time I've lived in Toronto, I've had the benefit of being able to walk to work. I've used the TTC a lot, but apparently not much during rush hour. In the past month, however, I've had do go downtown for 9am on several occasions and find the conditions to be awful.

By the time the train arrives at my Danforth-line home station it is frequently already crammed beyond comfort. It's not just standing-room only. It's more like contortionists only. Then, when you make the change at Yonge -- after slowing making your way upstairs -- you face the same situation on the southbound trains.

Obviously many people know this already, as these trains are collectively filled by tens of thousands of daily commuters. So, this post isn't news to them.

I simply want to make the point that this overloading is one of the biggest factors preventing new riders from joining the system. It also places a limit on the economic development downtown. Transit strategies that keep adding new capacity in the outer areas therefore add to this problem at the same time that they are limited by the bottleneck. Meanwhile, the TTC and our governments don't seem to think this is a priority problem.

My favourite solution, a downtown relief subway line from Pape to Dundas West via Union Station, is not likely affordable anytime soon. (Although, I would argue that it seems a better investment for the city than the York University extension.)

There are other, smaller things that can help. Among these I'd include better and better-integrated GO Train service for the outer 416, alternative routes like the proposed Don Mills Bus Rapid Transit, and generally better-planned and less stingy surface routes like the Queen Streetcar. For more informed discussion of these and related issues I refer you to Steve Munro's blog.

In the meantime, daily commuters have my sympathies.

Dion on Mansbridge

2006-12-07T22:17:00.000-05:00

I just finished watching Stephane Dion being interviewed on The National (or whatever Peter Mansbridge's show is called these days). I thought he did a very good job.

Just a few comments...

In the opening part about the environment, Stephane Dion sounds greener than any major politician I have seen in Canada or the United States at any level of government. It was inspiring and almost shocking to see. He talked about implementing Kyoto and fought back against those who say his government acheived nothing on climate change. But I find his message on sustainable development to be more notable. He's not backing down from calling it the issue of the century.

On some issues I do feel that Dion has been a bit hyperbolic in his criticism of Stephen Harper. While there have been failings, and while Dion needs to show that he can produce notably better results, it doesn't help his credibility to imply that on every issue Stephen Harper is an outrage. On Afghanistan, for example, I don't know that what Harper has done is dramatically different from what the Liberals would do. While it may be accurate to group Harper with the "neoconservatives", does it really apply in this case?

I liked how Dion handled the dual citizenship issue in his discussion with Mansbridge. First, he explained that it is merely something with emotional value due to his relationship with his mother. But, he also said that if it becomes a barrier for Canadians he will drop it. While he stressed again his total loyalty to Canada and pointed out past examples such as John Turner's dual Canadian - UK citizenship, he was also sensitive to the fact this may be important to Canadians.

Income Trusts was another of those areas where I feel he ought to leave well enough alone. Yes, there are people who are complaining. Yes, Harper was hypocritical on this issue. But does the current state of affairs need the further interventions Dion was implying? Goodale, McCallum and Brison have made suggestions to Dion, but what problem really exists to be fixed? (I guess that isn't totally a rhetorical question as I haven't followed every aspect of this particular issue.)

Anyway, that was the show and I'm glad I caught it.

Harper Re-opening SSM Debate

2006-12-06T15:03:00.000-05:00

Stephen Harper is fulfilling his promise to his party's social-conservative base by having a vote to reopen the question of same-sex marriage. Given the current make-up of parliament, it seems very likely that he will lose.

This should already be a dead issue, and one would hope that it would be finally and completely dead after this next vote. Apparently that may not be the case. As described in today's Globe and Mail editorial:

As well, sources in the Harper government have said there is "protection of marriage" legislation waiting in the wings, to be introduced if this week's motion fails. It would give civil marriage officials the right to refuse to perform gay marriages on religious grounds. In other words, assuming it could survive a Charter challenge and was not outside federal jurisdiction, it would legalize discrimination and champion the shirking of a public duty by public officials. Mr. Harper would neither confirm nor deny the existence of this draft legislation. That's a bad sign.

In any case, someone should ask Harper whether the Conservatives will reopen this issue yet again if they win a majority. When will the issue be considered settled?

Dion Should Drop France

2006-12-05T21:58:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Ezra Levant raised the issue of Stephane Dion's dual Canadian and French citizenships. The story got a bit bigger today when Dion was asked about it and he told us everyone should know he's 100% loyal to Canada. (Sorry, no links; I'm posting from my Blackberry. Check Bourque.)

I feel like there's a lot of potential for this story to get bigger because it's the kind of thing that just looks wrong and is hard to defend. It's hard to defend because dual citizenship doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

If Dion is 100% loyal to Canada then it's safe to say he's not a very good citizen of France. He's reassuring us that in the unlikely event of a Canada-France conflict in his life or career he'll put us first. So, then, what is the meaning of being a French citizen? He's not loyal to the country and just carries an extra passport.

Ezra's comments about France's policies are drivel, but he makes a fair point when he asks how Canadians would react if, say, Stephen Harper had a dual Canadian and American citizenships. We wouldn't like it all.

Anyway, the trump-card reason for Dion to drop his French citizenship right away is that this is an issue that can take off and seriously undermine his electoral chances. If his first loyalty is always to Canadians then I say he ought to drop his second passport before it blocks his ability to get elected and help make Canada a better place.

UPDATE: I should make clear that Dion doesn't actually have a French passport and never has owned one. In any case I meant that line figuratively.

Dion in Quebec

2006-12-04T12:03:00.000-05:00

I'm not arrogant enough to claim that I understand Quebecers better than the likes of Chantal Hebert, however I think she... and most other media commentators... are going to be proven wrong on the subject of Stephane Dion.

It's one thing for columnists to critique a minister's positions on issues and find that the public is against him. It's an entirely different thing for the public to find him leading the national party and to see and hear what he has to say without filters.

I believe he will do well, and soon.

UPDATE: I wrote the above without actually reading Chantal Hebert's column today. Now that I have, I am simply amazed. She suggests that the Liberals will be much weaker in Quebec than they were during the last election. I'm willing to bet that she's quite wrong.

The Liberals Have Made A Good Choice

2006-12-02T21:53:00.000-05:00

First of all, congratulations to all the Dion supporters out there, especially the bloggers. It must feel great right now.

I was busy this weekend with life, but caught most of the key moments on the TV or radio. It made me wish I was there, or had at least been blogging this race all along.

Well, I'm very happy with the choice of Stephane Dion. I was interested in him as a potential leader since the day after Paul Martin lost. But there are many bloggers who can say the same.

He wasn't the only candidate I liked. Despite all the jokes about the big names that didn't run -- remember Manley, McKenna, Rock, etc.? -- I think the Liberals had a good group, and I would have been happy with many of them.

If any Liberals are still concerned about their choice, I really feel that some of their strategic concerns are mislaid. Stephane Dion will do well in Quebec and he is ready to give Stephen Harper a very strong fight in 2007. (Despite all the talk of "electability", I really think either Rae or Dion would have been a stronger electoral fighter than Ignatieff.)

Toronto Election Turnout 2006

2006-11-14T15:41:00.000-05:00

The Globe and Mail is reporting 41.1% turnout for this election, up from previous years. I suggest that reporters, when faced with surprising numbers, need to ask some questions rather than just accepting things at face value.

For a comparison, here are the number of votes cast in all of the four mayoral elections since Toronto amalgamation.

1997:

Mel Lastman: 383,848
Barbara Hall: 346,452

(Total: 749,897)

2000:

Mel Lastman: 483,277
Tooker Gomberg: 51,111
Enza Anderson: 13,595

(Total: 604,394)

2003:

David Miller: 299,385
John Tory: 263,189
Barbara Hall: 63,751
John Nunziata: 36,021

(Total: 692,085)

2006:

David Miller: 332,969
Jane Pitfield: 188,932

(Total: 584,484)

This is clearly the lowest total of any year, and of course there have been population increases.

If the "turnout" seems to be high, then the count of eligible voters is probably way off.

Miller, McGuinty and the Municipal Fiscal Imbalance

2006-11-14T13:26:00.000-05:00

David Miller was reelected yesterday and in his acceptance speech he reiterated his plan to go after the other levels of government for a share of the sales tax.

I do support the notion of municipalities having access to more mature forms of taxation. If we are ever going to be able to have municipalities in control of their own destiny, they will need sources of revenue that grow with the economy. Property tax is a weak form of tax and not suitable for serious demands... especially demands of the sort downloaded by Mike Harris and retained by Dalton McGuinty.

However, the early response to Miller's plan makes me laugh. In the Toronto Star:

Premier Dalton McGuinty says he'll stand with Toronto as it seeks a portion of federal tax revenue, but the city shouldn't expect to get any provincial tax money.

"I'd love to be in a position to be able to dole out additional revenues to our municipal partners, but I'm not," McGuinty told reporters yesterday when asked about Mayor David Miller's election night vow.

Within minutes of his landslide victory last night, Miller said he'd fight Queen's Park and Ottawa to get Toronto the money it needs to succeed.

The mayor wants 1 per cent of either the provincial sales tax or federal GST generated in Toronto, which is worth about $450 million a year.

"What we can do is stand shoulder-to-shoulder- not just our municipal partners but the business community and the social sector as well - as we approach the federal government and continue to make our case," McGuinty said.

Well, if Dalton McGuinty feels that way, the solution is simple.

The federal government has already relinquished 1% of sales tax room and has plans to vacate another 1%. If Ontario had a harmonized sales tax, it could easily keep that 1% in place and have it directed to the municipality in which it was collected.

Easy to imagine, but it's not going to happen easily, any more than Quebec easily solved their fiscal imbalance by doing the same thing when Harper's first GST cut came around. This is an issue where you really can't believe what the politicians say, especially when those politicians are provincial premiers.

Quick Hits, Volume LIV: Toronto Election Day 2006

2006-11-13T10:50:00.000-05:00

I've obviously been involved slightly less this time around! Congratulations to all the other great blogs out there that tried to make something of this election.

Just a few comments from me:

From the look of today's Toronto Sun cover, all I can think is that with friends like this, Jane Pitfield doesn't need enemies!

Various election predictions are here. Hmmm... I'll make it Miller 68, Pitfield, 25, LeDrew 1-2, No other with over 1%. I don't know who will win the contentious wards, but Diane Alexopolous has a chance to pull an upset over Case Ootes in Ward 29. (Well, that's just based on lawn signs, which isn't the most trustworthy guide.)

I am pleased, however, that most predictors see Joe Mihevc winning decisively.

Jane Pitfield's platform seemed, at least in part, based on the notion that downtown is in decline. However, everything I have been reading during this campaign has left me more convinced that it is the outer 416 where we need to be focusing our attention. The core is doing okay. Scarborough, North York, Etobicoke, etc., are suffering from job sprawl, gridlock with poor transit, commercial tax rates that put them at a disadvantage compared to their neighbours just across the street, social inequality and a relative lack of community services.

Today's Globe and Mail suggests that new rules might enable the Mayor to get more done. I hope so. But I've always felt that a great deal of what affects Toronto is still decided at Queen's Park. The election campaign that can really affect this city is still to come next year.

Where are all the federalists?

2006-11-10T13:56:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Michael Ignatieff had an essay in the Globe and Mail (Google backdoor) that confirmed his Quebec-as-nation position. This position has been criticized in many places, including a letter to the Globe's editor today from Ramsay Cook:

Is Michael Ignatieff confused or obfuscating? He says Quebeckers form a nation "with a language, history, culture and territory that marks them out as a separate people." That describes an "ethnic nation" to which only the majority of Quebeckers belong. Cree, Inuit, allophones and anglophones have different languages, cultures and, to some extent, histories. And "territory" has its problems.

But Mr. Ignatieff insists that "Quebec is a civic nation, not an ethnic nation." What about his phrase "blood and belonging," which supposedly differentiated ethnic (language, culture, history) from civic (common civic values) nations? There are many more alligators in this swamp where Mr. Ignatieff wants to lead us.

Meanwhile, Stephen Harper proposes to amend the constitution to prevent the federal government from intervening on provincial issues such as health, education, etc.. A commenter on Andrew Coyne's blog explains...

I've just been reading Paul Wells' new book (Right Side Up) and so am reminded of Harper's Alberta "firewall" history. This new move makes me wonder if he isn't well aware how he might be pushing our federation into a more devolved association of provinces more like the model of American states.

The funny thing about walls, even firewalls, is that they can be constructed from either side of it. Perhaps Harper has more in common with the BQ than we had thought. Run for federal office even though you don't really believe in federalism because dismantling the system from within is easier to do.

Of course, the NDP is no real friend of a federalist position given Jack Layton's attack on the Clarity Act. So... what choices do real federalists have?

Tory Income Trust Flip-Flop is Fine

2006-11-01T21:36:00.000-05:00

I've read in several places that the Tories' flip-flop on the income trust file is going to cost them the election. Hardly. They still may well lose the next round, but not because of this. How many voters are really going to care?

I generally find it hard to get upset when a government breaks a bad promise. Sure, false promises should be punished. But making the right decisions tends to soften me up.

In this case, the income trust loophole needed to be fixed and recent events were making that more clear. Waiting for an election to review their policy would have been irresponsible when action was required now.

Their decision appears abrupt, but that's for the best, too. Hints, leaks or warnings would have simply given some investors an advantage.

Now, that's not to say that the Tories don't deserve criticism for their switch. But the criticism they deserve is for all the grief they laid on the Liberals for a similar policy not that long ago. Still, it is better to switch now than to not act simply for consistency's sake.

Aeroplan's One-Way Loyalty Plan

2006-10-16T19:49:00.000-04:00

Aeroplan has announced that, in addition to being difficult to redeem, Aeroplan points will now expire.

Your points will have a 7-year life span to use them or lose them. This includes any points you have now, although they will be given a December 31, 2006 start date.

I know someone who had accumulated nearly a million points and was saving them for his imminent retirement. So much for that idea!

I ditched my CIBC Aerogold card a long time ago. For the past few years I've been advising my friends that they should get the Canadian Tire Mastercard... it's a no-fee card and essentially gives you 1% cash-back in the form of Canadian Tire money.

New Posts Today

2006-10-11T14:44:00.000-04:00

A few new posts today at my home blog.

Harper's Cheap Dig at the One-Tonne Challenge

Clean Air Smoke Screen

LeDrew's Launch and Campaign Blogs

Two New Posts

2006-10-06T11:23:00.000-04:00

At my home blog:

Hargrove and McGuinty Oppose Clean Air Regulations

2006 Toronto School Board Elections

A Couple Recent Posts

2006-09-29T17:41:00.000-04:00

Over at my home blog:

Miller Can Do Better

Index of My 2003 Toronto Municipal Election Posts

Toronto's New Landfill

2006-09-20T10:40:00.000-04:00

Toronto has purchased a landfill in southwestern Ontario and hopefully brought the end to the emotional and often illogical debate over what to do with our city's garbage.

There are those on the hard left who claim that the City's purchase of a landfill is a betrayal of environmental principles. But this nonsense ignores the fact that, despite Toronto's leading-edge efforts at waste diversion, there will always be some garbage left over. In the end we have to bury it or burn it. The debate over which has been warped by political circumstances and an irrational shame about our waste.

I've seen arguments made about landfilling or incinerating that go down one of two paths -- Science or Responsbility. The problem is that these paths are rarely followed consistently.

If we were to have a real debate on the Science issue, it would be a debate about which approach is likely to cause the least harm to the least people, and about which approach is the most efficient and cost effective. Advocates of incineration frequently raise the Science argument when they discuss new technologies for burning that reduce the toxins released into the air.

But the argument rarely gets carried far enough to compare the risks of incineration to the risks of landfilling waste in a less-populated area. Landfills are simply dismissed as not happening in Ontario. They have been a dead concept here due to strong NIMBYism and cowardice at Queen's Park. But that has nothing to do with the environment, with health, or with cost.

(Like most commentators, I'm not really qualified to make my own science-based argument. However, when it comes to dealing with a bizarre combination of industrally-produced molecules, it seems safer to leave them to sit in a remote place with an impermeable geology than to transform them, in the middle of a city, through the unpredictable chemical process known as combustion. This is especially so when the latter process is rather more expensive and still leaves us with a pile of toxic ash in the end.)

When the Responsibility argument is raised, the point is to shame Torontonians because their garbage crosses an international border. Why this is actually a moral problem has never been completely clear to me, especially when toxic wastes happen to flow in the opposite direction.

In any case, you can't take responsibility when you don't have rights and the ability to act. If you want the City of Toronto to take responsibility for its own waste, then it needs the right to identify a environmentally-secure site for a landfill, then construct it and use it. But the political climate in Ontario has made this impossible. Through some good luck, Toronto has now been able to buy a landfill that was already approved, and it looks like the problem is finally solved.

Through these difficult years, the City has been pushed to develop initiatives designed to divert waste from landfill in the form of recycling and composting. The political blockage that prevented us from building a landfill has driven us to innovate in alternatives, and I certainly hope we continue. There is much that can be done in terms of increased diversion, particularly from apartments, condominiums and businesses in Toronto. While the pressure is off, that's no reason to stop.

Additionally, we must not forget waste prevention. There are many proposals that could be implemented here. However, if you are interested in this, please direction your attention to Queen's Park and/or Ottawa, where they have the power to make laws and regulations in this regard.

Dawson College Shootings and Gun Control

2006-09-15T10:59:00.000-04:00

Much has been, and will be, made of the fact that Dawson College shooter Kimveer Gill used guns that he had legally registered.

Conservatives, of course, will argue that since Gill's guns were registered, the registry is just a useless intrusion that can and should be dumped.

Meanwhile, Quebec Premier Jean Charest is calling on the Conservatives to maintain the gun registry as it may have prevented other such attacks. He's supported by the police who say the registry has been useful to them.

I think that the real lesson here is that our current measures simply aren't enough. If the police say the registry works, I'm inclined to believe them. But the more important issue is that new initiatives are required.

In my view, what's blocking new initiatives is the requirement that we have a one-size-fits-all program for the entire country. An outright ban on guns, while reasonably desired in cities, would never be politically acceptable in rural areas.

I really have no interest in attempting to change the views of rural Canadians, and in fact can be sympathetic to their needs in this case. But that shouldn't prevent the majority of Canadians who live in cities from removing guns from their community.

I suggest the federal government pass legislation allowing municipalities to ban any or all types of guns from their community, with a violation being a felony under the Criminal Code. (If provincial rights folk are going to get upset, the law can allow provinces to allow municipalities to ban guns.) In other words, it would be a felony to possess any weapon that has been banned by the municipality you're in.

Sure, criminals could easily gather guns from elsewhere and they already possess guns illegally. This wouldn't do a lot to stop gang members. But such a rule could make it a bit harder for nut-jobs to get guns, with little cost or significant inconvenience that we should be concerned about.

The question of bail

2006-08-15T22:02:00.000-04:00

One post I didn't get to write in the past few weeks was about recent evidence that suggests two thirds of recent murders in Toronto have been committed by individuals out on bail, on probation, or under some sort of special restriction. (This statistic is based on the cases where they know who was responsible.)

When I read this, I wondered how those who feel tougher sentencing won't have an effect on serious crime can explain these numbers. Obviously bail for accused and sentences for convicted criminals are two different things. Nevertheless, the notion that violent crime can be reduced simply by keeping gun-possessing, violent criminals away from us for longer time periods makes sense. But that's not what I am writing about today.

The news also made me wonder how some can continue to blame the mayor for each of these murders, but that's also a post for another time.

I wanted to write specifically about the question of bail.

Today's Toronto Star has an article about the bail that has been granted to one of those charged in connection to the Boxing Day shooting of Jane Creba. It raises several points.

On one hand, the very important point is made that bail is essential to our justice system. We believe in innocence until proven guilty, and bail is where we prove it.

On the other hand, consider the case of Andrew Smith. Smith -- the accused in the Creba case -- was arrested on July 1, 2005 for assault and let out on bail on July 14. In August he was arrested for a variety of crimes, including violating his bail conditions. When arrested once more for connection to the Boxing Day shootings he was again accused of violating his bail conditions.

He hasn't been tried or convicted for any of these crimes and is presently out on bail for three seperate cases. Something is wrong with this picture.

Ontario PC Leader John Tory goes too far, in my opinion, when he says bail should simply be denied to those accused of violent crimes. I'm all for tough sentencing, but we need to convict them first.

It's difficult to suggest what a judge could do differently while still recognizing that Andrew Smith hasn't been convicted of any crime yet.

At the very least, however, we should be demanding a better justice system. One that can bring criminal cases to trial in a matter of weeks rather than months. It has been a year since Smith was charged with his first count of violating bail orders. That case should be settled by now, and if he was convicted it would be ample grounds for denying bail in this case.

Blogging Hassles

2006-08-15T21:59:00.000-04:00

I haven't been posting much on the new weblog, and one reason is that the handy email-to-blogger feature hasn't been working. The last two times I tried it, the email bounced back.

Speaking of which, I'm also rather frustrated with the two ISPs I use for work and home. Mail bounces much too often and spam has really increased in the past few months.

Waiting for The Wait-Times Guarantee

2006-07-28T21:34:00.000-04:00

Paul Wells was the first (as far as I know) to write about Stephen Harper's missing priority. One of his five key priorities from the election campaign has been sent down the memory hole. It's the wait-times guarantee, and here's a letter to the Globe and Mail by the Canadian Medical Association about it:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060728.wcomment0728/BNStory/National/home

The CMA has their own suggestions about how Harper can remember and fulfill his promise.

I have a plan that's simpler, because it doesn't complicated federal-provincial negotiations.

It's not entirely fair to call it "my" plan, because it's the plan I thought Stephen Harper had promised to legislate. But maybe I misinterpreted his promise... I would be the only one and this wouldn't be the only case.

My Wait Times Guarantee is a simple program. The federal government Wait Times Office will step in to help any patient who has waited too long. If you have reached the medically-recommended wait-time target, and you still aren't being served by your province, then the federal government will ensure you are served somewhere, somehow, immediately and without cost to you. Instead, the federal government subtracts their expenses from your province's health transfer.

First of all, I believe that a wait-times guarantee is necessary. The Supreme Court has said so. Without medical services delivered on time, the ban on private health insurance is a violation of our rights. If the feds ensure everyone gets treated within the medically-recommended time window, then it's all good.

Second, the approach I outlined above seems to me to provide a healthy feedback system to the provinces. They will quickly feel an urgent need to deliver medically-necessary services within biologically-defined time periods. I have more faith in the monetary penalty described here for motivating provinces to get their service levels up than I do in the blood-and-tears penalty that is already been paid in some cases.

Paying the high price of having a resident get served by the federal wait-times office will be painful enough to the provinces that they will eagerly resolve these issues on their own.

Hey, it may be simple but it works. People get care within the deadlines. The provinces are motivated to deliver within the necessary standard. The Canada Health Act is protected from the constitutional argument. No further inter-government negotiations are necessary.

Accountants' Reputation On The Line

2006-07-26T09:09:00.000-04:00

Wanda Liczyk is the former City of Toronto treasurer who was found by the Bellamy inquiry to have contributed to the MFP leasing fiasco through her irresponsible behaviour. As summarized by the Toronto Star:

While Liczyk was treasurer and chief financial officer, the city awarded a contract for $43 million to MFP Financial Services for the lease of computer equipment. The city ended up spending more than double that without council authorization or clear reports that the contract was out of control.

Bellamy said it was Liczyk's responsibility to inform council of the ballooning spending, but "she didn't."

Liczyk also failed to reveal that she'd had a sexual relationship with a consultant who built a new tax billing system for the city.

Liczyk's "wrongdoing was perfectly clear when measured against the terms of her contract and the code of ethics that governed her," Bellamy concluded in her report. The choice of the tax system was "a story of arrogance, deceit and abuse of power, all rooted in a conflict of interest."

Bellamy also said Liczyk had "blinders firmly in place... after years of mixing public service and private intimacy."

On Monday, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario announced they had decided she did not need to face disciplinary charges:

Peter Varley, vice-president of the institute, said in an interview [with the Toronto Star] yesterday that its professional conduct committee "concluded that a charge of professional misconduct is not warranted in this case."

Someone needed to remind Mr. Varley that it is the professional and ethical review process that is supposed to elevate his members from mere conmen with calculators.

Luckily, it didn't take him long to get a clue. He was suddenly singing a different tune in today's Star:

The complainants, who include the City of Toronto, had 30 days to apply to the institute's reviewer of complaints to conduct an independent investigation. ...

"We ourselves as the institute are in the process of forwarding that application to the reviewer of complaints," said Peter Varley, the institute's vice-president of public affairs.

"The fact remains that there is no need, given the public interest consideration here, for us to wait 30 days for any one of the complainants to refer this matter," Varley said. "We've undertaken to do that ourselves as the institute today."

You'd think that a profession that has been marred by the scandals we've seen recently would have the sense to take a multi-million-dollar rip-off seriously without having to be shamed into it by the media.

The Derivative Nature of Blogging

2006-07-25T10:29:00.000-04:00

Link

I've been reading Malcolm Gladwell's occasional blog posts and been surprised by how frequently I've disagreed with him. I read most of his articles in the New Yorker and generally think they're great.

Anyway, his latest post is a good one in which he supports his argument made elsewhere that blogging -- especially political blogging -- would be nothing without the mainstream media. Of course he's right and he's also right when he says there's nothing wrong with this at all.

Blogging is a discussion that builds out of our exposure to current events on a broad scale. Of course it's the mainstream media that makes the investment in bringing us the news, and that's essential. But what we do with it afterwards is nevertheless adding another layer of understanding and analysis through conversation and critique.

Anyhow, perhaps the area of political blogging that gets closest to standing alone is municipal politics. I've covered many events where there was no mainstream media present, and offered both news and commentary on my blog. Nevertheless, the vast majority of my local writings have relied on things I've read in the (online) newspaper.

If there were no news media, I'm sure we'd have individual bloggers going off and telling us what happened here and there. But we would get tired of some events being missed. We'd get tired of not knowing whose view was accurate. We'd get tired of sloppy work. Eventually new systems would evolve and trusted organizations would emerge. If there weren't professional journalists, we'd have to create them.

World Cup 2006 Review

2006-07-11T17:08:00.000-04:00

Through this World Cup season, I've gone through a number of phases.

First was the initial interest I showed when I watched my first game and realized that soccer can be an entertaining sport after all. This, combined with the nationalistic drama made me look forward to the rest of the tournament.

Second came severe disillusionment. The more I watched, the more I saw that outcomes were frequently determined by chance events. Teams seemed to be at a skill level such that they could generally prevent scoring. The problem with this isn't boredom with low-scoring matches. Actually, they were quite tense. The problem was that the winning goal more often turned out to be fluke. Or worse, we ended up with the arbitrariness of the penalty shoot-out.

Then, of course, there's the diving. Please!

I can't stand the thought of a tournament that seems to be determined more by fate than performance, nor a league that is impotent in the face of such manipulation by the players. Most North American sports fans I know simply aren't able to tolerate such a dynamic.

Anyway, it was in this context that I sat down to watch the final on Sunday. I didn't care much for either Italy or France before the game, but that certainly changed.

Throughout the game I saw the Italian players falling to the ground and writhing dramatically at the slightest touch. At the same time, I came to see the French team as somewhat above these low theatrics. I won't claim that they were entirely pure. Yet, I felt that they generally seemed more interested in putting the ball in the net than going for a ride on a stretcher. France was the better team and the more sportsmanlike team, despite Zidane's breakdown (with which I empathize).

Hopefully FIFA will look into making some improvements, such as continuous overtime until a winning goal is scored (at least in the elimination round), more referees to cover the entire field, and serious penalties for diving.

Fiscal Imbalance in a Nutshell

2006-07-11T16:57:00.000-04:00

Andrew Potter has pointed out an article in Macleans on a recent report that seems to be simply perfect on the issue of the so-called fiscal imbalance...

The provinces' fiscal problems began when they cut taxes deeply in the 1990s

You can't entirely blame the provinces for these tax cuts as they are competing with each other

This is why the provinces need to complain about a federal "fiscal imbalance" instead of simply raising taxes to meet their needs

And it's why a freeing-up of tax room by Ottawa wouldn't be accompanied by the provinces stepping in to fill the void... (see any provinces raise their sales tax 1% this past July 1?)

The provinces, however, insulated themselves somewhat from their fiscal problems by downloading onto the municipalities. This is a real fiscal imbalance as the municipalities don't have the fiscal tools to pay these costs

As the provincial fiscal crunches have eased, they've haven't done much to reverse the municipal fiscal imbalance

The Mayor's New Powers

2006-07-04T07:11:00.000-04:00

On the surface, it's easy to see how extended powers for the Mayor of Toronto could be interpreted as a consolidation in favour of top-down control, and therefore an anti-democratic reform.

http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-06-29/news_story.php

On the other hand, when one considers the reality of how municipal elections take place in Toronto, it's possible to see this as a pro-democratic move.

Presently, decisions in Toronto are made by 44 councillors and the mayor -- with one vote each. The councillors represent wards across the city with populations about half what you'd find in a federal or provincial riding. This sounds like it should represent an opportunity for representative democracy bubbling up from the citizens, but it doesn't work out that way in my view.

Torontonians are fairly apathetic when it comes to municipal government, and the result is that City Council seats get filled not on the basis of candidates' stands on the issues but rather name recognition and momentum. Get elected, get your name on signs, and help your constituents once every five years when they phone to say their garbage wasn't picked up. Do this and you're all set.

There are a variety of reasons that things are this way, but the bottom line is that too many people don't care enough to produce council election results that are truly meaningful.

The exception is the occasional mayoral election that (somewhat) captivates the public imagination through city-wide media. This happened in 2003, when David Miller, John Tory, Barbara Hall, John Nunziata and Tom Jakobek squared off in a battle people actually cared about. We conveniently ignored the facts that mayors have little power and the City has little money and engaged in debate over what Toronto should be.

This -- unlike the race for council -- is a real democratic test and is a sound basis for charting our municipal government's course. For this reason, there's some sense to giving the mayor more power to implement whatever he or she was elected to do.

The only other way I can think of to bring some real debate and decision making to Toronto elections is to break our councillors into political parties. I have traditionally been opposed to this measure for what I feel may be sentimental reasons. But I can better imagine Torontonians being engaged in council elections when they can relate to a city-wide slate of candidates with a well-defined election platform.

Coyne: Don't tax property

2006-07-02T22:03:00.000-04:00

Andrew Coyne has his most recent column online, which has a rather simple suggestion.

Since property taxes are neither simple nor fair, why not just get rid of them? He explains this with some detail here:

http://andrewcoyne.com/2006/07/dont-tax-property.php

Municipalities could make up the difference with user fees and sales tax, he says.

I think he's on to something but it might need some refinement. After all, commercial entities would not be paying sales taxes sufficient to pick up their share -- or at all, if it is a GST-style tax. But at the moment I can't think of a single good reason to keep property taxes in Ontario.

Flaherty on Eves' Record?

2006-06-27T09:46:00.000-04:00

In yet another article revealing the stupidity of our provncial premiers on the "fiscal imbalance" issue, I found an interesting quote from our federal finance minister, and former Ontario Common Sense Revolutionary...

"We're not about to run the federal government into deficit in order to fund provincial programs. I hope the provinces will recognize that and realize that it's their obligation, generally speaking, to raise their own taxes to pay for their own programs," Mr. Flaherty told Canadian Press on Sunday.

This struck me as interesting, given the Harris-era apologists who try to blame his excessive cuts on Paul Martin's budgets. As I've always said, Mike Harris and his finance minister Ernie Eves had a responsibility to manage this province properly. A campaign promise to slash taxes doesn't trump the real needs of important programs, and a transfer cut from Ottawa is no excuse.

Is there T.O. in John Tory?

2006-06-27T09:26:00.000-04:00

Royson James had a column on Monday in which he asks "Where's the T.O. in Tory?"

He criticizes John Tory for not voting for the New City of Toronto Act. As I mentioned earlier, the Toronto Star is so eager to trumpet their acheivements that they insist on equating this relatively minor bill with the New Deal that they were earlier campaigning for. John Tory's valid criticisms of this point are brushed aside in the middle of all this self-congratulation.

Yes, James is right to say that if Tory thought the bill was positive but insufficient he should have voted for it and campaigned for more. And yes, I do wonder what other reasons Tory had for voting against this bill.

But, John Tory is exactly right when he says:

Passing this bill without addressing Toronto's real financial issues represented the easy way out, weak leadership of the highest order.

Okay, maybe not weak leadership "of the highest order", but it is rather lame.

The Globe and Mail reports:

Mr. Tory, as a mayoral candidate and as provincial Opposition Leader, has been a strong booster of a "new deal" for Toronto, including added powers to make its own decisions and a promise to rebalance the fiscal relationship of "who does what" with the province.

Tory understands that what Toronto needs is a reversal of the Harris-era downloading, which inappropriately shifted some responsibilities onto municipalities. Having the power to put in speed bumps without provincial permission is nice, but doesn't represent a "new deal". Even though reversing downloading would be the right thing to do, Dalton McGuinty can't and won't do it because it would be another hit on his budget.

As for whether or not a Premier Tory would be good for Toronto, we'll have to wait and see how his election platform shapes up. It's easy for him to talk now.

Hun Raiders Held By Canadian Subs

2006-06-26T09:57:00.000-04:00

Over at my original blog, I have the following...

Looking around some old files in the house, my Dad found this article from World War I. I wanted to post it to see if anyone familiar with military records could help us with information on the people mentioned. But as I read it, I realized it is actually a very interesting article with some Canadian naval history pertinent to the west coast, and a general glimpse of life in the navy during that period.

Click here.

Smog

2006-06-22T07:30:00.000-04:00

This is a follow-up to my posting last week about climate change. In that post I expressed skepticism that we'll ever really get our act together on that issue, in part because the general public isn't sufficiently motivated, both in Canada and globally.

There's a part of me that feels we should be channelling our efforts into addressing more local and more tangible issues such as smog.

Smog is undoubtedly affecting people in the present tense. It's a serious, visible problem in our major cities. When I travel, I can literally taste the poor air quality on my return to Toronto.

There are steps that governments could take to address this issue, and I wonder if this is the sort of thing us green people should be pushing for?

In some ways this plays into the Conservatives' hands. Their platform has taken on overtones of "Why worry about climate change when we can get results in REAL problems instead?" What I wrote above seems to echo this.

I don't want to support the shirking of our climate change responsibilities. But in the world of realistic outcomes, forcing the Conservatives to get serious results on issues like smog is a lot better than letting them shirk Kyoto and also pay mere lip service to other issues.

Quebec Carbon Tax

2006-06-19T08:54:00.000-04:00

An article on the Globe and Mail site says that oil producers are secretly happy about Quebec's carbon tax proposal because they will be able to pass the cost on to consumers and because it will apply equally to both domestic and imported fuel.

Really, I'm surprised that any other option would ever have been considered by anybody.

Meanwhile, Quebec's environment minister says it would be "odious" of the oil sector to pass these costs on to consumers. This is doubly silly. The obvious reason that it is silly has already been talked about by many: of course the companies are going to pass on an added cost of doing business... what else could they do?

But the real reason it is silly is that a carbon tax that doesn't affect prices at the pump is a carbon tax that doesn't change behaviour. Isn't the whole point of a carbon tax that if you tax polluting activities those activities will be reduced?

(The estimated effect is 1.5 cents per litre, which is rather negligible in any case.)

UPDATE: More from Andrew Potter Greenpeace is also confused.

Bizarre Toronto Star Self-Promotion

2006-06-16T16:29:00.000-04:00

The Toronto Star likes to see themselves as leaders in promoting better governance for the Greater Toronto Area. They usually do a good job of highlighting real issues and bringing them forward. They then act as cheerleaders that keep the issue in the news until something is actually done.

The problem is that when a mediocre (or worse) reform takes effect, they don't stand up and say "um, this won't really solve the problem". Instead they applaud this result as a great success... for which they deserve much of the credit.

The latest example is in today's paper: Unified roar made New Deal a reality.

Personally, I still refuse to spend my own money on a newspaper that so moronically and so unapologetically campaigned for the "Megacity" amalgamations.

Climate Change Initiatives

2006-06-16T16:22:00.000-04:00

Ignatieff has come under fire for briefly mentioning a carbon tax as an approach for addressing climate change. I happen to think that this would be the most efficient, fair and effective way to reduce GHG emissions. But, in some ways, that's beside the point.

Harper, at budget time, came under fire for slashing Canadian Kyoto-related activities. But, I feel the reality is that no Liberal government was going to produce substantially-better results.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require people to make changes and sacrifices, at least in the short-run, and probably the medium-run. This is a big deal, and it will be impossible to make such big changes without a sea change in the public's disposition. No party will do this until the public is truly ready, if it ever is.

Real and significant change would require strong leadership that can transform opinion and -- most likely -- an election focused on this issue. The focus on climate change by some Liberal leadership candidates is admirable. But they are talking to their base, not fighting a general election.

I have not seen An Inconvenient Truth yet. That's the sort of campaigning that is required, but I suspect it just scratches the surface. Climate change may just be a much-too-large collective action problem for humanity to ever solve. I find it difficult to imagine how we (as a species) can avoid burning every fossil fuel just about as quickly as we can get them out of the ground.

Yes, new technology. But what force and what economic rationale makes this new technology come into being? And if it is invented, what prevents people from burning fossil fuels anyway? In the end, the new power sources need to be cheaper than digging and burning, or a penalty needs to be applied (globally) to digging and burning.

Not easy when people can't agree to take this seriously.

The End of an Era

2006-06-16T16:09:00.000-04:00

Well, really the era ended several years ago, but this punctuates it. The City of Detroit is planning to tear down Tiger Stadium.

I spent many great hours there during my teen years and into my twenties. The economics of Tiger Stadium might have been poor, but I was able to show up just before game time and buy tickets that are better than what exist in most stadiums today. (I liked section 419.) You were so close to the game in a great natural, historical environment.

When I was a little kid, just beginning to listen to baseball on the radio, I was introduced to icons that would last right up until the time I was moving away from Windsor to Toronto. Ernie Harwell was on the air. Sparky Anderson was the new manager and Lou Whitaker and Alan Trammell were just coming up from the minors. 15 years or so later, I realized how lucky I had been as a fan to have that core group there throughout my childhood.

Given that the team has moved on, and that I have moved on, I can see that it might not be such a bad idea to keep the baseball field as the square at the centre of a new development. At least people will still be able to get at it.

Anyway, Google Maps satellite can go to ridiculous zoom levels in Detroit. Check it out.

Tory on the New Toronto Act

2006-06-14T17:43:00.000-04:00

The province yesterday passed the New City of Toronto Act. It's an idea that began with big thoughts of a "new deal for cities" and ended up with some minor new authorities and taxing powers for Toronto. It's no big deal.

I was surprised, however, when I first read that John Tory's Conservatives voted against the deal. The Liberals have called attention to this in a press release.

It was interesting, then for me to come across this honest account in the Toronto Star:

Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory fears it will actually cause more [problems].

"This is a bill that focused on new powers to tax and new ways to get money from taxpayers," Tory said.

The province should have fixed the city's fiscal problems caused, in part, by downloading instituted by the last Progressive Conservative government, he said.

"I hope the city doesn't use those powers to tax going forward because taxpayers are paying enough," he said.

(Emphasis mine.)

Tory has identified what I also see as the flaw of the New City of Toronto Act. It doesn't address the real problems that created the municipal crisis we've been facing for the past 8 years or so. Honest of him to take partial responsibilty for those problems... but would he really fix it if in power?

Maybe that could be part of the problem

2006-06-14T09:32:00.000-04:00

The Globe and Mail has an article today about the arrests of suspects in the Jane Creba shooting. Apparently some neighbours of the accused were upset by the arrests and claim innocence.

Just when I was thinking this article was a complete waste, I came across this interesting section:

This area of Toronto is territory of the Bloods gang, said one woman, who wore a red shirt embroidered with the phrase: "Wanted: If you give tips on guns and gang crime you'll end up missing. Stop snitching or end up at Sunnybrook."

And people wonder why the police have trouble sometimes.

This woman, like the others, thought that her friends were innocent.

World Cup Flags

2006-06-14T08:42:00.000-04:00

Here a list of the flags I've seen in Toronto supporting World Cup teams this week, in order of frequency:

-Portugal
-Italy
-Trinidad
-Brazil
-England
-Argentina
-Korea
-Germany
-Mexico
-Angola
-Ghana
-Ukraine
-France

13 down, 19 to go.

UPDATE 9:44: Add 2 more, Tunisia and Saudia Arabia (on the same vehicle)

UPDATE 10:24: Croatia just drove by my window. I've now counted 16, which is half the total.

1:30pm: Both Poland and Australia just drove by in a short time period. 18 down with 14 to go.

Thursday 8:40pm: Last night on my way home from work I saw Ecuador and the Czech Republic. Some of the remaining teams are going to be hard to find.

2:50pm: Spain just drove by. 11 to go.

4:17pm: Japan. I may or may not have seen Serbia's new flag yesterday.

Friday 4pm: Yes, saw Serbia's new flag again. Also saw a Persian flag this morning. 8 flags remain. Ivory Coast, Togo, Paraguay, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Costa Rica, United States. Some of those won't be easy, especially since 3 of those countries have been eliminated and 3 others are fairly likely to be.

4:26pm: Surprisingly, a Swiss-flagged van just drove by.

Monday 8:20am: Over the weekend I saw Sweden and the Netherlands. That leaves 5 and I doubt I will see any of them: Ivory Coast, Togo, Paraguay, Costa Rica, USA.

TheStar.com - Flaherty backs `transitway'

2006-06-14T07:40:00.000-04:00

link

The above linked Star article is found via the Spacing Wire.

I'm not sure what it proves more: that no-one is really serious about stopping the spread of urban sprawl, or that half the people at the Toronto Star are brain-dead.

The article is about plans to build new a highway across the GTA, north of the Oak Ridges Moraine.

Because the federal finance minister suggests any such highway should have a transit lane built into it, the Toronto Star tells us this will be "music to the ears of transit boosters".

Clue: the vast majority of the 905 region is so far from the density required for viable transit that it would take years and years of intensification of already-developed lands before many people there could reasonably think of relying on anything other than cars. Another ring of sprawling municipalities even further out will just mean more land covered by development that is only accessible by car.

Building a new highway would crush any pretentions to "smart growth". Maybe people don't care. But please don't bother with a "transitway" for buses to take people from nowhere to nowhere.

Test of hyperlink

2006-06-14T07:23:00.000-04:00

This shouldn't work but here goes an attempt to put a link into my emailed blog posts...

<A href=http://www.andrewspicer.com/>Andrew Spicer's Weblog</a>

Coyne on Equalization: Money is the root of all principle

2006-06-14T07:21:00.000-04:00

link

One of the topics that earned a lot of ink while I was away from blogging was equalization.

It was frustrating for me, because it seemed like nothing was being said that hadn't been said before.

Some people, like Ralph Klein, revealed an appalingly poor comprehension of a rather simple system.

And most players in the equalization debate introduced irrational arguments to support a better deal for their province.

In other words, nothing had changed at all.

The column Andrew Coyne posted today explains a bit of this..

And, more interestingly, it explains Stephane Dion's proposal for sorting out equalization. As you would expect from him, it is a perfectly rational, perfectly systematic, and perfectly fair. It cuts through all the usual bullshit.

TheStar.com - Ignatieff attacked on Afghanistan

2006-06-11T09:47:00.000-04:00

link

I found another article with more details on Ignatieff's Afghanistan argument. As reported on the CBC, the rationale he brought forward for voting for the Afghanistan extension comes down to supporting the troops.

As I see it, the Canadian Armed Forces are a resource of the Canadian nation and the government has a responsibility to apply this resource wisely in our national interest.

"Supporting the troops" is a valid idea, but it applies to moral and material support for the soldiers and their duty, as well as the proper degree of respect. It is entirely independent of whether or not a particular mission should be extended.

In a later interview Ignatieff gives some real reasons for supporting the Afghanistan extension. So, he certainly may have a valid reason himself.

However, to drag out the "support the troops" line is a pathetic attempt at using patriotic vapour in lieu of an actual argument. We don't need that in Canada, and I regret that it's also the style of our sitting Prime Minister.

Reasons for Afghanistan

2006-06-11T09:10:00.000-04:00

link

The above linked article is about a debate in Winnipeg between the 11 Liberal candidates for the party leadership. The extension of Canada's commitment to Afghanistan was a hot topic.

Ignatieff and Brison were the only two in favour. Ignatieff said he voted that way because one of our soldiers died the same day and he had to support our soldiers who were putting their lives on the line.

Brison supported the extension because he was concerned about what would be said in the New York newspapers.

I really hope this is just bad reporting. Otherwise, those are two pathetically lame excuses.

It is possible to have a real debate about the war, and there are valid arguments for either side. These two arguments are shamefully irrelevant and shallow.

Spacing Wire » Spacing wins National Magazine Award

2006-06-10T20:52:00.000-04:00

Just a test of sending a link from my blackberry to the mobile blog. This probably won't be clickable, but oh well.

http://spacing.ca/wire/?p=868

Oh and congratulations to Spacing.

Another test

2006-06-10T20:46:00.000-04:00

No signature file this time. Right?

Test

2005-12-16T13:38:00.000-05:00

This is a test message...