Toronto the Recessive

Reading the (online) comments on a resent article in the Toronto Star RE: Councillor wins legal support from city, was a good indication to me that my out rage was indeed echoed by others. Sandra Bussin has asked council to approve her request for Taxpayers to pay for her legal costs against a Local paper which she claims has made false statement’s against her. I think the picture posted with this article says it all. First of the fact she feels she has the divine right to ask council to agree that all tax payers should flip her bill is down right insulting. Everyone has the right to defend them selves in a court of law but no one has the right to expect taxpayer to flip the bill. I would like her to go to every Torontonians door and ask them if they would agree to flip the bill. I bet she would have doors slammed in her face. And what about her own riding ward 32 how many doors would they slam in her face? The fact is her request is so out of line that the City does not have a policy on how to deal with this kind of request. Why? Because, no councilor before had the gall or was stupid enough to make such a request. Councillor Gord Perks (Ward 14, Parkdale-High Park) is right the money that would be spent to pay for her personal lawsuit could be better spent on the public legal aid system which does more good then Bussin is clearly doing for the city.

City solicitor Anna Kinastowski, “ had been asked to come up with a draft policy, said she knows of no other municipality in Canada with such a procedure.”

When no other municipality in Canada has such a policy it should be an indication that other Canadian municipal Politician is stupid enough to make such a request as Bussin has. If Council agrees to allow tax payers to flip the bill it will be a clear indication that Toronto will have to be relabeled
“Toronto the Recessive.”

Why should Tory run for Mayor??

I am trying really hard to think why Tory should run. Why he should stick his neck out for a bunch of people who clearly want their cake and to eat it too; all in the same sentence. This morning’s article in the Toronto Star once again repeated the call for Tory to run against Miller. Let’s look at the facts in 2003 Tory ran against Miller for Toronto’s Mayoral raise. Toronto accusing him of being a little two conservative and not Progressive enough to run the city snubbed him. Then in the provincial election when he ran on the most Progressive platform since Davis Toronto snubbed him again. The same Torontonians who claimed to be oh so progressive- fighters of Gay and Lesbian rights, Minority rights and labour rights- suddenly began bigoted and openly denied rights to religious students wish have been entrenched in the BNA Act since 1867.

These same Torontonians are currently feeling snubbed by there own precious Miller, angry because he dared to drag them through a Union Strike which affected their garbage collection. And to add insult to injury ended up giving into the same union. Torontonians are shocked that he should be union friendly. WAKE UP TORONTO!!! You elected a union friendly person, he started out as union friendly and he will retire union friendly. Does anyone remember his days at Metro??

Maybe three is truly a charm but really I can’t see why Tory should stick his neck out for Toronto. Even if the whole city came crawling on its hands and knees, I would not blame him for thanking them and then forcefully declining.

Toronto go to Smitherman, ask him. See if he wants’ to do deal with the ugly Medusa that is Toronto.

What's next for the PC's

~It has been a little longer then it had intended between my last post sorry about that, time sure flights when your up to your neck in school work!~

Late night The Agenda with Steve Paikin had a very interesting show called Ontario PCs: Where to from Here? The guests on the show were: Mark Beckles (ON PC Candidate in 2007 riding of Brampton West), Janet Ecker (former PC Cabinet Minister), John capobianco (ON PC activist/ adviser) and David Docherty (Dean of Arts and Associate professor of political Science at Wilfrid Laurier University).

The program first asked each guess what they felt PC meant. It asked if the party should go back to the 42 years which ended with Davis which was more progressive the the Liberals at the time or if it should go back to the 8 years under the Harris model. Ironically for the first time in my life I agreed with a political science professor. He felt that the party should go back to its 42 year ideological roots, which I completely agree with. By the end of the show while all of the guests were articulate, engaging and the professor appeared to be more realistic in his opinions/views.

Steve asked if it was a struggle between the rural vs. urban supporters to grab control of the party. But I he missed the mark completely and so did the three guests who represented the PC Party. The trick to winning the Party and the Province is to unit the two groups. To do this the party has to first allow the two groups to acknowledge their differences but then move past that. One of the main problems for rural Ontario especial farmers is that farming is not a profitable occupation. As well many young people who come form farming families are not going into farming at the same time their is not an influx of urban people who are moving out of the cities to farm. On this issue rural and urban can work together, in creating and supporting policy that addresses this issue. The problem is that this kind of a question assumes a them vs. us attitude. This attitude is not practical in a Party nor in a government. When discussing who will take the rains of the party rural vs. urban the answer is nether. You need both in the party in order to win the Province. Programs and policies that help to bridge the gap between the two groups both with in the party and in Ontario in order to win the Province.

Janet Pointed out a few things that she felt were important for the next leader to have to wine not just the part but the province:

1) Keep the focus when the party lost focus it lost government
2) What is the message and is it being delivered clearly
3) Does the leader get it? (understand the issues facing Ontarian's)
4) Leader interpersonal skills which reach out to all parts of Ontario

I think these are all really important points. And examples can be drawn from both the 42 year and the 8 years which produced positive results for the Party.

The take home message I felt from the show was that, while the party might be at a fork in the road, at the end of the day its about what is best for the Party and even more important Ontario. And the way to do it is under a small 'C' conservative model but with the points that Janet made. While it might mean a bit more work it has longer term pay offs. The last point that is important to make is that a Strong Leader is critical.

The next few weeks during leadership will be interesting to follow.

2 stooges try to recruit a 3th

Today The Toronto Star reported that once again Ontario and Quebec were commissioning a study to took at the possabity of creating a rail link; which would go along the Ontario and Quebec border.The cost? $3 million! While the cost alone is an outragus miss use of funds in such a tight economic time. It might be justifiable if this was maybe the first time the issue had been studied. Maybe if it was the second or third time given it was first studied in 1973.

But oh no this is the 16th time since 1973 that money has been spent to study the possibility of a rapid-transit line between Windsor and Quebec City.

Both Premiers from Ontario and Quebec think its a wonderful idea and are now complaining that Ottawa should get on bored. One would like to knock the two Premier's heads together. Maybe it would knock some sense in to both of them. The more you study the less action is taken. If you want the Fed's to step up to the plate; show that you are taking the first steps to making the investment worth the time and money of the Federal Government. Stop commissioning reports and start acquiring the land to develop the rail line. For once I have to agree with Ontario NDP Leader Howard Hampton.

"They're going to study it again? You don't need to study it again. The biggest issue is purchasing all of the land and purchasing some of the rail bed that belongs to CN or CP that you need to make this run," said Hampton.
"Everybody wants to study it because they think it will give them a good headline. We're long past the study stage. Where's the money to start doing it?" Hampton continued.

And if the two Premiers are not willing to step up to the plate and start the process by purchasing the land then the $ 3 million can be better spend on other things. Spend the money on fixing gridlock in the GTA, let's get on with all the projects like the extension of (Highway) 404, the 427, the 410 and the Bradford Bypass. I agree with Progressive Conservative MPP Frank Klees' position as well.

What a waste of 3 million dollars for a report that will only collect dust beside the other 16 reports, after it has been released.

Day one at the OPC Convention

I am currently at the Ontario Progressive Conservative Convention in Niagara Falls. The first day was filled with registration and then internal party constitution amendments. In total 15 amendments were put on the floor. Of those 15 the most controversial was: #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #14 & #15.

#8 Gender Balance which was an attempt to remove the reservation 2 men and 2 woman and 5 alternates with 2 man and 2 woman. I am happy to say that it did not pass. # 9 was titled Youth Association and was an attempt by a select few to remove youth associations from the party. It to did not pass. Amendment # 10 which was an amendment to restructure the eligibility of vice-presidents also did not pass. Amendment #11 was dealing with the selection process of an interim leader. It failed as well as amendment #12 which was titled Leadership Review. #14 took the longest to sort out. It dealt with how a leadership raise would be held with 4 options: 1) Delegated Leadership Convention 2) Hybrid Leadership Convention 3) Pure one-member one-vote 4) status quo. After much discussion it was decided that it would be better to leave the system at the status quo. The last amendment for the night was #15 which dealt with Delegated meetings it was also voted down. All in all a productive meeting. I am know off to the hospitality suites.

Do you know the day Harper was born?

This Morning I got a package in the mail from the Conservative Party of Canada. The package contained an annual calendar. It appears the Party is truly a one man show; given that every month features a picture of Harper being Prime Ministerial. On the calendar dates of importance included Harper’s birthday. In case you are interested Harper was born April 30th. So make sure to mark your calendar so you do not forget to wish him a Happy Birthday!! For all those who are truly political junkies: do you know when Borden lead the Conservatives to an election victory? I do now that I have the calendar; it was September 21, 1911. Since 1867 every federal Conservative victory is marked on my new calendar.


I might put my calendar up; after all knowing a few facts might be useful at the next Conservative gathering. That is of course if I can stand looking at Harper every month.

An interesting thing to consider

In the previous post I posted a video by Real News. In the news clip you hear Michael Ignatieff saying that he is completely behind decision to make Dion the leader of the Coalition Government. Yet after the decision by the Governor General last week he was the first one to brake ranks. Even worse he continues to do it. Clarey he hasn't been in politics long enough to learn divide and concur 101. So I will take this opportunity to give him a crash course in it.

Lesson 1) Any cracks in the solidarity of the Liberal Party the Conservatives will take full advantage of; as a way to legitimatize their claim that the Coalition is undemocratic.

Lesson 2) Any Liberal seen as aiding the Conservatives to discredit their leader no matter how much his is disliked or liked will suffer nasty backlash. Further the liberal will go down in history as only looking out for himself; with little regard for what is in the best interest of the party.


Douglas Bell of the Globe and mail posted this:

Weasel dialectics

Douglas Bell, December 6, 2008 at 3:59 PM EST

Among the esteemed bloggers on this site I make no bones about my status as a decidedly junior partner.

I'm really only good for two things: the occasional blinding glimpse of the obvious and/or a couple of (provisional) laughs.

I have only cursory access to insiders and as to interpreting poll numbers, whether it be Ekos, Nanos or Ipsos, I tend to dizziness and occasional nausea.

That said, in the face of probity, reason and objectivity I want it known that Michael Ignatieff, for all his talent, brains, and accomplishments (no sneer quotes), is getting on my nerves. His cautious and constant parsing of his “support” for the coalition is an exercise in weasel dialectics.

“I want to make it clear that this caucus is as one in maintaining the credibility of that dissuasive instrument”: Isn't exactly “we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets.”

Arguments will rage for generations as to whether the Liberals were right to enter into a partnership with the NDP. But, history will also note that in that moment, one candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party spoke up with brio and conviction and one, er, didn't.

What Mr. Bell says is 100% true. What message is Ignatieff trying to send to Canadians and liberals voting in May. Because as it stands the message I am getting is: in May at the leadership convention any vote cast against Ignatieff is a vote cast in favour of the continued survival of the Liberal party and its relevance in Canadian politics.

If I were a delicate at the May convention at this stage in the game I would NOT be casting my ballot for Ignatieff.