yCare

Ike couldn't come at worse time for Dion

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion will face a formidable challenger these next few days and its name isn’t Stephen, Jack or Elizabeth.
Nope, it’s Ike, the deadly hurricane that wreaked havoc on the Texas coastline.
The storm has sent residents fleeing and caused much hand-wringing among motorists forced to swallow exorbitant gas prices.
If you’re Dion and the cornerstone of your election platform is a suddenly seldom-discussed carbon tax plan, to say the timing stinks would be an understatement.
This misguided plan to impose a carbon tax on greenhouse gas emitters assumes corporations will pass along costs of the tax to consumers.
And to help consumers and companies cover the cost, the Liberals would use their carbon-tax revenue to cut personal and corporate income tax.
But for Mr. Dion, no good deed goes unpunished.
The average consumer doesn’t grasp the plan, despite a shared consensus we would all pay more for things like gas.
I’m sure the Liberal leader didn’t miss the collective groan of Canadians paying $1.35 to $1.50 per litre to fuel up these past few days.
He was in Newfoundland today talking about fisheries investments while drivers there are paying about $1.49 per litre for fuel.
But the Grits’ Green Shift is past the point of no return now.
Their critics dismissed changes to the plan earlier this month as a watering down of the document.
How can you make a serious bid to lead the country when you propose a radical tax shift, then act as though you’ve disowned it?

Americans can't stay out of the muck

I’ve never been one to call the United States progressive, particularly when it comes to their health care system.
And let’s not forget the way race always manages to be at the centre of every issue.
I have followed the race for the White House since well before it was getting all the attention it is now, when the candidates were still in the fundraising and announcement stages of their candidacies.
It is a great place American voters find themselves in, with an array of candidates to choose from.
I can’t even imagine what that would be like. I became eligible to vote federally in the Jean Chrétien years when the political right was still recovering from the post-Mulroney oblivion Canadians sent them to.
Now, the Conservatives have their act together and the Liberals don’t look very strong.
Since I’ve been eligible to vote, we haven’t had two really great leaders sparring during an election campaign, .
Anyway, I digress.
In a race where Americans can finally appear as progressive as their European and Canadian counterparts, they’ve done it once again.
Race has reared its ugly head in the democratic nomination race.
It is refreshing that for once in a U.S. presidential race, there is not only a black man but a woman with a credible chance to win.
It should be noted, but it shouldn’t be central to the debate, pushing aside issues such as the war, the economy and health care.
It shows the lack of progression of the U.S. media and the campaigns.
Now, voters are being assaulted with all sorts of figures regarding the racial makeup of South Carolina and how many white people are out of work compared with how many are black.
How about addressing unemployment as an issue for everyone, not just for one racial group?
They’ve even dug up Martin Luther King Jr. and what he contributed to the civil rights movement.
It’s shameful and while, on the surface, the democratic nomination seems like a new beginning, it’s the same old same old with race being divisive.
I turned the channel on the news coverage last night before the next story about Arab-Americans and who they will vote for.

Hillary deserves a shot

As I write this, New Hampshire voters could be ending Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions.
Voting in the second primary is under way  and I have to admit I am a little surprised by the situation Mrs. Clinton finds herself in.
I won’t lie: I am a fan of Hillary and I think it took a lot courage to run for president.
If I was a Democrat and American, my vote would be with her.
Yesterday the stress of the campaign showed.
Much ado is being made about her response to a woman’s question, which was simply “How do you get up every day and do this?”
Her voice cracking, she answered honestly that this means a lot to her.
No sooner had that happened, the analysis started.
Should she show vulnerability? Was it contrived because she is often said to emotionless? Or is she cracking under pressure?
As a woman, Hillary has had to face questions none of the other candidates have had to face.
She faced criticism for taking credit for work during her husband’s administration.
John Edwards and Barack Obama aren’t always affable when in public. Nobody calls them robotic or questions if they have emotion.
Suddenly experience is something of an albatross around Mrs. Clinton’s neck. Since when? Shouldn’t the leader of the country have a little more on her resume than a two-year stint as a senator?
Hillary has that, but she also has intelligence and ideas that will effect change.
This is a woman who went to law school in a time when the dean of Harvard law told her there were too many women enrolled.
At Wellesley College, she organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley’s black students for moderate changes, including recruiting more black students and faculty.
She has always been at the forefront of change and would dramatically change the White House, but I guess she’s not the most popular kid in the class.

Some Markham councillors ducking issue

All’s quiet in Markham.
I’m on Day 3 of phone calls trying to elicit comments from councillors on Tuesday’s decision to ask Jim Jones to resign from council.
It’s a serious decision that needs to be explained to the public.
Many Markham residents have contacted their councillors about the situation and it’s important council members tell us why they voted the way they did.
A few have called me back, including Mayor Frank Scarpitti.
Others have ignored repeated calls to their offices, homes and even cell phones.
Now, I know councillors must attend meetings and I do know there are a number of obligations at the region which make them very busy, but is there not 10 minutes to return a phone call? Aside from Regional Councillor Gordon Landon, all the councillors are around town as far as I know.
While the matter was discussed in closed session, a councillor is free to speak about why he felt one way or another, as the mayor and Councillors John Webster, Alex Chiu and Dan Horchik have.
Regional Councillor Jack Heath and Councillor Valerie Burke have had the courtesy to respond, albeit with a “no comment”.
Councillor Erin Shapero keeps promising to speak to me.
Councillor Joe Virgilio also left a voicemail message for me.
It is inappropriate to stay silent on a matter that has such an impact on the town. Council members need to explain to their votes.
Simply knowing the result is not enough.

And you said you didn't want a Wal-Mart

People in Thornhill are funny.
A new Walmart opened up at Bathurst and Centre streets last week, fairly close to my home.
When building a new Wal-Mart in town was proposed, people in the neighbourhood were in an uproar about not wanting it.
Not only would it add more traffic to the already congested area, they said, it didn’t fit in with the area.
So, over many months, there was much work involved in making the Wal-Mart not look like what it is — a big box discount store. Gone were the trademark red and blue exteriors in favour of a cream-coloured facade, complete with big windows, adorned with blue shutters. The lot was even landscaped so as to not to look so obtrusive.
Vaughan Councillor Sandra Yeung Racco was heavily involved in making sure the discount retailer was up to snuff in terms of its design.
For many months, I watched as the site came to life and the store got closer and closer to opening day.
I was surprised at how unlike Wal-Mart the store actually looked as it got closer to completion.
Despite this, we continued to get complaints from nearby residents who thought it was an eyesore in their once peaceful neigbhourhood.
So, with all the controversy I figured it might take a while before it became as popular as the other Wal-Marts in places such as Richmond Hill and Newmarket.
That changed at about 7:30 a.m. on opening day.
I looked out my window, puzzled at how many cars were in the parking lot already. I didn’t realize at the time that the store opens at 7 a.m. on weekdays.
Cars streamed into the parking lot until I left for work, causing me to wonder if they were giving away free shampoo.
So, after finishing my errands after work late that night, I decided to pick up a couple of things there to see what it was like.
Not only was it packed, it looked as if the store had been there for four months —20-person lineups and the usual maze of shopping carts down every aisle, at 9:30 on a Thursday night!
So much for the idea people in Thornhill didn’t want a Wal-Mart. It seems to me they were waiting with baited breath for it to open. Or are we too assume that the people frequenting the place are from other areas outside of Thornhill?
Something tells me its not the cream-coloured facade that’s bringing people there.
So intrigued by the amount of people on that first day, when I was home over the weekend, I took notice of the action in the parking lot.
It was packed all the time.
I wonder if the Aurora Wal-Mart will have the same kind of traffic?
Pretty likely, I’d say.

Excuses like 'election fatigue' shameful

I haven’t written since the end of the provincial election, partially due to the shock of the overwhelming majority handed the provincial Liberals.
It’s never good to tell a government you think it is doing a perfect job, which is essentially what Ontarians did last week.
I found it a little surprising, despite the polls saying a strong majority would be handed to the Liberals.
Close calls during elections make governments humble, or at least they should.
The drama has shifted to the federal race now with the throne speech and the political chess of whether Stephane Dion will force an election.
It turns out Mr. Dion and his party members chose not to force the government to fall over the throne speech.
In speaking with Richmond Hill MP Bryon Wilfert about the whole thing this morning, he made a valid point.
Pointing to the low voter turnout for the provincial election, he cited voter fatigue deduced that Canadians likely weren’t interested in voting again.
I agree,
I can just hear the conversation at the local coffee shop.
“Sheesh, can you believe we have another election? When will this stop?”
God forbid Canadians are asked to express their opinion more than once a year or people start complaining.
Here in Ontario, we had the added annoyance of having to vote in the municipal election last November.
Not even a year later, we had to get off our couches and vote provincially and now, God forbid we are forced to exercise our right to vote again so soon.
I concur with Mr. Wilfert and Mr. Dion. Canadians don’t want to go to the polls again.
I think it’s shameful.
But at $250 million per election, it would be an embarrassment if only 52 per cent of eligible voters showed up.

It's no Britney car wreck, but it matters

How much hand-holding do we need to learn something?
I’ve heard over and over again that people are unimpressed with the information campaign to promote the referendum on electoral reform.
I hear you, to some degree.
There is plenty that people need to know about the system. For example, that 39 members will not be elected directly by the public, but will sit in the legislature.
But I do think that it is the age of Internet, the world is open to voters to find all kinds of information.
All you have to do is punch “Mixed Proportional Representation” into Google and there you have it, multiple hits. If you want to be really ambitious, you can punch in “Mixed Member Proportional Representation” and “New Zealand” and, what do you know, even more sites to read.
Don’t even get me started on the amount of news stories that can be brought up on the Internet.
I’m not suggesting everything you read on the net is credible. There are pitfalls. But, at some point, voters have to take some responsibility and learn about both systems. Why does society need to be spoon-fed everything? Why does everything have to have an entertainment aspect to it?
Some people argue this whole thing is boring.
Well, it’s not as interesting as watching Britney Spears hit an empty car with an umbrella, but it’s a political system. It’s not supposed to be exciting.
Do all things have to sexy or exciting to be important?
More often than not, the things that aren’t vital end up being the most important to some people — Paris Hilton going to jail comes to mind.
Take the environment for example. There are a lot technical issues that deal with the environment. They can be boring, yes, but they are just as important.
Once you have a read of some literature on mixed member proportional representation, it’s not Earth shatteringly difficult to understand.
If you don’t understand, try again.
If you are a diligent voter, every election requires some reading, research or even tuning in a debate or two. It’s par for the course if you want to make an educated decision.
This is no different.
The advent of the Internet makes it impossible to have an excuse, but I think it has also made us lazy at the same time. If don’t hear some interesting in a millisecond, you tune out.
If you bother to take 20 minutes to figure this all out, you can decide which system you prefer.

Thornhill debate suprisingly tame

After last night, I think every political debate should be held in a synagogue.
The Thornhill all-candidates meeting was held at the Bayt Synagogue on Clark Street. The room was full, primarily with Peter Shurman supporters.
Before heading in, I thought the debate could get a little out of hand because of the emotion of the faith-based funding debate and how, at some debates, party supporters have drowned out other candidates.
This was not the case last night.
I’m not sure if this had to do with moderator Dr. Leon Genesove’s polite reminder at the beginning of the event that we were in a synagogue and, therefore, should be respectful of that.
Aside from a few hecklers, who were shut down by people on the same side, we were able to hear Liberal candidate Mario Racco and Conservative candidate Mr. Shurman, the two front runners in the race, say what they had to say.
In a campaign that has been characterized by personal attacks and the stress of a tight race, it could have been an emotionally charged situation.
I was impressed not only by how the candidates dealt with each other, but how the crowd showed its approval, for the most part, through applause.
The setup also allowed for questions to be written down and given to the candidates by the moderator.
This avoided the usual theatrics some party faithful feel necessary when they question candidates or accuse them of one thing or another.
The only unfortunate thing was that Sandra Parrott, the NDP candidate, was ill and could not make it, because it would have added another dimension to the debate.
After driving home and really thinking about it, I realized for the first time since I’ve been voting, the debate helped me decide for whom to vote.
That’s never happened before because party members usually hijack these events and don’t allow for proper discussion of the issues.
Don’t bother asking for whom I am voting.
That’s between me and the ballot box.
But in an election where I struggled with many issues, I have finally decided, thanks, in part, to the civility of the debate.

No knock-out punch during leaders debate

From the opening minutes, there was no disputing it.
The gameplan from Camp NDP and Camp Tory was to badger Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty about his record over the last four years until maybe he cracked up.
Well, he didn’t crack up, although there were glares and furrowed brows directed at Mr. Tory at some points.
It started with the lightning rod faith-based funding issue and continued to autism, the health tax and the state of Ontario’s economy.
If viewers were waiting for a knock-out punch, though, they were out of luck.
All three leaders were well-coached. They all handled themselves well.
NDP Leader Howard Hampton stood out for his ability to simply talk to viewers, very calm and relaxed. Even when he took shots at Mr. McGuinty, he didn’t come off as a bulldog.
Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton could learn a thing or two from his provincial counterpart on how to handle himself during debates.
Anyway, I digress.
Mr. Hampton was likable — he sincerely wants to raise the minimum wage to $10 and wants to help out working families.
He didn’t hesitate to take a shot at the premier over the minimum wage issue.
“You had the time to give yourself a raise of $40,000,” Mr. Hampton said, referring to the pay hike MPPs voted themselves before Christmas while Mr. Hampton was battling the flu.
Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory handled himself well, considering it was his first televised debate.
Throughout, he chipped away at the premier’s credibility.
Suggesting people see through broken promise after broken promise — from coal plants being closed, to no new taxes — Mr. Tory told Mr. McGuinty he has undermined the credibility of all politicians.
I don’t like it when politicians read from notes. I think doing so makes you less believable. If you really believe what you are saying, you don’t need to read. There was the occasional glance at the notes from Mr. McGuinty, but more so from Mr. Tory.
I don’t think last night’s debate will change the minds of any voters and this appeared to be the case on call-in radio shows this morning.
One woman called in, wondering why Mr. Tory kept harping on broken promises.
She felt that got boring after a while and asked what difference it makes anyway.
I beg to differ.
If politicians are going to produce platforms based on promises they don’t plan to honour, we may as well not read those platforms, watch the debates or follow the campaign at all.
We follow campaigns to see what each party is promising and assume that most of what they promise will be fulfilled.
Otherwise, it’s a giant waste of time.
Something that has perplexed me after each debate is the post-debate interview with pundits, analyzing how it went.
What is it with having party members analysing their colleagues’ performances?
Yesterday, one newscast had Liberal strategist Gerard Kennedy, NDP MP Peggy Nash and a Conservative strategist whose name escapes me at the moment, chiming in. How are these people supposed to give an honest, unbiased account of what just transpired?
Clearly they are going to give points to the candidate from their own party.
Is it just me?

Are party platforms really meant to be read?

OK, what gives?
It’s election time and that means fancy new platforms from all the parties.
I have to say, I’ve read both the Liberal and Tory platforms from the first promise to the very last.
I’m not going to take credit for being some kind of political die hard who reads political platforms in my off time.
I was assigned the task of combing through these documents to determine what is really being promised to the hardworking residents of Ontario.
I admit some of the promises are compelling.
But, for the most part, if parties are trying to get votes by releasing these things, they will be lucky if someone sticks to reading them for very long.
They could use some tips from the newspaper industry.
I mean, after all, we are in the business of getting people’s attention.
For the Tories, illustrations and graphics are the key to keeping people interested.
For example, the party is pitching some great ideas about the legal system, including a court specifically for white collar crime.
Instead of the canned photographs that appear in both the Liberal and Conservative platforms, perhaps illustrations of these kinds of things would be more interesting.
The photos in the Tory platform aren’t quite big enough.
The Liberals got the pictures the right size, but the actual platform itself is something to be desired.
God forbid you try to read this for yourselves.
The print is not only microscopic but the type is in a grey hue so that it’s barely legible. At least that’s how it turns out on my computer. Maybe it’s special hue meant to project onto to reporters’ screens.
It would be wise for these teams to also hire copy editors as I noticed some sentences continue to repeat themselves, primarily those that highlight their opponents’ weaknesses and stress the party’s virtues.
I can’t help but wonder if these documents were meant to be read by voters.
The Green Party’s platform is really pleasing to the eye. Ontario Green Leader Frank De Jong only appears once, at the beginning of the document, with the rest of the photos focusing on kids, sustainable homes and other things such as that.
The promise of six new statutory holidays is also eye popping.
My colleague, Serena Willoughby, who is an expert in all things environmental, likened their party platform to a kid’s Christmas list that wasn’t based in reality.
I thought it looked nice though.
I couldn’t really track down a complete word-for-word platform for the NDP, because they’ve chosen instead to put a tab on their web site that lists commitments, which is actually what voters are looking for when they plug into the platforms.
So in short, if you’re so inclined to know, word-for-word, what each party is promising should they be elected, get a nice cup of tea or coffee and some reading glasses.
Good luck.