What Harper Should Say to Marois and Quebecers about Marois’ Charter of Anti-Canadian Values

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics, Stephen Harper

Conventional wisdom suggests Prime Minister Harper should tread lightly on Quebec Premier Marois’ proposed Charter of Quebec values.

However, my unsolicited advice to Harper is more creative and out of the box. Perhaps, a bit outrageous.

But potentially more effective. And may even be a political game changer.

However, firstly, by way of background.

Marois’ proposed Charter is more akin to a provocative Charter of Anti-Canadian Values, in which Quebec proposes to legislate against the wearing of religious symbols, i.e. Jewish kippas, Sikh turbans and Muslim head coverings by all civil servants, employees and professionals in Quebec public institutions. Such a Charter would broadly apply to daycare workers, teachers, professors, doctors, nurses, police, firemen and even liquor store retail clerks.

The effect of such aCharter would be to not only remove such religious symbols from Quebec public life, but may also deter Quebec residents who wear such religious symbols from working in such public institutions. Causing also many such religiously observant Quebec residents to avoid using such public services. And ultimately, discouraging such people from coming to or staying in Quebec itself.

Now that is very draconian and short-sighted on Marois’ part.

A new Quebec QMI Agency poll suggests 67 per cent of all Quebec respondents — 77 per cent of francophones — say there is already “too much” religious accommodation. Two-thirds of francophones say a Charter of Quebec Values is a “good idea.”

John Ivison astutely points out in a recent National Post article that,

Harper has spent the summer overhauling his Quebec team, making Denis Lebel, the infrastructure minister, his regional lieutenant, and bringing in a new top adviser, former staffer Catherine Loubier. The intent is to be more sensitive to francophone Quebeckers. This renewed effort has led to a bump in the polls — up to 38 per cent in the Quebec City region where the party lost all its seats in 2011.

Harper and his team appreciate that if Harper publicly comes down too hard on Marois and her PQ Party and accuse them of being intolerant, xenophobic, and racist,- in addition to Harper potentially losing critical French Quebec votes, Marois and her ministers would also use Harper’s intervention to their Party’s advantage.

Already Quebec’s Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Alexandre Cloutier, who is also the minister of “sovereigntist governance,” has used Twitter to take a swipe at critical articles in the Calgary Herald and National Post.

“Being called a xenophobe by the Calgary Herald,” Cloutier said, in remarks he repeated about the other newspaper. “Once again, a lack of perspective and understanding from the ROC.”

Accordingly, if Harper criticized Marois and the PQ using the same language, Marois and his ministers would in turn claim that Harper and the rest of Anglo Canada do not understand French Quebec and its need to protect its identity and culture. Marois would then try to use this proposed Charter as a wedge issue, to: (1) unify French Quebecers against the rest of Canada and proponents of multiculturalism both within and without Quebec; (2) gain an electoral majority in the next Quebec election; and (3) provide a basis for winning conditions for another referendum on Quebec sovereignty.

On the other hand, if Harper does very little, he and his party risk ceding the high moral and political ground to Justin Trudeau on this issue. Harper also risks losing many potential Anglophone, Allophone, ethnic, and federalist francophone Quebec votes to Trudeau and his Liberals. And Harper also risks losing many ethnic voters outside of Quebec.

To Trudeau’s credit, Trudeau has publicly criticized the Marois government and has expressed serious concerns about the limits that would be imposed upon Quebec people in terms of their freedom of religion and freedom of expression by this proposed Charter of Quebec Values.

So Harper may be damned if he does or damned, if he doesn’t.

Unless Harper tries something completely different.

I propose that Harper go right into Marois’ backyard.

Quebec City. Ground Zero for Quebec nationalism.

And be totally uncharacteristic for Stephen Harper.

He should give a rousing, humorous and passionate speech mostly in French, (with a smattering of English, Yiddish and Italian), predominantly directed at French Quebecers.

He should go to Quebec City not to bury Marois, but to praise French Quebec.

Instead of hectoring, lecturing and criticizing Marois and her party over this proposed Charter, (as has been already done by many Canadian and French Canadiancommentators), Harper should appeal to the best qualities of French Quebecers.

Not to their base instincts or their prejudices or their insecurities, as Marois has done.

But to French Quebecers’ passion for life in all its complexities. Their openness and generous spirit.
Their very un Waspish imagination and creativity. French Quebec gave us Cirque de Soleil. Mon Dieu!

(Could you imagine stuffy Toronto Wasps willing to fling themselves in the air and do death-defying somersaults, without a net?)

And let us not forget the enormous drive, will to win and entrepreneurial spirit of French Quebecers as exemplified by the great Rocket Richard and the folks at Bombardier, who developed the ski-doo, sea- doo, and fancy private jets for international rock stars and Latin American drug lords!

And of course, Quebec humour. Caline de bine.

Quebec is the home of the “Just for Laughs Festival,” the largest comedy festival in the world.

And for good reason. Quebec is a pretty wild, crazy, absurd and funny place to live.

I know this from personal experience. I have a female lesbian cousin who is a very popular Quebec stand-up comic. And whose best material is in French about her raunchy relationship with her Muslim comic girlfriend.

Her show, “Kosher Jokes for the Halaladays” just kills. But I digress.

Believe it or not, our very own Stephen Harper is, deep down, one wild and crazy guy.
He has a terrific sense of humour.

When asked if he ever smoked pot, Harper replied that he was offered a joint once, but he was too drunk to smoke it.

Check out Harper on You Tube for his devastatingly funny impressions of Tory leaders Preston Manning, Diefenbaker, and the pompous and puffed up Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney.

My point is that Harper has the ability to deliver a very passionate, funny and pro French Quebec speech. Which would resonate with French Quebecers. Who are looking for an alternate vision of French Quebec.

I have Franco-Ontarian friends whose families in Quebec go back centuries. One such friend, her family settled in Quebec 11 generations ago. You can’t be more “pure laine” than that.

This wonderful, warm, smart, and tight family seems to be a typical French Quebec family.

Interestingly, at an early age, my friend and all her siblings attended English public schools in Quebec City.

They are still dyed in the wool Quebecois, mostly Quebec City residents, but who are all perfectly bilingual. As are their children. Their children are also all strong French Quebecois, but in some cases, with English, Italian, or Jewish partners. Some are Quebec nationalists. Some are Canadian federalists. But everyone in this family opposes the direction that Marois is taking Quebec.

That is, a Quebec that is afraid of itself. A Quebec that is intolerant, too insular, too homogeneous, anti-multicultural and too close-minded and small-minded.

I am convinced that there are many French Quebec families like this family. Which is open, caring and accepting of diversity and differences. Harper should take on Marois and her Pequistes by reaching out and appealing to these French Quebecers. To their very best natures.

Who knows? Such an effort may be a cultural and political game changer. It is certainly worth a shot.

Marois’ Charter of Anti-Canadian Values

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

The raison d’etre for Quebec Premier Pauline Marois and her band of provocative Pequistes is Quebec independence.

But several major obstacles lay in Marois’ way to The Promised Laine (pure) of Quebec Sovereignty.

Marois and her supporters are getting a little long in the tooth. Some of these old PQ war horses have been fighting this battle since the 1970s and they are getting tired. The younger French Quebecois generations do not seem to share the same fire in the belly.

Or the same anger at the rest of Canada. Or the same desire to break with the rest of Canada and take a giant leap of faith into Quebec independence, regardless of the financial, social and political consequences. And probably significant personal and financial sacrifices.

Also there is the little matter of the Marois government being a minority government and sitting at 29% in the latest CROP poll while the provincial Liberals are at 40%.

As a minority government the Marois government cannot bring forward another sovereignty referendum without the support of one of the other Quebec parties. Currently, an unlikely proposition.

So Marois and her party must come up with a popular sure-fire policy or program that will energize her French Quebec base and secure her a majority government in the next provincial election. And also provide Bouchard’s famous “winning conditions” for a successful referendum leading to Quebec independence.

The Quebec economy is sputtering along. Quebec is suffering from a huge debt and heavy debt payments, so Marois does not have the fiscal means to pull a financial rabbit out of her hat. And kick start the Quebec economy and create much-needed jobs.

Her only real option is to stir up her French Quebec base with a controversial wedge issue.

Note when Marois tried to hype the boogeyman of the French language being under attack, by trying to rewrite Bill 101, her efforts gained little traction with the French Quebec electorate.

Probably because the bad old Anglo bosses and a large portion of the Anglo community have left the building and the province of Quebec many years ago.

Instead, it appears that Marois is now trying to frighten French Quebec voters into believing that the growing communities of Quebec Muslims, Jews and Sikhs are threatening to impose their cultures and religious beliefs on French Quebecers and threaten the identity of French Quebecers.

During last year’s provincial election campaign, Marois often implied that French Quebec’s cultural heritage and identity were under assault, when she stated, “We do not have to apologize for who we are. ”

There is precedent for Marois playing this despicable identity card.

Recall the now defunct ADQ, led by Mario Dumont, in the 2007 Quebec election, appealed to the basest instincts of the Quebec electorate when he publicly came out against the French Quebec majority being forced to make religious accommodations to Quebec’s religious minorities.

Dumont and his ADQ led his nativistic movement to a near election win, and catapulted ahead of the PQ as Quebec’s main opposition party. In that election, the PQ sidestepped the issue, and as a result, the PQ suffered its worst electoral defeat in years.

The lessons of that election debacle were not lost on Marois and her PQ cabinet.

Marois and her senior Cabinet ministers may be odious, but they are not politically stupid.

They read the polls. They know what has political appeal.

A recent government-commissioned opinion poll suggests there could be a political payoff. On a scale of one to 10, the average respondent ranked religious accommodation as “problem” at 6.5.

So it appears that in a few weeks, the Marois government will unveil its new Charter of Quebec Values.

The most controversial aspect of the proposal is a ban on public servants wearing religious symbols.

Hijabs, kippas, turbans and conspicuous crucifixes would be off-limits for everyone working in and for public institutions, including hospitals, health clinics, schools, universities, courts and government offices, and including daycare workers, teachers, instructors, professors, doctors, nurses, police, firemen and liquor-store clerks.

The effect of this proposal will be to prevent observant Jews, Sikhs, and Muslims from working in any Quebec public institution. It may even prevent these observant people from using certain public services, as clearly their religious symbols and beliefs are not welcome.

This disgusting proposal is clearly contrary to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees the freedom of expression and religion. And hence illegal.

But apparently, Marois and her people do not care.

I think that Marois is hoping that these proposals will create a terrible backlash in the rest of Canada.

Then Marois could accuse, as she has done in the past, the rest of Canada, of Quebec bashing.

I predict Marois will try to exploit the “victim” card, by campaigning against the ” threatening” religious minorities in Quebec and the anti-Quebec forces in the rest of Canada.

In the hope she can rally her French troops to a majority electoral victory and ultimately a successful referendum to take Quebec out of Canada.

In a subsequent article, I hope to suggest how we, in the rest of Canada, can effectively respond to Marois’ evil ploy to discriminate against vulnerable Quebec religious minorities. And Marois’ efforts to exploit French Quebec’s insecurities relating to its culture and identity.

Don Guy: McGuinty’s Very Own Prince of Darkness

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

Clarification: The author has revised his post below. He has clarified his concerns with steps taken by senior officials in former Premier Dalton McGuinty’s office to persuade Ontario Legislature Speaker Dave Levac to change his mind in September 2012 over a possible breach of privilege by then Energy Minister Chris Bentley for refusing to release documents on the 2011 gas power plant closures.

“Tricky Dick” Nixon drew inspiration from his two shifty advisers, Ehrlichman and Haldeman, of Watergate fame. George Bush, the junior, clearly relied upon the advice of his own Svengali, the diabolical Dick Cheney.

It now appears that super straight Boy Scout “Premier Dad” Dalton McGuinty owes his political success to his very own dark prince of political disinformation, manipulation and skullduggery, the cunning and sly Don Guy.

In a recent hard-hitting column in the Globe and Mail, former senior Queen’s Park reporter, now Globe investigative journalist, Karen Howlett, analyzed the recent release of damaging emails among McGuinty advisers relating to the gas plant cancellations. And McGuinty’s controversial decision to shut down the Ontario legislature in a vain attempt to save his party from the then exploding scandal.

Howlett, in referring to these latest e-mails, perceptively concluded:

“Yet in many ways, the e-mails transcend a particular scandal. They provide a rare glimpse into the backrooms of power, where unelected political aides spin journalists, muzzle cabinet ministers and use feel-good announcements to deflect attention from a crisis.”

Before I critically comment on the Machiavellian machinations of Don Guy, a little context is in order.

Before the 2011 Ontario provincial election, fearing the loss of seats in Oakville, theMcGuinty government cancelled the proposed Oakville power plant. And on Sept 24, 2011, fearing the loss of seats in Mississauga, less than two weeks before election day, the Liberals announced the cancellation of the proposed Mississauga gas plant which was under construction at the time.

Publicly, the McGuinty government claimed that it was responding to negative reactions by voters who lived close to these two power plants. Months later, in testimony before a legislative hearing, former Premier McGuinty would claim that his government was cancelling these power plants for the kids, as these plants were located too close to schools and residences.

McGuinty disputed the allegation that these cancellations were for crass political gain or survival.

Now if you believe that load of malarkey, I have some very attractive, but environmentally-challenged land for sale, within a wedge shot of the Toronto waterfront.

The McGuinty political ploy worked and the Liberals retained five Liberal seats in the Mississauga/Oakville areas.

And the Liberals would have gotten away with this political hocus pocus, if they had retained majority status in the Ontario Legislature. Then they would have controlled the legislative committees, as they had done in their two previous terms.

Unfortunately, for the Liberals, but lucky for those who stand for truth, justice and the Canadian way, the Liberals were reduced to a minority government.

As a result, the opposition Tories and NDP had the power and legislative authority to look into the actual reasons for the suspicious cancelling of the two gas plants, and the hidden costs of cancelling and replacing these two gas plants.

For my many non-Ontario readers and American readers (all ten of you) this is when the fun really begins.

And this is when the notorious and follicly challenged Don Guy, Lex Luthor’s evil twin, applied all his dastardly political tricks to prevent and forestall the opposition Tories and NDP from exposing the truth of these plant cancellations.

For several months after the 2011 election, the McGuinty government was successful in stalling the investigation into the power plants by refusing to release documents to the Tory/NDP controlled provincial legislative committee authorized to look into this matter.

As a result of these stalling tactics and especially the non-co-operation of the then Energy Minister Chris Bentley, the Tories and NDP brought a motion of contempt against Liberal Bentley to Liberal MPP Speaker of the House Dave Levac.

Mr. Levac, the Speaker, acting in the capacity of an impartial judge, ruled last September, 2012, that there was evidence that Energy Minister Chris Bentley breached his privileges by refusing to release the gas-plant documents to a legislative committee four months earlier. The ruling left Mr. Bentley facing a rare contempt of Parliament censure.

According to recently disclosed e-mails between Don Guy and his deputies Laura Miller and Dave Gene, it appears that Don Guy had Miller send Dave Gene over to Speaker Levac to discuss the possibility of Levac changing his ruling.

I definitely agree with NDP House Leader Gilles Bisson, when he referred to the actions of Guy, Miller and Gene. He stated:

“They were trying to obstruct the parliamentary process and bully the Speaker to change his ruling,” Mr. Bisson said. “That’s pretty serious stuff, and akin to somebody going to a judge and trying to influence a judge on a decision.”

It appears that Guy, Miller and Gene may have crossed the line here. These are not political tricks or technical breaches of obscure parliamentary procedures. This action appears to be an attempt to influence an impartial judicial/administrative officer of the Parliament. An independent body should be called in to investigate this action.

Though Speaker Levac held his ground and ruled against Bentley and ordered the release of all the relevant documents relating to the subject gas plants, this ruling did not deter Don Guy and his merry band.

According to the released emails, Don Guy’s next devious ploy was to manipulate the press by having the McGuinty government announce feel-good policies, in order to divert attention from the September 24, 2012 deadline for release of the gas plant documents established by Speaker Levac.

As reported in the Globe and Mail, around this time, the McGuinty government announced the banning of the use of tanning beds by people under the age of 18. Which according to one of McGuinty’s political operatives, in an e-mail would “make a fabulous headline in Saturday papers.”

The strategy worked. Most major newspapers, including The Globe and Mail, carried the story. But tanning beds turned out to be a fleeting distraction.

With the September 24 deadline for release of documents looming, Don Guy then had Miller try to strong arm the Liberals’ own House Leader John Milloy, to delay the September 24 release on the basis of a different interpretation of the Speaker’s ruling and contrary to Milloy’s own interpretation of the Speaker’s ruling.

Noting that Milloy failed to follow Guy’s wishes, Miller wrote in an email, that in future the House Leader will not speak for the party. In effect, she and Guy were trying to muzzle the public pronouncements of their own House Leader.

Could you imagine any one of Prime Minister Harper’s advisers trying to muzzle the feisty and outspoken Peter van Loan, Federal Conservative House Leader? Not likely.

Recall, once some of the power plant documents were released, the public reaction was so negative, that Premier McGuinty took the unusual step of proroguing the Parliament, that is, shutting down the Parliament and all the business of government including the work of the legislative committee investigating the power plant cancellations. And announcing his resignation as Premier and leader of the Liberals.

To further divert public attention from the growing gas plant scandal and the shutting down of the legislature to prevent further investigations, McGuinty, Don Guy and his people then launched into a massive public relations scam.

They intended to mislead the public into believing that McGuinty was resigning as provincial leader to run for leader of the Federal Liberals against Justin Trudeau.

As reported by Howlett of the Globe and Mail:

“Minutes after Mr. McGuinty made his surprise announcement that he was proroguing the legislature and stepping down after nine years in office, The Canadian Press’s Ottawa bureau broke the story that he was planning a jump to federal politics. In the immediate aftermath, the leak helped divert attention from the controversial shutdown of the legislature, including committee hearings.

Five days later, Mr. McGuinty’s advisers hatched plans on how to handle his resignation. Mr. Guy talked about keeping the federal leadership story alive for a bit longer.

“I think we also leak tomorrow that the Premier has been taking calls this weekend and is discussing the leadership with his family with an intention of making a decision early this week,” he says in an e-mail on Oct. 20.

At the same time, however, Mr. Morley was discussing plans for killing the story. Shortly before Mr. McGuinty is interviewed by television host Steve Paikin next Tuesday, he says, they should give the story to CP reporter Joan Bryden — who got the initial leak — that the premier has decided against running federally.

“She’s been promised the story either way the decision goes, so he can’t blurt it out in a scrum,” he says.

CP reported last Oct. 23 that Mr. McGuinty wouldn’t be challenging Justin Trudeau after all.”

So for a whole week, McGuinty, Don Guy and all of McGuinty’s and Don Guy’s people intentionally, misled and misinformed the Ontario people and the Ontario press.

Actually, I am glad that Don Guy, the master of press manipulation, misinformation to the public, muzzling elected officials and, above all, trying to influence an impartial administrative/judicial official, has finally come out of the shadows.

For over ten years, this “win at all costs”, “this end justifies the means” Don Guy was Dalton McGuinty’s guy. And the crafty master strategist behind the Ontario Liberals.

So what does that really say about Dalton McGuinty, the Ontario Liberals and Ontario Liberal Premier Wynne?

Anti-Hudak Forces Will Not Be Enjoying an Arab Spring This Fall

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

In Toryland, after the recent disappointing Ontario by-elections, in which the Tories only won one of a possible five seats, there was much beating of breasts and rending of garments.

And some militant Ontario Tories have been calling for Tim Hudak’s head.

According to a recent column in the Toronto Sun by Sue-Ann Levy, the Toronto SunQueen’s Park reporter:

“The constitution committee of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party will determine in the next week what to do with resolutions calling for leader Tim Hudak’s head on a platter at the party’s policy meeting next month.”

Apparently, some dissident Tories are circulating petitions calling for an amendment to the party’s constitution to be voted on in an upcoming September party convention. Such petitions in effect want to change the constitution to permit an immediate leadership review or vote on Hudak’s leadership. As opposed to a leadership review after the next general election, as prescribed by the current constitution.

To date the only Tory dissidents who have gone public with this request for an immediate leadership review is Frank Klees, Tory MPP from Aurora, traditional manure disturber, MPP Randy Hillier and Peter Coleman, President of the National Citizens Coalition.

Frank Klees is the most prominent and respected Tory MPP who has come out for a leadership review. Recall that Klees came in second to Hudak in the last leadership race and he has been front and centre on exposing and pursuing the investigation of the Ornge scandal in provincial hearings.

In a recent Globe and Mail article, Klees acknowledged there is no provision for a leadership review at the upcoming September London convention, but Klees thought it would be in Hudak’s interest to ask for a leadership review to once and for all determine and solidify Hudak’s support in the party. Klees stated:

“For Tim to put that vote out there voluntarily, without being seen to resist that, I think it shows confidence on the part of the leader, and I think that in itself would instill confidence on the part of the members in the leader. If you’re afraid of what the members are going to say, what does that say about a general election and the general public?”

To a lesser extent, I have also being following various Tory and conservative blogs. And there is also a movement afoot to promote and nominate Etobicoke councillor Doug Ford as a potential Tory provincial leader to replace Tim Hudak.

However, to date, there have been no YouTube videos in our very own Tahrir Square, the Yonge-Dundas Square, of any pro-Doug Ford supporters setting KFC Family buckets on fire in protest of Hudak’s leadership.

But we are still in early days.

The natives are very restless. And unlike former Egyptian President Morsi, Tim Hudak should not ignore this grassroots rebellion as another brush fire.

As I stated in my previous Huff Post article, these past by-elections once again pointed out that Tim Hudak does not resonate with the Ontario electorate.

The sole Tory victory of Doug Holyday is commonly viewed as a result of Holyday’s own excellent municipal reputation and the active and valuable support of Ford Nation, rather than Hudak’s leadership and Tory policies.

But as I also stated, Hudak in private is personable, charming, and funny. Basically a good guy, and as appealing as Andrea Horwath and much more appealing than the hard-nosed and brittle Kathleen Wynne.

Unfortunately, Hudak in public, still comes across as too robotic and lacking in empathy.

Once again I urge Hudak’s advisers to let Hudak be Hudak, warts and all. In these difficult times, where in order to repair Ontario’s desperate deficit-ridden finances, government expenditures (like programs and civil servants) will have to be cut, Hudak should try to be more, “I feel your pain” Clintonian, than “Slash and burn” Mike Harris.

Mike Harris and his advisers Tim Long, Leslie Noble, and Deb Hutton ( apparently all Hudak advisers) have had their day in the sun.

But these are different times in Ontario then when Mike Harris was last Premier.

Though Long, Noble and Hutton have been loyally by Hudak’s side throughout Hudak’s political career, Hudak has to expand his brain trust. Long and Noble are a bit long in the tooth. They are a throwback to the Harris era. I appreciate it would be difficult to fire Hutton, his partner, wife, and mother of his child. But for the sake of Hudak’s political career, Hutton has to step back.

Also Hudak has to seek counsel and rely more upon the advice of non WASPish, non rural, and non traditional, and non-right wing Conservatives. Advisers who are more urban and suburban politicos. Street smart people who are more in tune with the changing demographics of Ontario, especially in the highly multicultural areas of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, and the expanding 905 areas of Brampton and Mississauga.

As to the proposed leadership review. Though I feel the dissidents’ pain, this is ultimately a bad and divisive plan. A year ago, after last election, the anti-Hudak forces had their chance to unseat Hudak. They failed. Hudak secured over 75 per cent approval as leader.

The next provincial election is less than 12 months away. Such a divisive leadership battle would tear the party apart, not only for months, but for years. And it would marginalize the Ontario Tories in third place for many years to come.

Do the Ontario Tories really want to revisit the disastrous internecine struggles that the Martin/Chetien battles inflicted upon the Federal Liberals for years and years?

Have we learned nothing from those politically devastating and self-inflicting Liberal fights?
Which ultimately torpedoed the leaderships of Martin, Dion, Rae and Ignatieff.

I suspect calmer heads will prevail.

Frank Klees will return to exposing Ornge and quietly preparing for his next run for leadership after the Hudak era.

And there will no Arab Spring for Ontario Tory dissidents in the fall.

Last Man Standing: Hudak Failed, But Could Still Prevail

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

The results of the recent Ontario by-elections were disappointing for die-hard Ontario Tory supporters who believed in their bones that the sins of the McGuinty Liberals would finally deal a devastating blow to the Ontario Liberals led by Premier Wynne.

I am not suggesting that Hudak and the Tories should have won four of the five provincial seats, being contested. The Windsor seat, formerly held by Dwight Duncan, was a lock for the NDP from the outset. But Hudak and the Tories had solid opportunities in the provincial ridings of Scarborough-Guildwood and Ottawa South. They should have delivered on at least one of those two ridings.

In Scarborough-Guildwood, the Liberal candidate Mitzi Hunter was beatable. Hudak and his advisers should have played hardball and recruited a higher profile candidate than Ken Kiruba. He is a nice solid guy, but clearly lacked the public profile and winability factor of Mitzi Hunter and the NDP candidate Adam Giambrone, former TTC Chairman and lead author of the LRT for Scarborough.

Either Hudak has to change his advisers or they have to step up their game. And they better do it quickly.

Or hit the road, Jack. Because you guys and women are acting like rank political amateurs.

Hudak and the Tories have the very real ability to form the government in the next general election. Why they cannot attract and recruit more high profile and more winnable candidates like Doug Holyday, is beyond comprehension.

Hudak’s people once again were outmanaged and outmaneuvered by such Liberal strategists as Greg Sorbara and even by NDP Leader Andrea Horwath’s strategists. You have to give credit to Horwath and her people. They recruited high profile candidates in the Windsor and London West by-elections. And they even attracted Adam Giambrone who gave Hunter and Kiruba a real run in Scarborough. And they got out the vote in those ridings.

The second problem was that Hudak allowed the Liberals to steal his pro-subway message. Hudak had been promoting subways, not streetcars and LRT, for many months, well in advance of the Scarborough by-election. And Mitzi Hunter was in favour of the LRT, before she was against it. As President of Civic Action, Hunterspent six years campaigning for an LRT for Scarborough. Now suddenly, on the Road to Scarborough Town Centre, she discovered subways and overnight, Hunter became the sudden subway advocate.

Hudak and Kiruma should not have let Hunter steal the subway issue from them. They should have hammered Hunter and the Liberals for only recently supporting subways and better transit for Scarberians, purely based on political expediency. Purely to win a by-election.

Thirdly, Hudak failed to properly capitalize on the appeal and the message of Rob Ford to Scarberians. Though Ford is a rotund white guy, he has great support and appeal in Scarborough. The predominantly non-white Scarborough community, likes Ford because he cares about them and genuinely believes that Scarberians deserve more and better transit opportunities which must include the Bloor-Danforth subway extension from Kennedy to the Scarborough Town Centre.

The recent success of Ford Fest in Scarborough indicates that the hard-working Asian, South Asian, Filipino, and black communities also like Ford’s belief that government should not be wasteful and be very careful about using taxpayers’ hard-earned money. And government should not waste such taxpayer money on projects that only benefit the downtown Toronto elites. Or in the case of the gas plant cancellations, greedy American hedge funds, friendly gas plant operators, and Bay Street law firms and bankers.

Fourthly, Hudak cannot just be the angry white guy railing against the sins and corruption of the McGuinty/Wynne Liberal government. Hudak has to be able to resonate with the voter. He failed to do so in the five by-elections. He has to be able to connect with the Ontario voters on a gut and personal level. In private, Hudak is quite a funny, warm, personable, and witty fellow. Unfortunately, in front of the camera, he loses his natural ease and grace and becomes too stilted. And too concerned with talking points and scoring debating points.

I suggest Hudak should let his hair down. Let his natural self become his public persona. A good politician can be warm and charming, but still bitingly critical and effective. Consider the masterful former Ontario premier Bill Davis.

As for the Ottawa South riding, the above criticism of Hudak applies to this riding as well. Hudak personally campaigned here. He and his Tory candidate should have done better. Hudak has to connect better to people. He has to get his message across more clearly and more forcefully, but also with more warmth and appeal.

Hudak should be more the “happy warrior” and less the cold warrior. Politics is a blood sport. But politics is all about people. And it should be fun as well.

The Ottawa South Tory candidate was solid, but next time, the Tories must significantly improve their ground game in that riding as in all the ridings. That is, the Tories must not only attract more potential Tory voters, but identify them and ensure their individual Tory riding organizations get these Tory voters out to vote in the advance polls or on election day.

In the Ottawa South riding, McGuinty’s riding organization’s ground game was excellent. But the new Liberal MPP from Ottawa South was beatable and is beatable in the next general election, probably next year.

To the hard right Tories who want Hudak’s scalp and a new leadership race, you should just chill. Pop open a cold one. Grab a jerk chicken leg. Don’t worry, man. Be Happy. Now is not the time for divisive internal debates about Hudak’s leadership. The only hope for the NDP and the Liberals is that the Tories self-destruct internally over such questions.This is a road the Tories should not go down within 12 months of the next general election.

Also, Tories should not be taken in by the left’s campaign of disinformation about the alleged failures of Hudak. Comrade Gerald Caplan’s recent Globe and Mail opinion piece of misrepresentation and half-truths is more Putin-like propaganda, than respectable political commentary. Caplan claims, referring to Hudak: “He’s also pushing perhaps the most reactionary, flagrantly class-based policies Ontarians have ever seen, making Mike Harris look like a bleeding-heart liberal.”

Oh, give us break. Hudak has been pushing for subways and federal and provincial funding for subways for the transit-challenged and lower income people of Scarborough so that these Scarborough residents can enjoy 10% of the transit opportunities enjoyed by the wealthy white elites in Forest Hill, Rosedale, the Annex, and High Park, who are being represented by such well-known leftists as Josh Matlow and Gord Perks (who, by the way, are opposed to financially assisting the residents of Scarborough).

Who are the reactionaries now? This ain’t the 60s and the Waffle Party is not trying to take over Stephen Lewis’ NDP.

But I digress.

Hudak and the Tories have a real and legitimate shot at taking over the Ontario government within a year.
Doug Holyday brings terrific municipal and government/finance expertise to the party, and a great GTA profile. Christine Elliott is a very strong deputy leader and an excellent health care critic. And let us not forget such smart and hard-working members such as Frank Klees and Vic Fedeli, who have relentlessly held the Liberals’ feet to the fire on the Ornge and Gas Plant scandals, respectively.

Hudak may have lost a battle or two. But the political war is just heating up.

And I still believe, in the end, Hudak will be the last man standing.

Premier Wynne to Toronto: “Drop Dead!”

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

Well so much for Premier Wynne’s public image as the great mediator and conciliator. And as an honest politician.

Since Wynne’s election as Liberal party leader, and thus automatically Premier, though unelected, her office with the help of a compliant liberal press, The TorontoStar, have tried to promote Wynne’s image as distinct from the more inflexible and authoritarian Dalton McGuinty.

At least McGuinty in his last year as premier, where he tried to take a hard line against the teachers and their unreasonable salary and pension demands and their outrageous unused, but bankable sick days.

Firstly, Wynne, being a woman politician, portrayed herself as being more flexible, patient, non-confrontational and conciliatory, than her male counterparts. Especially McGuinty, who became characterized as, it is “my way or the highway”, type of political leader.

For example, in her negotiations over the budget with NDP Andrea Horwath, Wynnespent countless weeks back and forth with Horwath patiently trying to craft a budget with enough financial goodies to meet Horwath’s ever changing demands and secure Horwath’s and the NDP’s support.

Similarly, unlike McGuinty, Wynne apparently spent a good deal of time and effort negotiating with and reaching an agreement with the elementary school teachers.

Then again, McGuinty froze teachers’ wages and vowed to hold the line on future teachers’ wages and impliedly cut back on teachers’ benefits.

In contrast, Wynne apparently opened the Ontario bank once again, and gave the teachers a 2% increase, well above what the Government could afford.

So in this context , to characterize Wynne’s style as being compromising and flexible, is a gross misnomer.

Basically, Wynne once again bought off the teachers with money that the Ontario government did not have and could not afford to pay. That is not being flexible. That is being fiscally irresponsible.

But when Mayor Ford met with Finance Minister Sousa on Monday, June 24, to discuss various options regarding the proposed $150 million cut back to social housing, Wynne showed her real and true face.

Wynne’s true face is one of a hard, calculating, insensitive and arrogant political leader, who may be the least trustworthy political leader in Canada today.

Recall that although Wynne was Co-Chairman of the Liberal Party’s election campaign in 2011, she claimed that she was not responsible for the gas plant cancellation, because she was not in the meeting that decided to cancel a gas plant during the election in order to save some Liberal seats.

That was a real doozy.

Wynne reminds me of the attractive but conniving Queen played by Susan Sarandon, in the Disney film, “Enchanted”. Who at the end of the film, is shockingly revealed as a horrifying cold-hearted monster.

This may come as a shock to many readers and Ontario voters, but not to this writer.

So it did not surprise me that when Mayor Ford publicly stated that the City of Toronto had a commitment from the Liberal Government to fund public housing until 2018, Premier Wynne fudged the truth, not once, not twice, but at least three times. And she is still fudging the truth today.

Firstly, through Sousa, Wynne’s position was that there was no agreement or commitment until 2018.

Fortunately, an actual written letter was discovered by Liberal Councilman Shelley Carroll. Also fortunately, for Toronto, Carroll retained a copy.

The Ontario Premier’s office in recent times, has been known to delete or destroy documents and emails.

When Carroll presented this letter as definitive evidence, Wynne’s position through Sousa, was that this letter was just a projection or an option, not an actual commitment to keep paying.

When that did not fly, Wynne’s position through Sousa was that Toronto alternatively was still ahead financially, because Ontario had decided to waive repayment of the $200 million loan owed by it to the province.

But that also proved to be an untruth, according to Toronto city manager Pennachetti,since the province had permitted Toronto to forgo making interest payments for many years. In effect, by its actions, years ago, the Ontario Liberal government had already waived repayment of the loan.

But it gets worse.

According to a recent Globe and Mail article, Wynne and the Liberal Government have been planning on cutting back on its funding of Toronto social housing , not for a week or two weeks, but a whole year ago.

As reported in the Globe,
“City hall and Queen’s Park sources, however, said the province never intended to negotiate over the cancelled funds. The government has been considering making the cut for more than a year — even going so far as to run it by the Liberal caucus’s Toronto members — and was firm in its decision, the sources said. They added that the province just wanted a meeting with city officials to explain the reasoning behind the move. This firm position came as a surprise to the city.”

So Wynne as a senior Cabinet Minister knew about these proposed cutbacks for over a year.

In my books, an omission is just as bad as a lie.

So in the last provincial election, Wynne and her party lied to the Ontario people when she conveniently omitted that if re-elected the Liberal government would cut $150 million from its committed and agreed upon funding to Toronto social housing.

In addition, when the Toronto City Council was trying to craft its budget in December and January of this year, its budget was based upon continued funding by the Ontario government of a certain portion of Toronto’s social housing costs.

But Wynne could not be honest with Toronto City Council because she was still in the midst of saving her minority government for another year.

So Vanna, how many lies on the Wynne Wheel of Misfortune?

It is also interesting to note that apparently Mayor Rob Ford attended on Finance Minister Sousa with the best of intentions to seek a reasonable and face-saving diplomatic solution.

As reported by the Toronto Sun, prior to his meeting with Sousa, Ford stated,
“They’ve got to find efficiencies,” said Ford, who is still optimistic there will be a successful resolution to the money squabble.

But unfortunately, for Mayor Ford, the City of Toronto, and those Toronto residents in public housing, the die had already been cast months and months ago.

Wynne had decided to cut off government funding of Toronto social housing at the knees, and there was no changing her mind.

However, sensing that this sudden unilateral decision may have serious political consequences, in previously solid Toronto Liberal ridings, on Monday, Wynne tried to shift the blame to Ford by stating that Sousa’s chief of staff had tried to reach out to Mayor’s chief of staff a few weeks ago, but because of Ford’s other troubles, Sousa’s aide never heard from the Mayor’s office. Again, as if this decision, which was made over a year ago, was Ford’s fault.

Clearly, the die had been cast months and months ago.

Lies, more lies and lies upon lies.

So for all you downtown Toronto smug elitist Ford haters, it is very clear that even the so-called more sophisticated and more worldly Harvard-educated and lawyer-trained former Mayor David Miller, could not have moved the intransigent and uncompromising Wynne.

Who has also taken mendacity to a whole new level in Ontario politics.

Obama’s Comments About Trayvon Martin Crossed the Line

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Media, Politics

I believe President Obama crossed the line when he most recently commented for the second time on the George Zimmerman verdict.

In doing so, he called into question the verdict of the jury in the Zimmerman case, and the validity and objectivity of America’s legal and judicial system.

By politicizing the legal procedures, in an apparent effort to potentially obtain a different result, the President runs the risk of perverting America’s objective and impartial legal and judicial system.

Ironically, the long-term impact of such presidential intervention may be detrimental to the very same African American community to which the President is trying to appeal.

Let me elaborate.

Immediately after the verdict in the Gordon Zimmerman case, in which a jury acquitted Gordon Zimmerman of the death of Trayvon Martin, President Obamaissued the following appropriate written statement, in which he stated:

“The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son.”

President Obama then concluded his statement with the following thoughtful words,
“We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.”

President Obama should have stopped there. His comments were presidential, appropriate and sensitive to the parents of Tryvon Martin and the African American community in general.

But apparently, the decisive and unanimous verdict and President Obama’s statement were not sufficient to placate many members of the African American community and many other American citizens.

Notwithstanding the above remarks, the Obama administration and the Justice Department faced pressure from several American groups to pursue a civil rights case against Zimmerman.

More than 400,000 people signed a petition from the NAACP which urged Attorney General Eric Holder to act and open a civil rights case against Zimmerman.

It is very interesting to note that the NAACP petition states therein about:

“…growing a movement to hold accountable a criminal justice system that fails Black Americans every day and ending the senseless violence perpetrated by unaccountable vigilantes and police due to racial profiling.”

Also Reverend Al Sharpton organized demonstrations in dozens of American cities for the weekend, calling for the Obama Administration to launch a civil rights action against Zimmerman for the alleged murder of Martin and to protest the practice of racial profiling, which many view was the cause of his death.

As a result of these factors, and I am sure, other pressures, President Obama felt the necessity to publicly comment once again on the Zimmerman verdict.

“The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there’s going to be a lot of arguments about the legal issues in the case — I’ll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues. The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that’s how our system works. But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.”

This time around, Obama’s view of the Zimmerman judicial proceedings was not as definitive. Note in the above first comments, Obama stated, “We are a nation of laws and the jury has spoken.” In other words, that is the end of the judicial proceedings. Justice was done. Let us move on.

But in these latter comments, Obama was less definitive and supportive of the system.

He stated, “The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that’s how our system works.”

Obama seems to suggest that is how our current system works, but there may be something missing. And that something is context. As Obama adds, “But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.”

Then Obama strongly states just about all African American men, including himself, prior to being a senator, has experienced being treated differently by the white population, in terms of the white population being threatened or wary or treating black American men as potential criminals. In other words, being racially profiled as being potentially harmful.

And as Obama succinctly points out:

“And I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. The African American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws — everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.”

Obama further argued referring to American black males:

“…that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact — although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.”

Obama concludes:

“And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent — using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.
“I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied.”

What Obama is suggesting is that the Martin/Zimmerman legal and judicial proceedings may have been defective from the African American community’s standpoint, because the case was not considered or decided in the context of: (1) America’s systematic racial profiling of American black men, (arising from white America’s distrust of American black males); (2) America’s racially-charged application and enforcement of laws; and (3) America’s historically violent treatment of the American black community.

Obama is implying that if these factors had been introduced, the result may have been different. In other words, Zimmerman may have been found guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin, along racial lines.

Conversely, if these factors were introduced in the event of Trayvon Martin shooting a white guy, Martin may have a better chance of being found not guilty on the basis of self-defence, as opposed to being presumed guilty on the basis of his race.

So is Obama suggesting that whenever there is a criminal case in which a non-black person shoots and kills a black person, these above factors should be brought into play?

Sort of like affirmative action for deceased black victims.

Or conversely, when a black guy shoots and kills a white guy, the same factors could be used to support the defence of self-defence, and rebut the presumption of guilt due to color.

Frankly, Obama, was right the first time, in his initial comments. America is a nation of laws. The law, its application and enforcement and justice, should be color-blind, objective, impartial and fair.

Politics and race criteria should not be injected into the American legal and judicial system. That would pervert the system.

Because some day, the American black community will not have a sympathetic black President or black Attorney General in its corner.

And when that day comes, the American black community does not want to be subject to a legal and judicial system, distorted by politics and race criteria anathema to the American black community.

According to Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, New Testament:

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For what with judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” (Matthew 7:1-2)

Now that’s what I call a teachable lesson. Which even the great President Barack Obama may heed.

Not Paying Tribute to Trayvon Martin Doesn’t Make You Racist

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Media

Rachel Décoste, one of my fellow Huffington Post bloggers, generally writes very thoughtful, perceptive and insightful columns for Huffington Post.

The fact that I rarely agree with her points of view is quite irrelevant. I enjoy her style and passion. And I always look forward to reading her opinions.

But I have to take issue with her recent Huffington Post blog, “Racism is Front Page News at the Ottawa Sun,” because she unfairly labels the Ottawa Sun’s handling of Trayvon Martin’s death as racist.

In her article, Décoste says, “In the Sunday edition of the Ottawa Sun, the juxtaposition between the untimely death of two young men and the dismissive commentary on Trayvon Martin serve as yet another example of inequality in our multicultural society.”

Décoste alleges that the Ottawa Sun paid tribute to the deaths of two young Canadian white men (both who died accidentally of drug overdoses) while they denounced the worldwide tribute to the death of an unarmed Trayvon Martin (a young American black man), who died as a result of being shot by George Zimmerman, a self-appointed community security guard, in Florida.

This seems like a pretty damning indictment against our Canadian multicultural society.

Fortunately, for Canada, and unfortunately for Décoste, the evidence she cites does not support this rather sweeping conclusion.

Let us look at the meagre evidence upon which Décoste bases her argument.

Decoste cites as one example the fact that “the Ottawa Sun features an article about a ‘tribute’ to a heroin addict. Canadian-born actor Corey Monteith, famous for his role on the TV show Glee, suffered a drug overdose in a Vancouver hotel last week.”

Décoste’s use of this example in which to criticize the Ottawa Sun for its alleged “racism,” fails for the following reasons.

First, the actual article she cites, called “Glee to Memorialize Monteith in “Tribute” Episode,” is the straight reporting in the Entertainment section of the Ottawa Sun. The article reports on how the popular television show “Glee” will be responding to the untimely death of one of its stars, Corey Monteith, with a special tribute show, dealing with his recent death.

The Ottawa Sun is not paying tribute to the death of Monteith, as opposed to the death of Trayvon Martin. It is just reporting in its Entertainment Section on a “tribute” show to be performed on the popular “Glee” show. The article is in the entertainment section — not in the political or editorial/opinion sections of the Ottawa Sun.

The content of this entertainment report (of which similar content has been circulated in most North American newspapers) cannot and should not be used as an example that allegedly reflects the Ottawa Sun’s alleged racist or discriminatory view towards black people.

How does this objective reporting on a “tribute show” relate to the Ottawa Sun’s alleged dismissive treatment of Trayvon Martin’s death? It doesn’t.

Décoste is comparing apples to oranges, straight objective reporting to opinion pieces.

She is alleging double standards that do not exist.

The second Ottawa Sun article Décoste cites as indicative of the Ottawa Sun’s unequal treatment of black people is titled, “Vicious Drug Cycle Haunts Ottawa Family.”

In this case, Décoste incorrectly alleges that the Ottawa Sun is once again paying tribute to the death of a young white man who accidentally dies from a drug overdose.

In fact, the Ottawa Sun is neither paying tribute or honoring the death of this unfortunate young Ottawa man.

This article rather sadly tells the story of a young man, Nick Cody, 18, whose father died of a drug overdose when Nick was just nine months old. Although Nick vowed to break the cycle, he too became addicted to drugs at the age of 15. And though he went to rehab last year, once out of rehab, Nick reverted to doing drugs again. Which led to his demise.

Once again, this article is not evidence of the Ottawa Sun’s preference for honoring young white men over the black Trayvon Martin.

It is interesting to note that though Décoste argues that the Ottawa Sun is guilty of publishing an editorial about the Zimmerman case which denounces worldwide tributes to Trayvon Martin, including President Obama’s remarks on this matter, she does not provide a link to this crucial article to support her claim.

I am not sure if that was inadvertent or intentional.

But I invite you to look at this very thoughtful and nuanced opinion piece by John Robson Parliamentary bureau reporter, (which is not an Ottawa Sun editorial, but an opinion piece by one columnist) entitled “Why Honour Trayvon Martin?”

The writer legitimately questions why the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman case has been looked upon as some historic event in American race relations. He also questions how the media and the American black community has come to see this case as representative of America’s still troubled black/white divide in American society today.

Robson points out that “George Zimmerman is not America’s racial history. He’s just one guy unlikely, without this incident, to have achieved distinction of any sort. He’s certainly not Birmingham’s infamous 1960s white supremacist Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor risen from the grave. Zimmerman’s not even white. He’s Hispanic.”

In other words, he is also non-white as his mother is Peruvian.

In fact, Zimmerman was raised in a racially integrated household and he has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather — the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.

In addition, Zimmerman’s gated community is not an exclusive white enclave, but is inhabited by a diverse multicultural community including Afro-Americans as neighbors.

Similarly, as the Ottawa Sun writer Robson points out, “Trayvon Martin was just one person. He wasn’t black America. He wasn’t Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. II or Kunta Kinte. He certainly wasn’t Barack Obama 35 years ago, as the president just irresponsibly suggested. He was one more teenager acting tough but in his case the game got way too real.”

Robson also argues:

“Martin may once have been a sweet kid. Had he not tried to kill Zimmerman on Feb. 26, 2012 he might one day have become an admirable adult. But as a teen he was in the grip of a highly dysfunctional rap-hip-hop-ghetto chic culture too prevalent in black America.
His twitter handle was NO_LIMIT_NIGGA, for goodness sake. Some limits on his temper might have saved his life last February.

Instead of pointing this out, the president (Obama) initially spoke of how to ‘honour’ Martin. Excuse me?

I’m sorry he got himself shot. But the evidence strongly suggests he was on top of Zimmerman trying to bash his brains out on a cement pavement when Zimmerman fired in self-defence. I didn’t know we honoured things like that.”

As noted above, the Ottawa Sun did not pay tribute or honor the deaths of two young white men. Nor did the Ottawa Sun denounce the worldwide tribute to Trayvon Martin, although one Ottawa Sun columnist, Robson, did legitimately call into question the assumptions underlying the tributes being bestowed on Trayvon Martin.

There is no evidence that the Ottawa Sun acted in a racist manner and prejudicial manner. And there is no evidence that as a result of such treatment of the Martin matter, the Ottawa Sun is perpetuating inequality in our Canadian society.

Unfortunately, by playing the “race” card in her article — based on no evidence of discrimination or inequality — Rachel Décoste trivialized the real issue of racism in our society and undermines the very cause that she is advocating.

A Scarborough Subway Smack Down

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

Forget House of Cards, Scandal or even The West Wing and other TV/Netflix political potboilers.

We have a much better political soap opera and hissing match playing out right here in Toronto over funding for the Scarborough Subway.

In the right corner is Karen Stintz, the TTC Chairman.

Don’t be misled by her cute, blonde, blue eyed and slight exterior. She is one tough and feisty street fighter. She is not afraid to take on political opponents, much bigger and much fatter than she is. What she lacks in size, she makes up in smarts and political guts. She knows the transit file cold.

And on the transit file, she has considerable cred in the City of Toronto, across both party and ideological lines.

In the left corner, is the highly over-rated, overweight and over the top, Ontario Transport Minister Glen Murray. Clearly a pompous pontificator, and way over his head on this Scarborough subway file.

And the loosest of Wynne’s loose cannons.

According to a Globe and Mail article, Stintz made it very clear to Murray that the Ontario Government should stand by its previously stated obligation to contribute $1.8 billion to the proposed Scarborough Subway.

Which subway was approved in Toronto City Council by a decisive 26-18 margin. Where Toronto liberals and leftists joined with City councillors in the centre and on the right behind Mayor Ford and Karen Stintz.

As further reported in the Globe article,

“Informed of Ms. Stintz’s comments during his news conference, Mr. Murray shot back: ‘Maybe Karen Stintz should run in a by-election then.

‘My message to Karen Stintz is: decide whose side you’re on. Are you with the people of Scarborough?’ he said in the blazing sun on the Kennedy GO Train platform, flanked by several local MPPs and Mitzie Hunter, the Liberals’ candidate in an area by-election. ‘It’s time to stand with the people of Scarborough or stand with those who think the people of Scarborough are second-class citizens.’

Mr. Murray grew increasingly testy throughout the news conference. Asked about city council’s stipulation that the province put $1.8-billion into the subway, Mr. Murray dismissed it out of hand: ‘I’m in charge here,’ he said. Later, when a journalist asked whether the government was agreeing to the subway to win the by-election, Mr. Murray questioned the reporter’s credentials.”

So here is Mr. Murray standing with several Liberal Scarborough MPPs, all of whom have been pushing Premier Wynne and Murray hard for weeks, to support the more popular choice of a Scarborough subway.

Murray is also standing with Mitzie Hunter, who is trying to hold on to the Scarborough seat formerly held by a Liberal MPP, in a very tight by-election race against a surging Conservative candidate.

This should have been a political slam dunk for Murray. The Liberals have publicly stated that they are in favour of a subway option, provided the Toronto City Council could get its act together and agree on this course of action. Which it did, as above stated.

So here is a great political opportunity for Murray, Wynne and the Liberals to be supporting a politically popular policy that has widespread support in the Scarborough community and widespread support from Toronto City Councillors.

It is also the first time that Rob Ford has supported paying in part for this Scarborough subway through a property tax increase, one of the key demands of Premier Wynne and the Ontario Liberals.

For some strange reason, the stars are aligning for this subway and the Ontario Liberals.

This should be a win-win for the Wynne Liberals.

So instead of showing leadership on this subway file, and being positive, upbeat and co-operative, Murray, in the middle of a press conference, decides quite irrationally to pick a fight with Karen Stintz and question her commitment to a Scarborough subway and the people of Scarborough?

And to challenge her, a city Councillor and TTC chairman, to run in the provincial by election?

Has this guy lost his marbles?

Has Murray gone stark raving bonkers?

Then to add further insult to injury, instead of being co-operative and diplomatic, he testily declares that “he is in charge.” In other words, it is my way, or the highway. (More accurately, the LRT, but I digress.)

Then Murray completes his disastrous public appearance, by calling into question the press credentials of a City Hall reporter, who had the audacity to ask him a fairly basic question, as to whether the Liberals’ support for the Scarborough subway, was directly a result of the upcoming by-election.

Verdict: the bantam weight Stintz, knocked out Murray. Humiliated him. And then pinned Murray to the mat in the first round.

And because of Murray’s Liberal arrogance, incompetence, and disastrous public appearance, the Scarborough by-election is not only wide open, but I believe that Murray’s outburst has hurt the Liberals’ chances in the other races being determined in the August 1, provincial by election.

Because it is apparent that Murray, not the more touchy feely Wynne, clearly represents the true face of the arrogant and entitled Ontario Liberal party, who clearly has not learned from the many Liberal scandals, during former Premier McGuinty’s reign: eHealth, OLG, Ornge, and the gas plant cancellations and cover up.

As a side note, while Stintz was going womano a mano after Murray, Mayor Ford, was uncharacteristically, acting the good cop to Stintz’s bad cop.

In fact, Mayor Ford was being down right diplomatic.

As reported in the same Globe article, “Mayor Rob Ford’s office, which has been in discussions for weeks with Premier Kathleen Wynne’s staff, went into damage control mode as the war of words intensified. In a statement Thursday afternoon, the mayor said, “discussions are ongoing — we are moving in the right direction.”

All I can say, is “Holy Metternich and Henry Kissinger, Batman!”

Wow, our very own Mayor never ceases to surprise. Who would have thought that Mayor Ford, would be the voice of reason, diplomacy, calm, co-operation and firm resolve?

As to the out of control, Murray, if I was Premier Wynne, I would go all “control freaking Harper” on Murray’s posterior, and put him on a very, very tight leash.

In order words, from here on out, he should just be seen and never heard.

These Subway Follies, ain’t over yet, folks.

Why Harper Should Help Fund the Proposed Toronto Scarborough Subway

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

I would like to echo the immortal words of Prime Minister Harper when he described the virtues of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Harper and his Conservatives providing additional funding to build the new Scarborough Subway (the extension of the Bloor-Danforth line from Kennedy Station to the Scarborough Town Centre) is a “complete no-brainer.”

Let me elaborate.

Firstly, the option of a subway line from Kennedy Station to the Scarborough Town Centre makes very good sense from a public transit standpoint.

According to the recent report by Toronto City Manager Pennachetti, whereas the Light Rail Transit (LRT) option would cover a larger geographic area — including seven stations and come at a lower cost — the subway extension option, with only three stations, would have higher speed, higher quality service, higher ridership and no transfer for passengers from one mode to another at Kennedy station.

Thus giving commuters a fast, transfer-free ride to and from Scarborough. And although the cost of the subway is high, subways last 75 to 100 years, as opposed to about 40 years for LRTs, so it will be worth the investment in the long term.

Secondly, I would argue that providing Scarborough’s 625,000+ population (about 24 per cent of Toronto’s entire population) even a quarter of the public transit benefits that Scarborough’s much more affluent neighbors in Old Toronto (Danforth, Beaches, Rosedale, Annex, West Annex, Forest Hill, High Park) have enjoyed for decades, is the fair, equitable and even the morally right thing to do.

As I have previously written, unlike their affluent neighbors in Old Toronto, manyScarberians do not live close to where they work, so they cannot generally walk or bike to work. Many Scarberians do not have the extra cash flow to own or lease cars. Their only option is public transit. Which in Scarborough, means — for the most part –waiting for overcrowded buses in Toronto’s freezing cold winters. Or riding the TTC’s hot and overcrowded buses in Toronto’s humid summers.

Therefore, common sense, fairness, equity and even morality, dictate that the priorities of public transit should be directed to helping out those in Toronto’s outer lying suburbs, like Scarborough, where public transit is more of a necessity than in Toronto’s affluent neighborhoods.

Thirdly, by providing new federal funding to this Scarborough subway, Harper cannot be accused of favoring the mythic conservative base or favoring federal ridings held by exclusively conservative representatives. As four of the current Scarborough federal ridings are held by either NDP or Liberal MPs.

However, this is where things can become very interesting, politically speaking.

I believe all the four Scarborough ridings held by the NDP or Liberals are in play. The Conservatives were competitive in each of these ridings in the last federal election. Harper’s renewed interest in the needs of Scarborough residents, especially their particular public transit needs, will have a positive influence on Scarborough residents in the next federal election.

Fourthly, contrary to the desires of certain provincial premiers and mayors, when it comes to infrastructure funding, Harper and his government just do not want to hand over a blank cheque to the premiers or the mayors to fund comprehensive ongoing infrastructure projects. Harper’s government prefers project-by-project funding in which the federal government plays a significant role, and accordingly, obtains some credit for its substantive role.

The proposed funding of the Scarborough subway is consistent with these principles, where the Ontario government and the City of Toronto have “skin” (capital) in the game, and where the federal government’s contribution and its role are critical to the success of this project.

Fifthly, Harper has a once in a political lifetime situation where the sitting Toronto Mayor is even more socially and fiscally conservative than Harper. Ford is also sincerely friendly to, and supportive of, the Harper government and has a warm and genuine relationship with Finance Minister Flaherty. And Ford has based a large part of his mayoralty on delivering, “subways, subways, subways.”

So if Harper can step up to the plate and deliver the fed’s capital portion — say, 600 big ones ($600 million) — and nail down the Scarborough subway deal, you know that Mayor Ford and his many supporters would be extolling the virtues of the Harper government, from now until through the next federal election. Talk about a huge bang for the federal bucks!

Sixthly, the populist appeal of Rob Ford. I have been closely following Canadian and American politics from the 1960s. I have followed such forceful and charismatic leaders as the Kennedys, (John and Robert), Trudeau, Mulroney, Reagan, Clinton and Obama. I know some of you may think that I am off my meds or smoking illegal substances, but the populist appeal of Rob Ford is the real deal.

I recently attended Ford Fest in Scarborough where over 15,000 people of all ages, ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds (95 per cent in attendance were non-white) came out to see, hear and have their photo taken with Mayor Ford. Not for the free food or beer, but to be with Ford.

This extremely diverse crowd really love this guy. They identify with and trust Ford because they sincerely believe that he will not waste their hard-earned income on unnecessary taxes and unnecessary expenditures. They love the fact that for many years when he was just a political outsider, he did not ding the taxpayers for his office expenses. He also did not abuse their taxpayer money, like so many so-called leftist councillors, who flew all over Canada and the world on the taxpayers’ dime.

Ford’s simple message of guarding the public purse, cutting waste and providing subways, resonate with the hard-working and striving immigrant communities and the general public throughout the GTA, outside of the elites of downtown Toronto.

My point is that Rob Ford’s support and the support of his very real and growing Ford Nation, can contribute to Harper making further inroads into the GTA in the next federal election.

Seventhly, and perhaps the most interesting point. Harper’s recent Cabinet shuffle indicates that Harper will continue to play to his strength, that is, his administration’s desire and ability to prudently manage the economy, balance the budget and cut taxes.

But I agree with Jamie Watt, well-known political consultant. Harper has to do more. He has to do something fresh. Something innovative and a bit out of the box in order for his party to definitely succeed in the next election.

The Keystone XL pipeline is no slam dunk. Neither is the Canada- EU Free Trade agreement. And both are outside of Harper’s control.

By contrast, I think an innovative urban transit initiative is worth pursuing — deal-bydeal, project-by-project — but fast-tracked (pun intended).

Using the federal funding of the new Scarborough subway as a template for a successful tripartite co-operation between Ottawa, Ontario and the City of Toronto. In which all three parties have skin in the game. It’s a win, win, win, for everyone.

Then using this model aggressively in other urban centres in Ontario, Quebec and other parts of Canada.

The policy objectives are clear and achievable:

  • Reduce gridlock.
  • Provide better public transit to urban immigrant communities. It is time Canada gave to these immigrant communities the respect they deserve and the better means to access work and their homes.
  • Increase productivity.
  • Intensify live/work environments along the public transit lines.
  • Attract government agencies, and public and private companies (with incentives, if necessary) to set up shop along the transit lines. And thus attract jobs. Increase employment.
  • And thus, reduce car usage, carbon emissions and preserve the environment.

So, Mr. Prime Minister: It is time to let your hair down and let your freak out! It’s to go large on urban transit, and all its collateral benefits.

And it starts with Scarberia.

Game on, Mr. Prime Minister.