Why Rona Ambrose should be the next leader of the Conservatives

The Conservatives need to win in Ontario and Quebec. The Conservatives need to present a kinder, a more centrist, a more understanding face to the electorate than what they had in the last election. Someone who is presumably not going to rant against gays and abortion. Someone who can at least pretend to like immigrants. Someone who is seen as a smart, credible person and someone who is not friends with white supremacists. ALSO, someone who is not seen as a LIAR.

There should be no debate that Scheer has pathetically failed as a leader of the Conservatives. All this talk of winning the popular vote and increasing seats fails to hide the fact that he failed to beat Justin Trudeau, who was discovered in old pictures with blackface, MID-CAMPAIGN, and suffering from multiple ethic violations. The Conservatives, as Peter MacKay said, missed a sure fire goal on an open net.

Ambrose is everything Scheer is not, or is presumed to not be. She is a woman. She is smart. She presents empathy. She is intelligent. She did not lie about her job or her citizenship. She put Canada first by serving in a cross party advising committee on NAFTA renegotiation with the USA. She has served in government before. She is a seasoned parliamentarian. She also comes across as a decent human being, with proper charisma, unlike Scheer who makes a dead robot look more lively.

During her time in Ottawa, Ambrose has proven to be a formidable opponent in the House of Commons, vigorously taking the government to task while at the same time maintaining a subtle congeniality. She is fierce without being frothing. That probably explains why she is so well liked in Ottawa, particularly among members of her own party.

In short, if the Conservatives want to win in the next election, they should not repeat their mistake of this election. Or else they will suffer the same fate.

Draft Rona.

Now.

Why Ford Will Get Away With His Use of Notwithstanding Clause

Regardless of whether you think Ford was right to use the notwithstanding clause, what is not in debate is his right to use it. All the talk about him suspending Charter rights and democracy is rubbish; the Charter specifically gives Premier Ford the right to use the notwithstanding clause. Here is why I think he will go politically unscathed despite using what is called a "nuclear option" on such a small thing.

1. Most polls actually show a broad public support for reducing the size of the Toronto council. At worst case for him, the support is split even. Let's face it: when was the last time you felt we needed more politicians? So Ford is trying to do a thing which has public support.
   
2. All these talks of how "experts" think we need more members in the council and how "experts" have railed against Ford's plans is useless talk. Think about it - these same "experts" have been saying we don't need to expand Toronto subways, we need LRTs. These same experts think we need more taxes. These same experts think Toronto is functioning well but we need to reduce cars in the city. Meanwhile, traffic in Toronto is now at a crisis, commuting takes longer than ever, and the subway across Toronto has been stuck from Kipling to Kennedy for the last twenty years. These same so-called experts have totally failed, and missed the ball. Toronto needed subways twenty years ago, not now. When Ford (and previously his brother) railed against LRTs and said we need more subways, they were right, and the people knew they were right, experts be damned. So if Premier Ford wants to do this to help him build transit in the city, the people are going to be behind him.
   
3. The notwithstanding clause was specifically meant to be used in cases of judicial overreach, or an activist jury. And this is precisely what we have here. I mean, which judge uses the word "crickets" in his statement? His disdain for Ford showed through every word of his ruling. Like it or not, Ford as Premier has the right to overrule City Council any time. The cities are creatures of the province. Yes, the writ has dropped for municipal elections, but that doesn't mean anything. The judge specifically said this law limited candidate's freedom of expression - which doesn't even make sense. An appeal process would take far too long - hence comes the "nuclear hammer" or the notwithstanding clause.
   
4. Ford was elected by Ontario. You can say that most people don't vote or complain about the FPTP system, but the fact is that this guy was elected with a majority mandate and he has the right to go ahead with his agenda. Four years later, he will be judged by the public on this. Using the courts to stall and delay what is not essential attacks on Charter rights is just a stalling tactic and the general public gets it, even if the elites at Toronto Star don't.

At the end of it all, Ford will be judged on whether he got transit built. He is right when he said John Tory talked a lot and got nothing done (*cough* SmartTrack *cough*). So let's give Ford a chance and see if he can get something done.

3 Reasons Why Olivia Chow Continues to Sink

And no, it has nothing to do with Warren Kinsella, however much you despise the man.

A week is a long time in politics, and Olivia Chow still has roughly seven weeks to work with. It could still happen that after the night of Oct 27, 2014, we could be talking about "Chow time in Toronto". This, despite the fact that she is polling third, behind Rob Ford, and an almost out of reach John Tory at first, after Labour day. Rob Ford could still have a "drunken stupor". Tory could, well, be a Tory - and propose something silly like funding for transit for the religious or something.

However, barring an upset of epic proportions, the one time front runner Olivia Chow is going to be an also-ran in this year's municipal elections, and John Tory (who entered the race a distant third) is going to be Toronto's next mayor. Here is why.

Transit, and Scarborough

Transit is the number 1 issue on the minds of Torontonians. When David Miller was mayor, he worked out a deal with the province that would have LRTs across the city, especially Scarborough. He dubbed the plan "Transit City". At last, something was going to get done. Then along came Rob Ford, and he killed that plan, and we started all over again. Everyone now wanted a subway. The provincial election happened, and all the pro-subway candidates got elected. The province said fine, we will give you your subway.

So now, finally, we have a deal to have a Scarborough subway, and along comes Olivia Chow, to kill that plan, and go back to LRTs. Folks in the city want this endless flip flopping to stop, and just build something. Anything. Even if a 3-stop subway is less effective than a 7-stop LRT, so be it - just don't keep changing the plans. Olivia Chow doesn't get that. In her plan, she would keep the tax increase that was to pay for the subway, but kill the subway. That is a losing proposition from day one.

Even with the rest of the city, Olivia Chow has no subway plans, except a small downtown relief portion, when clearly going underground would be the best way to move everyone. Yes, there is a cost to it. Olivia Chow would have LRTs, and more buses. More buses?!!! That's just adding to the gridlock.

Against this, John Tory's SmartTrack proposal sounds logical, doable, and well thought out. He started from the gate early on with this proposal and it had the whole summer to build traction. Yes, some has called it "snake oil", but crucially, he seems to have the backing of the Liberal government at Queen's Park. Tory's plan connects the city right across from Mississauga to Markham, and is ambitious, sexy and everything that Chow's plan is not. And the day Chow did decide to release her own transit map, along comes Warren Kinsella to cause a ruckus by labeling Tory as a "segregationist". Dumb, dumb move, yes, but Chow's real problem with transit starts way before that.

Chow is not a great speaker

You may be really good, sincere and honest. You could be hardworking with a lot of great ideas. You could be this and that - but you need to be able to communicate your ideas and experience. You need to be articulate. You need to have charisma.

Olivia Chow, sadly, doesn't. When she speaks, all you want to do is turn the TV off. She can't communicate her platform properly. Her sentences are sometimes wrong grammatically. She cannot give an inspiring speech to save her career. On the stump she comes across as wooden, irritated and rehearsed. She only needs to look at Barbara Hall and Stephane Dion to see how careers were destroyed by the inability to string a coherent sentence together with charisma.

Chow's Platform is too unfocused, and does not resonate

What's Rob Ford about? Subways (and crack).

What's John Tory about? Smart Track.

What's Olivia Chow about? Err ... purple?

Even her platform website is too unwieldy. She has too many ideas out there, and no focus on a single one. And caring for kids - who in Toronto really cares about the breakfast program, for which she would raise Land Transfer taxes? When I was a kid I ate my breakfast at home. She should have focused on a handful of issues that most Torontonians actually cared about, and not about 20 issues. Whoever is running her campaign and advising her needs to be fired.

So now, it's September 4, and Olivia Chow has about seven weeks to rescue her floundering ship. It will be an interesting election day on Oct 27, 2014.

Sensitivity Training For Pearson Staff

The Toronto Star is reporting that Canada Border Services Agency is putting officials through sensitivity training so they can appropriately deal with Arab and Muslim travelers.

This is of course welcome news. As a manager we personally negotiate or deal with people of other cultures all the time - and thus we take cultural sensitivity training. For example, in North America when people negotiate, the terms are usually very clear and everyone is eager to get a deal and time is a constraint. We don't mix business with pleasure. However when you negotiate with the Mexicans or Indians, they like to take their own sweet time. This is NOT a delaying tactic - they have a culture of getting to "know" the person they are dealing with and cultivating relations. Time is fluid and "there is always tomorrow" and a deal may not be very specific in the details.

Once you KNOW this, then you know this is something you can always use to your advantage. Sensitivity training never hurt anyone. Thus I find the attitude of the union representative in the article very selfish, self serving and borderline racist (no pun intended).

I do think that once they become a Canadian and they live among us, that they should pick up our ways and not have us picking up their ways.

Let alone the fact that some Arabs and Muslims may be travellers and not Canadian, so they DON'T have to "act Canadian" (whatever that means). Sensitivity training actually helps border agents do a better job.

For one, they don't waste their time on nothing cases. To quote the example in the article, many Muslim women come from cultures where they don't look an authority figure in the eye as a sign of respect. So while she is respecting you, you think she has something to hide and pull her over for scrutiny. So of course she is going to feel discriminated again, while you merely did your duty by acting on a valid suspicion (which you SHOULD do). She will them complain and an inquiry will be filed against you and you will go through the whole rigamarole at the end of which you will be found not guilty and she will be unhappy and you will be unhappy at going through the ordeal. So in the end, having that piece of cultural insight would have been good and advantageous for all concerned.

Second, WHY in God's name would you object to being paid by work for NOT doing work? We used to love those courses our offices sent us on, as that meant taking a paid break while relaxing in a course and eating free food. Me thinks the border guards doth protest too much.

[the Toronto Star]

Too Bad He's Not A White Blond Female

It's time we took gun crimes seriously.

Yesterday 16-year-old Keyon Campbell was shot down on his driveway as he attempted to start his mom's car [Star]. Police think it's a case of mistaken identity - Campbell's a smart, student, employed, an avid basketball player, did not have a problem with the law and even starred in a short documentary as a boy on the right track - in short, all strikes against the negative stereotype of a young black man.

And he was shot down in cold blood in front of his house.

Police are of course clamoring to solve the case, but it's time gun crime is taken more seriously at higher levels.

When the Harper government came to power I thought finally we would have someone with the balls to do something about gun crime. Let's face it, Paul Martin's good-for-nothing plan to ban guns that were already banned was an act of desperation.

Yet now, nothing seems to have worked, in fact Toronto is on course to break it's 1991 record of 89 homicides, mostly with guns. School fights are now not settled with a punch-up but a shoot-out. What sort of society is this?

I don't think Campbell's death will strike much into public consciousness. Another black kid shot, most will think, besides he wasn't shopping downtown on Boxing Day and where's his dad? Those were what I thought as I read that story.

But his death DESERVES to be in the public conscious. It SHOULD spearhead an effort to cut down the illegal guns brought in from the States. And it SHOULD result in demands for greater punishment against perpetrators of gun violence on our streets.

Vote No To MMP

After a lot of consideration, I will be voting "No" to MMP. There's a few reasons:

• MMP tends to result in minority governments. While I recognize minorities can keep a "dictatorial" leader in check, and prevent any one party from implementing radical reforms, we have Senates in Canada (a house of 'sober second thought').
  
  
• A minority government implies nothing gets done and too many games being played as the government remains busy trying to keep governing rather than getting anything done. I would rather the government push forward its agenda - whatever it is - and be judged on it, than 3 years of no action.
  
  
• A minority government implies the government has to compromise its agenda, which is really what they were elected on in the first place.
  
  
• I prefer Instant Runoff Voting, which is not on the ballot.
  
  
• So a party gets a majority of the seats with only 35% of the people voting for them. I fail to see what the problem is. If more people voted it would have been fairer, but you know - the guys who didn't vote - consciously made that choice.
  
  
• I don't like MPs being beholden and being blindly loyal to the party and party leaders. Even as it is now the "whip" has too much power.

Why McGuinty Is Wrong

As a life long Liberal and someone who will work the boots off for a Dion victory, I cannot bring myself to vote for McGuinty. The debate and his attack on Tory's plans for funding faith-based schools have soured me to him.

I have said repeatedly that I do not agree with faith-based schools at all, yet the way McGuinty has attacked faith-based schools is completely wrong. He pointed to Toronto not having cultural divides, racial riots, civil unrest etc. because kids of many cultures go to school together. His argument - faith based schools divide people and promote segregation is completely hypocritical. McGuinty himself is the product of a faith-based school - the Catholic system.

So, in effect what McGuinty is saying to us is, faith based schools are wrong and promote racial discord - unless it happens to be a Catholic education - then it's all good. If that's not discrimination and if that's not elitist and if that doesn't feel racist then I don't know what else will.

As Tory said, it's a question of fairness. Either fund all faith based schools or fund none.

Where I would differ from him is that I would choose the "fund none" option.

Ontario Election General Preview

My view is that this is McGuinty's election to lose. Elections are usually a referendum on the current government and the general feel I get from everyone is that by most standards, the Liberals have delivered.

The biggest factor anyone I talk to mentions to me is education. There has been no labour dispute regarding teachers in the last four years - a constant fact of life under Mike Harris. Class sizes are on their way down, and it actually seems teachers are plentiful. However I do share a concern with this writer that some standards are getting lower.

The government has also provided money hiring more police officers (as promised) and even though we hear of shootings in and around Toronto, most people generally feel safe (and thus crime is not a big issue).

Immigration doesn't seem to catch anyone's attention (nor does terrorism - these are mostly federal issues) but immigrants as a whole are worried about recognition of foreign educational credentials, but these are again not blamed on McGuinty.

Where the Liberals have failed to pacify the voters is health care. This is of course my gut poll, very unscientific, but there are many people who are very angry at McGuinty on this issue alone. Not only did he put that much hated health tax (call it premium, whatever) but also took away eye care. We are getting less bang for more bucks, and every time we look at the pay stub we are reminded of this issue.

So the general preview is that even though the polls say it's 50-50, I feel it is the Liberals' election to lose. In the coming couple of months, three issues could rise into prominence where Tory will try and differentiate himself.

• Funding for the TTC and easing the provincial downloading to cities.
  
• The Cricket-Gate mismanagement of $32 million
  
• Funding for non-Catholic schools.

It remains to be seen how much of a traction each of those issues can take.

The MCC Has No Importance

I was amused today to see both Warren Kinsella and Queer Liberal play up the MCC's lack of support for John Tory's plan for funding religious schools.

The MCC has zero credibility amongst most Muslims in Canada, as far as I can see. Many of us see them as left wing loons, with a few solid ideas, but so removed from religious orthodoxy that what they say has no weight. This is isn't to say that other Muslim groups are very credible (there is a crisis of leadership) but as far as the MCC goes, not many particularly even like them.

If the Liberals want to focus on education (and they should - no labour problems in last four years, class sizes down, etc.) they would do well not to remind ethnic voters about the Tory plan (most Hindu, Jewish and Muslims are in favour of funding faith bases schools AS LONG AS the Catholic system is also funded). Letters like the MCC's play no part in dissuading them from this fact - rather enforce the idea of discrimination that exists.

Nursing Home Allowance Is Rubbish

Small Disclaimer: I am a federal Liberal. When it comes to national issues, national elections and national concerns, I vote the Liberal party. Provincially however, it's a different issue. I evaluate each platform and have no allegiance. Given Ontario's provincial electoral history, that seems to be the mainstream nature of the voters. This election I will examine who benefits me more, which directly translates to who benefits Toronto more (transit subsidies topmost), and vote accordingly.

The Liberals decided today to raise daily food allowance for seniors to $7 a person. This move does absolutely nothing for me.

In my opinion, seniors should be taken care of by younger family members and tax incentives should be provided for those caregivers. In case you are a senior who does not have any family members to care for you, and do not earn enough on your own, then the government should do a lot more than just $7 for food (and this is daily). Moreover, McGuinty had four years to work on this file, why did he just move on it now?

Ever since McGuinty told Toronto two days ago to raise taxes to solve its financial problems he has been in the red for me. This is a man who seemed to, in my opinion, blame the previous government for every woe of Ontario, then he should know that Harris downloaded the TTC costs to Toronto. If Harris was wrong, then right the wrong, Mr McGuinty. Tell us you are going to fund the TTC, again. Then I can vote for you, for sure.

Tory's Plan To Fund Faith-based Schools

I admit the first thing I remarked when I say John Tory's proposal to allow private faith-based schools to access public funds was this: $400 million? That's it?

While I admit that it is a lot of money, it's not much when compared to some other big ticket items. I only have two questions about Tory's proposal.

Where will he get $400 million from?

How will we decide which school deserves what share of the funds?

It should be noted that Tory is not proposing to immediately allow this to occur, rather former premier Bill Davis will lead a commission to figure out the best way to bring religious schools into the public system.

While a long time advocate against faith based schooling, primarily for the reason that I feel kids who will work in a multicultural environment of the future need to grow up in a non-segregated public schooling system. Yet, in Ontario today we discriminate by allowing Catholic schools access to public funds yet withhold the public purse from other faiths. Thus I see nothing wrong in extending the purse strings to schools of other faith. Either we take away funding from Catholic schools (I would strongly support this position) or we fund all faiths.

While details are scant at this point, I like one phrase in Tory's proposal. He said "the best way to bring religious schools into the public system".

This would mean certain disadvantages students of such faith-based schools now suffer (mainly due to lack of funds) might go away.

Taught by inexperienced teachers with no teaching credentials.

Lack of proper equipment such as a gym or computer labs.

Not having teachers of a different faith.

... and so on.

Bullying Illegal: Key Concerns

Yet another positive in the field of education by the Ontario Liberals, and good on the Opposition to support such a bill.

Bullying officially illegal under schools act

Students who engage in physical or online bullying could be suspended or expelled under changes to Ontario’s Safe Schools Act that unanimously passed third and final reading today in the provincial legislature.

The key words in the phrase above are "could be".

• As we have seen in the latest school shooting in Toronto, such laws are only good if the punishments are enforced. How will the Ministry or the school boards monitor how schools deal with reports of infractions?
  
  
• How will the law deal with regular offenders? It's not clear - everything seems to be wishy-washy optimism.

  “These amendments would ensure there are strong consequences for inappropriate behaviour,” said [ Education Minister] Wynne

  ... but ...

  “The legislation will more effectively combine discipline and opportunity for students to continue their education,” Wynne told the legislature during third reading debate.

  ... but ...

  “I think we have to find ways to take people who are repeat offenders and make sure what we don’t do is put them out on the street and have them out of the school system,” [Conservative Leader] Tory said.
  
  “Then they’re almost guaranteed to have a life that is going to go the wrong way, and I think we’ve seen what the consequences of that can be.”

  I don't understand.
  
  
• This is the first time "online" has been added to the legislature. Are schools overstepping their authority here? What if I have a blog and I bitch about my high school classmate? Is it bullying now?

Education is one of the key fields this Liberal government has come up trumps. There hasn't been a labour disruption that I can remember, which was a regularity under the Harris years. Nor has there been any serious concerns as far as schools and spaces are concerned. The Liberals should own this area in the upcoming election, and continue to remind parents how good and peaceful their children's school has been under them.