October 17, 2011
I had to post something about the suicide of Jamie Hubley, a 15-year-old Ottawa student who killed himself on Saturday after battling depression and being constantly taunted for being openly gay.
This isn't the first time it's happened and reading about it has always bothered me. But there's something about this story that just fills me with a rage down to my very core. Apparently Jamie kept an account of his feelings on Tumblr, where he spoke of his depression and how his medications weren't working.
It bothers me more than words describe that people out there reach a point that they feel the only solution is to take their own lives. It fills me with anger to think that there are people out there who can't accept a 15-year-old boy for who he is: an openly gay teenager, who (as mentioned in the article above) made life so much more bearable for his friends, but couldn't find the strength within himself to carry on. He wrote about his pain for a month. I don't doubt that his friends and family reached out to him numerous times during that month to try and help him, but it was clearly not resonating.
Hatred and unnecessary viciousness has taken another life this weekend and it hurts me to think about it. I don't think it's going to do any help to judge school authorities and whether they did their job or not in stopping the bullying. Nor am I going to question whether the school had the appropriate support means for Jamie to turn to when his thoughts turned to suicide. But clearly, Canada and the world needs to wake up and realize that more can - and must - be done.
I know this post isn't the most well-thought out or articulate, but it's my gut reaction to the awful events. I cannot express how sad I feel for Jamie's family and friends, despite never knowing any of them. Nor can I express adequately how angry I am that there are people in this world, in the year 2011, who cannot accept people who are "different" and judge them based on who they love. It's shameful and somehow we need to collectively come together and stop it.
Monday, 17 October 2011
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Election: Ontario
October 5, 2011
I realize it has been quite some time since my last post - so I apologize!
Election season across Canada is in full-swing. On Monday, P.E.I. re-elected its Liberal premier to a second majority mandate, yesterday Manitoba handed Greg Sellinger and the NDP its fourth-consecutive majority term, and people in the Northwest Territory also voted on Monday.
Tomorrow marks election day in Ontario. And while polls have come out showing that Dalton McGuinty may win a third-consecutive majority government, I think that speculation is wrong. I'm no pollster and I'm not a pundit either, but I think Ontario will have a minority government after tomorrow evening is through.
The Tories will make gains in Southwestern and Eastern Ontario, as well as make pick-ups in the 905 region. That said, the PC's shouldn't be surprised to be shutout once again in Toronto, with the lion's share of seats in the city going to the Liberals. The Liberals should (and I'm sure they are) expect to lose a number of seats in the North, with the Nippising riding heading to the PC's and the remaining bulk (aside from perhaps Sudbury) heading to the NDP.
In all, I think we're looking at about 44 Liberals, 41 PC's and 22 New Democrats in the next legislature, meaning Ontario is in for an interesting political ride over the next few months and years, as the jockeying for the next election begins as soon as the results of this one are known.
As I said - I'm not an expert, so don't take these results as a prediction made with vast number-crunching and intelligent analysis. It's just a stab at a seat projection made with considering regional differences and a quick look at the last poll from the Toronto Star.
I realize it has been quite some time since my last post - so I apologize!
Election season across Canada is in full-swing. On Monday, P.E.I. re-elected its Liberal premier to a second majority mandate, yesterday Manitoba handed Greg Sellinger and the NDP its fourth-consecutive majority term, and people in the Northwest Territory also voted on Monday.
Tomorrow marks election day in Ontario. And while polls have come out showing that Dalton McGuinty may win a third-consecutive majority government, I think that speculation is wrong. I'm no pollster and I'm not a pundit either, but I think Ontario will have a minority government after tomorrow evening is through.
The Tories will make gains in Southwestern and Eastern Ontario, as well as make pick-ups in the 905 region. That said, the PC's shouldn't be surprised to be shutout once again in Toronto, with the lion's share of seats in the city going to the Liberals. The Liberals should (and I'm sure they are) expect to lose a number of seats in the North, with the Nippising riding heading to the PC's and the remaining bulk (aside from perhaps Sudbury) heading to the NDP.
In all, I think we're looking at about 44 Liberals, 41 PC's and 22 New Democrats in the next legislature, meaning Ontario is in for an interesting political ride over the next few months and years, as the jockeying for the next election begins as soon as the results of this one are known.
As I said - I'm not an expert, so don't take these results as a prediction made with vast number-crunching and intelligent analysis. It's just a stab at a seat projection made with considering regional differences and a quick look at the last poll from the Toronto Star.
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
Nycole Turmel and the Bloc Québécois
August 2, 2011
Two posts within two days - clearly must be something going on!
Earlier today, the Globe and Mail broke the story that interim NDP leader and Hull-Aylmer MP Nycole Turmel was a member of the Bloc Québécois up until January of this year.
Relatively quickly, those paying attention to Canadian politics took to social media to sound-off on the issue. There are quite a few outside of Québec who don't support the NDP who see this as an issue. Those within the province, it's likely not to bother.
I'm not an NDP supporter and nor am I an apologist for Nycole Turmel; however, at the end of the day this is such a non-issue.
People change their political opinions all the time. We saw it when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor (although, I don't think that was a change of opinion - that was opportunism at its finest). Ditto for David Emerson. Scott Brison was a Progressive Conservative, crossed the floor to the Liberals and ran for the Liberal leadership in 2006.
Hell - the Liberals are currently led by one of the more famous "floor-crossers" of all-time in Bob Rae. If I was a moderate Liberal, I'd be furious that I was now led by a former socialist (insert sarcasm module here).
While I know that the Conservatives will use this issue (unfortunately) to try and score some political points, the Liberals would be stupid to do so. Why?
I hate to do it, but I have to bring up the 2008 attempt by Stéphane Dion to form a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP. The only way that government, if it had formed, to survive would have been to rely on support from the Bloc Québécois caucus. Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc, although not a part of the government, signed the coalition agreement and were planning to support the coalition on confidence measures through until 2011. It was convenient for the Liberal Party, at the time, to utilize the Bloc. Now that this might help them, I've no doubt they'll go on the attack - and they will look foolish for doing it.
This, at the end of the day, is such a non-issue. While it highlights the work that the NDP opposition has to do in order to actually have some credibility, I could care less where you came from as a politician - it's where you want to take the country that matters. If she says she is a federalist, than I believe her.
Two posts within two days - clearly must be something going on!
Earlier today, the Globe and Mail broke the story that interim NDP leader and Hull-Aylmer MP Nycole Turmel was a member of the Bloc Québécois up until January of this year.
Relatively quickly, those paying attention to Canadian politics took to social media to sound-off on the issue. There are quite a few outside of Québec who don't support the NDP who see this as an issue. Those within the province, it's likely not to bother.
I'm not an NDP supporter and nor am I an apologist for Nycole Turmel; however, at the end of the day this is such a non-issue.
People change their political opinions all the time. We saw it when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor (although, I don't think that was a change of opinion - that was opportunism at its finest). Ditto for David Emerson. Scott Brison was a Progressive Conservative, crossed the floor to the Liberals and ran for the Liberal leadership in 2006.
Hell - the Liberals are currently led by one of the more famous "floor-crossers" of all-time in Bob Rae. If I was a moderate Liberal, I'd be furious that I was now led by a former socialist (insert sarcasm module here).
While I know that the Conservatives will use this issue (unfortunately) to try and score some political points, the Liberals would be stupid to do so. Why?
I hate to do it, but I have to bring up the 2008 attempt by Stéphane Dion to form a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP. The only way that government, if it had formed, to survive would have been to rely on support from the Bloc Québécois caucus. Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc, although not a part of the government, signed the coalition agreement and were planning to support the coalition on confidence measures through until 2011. It was convenient for the Liberal Party, at the time, to utilize the Bloc. Now that this might help them, I've no doubt they'll go on the attack - and they will look foolish for doing it.
This, at the end of the day, is such a non-issue. While it highlights the work that the NDP opposition has to do in order to actually have some credibility, I could care less where you came from as a politician - it's where you want to take the country that matters. If she says she is a federalist, than I believe her.
Monday, 1 August 2011
Provincial Politics
August 1, 2011
It is now officially August - and in just over eight weeks, Ontario will head to the polls and decide whether to return Dalton McGuinty's Liberals to office or elect a new government (while many say the only other contender is Tim Hudak and the PC's, I don't want to write off the NDP just yet).
To be entirely honest, my opinion of Dalton McGuinty is not very high; I think he has been an economic disaster for the province - both before, during and after the recession - and I do not trust him with public finances, given the massive deficit and Ontario becoming a "have-not" province. Before Liberal supporters comment and try to sway me, let me say this: I've already heard the Liberal talking points about 60 per cent of the jobs created in Canada being here in Ontario. What I haven't heard is how you plan to make Ontario a "have" province and how you plan to reduce the massive deficit.
My other issue with Dalton McGuinty is this - his government is very much a fan of the "nanny state." I fully support regulation when it makes sense (such as on guns), but the Liberals seem to over-regulate and have done so since coming to office in 2003. Pesticides? Fine, they have a negative impact on the environment; pit bulls was a ridiculous one and so is the junk food ban in Ontario schools, coming into effect September 2011. It seems the Liberals are comfortable telling me what to do and when to do it; I don't like that one bit.
However... Tim Hudak and the PC's seem to think the way to win the election is to simply be angry about the last eight years and try to stir up that anger and hope it motivates people to clobber McGuinty. While it is very true that the easiest way to get people to vote is to get them pissed them off at the incumbent, simply not being McGuinty isn't enough. Furthermore, the PC's have some pretty reckless policies themselves.
Yes, I support the Green Energy Act (GEA) that the Liberals have brought in. It makes good economic sense and good environmental sense. I know the PC's are railing on about the impact the GEA has on energy prices, but the Pembina Institute has released a study that debunks that. In fact, the study shows that because of the GEA, Ontarians will likely save money over the next 15 years.
Are there flaws with the GEA? Of course. It puts a lot of power in the hands of the provincial government and has an impact on local communities. But the NDP have addressed this by proposing to give back power to the municipalities. The PC's, instead of vowing to kill this legislation (and risk legal challenges for already in-progress contracts), should borrow the NDP policy.
This of course, brings me to the NDP itself. Andrea Horwath very well could be the wild card in this race. She hasn't received a lot of media attention since becoming the leader of the Ontario NDP and an election campaign is her chance to make herself known. With the success of the NDP federally, there is potential for the ONDP to benefit as well. We'll have to see how Horwath uses her federal partners to assist the campaign.
It will also be interesting to see how the Ontario Green Party, under new leader Mike Schreiner, does in this campaign. There are a few seats where the party is competitive, including Bruce - Grey - Owen Sound, so if they can maneuver resources into seats where they have a chance, there very well could be some Green in the new legislature.
Because I try to be somewhat balanced in providing readers with sources to make their own decisions, I encourage you to check out the Progressive Conservative platform and the NDP platform. The policy section of the Ontario Liberal website was unresponsive at the time of writing this post, but their website is available here. Lastly, the Green Party platform is available as well.
It is now officially August - and in just over eight weeks, Ontario will head to the polls and decide whether to return Dalton McGuinty's Liberals to office or elect a new government (while many say the only other contender is Tim Hudak and the PC's, I don't want to write off the NDP just yet).
To be entirely honest, my opinion of Dalton McGuinty is not very high; I think he has been an economic disaster for the province - both before, during and after the recession - and I do not trust him with public finances, given the massive deficit and Ontario becoming a "have-not" province. Before Liberal supporters comment and try to sway me, let me say this: I've already heard the Liberal talking points about 60 per cent of the jobs created in Canada being here in Ontario. What I haven't heard is how you plan to make Ontario a "have" province and how you plan to reduce the massive deficit.
My other issue with Dalton McGuinty is this - his government is very much a fan of the "nanny state." I fully support regulation when it makes sense (such as on guns), but the Liberals seem to over-regulate and have done so since coming to office in 2003. Pesticides? Fine, they have a negative impact on the environment; pit bulls was a ridiculous one and so is the junk food ban in Ontario schools, coming into effect September 2011. It seems the Liberals are comfortable telling me what to do and when to do it; I don't like that one bit.
However... Tim Hudak and the PC's seem to think the way to win the election is to simply be angry about the last eight years and try to stir up that anger and hope it motivates people to clobber McGuinty. While it is very true that the easiest way to get people to vote is to get them pissed them off at the incumbent, simply not being McGuinty isn't enough. Furthermore, the PC's have some pretty reckless policies themselves.
Yes, I support the Green Energy Act (GEA) that the Liberals have brought in. It makes good economic sense and good environmental sense. I know the PC's are railing on about the impact the GEA has on energy prices, but the Pembina Institute has released a study that debunks that. In fact, the study shows that because of the GEA, Ontarians will likely save money over the next 15 years.
Are there flaws with the GEA? Of course. It puts a lot of power in the hands of the provincial government and has an impact on local communities. But the NDP have addressed this by proposing to give back power to the municipalities. The PC's, instead of vowing to kill this legislation (and risk legal challenges for already in-progress contracts), should borrow the NDP policy.
This of course, brings me to the NDP itself. Andrea Horwath very well could be the wild card in this race. She hasn't received a lot of media attention since becoming the leader of the Ontario NDP and an election campaign is her chance to make herself known. With the success of the NDP federally, there is potential for the ONDP to benefit as well. We'll have to see how Horwath uses her federal partners to assist the campaign.
It will also be interesting to see how the Ontario Green Party, under new leader Mike Schreiner, does in this campaign. There are a few seats where the party is competitive, including Bruce - Grey - Owen Sound, so if they can maneuver resources into seats where they have a chance, there very well could be some Green in the new legislature.
Because I try to be somewhat balanced in providing readers with sources to make their own decisions, I encourage you to check out the Progressive Conservative platform and the NDP platform. The policy section of the Ontario Liberal website was unresponsive at the time of writing this post, but their website is available here. Lastly, the Green Party platform is available as well.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
The Fords' Toronto
July 26, 2011
So much for Monday's being the day that I write, eh? Anyways... I wanted to write about the latest stories involving Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and his brother, Councillor Doug Ford. I get the sense that Toronto is becoming rather polarized with Mayor Ford at the helm and his brother seemingly in the wings helping out with the agenda.
I'm going to try to strike a middle-of-the-road approach with this post. Yes, I'll be critical of the two, but I'll also give credit where it's due. It is my hope that the comment section of this blog doesn't turn into the comment section of the Toronto Sun...
First, let's start with Doug Ford and his comments regarding Toronto libraries. As the city looks to cut costs, one of the plethora of options is to privatize and/or shut down libraries across the city. When Canadian author Margaret Atwood took to her Twitter account to promote a campaign to save the libraries, so many people responded that the website linking to the petition crashed.
Doug Ford's response to all this? Well, to criticize Atwood and essentially telling her to seek a mandate before speaking out again. Ford also is on the record as saying there are more libraries in his ward than Tim Horton's, which was later shown not to be the case.
As I said in my last post, I have no problem with the privatization of certain things - as long as they are services that make sense to be privatized. Libraries certainly do not make sense. They belong in the hands of the public. They don't just serve as a place where books are "kept," they are centres for learning, they are meeting places and more. Privatization opens up yearly fees for borrowing books and for less options, in my opinion.
So, while I have no problem with the privatization of garbage collection, street cleaning and maintenance workers, vital public services - like libraries - must remain in the hands of the public.
In Mayor Rob Ford news, a rather bizarre story came out today where he is accused of giving a woman a "one-finger salute." While the story hasn't been proven, the mayor took to Twitter (seems to be a trend, lately) to call it a "misunderstanding." I'm not sure how it can be a misunderstanding - either he did it or he didn't, but I will not make judgement until the story comes out in its entirety.
The bigger issue in all of this is, as I mentioned earlier, the polarization of Toronto politics. While it seems to be a trend (a left-right divide in the federal parliament now as well), it's becoming pretty clear that, in Toronto, it isn't healthy.
Ford and the new administration have implemented policy I support. From a selfish perspective, I was able to register my car here after moving to the city, with the repeal of the $60 car tax. And I do support, discussed already, privatization of certain services that will have no impact on the current levels provided (or perhaps even improve upon them). But when there's talk of selling off and closing libraries, it's time to put a foot down.
I eagerly look forward to the responses from Ford Nation, telling me how wrong I am...
So much for Monday's being the day that I write, eh? Anyways... I wanted to write about the latest stories involving Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and his brother, Councillor Doug Ford. I get the sense that Toronto is becoming rather polarized with Mayor Ford at the helm and his brother seemingly in the wings helping out with the agenda.
I'm going to try to strike a middle-of-the-road approach with this post. Yes, I'll be critical of the two, but I'll also give credit where it's due. It is my hope that the comment section of this blog doesn't turn into the comment section of the Toronto Sun...
First, let's start with Doug Ford and his comments regarding Toronto libraries. As the city looks to cut costs, one of the plethora of options is to privatize and/or shut down libraries across the city. When Canadian author Margaret Atwood took to her Twitter account to promote a campaign to save the libraries, so many people responded that the website linking to the petition crashed.
Doug Ford's response to all this? Well, to criticize Atwood and essentially telling her to seek a mandate before speaking out again. Ford also is on the record as saying there are more libraries in his ward than Tim Horton's, which was later shown not to be the case.
As I said in my last post, I have no problem with the privatization of certain things - as long as they are services that make sense to be privatized. Libraries certainly do not make sense. They belong in the hands of the public. They don't just serve as a place where books are "kept," they are centres for learning, they are meeting places and more. Privatization opens up yearly fees for borrowing books and for less options, in my opinion.
So, while I have no problem with the privatization of garbage collection, street cleaning and maintenance workers, vital public services - like libraries - must remain in the hands of the public.
In Mayor Rob Ford news, a rather bizarre story came out today where he is accused of giving a woman a "one-finger salute." While the story hasn't been proven, the mayor took to Twitter (seems to be a trend, lately) to call it a "misunderstanding." I'm not sure how it can be a misunderstanding - either he did it or he didn't, but I will not make judgement until the story comes out in its entirety.
The bigger issue in all of this is, as I mentioned earlier, the polarization of Toronto politics. While it seems to be a trend (a left-right divide in the federal parliament now as well), it's becoming pretty clear that, in Toronto, it isn't healthy.
Ford and the new administration have implemented policy I support. From a selfish perspective, I was able to register my car here after moving to the city, with the repeal of the $60 car tax. And I do support, discussed already, privatization of certain services that will have no impact on the current levels provided (or perhaps even improve upon them). But when there's talk of selling off and closing libraries, it's time to put a foot down.
I eagerly look forward to the responses from Ford Nation, telling me how wrong I am...
Monday, 11 July 2011
Slash and Burn - Welcome to Toronto
July 11, 2011
It looks like Monday will be the day that I post. Unless something vitally important piques my interest (or if I have an opinion that's busting to come out), I'll use this day to share my thoughts. Once summer ends and we all get back to our regular lives, I'll post more frequently.
This week, I want to talk about the core service review that the city contracted out to KPMG. Some of the recommendations in the report are, in a word, ridiculous.
Some of my 'favourites' all surround environmental programs and include:
Are there good ideas in the report? Of course. There are two ideas that I think have some great merit and should be implemented:
I, for one, hope that many of these recommendations are not implemented for the sake of the city.
For a full copy of the KPMG report, you can visit here. Bullet points in italics are sourced directly from the Toronto Star.
It looks like Monday will be the day that I post. Unless something vitally important piques my interest (or if I have an opinion that's busting to come out), I'll use this day to share my thoughts. Once summer ends and we all get back to our regular lives, I'll post more frequently.
This week, I want to talk about the core service review that the city contracted out to KPMG. Some of the recommendations in the report are, in a word, ridiculous.
Some of my 'favourites' all surround environmental programs and include:
- Backing off Toronto’s “very aggressive” target of directing 70 per cent of household waste away from landfill through recycling; this is insane. As more and more people look for ways to "go green", why would we divert recycling programs? If anything, we should be doing more to encourage people to reduce their use, reuse what they can and recycle as many things as we can.
- Eliminate community “environment days” hosted by councillors in each of their wards; again, why? I'd rather pay more in taxes to have a greener planet and I think a lot of people would agree.
- End collection of toxic goods at environment days and cancel the “Toxic Taxi” that does household pickup for residents with large quantities of hazardous waste; as KPMG notes in the report, this is likely to lead to more toxic goods in landfills. Not good.
Are there good ideas in the report? Of course. There are two ideas that I think have some great merit and should be implemented:
- Scrap the four free tags each household gets per year for overflow garbage bags; By all means. This forces people to throw less away or pay the consequences. Money earned from those who do purchase these tags can - and should - be diverted back into waste reduction programs.
- Outsource facility security services and grass cutting; I have no problem with the privitization of certain things. Security and grass cutting are two things that I don't think many people would find a problem with contracting out - as long as it is cheaper than having the city do it.
I, for one, hope that many of these recommendations are not implemented for the sake of the city.
For a full copy of the KPMG report, you can visit here. Bullet points in italics are sourced directly from the Toronto Star.
Monday, 4 July 2011
Rob Ford and Pride
July 4, 2011
First - if there are any Americans out there, let me wish you a Happy Independence Day.
It was quite the weekend in Toronto - Canada Day and Pride all rolled in to one. Having never been to Pride, I checked it out with some friends and had a blast. But enough about my personal life, let's get straight to today's topic, Rob Ford and his refusal to attend the Pride parade.
From what I've read, every single Mayor of the City of Toronto has attended the event since it first started (if that fact is wrong, please correct me). Do I think Rob Ford's no-show is his way of saying he doesn't like or support LGBTQ rights? No.
I think his refusal to go to the parade is based on politics and politics alone. We know that the core Rob Ford voter is likely to be a social and fiscal conservative. What do social conservatives tend to have a big problem with? LGBTQ people. While I don't think Rob Ford would have upset his base to the point of losing them three years from now, I think he and his staff knew that his showing up would anger them. And to be frank, that's downright sad and pathetic.
While Ford and everyone else knows that his strength comes from the suburban wards, he had a duty to be at the parade. Whether he likes it or not, he is the Mayor of all Torontonians: gay, trans, straight or otherwise. He doesn't get to pick and choose who he represents. LGBTQ Torontonians pay taxes too, Mayor Ford. What happened to "Respect for Taxpayers"?
So, do I think Rob Ford had a malicious intent by not showing up? No. But was it sad? Very.
And that's the simplistic, Coles notes version of today's opinion.
First - if there are any Americans out there, let me wish you a Happy Independence Day.
It was quite the weekend in Toronto - Canada Day and Pride all rolled in to one. Having never been to Pride, I checked it out with some friends and had a blast. But enough about my personal life, let's get straight to today's topic, Rob Ford and his refusal to attend the Pride parade.
From what I've read, every single Mayor of the City of Toronto has attended the event since it first started (if that fact is wrong, please correct me). Do I think Rob Ford's no-show is his way of saying he doesn't like or support LGBTQ rights? No.
I think his refusal to go to the parade is based on politics and politics alone. We know that the core Rob Ford voter is likely to be a social and fiscal conservative. What do social conservatives tend to have a big problem with? LGBTQ people. While I don't think Rob Ford would have upset his base to the point of losing them three years from now, I think he and his staff knew that his showing up would anger them. And to be frank, that's downright sad and pathetic.
While Ford and everyone else knows that his strength comes from the suburban wards, he had a duty to be at the parade. Whether he likes it or not, he is the Mayor of all Torontonians: gay, trans, straight or otherwise. He doesn't get to pick and choose who he represents. LGBTQ Torontonians pay taxes too, Mayor Ford. What happened to "Respect for Taxpayers"?
So, do I think Rob Ford had a malicious intent by not showing up? No. But was it sad? Very.
And that's the simplistic, Coles notes version of today's opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)