What happened to having civil discussions or debates amongst ourselves?

The current political climate is really starting to grind my gears. Either you agree with what a vocal segment of society tells you to agree with or if you dare buck the trend, you get publicly shamed you until you apologize and conform.

I'll stay away from the real big political landmines here, but as I sit waiting for the federal budget to be officially unveiled, I hear pundits on the radio mutter about how any "tax breaks" Stephen Harper's Conservative government have waiting for us are "for the rich". Are they? Hiking the monthly Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) to $160/month from $100 will help all parents of children under the age of six years. Why is this a bad thing? I understand it is taxed, so I'll have to give some of it back and those who earn little will get to keep it all of it (or more than so-called 'rich people' might.)

Then there's income splitting. Now there's a tax benefit that is for the rich only, right? I suppose when one would argue that one person earning $80,000 a year paying significantly more in taxes than two people earning $40,000 each is "fair" and one could say that in either scenario they are "rich"... but is it? Are they? Perhaps, especially in the eyes of those who depend on the Guaranteed Income Supplement to make ends meet, I'll concede that.

Here's where I have a hard time understanding those who proclaim themselves to be "progressive" and actively denounce the initiatives listed above: they say that whatever amount the Harper government will 'lose' in revenue by "subsidizing the rich" is repugnant and a waste of taxpayer dollars. Many will, however, actively campaign for a national subsidized daycare program that undoubtedly would cost significantly more.

I know that the "traditional family" is something many would love to see disappear for one reason or another, but what's wrong with a government finally stepping up and doing something to help Canadians have children and raise them at home? We keep hearing that we aren't sustaining our own population and as a result we must depend on immigration to keep our numbers up... surely it's more expensive to put someone through the immigration channels than it is to provide a $2,000 (maximum - not everyone will max out this capped non-refundable tax benefit) break to thousands of families from coast to coast. And what's wrong with hiking the Universal Child Care Benefit? Only rich people have kids?

Maybe that's a point that deserves closer scrutiny.

I turned forty years old this year. Some time this week my wife and I will bring a new baby home - our first. Why now? Because we couldn't afford to have a child and lose part of our family income while my wife stays at home to raise it. I know - it's wrong to expect mom to stay at home, right? I'm such a sexist pig. Well we couldn't afford to have her go back to work and spend upwards of 80% of her net income on daycare. And what if we had a second? So we paid down our debt (most of which was her post-secondary education student loans) until I became able to support the household on my own. ...or at least I think I'll be able to!

At the end of the day, there are proposed initiatives from both the left and the right that purport to "help" young families. One involves making it possible to have a child and send it off to someone (or a business) to help care for said child while both parents work to pay the bills and the other goes a long way to help young families raise a child at home like their parents and their parents' parents once did. Why is that so wrong and apparently so politically incorrect?

It's OK to spend billions on daycare for everyone (rich and poor) according to some, and others are content importing people from other countries to make sure that someone is working and paying taxes while our population ages and more and more move into retirement.

There's nothing wrong with either option - I think - but why is there something so patently wrong with option number three? I don't know how closely providing a $2,000 (max) tax break to families with income splitting comes to the cost of "daycare for everybody!" or to bring in hundreds of thousands of folks from across the globe to go through the bureaucratic immigration process... it won't be more, I'm pretty sure of that and will very likely be significantly less given the cost of Quebec's daycare system.

So can we all agree that any option is viable and quit the casting of aspersions and threats of shaming one another for not agreeing that one's ideal option is the ONLY option? That is the opinion of one segment of our society. It's valid - but why does that segment of our society and many media outlets appear to insist that their view should be the only view and any other view is irrelevant, immaterial, intolerant or "only for the rich" in order to make their position reign supreme?

I'd happily be a stay at home dad - or would happily have taken an alternate career path had my wife's been any different. But I have to play the cards I've got... and unfortunately for some we're working on the 'traditional family model' and whether that's politically correct or not, it is what it is.

Let's have an intelligent conversation - Voltaire would have wanted it that way. I can't help but wonder what he'd think of our collective behaviour of late - but maybe I'm just turning into an old fart so what do I know?

Every individual is equal before and under the law... political correctness be damned

It's funny how we're told that under the law we cannot discriminate based on a number of factors. It's even funnier that people are advocating that hockey coaches and police chiefs be hired as long as they aren't unilingual anglophones. Imagine if these same people said that the next Prime Minister could be anyone other than an Asian female? How would that go over?

The challenge here for me is to NOT write a 1,500 word dissertation on the subject - one cannot, after all, be too politically incorrect in Canada. Were I go to on forever on the subject, I could be wrongly accused of being intolerant or even racist. That I am not would be largely irrelevant in the eyes of many.

Why this is, I have no idea - one of the basic fundamental freedoms we have as Canadians is freedom of speech... as long as the political correctness police or those who hang out on the left side of the political spectrum don't disagree with you. If they do, they can easily accuse you of being intolerant or racist and can even file complaints against you with (as Ezra Levant would say) kangaroo court "Human Rights" tribunals. You don't want to mess with them, as they will go after you funded with your own (seemingly unlimited) tax dollars while you have to figure out how to defend yourself.

Perhaps there is a difference between a private company (the Montreal Canadiens) and a public agency (the Ottawa Police). I use these examples as they are fairly current in today's current affairs. Full disclosure, I work for the Ottawa Police as a civilian and I'm not a big Canadiens fan as I strongly support the Ottawa Senators. I do, however, firmly believe that both these organizations should strive to hire the best available person for the job at the time where they're looking to fill a position.

After all, section fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says: "Every individual is equal before and under the law..." Anyone and everyone should stand a fair chance at being coach of the Montreal Canadiens or Chief of the Ottawa Police - provided they're the best person for the job. Anything that excludes someone from that is discrimination, no matter how the mainstream media might want to spin it.

Who cares about veterans anyway? Grandstanding Liberal today no different from grandstanding Conservatives of twenty years ago.

I am so mad I could spit nails... to watch the six o'clock news today and see Liberal Member of Parliament Sean Casey (of Charlottetown no less) deploring the actions of the Conservative government is sickening. Where was he fifteen or eighteen years ago when his party was in power and did the same thing?

For those who might accuse me of being overly sympathetic to the party currently in power, they're no better. I once worked (volunteered, really) with Reform Party MP Peter Goldring in denouncing the actions of the Chretien government - much of this I previously documented. But once the Reform/Canadian Alliance/Conservatives got into power, it is clear that they opted to switch roles with their former foes and adopt the same sort of stance and plans of action.

To see opposition members stand up to "support" veterans and then do the same thing they once vehemently opposed should be called out and they should be held to account. The problem is, that never happens. Chretien said he'd kill the GST if elected. Canadians elected him and then he basically said he never said such a thing. Dalton McGuinty once said he wouldn't raise taxes - he became Premier and we all know how that worked out.

Stephen Harper's Reform Party stood tall against Liberals' treatment of veterans and now his Conservative Party of Canada government is doing the same thing.

I've always wondered if politicians see veterans and seniors as people who will die soon and get out of their hair, leaving them to govern for those who really matter - who those people are, I have no idea. The thing is, our aging population will continue supplying us with freshly-minted seniors and with what has gone on in the Middle East since 2001, we have a new generation of veterans who will age and eventually need our help more than they do today.

When will politicians learn? They're all too happy to send them off to defend us and our country, but when those who actually survive come back home, we wish they would just go away. That might not exactly be the way it is, but it sure as hell looks like it. I've written a letter to the editor to both the Ottawa Sun and the Ottawa Citizen. It may or may not get published... but if the lessons I've learned since the early 90's hold true, it won't matter anyway.

I won't forget. Neither should you.

Has your income gone up 43% since 2003?

I almost drove off the road this afternoon when I heard that Ottawa taxi drivers are asking the city for a 2.5% fare increase. That isn't so bad, but did you know that taxi fares have gone up by 43% in this fair city since 2003? If this increase is approved, I believe a 10km taxi ride will cost $22 and that puts us in the #1 spot in all of Canada.

I just wrote a letter to two city councillors and the mayor - I know it will most likely get nothing more than a "thanks for your views" form e-mail, but still... they won't be able to say that NOBODY told them they were against the idea. Here's the letter - I just have to share because we have to start standing up and telling them we won't take this sort of thing anymore!

To my Councillor Mr. Chernushenko, Mayor Watson and Councillor Taylor:

The City has decided in recent years that it is going to support and encourage any mode of transport over personal motorized vehicles. I submit that it is rather impractical to ride a bicycle from downtown to just east of Arnprior or to just west of Rockland - it takes far too long yet those are where the city limits are found. Has anyone considered the sheer size of our city when trying to spend so much money on promoting the wonders of the bike? It's fine if you live within a 10km radius of downtown, but if you live anywhere else, to suggest that a bike is a commuter vehicle for the masses borders on delusional. OC Transpo service is acceptable if you're going to and from downtown during rush hour Monday to Friday but try to go from one random area of the city to another, and it is virtually impossible to do so in less time than it would take to drive... and that brings me to taxis - I can barely afford to take a taxi from downtown to the west end and back... at my salary - but imagine how a senior on a fixed income views the fact that taxi fares have jumped 43% in eight years and now they want another 2.5%?

When will the elected officials who purport to represent Ottawans stand up for Ottawans and tell these drivers that enough is enough?

Councillor Taylor recently said on CTV news that seniors living in his ward (the largest concentration of seniors in a given area in ALL of Canada), particularly those on McEwen Avenue, should try to schedule their medical appointments around the reduced OC Transpo bus schedules in their area OR to secure alternate methods of transportation (taxi, anyone?) when they demanded that the City reconsider its position on chopping bus service to their community. Anyone who is lucky enough to have a doctor knows that a patient hardly is in a position to dictate when they'll be seen - and if they need to see a specialist, they're lucky enough to get an appointment - to tell them to have that specialist bend to OC Transpo schedules to accommodate a patient is, with utmost respect, utterly ridiculous.

What really gets my goat is how candidates while campaigning or elected representatives during key times of the year pretend to be the great supporters of seniors by having quaint tea parties or by visiting retirement homes. For twenty years I have seen municipal, provincial and federal politicians launch inquiries and finance studies to see what seniors need, want, etc., and yet when these studies are completed and results are published, little if anything is ever done - other than starting the cycle over and over again... just like a soon to come Seniors Summit.

Mr. Mayor, you want to know how to save more money? Quit financing these studies (both within the city's bureaucracy and through grants or funding to organizations like the Senior Citizen's Council) and dust off those you've already paid for and see what they say. You'll only hear the same story year after year, decade after decade. Why keep throwing more money into the fire? Sure it makes for a great press release and it makes it look like the City (or province) cares, but when these studies yield nothing but reports and no results, who are you really fooling? Most people don't pay close enough attention, but those of us who do, we see it in spades and it drives us nuts. Again, Mr. Mayor, you spoke about Barbara Lajeunesse and myself on a number of occasions in the Ontario Legislature over the years, and I submit that Barbara could tell you more about what seniors need in this city than any report you could commission would ever tell you. She (and I!) will be more than happy to speak to you for free - we might even pay for lunch!

This brings me back to my original intent here - please bring some sort of sanity to committee/council when the time comes and shut down this latest (apparently) staff approved request to hike taxi fares by 2.5%. If they haven't been able to cope with a 43% increase in eight years, they need to re-examine their business model. The argument I just heard that there are more drivers than ever out there is a red herring - having fifteen taxis in front 2651 Regina Street doesn't do anyone any good if they can't afford to pay for them... and none of you can tell me truthfully that residents of that building (or most Ottawans for that matter) have seen their income increase by anything close to 43% since 2003.

Do what is right and help the people who elected you - stand up for us... and we'll stand up for you.

Take a minute or two and let your councillor and mayor know what you think too... it's your civic duty!

The city is so poor, (insert second part here)

Councillor Churnushenko,

I realize your political background and leanings mean you will likely trend in certain directions on certain issues. That you will support the concept of yet another multi-million dollar foot bridge over the canal boggles my mind.

The city is crying poor, so much so that we’re cutting back OC Transpo service, resulting in seniors and anyone without cars to be inconvenienced to various degrees, garbage collection (I’ve tried to “discuss” this with you, getting a form letter in return) being scaled back, and other services being restrained because the city can’t afford them moving forward.

How you can justify investing millions into something that is NOT a core city service at this time is beyond me. You want fiscal responsibility and to dial costs back so that the city can continue to be the great and wonderful city it can be for decades? Then vote NO for anything that isn’t a CORE city service. A bridge that won’t enhance emergency services’ abilities to do their work, a bridge that won’t stop sewage from backing up into citizens’ houses, a bridge that won’t get make an 80+ year old couple walk blocks so they can catch a bus to get to church on Sunday is NOT a core service.

Times are lean, we’re told? Then we must vote no for all frills. This is one of them.

Please revise your position and remind your fellow councillors what the theme of this Council is.

If you want a bridge, support it when we can afford it – please.

Yasir Naqvi and the Liberals just don't get it

I really thought that my Member of Provincial Parliament Yasir Naqvi was having a two-way conversation with me. He did, after all, respond to messages sent via Twitter almost instantly - something unheard of in the world of politically measured responses. The fact that the responses were nothing but party line was not unexpected, but when Mr. Naqvi asked for an e-mail address so that he could "write back [...] in detail", I seized the opportunity and asked a number of questions followed by a few comments regarding his political future and that of his party.

A month went by and I didn't get the detailed response. I decided to fire off another Twitter message and I was e-mailed soon after stating that a response had been written but was being "reviewed" prior to being sent... and that it would be sent by the end of the week. At 5:10pm on Friday I received the response in a tidy three page letter packaged as a PDF file, letterhead and all.

The initial reason why I started asking questions of my MPP was after the Ontario Energy Board ruled that utilities could "recover from ratepayers the $17.7 million cost of settling a class-action lawsuit over excessive late fees previously charged." A complaint had been filed in 1998 in reference to fees charged by utilities in the 1980's and made its way through the Ontario court system. Mr. Naqvi is quick to point out that the decision was made by the judicial system and the Ontario Energy Board which of course doesn't reflect any decision made by the Ministry of Energy or the provincial government. Oh, and Mr. Naqvi also points out that the utilities had to charge the excessive fees and would have been "out of compliance" had they not. Who made it such that it was necessary? The provincial government of the 1980's. Who was in power then? The Liberals. Conveniently he seems to forget that governments not only enact laws, but they can CHANGE them as well.

Of course this decision that negatively affects Ontarians doesn't reflect any decision made by the provincial government... had the decision somehow resulted in Ontarians benefiting, the Minister of Energy and the Premier would have bought air time on all networks to hold a press conference to show how great they are at standing up for consumer rights in the province of Ontario.

Yeah - and as Lowell Green says, my name is Napoleon.

So how does this decision work out? It should have forced utilities to somehow eat the $17.7 million fine and explicitly prohibit it from passing it onto consumers, the very consumers who were unjustly charged excessive fees in the first place. The end result? The utilities who "screwed" their customers (forgive the term, but let's call a spade a spade) were told they were allowed do it again and make the same customers they screwed the first time pay the fine that was imposed on them. So you screw the customer, you get punished, but you can pass the punishment on to the customer. Nice.

Of course Mr. Naqvi wants to distance himself and his government from this. There are no ways to positively spin this... or are there? Oh yes - the Ontario Energy Board mandated that two thirds of the settlement costs ($12 million) be used to "fund low-income energy assistance programs to help protect Ontario's most vulnerable consumers".

That does nothing for me. I, however, have to nonetheless pay my share of the fine. He claims that the Minister of Energy directed Hydro One (owned by the province) to recover the costs internally rather than to charge the "rate base". That's us! And, leading by example (incidentally, there's only one tax payer and regardless of where the money comes from, since it's a province-owned company, it will come from US THE TAXPAYERS), he goes on to tell me that Hydro Ottawa is owned by the City of Ottawa and it is the City's decision whether to charge ratepayers or not. He kindly gave me my City Councillor's name and e-mail address.

Then I get 2+ pages telling me that he is proud of the direction the Liberal government has taken and outlines all the good things they have done: "significant personal income tax cuts" - haven't see them on my pay stub this year, oh yeah - and 83% of consumer spending did not see a change in tax as a result of the HST. That is true when it comes to potato chips and video games. The problem, my blind to reality MPP, is that the 17% is what is KILLING US! Gasoline went from around 98 cents a litre on June 30, 2010 to about 107 cents a litre on July 1st. HST did that. And as people stated before, as GST was a tax on tax, the higher the price of gasoline skyrockets, the higher the GST (and now HST) goes. So the provincial government is laughing all the way to the bank! Heating oil instantly went up 8%. Electricity instantly went up 8%. We cannot live in Canada without gasoline, heating oil and electricity. SO HOW IS THE HST GOOD FOR ME? Oh yeah - don't forget the massive hikes in electricity rates since these people got elected - the HST appllies on the whole thing... but no worry, they're giving us a 10% reduction. Aren't we paying almost double now what we were before the Liberals came into power? Thanks for the 10% bucko.

I even tried in my e-mail to impress upon him that Ontarians appear to have had it with this government. Right out of the blocks they brought in the health tax (not mentioned in the election) and then out of the blue "eco-fees" and the HST came along (again not mentioned in the election) and lots happened between those two incidents and since then as well. Poll after poll is showing that this government is going down in flames and careers are going to be ended in a matter of months.

He doesn't care.

He is "proud to be part of a team that has the vision to lead" - yeah - right off the edge of the cliff. Well as my ex-boss once said, "include me out" - I live in Ottawa Centre and am likely to do something unheard of in October - I'm going to vote NDP so that Mr. Naqvi is booted out of his office as quickly as he was voted in. The Tories are likely to sweep them to a historically low number of seats across the province (oh how I wish they could be obliterated like the PC party was by the Chretien Liberals in 1993 - when two poor PC members were re-elected and the rest were left licking their wounds) and I know that Ottawa Centre will not elect a Conservative unless he/she is the only candidate running and even then...

Why Bob Chiarelli came back in a by-election into a hornets nest of political quick sand I'll never get. He's about to get booted too. Yet these three Ottawa area Liberals (don't forget Premier McGuinty!) all spout the same nonsense about how great they are and how wonderful everything is. They don't see the forest for the trees and I have to wonder why.

Take off the blinders, boys, and come see things as the great unwashed see them. Only then will you suddenly realize how you look in the eyes of those who care and actually know a thing or two about how things are run over there... and more importantly, have the ability to THINK INDEPENDENTLY.

Happy retirement (early retirement to some) - don't let the door hit you on the way out. In a number of months Ontarians will have a chance to wag these self-congratulating form letters at you all and yell "WE TOLD YOU SO".

They can't say they haven't been warned.

Maxime Bernier stands by his word - a rare occurrence indeed!

I was surprised to see this article appear in today's Ottawa Citizen: http://tinyurl.com/6dm6bht - Maxime Bernier speaks out against Bill 101 while expressing his opinion. I was saddened to see a 'clarification' in the National Post, figuring that Mr. Bernier was going to distance himself from the comments, claiming he was taken out of context. After all, doesn't that happen all the time these days?

Much to my surprise, he didn't distance himself from his quoted comments at all. In fact, he explained further: http://tinyurl.com/65lwzyl Since this sort of thing doesn't happen often, I took a moment to write a quick note to thank him.

Mr. Bernier,

People can be quick to complain, but there are far too few people out there who will take the time to compliment. I was happy to read your comments about the antiquated Bill 101 and was disappointed to see that there was a subsequent ‘clarification letter’ in the National Post… until I read the letter.

Congratulations for taking a stance and sticking to it. It is very rare that a modern day politician keeps his or her word when a statement generates negative feedback or controversy. It is even rarer when that politician is a member of a governing party. Please stand strong and resist any temptation that might come from members of the Bloc Quebecois or its provincial counterpart in the days and weeks to come. It seems that these days only certain people have an unfettered right to have their own opinion. As for the rest, they’re only allowed to have their own as long as the ‘court of public opinion’, one that usually represents a vocal minority, agrees with it. If they don’t, as you know, it isn’t uncommon to have these people demand apologies and/or resignations.

Thank you for having the courage of your convictions. Not many have that intestinal fortitude, particularly in this political climate.

Regards,
Michael Mason

I can only hope that others see what he has done and that this starts a new trend towards seeing politicians (governing or in opposition) having the cojones to stand up for what they believe. Is that not why they jumped into the fray to begin with? I fear too many have forgotten why they put themselves up for election in the first place once they get there.