sex warehouse

Make the TTC an essential service otherwise Toronto loses $50 million a day.

For some time now, I have heard the number of $50 million being bandied about as the loss to the city for every day of a TTC strike. Considering this huge number, I am sure anyone would immediately say we collectively can't afford this so let's make the TTC an essential service to avoid any possibility of a strike. While there may be additional costs on an on-going basis like higher salaries for TTC employees, the loss far outweighs the rise in labour costs.

However, where the heck does this number come from?

After doing some digging around and getting a kindly point in the right direction from a Toronto Sun reporter, I discovered this article

The National Post
Hall Monitor: TTC strikes pack $50-million economic hit
by Allison Hanes - October 01, 2008

In this article, Ms. Hanes refers to a report by the city manager estimating that the cost of a transit strike is $50 million per day for the City of Toronto. Ms. Hanes also discusses the study done by C. D. Howe Institute that I discussed in my blog TTC: Essential Service vs. the Right to Strike. In a nutshell, the author Benjamin Dachis, in going back over strikes from 1976 onwards, concludes that in making a transit an essential service, labour costs automatically go up. He also discusses how this does not stop illegal strikes from occurring but let's leave that one aside for the moment.

Ms. Hanes concludes quite rightly that the costs and problems brought up by Mr. Dachis are negligible in face of a $50 million a day loss to the city. However where the heck does this number come from? Ms. Hanes gives a link to the following report (in PDF) from the city:

Declaring the Toronto Transit Commission an Essential Service in Toronto
To: Executive Committee
From: City Manager
Date: September 22, 2008

I quote from this report:

EDCT [Economic Development, Culture & Tourism Division] have estimated the short-term effects on the City of Toronto's economy caused by a strike at the TTC are approximately $50 million per day (Monday to Friday). This estimate is based on the assumption that a TTC strike would reduce the total output of goods and services produced in the City of Toronto (over $500 million per day) by about almost 10%.

[furrowed brow, confused look, staring at the ceiling reflecting on what I've just read] Just a sec, now. I read the words "this estimate is based on the assumption". Is based on the assumption? What the heck? That's not scientific. In fact, I have absolutely no idea why the city manager in preparing this report would even be allowed to say such a thing. Benjamin Dachis in preparing his study for the C. D. Howe Institute poured over information pertaining to every strike from 1976 onwards. The city manager offers "an assumption" without any supporting facts, figures or referenced works. How about we assume 5%? How about 12%? Yes, the number is $50 million if the assumption is 10% because that is just a question of mathematics. That doesn't mean the choice of 10% is correct.

I agree that $50 million is so huge that I myself would vote to avoid a strike at just about any cost but am I voting for the TTC as an essential service based on correct information? What if the cost of a strike was $5 million a day? Would anybody still vote for the TTC as an essential service? After all, Benjamin Dachis estimates labour costs for the TTC are going to go up $6 million a year.

What happened to me during the last strike of 2 days in 2008? I work for an insurance company and all of the staff is equipped with laptops and Internet access. I worked from home. I had a computer, a direct hook-up to the office and a phone to speak to anybody. Gosh, if I wanted to push it, I could have used Skype to see anybody I wanted. In other words, my entire company continued to do business as if nothing had happened. Yes, a few people were inconvenienced but our business did not stop and remained unaffected by the strike.

What about others? Obviously certain industries like manufacturing require labour to come to the plant. Did these businesses come to a dead halt? What about stockpiled inventory? If they failed to produce product during the two day strike, does that mean they had no product to sell? However, did they produce nothing? Did the entire plant actually completely shut down because of the strike? I am certain that as one moves away from the core of Toronto, people would be using cars for transportation more than public transportation. I am basing that opinion on personal experience.

I come back to the veracity of $50 million. I just find that difficult to believe. Before committing to any vote based on such an assumption, I would like to see some documented proof of the actual cost to the city of a strike day. Yes, a strike is a pain in the butt but I can't help feeling that $50 million is more of a scare tactic with a politic agenda than a legitimate attempt to realistically assess the situation. I find it astounding to read over and over again in various articles, in opinions given by politicians, ad infinitum how the TTC must be an essential service because of the loss of $50 million. I go back to the source of this statement and I can find absolutely nothing in black and white which would in any way justify saying such a thing. Before I jump out of the airplane, I would like to have just a tad more assurance that my chute will open than your "assumption".

More importantly though, how did this whole question get tabled in the first place? In adding up the days of every strike the TTC has ever had, I come up with a total of 75 days. The TTC was started in 1921 so over its 89 year history, it has been out on strike 0.84 days per year.

However if I look back on the time I have spent in Toronto starting in 1991, how many times have I been affected by a strike and how many days have I been inconvenienced? Roughly speaking, I've been here about 7,300 days so 13 days of strikes equates to 0.18% of the total.

If Mr. Dachis's calculations are correct, everyone wants to spend an extra $6 million a year to avoid what has happened less than one fifth of one percent of the time I've spent in Toronto over the past almost 20 years.

Where are we going with this?
Benjamin Dachis predicts labour costs will go up under the essential service model. Over the weekend I read the following:


Here we go. According to Ms. Yuen, bus and subway operators are paid on average $55,000 a year. She reports that Bob Kinnear, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113 boss, has said that if the 10,000 employees he represents cannot strike, they should be paid as much as cops and firefighters — which would mean an extra $10,000.

Hmmm, if I multiple 10,000 employees by $10,000 per year, that comes up to $100 million per year. Ah, that's a few shekels in my book. Imagine you start with the idea of avoiding a loss of $50 million per day for a TTC strike. Now, you could end up paying an extra $100 million per year. Mr. Dachis said $6 million but here's the first sign that his estimate may not match what the union will want out of an essential service designation. These are precisely the issues everybody is not addressing because everybody thinks they've solved the problem. This whole thing started out as rolling a snowball down the hill and now it is slowly turning into an avalanche.


Ms. Levy makes some good arguments about the losses and the inconvenience to the city during a strike.  However, I come back to the assumptions made about all this. Is it really $50 million per day? Just how often do we have strikes? And as Ms. Levy points out

Instead of holding firm on a lawsuit against Kinnear to recoup the $3 million in damages incurred during the illegal strike, Giambrone et al caved, settling for some weak-kneed deal that saw the union agreeing to bring in spare subway drivers to handle the peak periods instead of regular drivers on overtime.

How is it that any strike happens at all? Yes, there are negotiations but is it true that Kinnear and group caused $3 million in damages and were not held accountable? Is it true that strike was illegal? Illegal in my book means paying fines or going to jail. If it was illegal, why was Mr. Kinnear not held accountable?

Final Word
I have asked many questions about Rob Ford and his plans. Now that he is in power, I will support him but I am going to continue to ask questions about the numbers. I have seen throughout my life over and over again people making decisions without having all of the facts and ending up with results that do not match in any way the original vision. Just how dumb can it be? Here's my example. You go out and get rid of your Ford Escort car which costs $15,000 and buy a Lamborghini which costs $250,000. It is better, faster, state of the art and an instant classic. You brag to everybody about how much better you are with a car whose top speed is 380 kilometres an hour. The laugh? The speed limit in Ontario is 100 km/h.

That's the sort of lack of logic in the decision making process which leaves me shaking my head. Add on top of it the screwball things that happen when you get a group of people together and how misinformation gets passed around like crazy, and you have a sure-fire recipe for making the wrong decision.

If $50 million is correct, prove it and you'll have my vote. Please do not justify your decisions by telling me "based on an assumption of 10%". I'm not stupid; I can calculate what 10% is of $500 million but don't use that math to somehow justify your assumption. I want some proof. Let's be careful as a group to not fall into the trap of blindly following the crowd.

Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted.
- sign at the Rally to Restore Sanity, October 30, 2010, Washington DC

None of us is as dumb as all of us.


References

my blog: TTC: Essential Service vs. the Right to Strike
http://wqebelle.blogspot.com/2010/12/ttc-essential-service-vs-right-to.html

2010-12-20

Site Map: William Quincy Belle

I ride the subway every day. I ride it to work; I ride it home again. My impression of the service is that it is a good one. Of course it may not be perfect (see my blog The Toronto Subway: The Better Poop... er, Way for a bit of a chuckle) but in the grand schemes of things, it works just fine.

To those however who complain about the service and service interruptions such as those caused by signal problems or delays during rush hour, I would say that these disruptions are minor. Then again, having to spend 45 to 50 minutes for my ride, I come prepared with a book or a laptop to ensure I can wile away the time unconcerned about the exact time of my trip. I am quite willing to admit that if I was literally standing in the car waiting to arrive at my destination with nothing to read, nothing else to do like Sudoku or a cell phone game, I might be getting a tad impatient.

It is in this light we all need to take a step back and weigh out the options before making any rash judgements. A while back, I needed to get someplace served by a TTC bus. Unfortunately, I didn't plan out my ride properly and left my home without leaving myself enough time. I ended up taking a cab which with tip cost me $25. An adult fare on the TTC is $3. I paid an extra $22 just to make sure I arrived on time. Pretty dumb, eh? Because I didn't handle the problem properly, I paid an extra $22. Well let me continue with my exploration of just what is dumb.

I have lived in Toronto since 1991. How many TTC strikes have I lived through? Wikipedia gives the following list:

• 1952 - On strike for 19 days.
• 1970 - On strike for 12 days.
• 1974 - On strike for 23 days in August; service resumed when back-to-work legislation was passed by the province, which marked the first time the province was involved in a TTC strike.
• 1978 - On strike for 8 days; service resumed by order of back-to-work legislation.
• 1984 - On strike during Pope John Paul II's visit to Toronto.
  Note: A strike slated to start two days before a visit by Pope John Paul II was quashed by the province before it began.
• 1991 - On strike for 8 days in September.
• 1999 - On strike for 2 days in April; service resumed by order of back-to-work legislation.
• 2006 - On strike for 1 day on May 29.
• 2008 - On strike for 2 days on April 26 at 12:01 a.m.

By my calculation, that is a total of 75 days. The TTC was started in 1921 so over its 89 year history, it has been out on strike 0.84 days per year. However if I look back on the time I have spent in Toronto starting in 1991, how many times have I been affected by a strike and how many days have I been inconvenienced? Roughly speaking, I've been here about 7,300 days so 13 days of strikes equates to 0.18% of the total.

Excuse me? Where did the idea start that we are all so grossly put out by TTC strikes? Has anybody been to France? Heck, now there's a country whose name is synonymous with the word strike: les grèves sont toujours graves.

Okay, let's put that one aside for the moment and take a look at the idea of the TTC being an essential service. At face value, this seems like a good thing. With so many people depending on the TTC for their own livelihood, it seems like a no brainer to do something to ensure those people do not find themselves unable to get to and from work. However is what seems so obvious at first blush actually representative of reality? Is what we think is true in fact true?

The C. D. Howe Institute is a think tank located in Toronto. This non-profit, politically independent organisation publishes research about Canadian economic and social policy.

On September 11, 2008 they published a study called "No Free Ride: The Cost of Essential Services Designation". The author, Benjamin Dachis looked at public sector contract negotiations since 1976 studying differences in wages and services. His conclusions showed that wages increased more in situations where an essential service had been declared than when it was not. That is, situations which required an arbitrated settlement lead to higher wages than those where there was a strike.

In applying the percentages which represent the differences he found, Mr. Dachis speculates that the current costs of labour, $850 million per year would be $6 million more. That is to say that arbitrated settlements would have led to the TTC paying its employees $6 million more. He points out that in 2005, New York City saw an illegal strike even though their current legislation bans them. He also points out that in Quebec where transit has been an essential service since 1982, there have been several strikes which required legislation to order the resumption of services. In a nutshell, "essential service" does not necessarily mean there is no interruption of service and it leads to higher labour costs.

In June, 2010 the institute published a paper entitled "The Laws of Unintended Consequence: The Effect of Labour Legislation on Wages and Strikes" co-authored by Benjamin Dachis and Robert Hebdon. The opening executive summary states:

Canadian governments, both federal and provincial, heavily regulate labour relations between unions and employers. In both the private and public sectors, this government intervention has unintended consequences on wages and strikes.

As governments across Canada tackle their deficits, controlling labour costs will potentially be at the top of their agendas. This makes analyzing the effectiveness of government interventions all the more important. We find that legislation requiring compulsory arbitration in labour disputes involving public employees has increased wages by about 1.2 percent per settlement. Although politicians might view strikes in such situations as politically costly, they need to consider the long-term effects of arbitrated settlements; namely, higher labour costs that are borne by the taxpayer.

Once strikes are under way, many governments have also taken steps to end them. However, we find that resort to “back-to-work” legislation reduces the likelihood of a freely settled contract in the next round of negotiations, perpetuating the cycle of government intervention.

Two provinces – British Columbia and Quebec – have bans on using replacement workers during strikes, and a similar law has been proposed federally. The long-term effect of replacement worker bans is to increase strike length and duration while reducing investment, wages and employment. Similarly, the practice of providing reinstatement rights for striking workers has reduced wages while causing strikes to be more frequent and longer. The federal and provincial governments with these laws in place should recognize their economic costs and factor these unintended effects into any cost benefit analysis of the legislation.

Final Word
I have sometimes heard that a recommended course of action is "counter-intuitive" as if what is being proposed seems crazy. On the other hand, could it be that what we think of as intuitive is actually a completely incorrect assessment of the problem?

I expressed reservations during the campaign for mayor of Toronto about the promises being made by Rob Ford. I felt and I still feel that anybody can promise anything but it is only once one holds the reins of power that one discovers what can and cannot be accomplished. It all looks simple when you're standing on the sidelines. See my blog Rob Ford: Let the show being!, October 26, 2010 for a list of various campaign promises which were very dubious as valid ways of handling certain problems.

In this case of making the TTC an essential service, Rob is tapping into some sort of visceral and possible myopic view of the world held by a naive electorate. We are all for getting rid of "the gravy train" but does Ford have what it takes to actually make this fly? Here he is creating a problem which necessitates making the TTC an essential service when we haven't had much of an interruption of service. But more importantly, Ford hasn't done his homework. In trying to give us a warm and fuzzy, it could very well be that we collectively could end up paying more for the TTC labour and have just as much or even more disruption of service. This may seem counter-intuitive but I come back to the strong possibility that there was an incorrect assessment of the original problem.

It has always been my fear that we, the voters, latch onto the buzz words, the slogans and the unproven promises of the next candidate who assures us that they can make everything wonderful in the world. We seem to have short-term memories or we are just plain stupid.

The reality is that the political cycle is 4 years while the economic cycle is 10 years. The two are totally out of sync and any politician promises based on getting re-elected not necessarily what is good for us in the long run. Since 1991, I have been in Toronto approximately 7, 300 days. There have been 13 days of strikes or only 0.18% of the total number of days. That's an emergency which requires an "essential service" designation? That's nothing; that's diddly-squat. If it was 10% yes, but 0.18%, less than one percent, less than one fifth of one percent?

Rob has promised; we voted him in. He's trying to make good on the promise but now it looks like fulfilling this promise is going to cost us more than we realise. If this turns out to be the case, I can only say that we deserve him. Before we vote somebody into office based on their election promises, it is up to us to do our own homework. Are those promises doable and are those promises actually the best course of action? Rob is merely doing what we want and that may turn out to be intuitive but counter-productive.


References

Wikipedia: C. D. Howe Institute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._D._Howe_Institute

C. D. Howe Institute
www.cdhowe.org

C. D. Howe Institute
No Free Ride: The Cost of Essential Services Designation
http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/ebrief_62.pdf

C. D. Howe Institute
The Laws of Unintended Consequence
The Effect of Labour Legislation on Wages and Strikes
http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/commentary_304.pdf

2010-12-17

Site Map: William Quincy Belle

As lawyers for the federal government would have it, Canada is on the brink of an unprecedented social experiment. A September ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down laws against keeping a common bawdy house, communicating for the purposes of prostitution and living on the avails of the trade. Prostitution is not illegal in Canada, but nearly everything related to it is.

In a 131-page ruling released in September, Justice Susan Himel determined the laws created a dangerous environment for sex-trade workers. "I find that the danger faced by prostitutes greatly outweighs any harm which may be faced by the public," she wrote. She ruled the laws — operating or working in a brothel, communicating for the purpose of prostitution and living off the avails of prostitution — put the safety of prostitutes at risk and contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The struck-down provisions deal with adult prostitution. Prostitution laws dealing with those under the age of 18 remain unaffected.

These changes would come into effect this coming Saturday, November 27. Lawyers for the federal government are arguing today, Monday, November 22 for a stay. They are presenting the case that such a radical change in Canada's laws should not be up to one judge. They are also saying that the ruling would make the policing of pimps who exploit prostitutes more difficult and would increase prostitution across the country.

The government also said that abolishing these laws would lead to an increase in other illegal activities, such as drug-trafficking, violence, and johns patrolling the streets plus it would also create a legal uncertainty between Ontario and other jurisdictions in the country. But Alan Young, the lawyer representing three sex-trade workers who brought the issue before the Ontario Superior Court, said countries that have legalized prostitution have not seen an increase in other illegal activities. "Their claims are really speculative opinions," said Young.

Background
Professional Toronto dominatrix Terri-Jean Bedford and two other sex workers back in 2009 launched a sweeping constitutional challenge to the legislation about prostitution, arguing it perpetuates violence against women.

The now 50-year-old Toronto grandmother, along with prostitutes Valerie Scott, 52, and Amy Lebovitch, 31, asked Ontario's Superior Court of Justice to invalidate Criminal Code provisions that serve as Canada's policy response to the world's oldest profession. They argued that prohibitions against prostitution forced them from the safety of their homes to the insecurity of the street, where they are exposed to physical and psychological violence.

The fact that prostitution itself is not illegal in Canada, but almost everything associated with it is was supposedly acknowledged by one judge of the Supreme Court of Canada as "bizarre." Bedford's home has been raided twice and she was charged in 1998 of keeping a common bawdy house. Sex-trade workers say removing the laws will allow them to work indoors, hire bodyguards and communicate with potential clients to determine if they would pose a threat.

My Opinion
I have never visited a prostitute in my life. [chuckles] At one time, when I was younger I had considered whether I should make up for a missed rite of passage but never did.

Nevertheless, I am certain that while our society has closeted prostitution like it hides everything related to sex, our society as a whole would not only benefit from the removal of a social stigma but would see the benefit of controlling and regulating what we all knows goes on but is pushed underground due to our laws.

Will the sky fall? Get serious. In my series on Pornography, the article Pornography: Does it lead to crime? Part 2, I point out how legitimate studies have clearly shown that with the increase of the availability of pornography, there is a corresponding decrease in the rate of sex related crime. This was shown in Japan, the United States, Denmark and Germany.

In other words, our traditional thinking, our traditional logic does not match reality. Outlawing something does not make it go away. Prohibition during the 1920's clearly demonstrated this.

In my articles on abortion, Abortion: If we make it illegal, the problem will go away and Abortion: My final word on unwanted pregnancy, I point out how making abortions illegal does not in any way stop them from happening. I also point out how the right wing Christian fundamentalists who pursue a policy of abstinence and no contraception are actually contributing to the increase in abortions instead of lowering them.

Regulation and control would be a good thing. The newspapers pick up periodically a story of the spread of disease, the terrible life of a sex worker, abuse, human trafficking and even slavery. Canada's laws have failed totally in eradicating any of these problems which exist in our society. It is time to take a new approach, one which does not attempt to solve the problem by outlawing it and hiding it but by dealing with it head on.

Albert Einstein supposedly said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

It is time to try something new.


References

Wikipedia: Sex Professionals of Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Professionals_of_Canada
Sex Professionals of Canada (SPOC) is a Canadian activism group. SPOC was formed in 2001, and campaigns for decriminalization through public education and legal challenges to decriminalize Canadian prostitution laws.

On March 20, 2007, Valerie Scott, Amy Lebovitch, both current sex workers, and dominatrix Terri-Jean Bedford initiated an application in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking the constitutional invalidation of s.210 (bawdy house), s.212(1)(j) (living on the avails) and s.213(1)(c) (communicating for the purpose of prostitution) of the Criminal Code.

official web site: Sex Professionals of Canada
http://www.spoc.ca/

Canadian Legal Information Institute: Bedford v. Canada, 2010 ONSC 4264 (CanLII)
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc4264/2010onsc4264.html

2010-11-22

This past Tuesday, August 3, 2010, Treasury Board President Stockwell Day responded to questions about why the Conservative government is going ahead with plans to spend $9 billion on new prisons when recently released statistics on crime show numbers have declined since 1999 and continue to do so. With my mouth opening wider in utter surprise, I read that Mr. Day explained the recent statistics could not be trusted; "unreported" crimes were alarming and the Conservatives intended on proceeding with their "tough-on-crime" policies. He went on to cite a six-year-old Statistics Canada survey which showed a "slight" increase in unreported crime, from 26 % to 28%.

Over the past few days, all of the papers have reported this incident, analysed the stats and followed up with editorials and opinion pieces which lambast Stockwell, his logic and the silliness in going ahead with a plan whose justification is in no way supported by the facts. I quote the editorial from the Toronto Star of Thursday: "The Conservative mantra seems to be: don't let the facts stand in the way of ideology." I like how the Montreal Gazette pointed out that if a criminal act isn't reported, police can't investigate and consequently nobody will be charged and nobody will go to jail. So, what's the point?

Ideology

The word ideology refers to a set of beliefs or principles, a philosophy about the world. The Conservatives' ideology is that they are going to be "tough-on-crime". As such, they have a plan to invest $9.5 billion dollars in the Canadian prison system. Unfortunately, the release of the latest crime statistics contradicts their idea that Canada is beset by a crime problem which merits enacting such a plan. In other words, the solution, if one is needed, does not fit the problem. What Stockwell and the Conservatives have then done, is to modify the problem to fit the solution. By discounting the current stats, by twisting these 6 year old stats, they can effectively produce the justification for their plans, for their ideology.

I don't know about you, but I'm looking at this song and dance by Stockwell when faced by the legitimate question about how the facts, the statistics do not fit their ideas and I am offended. Why offended? I've read the crime statistics; I'm not blind; I'm not stupid. To have somebody tell me otherwise makes me think that the person in question believes I'm an idiot, that I am gullible, and that I am merely another easily duped member of the electorate. I'm not a goddamned moron and I do not in any way appreciate being treated as one. I am outraged that anybody would attempt to pull such an obvious trick to try and get their way.

In discussing this with my wife, I described my own personal experiences in the business world where I have seen people enacting solutions without understanding the problem. Instead of seeking out more and/or better information, instead of even recognizing that more or better information is even necessary, they go ahead with enacting a solution and later, due to political problems, have to attempt to make the problem fit their solution. Hmmm, reminds me of George W. Bush. Okay, there were no weapons of mass destruction but we had to go into Iraq anyway.

I asked my wife to imagine that Stockwell's wife asked him to fix the toilet. His first step is to go to his toolbox and get a Phillips screwdriver. He hasn't yet looked at the toilet; he has no idea what the problem is and yet, he has already armed himself with a Phillips screwdriver. Once he does look at the toilet; he then has to figure out how to fix it using a Phillips screwdriver. Crazy you say? I've seen this idiocy going on in the business world and Stockwell's performance was classic make-problem-fit-solution political let's-save-face.

However, my wife reminded me that the blindness of ideology goes even further and on a grander scale. Her example was that the right-wing Conservatives are fundamentalists just like religious fundamentalists: they have a fixed view of the world and they make the world fit their belief system. Yes, we have carbon dating going back tens of thousands of years; yes, we have found dinosaurs going back hundreds of millions of years; yes, scientists estimate the age of our planet at 6 billion years but the fundamentalists believe their interpretation of Bible and set the beginning of life at approximately 6,000 years ago. They discount all other evidence.

Stephen Harper

The only reason the Conservatives have any power is because the liberals are in disarray and the other parties are too small. I am reminded that the Conservatives' minority is an indicator that they are not the desired choice; they are not the best choice; they are merely the choice which seems to be at the moment "less bad" than the other choices. Not a ringing endorsement I'd say.

I have never been enchanted with Mr. Harper and his policies. I am now getting angry at his continued course of action in contradiction to the facts. Many have compared Harper to George W. Bush as a right-wing Conservative and more and more I see this blind adherence to an ideology when there are no weapons of mass destruction. Just how dumb is it to hear Stockwell Day dismiss the crime statistics which clearly show crime going down then turn around and use stats to support his case? And all this on top of the Conservatives wanting to scrap the long form census? Just what the heck is going on in the minds of these people? I see so many red flags going up; I hear so many alarm bells ringing that every Canadian should be writing to Ottawa to bring these people to task. Where will this stop?

The purchase of new fighter jets

The Tories are planning on spending upwards of $16 billion to purchase 65 new fighter jets without a single competing bid. Marc Garneau - yes, that Garneau - is critical of the Conservatives and this plan. In a nutshell, the Conservatives have a solution but have done little or nothing to properly examine the problem.

National Post: Marc Garneau: How much are the planes really worth?

GST cuts

The Conservatives cut the GST by 1% on July 1, 2006 then another 1% on January 1, 2008. This "bid" to stimulate the economy was thought to be unnecessary as Canada's economy was already growing at a rate of 3% at that time. Of course, the Liberals were against this claiming the GST would keep the nation's finances in balance and pay for social programs.

In 2009, Canada was in the worst recession since the 30's. Stimulus spending left our country with a deficit of over $50 billion. Harper's cuts of 2% in the GST translated into a loss of $10 billion in revenue in 2009. In other words, our deficit was only $40 billion but made worse by a lack of GST income.

Day Care

The Conservatives are basically against day care. Their ideology comes back to the idea of the woman staying at home to take care of the kids. In today's modern world with its economic problems, a 2 income family has become something of a norm. By failing to support day care, the government is effectively depriving the Canadian workforce of women who want to work and making life more difficult for families who are obliged to have 2 incomes to survive.

The Census

Now let me get this straight: you are going to make the census voluntary then spend money to promote it so people will want to fill it out. What!?!

Now let me get this straight: it is not necessary to have census data. Okay, so how do we plan? How many schools will we need? How many roads? What will the load be on our electrical system in the next 5 years and how to increase capacity to support it? What are the potential demographics concerning CPP and what support for this pension system do we need to avoid seeing the system go bankrupt with an aging population? Oops! I no longer know anything about an aging population!

G8 and G20

A billion dollars? Holy c**p!

Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Stephen Harper's got to go!

Some of this may seem flippant but in all seriousness, I believe we have a major problem on our hands. Being a leader is no easy task and leading a country is by no means a walk in the park. Nevertheless, I am seeing more and more how things don't seem to be adding up; that the government is making decisions which are not matched by the facts; that the decision making process itself is flawed. Unfortunately, I also see that most of us are so caught up in our own lives, in our own day-to-day activities, we may not be at all aware of what's going on in Ottawa and the decisions being made there which may have a huge impact on our lives.

Stand up! Look around! Investigate! Get aware! This is your country; this is your government. We are all in this together; let's make sure we all agree on how to do things.


References

National Post: Marc Garneau: How much are the planes really worth?
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/24/marc-garneau-how-much-are-the-planes-really-worth/

CBC, June 22, 2009: Ottawa's GST cut hiked deficit by as much as $10B
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/06/16/f-gst-cut-estimate-deficit.html

The Census: For and against
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/short-census-question-will-the-government-listen/article1660871/

My coverage of the OMG-20: photos, videos and day-by-day reports
http://wqebelle.blogspot.com/2010/06/g20-summit-at-toronto-pictures.html

Google Search: "hey hey ho ho stephen harper's got to go"
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22hey+hey+ho+ho+stephen+harper%27s+got+to+go%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=43776a60b1b0212d

Unseat Harper
http://unseatharper.ca
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=292671928599

2010-08-05