Plans to expand service at Toronto Island Airport were unveiled to a chorus of suspicion about the announcement’s timing right after the federal election. Now, with the swearing in of a Conservative cabinet that makes no obvious effort to placate the urban agenda, three horsemen of the Common Sense Revolution have returned to kick around, even if the slash ‘n’ burn policies of Premier Mike Harris aren’t considered due for revival. The appointment of Whitby-Oshawa MP Jim Flaherty as Stephen Harper’s GTA point man gets questioned on the front page of the Toronto Star, while The Globe and Mail paints a more enthusiastic portrait of his right-wing populism – while pointing out that, growing up, Flaherty “became a well-regarded hockey player despite growing to only 5 foot 3″. What are the chances he’ll assist in dismantling the powers of the Toronto Port Authority, a by-product of local Liberal clout in Ottawa, and hand the fate of the waterfront over to the City of Toronto? For all the grousing over a revived Island Airport scheme involving fast ferry access for travelers, two years after the bridge idea was defeated locally, comments in response to Andrew Spicer’s roundup on the subject argue that jobs in the aerospace industry, improved access to downtown for flying commuters, and shifting the environmental burden away from Malton are reasons to support the ten 70-seat Q400 planes currently on order with Bombardier. A story in the Star measures the amount of runway required by the aircraft relative to how much room the island has to offer – presumably, a lighter flight load doesn’t require as much gliding room. While such scrutiny continues at home, the Toronto Port Authority might end up taking the city of Rochester to court if a promised $3 million in docking fees vanish in the wreckage of the cross-border fast ferry. At least defendants in such a case wouldn’t need to look far to find Torontonians annoyed with the TPA’s approach to watery business.
Common sense resolution wanted
February 7, 2006 · 9 Comments
Categories: fouronesix
9 responses so far ↓
alanTdot // February 7, 2006 at 4:12 pm
So Mr Harper has come out with his cabinet and managed to stretch the bounds of credibility to get Vancouver and Montreal represented but claims that Toronto has L’il Jimmy Flaherty and two other Common Sense Revolutionaries to speak for us.
Right.
We are still fighting back from the Downloading avalanche that those three dumped on us.
Perhaps the years in the wilderness - and the succession of election losses - will help Mr Clement become a more tolerant and humble public servant, but there are no guarantees that the pious Mr Jim has changed any.
What I can’t seem to stop laughing about is the stream of righteous indignation coming from the mouths of the Old school reformers as they watch their Mary Magdelene - Diane Ablonsky - get passed over for New Minister and Instant Tory Mr Emerson.
What, no tirade about having to quit and run again in their riding under the new Party Colours??
No thinly veiled ’slut/whore’ references?
This government is interested in only one thing, and that is getting a majority the next time.
At least we still have the NDP to watch out for Toronto.
rick mcginnis // February 8, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Yup, and one day, if the NDP have their way, Toronto will look like downtown Beijing twenty years ago - rivers of bicycling workers, nary a car to be seen.
I’m sorry, but every NDP proposal I’ve seen for the city is a heady mix of luddism and some strange sentimental yearning for an impossible future based on some vision of a past that never existed, predicated on the idea that people can be persuaded - or coerced, through a combination of taxes and fines - to abandon the lifestyle they obviously prefer.
I’m so glad they’re looking out for our best interests. I really am.
Darwin O'Connor // February 9, 2006 at 10:46 am
I’d say let people live the lifestyle they prefer, as long as the taxes and fines cover the higher environmental (global warming) and health (heart attacks due to lack of exercise) costs those lifestyles incur.
rick mcginnis // February 9, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Costs incurred from whom, Darwin? I’d ask you to give me hard proof of the science behind global warming first, before you start levying fines, my friend - something that no one’s quite been able to do yet, I should add.
By the way - do you drive a car? Boat? Snowmobile? I’ll make it easier for you - take public transit? Because that uses up precious fossil fuels/creates greenhouse gas as well. Streetcars and subways don’t run on hempseed oil, you know.
And while we’re at it, can we extend this zero-sum calculus of yours further into daily life? Since parents who’ve had handicapped children take up extra resources, why don’t they pay extra taxes? Abortion is legal, isn’t it? They had a choice, right? And old people - if they know they’re getting feeble, they can always find an ice floe somewhere to go and spare us the burden. Liberal arts grads - they knew that degree wasn’t going to promise them anything; extra tax for their academic self-indulgence!
See where this leads?
Darwin O'Connor // February 9, 2006 at 3:12 pm
There is strong evidence that supports global warming. We know CO2 causes the greenhouse effect and we know CO2 levels in the air are at unusually high levels.
In any even, because environmental costs are hard to predict, setting up a system of environment insurance where companies are required to buy insurance to cover the environmental clean up of what they produce. The insurance companies would have the job of predicting what the costs are and taking care of the over or under estimates.
I don’t have a drivers licence and my family doesn’t own a car. I often bike to work. I feel bad that I didn’t today when I probably could have. Instead I took the streetcar which uses hydro power. In Ontario, only about 1/3 of hydro is produced using fossel fuels. I don’t deny there is some environmental damage from transit, but it is a fraction of what a car would do. I’d be willing to pay my share, if you pay for yours.
I’m really more concerned about that large amounts of valuable land given freely to car drivers and the health benefits of cycling and using transit, rather then the energy they use.
I believe everyone has the right to a life of diginity and we all have a resposiblity to ensure that everyone has one. Diginity means different things to different people. Some people would insist on going on to the bitter end, others would believe heading out to the ice floe is the best way to go.
Limiting the supply of free education based on the needs of society would be a reasonable comprimise.
alanTdot // February 9, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Darwin,
very thoughtful commentary. I do have some reservations around giving the insurance companies yet another reason to get involved in day to day living.
Rick,
When I said that it was a good thing the NDP is around to look out for Toronto, I probably should have expanded my reasoning.
As evidenced by the last 13 years, the Federal Liberal Government took this city for granted.
The tendency of small and big ‘c’ conservatives to look upon Toronto in a less than benevolent way means that they consistently seek to ‘discipline’ the city.
The NDP see the city as a place where people actually live and they continually strive to enhance the urban experience.
If you don’t think that their attempts are worthy of merit, so be it.
But at least they make the effort.
rick mcginnis // February 9, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Darwin - The science of global warming is hardly conclusive. Basic parts of the theory, like carbon sinks and precise effects on weather trends, are constantly being contradicted by new findings. In any case, the idea that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect is only relative to the theory if you can prove that warming trends have always been caused by greenhouse gases. Given how imperfect our understanding of historical weather trends are, we can’t even say with certainty that human industry is the cause of current warming trends which, in any case, have happened cyclically over history. How do you penalize a person or a corporation, never mind a country, when you can’t with any certainty quantify their contribution to warming, if any?
As for comparing our ecological virtue, that’s a pointless contest. I don’t drive, or have a license, and my family of four doesn’t own a car. I don’t, however, put on a hair shirt because we use public transit, or taxis when time is of the essence. Doing anything with two small children without a car is difficult, and I don’t look down on people who don’t feel like living with the inconvenience. Nor do I look askance at people who live in suburbs or in the country, and who need control over their transportation.
Would I like to see cars that run more cleanly become cheap and widely available? Of course I do - but I also understand why they aren’t at least not now. For the same reason that I understand why solar/wind/geothermal power is many years from being a practical solution. But talking about punitive punishment for use of “polluting” power sources is absurd - like wishing the coal-powered industrial revolution never happened, simply because of its environmental costs, even if it would have hindered human progress by centuries.
These contests of virtue are little more than pissing contests, to be frank - we live in the world we live in; idealism is, for most people, as great a luxury as car ownership.
As for limiting the supply of free education - I really don’t know what you’re on about there. Are you actually proposing revoking one of the most socially levelling social trends of the last hundred years because you’re worried about rising sea levels? The mind reels at this sort of thinking, really. Sort of like saying that dignity means “different things to different people.” That way lies madness, friend.
alanTdot - I don’t have any evidence that conservatives, regardless of their capitalization status, have an idea of “disciplining” Toronto. Most of the spiteful rhetoric you’re talking about is based on not being able to field a single MP from the city - trust me, if there were MPs from Toronto in Ottawa, they’d be pulling for city initiatives.
Perhaps not the ones you support, but there’d be no arbitraty discpilining; votes and seats must be preserved - it’s politics. The fact you’re ignoring Harper’s tax break for transit use is all the proof I need for this.
Darwin O'Connor // February 10, 2006 at 11:36 am
“How do you penalize a person or a corporation, never mind a country, when you can’t with any certainty quantify their contribution to warming, if any?”
I thought my insurance idea covered that. It is even compatible with capitalism.
“As for comparing our ecological virtue, that’s a pointless contest.”
You are the one who asked about it.
“like wishing the coal-powered industrial revolution never happened, simply because of its environmental costs, even if it would have hindered human progress by centuries.”
I am only asking for the industries and the people who use their products to pay to clean up the environment damage they will cause, rather then leaving it to the government and people who happen to live nearby who suffer the consequences. One way or another society has to pay for it anyway. With a financial incentive not to pollute, it would probably end up costing everyone less.
“As for limiting the supply of free education”
I can only see the supply of free education expanding above the current levels, under my suggestion.
“The fact you’re ignoring Harper’s tax break for transit use is all the proof I need for this.”
The tax break is just about the worst possible way to spend money on transit. Taking transit is already cheaper then taking a car. Lowering the cost won’t cause a lot of people to switch to transit. It may even cause people who are walking or biking, which are even better then transit, to switch to transit. Improving the frequency and speed of service will encourage transit usage.
It would have been far better (and require less administration) to give the money directly to transit providers to allow them to choose between improved service and cheaper fares.
alanTdot // February 10, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Rick,
I don’t think that I am breaking any new ground when I say that right of center parties with ‘conservative’ value structures tend to view large metropolitan centers as areas of moral decay that need to be controlled.
That said, Bill Davis was probably the best premier this province has seen in the past 40 years.
But he didn’t really fit that small ‘c’ conservative value structure did he?
This current Federal Government definitely fits that structure, and the tax break for transit is pretty much in the ‘beer and popcorn’ realm.
The realpolitick musings behind the ‘no MP’s, no initiatives’ stance is decades old and doesn’t fit the inclusive nature of this Country.
You must be logged in to post a comment.