Blue Like You

Archive for September 11th, 2007

This opinion piece in today’s Financial Post by Jack M. Mintz is noteworthy, because it diffuses a few myths concerning the funding of Faith-Based Schools - Religious Schools are Affordable:

While the governing Liberals could take the other side, that all religions should no longer receive public funds, they have decided to take a far-from-clear stand favouring an existing unfair policy. At first arguing that funding religious education erodes social cohesion — an argument that holds no logic when our own socially integrated Premier is a graduate of a Catholic public-funded system– they have regressed to an argument that the province can ill afford funding 50,000 students currently in the religious private schools.

He makes the point that if these students weren’t in private schools, the public system would have to fund them, so what’s the difference?

…existing public-school education costs are partly covered by property taxes paid by families with children in private school. The defence that the government is unable to cover the cost of general studies education for more than 50,000 students (religious education costs would still be left as a cost to the parents)–but can help more than 650,000 Catholic students — makes no sense, since these students would have to be funded anyway if families chose to put them into public schools. Would the province reject their enrolment? Surely not.

There are a few important items there. He’s saying that the cost of the religious education would still be picked up by parents, but that the parents are already contributing to public education through their taxes.

To receive funding, schools will need to satisfy Ontario curriculum requirements (most do already) and be accountable for provincial guidelines. Parents who currently send their children to private religious schools will feel more part of society if they are treated fairly and receive funding like the Catholics.

And this ties in perfectly with a piece in the Globe today - I was a second-class student in Ontario.

Mintz takes a shot at Mike Harris too for centralizing public education decision-making and explains how Alberta is moving away from that model with great success.

If you get time, it’s worth the read.

George Radwanski lays it all out in a National Post editorial, A Referendum Ontario Doesn’t Need.

But even if you believe that the current system is seriously flawed, where is the evidence that this particular change would do more good than harm? The potential drawbacks and consequences haven’t even begun to be explored. For instance, what would be the effect on regional representation of reducing the total number of ridings from 107 to 90, and adding 39 seats for new legislators appointed from party lists to reflect province-wide vote totals? It’s a good bet that rural and northern Ontarians might well find themselves with even less representation than at present, which would scarcely be a triumph for democracy.

Likewise, would it really improve over-all representation to have two classes of MPPs, with one-third of them exempted from having to be elected, maintaining contact with constituents or facing the accountability of having to seek personal re-election? The proposed system would also make minority governments much more likely, if not inevitable. Occasionally having minority governments has its benefits. But since such governments tend to make decisions based on short-term expediency rather than long-term planning, and to be more high-spending as they toss bones to stay in power, do we want to deliberately make them more frequent or even permanent?

Radwanski also criticizes the lack of information on the subject and the rushed format, referring to it as “sideshow to a one-month election campaign”. Well, unofficially I think that election campaign has been going on for months now, but it’s true that the officials, media and pundits only seem to be getting into the issues of MMP now.

He closes with a suggestion that since “it’s too late now to rescind the provincial legislation requiring the referendum concurrent with this election, it would be best to defeat the proposal soundly, then revisit the whole issue thoughtfully and separately a year or more down the road.”

This is the point I have been trying to make - This is not a now or never situation. Don’t be pressured. If you dislike FPTP, there are other options out there.

But most of all, please vote.

Even though Waterloo Region has just finished the first year of a partial pesticide ban and even though Dalton McGuinty is pushing for a province-wide pesticide ban in his re-election platform, City of Waterloo Councillor Angela Vieth is demanding a bylaw for a year-round ban that would start as early as January of 2008.

“This community is ready for this and people will comply,” Vieth said.

“It’s time. I want it done. It’s got to be done by 2008 and, I’m sorry, we’ve been waiting too long for this.”

Never mind what lawn care companies and homeowners want.

Oh, but she has a formidable ally:

The Canadian Cancer Society is calling on the city to impose a total ban on cosmetic pesticide use, said Diane Hawrylenko, the local society’s public issues chair.

While scientists haven’t proven a conclusive link between pesticides and cancer rates, the society is concerned about the long-term health effects of pesticide exposure, especially when there is no health benefit to using pesticides, she said.

I wonder if the city’s Grey Silo Golf Course would still be exempt under Vieth’s agenda? Health benefits… Well, it is healthy to play golf, I suppose. But what about those pesticides? Aren’t they poisonous, according to Vieth? Your hand touches the golf ball that came in contact with all those horrible pesticides, right? And you inhale the air. That can’t be good.

Anyway, it seems that Councillor Vieth’s mind is made up, so lawn care companies best pack up and move elsewhere:

“The debate is over,” she said. “There are no more excuses. We are way behind on this issue. Just do it, and do it right please.

But Dalton already promised a pesticide ban if re-elected, right? And according to the polls, McGuinty is still ahead, right?

So why all this duplication of effort?

Is it possible that Councillor Vieth doesn’t believe Dalton’s promises either?