Blue Like You

Archive for September 12th, 2007

Clive has an excellent post up - Education Ontario 2 : The Politics, which captures the essence of McGuinty’s hypocrisy here:

“If we let them have faith-based schools, they’ll be intolerant,” say the chattering classes and the media, without for a second appreciating how intolerant that is.

…Following from the last point, the debate has largely left the actualities of education in the dust and is now just about sowing division, fear and prejudice. McGuinty might use the E-word but the spin of his campaign is about religion and race. Education gave the Liberals the hook but they’re no longer really talking about education; they’re too busy pitting people of different faiths and backgrounds against one another. It’s subtle, clever, deliberate, cynical and utterly shameful. But it works.

That is exactly what is concerning Lorrie Goldstein today - Education becomes the defining issue (Sun):

The premier has done a complete about-face, now arguing it would not only be unfair, but wrong to fund these schools. He isn’t just saying it would be nice to fund them but we can’t afford it, or that fixing public education must be addressed first, which would at least be somewhat consistent with his past statements.

Now he’s saying it would be evil, that it will lead to children being “segregated and sequestered” by religion, which he accuses Conservative Leader John Tory of wanting to do through his election promise to fund non-Catholic religious schools.

To McGuinty, words mean only what he says they mean. Thus, they mean nothing.

He hasn’t just flip-flopped, he’s rotated his head 360 degrees on his neck like that kid in the Exorcist.

(I love that last line!)

Lorrie has also expressed his concern for this debate degenerating into political opportunism and racism in a previous column, Tory hits the hot button.

Which all brings me to this question: Why did Dalton McGuinty skip past his own alma mater, St. Patrick’s and instead seize on a public school two doors down for his photo ops?

“We note with interest that two doors down, there’s a Catholic school that is fully supported by the government of Ontario,” Bernie Farber, chief executive officer of the Canadian Jewish Congress said.

“St. Patrick’s High school serves as a model of how we can integrate other faith based schools into our public education system.”

Mr. Farber and others have labelled Mr. McGuinty a hypocrite for excluding Catholic facilities from his attack on faith-based schools. Mr. McGuinty, his wife Terri and the couple’s four kids all attended schools in the Catholic system. Terri still teaches part-time in a Catholic board.

So why didn’t he check in at St. Pat’s? Why indeed, why indeed?

Here is Premier Pinocchio’s response:

“I’ve visited many Catholic schools during my [mandate],” he said in French, adding that the campaign “has just started.”

“It’s the second day, be patient,” he said.

Sorry, Dalton, but patience is one thing I’ve run right out of.

Oh, and be careful not to trip over that nose on the your way out.

I’m not sure that there are very many surprises here, except perhaps that for the first time in Canadian census history we now have more adults who “have never been married than have”.

Just over 51 per cent of adults, aged 15 or over, were unmarried, up from 49.9 per cent in 2001, while 48.5 per cent were married, down from 50.1.

Twenty years ago, more than 60 per cent of adult Canadians were married and just 38.6 per cent unmarried.

And

Since 2001, there has also been a 3.5 per cent increase to 6.1 million in the number of families in which there is a married couple. However, this was only a fraction of the 18.9-per-cent surge in common-law-couple families, which has now reached almost 1.4 million. It is also well below the 7.8-per-cent jump in lone-parent families, now just over 1.4 million.

But no big shocker there. Anyone with eyes can see this happening. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

And the Globe reports:

“The overall picture certainly is one of an increasing diversification of our families and households,” said Doug Norris, senior-vice president and chief demographer at Environics Analytics.

“For the first time ever, we’ve got more couples without children than with children, we’ve got over a quarter of our households with one person only,” he said.

Again, no big surprise. Having kids is expensive, and there is little societal incentive to do otherwise.

History of the evolution of marriage and the Canadian family here, courtesy of the Post.

Toronto stats examined here (Star)

Why isn’t Dalton McGuinty’s pathetic bungling of the Caledonia occupation/reclamation more front and center in the election campaign?

Why aren’t Haldimand residents, developers and the media grilling him and his candidates on this?

Today the Hamilton Spectator tells us that “Ontario won’t help developers stop natives“. It seems that Caledonia was such a politically-charged issue that the province has now told developers to “find their own solutions if Six Nations residents occupy or stop projects along the Grand River in a land claim dispute.”

Remember how McGuinty forked over $16 million to purchase the land in question from the Henning brothers in Caledonia? Well, they plan to see this one out, but are going to leave any future developers high and dry:

Lars Eddy, of the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, says the province stands behind its land title system that allows development in the Haldimand Tract along the Grand River, which Six Nations claims. He says Ontario is committed to resolving those disputes at the negotiation table set up with Ottawa and Six Nations representatives to resolve the Caledonia dispute.

Eddy said developers facing heat from natives for building on disputed land “should proceed” with their projects. Asked what happens when there’s a confrontation, he said, “That’s between the developers, it’s their property …”

Between the developers and who?

“The Six Nations.”

…Patricia Valladao, a spokesperson for the federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, says negotiating land claims is the responsibility of Ottawa, but says the situation faced by developers is a provincial issue.

Dan Valentini, a Stoney Creek developer who had his Hagersville townhouse project stopped by natives in May, calls the province’s position “ridiculous,” and said it creates two separate laws in the province. He said he has spoken to Premier Dalton McGuinty and Finance Minister Greg Sorbara about his problem, but his project remains in limbo.

So McGuinty is effectively abdicating responsibility in any future disputes.

Now that’s leadership.

Meanwhile, the Six Nations traditional government has created what could be described as its own municipal planning department and a Green Plan to deal with development on the land it claims along the Grand River. It was given the land in 1784 by the British Crown after the American War of Independence, but Ottawa says more than 90 per cent was surrendered or sold before 1850.

The Green Plan outlines development potential and environmentally sensitive areas of lands in Brantford, Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge, Guelph and communities all along the Grand River.

Wonderful. So this is a great issue to throw at any candidates appearing at your door.

Caledonia Wakeup Call has many links to new and ongoing disputes and between developers, cities and various native groups.

So what is John Tory’s plan? I’m glad you asked. It’s a very novel concept called ‘One law for all’:

Speaking to reporters from Osprey Media newspapers by telephone, the provincial Progressive Conservative leader suggested he would establish a zero-tolerance policy on aboriginal land occupations if he is elected premier of Ontario on Oct. 10.

“We can’t have even legitimate complaints settled by people taking the law into their own hands,” Tory said in response to a Whig-Standard question about the six-week-old uranium mine blockade by local Algonquins in North Frontenac…

…Tory says he would have “firm but friendly” conversations with aboriginal leaders to tell them his government would not stand for such tactics. He didn’t elaborate on what that meant.

[Cue to Liberal readers - Here is your 'Mike Harris' opening for comments]

So why did I mention “We need every single penny” in the title of this post? Again, I’m glad you asked. We find the answer in today’s Globe:

…The Conservative Leader also needs to remind voters that what the Liberals call “a health premium” is really a surtax that goes into general revenues, with only a notional allocation to health care.

Pollster Greg Lyle of Innovative Research Group said voters would be more concerned about the broken tax promise if they believed it went to wasteful spending, rather than to health care.

The Conservatives “should tie it to the millions of dollars that went out the door to special interest groups, or the $40,000 raise the Premier received,” Mr. Lyle said…

- Or the $16 million buyout in Caledonia?