Andrew Spicer's Weblog

Harper's Cheap Dig at the One-Tonne Challenge

Stephen Harper made the following dismissive remark during his press conference yesterday:

Canada's Clean Air Act wasn't developed on the fly at a press conference. It wasn't written at an international meeting held in an exotic location. And we're certainly not going to hire a comedian to promote it.

There are a lot of things wrong with this remark -- like, why is Harper opposed to international treaties? -- but let me focus on the jab at Rick Mercer and the One Tonne Challenge.

There are four general ways that I can think of for reducing pollutants of any kind...

One way is through legislation and regulation that bans or caps emissions. A second way is through economic measures, such as taxes on pollution, that drive people to find alternatives. A third way is in subsidizing alternative, cleaner technologies. The fourth way is to encourage consumers to intentionally choose cleaner alternatives because it's the right thing to do.

The fourth one actually sounds like something this band of conservatives would be attracted to. Personal responsibility and all that. But, unless their desired version of this approach would be to just sit back and see if enough people spontaneously cut their emissions, they would have to get involved in little things like "marketing" and "communications".

Well, I don't think Harper's point was that hiring a comedian was dissonant with the objectives of this particular marketing strategy. Rather, he was just trying to score cheap political points and couldn't help sneering while doing so.

Personally, I'm more of a fan of the second approach -- taxes on polluters -- but a marketing-based approach is probably likely to generate some inexpensive results and I cannot fault the choice of Rick Mercer for this particular campaign.

Clean Air Smoke Screen

Back in June, when the Conservative government started to show signs of trying to cover up climate-change inaction with a plan to reduce smog, I wrote:

I don't want to support the shirking of our climate change responsibilities. But in the world of realistic outcomes, forcing the Conservatives to get serious results on issues like smog is a lot better than letting them shirk Kyoto and also pay mere lip service to other issues.

I figured that if they were going to play this game the least we should get out of this deal is actual action on the smog file. Well, it looks like we aren't going to. (I suppose I should have know these guys wouldn't be serious about commiting to the environment, but I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.)

The Conservatives made a Liberal-style big announcement of nothing yesterday in Vancouver. But it was merely an announcement that some discussions will begin which may ultimately lead to some targets being set. As John Ibbitson writes in a critical column today:

And so the Clean Air Act, if and when it clears Parliament, will substantially preserve the existing voluntary Liberal measures, while promising a much stricter regime once the Liberal plan expires in 2010 -- which, at the rate things are going, could be three elections from now. Meantime, the government will consult.

In other words, nothing resembling the bill's claimed goals is going to happen under this government. Some Conservatives may argue that "the Liberals didn't do anything but spew hot air either", but that's not a very inspiring excuse.

LeDrew's Launch and Campaign Blogs

Stephen LeDrew's campaign website is up, and seems to be in the form of a video blog. That's not a bad idea, although I can't really watch his messages at work.

There's also a newish Toronto Sun campaign blog. Sun reporter Rob Granastein lands a scoop with this email from outgoing Toronto budget chief David Soknacki:

a) whether John Sewell or Stephen LeDrew gets elected, the St Clair right-of-way will be built. The reasons? Council gave approval to the TTC for the project during the budget. I expect all of the significant contracts for construction are already signed. So even if Council and the TTC reversed their decisions(!), you'd still be faced with signed contracts. Also, construction is underway, so TTC will probably find the figures to prove that it will cost more to undo the decision than to complete construction

b) next there's the dump deal. While details are still confidential the "problem" is that it is such a good deal rather than a bad one. So I expect that alternatives will cost more rather than less

c) then we get to freezing taxes. In round numbers inflation and the collective agreements gobble up $200m per year, plus the City has been raiding reserves every year to pay for a host of endeavours ... let's say the City runs a deficit of $300m without new programs. Both you and I would love to hear his approach to freeze annual property tax increases.

That's a pretty good critique of some of LeDrew's promises (although much more could be said). The thing that makes me curious is that all these things could also be said about Jane Pitfield, and yet Soknacki has endorsed Jane.

Postscript: In other Toronto election blogging news, former Paved-blogger Marc Weisblott is now running a campaign blog for the Globe and Mail called Campaign Bubble.

2006 Toronto School Board Elections

For all the apathy and misinformation we find when considering the elections for Toronto City Hall, you find dramatically more when considering the school boards.

If I thought I was unusual, I'd be embarrased to say I don't know the name of my local school trustee. But the fact is many of us don't know and yet will be asked to choose from a list of names at the ballot box on election day.

It would be a mistake to think that the Toronto school boards are not important, even though the provincial government has left them with little power and no money. Our schools are vitally important, especially in this city where so many students arrive without English and without much familial knowledge about how Canada works. And our school boards are the only elected representatives who are there to stand up for these schools.

Warren Kinsella recently pointed to the blog of TDSB trustee Bruce Davis. Kinsella was recommending him for mayor, but I've enjoyed reading his strong comments on the challenges faced by the board.

He recently began a post this way:

In this morning's newspapers Premier McGuinty was quoted as saying that school boards need to take more responsibility for how we manage our money (I am paraphrasing). Considering we are in the middle of school board elections and I am one of the incumbents targeted by the Premier, let me take a minute in our defense...

And I'd strongly recommend reading the whole thing for a summary of Toronto's school woes.

Meanwhile, you can find the names of this year's candidates online. My current TDSB trustee is apparently Rick Telfer, but the upcoming election is being contested by Gord Crann (a former NDP candidate for provincial office)and Cathy Dandy (a leader of the Toronto Parent Network).

Hargrove and McGuinty Oppose Clean Air Regulations

The Conservative government is pursuing a plan for mandatory improvements in auto emissions. The Toronto Star and Globe and Mail appear have conflicting reports on whether the targets of these regulations will be toxins or greenhouse gases.

I earlier criticized the Martin government for opting for a voluntary emissions-reduction plan and have to give the Conservatives some credit for being firm about a regulatory approach. Of course, it's wise to reserve judgement until we see what the rules will actually be.

Both Buzz Hargrove and Dalton McGuinty have jumped up to criticize the plan, and to criticize the very notion of doing anything that might upset the car manufacturers.

In my view, Buzz and Dalton are both too concerned about their patrons' desires and not concerned enough about what our society needs. Furthermore, I believe they are wrong in their apparent belief that Detroit-based companies can't compete on this issue. It's that sort of resistance to consumer demands that breeds a losing attitude.

Anyway, while they are both wrong, Buzz and Dalton did make some good points.

Via AD, I read that Hargrove said:

...a more appropriate way to handle this would be to introduce incentives for people who have older vehicles to trade them in for newer vehicles that are much more fuel efficient.

On this point he's right -- our air quality could be cleaned more rapidly by removing older cars from the road. This is especially true when considering toxins and smog-producers.

Meanwhile, McGuinty is right when he argues that no particular industry should be targeted for regulations. We need cleaner production from all branches of the economy. McGuinty is concerned that Ontario's automakers are being hit while Alberta's oil producers are getting a free ride.

Miller Can Do Better

Today was the deadline for entering the municipal election races in Toronto. I haven't had enough time to write much, but I have been reading the news with some interest.

The Spacing Votes blog threw me a flattering shout-out last week. I hope that it doesn't seem too reciprocal of me to say that the latest issue of Spacing has contributed to a shift in my judgment on a few issues and the election in general.

I have to admit that I've sunk into a form of cynicism about what can and cannot be accomplished by our municipal government. This was based on a few notions:

The City of Toronto is massively constrained in their freedom to act due to the heavy financial burden of Harris-era social services downloading and cuts to programs of urban importance
Toronto government is further limited by the generally low level of power entrusted in it by the provincial and federal governments
And, to a lesser extent, Toronto government is hampered by the clumsy and insensitive governance structure imposed on it during the amalgamation process

As well, there are issues of importance to downtowners -- e.g., myself -- that I have learned need to be balanced with the concerns of the many suburban voters with whom we share this municipality.

I still feel, actually, that all these concerns are still true. However, the "10 Most Important" issues outlined in Spacing magazine reminded me that, although Mayor Miller has plenty of valid excuses for not getting a whole heck of a lot done in three years, there really are many areas where determined leadership could produce results... despite the unfortunate state of our financial relationship with Queen's Park.

Unlike some critics on the right, I feel that David Miller has done a decent job on issues like crime, although he may have performed poorly from the political angle. Furthermore, despite whatever you may read on Jane Pitfield's hilarious blog, David Miller's fiscal performance has been at least fair.

It is on the issues with which David Miller has built his reputation that progress has been painfully slow. I'm looking forward to stronger leadership in the next term on issues like transit. You don't have to read Steve Munro's blog for very long before you begin to see that a better CEO could be getting more bang for our buck. (Actually, you don't need to read a blog at all. You just need to experience the TTC.) Leading the charge on issues like a Scarborough LRT system is the smart way to improve this city regardless of our financial picture.

I'm hoping that changes giving the mayor's office more power, the 4-year term, and slow-but-continuous improvements at Queen's Park can all help make the next 4 years a great era for improving Toronto. I'm also hoping that -- however comical -- the entrance of Stephen LeDrew into the mayoral race will encourage the incumbent to develop some bold and inspiring plans.