Monday 30 April 2012

May Day in Toronto

While May 1 is a celebration of the onset of spring in many cultures, the labour movement would like to take May Day back to its historical roots, celebrating the occasion as International Workers Day. The origins of May Day; date back to 1886 when over 100,000 workers went on strike in Chicago to fight for an 8-hour work day. The New York Occupy Movement is calling for workers to join in an international general strike against ‘the 1%’ of the population who control the majority of wealth. They are using the slogan “Don’t go to work. Don’t go to school. Don’t shop. Take the streets!” Some believe that if the May Day general strike is successful, it will mark the comeback of the Occupy Movement.

Toronto is in a particularly unique situation following some very trying negotiations between the Ford Administration and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Locals 79 and 416. This diverges from former Mayor David Miller’s two terms of labour peace. Many in the union came away panning the new contracts. However that perspective neglects the fact that the only victory Mayor Ford really walked away from these negotiations with was the ‘right to work’; a clause that used to be in contracts of CUPE employees for the City of Toronto that guaranteed workers reassignment, rather than being bought out or terminated. What Ford’s supporters and opponents appear to neglect is that the Mayor caved on numerous promises he had made during the election with regards to salary, sick days, and benefits.
The failure of the Mayor’s opponents to realize these submissions has led to calls to celebrate May Day as an unofficial protest of the current administration’s labour policies. Notable among these opponents is Toronto’s very own Occupy movement. Occupy and activist group, No One is Illegal, will come together to play chess to celebrate May Day, and to show their opposition to all three levels of government and mining corporation Barrick Gold (who made the unfortunate decision to hold their annual general meeting at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre that same week).

It would be prudent for those planning to attend any May Day festivities to distance themselves from the violence that characterized recent protests; such as the student riots in Quebec. That said; it is difficult to deny the revolutionary spirit that inspired them. It is in that motif that Torontonians might wish to use the event of May Day as a period for which to remember the failure of government and administrations to adequately train and provide jobs for new graduates. With unemployment only now starting to fall it would be nice to see Torontonians come together for the betterment of our neighbours.

[Originally published at Examiner.com.]

Sunday 29 April 2012

Gun Control in Toronto

Some residents of Toronto will recall the issue of gun control arising during the 2010 general election. At the time, then candidate Rob Ford stood alone amongst mayoral candidates in opposing the now defunct national long-gun registry, which represented a divergence from the consensus opinion in Toronto. However, it may not represent a divergence from opinion nation-wide. In the name of full-disclosure, it should be stated that I have personally support a firearms registry while opposing sport hunting as a matter of principle. But, in preparing to write this, I have found that my perspective, while commonplace in Toronto, is not so across this country. It is for this reason that I have concerns about changes that members of the current federal government are attempting to make to the Canada’s firearms ownership laws.

Rob Anders, a Calgary Member of Parliament (MP), previously best known for falling asleep in committee and referring to Nelson Mandela as a ‘terrorist’, has promised to use his new role as a member of the House of Commons standing joint committee on scrutiny of regulations to repeal strict firearms control provision established by the Chretien government in the mid-nineties.

In 1995, Allan Rock, then Attorney-General and MP for Etobicoke Centre, passed Bill C-68, requiring owners of firearms to lock and safely store the guns when not in use. The legislation also forced owners of restricted and/or prohibited firearms to obtain authorization-to-transport papers before taking them to a range, and established a more restrictive classification system. After a movement by Anders, committee and caucus colleague, Garry Breitkreuz, MP for Yorkton-Melville, the joint committee will review these regulations.

In my opinion, this is a cause for concern for Torontonians that support stiff firearms controls. Should Anders and Breitkruez succeed in their attempts to repeal such regulations (the party affiliations of committee members suggests they will), firearms will be all the easier to obtain in a city that is still recovering from 2005's ‘summer of the gun.’

There are many that frame this as a debate of ownership rights. Frankly, it is difficult to disagree with this assessment. It would not be appropriate to frame all firearms owners as criminals - many are collectors, many are target or sport shooters, some are even Olympians. It was in this line of thinking that, after raising the question of firearms ownership on Twitter ,I received comments such as, ‘I use my great grandfather’s guns. They do not belong on a list that would confiscate family heirlooms' (paraphrased). It may be difficult for most to disagree with this perspective; but, it must be noted that there are dangers inherent to firearms ownership. Rational owners will tell you this. The aforementioned regulations are important, as they prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands. The long-gun registry is gone, but if these regulations do remain, hopefully Torontonians will not have to fear firearms finding their way into the wrong person’s hands.


[As published in the WomensPost.ca.]

Tuesday 24 April 2012

Gun Control in Toronto

Some in Toronto might recall the issue of gun control arising during the 2010 general election. At the time then candidate Rob Ford stood alone amongst mayoral candidates in opposing the now defunct national long-gun registry; which would represent a divergence from the consensus opinion in Toronto. However, it may not represent a divergence from opinion nation-wide. In the name of full-disclosure it should be stated that I have personally long supported a firearms registry while opposing sport hunting as a matter of principle. But in preparing to write this I have found that my perspective, while commonplace in Toronto, is not so across this country. It is for this reason that I have concerns about changes that members of the current federal government are attempting to make to the Canada’s firearms ownership laws.
Rob Anders, a Calgary Member of Parliament (MP) previously best known for falling asleep in committee and referring to Nelson Mandela as a ‘terrorist’, has promised to use his new role as a member of the House of Commons standing joint committee on scrutiny of regulations to repeal strict firearms control provision established by the Chretien government in the mid-nineties.

In 1995 Allan Rock, then Attorney-General and MP for Etobicoke Centre, passed Bill C-68; requiring owners of firearms to lock and safely store the guns when not in use. The legislation also forced owners of restricted and/or prohibited firearms to obtain authorization-to-transport papers before taking them to a range, and established a more restrictive classification system. After a movement by Anders committee and caucus colleague Garry Breitkreuz, MP for Yorkton-Melville, the joint committee will review these regulations.

This should be a cause for concern amongst Torontonians that support stiff firearms controls. Should Anders and Breitkruez succeed in their attempts to repeal such regulations (the party affiliations of committee members suggests they will) firearms will be all the easier to obtain in a city that is still recovering from 2005’s ‘summer of the gun.’

There are many that frame this as a debate of ownership rights. Frankly, it is difficult to disagree with this assessment. It would not be appropriate to frame all firearms owners as criminals. Many are collectors. Many are target or sport shooters. Some are even Olympians. It was in this line of thinking that after raising the question of firearms ownership on Twitter I received comments such as, ‘I use my great grandfather’s guns. They do not belong on a list that would confiscate family heirlooms. (paraphrased)’ It may be difficult for most to disagree with this perspective. But is must be noted that there are dangers in firearm ownership. Rational owners will tell you this. The aforementioned regulations are important, as they prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands. The long-gun registry is gone, but if these regulations do remain hopefully Torontonians will not have to fear firearms finding their way into the wrong person’s hands.

[Originally published at Examiner.com Gun Control in Toronto - Toronto City News | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-control-toronto#ixzz1sxgmdYdl]

Sunday 22 April 2012

Is the DRL the Answer?

It seems the prospect of a downtown relief line (DRL) is back on the table in the City of Toronto. But is it here to stay?

Since talk of connecting Toronto’s west, south, and east ends via subway began in the early 1900s supporters of the DRL have had little success. The presence of a key ally could make this time around different. Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) CEO, Andy Byford, has come out in favour of the construction of a new DRL, referring to it as a “priority” for the City of Toronto. In defense of his position Byford has recruited Ed Levy, an independent transportation consultant and city planner in Toronto.

Levy advocates directing subway development to the city’s core, where there is a justifiable density. He has stated, “The downtown is starving, and it is being served by the oldest, most constricted stations in the city.” He dismisses arguments that downtowners can walk or utilize streetcars as, “ludicrous.” And he is correct. Advocate of the DRL; and former mayoral candidate, Sarah Thomson, explains: “Downtown Toronto is the heart of our city, but it is clogged with congestion that spreads out to the other main arteries. Building a relief line that takes people east and west under the congestion from Etobicoke to Scarborough will benefit the entire city – the other arteries won’t run smoothly if the heart is clogged.”

Given the transit plans of York Region and GO Transit, it would only be natural to construct an underground transit line east-west near to the water front and north-south back up to Bloor. Included in these developments was a 25-year plan put forward by Metrolinx, which suggests a DRL that runs southwest from Danforth Avenue past Union Station, concluding at a secondary station near Exhibition Place. However, I suggest we be far more ambitious. A DRL could go up into Scarborough and Etobicoke. This would be a way for people from Scarborough and Etobicoke to get downtown without having to venture all the way to Yonge Street.

It may be that the DRL is too downtown-focused and a name that reflects the inclusive nature of the line like the ‘City Loop’ might be a better way to convey the real benefits a line like this will bring to the entire city.

The only problem lies in the cost of the project. Estimated to be a minimum of $4 billion (an extremely conservative estimate); this was the predicted cost of the proposed Sheppard line. The fact of the matter is that this money is not available. The current administration will again need to demonstrate a willingness to impose new revenue tools as a means to pay for its subway dreams. However, following the abandonment of a previous attempt to do just that; the possibility seems unlikely. Worse; it does appear that the city will continue without a fully serviceable transit system that actually meets the future needs and density of a world class city. But with the partisan ‘no-tax’ attitudes limiting the agenda, the practical and long-term needs of Toronto will fall victim. A recent motion for a focused study on financing options (written in part by Sarah Thomson) was moved by Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon and passed during the heated LRT debate with only one dissenting vote. Proving that even under fire, there is common ground and offering hope to a divided council.

This is where citizens of Toronto come in. If you live, work, or travel in Toronto; a DRL in to your benefit. Call or email your local councillor to ask them to work with the Mayor and TTC to make the DRL or ‘City Loop’ a reality. This can be done. Toronto needs an administration with the political will to make it happen.


[Originally posted at WomensPost.ca.]

Tuesday 10 April 2012

More news in Harper waste

And so the beat goes on... The Ottawa Citizen - a paper generally on side with the Harper Government - has uncovered costs to the taxpayer of legal preceding pertaining to the 'in-and-out' scandal. The specifics of this issue are rather small when compared to other ballooning costs and other questions regarding the Harper Government's defense of democracy. But what this does represent is the utter distaste this government has for actually implementing a policy of frugality. They have used costs to rationalize their agenda on issues like the gun registry or the Canadian Wheat Board (an issue I actually agreed with them on), but that was never their concern. These issues fall under their agenda of capital-C Canadian Conservatism. But the reality is there is very little that is actually 'conservative' about it. Add this $2.3 million to the ever expanding budget of the federal government.

In three years time we can expect the Harper Government to portray itself as the steady hand on the tiller. But the reality has been the largest, most expensive, most intrusive government in Canadian history.

Saturday 7 April 2012

Developments in the City’s Negotiations with CUPE 79

With CUPE Local 79 rejecting the City’s latest offer it would be best to examine exactly where the city and CUPE stand at this point time. First; a little bit of context. Local 79 represents the City’s inside workers; literally referring to employees that work inside. After weeks of negotiations, the City put forth a ‘final’ offer. Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday has refused any further discussion on the matter. With that in mind, Local 79 has not ruled out a strike should a deal fail to be reached. A strike has the potential to put the city to a standstill. However, it does appear a tentative deal has been reached by the negotiating teams. Terms of the deal have not been disclosed and City Council and Local 79 still have to ratify it.

But let us break down the most recent deal. There are three primary points of contention. First, regarding the issue of job security, the City wants to protect only permanent workers with fifteen years or more seniority from contracting out. Local 79 have countered with a request of protection for those with ten years service; which would be 70% of the local. This is the same proportion of members given protection under the City’s previous deal with Local 416, the City’s outside workers.

Secondly, there is the issue of sick time. The City is proposing docking employees a day’s pay for every fourth sick day taken. Local 79 is requesting to put this restriction on hold in favour of independent action to curb absenteeism, which would be the same deal given to Local 416.

And finally, is the issue of mileage. This refers to distance travelled in an employee’s own vehicle while working. The City is offering to reimburse members of the union $0.52 per kilometre for the first 5,000 kilometres and $0.46 per kilometre thereafter. Local 416 did agree to this provision. Local 79 has refused to.

However, it’s not all bad news. There are a number of issues in to which Local 79 and the City have come to agreement. On the issue of salary there is an agreement of a 0% raise in 2012; a 0.5% raise plus a 1.5% lump sum in 2013; a 1.75% raise in 2014; and a 2.25% raise in 2015. The fact that such an agreement was reached shows responsibility being taken by both the City and the union. It is encouraging to see that, on this very important issue, both parties were able to find common ground. With respect to the drug plan, members of Local 79 will now pay $9.00 per prescription as a dispensing fee. Concerning the issue of leaves of absence, the City has capitulated to the union’s demand for a child and elder care leave policy.

The fact that both parties have demonstrated an ability to negotiate a potential contract during this affair demonstrates a progressive vision on the parts of both the City and the union. It is a breath of fresh air in the usually polarized hot air at council.

The tentative deal will be debated in Council today.


[Originally posted at WomensPost.ca.]