I recently had a situation where one of the cheques I wrote bounced. Happens. But what I discovered as a result shocked and upset me.

They’re charging me $42.50 for a bounced cheque!

For starters, I wanted to know who I could contact about my bank. I visited the OBSI website and discovered that my institution decided it just simply didn’t want to participate anymore. According to OBSI, this means:

Unfortunately, some financial services providers are not covered by an ombudsman service.You may have to contact a government department or regulator if you are dealing with a mortgage broker, insurance broker, financial planner or other service which is not covered by an ombudsman.  Some resources to help you can be found in our Useful Websites.

Didn’t help much except to give me the TD Ombudsman’s email address. So I shot off an email:

Hello Mr. XXX,

I’ve recently managed to run into an NSF situation with my chequing account due to an error on my part. I noticed that the NSF fee has been increased to $42.50, a sum I don’t recall ever being informed about. In regards to NSF fees, I have a couple of questions and a complaint to make:

Questions

1. How does BANK determine the fee of $42.50? This value seems incredibly high and fairly arbitrary considering most of the clearing process is completely automated (it would seem that the only costs incurred would be for the electricity consumed and perhaps the decreasing cost of the computer equipment involved).
2. What is BANK’s responsibility in informing customers in NSF fee increases? And what are the repercussions to BANK for simply arbitrarily setting any fees it likes – what laws govern this? I’m presuming the standard placations that BANK “wouldn’t do that” (a need to retain customers, fairness, etc. etc.), but given that this is precisely what is being done, not to mention my own experiences and knowledge working behind the scenes at financial transaction networks, I would appreciate a forthright explanation.

Complaint

Banks, including BANK (I believe), currently charge the depositor for NSF as well ($20 is my understanding). This fee seems exceptionally egregious since the depositor has absolutely no control over what funds may or may not be in the cheque issuer’s account. This is similar to mobile phone companies who had been charging customers for receiving text messages – when there is no option or ability to refuse – or even know about impending charges — the courts have found such behaviour to be unlawful and has resulted in large fines. From my point of view, the banks seem to be engaging in this practice as well, and it becomes worse when it’s done by a bank where both the cheque issuer and the depositor both have an account – the bank is in the sole position to know that a cheque will be returned NSF and allows for no recourse, thereby seemingly simply taking money from account holders as it likes. And after exacting such exorbitant fees, the bank does not see fit to offer any services that might benefit their customers in such situations, seemingly chalking up the money extracted as nothing more than profits to be shared among shareholders. Is this accurate? And if it’s not, please offer an explanation.

I have a few other points of contention with bank operations but I would like to start with these.

Thanks for your time and attention.

 

Sincerely,
Patrick Bay

In hindsight I realized I’d unintentionally fibbed a bit — I do get notices that my bank account is being changed, by mail — but it still seems pretty unsavoury that they can just up their fees (note how they never go down), at any time by simply telling you they’re going to do it. It’s kind of like making theft legal so long as the robber lets you know he’ll be dropping by next Tuesday.

And I do feel pretty strongly about calling it theft based on the escalating NSF fees that banks charge, not only to me, but more to the person on the receiving end. Seriously, $20 for receiving a cheque that bounces? As I point out in my letter, mobile carriers did this to consumers with text messages, and the law wisely said that we can’t possibly held accountable for something that’s completely out of our control and even knowledge.

In any event, I can’t help but feel jaded by the knowledge that even though we have a Consumer Protection Act, financial services and banks seem to be completely omitted from it (a.k.a. they’re the only business that the CPA doesn’t really want you to know about). And, sadly, the Bank Act doesn’t do a whole heck of a lot on protecting customers either, though it does spell out all sort of insane rights that no individual would ever have.

Yes, it’s true that I did work behind the scenes at a financial transaction network and saw exactly where most of the bank fees go — into the bankers’ pockets. I sure as heck didn’t get rich working there, and on an average night, a financial institution would walk away with between $1000 to $2000 in pure profit (after I’d been paid, rent was covered, etc.) And this was a tiny side-network of small credit unions that were connected to Interac and decades ago; I can’t imagine the level of skimming on just standard transaction on any given day on something like the whole Interac network or Plus today.

Do you remember what the banks promised to everyone when ATMs were just starting to be rolled out to the public? “Oh, it’ll make things cheaper! Now you won’t have to pay for a teller and all of your transactions will be much smaller!” Yeah, $1.50 to $3.00 a transaction — MUCH cheaper. That was just the beginning of the wholesale lie.

When banks complain that they’re the most regulated industry out there, maybe it’s because they need to be. Maybe because they’re the most crooked, the most in need of control. Maybe as consumers we need take control back since the government seems only too happy to give it away, and the banks are only too happy to abuse it.

The group is called Re:Sound, and here’s just a smattering of the bullshit they’re peddling (from their website):

You may not be aware that you need a licence to use music in your business, but it is your responsibility to get the right licence(s) if you are playing music in public. Licences are also required by public and commercial broadcasters.

Not entirely true. There is at least one exceptions in the Copyright Act where you can “use music” in your business without being harassed by yet another copyright goon squad:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-48.html#docCont

In respect of public performances by means of any radio receiving set in any place other than a theatre that is ordinarily and regularly used for entertainments to which an admission charge is made, no royalties shall be collectable from the owner or user of the radio receiving set, but the Board shall, in so far as possible, provide for the collection in advance from radio broadcasting stations of royalties appropriate to the conditions produced by the provisions of this subsection and shall fix the amount of the same.

In other words, if you are playing music through a radio or over a web station, the station is already paying tariffs so you don’t have to. But what does that matter? They can claim that you owe them cash even if you’re just playing music over a boombox while having a picnic in the park with friends:

G. PARKS, STREETS AND OTHER PUBLIC AREAS

Application

1. (1) This tariff sets the royalties to be paid for the performance in public or the communication to the public by telecommunication of published sound recordings embodying musical works and performers’ performances of such works in the repertoire of Re:Sound in parks, streets and other public areas.

Interestingly, there are a series of stipulations in Canadian copyright law called “fair dealing” which exempts people from being harassed. Funny how Re:Sound makes no mention of these:

It is important to clarify some general considerations about exceptions to copyright infringement. Procedurally, a defendant is required to prove that his or her dealing with a work has been fair; however, the fair dealing exception is perhaps more properly understood as an integral part of the Copyright Act than simply a defence. Any act falling within the fair dealing exception will not be an infringement of copyright. The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user’s right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users’ interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively.

1. The Purpose of the Dealing Is it for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting? It expresses that “these allowable purposes should not be given a restrictive interpretation or this could result in the undue restriction of users’ rights.” In particular, the Court gave a “a large and liberal interpretation” to the notion of research, stating that “lawyers carrying on the business of law for profit are conducting research”.
2. The Character of the Dealing How were the works dealt with? Was there a single copy or were multiple copies made? Were these copies distributed widely or to a limited group of people? Was the copy destroyed after being used? What is the general practice in the industry?
3. The Amount of the Dealing How much of the work was used? What was the importance of the infringed work? Quoting trivial amounts may alone sufficiently establish fair dealing as there would not be copyright infringement at all. In some cases even quoting the entire work may be fair dealing. The amount of the work taken must be fair in light of the purpose of the dealing.
4. Alternatives to the Dealing Was a “non-copyrighted equivalent of the work” available to the user? Was the dealing “reasonably necessary to achieve the ultimate purpose”?
5. The Nature of the Work Copying from a work that has never been published could be more fair than from a published work “in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work – one of the goals of copyright law. If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair.”
6. Effect of the Dealing on the Work Is it likely to affect the market of the original work? “Although the effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair.”

When I mention “yet another” copyright good squad, that’s because this new body is looking to charge people for the same thing that an already existing group, SOCAN, is doing:

Re:Sound and SOCAN are distinct organisations that represent different groups and as such, both are required to be compensated.

But while it’s claimed that these are two “distinct organizations”, the law gives them right to squeal on you to each other:

(2) Re:Sound may share information referred to in subsection (1)

1. (a) in connection with the collection of royalties or the enforcement of a tariff, with SOCAN;

Just like that, the Intellectual Property mafia come along and double your monthly “protection” fees.

And just like any other organization in who’s debt you are simply for existing, they’re ready to charge you interest until you cough up the dough:

Interest on Late Payments

7. Any amount not received by the due date shall bear interest from that date until the date the amount is received. Interest shall be calculated daily, at a rate equal to one per cent above the Bank Rate effective on the last day of the previous month (as published by the Bank of Canada). Interest shall not compound.

Particularly troubling is the section of the Copyright Act that says that bodies like Re:Sound are required to compensate artists if they happen to be collecting tariffs for their works, even if they don’t represent them and have no claim to the copyright:

Claims by non-members

• 76. (1) An owner of copyright who does not authorize a collective society to collect, for that person’s benefit, royalties referred to in paragraph 31(2)(d) is, if the work is communicated to the public by telecommunication during a period when an approved tariff that is applicable to that kind of work is effective, entitled to be paid those royalties by the collective society that is designated by the Board, of its own motion or on application, subject to the same conditions as those to which a person who has so authorized that collective society is subject.

• Marginal note:Royalties that may be recovered

  (2) An owner of copyright who does not authorize a collective society to collect, for that person’s benefit, royalties referred to in subsection 29.6(2) or 29.7(2) or (3) is, if such royalties are payable during a period when an approved tariff that is applicable to that kind of work or other subject-matter is effective, entitled to be paid those royalties by the collective society that is designated by the Board, of its own motion or on application, subject to the same conditions as those to which a person who has so authorized that collective society is subject.

• Marginal note:Exclusion of remedies

  (3) The entitlement referred to in subsections (1) and (2) is the only remedy of the owner of the copyright for the payment of royalties for the communication, making of the copy or sound recording or performance in public, as the case may be.

In other words, if these organizations are collecting tariffs on your music, you can demand to be paid for that “service”. However, that’s all you can do. So, the organization can collect money on music that they have absolutely no rights to, and you, as owner of the music, have no other remedies. Read that section again if you don’t believe me.

It’s a messed up way of claiming the right to collect money on your music without claiming direct ownership over it — though the difference is the same if the law claims you can’t restrict someone from collecting money on your own works.

To put it another way, the very “crimes” that these organizations are supposed to be preventing are what they are basically being welcomed to engage in — by law. And if it so happens that you don’t know your music is being milked by Re:Sound for the benefit of their “partners”, too bad. And even if you do, too bad. They get to charge money for all music everywhere, and you’d better like it. You might get paid … eventually.

Of course, if it turns out you underpaid the copyright mafia, they reserve the right to get all up in your business and force you to cough up and pay at any time for a period of up to 6 years back; and, of course, if they ripped you off, there exists no provision to protect you in the same way:

Records and Audits

4. (1) A person subject to this tariff shall keep and preserve, for a period of six years after the end of the year to which they relate, records from which that person’s payment under this tariff can be readily ascertained.

(2) Re:Sound may audit these records at any time during the period set out in subsection (1), on reasonable notice and during normal business hours.

(3) Re:Sound shall, upon receipt, supply a copy of the report of the audit to the person who was the subject of the audit.

(4) If an audit discloses that the royalties owed to Re:Sound during any reporting period have been understated by more than ten per cent, the subject of the audit shall pay the amount of the understatement and the reasonable costs of the audit within 30 days of the demand for such payment.

Do you suppose you get to charge Re:Sound interest if it turns out they’ve been charging people for playing your music for years without your permission?

And if you don’t think that the copyright goon squad will play nice and fair, there are plenty of recent examples demonstrating that they have absolutely no intention of doing that.

Originally posted at: http://patrickbay.ca/blog/?p=3527

Don’t think so?

Let’s look at the facts.

First he starts making plans for the 2014 election, presumably because he’s given up.

Then he invites others to run against his opponents in the same election, presumably because he’s given up.

Then he scales back on his election promise to privatize garbage collection until the same 2014 election, presumably because he’s given up.

Then a leaked letter reveals he’s stopped planning for the next two years and instead wants to start again after the 2014 election, presumably because he’s given up.

Then he shows Canada what “champion” he is by waffling out of his weight loss program week after week, presumably because he’s given up.

Not necessarily in this order, but you get the idea.

Now the Toronto Star reveals that RoFo has cut his Mayorly activities by over 60%, presumably because he’s given up.

Here’s a smattering of his absentee agenda:

In January 2012, Ford averaged 11 meetings a week compared with 33 in January 2011, his first full month as mayor. In February 2012, he had 15 meetings scheduled each week, compared with an average of 34 a year earlier.

…

According to sources that include former and current staff, Ford often does not leave his home until noon. His itineraries indicate that daily staff briefings are held at about 9:30 a.m., but on those late days, the sources say, Ford participates by phone or not at all. Some days he never appears in his office. Ford has always spent much of his time outside the walls of city hall, doing his famous one-on-one constituency work, but even that has dropped off drastically.

…

The mayor routinely doesn’t show up for long-scheduled events and meetings with officials. On Wednesday, Councillor Peter Milczyn had to step in for him at a VIA Rail speaking engagement. He has cancelled five of the last nine weekly weigh-ins — often the only time Ford takes media questions for the week — including one on Tuesday.

On numerous occasions, Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday, the mayor’s brother, Doug Ford, or other close allies have been called upon at the last minute to meet foreign dignitaries or visiting officials. Holyday said there have been only “a couple of times” where he’s had less than an hour’s notice and that, as deputy mayor, it’s his job to fill this role.

The mayor was supposed to meet his Calgary counterpart, Naheed Nenshi, at an event held at the Corus building on Sept. 20, but Ford never showed up.

Ford also hasn’t held a formal meeting with many prominent Toronto leaders in more than a year, including United Way Toronto CEO Susan McIsaac, Board of Trade president Carol Wilding, Ryerson University president Sheldon Levy or CivicAction’s CEO, Mitzie Hunter. He has never attended a Federation of Canadian Municipalities event.

…

Ford’s own committee chairs don’t regularly meet directly with the mayor to discuss policy. For example, Norm Kelly, who chairs the parks and environment committee, says the mayor is very accessible, although he concedes that the last specific formal meeting he can remember was during Occupy Toronto, which was last November.

Ford’s cadre of yes-men continue to defend him, claiming that he helps out people on a one-to-one basis:

Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, one of his staunchest supporters, said looking at the mayor’s itinerary alone doesn’t speak for the work he does.

“The reality is he does a lot of spontaneous work. If constituents call, he’s on it. So you won’t see that on his schedule. He calls people back on a regular basis, and I know he does that.”

There’s only one problem with that kind of thing (assuming it’s true); in a city of 2.5 million people, he would necessarily have to pick and choose who to help. To help each one equally, he would have to be responding to about 1,700 calls a day, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

To believe that he can adequately do this is clearly insane, yet this is the excuse that Rob Ford uses for not performing his duties as Mayor. Not to mention that, even if the excuse is actually true, Ford has to pick and choose which of his buddies and allies get his attention, and based on his “I hate all charity” agenda, those would would probably be the same petty dictators and millionaire corporate hobnobs who hang out in his back yard.

Clearly Rob Ford doesn’t understand what a Mayor’s job is, and it’s exactly why he shouldn’t have one.

—

By the way, Sarah and I are forming a little group to get the wheels moving on Rob Ford’s ouster. We’re meeting at a central downtown location tonight to get some initial ideas together — if you’d like to drop by at the next one (most likely over drinks), please drop me a line and I’ll send you the details.

Rob Ford, Dalton McGuinty, and Stephen Harper are all into the austerity game. Oh yeah, we all lived way beyond our means and it’s time to start paying back!

Except guess what…it’s an unbelievable scam being perpetrated by the big banks that’s bankrupting our economy, not any of our social programs, our schools, our libraries, our garbage collection…

I think it’s about time to start electing politicians that will:

a) Tell the goddam truth about where our money is really going
b) Stand up to the banking cartels (let’s not mince words, they are criminal enterprises)

If you’re not quite sure, have a gander at this documentary. All the numbers and facts are correct, and none of the stinking politicians seem in the slightest interested in fixing it.

Thanks to Judge Spiers for injecting some sanity and exonerating Byron Sonne from all charges. The courts, it seems, still provide a level of protection against police abuse. So to that end, good! However, despite being cleared of any wrongdoing, Byron has lost a year of his life, his wife, his house… again I ask what prevents the police from destroying an innocent man’s life like this in the future? What good is a flacid recognition of injustice after the fact?

Hard to know where to begin on the recent report by the RCMP exonerating itself (surprise surprise) of any wrongdoing during the G20 summit here in Toronto. How about responsibility, for starters. Well, you all remember the infamous kettling incident where the police just rounded up everyone walking through the street, encircled them, and kept them standing in the rain for hours? Who was responsible for that again?

Bill Blair said, yeah, the Toronto Police gave the orders:

“I do acknowledge the operational command decisions were being made by a Toronto police superintendant who was the operational commander at the time here in Toronto,” he said.

How very interesting, considering the RCMP report claims that they were calling the shots.

 The RCMP assumed the role of security lead by authority of the G8 Summit Privileges and Immunities Order, 2010-2, and the G20 Summit Privileges and Immunities Order, 2010. These orders created the legal basis for Canada to host the Summits and, accordingly, provided the RCMP with authority pursuant to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act to take the lead role for security of the events.

The decision makers for the G8, in descending order, were the Executive Steering Committee, the UCC Commander, the Area Commander and the Site Commander. POUcommanders, if deployed, were given authority to make decisions with respect to the tactics and equipment to be used during time-sensitive operational situations. A similar matrix was created for the G20, but an added level of Jurisdictional Commander, e.g. the MICC Commander, appeared below Site Commander to reflect the addition of the MICC.

When asked what his [ISU’s Lead] expectations were of the UCC Commander and the TACC Commander in this situation, the ISU Lead stated that he would only expect the UCC Commander to get involved if there had been a strategic need to do so (e.g. need for additional resources). The ISU Lead was clear that the kettling was a tactical decision—that is to say, it was made by the Toronto Police Service.

Even more interesting is the claim that the RCMP broke their own rules in kettling protesters:

The RCMP reluctantly participated in kettling protesters at the G20 riots in Toronto in 2010, under orders from the local police, even though the controversial crowd-control technique is not part of the Mounties’ playbook.

So right out of the gate we have the Toronto Police claiming to give orders to the RCMP while the RCMP claims it was in charge (a number of times), and then admitting to using tactics contrary to its own “playbook”. The a TPS tactical decision overrides the RCMP’s stated policies? And who’s in charge again?

Moreover, it is the RCMP stated policy “always” to give crowds a way out.

Then there’s the back-pedaling being done on Bill Blair’s secret law (suddenly and without warning applying it to half of downtown Toronto , even when many people directly asked, certainly made it “secret”):

Documentation provided to the Commission indicates that the Public Works Protection Act regulation was enacted in response to concerns expressed by the Toronto Police Service that officers would not be able to demand identification from those wishing to enter the area in which the Summit was taking place.

“Wishing to enter”? Funny, that’s not how it was either interpreted or enforced. In fact, the law says a few different things that don’t coincide:

Powers of guard or peace officer

3.A guard or peace officer,

(a) may require any person entering or attempting to enter any public work or any approach thereto to furnish his or her name and address, to identify himself or herself and to state the purpose for which he or she desires to enter the public work, in writing or otherwise;

(b) may search, without warrant, any person entering or attempting to enter a public work or a vehicle in the charge or under the control of any such person or which has recently been or is suspected of having been in the charge or under the control of any such person or in which any such person is a passenger; and

(c) may refuse permission to any person to enter a public work and use such force as is necessary to prevent any such person from so entering. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55, s. 3.

There was no provision for arrest if you didn’t “show your papers” simply walking around the fence, even though that’s exactly what the cops did, even though it’s obvious that this really only applied to people wanting to get inside the “Public Works” area. There’s also a lesser-known tidbit from around that time:

The Integrated Security Unit, comprised of security bodies including the Toronto police, RCMP and OPP, were concerned that lawyers were advising radical activist groups that police have limited right to question, identify and detain individuals near the fenced secure area downtown, Mukherjee said.

Blair made the request after ISU members decided extending the powers in the act, which covers buildings including Union Station and Toronto police headquarters, to the G20 fence, he said.

“The decision makers felt that a clearer articulation of what those limits are would be useful. It was not chief Blair alone. It was the ISU,” said [Police Services Board chair] Alok Mukherjee.

How about that? The RCMP claims in their report it was Toronto Police Services alone that “expressed concern” (i.e. wanted to terrorize people on the street without warrant), yet articles from that time show the RCMP (and the OPP) were in on the push for the secret law right from the get-go.

One of the more blatant lies maintained in the RCMP report is that police acted in good faith by “pre-arresting” people before they had a chance to cause trouble at the G20:

During the lead up to the commencement of the [G20] Summit, intelligence led threat assessments will be prepared by the Joint Intelligence Group (JIG). These reports will document threat levels relating to terrorism threats and planned protest threats.

The ongoing intelligence from these reports will have an impact on the deployment of human and material resources, where the potential for confrontation between protestors and police personnel are likely to occur. G20 Operations personnel conducted Vulnerability Risk Assessments in Toronto in December 2009 of the proposed venue, airport and hotels.

All “targeting” will be based upon criminal predicate: Suspects will be determined based upon their proven willingness, capacity and intention to commit criminal acts and/or create situations that pose public safety concerns.

The RCMP conclusion:

Finding No. 8: The JIG appropriately identified and assessed criminal threats to the Summits.

That a fact? Of the 70 or so pre-arrests that were “appropriately identified and assessed criminal threats”, how many of the charges stuck? Literally none. In fact, this was pretty much par for the course during all police actions during the G20, yet the cops managed to completely miss actual trouble-makers, and this more than once.

These are just three examples in the report. I haven’t even read the whole thing and already I’m finding the stench of bullshit unbearable. If you’re willing to hold your nose long enough and find more “inconsistencies”, I’d love to hear from you and append them here. I’m sure it’s filled with examples of this kind of crap which the mainstream media are missing in favour of easy-to-read, highlighted admissions of failure.

The Star is reporting today that a newly found budget surplus, nearly double previous estimates, will be used to pay for streetcars purchased by Miller’s administration. While the surplus is bigger than expected (even though pretty much everyone but the Ford administration knew it), it’s worthwhile to note how the Fordites are continuing their divisive propaganda by trying to suggest the decisions behind the budget are Council’s fault:

“Council directed that the surplus be directed to capital purchases and specifically the new TTC streetcar order,” Milczyn said.

Except, guess what?

FORD WANTS TO USE SURPLUS TO PAY FOR STREETCARS…while some councillors are suggesting the surplus cash be used to stop other budget cuts, Ford echoed Budget Chief Mike Del Grande’s stance that the surplus should be put into the city’s cash-strapped capital budget…Mark Towhey, Ford’s director of policy, stressed Thursday that the city has to put a portion of the 2011 budget surplus towards the capital budget, particularly the TTC’s fleet of new streetcars.

So Fordo and his cadre get the surplus wrong, and then they go and point fingers at Council when in reality they themselves directly spearheaded the push for spending the money this way. At this rate, they’ll probably be blaming the insistence on subways on Miller too (because they were Ford’s priorities since day one, of course).

To claim that certain right-wing Toronto Councillors are criminals is no longer a question, certainly not when they come right and admit it.

Giorgio Mamolitti has now shown utmost contempt for the democratic process, the law, common sense, and everything else he has sworn to uphold as a Toronto Councillor and has now publicly stated that he will do everything he can, including breaking the law, in order to prevent the democratically decided-upon plan to build LRTs.

This goes way beyond the mere infantile screaming and pounding of fists of the kind that Ford is doing, and even beyond the wholesale contempt that the Ford gang are showing for democracy and any semblance of common sense. I mean, it was bad enough that Fordo voted for Transit City, then illegally cancelled it when taking power, and then got all huffy and puffy trying to have it reinstated while simultaneously slagging the original plan. What that demonstrated was that Rob Ford’s plan was all about doing things his way and his way only.

That was bad enough.

It was worse that at the eleventh hour, the idiots Ford depended on other Councillors to put forward bullshit funding proposals, no doubt because such ideas went directly against each end every election promise that His Engorgedness made, and all because they had absolutely no plan, no backers, and no clue to back up their subway plan. They couldn’t even pull some ideas of the Transit City plan that Fordo killed, presumably because he can’t read.

And despite months of lies and rhetoric, none of Ford’s imaginary backroom deals with developers and his “public-private partnership funding” ever materialized, despite His Portliness vowing to do “whatever it takes” to win over opinions. I guess “whatever it takes” means “absolutely nothing”, and certainly with no basis in reality. In fact, to this date Ford has not managed to produce a single voice of support except for his Council lapdogs and his scumbag buddies at the Toronto Taxpayers Coalition who regularly take to telling anyone with any contrary ideas to “fuck off” and not-so-subtle threats of cutting off of heads — my own personal experience and certainly not preceded with any similar abuse. All 30 or so of them, clearly a fair and accurate representation of all “Toronto taxpayers” (a designation which, according to them, no one else belongs to).

Then Fatty and his cadre of myopic morons resorted to threatening various levels of government with his non-existent “Ford Nation” (more than once), which, of course, turned out to be just more unadulterated bullshit and hot air, while always taking the time to blame everyone but the overweight master for a complete inability to get anything done at City Hall. Clearly no other mayor ever got anything done, so that’s a fair argument, and Ford’s tenure as a Councillor of 10 years means he couldn’t possibly have an idea of how anything works. Yeah, they actually believe and defend this!

If this wasn’t bad enough, Ford fired the chief general manager of the Toronto Transit Commission for, literally, telling the truth and stating that he thought, in his professional opinion and many years on the job, that LRTs were simply the better choice given all the circumstances, all in a weaselly move hastily pulled behind the back of the chair of the Toronto Transit Commission while she was on vacation.

All of this nonsense, including Ford’s insistence on removing revenue sources like the relatively tiny Vehicle Registration Tax (saving the taxpayer a whopping $0.16 per day), or removing bicycle lanes on Jarvis Street, or the firing of Gary Webster, have easily and at the very least doubled the deficit that Ford vowed with haughty huffs and fat-stifled breaths to get rid of during his election campaign which, of course, he blamed on the preceding administration but which he clearly pulled straight of his voluminous ass.

No, that’s not all bad enough; now ass-licking minion Mammoliti has vowed that despite all of this, he is not only willing to stand behind his puffy master (a dangerous place to be in any event), but has openly and publicly stated that he, like Rob Ford, doesn’t give a shit about what the democratic majority decided, and is in fact willing to break the law in order to get what he wants. Why? Because his constituents (none of which have materialized, of course), have told him this. No doubt just like Rob Ford’s multitudes of subway supporters, which numerous media outlets have substantiated (to be a complete lie).

Folks, it’s become increasingly obvious what’s going on here: we have a handful of Councillors who are attempting to illegally usurp power at City Hall and destroy the democratic process in order to push their dystopian vision of a corporate-run, Fascist (the most correct and apt adjective), city that they rule over like the bloated autocrats they believe themselves to be (do any of their actions say otherwise?). They’ve demonstrated time and time again that even when they outwardly claim to care about the opinions of citizens, they really don’t — just watch a few hours of the budget depositions of 2011 and see how many time Ford walks out and Mammoliti screams and shouts about how he’s being offended and how people need to listen to him.

We have a responsibility to keep these people in check and, should the time come, we have the power of citizens’ arrest specifically to address times when corruption has overrun our institutions, not to mention the moral responsibility to stand up and defend the highest laws of the land. I’m not suggesting braking the law or going against the authority of the police — in fact, my vehement hope is that the law applies equally to everyone and that justice is also served equally. But should that fail, we musn’t allow our democracy to be overrun by admitted criminals; that itself is a crime.

I just had to quote the asinine verbosity of Rob Ford on this one, it’s just so apt.

According to the Toronto Sun, the loosely named “conservative think tank” Fraser Institute came up with the conclusion that immigrants are a big burden on the economy, mentioning that businesses are “not taking advantage” of skilled workers (clearly not in any way due to the policies of the Conservatives, both local and federal), and offer one of the most brilliant solutions I’ve heard of in years: robots

Specifically, “Faced with an elderly population in need of care and a shortage of medical staff, Japanese inventors have created robots that dispense pills and help feed and bathe seniors in hospitals.” According to the “think tank”, Canada should be investing in robots so that all of our elderly parents can spend their remaining years staring into the loving eyes of a machine while being poked and prodded and force-fed drugs.

Thankfully, the Cons don’t want anyone abusing seniors. That’s their job. They suggest that Canada could fire a bunch of nurses and maybe even doctors, and practically take humanity out of the equation altogether. These are conservatives we’re talking about, so none of this is surprising, but it does set a new bar for callousness and coldness, even by their standards. There’s no doubt what conservatives prize above everything else, even life itself: cold hard cash.

“This increases productivity of people who design robots and run robots,” said Herbert Grubel, co-author of the Fraser report. “We’re preventing all of that from taking place.”

By “we”, of course, he means Harper’s government which, when spoken out loud, is pronounced “left-wing pinkos”. And the first part of the sentence would really only make sense if the robots were pre-programmed with some sort of culling instructions a la Terminator, which would certainly make the whole process much more efficient. Not sure how this is to create more jobs, unless of course all that freshly rendered human flesh clogs up the gears, but it sure would keep the robot servicing peons busy and productive.

And after that, who knows…maybe a new food product on the market along the lines of Soylent Green? Think of how many problems that would solve!

Unfortunately, the Toronto Sun spent more time extolling the virtues of big boobs and guns than pontificating on this topic, which was of course closed to comments (thinking’s hard), so we may never know what their own in-house “think tank” thinks about such fresh ideas, but I think we can extrapolate their collective opinion: Robots. That’s it.

Well, and now I’m feeling pretty good about telling Rob Ford, FUCK YOU too.

In case you hadn’t heard, fatty Ford and his gang of five Yes Men voted, in a hasty meeting thrown together while the TTC chair was on vacation, to fire Gary Webster, the TTC’s General Manager. Webster’s crime? Cutting back costs exactly as the mayor asked. Oh yeah, and providing an honest, professional report to both the mayor and Council (as reported on Goldhawk Live, Tuesday, February 21, 2012), about why Light Rail Transit makes more sense than subways in this city.

The mayor repressed this report until it was leaked to The Star, then moved to have it made “irrelevant” (revealed in the same Goldhawk episode), when presented to Council. Council voted in favour LRTs based on this advice (though I thought I heard about some subways in there too), which was obviously way too democractic and balanced for his Rotundness (by the way, it’s not “fatophobic” to call jerks like this exactly what they are, deal with it).

Well heaven forbid we should have experienced public servants give us honest and professional opinions on which direction to go in!

The little mayoral weasel, along with all of his little greasy buddies (there are only five people, six if you count his presstitute, cowardly enough to suck on Ford’s unmentionables), under the weakest premise of “subways were Rob Ford’s mandate!“, decided then that they would just do the most slimy, underhanded, dictatorial, undemocratic thing they could, called together that meeting, and fired Webster.

Webster ended up with roughly two years’ salary after decades of service. I’m not too worried about him — even Rob Ford had to concede that Webster “has served Toronto and the TTC well in his years of service.  He was an important element in the organization’s many successes to date and can proudly point to a list of accomplishments.” So, yeah, thanks for all your hard work and dedication, Webster, now fuck off because we need “change” (even though we have no replacement, i.e. a plan). Your “pal”, Rob Ford.

Well, if Webster can get fired for doing his job, why not Rob Ford and his cadre of grovelling dogs? Thankfully, I’m not the only one with that idea. And by the way, Ford and his buddies are snorting some serious white stuff if they continue the claim that subways were even a small part of his mandate. Here’s RoFo’s entire platform, as mercifully preserved on the WayBack Machine (http://web.archive.org/web/20100830155611/http://www.robfordformayor.ca/issues/). See if you can find the word “subway” anywhere in here:

Rob Ford on the Issues

Stopping the Waste and Getting Spending Under Control

Toronto has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

The City of Toronto’s budget has ballooned from $5.9 billion in 2000 to $9.2 billion in 2010 – plus a $2.4 billion capital budget.  The City is addicted to spending and the most important job for the incoming Mayor will be to get the City’s finances in order.

Downsize Council from 44 to 22 Councillors.

Toronto has 22 MPs, 22 MPPs and 22 School Trustees.  It only needs 22 City Councilors. Reducing Toronto City Council would make meetings more productive and save taxpayers about $9 million in direct costs (salary, benefits, expense accounts and staffing budgets.) Additional savings from a reduced burden on City Hall staff would equal at least $6 million each year.  There are too many politicians and not enough accountability.

Reduce Politicians’ Expense Accounts.

In addition to their salary of about $100,000 each Councillor receives a budget of $205,000 to hire staff plus a tax-free allowance of $53,100 for “other expenses.”  This budget is what Kyle Rae famously used to throw himself a $12,000 party with your money.

When Rob Ford is Mayor, he will reduce the politicians’ expense accounts to $30,000 (saving over $1 million per year) so that tax dollars are spent only on legitimate purposes.

Limiting the Mayor’s Office Budget.

Leadership starts at the top.  When Rob Ford is Mayor, he will also limit the expense accounts for the Mayor’s Office.  Decreasing the staffing and expenses budget by 20 percent will save the taxpayers about $512,000 per year.

Making Toronto a Better Place to Live

City Hall has been too focused on the pet projects and perks of politicians and not on the fundamental services that people, families and businesses rely on every day.  These essential services are necessary to make Toronto a more livable city.  As Mayor, Rob Ford will take the following necessary steps to make Toronto a better place to live:

Protecting Our Children and Communities.

100 additional frontline police officers will be hired giving Toronto Police enough new officers to:

o    Protect Children in Schools.  30 additional School Resource Officers will double the number of schools protected by this successful program. By introducing police officers to youth in a positive environment, students are less likely to take a negative view of police and more likely to seek help for issues before they reach a violent stage.

o    Target Gangs, Guns & Violence in More Communities.  70 additional frontline officers will support an expansion of the successful Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy (TAVIS) targeting gangs and violence in priority neighborhoods year-round.  This will more than double the number of officers currently available for TAVIS Rapid Response Teams.

Funding for this initiative ($15 million per year) will not be taken from within the existing TPS budget.  It represents additional funding in two phases.  From 2014 onwards, funding will be in addition to current TPS resources and come from savings accrued through the reduction of City Council from 44 to 22 Councillors.  Until Council is reduced in size, funding will be in addition to current TPS resources and come from a 0.1 per cent reduction in other (non-policing) city spending.

Making Garbage Collection Reliable.

Garbage and other solid wastes must be collected on schedule, without fail.  The strike during the summer of 2009 put the health of people and families in Toronto at risk.

The City must put in place solutions to make waste collection reliable and affordable.  Etobicoke, for example, uses contracted providers and saves the city $2 million each year.  By adopting the same approach for the whole city, taxpayers will save about $20 million each year and can have the confidence their garbage collectors won’t go on unnecessary strikes.

When Rob Ford is Mayor, the City will invite competitive tenders from private companies as well as current unions to provide collection services that are reliable, affordable and represent the best value for Toronto taxpayers.

Making the TTC an Essential Service.

People and businesses in Toronto depend on the TTC to get them from home to work, or school.  When the TTC isn’t running, the city grinds to a halt and commuters and businesses suffer.  TTC service is essential and it must be designated this way in order to prevent costly strikes.

When Rob Ford is Mayor, the City will work with the TTC and its unions to create a reliable, affordable, convenient, rapid and customer-focused transit service that Toronto can take pride in.

Improving Customer Service at City Hall.

Poor customer service frustrates city residents and businesses.  Too often, emails are ignored, telephone calls are not returned, staff are unable to answer questions or help solve issues.

Excellent customer service doesn’t cost a thing.  All it takes is leadership and accountability, and that starts at the top.

When Rob Ford is Mayor, excellent customer service will be the standard for all City Hall employees.

Eliminating Unncessary Taxes

Abolish the Vehicle Registration Tax.

Toronto residents should not have to pay $60 every year to register their vehicle.  It’s an unfair cash grab that hits families hard.  Rob Ford will push to eliminate the Vehicle Registration Tax at the first City Council meeting after becoming Mayor.

Eliminate the Land Transfer Tax.

People who buy and sell homes in Toronto must pay a new Land Transfer Tax to City Hall on top of all the other charges associated with buying or selling a home.  This punishes people and families who live in Toronto and makes the city less affordable for many people.  This tax is driving business, families, and people away from Toronto.  Rob Ford will move to abolish the Land Transfer Tax in his first year as Mayor.

Notes for an Address by Rob Ford 26 March 2010