Ontario Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian has found yet another government body breaking the law simply because they can:

“At the root of the problems uncovered over the course of our wide-reaching investigation was the practice of indiscriminate deletion of all emails sent and received by the former chief of staff to the minister of energy,” Cavoukian wrote.

That is in violation of the Archives and Recordkeeping Act (ARA).

Cavoukian said it is impossible for citizens to hold governments to account if potentially important documents are destroyed.

You might be tempted to think that Ford is all about the populism (and being re-elected), what with his sticking fridge magnets on cars outside of an Etobicoke meeting and all. Or maybe he’s about SUBWAYS SUBWAYS SUBWAYS! Maybe it’s still about cutting the gravy at city hall?

Well, you’d be right to think that, but what our illustrious mayor is gunning for now is conservation of the beloved strip malls of his beloved Etobicoke; maybe even elsewhere.

To quote:

You can’t be tearing down this stuff, this is not downtown. This is Etobicoke … Personally speaking, I don’t support changing anything.

Ah yes, only Toronto is for tearing down. It’s not for such vast, beautiful, sweeping vistas as the Humbertown Shopping Centre.

No wonder Robbie doesn’t want such a marvel to be tossed aside like so much outsourced garbage:

But obviously, nothing is going to fly. So, if they want to propose something, an alternative, I’ll support the community. I support the taxpayers. What the taxpayers want, I’ll support.

Interestingly, the same meeting that Rob ran out of in order to put magnets on cars was the same one at which he made these statements.

David Price, Ford’s former high school football coach and his recently named director of operations and logistics, stood between Rob and reporters after the mayor said he would take no more questions, chuckling at the thought of Ford attending the taxpayers’ meeting:

If you’re a Torontonian, here are two pieces for your consideration:

Three times more lobbyists signed up with the city in 2012 as in 2010. The number of subjects they’re pushing has doubled. Allegations of misconduct have tripled. And the daily communications logged between lobbyists and public office holders appears to be 10 times higher last year than the year before Ford took office, an analysis by the Star has shown.

And with the numbers on the rise, lobbyist registrar Linda Gehrke worries there is dwindling awareness around the “ethical” guidelines set out in the code of conduct.

But for many councillors, the most worrisome result of the new reality is that average citizens and community associations — people without the means to hire Bay Street professionals to plead their case — are being shut out.

No one can say that this was  a “Leftie” conspiracy against Rob Ford — the judge who passed the judgment was in favour of the Harper government in the Guergis case.

And despite the blatantly false, grossly uninformed, and incessantly misleading bleating of ardent Ford supporters like CP24’s Stephen Ledrew (I’m sure Jerry Agar won’t be far behind), Hackland’s judgement was not a mere “technicality” (“highly unlikely” to go anywhere, according to Ledrew, mere moments before the verdict was delivered), or based on “Ford helping the kids”.

And despite CP24’s best attempt to spin the verdict by showing the “range of responses” from Twitter, which included one outraged respondent and a question about how long Ford has to appeal, my own experience both online and off (I’m sitting in a downtown coffee shop as I write this), shows an overwhelming amount of joy and a feeling that justice has finally been done. Not a “he got his” feeling, but a “law prevailed as we knew it must” feeling — something I’m sure, based on all the feedback I’ve seen, Ford supporters just can’t wrap their heads around. And there aren’t many of them around anymore (this is why I’ve mused more than once about the real conspiracy, the one that’s propping Ford up).

I can honestly say that I knew in my heart of hearts that this had to be the verdict. As I’ve stated in numerous previous posts, the judge’s job is to make sure that the law is followed, and in this case the law was very clear. Ultimately, as Ruby, the lawyer who brought the case against Ford, said in a televised conference shortly after the verdict was released, Rob Ford did this to Rob Ford. That was so plainly and painfully obvious to anyone who read the details of the case that any judgment to the contrary would’ve been a shock, not the other way around. Not that it’s stopping Ledrew and the CP24 team from trying to push this lie into the “range of responses” and trying their damnedest to steer the conversation in this direction.

But if you still don’t believe how un-shocked I am at this verdict, just scroll back through a few past Ford conflict of interest posts on TCL and compare the language I used to that used by the judge himself (be sure to read the whole judgement while you’re at it):

Hackland: “In view of the respondent’s leadership role in ensuring integrity in municipal government, it is difficult to accept an error in judgment defence based essentially on a stubborn sense of entitlement (concerning his football foundation) and a dismissive and confrontational attitude to the Integrity Commissioner and the Code of Conduct. In my opinion, the respondent’s actions were characterized by ignorance of the law and a lack of diligence in securing professional advice, amounting to wilful blindness. As such, I find his actions are incompatible with an error in judgment.”

TCL: “The real problem with Ford, aside from believing he can pick and choose which laws to follow, is that he’s personally offensive, and has been from day one. He shows no remorse for any of his actions, and if he stays in office there’s no reason to believe that things will get anything but worse. Much worse.”

Hackland: “For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that the respondent contravened s. 5 of the MCIA when he spoke and voted on a matter in which he had a pecuniary interest at the meeting of Toronto City Council on February 7, 2012, and that his actions were not done by reason of inadvertence or a good faith error in judgment.”

TCL: “This can easily be seen as vote buying — you donate to Rob’s foundation, he gets you tax receipts and special favours when he gets into the Mayor’s seat. Even if that never happens (though with Ford, it most likely would), the chance of it happening is eliminated by having things like the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (in fact, that’s the sole reason for this law to exist in the first place!) Maybe Robbie didn’t know that it could be perceived this way? Not a fucking chance.”

Hackland: “In assessing errors in judgment, just as it may be relevant to consider the position of a novice elected councillor with limited experience with conflict of interest issues, it is also appropriate to consider the responsibilities of the respondent as a long-serving councillor and Mayor. In my opinion, a high standard must be expected from an elected official in a position of leadership and responsibility. Toronto’s current Code of Conduct is modelled on the recommendations of The Honourable Denise Bellamy, who conducted the Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry, in 2005, when the respondent was a member of City Council.

TCL: “Thing is, Ford had gotten the book of rules just like every other Councillor — of which, of course, he has no memory but does have a clear recollection of what he ate for breakfast that morning (that’s the actual reply) — sat in and voted on meetings with reports by the Integrity Commissioner where conflicts of interest were clearly spelled out, had access to Ana Kinastowski who heads City Hall’s legal department, and could also use a part of his office budget for independent legal advice if he wants it. And don’t forget how many times Ford had recused himself in the past when the conflicts of interest were laughably far removed from him. And just in case there was any doubt, Ford is reminded how Sandra Bussin had mentioned that Ford might be in a conflict of interest prior to the meeting, and that according to the same document he kinda remembers signing, the final responsibility for such things lies with him.”

I could go on but it’s kind of beating a dead horse. And I have to be upfront and say that I’m definitely not the only person to point out these “discrepancies” in Ford’s thinking and statements.

But no matter what I think or say, it’s very satisfying at the end of all of this to know that common sense, as reflected in law, has prevailed. On occasion, the law actually works!

Ford is now busily figuring out how to spend the next two weeks before he has to give up his seat. Apparently there’s an appeal in the works and we can be pretty sure the Supreme Court is going to be hearing of this outrage. In the meantime, though, City Council is thinking about if they should appoint an interim mayor or if there should be a by-election. Ford won’t be barred from this so presumably he could run (and win), once again. Considering the amount of bad blood he’s racked up so far though, even if he throws his name into the ring, I can’t see him winning again. Sorry, Ledrew, but you’re wrong on that one too.

Ford’s conflict of interest case certainly seems to be getting lots of attention, including much on this little blog too. For that, loathe as I am to do so, I really should be thanking Robbie.

It’s interesting to note that some of the comments on my earlier post echo, pretty much verbatim, what Rob’s brother Doug is now bringing out to distract from the upcoming court case; the very same anger-laced diatribes that Rob himself brought out during the election, like Kyle Rae’s $12,000 going-away party — which you either abhor and therefore must love Ford, or love and therefore are critical of Ford (and clearly there’s nothing in between). It’s the kind of logic that only the Fords can pull up — like Doug’s, “Should Rob Ford be in front of a judge for helping kids? No, he shouldn’t be”

No, he’s not in front of a judge for helping kids from “disadvantaged” neighbourhoods like Forest Hill or schools like his own Catholic Don Bosco to play football, he’s there because he broke the law and engaged in what looks an awful lot like influence peddling.

Ultimately, it leads one to wonder if the same people dredging up these comparisons and urging everyone to look every which way but forward are not on the Ford payroll, or somehow part of the same team that got him into power. I’m willing to bet that if you visit The Sun or The Star and read the comments on earlier articles related to Ford’s trial, you’ll find the same commentary and use of distraction tactics.

Coincidence?

But that’s a bit beside the point, because in this post I wanted to talk a bit about what Rob Ford said when he sat with Clayton Ruby and his own lawyer. It’s kind of a long and tedious document owing mostly to Ford’s refusal to own up to anything and arguing over pretty much every definition of every other word Ruby would put to him.

The first four or five pages, for example, are filled with back-and-forths like:

(regarding signing the Declaration of Office when Ford was elected)

Ruby: The declaration is a serious promise?

Ford: I can’t remember what exactly the declaration says.

Ruby: But you understand it to be a serious promise?

Ford: I don’t recall what is says.

Ruby: I’m not asking you to recall what it says … were you making a serious public promise?

Ford: I don’t remember exactly what the wording said on the document…The clerk asks you to sign it, but I can’t remember exactly what it said.

Ruby: Was it a formal occassion?

Ford: How do you define “formal”?

This goes on for an excruciatingly long time with Ford insisting that signing such documents “happens at City Hall”, reiterating that he wasn’t sure what “formal” meant, was unsure of the definition of the word “serious”, and didn’t really get what “important” means. Basically, Rob has never seen a dictionary and doesn’t quite seem to have a good grasp on conversational English either.

Eventually, after huge lapses in memory, Rob reluctantly agreed that he might’ve signed some sort of document where he might’ve agreed to follow some rules, or something like that, maybe.

On page 17 it starts to get a bit more interesting when Ford is asked what his understanding of “conflict of interest” with regard to pecuniary (financial), interest means. “If the City if benefiting from it”, he replies. In other words, if the city of Toronto makes money from the result of his vote, it’s a conflict of interest. (How many Councillors are guilty of that?!) Later this changes to, “if something comes up with the printing”, an allusion to the Fords’ printing company which supplies City Hall with printing services. Either way, both responses display a gaping ignorance of what “conflict of interest” means. Or a put-on ignorance.

Thing is, Ford had gotten the book of rules just like every other Councillor — of which, of course, he has no memory but does have a clear recollection of what he ate for breakfast that morning (that’s the actual reply) — sat in and voted on meetings with reports by the Integrity Commissioner where conflicts of interest were clearly spelled out, had access to Ana Kinastowski who heads City Hall’s legal department, and could also use a part of his office budget for independent legal advice if he wants it. And don’t forget how many times Ford had recused himself in the past when the conflicts of interest were laughably far removed from him. And just in case there was any doubt, Ford is reminded how Sandra Bussin had mentioned that Ford might be in a conflict of interest prior to the meeting, and that according to the same document he kinda remembers signing, the final responsibility for such things lies with him.

Ruby then questions Ford about his previous conflicts of interest; you know, to try to wrap his head around how Ford would’ve recused himself at previous meetings but for some strange reason completely failed to do so when this glaringly obvious one came by. One of these sections questions Ford’s previous statements about how he deems conflicts of interest to arise:

Ruby: On March 8th, 2011…That’s involving your brother, Councillor Ford. That matter was the appointment of your brother, Doug Ford, to a particular entity, Region Conversation Authority [sic] in project green…I have trouble seeing how you have a pecuniary interest in Doug Ford’s appointment.

Ford: Again, whatever the staff tells me to do, I do.

Ruby: You don’t get or give money to your brother? You each earn your own incomes?

…

Ford: We have our own incomes, but if he needs five bucks for lunch, I give him 20 bucks or 10 bucks for lunch.

A similar line of questioning follows in which Ruby asks Ford about development along Lakeshore Boulevard; Ford also made himself scarce for that Council meeting because of a court proceeding against him (probably the Boardwalk Pub one). “Okay. It doesn’t seem to me to be involving any economic interest,” says Ruby.

After one additional example, Ruby comes to the point:

Ruby: So in all these conflicts of interest, they’re all very different, yes?

…

Ford: It all depends how you define “different”.

Eventually we get to the meat and potatoes where Clayton Ruby asks why Rob Ford thought that a vote which was solely and exclusively about a punishment against him wouldn’t be considered a conflict of interest:

Ruby: In your affidavit at paragraph 16 you say: “…There is no financial consequence to any of the recommendations put forward by the integrity commissioner…” Can you explain what you mean by that?

Ford: I don’t see how the City benefits from this under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

Ruby: And therefore there is no need for you to worry about a conflict, correct?

Ford: I wasn’t given…I wasn’t told by legal to declare a conflict.

Ruby: I know that, but I’m trying to figure out what was going on in your head.

Ford: I don’t remember what was going on in my head. I have thousands of thoughts that go through my head every day.

Although earlier in the deposition Ford barely understood what the words Municipal Conflict of Interest Act meant, he now appears to be referring to it. At least he’s sticking to his “all of Council is guilty” logic that the City must somehow benefit financially from this.

Ruby: When you say now: “…There was no financial consequence to any of the recommendations put forward by the integrity commissioner…” Didn’t the integrity commissioner recommend earlier that you pay back, council adopted that, and now they were asking for a time limit on proof that that had happened? In your mind…

Ford: I don’t recall exactly what it was, but yes, the integrity commissioner said I should pay this back.

Ruby: And in your mind, that is not a financial consequence?

Ford: It has nothing to do with the City under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. I don’t see how the City benefits from from this.

Perhaps the most telling and laughable section appears on pages 72 to 73 where, after all of this has been established, Ruby asks Ford about his speech (available on my previous post), during that fateful Council meeting:

Ruby: Okay. After your speech, Councillor Ainslie brought a motion to rescind the previous council order requiring you to reimburse the $3,150. Is that correct? … I take it that [the speech] wasn’t an accident? It was deliberate?

Ford: No, I speak when I want to speak.

Ruby: It had nothing to do with a deliberate choice?

Ford: You’re only allowed to speak once at council on every item…You can speak to a deferral for two minutes after that, but if someone amends the item, no, you’re not allowed to speak to it. You’re allowed to speak once for five minutes, plus a two-minute extension.

Ruby: All right. So there was no significance in terms of whether you spoke or whether you voted for the fact that Councillor Aisnlie brought that motion. Am I correct?

Ford: I couldn’t speak to it. It’s against the law…It’s against procedural bylaws. You cannot speak once you have spoke on the item once, and I spoke on the item.

That’s right, Ford wouldn’t want to break procedural bylaws (by order of Council) by talking too much, but having to repay money (by order of Council) can be completely ignored, and the more serious provincial law governing conflicts of interest doesn’t need to be taken seriously at all. If he were up on federal charges like murder, I wonder how absolutely insignificant they’d be to him.

The questioning goes on and on about how Ford dealt with the repayment order, how he understood the Integrity Commissioner’s reports and so on, but it’s really this last exchange that defines what a joke any of Ford’s defense is.

Ford and his brother typify this as “politics”. In fact, they typify anything and anyone who disagrees with them as “politics”, their ignorance of laws and common sense as “misunderstandings”, and anything that smacks of benefiting the common good as pinko Communism.

The real problem with Ford, aside from believing he can pick and choose which laws to follow, is that he’s personally offensive, and has been from day one. He shows no remorse for any of his actions, and if he stays in office there’s no reason to believe that things will get anything but worse. Much worse.

It’s not that I believe that politicians, as a group, are necessarily much better, but at least that push-and-pull of public perception keeps most of them in check. For Ford, that’s obviously not the case, and if we allow it, he’s going to redefine the office of the Mayor to something ugly, decadent, and genuinely offensive, if not outright criminal.

So Sarah and I took a trip down to University Avenue to visit with Janet Leiper, the Integrity Commissioner for the City of Toronto. I’m pretty sure you can guess that the topic of discussion was our less than lustrous mayor and his continuing antics. Specifically, we were curious to know what steps could be taken to oust the man (and I use that word lightly), and what her office’s role could be in that.

Janet is a surprisingly youthful and slim woman (for someone who listens to the bitching and moaning of the city all day), and was very cordial in welcoming us to her office — something that rarely takes place (most people just call). It wasn’t a big space, shared only with her assistant Wendy, and was filled mostly with office supplies, bulky office equipment, books, desks, and one small round table around which we sat.

She began by opening a weighty volume, the City of Toronto Code of Conduct for Members of Council and explaining that this, for the most part, was the territory that she treads. Then she drew a three-slice pie diagram explaining that, out of the three slices of a Member’s responsibility, she was responsible for interpreting complaints related to their conduct (the other two being legal / criminal responsibilities, and political responsibilities). To put it another way, the Code of Conduct is what she’s responsible for admonishing. Should the matter be criminal or a failure of political responsibility, her role would be only to advise people to take it up with others under whom these jurisdictions fall.

The role of the Integrity Commissioner is, for the most part, to smooth over relations so that, for example, when some Council member is having a tiff with another member, she can recommend that the two apologize. Her recommendations are the definitive word on whether or not the Code of Conduct has been breached and, when it’s something big, her recommendation is brought to Council for a vote for action. Janet is also a lawyer (this gig is only a part-time role for her), so she is basically the professional vetting of whether or not the Code has been breached — if she says yes, there doesn’t need to be any question about it. However, if a member of Council breaks a rule beyond simply the Code, it’s taken one step higher to the courts, precisely why Rob Ford is being tackled by Clayton Ruby.

We were told, in no uncertain terms, that we were more than welcome to contact Janet’s office any time we felt that the Code of Conduct was being breached, and even if it wasn’t specifically spelled out “in the letter” of the code, we could go by “the spirit” of the document which is spelled out in the preamble. In other words, even if the thing doesn’t mention a specific infraction, there are certain overarching elements that cover what the Code is supposed to be about. These include:

• Members of Council shall serve and be seen to serve their constituents in a conscientious and diligent manner;
• Members of Council should be committed to performing their functions with integrity and to avoiding the improper use of the influence of their office, and conflicts of interest, both apparent and real;
• Members of Council are expected to perform their duties in office and arrange their private affairs in a manner that promotes public confidence and will bear close public scrutiny; and
• Members of Council shall seek to serve the public interest by upholding both the letter and the spirit of the laws of the Federal Parliament and Ontario Legislature, and the laws and policies adopted by City Council

So let’s say you believe that the Mayor had a conflict of interest in using public money to fund his high school football team — start by having a gander of the Code of Conduct. If you can find anything specific covering such an action (or you believe the spirit of the thing has been breached), you should go right ahead and file a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner. That complaint can be private, or it can be formal (which will require an affidavit and some other paperwork), the second accusation obviously being the more serious one (and one that the Commissioner is able to discuss publicly). The Commissioner’s office will then investigate the complaint and provide a recommendation. That recommendation can be brought before Council for a vote, or she can recommend that you get a lawyer and they can take it from there.

In any event, the Office of the Integrity Commissioner is a great place to start if you think that members of Council have broken the rules. Just be sure to point out which part of the Code you think they’ve breached (she can’t actually recommend things like that, it would make her seem biased). Even if you’re not 100% sure, you can ask — that’s exactly why she’s there!

And, if I can share the one major take-away that this visit left me with: getting involved with the machinations of City Hall (or any level of government), is not at all difficult! Even if you don’t know exactly how to proceed with something like a complaint, all you have to do is ask and you will be directed to the right place. You’ll learn more about how the city works in 30 minutes than you could by reading all the newspapers around town, and along the way you’ll discover that most of these mechanisms are actually in place primarily for citizens, not just Council members, reporters, and others who would end up interpreting things for you.

And it’s exceedingly easy in most cases. I started with an email which resulted in an appointment for a phone call. We misunderstood and actually went down to the Integrity Commissioner’s office, but that’s usually way more effort than you’d have to put in.

We said our goodbyes, took the elevator down to street level, out onto University, and made our way up to discuss what we’d just learned over bevvies. While we didn’t actually do anything, the meeting emboldened us to take further steps to get our buffoon of a mayor under control. The bravado came from knowing we’re both just regular Joes off the street; we have no legal training, no lawyers, no money to back us, and no connections to support us, yet we have as much power to file a formal complaint that could oust the mayor (or any member of Council) as anyone else!

If I can recommend just one thing, if you’re frustrated with Mayor Ford or his minions, if things seem to be spinning wildly out of control, if City Hall seems to be working against you, the citizen, and not with you, don’t be afraid to get in touch with someone like the Integrity Commissioner and find out what steps to take to fix things. It’s easy, friendly, and even if you don’t get the answer you need right away, you’ll be pointed in the right direction.

The battle started ten months ago with seven contenders. By April there were twenty-six sluggers of varying degrees of viability in the ring. Then came the fisticuffs.

Some suffered, I believe, from a simple lack of exposure, which to me translates as a lack of experience. Others put up a pretty good fight but had to concede defeat. Notables include:

Adam Giambrone – Finishing his term as head of Toronto’s Transit Commission and toppled over a sex scandal in February. I didn’t lose any sleep over it. Plus, Jammers is what, like, 18? He’s got plenty of politics ahead of him if he wants to stay in the game.

Giorgio Mammoliti – Had a bit of momentum but in July decided he’d rather try to stay on as a Toronto Councillor for his current ward. No mistaking Giorgio as being anything but 100% bona fide Ai-talian, but I guess it takes more than that these days. I don’t think he even has any mob connections.

Sarah Thompson – Strangely, not yet on the list of mayoral casualties, but Sarah gets an extra star next to her name for being the feisty (previously unknown) newcomer who demonstrated she could play with the big kids. She hung in for quite a while before throwing in the towel about a month ago and joining forces with George Smitherman. She’s a self-made businesswoman and has her own magazine — I think she’ll be fine.

Rocco Rossi – The man with the million-dollar smile is also not on the drop-out list but this was only a couple of weeks ago (the paperwork to update a government website probably takes as long). Rocco was the ringleader behind John Tory’s campaign — the one other man who might’ve broken through in this selection had he chosen to run. Unfortunately, Rocco’s beaming smile and charisma didn’t carry him through and he left quietly without endorsing anyone else.

As many people expected, the race was mostly just casual mud flinging until September or so when the media got in high-gear. Then it was one debate and town hall after another, none of which I attended. To be honest, I think the websites of the top three candidates should be enough, though trying to make out the candidates hollering over each other has its charm.

George Smitherman

When this all started I mentioned that George, “is gay and looks like a bulldog. Both, I believe, in his favour.” I still expect that he’ll probably win although I’m not convinced I’ll be ticking off his name. Some of his key promises include:

• 100-day tax, hiring, spending freeze while the city budget is re-evaluated. Sounds kinda nice but I sure hope nothing happens during those 100 days that might require hiring or spending. And, let’s face it, 100 days later, we might all be paying even more.
• Fair tenant taxes. Apparently I pay more in property taxes through my rent than a homeowner — who knew? However, the $50 / year savings isn’t making me pee myself with excitement.
• Transit. Everyone loves this issue — for a city the size of Toronto, we are pretty damn far behind when it comes to public transit. We only have 3 main subway lines and most of our subway cars / streetcars are antiques. On top of this, streetcars take up literally 50% of the roads downtown but the roads can’t be expanded — we’ve got light rail-infrastructure but not enough room. George wants to phase in updates over 10 years starting with getting transit going along the lake shore for the Pan Am Games in 2015. After that he wants to start construction on East-West lines in the north and update the Scarborough LRT (an eastern extension to the Bloor Subway line). Generally speaking, I’m not against this idea, but it seems incredibly wasteful to essentially scrap Transit City.
• Creating about 500 jobs through an Economic Ambassador program and prodding businesses to hire locally. Most of the city’s  financial troubles will be addressed through attrition (not replacing people who retire), and by combining fire and emergency services. Electricity provider Toronto Hydro would stay in public hands. Sounds long and tedious, possibly necessary.

Rob Ford

Rob has been so easy to criticize during this campaign. He’s well known for making off-colour public remarks and sticking his foot into his mouth on a regular basis. I don’t think he’s a bad guy, he’s just not very diplomatic. The beefy football coach’s campaign was managed by his brother (not dissimilar in many ways), and was unsurprisingly dotted with all manner of scandal and accusation. Still, Rob weathered the storm and he’s neck-and-neck with George; most polls agree it could easily go either way today.

Some of what Rob says he’ll do includes:

• Cut City Hall. Just generally, cut it. Rob’s “stop the gravy train” message resonates with many people who think politicians have been getting a free ride for too long. Councillors like Sandra Bussin, who think nothing of making anonymous phone calls to radio stations, Paula Fletcher who screams down opposition, or my own ward’s now-retired Kyle Rae who probably shouldn’t have thrown himself a $12,000 going-away party, have really helped to cement Rob’s line. While I like the rigour with which Rob approaches this, and cutting back City Hall is just a good idea anyway, most of the plan seems way too small to make a significant difference. Good try, Rob, but you need to think bigger!
• Make the TTC an essential service. Right now transit can be shut down by a strike, something that wouldn’t happen if it was designated to be essential. Mostly, though, Rob wants to end the “war on cars” he says is being perpetrated by the city so it’s obvious where his heart lies on this issue. Incredibly myopic and with few details. Sorry, Rob, another miss.
• Eliminate Land Transfer and Vehicle Registration Taxes. Obviously this one’s for the burbs. Good on Rob for reaching out but I’m feeling a bit left out here. No love, Rob, no love.
• Consider privatizing garbage collection. After last year’s strike, this is certainly something to consider. But I’m starting to sense a bit of a theme here…garbage strike pissed people off, traffic pisses people off, City Hall spending pisses people off, etc. While I’d be happy to see these things addressed, this is definitely reactionary politics; I don’t see a long-term plan here.

Joe Pantalone

If you didn’t know Joey Pants before, you do now. If nothing else can be said about this dimunitive Deputy Mayor, he’s the most eminently qualified — he’s almost mayor now. However, and perhaps because of his height, Joe’s had to jump up and down and wave twice as hard as anyone else just to be heard.

Even though the chances of him becoming mayor are slim at this point, you gotta give the little guy credit for hanging in there; only he and George stayed on for the full ten months. Plus, everything I’ve heard about him indicates he’s genuinely a nice guy with a good head for this sort of thing. He just falls below the radar, that’s all.

Here’s what Joe promises our fair city if he’s elected:

• Improved transit and everyone’s welcome on the roads. Of all the candidates, Joe has the most complete plans I’ve seen (and fanciest Powerpoint slides too). In this area he’s taking the sanest most middle-of-the-road approach, but puts most of his weight behind bikes (rentals, better lanes, etc.), and public transit. He’s a fan of Transit City, the big plan put in place by current Mayor Miller to expand transit both out of town and fix what we have here. If you ask me, this is the most sensible approach — Transit City is already underway and the plan extends out to all of Toronto. Tearing it down and starting something new would be a massive waste.
• Reducing poverty and homelessness. Again, Joe has solid numbers he wants to see year over year, including building of new affordable housing units, finding housing for homeless people, and so on. I have no idea if any of these numbers are realistic but I’m thinking that Joe probably had a pretty good idea by now.
• Predictable taxes and fare increases. No promises of tax reductions here, just that tax and fare increases should be transparent and predictable. Joe wants Community Councils to run their own budgets while pushing some provincial service costs to the province. Currently, they say how stuff gets run but we in the city pay for it. How the hell did that happen?!
• Sustainable / environment initiatives. Pantalone’s got a green thumb, it seems. He’s one of the few candidates mentioning this topic and is demonstrating that he’s both a tie-dyed hippie and a bleeding heart. Besides investing in so-called green programs, Pantalone also want the city to get more involved in food production, increase support services for women, children, and families, and he’s got a whole section on helping out the elderly.
• Support diversity and youth, and tackle bed bugs. Generic, general, and really? Joe’s not the only candidate to mention bed bugs but news on this has been fairly sparse lately — and you know media love bed bug stories. Well, here’s the deal, I don’t have bed bugs and I didn’t see any mention of rent reductions so that about does it for me.

I don’t believe in the throw-away, lesser-of-evils, vote-by-fear approach. Anyone who trudges out that old pony should quickly be reminded that a minority win is just as significant on the make up of City Hall. Or Parliament. Or whatever. We should vote for the best candidate even if they’re a long-shot.

In another four years we’ll be doing this again so that little bit of support could make the difference next time around. And it’s note-worthy to point out that City Hall isn’t just the mayor, there are 44 Councillors representing the various wards of this sprawling metropolis, and they all get a vote just like the Mayor. Plus, the Council vote is just as crucial; it’s traditionally been the Councillors that have been the biggest dicks at City Hall.