Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, a man who knows all about looking into cameras and lying about taxes, stood in front of another one this week in order to launch a TV spot trying to sell the hated HST. Like his BC Liberal cousins, Dalton has been having a difficult time selling the idea that it’s good for Ontarians.

With a leafy backdrop reminiscent of Michael Ignatieff’s “Narnia” ad, the premier is dressed casually in a buttoned blue shirt, explaining the benefits of the HST and how it’s going to grow the economy.

“Ontario is coming out of this global recession sooner and stronger than anyone expected,” McGuinty says in the ad.

“Because of the hard work of Ontarians, we are again leading Canada in economic growth. But to create more jobs, top economists agree the single most important thing we can do is adopt the HST.”

They’re not just economists. They’re top economists, these faceless men and women who have wholeheartedly endorsed the harmonized sales tax. It’s almost like a toothpaste advertisement:

“Four out of five dentists agree that Colgate’s new Clorox whitening strip is now 80% less damaging to your enamel.”

It even belongs in an advertisement with men with white coats standing around a lab, discussing the medical benefits of the HST. After all, the 60-second commercial is actually named “Strong Medicine.”

Even for the Ontario Liberal Party, this has to be a new kind of low. Though the words arrogant, condescending, and galling come to mind for using taxpayer money to run propaganda ads on the introduction of a new tax, there’s something almost baiting about the word “medicine.”

As in, “shut up and take your medicine.” As in, “take two suppositories and call me in the morning.” As in, “now bite down on this, because it might pinch a little.”

Strong medicine? What marketing school drop-out came up with that one? Ontario isn’t the one that’s sick. It’s the government that’s sick. It’s the one with the $19.7 billion fiscal deficit projected from now until my eight-year old is in high school. It’s made the shoddy decisions that has led it to this conundrum, forced to wring every last drop of milk from its overtaxed citizen cows.

Strong medicine. That’s what you’ll need for the pounding headache you’ll receive after acknowledging Dalton McGuinty’s second “stealth tax” on Ontario. The first being the medical “premiums”, and now the HST.

Sure, he’ll bribe you a little with your money, perhaps wine and dine you with a few rebate cheques. But in the end he’s no more than an illusionist. And behind the facade is the same tax-and-spend Liberal charlatan first elected with a song, a dance, and, of course, a big ol’ lie.

A simple question deserves a simple answer. Does an accused have the legal right to face his or her accuser in a court of law in Ontario? The answer is unequivocally yes.

The answer isn’t subject to approval based on whether the accuser believes there’s a man in the clouds who appointed a 7th Century shepherd to be his spokesperson. The answer is absolute, final, and definitive. When a person accuses you of a crime, you have the unfettered legal right to face that person.

So why is it that Ontario is now wasting untold bushels of cash having an appeal court adjudicate whether a lower court was in its legal rights to demand that a Muslim woman remove her niqab before testifying in court? Why has more than one second been spent analyzing this case?

A judge asked a Muslim woman to show her face because, as terrifyingly logical as it may sound, those are the rules, which were written for everyone. Not for everyone, except Muslims.

“Why are we getting all bent out of shape about this?” asked Mr. Justice David Doherty. “This isn’t about somebody coming into court saying: ‘I need to wear a bag over my head because of my religious beliefs.’

“I remember that when I was a lawyer, I had nuns testify and nobody said we should go and make them change,” Judge Doherty said. “And kids wear really baggy clothes now, don’t they?”

Simple question and answer time. Did the nuns and the kids with baggy clothes have their faces obscured so that their identity was in contention? No? Then please stay on topic, your honour.

At an inquiry last year, Provincial Court Judge Norris Weisman ordered a 32-year-old woman — who cannot be identified, making this doubly ridiculous — to remove her niqab so that defence counsel could assess her claims. The judge then expressed skepticism about the reason for her wearing of the niqab, and I don’t blame him. Who wouldn’t want to hide behind a face mask while testifying about a molestation case? Thousands of people before her have had to go before the courts, raise their head up high, and recall horrible abuses in front of the person or persons they are accusing.

So it’s entirely reasonable to suspect that her real motivations for hiding behind the niqab were based on the subject matter, rather than her devotion to Allah.

But in the end, all of this really has nothing to do with the fact that the laws were written for everybody. And they apply to everybody equally and blindly. If we bend the laws for certain kinds of people, it means that the law is not absolute. It is malleable and relativist and discriminatory. It says that all men are equal before the law, but some are more equal than others.

Photo by Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

Right. Because when I think of what Canada needs right now it’s more politicians. If you thought that the House of Commons wasn’t already an incoherent mess of bloviating bloc-voting squabblers, with about 20% of the 308 MP’s ever bothering to actually get up and speak, imagine what adding 30 more to the pile would result in. Other than the 30 more six-figure salaries with generous full-indexed pensions and free air travel added to the burden of taxpayers, is this the government’s idea of increased democracy?

How about this: less is more. We don’t want bigger government. We don’t want “more representation”. It’s already ridiculous to have a riding for Spadina street in Toronto, and then one for Lansdowne as well. It’s already silly that elections are decided before people in British Columbia even get to the polls because Toronto already voted. It’s already blatantly obvious that Ontario runs Canada’s interests without adding 18 more politicians to represent them.

There are 36 federal ridings in British Columbia with about 15 being represented by the Greater Vancouver Area. The Greater Toronto Area has 47 ridings alone, 11 more than the entire province I live in. Just because southern Ontario’s population density is the highest in Canada, why should Toronto have 15% of the say in this country? There’s a reason that the big smoke is called the centre of the Universe, because we’re all forced to revolve around it.

The main problem with representation by population distribution is that even if 20 million people lived in Ontario, it still has nothing to do with addressing the needs of people in other regions of the country. Each province has specific needs and regional issues that cannot be addressed by stacking the Parliament with people from Toronto. The salmon in British Columbia, or the ranchers in Alberta, or the grain mills in Saskatchewan aren’t helped by adding more representation to urban ridings in Canada.

Increasing the size of representation in the House of Commons is a 9.7% increase in the size of Parliamentary administration. It is safe to assume that this is an increase of a minimum of 10% to the expenditures of running the government. And the question you have to ask yourself is whether you, as a taxpayer, will be getting an increased value for that expense. And can we, as a nation running $20-billion structural deficits, really afford to add 30 more jobs to the public service?

What happened to those “symbolic” wage freezes? The average cost of paying a Member of Parliament who is not a Cabinet Minister is $157,731 a year. Increased salaries alone would go to $4.7 million, without including staffing, expenses, travel, and all the rest of the perks of the sunshine club.

Ontario’s “representation” would rise from 34% to 37% under the adjustment, while Quebec would fall from 24% to 22%. If you add in the Atlantic provinces, Eastern Canada has 64% of the vote before we’ve even hit Manitoba. British Columbia’s 7 new MP’s sounds impressive, although it’s really just adding more urban representation because of the population boom here, and raises BC’s national proportional representation from 12% to 13%.

This move is also sure to inflame Quebec, who would be getting nothing out of the deal by remaining at 75 seats, and nothing irritates Quebec more than feeling like they’re being excluded. The optics of reducing Quebec’s influence in the House of Commons while giving Ontario 18 new MPs could even precipitate the backlash the sovereigntists have been searching for.

“The Conservatives are unable to obtain a majority government,” MP Claude DeBellefeuille said. “The only way they found is to increase the number of seats west of Quebec.

“This reform is nothing but a partisan maneuvering at the expense of the Quebec nation.”

Spend one day watching Question Period – just one – and then come back and tell me if you want 30 more people like that working for you.

The Toronto Star ran an article today about Progressive Conservative MPP Bill Murdoch’s opinion that Toronto should become its own province. Mr.Murdoch is a representative for the Bruce-Grey-Owen-Sound riding, making the “radical pitch” at a meeting of the Bruce County Federation of Agriculture.

Saying that rural Ontario is fighting a losing battle against urban-centric Toronto, he argued that the big city ignores the voices of the rural community. The only way to give farm folk a voice, he says, is a constitutional amendment to allow Toronto to become the 11th province.

As the Star points out, the province of Toronto would become the fifth-largest in the country, with 2.35 million more residents than the tiny province of Prince Edward Island. It’s operating budget of $9.2 billion also dwarfs PEI’s 2009 budget of $1.5 billion six times over.

But Mr.Murdoch’s proposal is far from “radical”, and has been pitched many times before. Notably, I raised the possibility back in September of 2007 after Mayor David Miller was threatening tax increases on the city of Toronto. At the time, Toronto’s budget shortfall was $575 million, no small amount, even for a province.

As I noted at the time, the deficit can’t all be attributed to the city. It’s a fact that Toronto is the taxpayer cash cow for the federal and provincial governments, and the so-called “fiscal gap” continues to this day, despite the equalization payments after Ontario become a “have-not” province in 2008. Toronto sends $11 billion more to the province of Ontario and Ottawa in income and sales taxes than it gets back.

My co-blogger from 2006, Joseph Lavoie, who also won CBC’s Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister that year, proposed the viability of “city-states”, rather than a separate province altogether. Although he may have disowned this idea since [the article no longer appears on his website], he did a great deal of research at the time.

As Joseph pointed out, in 1861, six years before Canada came into confederation, 82% of the population in Ontario lived in rural communities. It would make sense, then, that our constitution was written to specify powers for the federal government and provincial governments, without much in the way of municipal powers. 149 years ago, the idea of metropolises with 2.5 million citizens was only the stuff of science fiction. In the year 1800, the British city of London, the central authority of the world’s superpower, was comprised of a mere 861,000 souls.

Much has changed since 1861, of course, bringing almost a complete reverse of the demography. Now 85% live in urban centres in Ontario, with just 15% making up the rural community. So how does one balance the needs of the 21st century urban population with that of the smaller rural communities? Joseph Lavoie wrote:

The compromise then was the idea of creating a city-state within a province. So Toronto would still be part of Ontario, but it would have way more autonomy than it currently enjoys. As a city-state, it would have control on immigration, direct taxation powers (probably an ability to generate revenue from a sales tax, or even income taxes), public transportation, labour laws, property and civil rights, perhaps even solemnization rights — this is all up for discussion. The City-State would share jurisdiction with the province on matters of Health, Transportation (driver licensing etc) and education, and it would share immigration with the federal government.

The basic idea is that by allowing the cities to focus on their demands, the person who lives in Timmins, 700km away from Toronto, doesn’t have his tax dollars going toward LRT in the big smoke. It also frees up the province of Ontario to deal with smaller cities and towns, rather than constantly being pestered by Toronto for more money.

As Joseph put it, it is a simple recognition that “the closest level of government should be the one best-suited to serve the voters’ needs.”

ALSO SEE

The Facebook Page for “I support the Province of Toronto”

Photo: Justin Guariglia/Corbis

Joe Warmington paints a rather unpleasant portrait of the law of unintended consequences today in the Toronto Sun. Ontario’s cell phone law for drivers came into effect this past October, and became officially enforced on February 1. Other jurisdictions have implemented similar bans throughout the country, with British Columbia following suit recently as well.

The cell phone bans have been based on preliminary evidence that hand-held devices cause distraction for drivers, and the consequences in some cases have been fatal. During the first month of Ontario’s new law, the Ontario Provincial police have issued 470 fines worth $155.

Some officers were given to discretionary changes of heart, issuing at least as many warnings, with 468 drivers let off the hook. The GTA saw the most fines handed out in February, at 155. In Joe Warmington’s story, which takes place in the GTA, not only was the driver not spared the ticket, but she missed a funeral because of it.

Life-long criminal and menace to society at large, Robert Clifford Smith, with more than 100 serious criminal convictions to his name, was released from jail just two days before leading police on a chase that resulted in the collateral death of 26-year-old driver Sara Attayee on February 16.

Here’s what happened next:

Two days later the Kumars — Rekha, 28, Sonia and Sapna, 23, and Sangeeta, 19 — were among the mourners who went to Sara’s funeral at the Uma Nabawi Mosque in York Region and followed the crowd to the burial site.

“We live in Toronto so we got confused,” Rekha said.

Sonia got on her cellphone for directions, but the problem was the person at the other end speaks Farsi and was explaining in broken English. Sonia had trouble understanding so she handed the phone to her sister behind the wheel.

They all noticed the flashing lights.

The York Regional Police who stopped the sisters and detained them for 10 minutes, not only did not provide directions afterward, but they issued a $155 ticket. Then they missed the funeral of their deceased friend.

Joe Warmington makes a good point. Perhaps the province can explain the disconnect of priorities here. Menace to society versus menacing society. Worst of all, it may be that distracted driving laws don’t reduce the number of crashes at all.

Photo Credit: Mathieu Belanger, Reuters

The Parliamentary ways-and-means motion on the harmonizing tax in British Columbia and Ontario which had previously been referred to as the “Harper Sales Tax” by Mr.Ignatieff, passed easily today, evoking memories of Stephane Dion and the days of Liberal hand-sitting. It wasn’t even close enough to give a false sense of hope, with the yeas prevailing 192-32. The Liberals completely and utterly capitulated, with those who bothered to show up throwing their support behind the Conservative government and ending the federal controversy on the tax.

All that’s left now is to assess just how further weakened Michael Ignatieff’s leadership is after having yet another sand castle get kicked into his face by Stephen Harper’s big blue machine. Time after time the Liberal leader has created a blockade, only to have to tear it down again after realizing it wasn’t going to work. The embarrassing “on probation” comment and the economic updates are gone, not even mentioned by the Liberals anymore. The panel on Employment Insurance was staggeringly useless and ultimately undermined by the Conservative government’s own extension of E.I. benefits. At this stage in the game it’s almost got to the point where you want to shout at the Liberal leader: “Stay down, Mikey, for the love of God, stay down!”

But, often to predictable disaster, Mr.Ignatieff won’t stay down for the count. His party continues to undergo rebuilding on the fly, which is almost like watching the Toronto Maple Leafs try to sign and dress fans during the hockey game. It’s painful to see Toronto aide after Toronto aide leave Ottawa, and head back to the big smoke utterly defeated. It’s got to be even more painful being an insider of this train wreck of a political party. Not only is this an organization that changes policy based on the time of day, it changes members just as frequently. At this point I’m surprised the HMS Tory doesn’t pull up on the side and offer to throw life jackets to the survivors.

Of course very few of the Liberals will come to their senses long enough to realize it’s time to pack their bags and head back to the drawing board. Smug arrogance in the face of utter defeat seems to be a prerequisite for a Liberal Member of Parliament. Well, at least for those in the caucus.

It wouldn’t be fair to condemn every Liberal. There are very clear and visible cracks in the walls, although perhaps the metaphor of a wall would be a little generous. BC MP Ujjal Dosanjh was one of four Liberals who were opposed to the HST, which is extremely unpopular in regional polls. Mr.Dosanjh had just sent out flyers in his riding condemning the HST when his boss decided to back the Tories.

And let’s be frank here. Michael Ignatieff didn’t have a choice on the matter. The vote was going to pass anyway with the assent of the Bloc Quebecois, who only want Quebec to get their “harmonization” money just like B.C. and Ontario. The Liberals voting for, against, or not at all, did not matter in the end.

But the optics of Mr.Ignatieff’s flip-flop could not be worse. If you don’t like what the Liberal leader is saying today, just wait until tomorrow. It sounds like a Conservative attack ad. It isn’t.

The HST has been a divisive, controversial, polarizing issue that has created the strangest alliances and just as strange enemies. Both the provincial Liberal governments of B.C. and Ontario support the HST with the federal Conservatives, while the federal Liberals did not. Just as bizarre, both provincial Conservative parties reject the HST, going against their federal cousins. This had created some friction between Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Michael Ignatieff, since the Liberal leader had given confusing, contradictory, and non-committal answers about whether he supported the HST or not.

In the end, his thunder was stolen anyway. Just as the NDP saved the Conservatives from a vote of non-confidence in September when the Liberals were trying to force an election at the same time their poll numbers were plummeting off a cliff, this time the Liberals saw the writing on the wall and tried to save their skins. It’s too late for that. The opposition leader has proven himself ineffectual, indecisive, and ultimately a liability. The only question is whether it’s going to take a drubbing in the next election before he, like Stephane Dion before him, understands that.

Photo: Stephen Hui, Georgia Straight

David Schreck summed it up quite well in the Tyee yesterday when he suggested that Gordon Campbell is asking voters in B.C. to believe a paradoxical statement from the Liberals:

The Gord giveth and the Gord taketh away. In the legislature Wednesday, the Premier stated: “Let me reiterate that during the election campaign we had no intention of dealing with the HST… There’s no question that the HST is going to strengthen our economy. One of the things that we were clear about during the campaign is that we had every intention to strengthen our economy as it came out of this economic downturn.”

In case you missed it, you were supposed to read Gordon Campbell’s mind and understand that when he said he would “strengthen our economy” he meant that he would introduce the HST even though he said he wouldn’t do that.

You were also supposed to infer from his statement that when the Liberals said they were not exploring the HST during the election, that they actually meant they would be implementing it shortly afterward. If we’re to believe Gordon Campbell’s tortured logic, even though they said they had no intention of visiting the HST, we should have realized that the government had the intention to “strengthen” the economy by doing exactly that.

As Vaughn Palmer writes in the Vancouver Sun, Gordon Campbell has given the NDP their new slogan: “What’s he hiding from you this time?” There is a serious deficit issue with the Liberals here in B.C., and it isn’t just the fiscal outlook.

The main argument the Liberals are forwarding now appears to be that the taxes are a shift into consumption. As companies save $1.9 billion from the HST simplification method, the savings are supposed to be passed onto consumers. As David Schreck writes, the problem with that theory is that most consumers don’t purchase products from the beneficiaries of the HST: forestry, mining and construction.

If it were true that the tax changes represented a shift from income to consumption [the main argument behind the revenue neutral carbon tax in B.C.], then the Liberals would enact rebates and exemptions in the way that Ontario has done. Finance Minister Colin Hansen wrote a letter to the Victoria Times Colonist which was published November 21, which explained that B.C. has lower taxes than Ontario does, and that’s why Ontario is able to offer the kind of rebates it is.

I generally support consumption taxes, but they have to come in conjunction with income tax reductions or other tax shifts which do not put undue burden on the population for basic necessities. Since the BC Liberals haven’t yet offered anything like this [or even released anything detailing exactly how they expect it to work], we can assume that this province will have a much more difficult time adapting than our cousins in Ontario.