That’s to be expected, as this is no ordinary crime. Since the events of Sept. 11, anything linked to terrorism and Muslims has been under intense scrutiny. From kudos for the beleaguered RCMP and CSIS agencies to calls for a crackdown on Muslims, public reaction has been swift and vocal.

Some of the hysteria will pass, of course, but the arrests do bring home a growing problem more often associated with European countries with much larger influxes of Muslim immigrants: assimilation into the population and the radicalization of younger people, even those born in the host countries.

The as yet-unknown plot alleged in the charges laid this week evoked the 2006 arrest and subsequent convictions of some of the so-called Toronto 18. Those would-be terrorists were accused of planning to detonate bombs in Toronto and Ottawa, with further plans to storm buildings, take hostages and murder political leaders, including the prime minster. The goal was to create havoc, sending a message about Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan.

The plot brought to light this week is said to have ties to al-Qaeda, the very mention of which adds another dimension to the backlash.

It’s going to be a tricky time for Muslims in this country. Already under a general blanket of suspicion, they face increased scrutiny. Many Canadians will be watching for a strong condemnation against the plot from mainstream members of that community.

The arrests also shine a light on Afghanistan, where Canada’s part in the occupation is winding down to a planned withdrawal next year.

Canadians have had issues with the military adventure since 2001. Most oppose the occupation and Canada’s role in it. This was never a good situation. There’s nothing to be “won,” and history has shown the effort will have no effect on the state of affairs in that troubled country: we’ll continue to pour lives and money into a country unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

The occupation is all about taking control of strategic territory. That’s the one and only reason foreign troops are there. Yet we’ll hear nothing but platitudes about democracy and freedom.

At the end of the day – and sooner or later there will be an end – we’ll have nothing to show for it but gravesites and a tremendous tab.

Aside from the obvious wrong of occupying an independent country, there is a purely pragmatic argument to be made for leaving Afghanistan: the financial cost of billions of dollars with absolutely no return.

The federal government estimates the cost of the mission, from 2001 to the current withdrawal date of 2011, at $11.3 billion. That doesn’t include some figures such as equipment depreciation. Nor does it include the ongoing disability and health care costs for veterans.

The war there has helped push Canadian military spending to highs not seen since the Second World War, outstripping the Cold War era.

There are far better reasons to get out of Afghanistan than the threat of terrorism.

From Auditor General Sheila Fraser to Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, the prime minister has been waging a war on those who take him to task for the things his government does and does not do, despite promises and rules to the contrary.

Under scrutiny again right now is the so-called economic action plan. The stimulus spending on infrastructure has been more talk than action, but Harper still maintains he wants to wrap things up by next spring. That goes against the wisdom of many economists, including Nobel laureate Paul Krugman who spoke on this issue last week, who see the possibility of a double-dip recession.

Moreover, much of money promised to municipalities has yet to be seen, partly due to the long lead-time involved in getting shovels in the ground, yes, but also to a certain slowness in Ottawa.

It would come as no surprise to many that the government is hoping to promise much and deliver little.
You could call it election posturing – it is – but it also might have something of a placebo effect. The economy, we’re repeatedly told, is closely tied to confidence: perhaps it’s more important to be seen to be doing something than actually doing it.

At the very least, that convenient after-the-fact argument should help if the multibillion-dollar deficits are smaller than initially forecast, the result of not actually spending the money announced over and over again in Conservative-friendly photo ops.

To be sure, some of the cash is flowing. Woolwich and Wellesley townships have received millions for projects completed, now underway or soon to get going. And there’s no arguing the stimulus spending has been a boon as these and other municipalities tackle a growing infrastructure deficit.

But we should also look at what we’ll have when the economy picks up again: some new roads, bridges and facilities … and a massive deficit to remind us of what it cost.

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised by the government’s choices. The last time Canadians saw record deficits was under a Conservative government, one that advanced trickle-down economics, cutting taxes to the wealthiest while boosting spending, often on pet projects and measures designed for political gain rather than the common good. Sound familiar? It’s precisely what has happened under Harper. This despite the fact that he’s championed the opposite course.

Such ill-advised moves as cutting the GST by two percentage points – the economic impact was negligible – and ramping up spending in an attempt to buy a majority left the economy in poor position to deal with the downturn.

The economy will recover, but government measures will not have been the factor they could have been.

Anyone in the market for groceries – and that’s all of us, one way or another – will have noticed significant price hikes, the result, we’re told, of escalating commodity prices and the cost of transportation.

As with the oil companies, the major supermarket operators tell us they’re simply passing on increased costs.

While food prices have been increasing, many farmers are seeing lower returns.

Statistics Canada reports that food costs continued to put significant upward pressure on prices, albeit to a lesser degree than in previous months. In the 12 months to July, food prices rose five per cent, compared with increases of 5.5 per cent in June and 6.4 per cent in May.

The main factor was higher prices for food purchased from stores, which rose above inflation again  in July.

For consumers, the past couple of years have seen double-digit hikes on a variety of items at the supermarket, from cheese to pasta. Low-income earners have felt the pinch, but we’ve been sheltered from the kind of impacts seen elsewhere, particularly in the developing world.

Climate change, biofuels and political upheaval have played a role in reducing outputs and increasing the cost of the food we do produce. In North America, where food takes up 10 or 20 per cent of our incomes, the results have been noticeable; in countries where food takes up 60, 70 or even 80 per cent of earnings, the changes have been catastrophic.

Prices paid to farmers have been dropping, in some cases down 50 per cent from earlier peaks. We haven’t seen those kinds of drops on items found on supermarket shelves, so consumers continue to suffer even as farmers take a hit.

Although farmers feel unloved by governments – witness the increasing tendency for protests – casual onlookers may figure plenty is being done for the agricultural sector. Funding announcements have been frequent over the years since the mad-cow issue began in Alberta in May of 2003. But Canadian producers facing a hostile marketplace are not seeing anything like the support offered by the governments of two major competitors, the U.S. and European Union, where subsidies amount to tens of billions of dollars.

Experts now say the challenge for Canadian producers is to adopt new technologies, to innovate and to produce value-added products to remain ahead of international competitors.

The key here is research, particularly the government-funded variety. In that way, government money could be directed toward longer-term strategies to keep the agricultural sector alive and kicking, rather than going to emergency aid for a sector that seems to be lurching from crisis to crisis.

In the end, rural Canada will be much healthier. For urban shoppers, that will mean a continued stream of products to choose from at prices they can afford.

Defending the Conservative government’s plan to spend billions of dollars on new prisons even as the crime rate drops, the Treasury Board President said crime is going unreported. He had no statistics of his own, proof to back up his disregard of the actual statistics.

In fact, the information we do have shows the level of unreported crime has remained steady through much of the decade.

What we’re seeing here is yet another ideological move from the Harper government: as with the census issue, it’s not about facts, but about personal priorities.

Planning to spend $10-$13 billion on prisons is excessive. Doing after running up a record deficit is folly.

Harper, however, seems intent on pandering to his base, spouting tough-on-crime rhetoric. He also does the public a disservice by promoting fear merely to justify spending massive amounts of money – the same tactics being used to justify spending $16 billion on an untendered contract for jet fighters.

Critics have been quick to compare Harper’s prison plans to the U.S. model, saying he’s taking another page out of the Republican playbook. The parallels exist, the prison issue being just the latest.

Looking at the situation to the south, that’s certainly a model we don’t want to follow. The U.S. has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world – about 750 of every 100,000 people in the country, about seven times greater than in Canada – yet it’s unclear what, if any effect that’s had on the crime rate.
Certainly, no one is going to argue the U.S. is safer than Canada.

Much of the increase in U.S. incarceration rates has come in that last three or four decades – between 1970 and 2000, the general population grew by 40 per cent, the prison population by 500 per cent – aided lately by Republican governments and the push for private, for-profit meaga-prisons.

At the same time, cuts have been made to crime prevention and victims’ aid programs. As well, policies have exacerbated the link between poverty and crime rates.

We’ve seen similar changes here under the Conservative government, including a 70 per cent cut to crime prevention funding.

Even the talking points are the same. The Tories are already briefing members to apply the “soft on crime” label to anyone critical of the billions in spending the government can’t justify.

While generally happy to share a border with the U.S., there are differences most Canadians want to maintain. With our lower crime rates, cleaner cities, better education system and universal health care, to name a few, we see ourselves as a more compassionate and liberal society. We admire many of the qualities exuded by our American cousins, but their crime issues aren’t among them.

When it comes to crime, the U.S. has problems we want no part of here, including the proliferation of guns, a legacy of racial issues and a for-profit factor in its criminal justice system.

The Tories, however, show the signs of wanting to take that road.

Woolwich Mayor Bill Strauss faces two challengers, but councillors Ruby Weber, Mark Bauman  and Murray Martin are looking at acclamation at this point, six weeks ahead of the nomination deadline for the Oct. 25 municipal election. Elmira resident Jim David is seeking the other Ward 1 seat – incumbent Sandy Shantz has yet to declare what she intends to do.

All five current Wellesley council members – Mayor Ross Kelterborn, Shelley Wagner, Herb Neher, Jim Olender and Paul Hergott – are the only ones to have filed papers.

Clearly this situation is not the stuff of epic political battles. Whether or not you agree the incumbents are doing a good job, putting them through the trial of a widely-contested election is a good thing: good for voters, good for debate and, most of all, good for democracy.

For that reason, we’re calling on public-minded citizens in both townships to come forward and stand for election – the pay’s not too great (mayors’ aside), the hours erratic, the public ungrateful and the media coverage scathing, but aside from that, it’s a great job and a way to both shape and serve the community where you live.

Municipal councils do have a great deal of influence over the quality of life in their communities. That’s especially true in the townships, where even small decisions can have a noticeable impact. Because that’s the case, it’s even more important to have community-minded people at the helm, those with the drive to enhance the quality of life here.

A contested election generates ideas, perhaps dragging residents out of their typical apathy. With any luck, we’d see voter turnout exceed the measly 30 per cent that’s the norm these days. Of course, there would be greater interest if controversy were the order of the day; just look at the public reaction to the gravel pit applications and issues such as development in Victoria Glen park to see just how galvanized people can get.

Most of the time, however, council meetings are dry affairs. That is both cause and effect in a system that essentially sees staff drive the agenda. Councillors often simply review reports and vote on the recommendations. Discussion is typically muted, with little dissent around the table, a situation made worse by the ill-considered Harris-era decision to reduce the size of municipal councils. A few more bodies around the table would provide more eyes to study reports, more voices to air opinions and more chances to vet ideas.

There’s no need for a free-for-all in council chambers, but dissent and debate are essential parts of the democratic process. Those qualities are precisely why we need more people to get involved in local politics. The more proactive the participants, the better the outcome will be for residents of the townships.

For voters, municipal elections typically mean a low turnout – the same should not be true of candidates.

It appears, however, the federal government will have to reverse course on this one, especially now that the resignation of Statistics Canada head Munir Sheikh has given lie to Industry Minister Tony Clement’s claims the agency was on side.

The decision to make the protracted form a voluntary part of the 2011 Census was purely ideological: many people see it as an invasion of privacy, a case of big government prying into their business. They’re right. Any information collected beyond basic facts – age, sex, place of residency – goes beyond the original intent. But that doesn’t mean Stephen Harper has made the right decision.

The census has grown to the point where it provides data for a variety of governmental, business and social studies. Groups as diverse as scientists, non-profit agencies and academics have all decried the government’s plan to change the census. Information gleaned from the census is the basis of government policymaking, for instance.

In 2006, the last census year, forms were sent to 13.5 million households. The short questionnaire contained eight questions and was completed by 80 per cent of households. The long questionnaire, sent to one in five homes, contained the same questions as the short form plus 53 additional questions.

Demographic information is used to determine transfer and equalization payments to the provinces under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, and for programs for Veterans under the War Veterans Allowance Act, for instance.

Information is used to determine federal health and social transfer payments; to aid in the settlement of refugees and for language instruction for newcomers to Canada; to monitor labour market activity and income for the Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance program and the Old Age Security; and assist with policies governing housing and education, among others.

Making the long form voluntary, critics say, would make the information less usable, as certain segments of society would be less likely to take part. Rather than having StatsCan choose a broad cross-section, the general population would in effect be self-screening, skewing the results. That would render data collected in 2011 out of line with that taken from previous censuses, the mandatory long-form survey having been in place for three decades.

While the long form is invasive and coercive, we’re told the ends justify the means. We give up a little to gain much more. There’s a trade-off. That should be the basis of a debate about the proposed changes. Given that the next census falls in 2011 and the government made the decision to scrap the long form in isolation, it’s probably best to allow for business as usual next year. A protracted discussion could then be held in advance of the next one, five years later.

Just a week later, Ontarians were hit with the new HST. Sold to us as a way to streamline business practices and encourage job creation, the tax is but the latest step in the process of moving taxes off of corporations and onto individuals.

Also rolled out July 1 was a series of new environmental fees on a host of products, from compact fluorescent light bulbs to fire extinguishers. The goal is to have manufacturers of products contribute to the costs of disposal or recycling of their goods. That in itself is not a bad idea, but the implementation has been nothing short of sorry, with the inadequacies of Stewardship Ontario blowing back on the province.

Industry run, Stewardship Ontario is not a government agency, but is regulated by it. Created in 2004, its mandate is to oversee the Blue Box program, expanding in 2008 to encompass the Municipal Household and Special Waste program, which saw so-called eco fees introduced on a handful of items. At the top of the month, that list expanded to 22 categories of goods deemed to require special handling at the end of their useful lives.

For the most part, we don’t pay up front for the lifecycle of the products we buy. Neither do the makers of goods.

Typically, the costs of waste collection – later augmented by recycling – and pollution have simply been what economists call externalities: someone other than the manufacturer picks up the costs. That someone is the collective we: our taxes pay for waste management and for the health care costs that come from a polluted environment. Individually, we pay with our wallets and with our health. The particulate matter in the air so prevalent on smog days comes with a cost not paid for by the manufacturers pumping the stuff out of their smokestacks.

Introduced July 1, the same day the HST came into play, the eco fees were seen by many of us as yet another tax grab. That sentiment was enhanced by a lack of transparency, and by a huge number of cases where shoppers were charged rates far above what was mandated. In some cases, the fees differed from store to store.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that some manufacturers are simply absorbing the fee or rolling it into their wholesale prices, while others are passing it on to their retail customers. At the store level, merchants can eat the costs or simply pass them on to consumers.

Facing a public backlash, the province is now talking tough with Stewardship Ontario, calling for clear labeling of eco fees so consumers know upfront what to expect. The government is also keen to assure us the fees are not taxes: the money does not go to the province, but is used to pay for disposal of hazardous materials. Of course, they’ll pass those costs onto us, the consumers. Again, that’s fair enough: they make it, but they do so for us.

This practice could act as something of a deterrent, making us think twice about buying some goods, both because of the cost and because of our new awareness that items don’t simply disappear after we dump them.

Since the list was introduced in September 2008, only 11 fines have been imposed, a total of $73,000. Of that, only $250 had been collected by last March, a report revealed this week. The numbers are miniscule even compared to the low fine limits – $1,500 for individuals and $15,000 for telemarketing companies – for those who call someone registered on the do-not-call list.

Apparently the Conservative’s law-and-order agenda doesn’t extend to its own weakly-worded legislation, despite the fact millions of Canadians have joined the battle against telemarketers by signing up. Either that or the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which runs the program, is being extremely lax. Or both, which does seem to be the case.

To those of us facing those calls that usually come as we’re sitting down to dinner – Do you want your carpets cleaned? New windows? Trash hauled away? – the solution is simple: ban such calls outright, impose crippling fines and enforce them vigorously. That would represent a major shift in government policy: doing something that Canadians actually want, instead of finding new ways to waste money and inconvenience us.

Critics, largely those in the telemarketing field, naturally oppose such a move, claiming it would put some companies out of business – the industry is worth some $18 billion, employing almost 300,000 people.
That may be a concern, but it is irrelevant to the argument: like so-called spam e-mail, unwanted calls clog up a resource the consumer pays for himself and interferes in receiving valued information. The phone is an essential tool: people shouldn’t have to deal with unwanted calls if that is their desire, nor should they have to resort to technical screening tools to do so.

The government’s own studies show 80 per cent of us find telemarketing calls annoying, with more than 60 per cent in favour of the registry.

When the current legislation was introduced, it was immediately lambasted for its looseness and loopholes, critiques that have proven to have been well founded. The list was essentially neutered from the start.

A better idea? Make the practice of telemarketing illegal – that includes any and all groups, no exceptions – and allow the industry to create a “do-call” list: anybody who wants such calls can sign an agreement explicitly allowing the annoyance.

In that way, the costs are borne directly by the industry, and everyone is automatically covered, with no need to opt out.

Sweeping changes and severe penalties offered up at no cost to taxpayers is the only useful course of action in what would otherwise be a public relations stunt doomed to backfire.

The $300 million pledged is a considerable amount of money, but the region was expecting far more. In fact, it was looking for Queen’s Park to cover two-thirds of the $790 million earmarked for rapid transit in Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. The federal government, which has yet to commit to the plan, was expected to pay most of the remaining costs, leaving regional taxpayers to pick up the rest of the tab, optimistically some $50 million.

Now, even if Ottawa matches the $300 million, we’re still facing a $190 million shortfall. And that doesn’t included the tens of millions of dollars for direct costs such as land acquisition, nor the multiples of that needed to alter the road network to deal with the installation of a new rail corridor.

Most troubling, however, is the absolute certainty that the cost estimates bandied about today will undoubtedly be unrealistic should the rail project go ahead. As municipalities have discovered under infrastructure funding programs, the one-third shares picked up by upper tier governments only cover original budget estimates. When the actual costs come in much higher, often the case here in the townships, the municipality is left to make up the difference.

In short, the $300 million that represents about 38 per cent of $790 million today will be a much smaller part of the total when the bill passes $1 billion or more.

Of course, the feds could decline to get involved or provide less than $300 million. We are in a time of restraint, after all, despite the profligate spending by the Harper government just now.

We’ve argued here before that investment in rail lines is worthwhile, but only on a larger scale. A high-speed rail link between Kitchener and Toronto, for instance, would do far more to get people out of their cars than a train taking the milk run between two shopping malls in K-W.

A cheap and fast train to Toronto would take many commuters off the roads, particularly the 401. It would also encourage more people to use transit, which is often shunned because it’s slow, inconvenient and costly. And, of course, there’s a certain stigma associated with it. With the right incentive – we mentioned fast and inexpensive, right? – more people might be willing to become accustomed to public transit. At that point, they may even opt to use Grand River Transit to connect to the fast trains. A bit of a gamble, but far less so than the risk the region is prepared to take with piles of your money.

Given the reduced funding, rapid buses – much less expensive and far more flexible to deploy – make more sense. The math is simple: of the $790 million proposed for rapid transit, $710 million would go toward the train linking Conestoga Mall and Fairview Park. Just $80 million of the total would cover rapid buses connecting Cambridge to the network.

In that light, the decision is a simple one, too.

“We might find that we’re overpaid and should be getting less money,” suggested Coun. Murray Martin during the debate Tuesday night, but that’s something of a pipedream. No consultant looking to stay in business is going to tell a customer to take less money.

If the process works anything like the consultants who reported on staff wages, the increases will be well above inflation, well above what’s warranted and well above the increase in what most residents have received and can expect to receive for the foreseeable future. And that doesn’t even cover the lamentable increase in staff numbers.

The last time council pay was discussed, prior to the 2006 election, a committee of volunteers did the work, opting for a 2.5-per-cent annual increase for the term of council. Generous, especially in light of the economic meltdown that began in 2008.

Given the still precarious economy – employment numbers have not been robust; good jobs even scarcer – the next batch of Woolwich councillors will be overseeing cuts and other austerity measures. Wage rollbacks won’t be possible until the ill-considered contract settlements play out, but freezes and staff reductions are not just options to be considered, they’ll be essential in taming the budget while holding the line on out-of-control property taxes.

In that light, council pay will have to reflect reality.

In real terms, the money paid to councillors is a small portion of the overall budget. Nor are they overpaid for what they do. Still, they have to lead by example, and that will mean freezes or very modest increases in line with what we’ve seen in the private sector. That makes spending $5,000 on a study a waste of resources: a political decision will be made in the end, and the only option is restraint.

Whatever figure the consultants come up with will be moot. Moreover, there’s a danger council would be advised to join the disturbing trend toward automatic annual increases, sometimes tied to increases negotiated with municipal staffers.

Automatic increases may be more comfortable for politicians – most squirm even just a little in discussing their own compensation – but they do nothing to preserve openness and accountability in what is surely the most conflict-ridden part of a councillor’s duties. Tying increases to what the municipality pays its employees smacks of conflict: it’s council’s role to minimize expenses in contract negotiations, yet the bigger the staff increase, the larger their own gains when the two rates are tied together.

As for councillors’ pay, the money they receive is an honourarium. Theirs is not a job – it is supposed to be a public calling for which they receive a small stipend. In general, remuneration is dealt with every four years: as the current council prepares to exit, members decide on a fair increase for those who will serve in the next term of office. This gives residents a chance to express their opinion of the raise when they go to the ballot box.