In Quebec this week, a Muslim woman was sent home from a school exam for refusing to remove her face covering. The provincial government says it’s drafting new rules to prevent religious displays from those using public services.

The battle over such coverings has already come to a head in Europe, where France moved against them. Even very liberal Holland has brought in new rules compelling immigrants to adopt Dutch culture or face deportation.

The Swiss referendum to ban the construction of new minarets – associated with Muslim mosques – is another sign of a push back against Islam in the West.

In Canada, where immigrants are much more prevalent, we’ve been slow to tackle the growing problem. Political correctness has stifled debate. Let’s be clear, this is about more than just whether burkas are oppressive to women or if face coverings pose a security threat. Both are valid concerns, but the wider issues involve distrust of Islam – the movement, not necessarily the religion, though the public often makes no such distinction – and the defense of Canadian culture.

Older, more homogenous European countries have readily identifiable cultures. Immigrants make up small and often very visible minorities. Canada, on the other hand, is a country of immigrants. But the heritage of the original Anglo-Saxon and French settlers is still predominant, despite a Statistics Canada report released this week that shows the number of visible minorities rising dramatically, especially in Toronto.

When some people talk of protecting Canadian culture, even the very idea of such a thing is challenged. Others say such a stance is racist. It’s no wonder we’re not keen to start the debate.
That may change, however, if this week’s event in Quebec – and others like it – ends up in court or, worse still, a human rights agency. If things go that way, the legal wrangling will drag on for ages. And you can bet related issues will be dragged into the fray. At stake will be the ability of Canadians to protect this country’s history and to shape the kind of society they want.

Ideally, we’d overhaul the rules before the battle, the better to serve Canadians. The Charter of Rights is deeply flawed, but can’t be touched without constitutional headaches – it’s not going to happen. But the harmful Canadian Human Rights Act should go, along with the human rights commission and tribunal.

Both organizations function in undemocratic and extra-legal ways. Largely unaccountable, they operate with no rules of evidence, no presumption of innocence and don’t recognize truth as a defence. Critics call the process little more than a witch-hunt carried out by appointees with few qualifications but plenty of axes to grind.

Fairness demands they go. Then we go about deciding what kind of country we want to be.

The township is looking at resurfacing the short road, which runs between Church and William streets. That just happens to be adjacent to Woolwich’s new administration building, suggesting sprucing up the roadway would add to the sheen of the renovated facility.

The plans also include extending a sidewalk along the full length of the west side of the street. As reported last week, councillors voted to forego a sidewalk on the east side, which would have disrupted parking and traffic flow at the Elmira Home Hardware store.

Beyond the cost of repaving the road and adding sidewalks – bids last year came in at $180,000, well above the $58,000 budgeted by the township – the project should give the township pause to think about the bigger picture. The rationale for new pavement, gutters and sidewalks is that they’d be in keeping with municipal design standards. But why does this or any municipality need sidewalks on both sides of streets, for instance?

This is not to say the standard is not desirable, but rather to challenge the need to apply it automatically. As in the Maple Street case, there’s no real need for sidewalks on both sides of the road. Yes, the street runs to Riverside Public School, but it can hardly be said to be a major artery, for either cars or pedestrians.

Sidewalks certainly serve a purpose. Properly designed – i.e. unlike what we find in this part of the world – they would provide ample room for pedestrians and separate lanes, removed from motorized traffic, for bicycles. That would be in keeping with increasingly common arguments against our dependency on cars.

Instead, what we get is an extra expense – not just upfront costs, but ongoing maintenance – with sometimes questionable benefits.

One such claim, and one that arose at this week’s council meeting, involves accessibility. That stems from the very dubious and ill-considered Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ODA), provincial legislation that forces municipalities to spend large sums of money for very little gain.

Again, no one is looking at the big picture. Yes, it’s nice to do something for everyone, but economic reality dictates we have finite resources: we would be much better off spending money on infrastructure and programs that provide the greatest benefit to the largest number of people. Political correctness be damned.

That’s not an argument in favour of doing nothing to accommodate others. There’s no reason not to make accessibility a part of all new buildings, for instance. But with costs soaring – led by health care spending – the time has come to make tough decisions about our priorities.

That starts with looking at the greater good, then choosing to address only what’s most pressing.

Canadians are worried about the precarious economic recovery. Officially the recession is over, but that bit of news hasn’t made its way down to the frontlines just yet. More stimulus spending will be needed.

We’re also worried about record deficits, now north of $56 billion.

The Harper government will try to tackle both issues next week, perhaps unveiling its inner contortionist.
Of course, much of the already announced stimulus spending is set for this year, including projects in the townships. This is sure to lead to opposition charges the government has been long on pledges and short on actually delivering money. Likewise, they’ll challenge the effectiveness of the government’s choices.

Witness Liberal critic Gerard Kennedy, for instance.

“Will we get value, or will we get a big mess?” he asked, taking the government to task for the much-publicized partisan use of infrastructure money whereby Conservative ridings received far more funding.

“The jury is out on whether any of these things worked,” he added.

In support of their choices, the Conservatives have undoubtedly been, well, liberal in their use of numbers. So too have the opposition parties, which play up the most damning statistics to bolster their cases.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle. And 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’s a convenient after-the-fact argument should the multibillion-dollar deficits be 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.

Woolwich and Wellesley townships, along with most municipalities countrywide, have enjoyed the influx of stimulus money. With the recession over, the tap is being closed. Any local government that figured the good times would never end is in for a rude awakening, if not this year then next.

Leaving aside the federal government’s plan to take on the entitlements of its workers – some of it warranted, some of it undoubtedly driven by ideology – there remains a $56-billion deficit to tackle.

Canada is in a much better economic position to cope with that record deficit. Some economists argue there’s no need to take drastic measures just yet, especially as the economy could sag again, requiring more stimulus spending. That said, Canadians as a whole want to see the deficit slain: we’ve bought into that particular bogeyman.

A recent poll by EKOS Research shows we’re concerned with the deficit and want steps taken to deal with it. Only 10 per cent of the population wants the government to continue to run deficits, while 46 per cent are calling for cuts to services and spending. Fourteen per cent support higher taxes. A sizeable chunk, 30 per cent, didn’t have an opinion on the subject.

“It is a tribute to how sternly Canadians hold to their recent governmental tradition of avoiding deficits that running one next year was the least favoured option. … Some Canadians even prefer to see taxes raised than see the deficit continue as it is. The most favoured option in this poll is to see cuts to services and government spending,” read the EKOS report.

That kind of thinking is just up Stephen Harper’s alley. We can expect him to take comfort in those poll numbers as the Conservatives table their next budget.

While an outright attack on public sector workers makes little sense – witness the Ontario example under Mike Harris, many of whose colleagues are now in Ottawa – there is a sense that the economic pain has not been shared equally with the private sector.

There is an argument to be made that public sector spending is outstripping the productive sector’s ability to pay.  As the former depends entirely on the latter, the gap must inevitably cause upheaval as we question the value-for-money scenario: what are we getting for the cash we pour into the system? And how often can governments keep going to the well before it runs dry?

Having denounced the idea of tax hikes, the Conservatives appear headed for cuts. That will translate into fewer dollars for the province, which is struggling with a $25-billion deficit of its own. It’s no stretch to predict there will be little in the way of senior government money making its way to municipalities, which have already overburdened their own ratepayers. The chopping that will begin at the top will work its way through the system.

Essentially, both argued the public is making assumptions based on incomplete information. Specifically to the WMC, they suggested patience is necessary – let the place go through a full year of operations before passing judgment on the facility and its staff.

Fair enough.

But there are frustrations, which boiled over last week in response to the latest in a long line of significant arena rental fee increases.

While representatives of the user groups weren’t on hand Tuesday night to hear his presentation, Devitt responded to a long list of points raised the previous week. Much of the explanation had to do with the need for increased revenues and the rationale for massive cost increases related to staff numbers. Essentially, he argued, with a larger facility and more programs, the township has to spend more to do more and to generate more revenue in the future.

Long-time users, however, feel that the increased revenue is being generated at their expense, perhaps simply to cover increased staff costs. As Coun. Ruby Weber pointed out, they’re not sure they’re getting good value for their money, with those who rent ice bearing much of the burden.

In that light, it’s now up to the township to prove the new way of doing things – including higher rates and two-tiered pricing – is justified, especially in comparison to the way things were done previously at the old arena and pool.

That the WMC’s largest customers are also longstanding ones adds an extra layer of complexity: they know the process and were comfortable with the operation. The changes at the new facility, some of them inevitable, have led to some grumbling. It’s a situation the township would be wise to nip in the bud.

Brenneman recognized that fact in acknowledging that users’ perceptions of the operation become the de facto reality.

“For instance, there’s a perception that there’s a lot of staff standing around doing nothing. That’s just a perception, not necessarily based on fact,” he said, adding the township will have to work harder to educate the public about the reality of operating the new facility.

Having been occupied with getting a whole slate of new buildings constructed, staff is now turning its attention to making sure they’re running smoothly, he said, asking the public to put in perspective the large amount of work tackled by a relatively small staff.

Again, fair enough. We’re halfway through the WMC’s first year. The real assessment will come in the fall. Just in time for the municipal election.

When user groups pushed for the township to move up the timeline for replacing the old arena and pool in Elmira, councillors stressed the fact that would mean higher user fees. And that’s just what happened beginning in 2005.

That first year, ice rental rates went up more than eight per cent, with council opting to hold that level for several more years. At the time, groups such Woolwich Minor Hockey and the Elmira Figure Skating Club expressed concerns about the impact on membership fees, fearing higher prices would deter parents from enrolling their children in sports organizations.

It was déjà vu all over again this week at Woolwich council as some of those same groups lamented the latest round of fee hikes. Most troubling was the plan to introduce a tiered rate structure, with the township charging considerably more for ice time at the Dan Snyder Memorial Arena versus the rate charged at the Jim McLeod ice pad and the St. Jacobs arena.

To their credit, the residents who addressed councillors Tuesday night seemed resigned to the 3.5-per-cent jump in rates for ice time – despite being well above inflation, the increases proposed for next season are lower than has been in the norm in recent years. But with the Snyder arena, the increase works out to 13.6 per cent, much tougher to take in stride. Coming on top of a wave of increases that has seen rates rise by more than 50 per cent in the past half-decade, that extra jump is hard to take.

As some have noted, if the tiered pricing stays in place, there will be some users who’ll request ice time in the other arenas simply to avoid the extra cost. That could have an impact on revenues. However, because the arenas at the Woolwich Memorial Centre have proven to be so popular – justifying the public demand for twin pads – moving every minor sport team to other venues may prove difficult. Clearly, those organizations are going to see some extra costs if council stays the course on this issue.

The Elmira Sugar Kings, who call the Dan Snyder arena home, will bear the full cost if the tiered pricing goes into effect next fall.

Perturbed at the prospect of paying more, users are grumbling about paying a premium price for a facility that seems to have some deficiencies. The Snyder arena has been plagued with bad ice since its opening. The township and the builder are working on resolving the problem, but without luck so far. As well, the massive cost increases, largely due to staffing levels, have not gone unnoticed. Revenues are up, they note, but expenses more so – it seems obvious there’s room for the township to cut costs significantly before turning to the community for yet more money.

Adding to the price squeeze is the impending arrival of the harmonized sales tax, which will essentially increase prices by another eight per cent, the effect of applying the provincial levy to a host of previously untaxed services.

Given the financial implications, it will be interesting to see how Woolwich handles upcoming discussions about subsidies to minor sports and other rec. groups.

Those days, as we well know, are long gone.

The real costs of scarcity and environmental damage are now showing up in conventional energy prices. And for some years now, water has edged into that territory, no longer simply taken for granted and priced accordingly.

Again this year, rates for water and sewers are soaring. We ignored the deteriorating infrastructure that brought us fresh water and piped away what we had used. We paid scant attention to the ecological system that provided the supply and absorbed our waste. No more. Prices are rising now to make up for years of neglect – the relatively free ride is over.
By now, Woolwich residents are no strangers to large increases in the price of water – the township has been hiking rates to reflect changes in provincial rules. In approving the 2010 budget, Woolwich council endorsed a water-rate increase of 7.3 per cent and boosted wastewater fees by 10.1 per cent.

The Waterloo Region rates are up 6.9 per cent and 9.9 per cent respectively; with Wellesley provided services by the upper tier government, fees there will rise in accordance with a rolling 10-year plan that will see increases well above today’s inflation rates.

With the region planning for ongoing significant jumps in its rates, you’ll continue to see those expenses appear on your municipal water bill.

Over the next few years, rates could essentially double, the region claiming major work is needed to deal with aging infrastructure and to accommodate population growth.

However, necessary or not, increases do not play well with the public, the people who have been digging deeper into their pockets to pay for water. Part of the problem, of course, stems from a public perception that water is just there for taking.

Because it seems like we’re always paying more, but receiving nothing more in return – at least not much that we can see – the increases rankle.

While we can’t see where our cash is going, Woolwich and all other Ontario municipalities have been incurring increased costs due to government rules, much of it knee-jerk reaction to what happened in Walkerton. For communities with safe drinking water, the extra layer of red tape has served only to boost costs, with no effect on the product that pours out of our taps.

Regulations governing water testing – warranted or not – have helped boost costs, but nothing like the infrastructure upgrades that will be needed in the coming years. Again, some of those are the fault of the province, which has changed the way municipalities must handle water and sewage. The province hands out rules but no money, leaving the municipalities responsible for passing on the costs to its residents.

The bottom line is you’ll be paying more this year and every year for the foreseeable future.

And just wait until growth demands a pipeline to service our water-poor region. Have your chequebooks handy.

From the numbers in the audience at Tuesday’s council meeting and the push-back from opponents, you would think councillors were making a final decision rather than simply starting the formalprocess to investigate the possibility of a CHL.

Residents are understandably leery of any potential controls on what they can do with their properties, with some arguing the bridge itself already enjoys a heritage designation so there is no need to do more. At this point, however, the township is only investigating its options, as planning staff have determined a study is necessary under provincial regulations.

Long before any changes are made, West Montrose residents will have their say about the issue. And even if a CHL designation is to be made, the scope will be determined by the township in consultation with residents.

That some people have confused the CHL process with the much more rigourous and restrictive cultural heritage district designation has not helped the situation. Although the latter was mentioned in the report by Dr. Robert Shipley of the Heritage Resources Centre at the University of Waterloo, the township is not considering that option.

While some residents worry about the long-term impact of any heritage designation, the most pressing issue related to the CHL study is the fate of Capital Paving’s application to develop a large gravel pit near the bridge site.

The company sees the CHL process, which could take up to a year to complete, as delaying its plans. With Woolwich pondering an interim-control bylaw to freeze larger-scale development in the area for the duration of the study, the company sent solicitor Jonathan Kahn to challenge that notion.

Kahn called the proposed bylaw “unwarranted and inappropriate,” and warned the company would be forced to launch an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board if the township did not move quickly on its application. Capital Paving has just seven months left on a two-year window to file documents related to the gravel pit with the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Although the township would prefer to avoid an OMB hearing, that seems inevitable. Whatever council ultimately decides, someone is going to challenge the outcome. The same applies to the proposed Hunsberger pit near Conestogo.

If council sides with the developers, resident groups in both communities have built war chests in preparation for a legal battle. If the township supports its citizens, the developers will take their cases to the OMB and MNR. And, if history is any indicator, both those agencies will sweep aside municipal decisions and the wishes of the majority in opposition.

The poor provincial record of respecting local wishes is magnified in the case of gravel pits, where the Aggregate Resources Act is practically a cudgel, and the Ministry of Natural Resources seen as a defender of operators, not Ontarians.

Currently, provincial policies favour developers, putting far too much power in the hands of the OMB. Opponents such as Gravel Watch Ontario say the same is true of the aggregate policies.
The battle is just beginning.

The township will find itself in a more difficult financial position this year. Much of that is of its own making: this week’s wage settlements do not mesh with private-sector realities, nor with the need for cuts rather than significant increases to the municipality’s single-largest expenditure. Then there’s the recent building binge to pay for, compounded by having to find a replacement source for more than $1 million Woolwich had expected from the Victoria Glen development.

As councillors heard at this week’s meeting, the township and every other municipality can expect the flood of infrastructure money to begin drying up, along with other funding from the federal and provincial governments.  Having raised taxes far above inflationary levels for several years, Woolwich can’t keep returning to that well. The 2010 budget target is already an out-of-sync four per cent, including two per cent for the new facilities levy, now in its last year – there’s no room to manouevre.

As for in-kind contributions, the township provides those as a matter of course. If the Dan Snyder Memorial Arena were to be idle, the ice out, it might have been easy for council to make it available to the EMSF committee. However, the potential loss of revenue and the associated costs with temporarily covering the ice to host festival-related events makes the idea a nonstarter.

What’s more, the cost to the township would be well beyond what the festival typically raises from the event it hopes to offer at the arena – the numbers just don’t add up.

Prorogation really is an issue

Stephen Harper and his supporters were sure the backlash against the latest use of prorogation was notable only to the media looking for conflict and opposition partisans creating a tempest in a teacup.
Somebody apparently forget to tell the rest of the country’s residents this was a non-issue.

A new poll from EKOS shows the Conservatives took a major hit in public support, largely due to perception the government has something to hide and manipulated the rules to cover it up. The party, which was comfortably in majority territory just three months ago, now finds itself struggling to stay ahead of the opposition Liberals. The Tories had 30.0 per cent support compared to 29.3 for the Liberals (the NDP has 15.3, the Green Party 11.9 and the Bloc 10.2).

“For those who have been speculating as to whether Canadians really care about the ‘obscure’ issue of prorogation the evidence is now incontrovertible,” said EKOS President Frank Graves.  “Canadians have noticed, they do care and this is having a very negative impact on Conservative fortunes.”

Harper is further hampered by the perception he’s been playing fast and loose with Parliament in order to avoid accountability, putting his ambitions ahead of democracy.

With almost 190,000 members, The Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament Facebook group is a fair indication the public actually does care about the issue, yet another case where Harper has misjudged our priorities.

Reaction to his announcement was immediate, even though it was made in the midst of the Christmas holidays in an attempt to minimize the fallout: we were supposed to be too stuffed with turkey to notice. Canadians, however, quickly recognized this is an attempt by the Conservatives to stifle debate on a host of government inadequacies, most notably its handling of the invasion of Afghanistan and the detainee issue.

A poll released this week by Angus Reid shows the recent prorogation of Parliament does not sit well with a majority of Canadians. Some 53 per cent of respondents disagree with the decision. Conversely, only 19 per cent agree with the move. Twenty-eight per cent are undecided.

The rejection of the decision to prorogue Parliament is highest in Ontario (59%) and lowest in the Prairies (50% in Alberta, 48% in Manitoba and Saskatchewan).

About two-in-five Canadians (38%) side with the view of opposition parties, and believe prorogation was invoked in order to curtail an inquiry into the treatment of Afghan detainees. About one quarter of respondents (23%) agree with the federal government’s position that prorogation was necessary to recalibrate, consult and deliver the next stage of its economic plan.

As with last year’s desperate bid to save his government from being toppled, Harper’s use of prorogation subverts democracy and makes a mockery of oft-repeated – but always avoided – pledge to make government more open and transparent.

The backlash was most visible online. A Facebook group denouncing prorogation had 60,000 people join within days of its creation. Rallies are planned nationwide, including one in Kitchener-Waterloo for Jan. 23. The idea is to send a message to the government: get back to work.

Harper’s latest antics have touched a nerve. We’re always a bit suspicious about long government breaks at holiday time, quick to paint our politicians as lazy and imbued with a sense of entitlement. There’s a measure of that involved in the public’s reaction to shutting down the House until March. But there’s a growing realization that there’s something underhanded in all of this, something designed to benefit Harper’s minority government and not the people of Canada – as the Angus Reid poll indicates, almost half of Conservative supporters have a problem with this use of prorogation.

In proroguing Parliament, Harper has killed all outstanding bills; they’ll have to be reintroduced in the next session. The government plans to use the break to appoint more Senators and to realign Senate committees to reflect a Conservative majority in the upper chamber. This, Harper argues, will allow the government to end opposition stalling of measures such as Tory crime legislation.

Harper also hopes to reform the Senate, a familiar refrain. Having initially refused to fill Senate vacancies, preferring to see elected representatives with term limits, Harper subsequently made partisan appointments to counter the preponderance of Liberal placements. He appears headed for more of this reform-from-within strategy to take control of the Senate.

Having previously argued against the use of prorogation, extended breaks and appointed Senators, Harper has clearly embraced these tactics now that he perceives them as being to his advantage. As it grows, the public dissent against proroguing is a reminder to the Prime Minister that we’re not blind to his ambitions.