Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 2007-02-08, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2007. PAGE 5. Bonnie Gropp TThhee sshhoorrtt ooff iitt Progressive Conservative leader John Tory will be haunted by the voices of two senior figures in his party in the Ontario election in October and they are a lot more substantial than ghosts. Jim Flaherty, a former deputy premier and finance minister and now the second most important politician in the country as federal finance minister, and Frank Klees, a former Ontario transportation minister, were rivals for leader in the race Tory won and both said he is not ready to govern. Their criticisms were recorded, as is almost anything a candidate says in a leadership campaign these days. Ontario Liberals also have watched Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s success in trashing new federal Liberal leader Stephane Dion’s record as environment minister by quoting a leadership rival’s now famous comment “we didn’t get the job done.” It would be wishful thinking in this era of hard-nosed politics to believe the Ontario Liberals will not remind of the criticisms of Tory by his fellow-Conservatives, who they will say know him best. Strategists tend to pick up tactics in other parties that ring a bell and the campaign Tory won for leader also left around ammunition that was easy to see. Tory was front-runner in the 2004 contest, and therefore the candidate to take potshots at. Voters had been alienated by far-right policies and looked more for centrist views he showed as a backroom adviser to the moderate premier William Davis and unsuccessful candidate for Toronto mayor. Flaherty and Klees argued strongly their party should not risk choosing a leader who had never been elected anywhere. Klees said “The next leader must have experience and a proven ability to win elections. Now is not the time to choose a candidate who has never won an election.” Klees went further and pointed out Tory “does not know what it is like sitting at a cabinet table, having to make tough decisions.” It obviously would hurt Tory in an election if two senior Conservatives were seen in campaign ads warning he does not have enough experience to govern. Klees said the Conservatives need to reach out to ethnic groups or they will never return to power and “Ontario is a different place than it was when John was in the premier’s office.” This might prompt the Liberals to run ads showing a senior Conservative worrying that Tory is out of touch with the province of today. Tory was born, lives and worked in Toronto. Flaherty said his policies were “all about Toronto,” which was inaccurate, but he said it. Klees added “If you are not there (in provincial politics), you don’t recognize there is more to Ontario than Toronto. Every area has to be given priority and not just the city of Toronto.” He scoffed that Tory sounded more like a Toronto mayor. Many people feel Premier Dalton McGuinty favours Toronto, but Tory would be handicapped in criticizing him if he can trot out ads in which two senior Conservatives declare their leader favours the city. Flaherty in the free-swinging campaign also suggested Tory is really a Liberal and too much like McGuinty. He and Klees accused Tory of doing little to rebuild their party when it was so reduced in numbers it could have held its caucuses in a minivan between 1987- 95. McGuinty’s Liberals do not stand to gain much by claiming Tory is a Liberal or fair- weather Conservative. But they can boost themselves by showing he is not ready for the top job. The Conservatives have no examples of McGuinty being downgraded by rivals in his leadership race with which to retaliate, because they never saw him as a threat and this seemed justified when he ran only fourth on the first ballot. But parties are being made more aware candidates who make tough criticisms of each other in leadership races can burden those who win and they may come under pressure to hold their tongues. Call me frustrated Not to bum you out or anything, but there’s some lowlife scumbag wandering around shooting deer with a crossbow. Not ‘hunting’ them, you understand. Not ‘harvesting’ or ‘culling’ or any of those other euphemisms we two-legged predators like to employ – just shooting them and leaving them to die. Or whatever. Police in Nanaimo, B.C. found three limping deer with steel shafts still sticking out of their bodies. They had to chase one for two weeks before they finally subdued it with a tranquilizer. That deer was lucky – it got treated and released. The other two died of their wounds. A local spokesperson for a group that calls itself the Traditional Bowhunters of British Columbia has publicly deplored the situation. “This incident kind of gives hunters a bad name,” he told a radio reporter. “It’s kind of a black mark.” No offense, mister spokesman, but any organization that devotes its free time to prowling through the bush firing 45- centimetre steel bolts or wooden shafts with razor-tipped points into grazing animals minding their own business will never be confused with the local chapter of The Sisters of Mercy. I know, I know…hunting is a hallowed tradition and an honourable pastime, a visceral link with our forebears yada, yada, etcetera and so on. Truth to tell, I have no complaint with anyone who hunts to put food on the table. And in fairness to bowhunters, the way they hunt is a lot more sporting than the Suburban Bubba – that weekend warrior with the Remington Magnum and a 3x9 scope, who parks his fat butt beside a two-four in a tree blind and blows away his unsuspecting quarry from a couple of hundred yards away. Unsporting enough. Our own Supreme Court just made it worse. That’s right. August members of The Supreme Court of Canada, repository of the finest legal minds in the country, have put their venerable heads together, nodded sagely as one, and decreed that it’s perfectly legal for our native hunters to pitlamp game. You know pitlamping? It’s also called jacklighting. That’s where the hunter shines a bright searchlight into the eyes of his target in the dead of night. Works like a charm. The light immobilizes the animal and makes him stand out from the background. It’s perfect – easier than shooting ducks in a barrel or fishing with hand grenades even. And our Supreme Court has just given it their seal of approval. Ah, well. I suppose the news will delight a certain coterie of Great White Hunters near Baie Comeau, Quebec. You hear about these guys? Bunch of fat cat nimrods – most of them millionaires – got together at a hunting lodge on the shores of Lac Matonipi to hunt moose last September. Thing is, they didn’t want to – you know – get all sweaty and cold trudging through the bush and all. So they hired a helicopter. They would go out in the helicopter, one or two at a time and fly around until they spotted a moose. Then the chopper would land, drop off the shooters and take off again. It would relocate the moose and, by means of flying low and buffeting the moose with gusts from the blades, drive it back to the hunters. What with the noise and the wind the moose became so disoriented it probably didn’t even see guys with the guns. “The moose is practically hypnotized,” said one observer. “It didn’t stand a chance.” Probably just one drunken weekend escapade, right? Wrong. These disgusting jerks have been using the same ‘hunting’technique for at least the past three years. A law-abiding hunter can spend up to a week tracking a moose before he even gets a shot at it. Last fall, these ‘sportsmen’killed 10 in three days. The good news is: no more. Quebec wildlife personnel got wind of it and sent agents into the bush. They took photographs of the operation – including pictures of the dead moose being hauled out by helicopter. Charges are pending against 18 members of the North Shore shooting party – and the company that supplied the helicopter (which has been seized). I hope they throw the book at them – and I hope they do it by the book, so the charges stick. These guys are rich and they’ll no doubt appeal their convictions. Lord knows if it gets to our Supreme Court, they’ll probably be awarded The Order of Canada. Arthur Black Party fight will haunt Tory Light is slowly beginning to dawn. I have worked my way through the first few minutes of my day, eyelids, like my bedroom blinds, slowly rolling up to open. I follow the everyday routine of ablution and sustenance, with a smoothness that comes from habit. Only because it’s a well-choreographed routine that has been practised time and time again can I prepare for my day with some semblance of ease. And then it happens. That sound. The irritant of all irritants. The accessory to life that I loathe to love as it is both a convenience and an annoyance. My phone is ringing and at this hour I know it can’t be good. I answer, all too aware that my ritual is now broken and I will be running late. Two scenarios follow this story. The first is that my greeting is met by dead air. The second is that the computer works and I hear the anonymous, always heavily-accented voice of a telemarketer. As you can well imagine, because you have certainly walked in these shoes with me, I’m truly ticked, both with this intrusion in my day and with myself for having allowed it. If this were an isolated incident it wouldn’t be so bad. But we all know that’s not the case. These calls seem to be happening with increasing regularity. And as they obviously want to catch someone home, the timing is beyond bothersome. Before 8 a.m., supper, evenings and weekends we are inundated with calls telling us that they have something we can’t live without. Their credit card is better than the one we’re using. They’ve got the plan that will significantly lower our phone bill. People are calling to clean the ducts, to install new windows, to shampoo my carpets. Answer our survey, give us a moment of your time, let us make you an offer you can’t refuse. Please, just make it go away. Unfortunately, if there is an answer to ending this, I don’t know it. All I’ve ever come up with are ways to gain a little satisfaction. Without being too rude, of course; after all I like to think of myself as a fairly good person. Which is unfortunately, I might add, not always easy. Some of these people can be really obnoxious. I hung up on one of those once and he phoned me back and hung up on me. Generally I just opt for evasive telling them that the person they are seeking isn’t home. And, no I don’t see this as being untruthful as the pronunciation of the name is usually so far off the reality that I’m not sure who they’re asking for anyway. There have been occasions when I have offered to go retrieve the person they wish to speak to and after setting the phone down continued on with my life. Once I returned 20 minutes later only to find the individual still waiting at the other end of the line. Others have their own methods. I know of a person who, having been asked if they’d be interested in... turned the tables and explained that they too were in sales and would the caller be interested in... They kept the pitch going until the caller hung up. But my favourite came from an episode of Seinfeld. Jerry tells the caller that it’s a bad time and asks for the person’s home number so he can get back to him. “Why not?, You don’t want me calling you at home? Well now you know how I feel.” Cute, and satisfying for the moment. But not a solution. As we are only too well aware another day, another bad time, another caller. Other Views Leading a not-so-sporting life Eric Dowd FFrroomm QQuueeeenn’’ss PPaarrkk Letters Policy The Citizen welcomes letters to the editor. Letters must be signed and should include a daytime telephone number for the purpose of verification only. Letters that are not signed will not be printed. Submissions may be edited for length, clarity and content, using fair comment as our guideline. The Citizen reserves the right to refuse any letter on the basis of unfair bias, prejudice or inaccurate information. As well, letters can only be printed as space allows. Please keep your letters brief and concise.