Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 2019-06-06, Page 5Other Views Geese, ganders and Blyth crosswalks Let’s not waste MPs’ talents Shawn Loughlin Shawn’s Sense Before I get too far into this, I’m completely in favour of the downtown Blyth crosswalk proposed by Huron County. It’s an idea that is well overdue and I’m glad it’s something we should see by the end of this year. I’m glad that Huron County Council approved it and I’m glad the North Huron staff is working with county staff to make the change a reality. However, I have to admit I’m a bit puzzled by the decision, specifically when compared with the decisions Huron County Council and staff have made regarding the intersection of County Roads 4 and 25 at the south end of the village. While this argument seems to have been left by the wayside for a number of years now, (and rightfully so) the Blyth Business Improvement Area (BIA) was once told by Huron County staff that there simply weren’t enough fatal collisions at the intersection to justify investing in a solution at the intersection. Despite, over my nearly nine-and-a-half years at The Citizen, multiple collisions at the intersection every year, Huron County staff held fast to the belief (and recommendation) that guidelines didn’t justify changing the intersection. So the puzzling factor here is that there is a need for a pedestrian crossing in downtown Blyth, but not the need for any kind of traffic control measures at the intersection of County Roads 4 and 25. I say this not because of personal interest, (full disclosure, I live mere metres from that intersection) but because I’m curious about the need for one and not the other. During the North Huron Council presentation regarding the crosswalk, Huron County Director of Public Works Mike Hausser explained that studies had been undertaken to review the need for the crosswalk. So my question is, how can the traffic justify the need for a crosswalk downtown, but not some kind of traffic control at the south end of the village? With the exception of Dinsley Street, the majority of through traffic heading north and south on County Road 4 (in my experience) enters the village on the road and leaves it on the same road. There’s also the fact that, in nine-and-a-half years, I haven’t responded to a single collision in Blyth involving a pedestrian, but I’ve seen many horrific scenes at the intersection of County Road 4 and 25. I’ve seen pets perish and people maimed, I’ve seen people’s livelihood and contents spread across the road. Just in case anyone is misinterpreting me here, I’m not echoing the words of county staff and saying there needs to be collisions to justify a crossing, I’m just curious as to why there is a double standard. Again, I’m happy the crosswalk is coming. As I mentioned during a recent Blyth Business Improvement Area (BIA) meeting, my editor Shawn and I routinely help people cross the road when we’re going to get coffee, whether that’s due to them being differently-abled or a little slower moving. One needs look no further than Blyth’s own Julie Sawchuk, a Rick Hansen Ambassador (that means she knows her stuff when it comes to accessibility) and her review of downtown Blyth’s accessibility to know it’s a necessity. Also, as a father who finds himself darting across the road with a stroller, I’m all for the crosswalk. So, to reiterate, the crosswalk is a great thing. I’m happy it's coming. I just find it extremely puzzling that the traffic on County Road 4 necessitates a crosswalk but doesn’t necessitate a change in traffic control at the south end of the village, especially given the significant development that has occurred there over the past several years (and the pedestrian traffic that causes). Apparently what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander. Regardless, I imagine most people in Blyth will be happy to see the change, even if it means waiting at a crosswalk every once in awhile and losing a couple of parking spots. Denny Scott Denny’s Den THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 2019. PAGE 5. Cut, consult, walk back In a recent study, three quarters of Ontarians feel Premier Doug Ford is on the wrong track. Lately, however, that track feels like it’s heading in just one direction: back. Regular readers of this column will know I’ve been critical of Ford’s government and our local MPP Lisa Thompson. It seems I’m not alone. Whether it’s the aforementioned study or a protest last week asking for honks of support that made Blyth’s main street sound like the damn 401, the tide looks to be turning. Do you know what else looks to be turning? Some of Ford’s most controversial decisions. It’s the unmistakable vision of flip-flopping. I can hear you already. “Can’t Doug Ford do anything right, you communist?” That’s fair. Well, not the communist bit, but I get it. The thing about being a disrupter like Ford or U.S. President Donald Trump is that, by definition, disrupting the norm means making bold claims and big changes. There is a definite arrogance to this style of governance. So, when you bloviate about having all the answers, there can be a delicious satisfaction for detractors when your Windbag-in-Chief gets it wrong, fails or walks his claims back. Think of the alpha and omega of Trump’s racist strategy: the Mexican border wall and the Muslim country travel ban. Both of those have been met with massive opposition and he has failed to deliver, making him look foolish. Closer to home, we have a dog’s breakfast of governance at the provincial level. Ford has made big claims, walking back many, failing with others and eliciting significant protest. Just last week, Ford announced he’d be walking back deep cuts to municipal budgets, specifically in the areas of child care, public health and emergency services. He has framed it so he looks good (he always does – have I mentioned Ontario News Now?), saying his is a government that listens. However, this latest about-face just makes him look wrong. Thompson followed suit just a few days later, reinstituting the inter-library loan program, the elimination of which had frustrated many in rural communities and beyond. While it’s comforting to think someone is listening when people push back on cuts, this “shoot first, ask questions later” style just seems shortsighted. Perhaps, if appropriate research were conducted before the decision was made, a walk-back wouldn’t be necessary. And this isn’t the first time this has happened. Thompson was at the centre of another of the biggest: sexual education curriculum. Feedback – which this government so prides itself on listening to – was so negative that they had no other choice. They’ve since done it on the Greenbelt, autism programming and, in numerous other examples, they’ve cut funding only to “find” transitional funding to help the aggrieved party just a few days later. Back to whether Ford can ‘win’ or not. The answer, probably, is no. If he’s hollowing out the province, he won’t win, but if he undercuts every decision he makes by walking it back weeks later, he looks weak. Ford has created this mystic for himself of being tough but fair. Well, tough guys don’t back down and, in reality, they’re rarely very fair. He’ll threaten unions, ignore critics, duck media and dismiss protestors, but he’ll walk back some of his more disastrous decisions if enough people make enough noise. That doesn’t sound like a leader who listens, it sounds like someone who acts without thinking, doesn’t do his homework, puffs out his chest when proven wrong and, ultimately, lacks the conviction needed in a leader. When Jane Philpott and Jody Wilson- Raybould, the two former federal cabinet ministers who resigned over the SNC-Lavalin affair, announced last week that they intended to run as independent candidates in October’s federal election it started a needed discussion about the role of individual MPs in Parliament. Many pundits and those in the know about politics dismissed the pair’s decision as hopelessly naive, both in thinking they could win an election without the support of a party and that they could make a significant contribution if they did win. Others answered that if an independent has little chance of being elected and being able to serve her constituents well if they did win, then the system needs to change. It seems to me that there’s an incredible waste of talent in the way our political system currently operates. We elect 338 representatives to the House of Commons but only the two-dozen or so members of the governing party who are appointed to the cabinet have real power. Others from the government party, plus members of all the other parties and independents may sit on committees but they aren’t utilized to their full potential. MPs can make a real difference to their constituents by becoming a sort of ombudsman working to solve their problems. With their well-staffed constituency offices all MPs (and MPPs at the provincial level) provide this service to greater or lesser degree. The best example I can remember was Murray Gaunt who, in the days before he had any constituency staff, did such a good job helping people solve their problems that he won elections in a landslide back in the 1970s when Liberals were an endangered species as the Big Blue Machine of Bill Davis swept across Ontario. But mostly MPs and MPPs are representatives of their parties because the focus is squarely on the party leader and perhaps a few star cabinet ministers. Part of this is the way the system has evolved, but the media also plays a role, as do you and I. We’re enamoured with the star system where the marquee names of a movie or a sports team get all the attention and the supporting cast or teammates are ignored. (Superstar golfer Tiger Woods can have a bad day at a golf tournament but he’ll still get more attention on the sports highlight shows than the people who have the best scores.) So as this fall’s election approaches, all the attention will be given to Justin Trudeau versus Andrew Scheer (with a little obligatory news coverage for Jagmeet Singh of the New Democratic Party). The good thing about this system is that we have an idea of the policies and programs these men will likely deliver if they become Prime Minister. Candidates in Huron-Bruce and most other ridings under this top-down system will be proxies for the federal leader for whom we choose to vote. We may not elect the best candidate because he/she didn’t represent the party and leader we want to run the country. Once elected, most local MPs will become invisible except for photo opportunities and appearances in parades and at meetings back in their constituencies. The guy with the most MPs elected will become Prime Minister and choose his cabinet and this small group will decide what gets done while the rest of the MPs play on the edges of power. In fact it gets worse. As we learned through the SNC-Lavalin controversy often un-elected advisers in the Prime Minister’s office have more control over what gets done than even cabinet ministers. Philpott and Wilson-Raybould couldn’t live with this system and resigned from their cabinet positions. As they continued to speak their minds and undermine their government, their fellow Liberal MPs complained they should be expelled from the caucus and eventually they were, sitting as independents, with little influence in national policies. The cynics are probably right when they say the two women will have difficulty getting re- elected as independent candidates and will have little effect in parliament if they do, but that’s a shame. Imagine a system where we elected the best and brightest candidate in each of the 338 ridings, regardless of party affiliation. Imagine a system that made the best use of the intelligence and wisdom of each of those MPs, whether they were back-benchers of the government or representatives of the parties that aren’t in government. Imagine an ordinary MP having a good idea and proposing a bill to implement it and winning support from MPs from all parties with no sense of partisanship. The current system of a Prime Minister as leader and cabinet ministers to implement the party agenda is here to stay, but wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a PM wise enough to make use of the talents of each and every MP? Keith Roulston From the cluttered desk To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded. – Ralph Waldo Emerson Final Thought