I have been meaning to blog about this for awhile, but have been unable to stop getting angry about it every time I thought of it. How hard is it to call out major and requested stops?
Only in the City of Ottawa can bus drivers fail to do the simplest thing and have managers at OCTranspo spin away the problem. And now it has cost us taxpayers five thousand dollars. Perhaps the ATU should pay this fine.
Manager of Performance and Quality Vincent Patterson tells CFRA News drivers can be distracted by things on the road and miss a stop announcement.
Nice excuse. If they can stop they bus they can call out the stop. What distractions can there be when the bus is stopped?
Simple solution to this problem. Any bus driver that gets 5 complaints lodged against them gets suspended without pay and a warning on their file at OC. They can then get some coaching on how to call out stops. If they get 10 complaints lodged against them they get fired. How simple is that?
Follow the ESA and put improvement plans in for these drivers, whey they fail that fire them. Do you really want a driver that is incapable of shouting out a stop driving yourself or your loved ones around?
Fire. Them. All.
PS: 7 million dollars for this system? My god this seems expensive. Heck, at 5000 dollar fines, let them fine us. It would be cheaper then this system by far.
Showing posts with label municipal politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label municipal politics. Show all posts
Friday, August 14, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Blatchford Weighs in on "sexist judge"
Christie Blatchford weighs in on this debacle. I think the Globe and Mail should be ashamed at how they treated the judge on this. Seriously ashamed and Blatchford was right to take her employer to task.
Remember, the media spins everything, try not to react without understanding the full context. Good advice I need to remember to follow to :)
Remember, the media spins everything, try not to react without understanding the full context. Good advice I need to remember to follow to :)
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Text of O'Brien Judgment
Maybe I am in the minority, or perhaps naive, but I have serious issues with the charges of sexism being leveled against Justice Cunningham. I mentioned these before. I cannot believe that in 2009 we have sexist judges sitting on the bench. This could be my naive part.
I also have doubts about the impartiality of the media in the reporting of this "scandal/issue/etc". So I decided to find the judgment and read it for myself. I pasted it here for you enjoyment. Some commentary at the bottom.
[61] The next witness relied upon by the Crown for corroboration was Lisa MacLeod, the MPP for Nepean-Carleton. When she learned in July 2006 that Mr. O'Brien was considering running for Mayor, she arranged a meeting with him. They met July 31st at her constituency office where Mr. O'Brien was accompanied by Mr. David Gibbons. Ms. MacLeod was pleased there might be a Conservative in the mayoralty race and offered Mr. O’Brien some advice regarding the names of potential campaign workers. During the course of their conversation Ms. MacLeod, stated that, in the context of what Mr. Kilrea might do if he were not a candidate, Mr. O'Brien said, "somebody was talking to Terry about an appointment." It wasn't clear who that was.
[62] After telling the Crown she was at the time more interested in the campaign and its people and how excited she was about the people Mr. O'Brien would draw into his campaign, the Crown asked, "Uh-hum, And this discussion with respect to a Parole Board appointment..." At that point, quite properly, the defence objected. After some discussion Ms. MacLeod said, "I believe it was the National Parole Board. Again, it came up casually, 1think once or twice... but we focused generally on (who) would be suitable campaign managers for a Conservative candidate for mayor..." After another question, she responded, "My best recollection is we're talking to Terry about an appointment" which she believed was to the National Parole Board."
[63] During cross-examination, the defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in her life when she gave "her statement to the police in early May 2007. She was commuting regularly to Toronto for her work, leaving her husband and child in Ottawa. As well, in March 2007, her father was diagnosed with cancer. Defence counsel put her statement to her during cross-examination and without reciting her evidence in detail, I conclude that any references to Mr. Kilrea being in line for an appointment were casual, beyond the real subject matter of their conversation and really quite peripheral to the matters at hand. She agreed there was "a considerable rumour mill out there" and at one point told the police officer that "90% of it is rumour" and that her job was to try and figure out what is fact and what is fiction. Initially, during examination-in-chief she testified that Mr. O’Brien said, "somebody was talking to Terry about an appointment". That morphed into “we're talking to Terry about an appointment", following which the Crown introduced the subject of the National Parole Board. She agreed with defence counsel that since May 2007 she had offered several alternatives as to what might have been said by Mr. O'Brien. When asked, "... can you say definitely, just for example, when I say the term "we're", can you say definitely the words that fell from his lips weren't something like "we were", she responded, "Well, in the context of his campaign, I, I, didn't ask him. So I really couldn’t speculate." Later, she was asked, “You didn't know whether in fact it was Mr. Kilrea who initiated discussions about an appointment" to which she responded, "No." And later, "And you didn’t know whether this was an appointment that Mr. Kilrea was working on himself?", to which she responded, "Correct." And then, "...and you didn’t know whether this was a discussion that had taken place in the past. Correct?", to which she responded, "Yes."
[64] Taken as a whole, I cannot conclude that Ms. MacLeod's evidence is corroborative of Mr. Kilrea’s assertion that the "offer" was still outstanding in late July 2006. Ms. MacLeod's recollection of a brief; casual portion of her conversation is so imprecise that, through no fault of her own, I must assign it little weight. The various alternatives as to what might have been said by Mr. O'Brien give me real pause such that I cannot determine with any degree of certainty what was said and whether what was said related to something in the past or something that was ongoing. Nor can I conclude it was said in the context of someone looking after Mr. Kilrea or Mr. Kilrea pursuing an appointment on his own. It could just as easily have been a reference to Mr. Kilrea pursuing an appointment through Mr. Baird, something Mr. O'Brien has testified he encouraged Mr. Kilrea to do.
I bolded what I thought was the most interesting piece. I thing the Justice's talk of commuting, cancer etc were to mitigate any potential embarrassment on Lisa McLeods part for her "imprecise" testimony. She wasn't able to provide any details on her conversations, and the defence turned her testimony on its head. She herself admitted that she presented several alternatives to what was said.
Perhaps she would have been happier if the Justice said she wasn't a believable witness instead of just a distracted participant?
I also have doubts about the impartiality of the media in the reporting of this "scandal/issue/etc". So I decided to find the judgment and read it for myself. I pasted it here for you enjoyment. Some commentary at the bottom.
[61] The next witness relied upon by the Crown for corroboration was Lisa MacLeod, the MPP for Nepean-Carleton. When she learned in July 2006 that Mr. O'Brien was considering running for Mayor, she arranged a meeting with him. They met July 31st at her constituency office where Mr. O'Brien was accompanied by Mr. David Gibbons. Ms. MacLeod was pleased there might be a Conservative in the mayoralty race and offered Mr. O’Brien some advice regarding the names of potential campaign workers. During the course of their conversation Ms. MacLeod, stated that, in the context of what Mr. Kilrea might do if he were not a candidate, Mr. O'Brien said, "somebody was talking to Terry about an appointment." It wasn't clear who that was.
[62] After telling the Crown she was at the time more interested in the campaign and its people and how excited she was about the people Mr. O'Brien would draw into his campaign, the Crown asked, "Uh-hum, And this discussion with respect to a Parole Board appointment..." At that point, quite properly, the defence objected. After some discussion Ms. MacLeod said, "I believe it was the National Parole Board. Again, it came up casually, 1think once or twice... but we focused generally on (who) would be suitable campaign managers for a Conservative candidate for mayor..." After another question, she responded, "My best recollection is we're talking to Terry about an appointment" which she believed was to the National Parole Board."
[63] During cross-examination, the defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in her life when she gave "her statement to the police in early May 2007. She was commuting regularly to Toronto for her work, leaving her husband and child in Ottawa. As well, in March 2007, her father was diagnosed with cancer. Defence counsel put her statement to her during cross-examination and without reciting her evidence in detail, I conclude that any references to Mr. Kilrea being in line for an appointment were casual, beyond the real subject matter of their conversation and really quite peripheral to the matters at hand. She agreed there was "a considerable rumour mill out there" and at one point told the police officer that "90% of it is rumour" and that her job was to try and figure out what is fact and what is fiction. Initially, during examination-in-chief she testified that Mr. O’Brien said, "somebody was talking to Terry about an appointment". That morphed into “we're talking to Terry about an appointment", following which the Crown introduced the subject of the National Parole Board. She agreed with defence counsel that since May 2007 she had offered several alternatives as to what might have been said by Mr. O'Brien. When asked, "... can you say definitely, just for example, when I say the term "we're", can you say definitely the words that fell from his lips weren't something like "we were", she responded, "Well, in the context of his campaign, I, I, didn't ask him. So I really couldn’t speculate." Later, she was asked, “You didn't know whether in fact it was Mr. Kilrea who initiated discussions about an appointment" to which she responded, "No." And later, "And you didn’t know whether this was an appointment that Mr. Kilrea was working on himself?", to which she responded, "Correct." And then, "...and you didn’t know whether this was a discussion that had taken place in the past. Correct?", to which she responded, "Yes."
[64] Taken as a whole, I cannot conclude that Ms. MacLeod's evidence is corroborative of Mr. Kilrea’s assertion that the "offer" was still outstanding in late July 2006. Ms. MacLeod's recollection of a brief; casual portion of her conversation is so imprecise that, through no fault of her own, I must assign it little weight. The various alternatives as to what might have been said by Mr. O'Brien give me real pause such that I cannot determine with any degree of certainty what was said and whether what was said related to something in the past or something that was ongoing. Nor can I conclude it was said in the context of someone looking after Mr. Kilrea or Mr. Kilrea pursuing an appointment on his own. It could just as easily have been a reference to Mr. Kilrea pursuing an appointment through Mr. Baird, something Mr. O'Brien has testified he encouraged Mr. Kilrea to do.
I bolded what I thought was the most interesting piece. I thing the Justice's talk of commuting, cancer etc were to mitigate any potential embarrassment on Lisa McLeods part for her "imprecise" testimony. She wasn't able to provide any details on her conversations, and the defence turned her testimony on its head. She herself admitted that she presented several alternatives to what was said.
Perhaps she would have been happier if the Justice said she wasn't a believable witness instead of just a distracted participant?
Sorry Girls
but there is nothing wrong with what the judge said in his ruling.
Why must everything be judged through the lenses of sexism? Give me a break.
In his ruling, Judge Cunningham said that "the defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in her life when she gave her statement to the police. … "
"She was commuting regularly to Toronto for her work, leaving her husband and child in Ottawa," he read in his ruling. He concluded that her evidence was not corroborative of the Crown's main witness and said, "I must assign it little weight."
Look at the last sentence of the paragraph, that his the main thrust of the judge's argument in dismissing MPP Lisa MacLeod's testimony.
Now maybe the judge his a sexist prick, and maybe if we look at past judgments we can see a pattern, but this judgment is not sexist. Gender had nothing to do with. Nothing is substantially changed by switching the gender in his text.
In his ruling, Judge Cunningham said that "the defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in his life when he gave his statement to the police. … "
"He was commuting regularly to Toronto for his work, leaving his wife and child in Ottawa," he read in his ruling.
It is pure speculation to say the judge wouldn't have said such a thing if it wasn't Lisa MacLeod, rather it was Luc MacLeod.
Why must everything be judged through the lenses of sexism? Give me a break.
In his ruling, Judge Cunningham said that "the defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in her life when she gave her statement to the police. … "
"She was commuting regularly to Toronto for her work, leaving her husband and child in Ottawa," he read in his ruling. He concluded that her evidence was not corroborative of the Crown's main witness and said, "I must assign it little weight."
Look at the last sentence of the paragraph, that his the main thrust of the judge's argument in dismissing MPP Lisa MacLeod's testimony.
Now maybe the judge his a sexist prick, and maybe if we look at past judgments we can see a pattern, but this judgment is not sexist. Gender had nothing to do with. Nothing is substantially changed by switching the gender in his text.
In his ruling, Judge Cunningham said that "the defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in his life when he gave his statement to the police. … "
"He was commuting regularly to Toronto for his work, leaving his wife and child in Ottawa," he read in his ruling.
It is pure speculation to say the judge wouldn't have said such a thing if it wasn't Lisa MacLeod, rather it was Luc MacLeod.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
A bumper crop in politics today
A busy day in politics in Ottawa! Political observers had the pleasure to follow the trials and tribulations of two "Lyin' (O')Brians" and one of the world's hottest politicians. Of course this day can't do the public's perception of politicians any good.
The bumper crop:
Tim Powers is also thinking that this isn't a good day for public life.
The bumper crop:
- A "Lyin' O'Brian" on trial.
- A second "Lyin' Brian" testifying at an inquiry.
- A one of the worlds hottest politicians testifying at a Commons committee hearing.
Tim Powers is also thinking that this isn't a good day for public life.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
OCTranspo strike has cost the 280 million!!
And in other news, I saw Stephane Dion kissing Santa Clause. This article in the Citizen is full of crap. There is really no other way to spin it.
Mr. Lee, who measured the impact of the strike on the nearly 200,000 transit commuters who now drive, said it is important to find out the direct costs to people forced to commute by car. He puts the total cost to commuters at between $66.7 million and $85 million.
He estimated the average distance travelled to be 40 kilometres a day, at a cost of 50 cents a kilometre for a mid-size car. Estimating that about 97,000 cars would be on the road due to the strike over the 23 working days in a month, he arrived at a cost of $66.7 million. A higher number of cars on the streets, say 123,000, would yield costs of $85 million.
Wow, what is this man smoking?
Mr. Lee, who measured the impact of the strike on the nearly 200,000 transit commuters who now drive, said it is important to find out the direct costs to people forced to commute by car. He puts the total cost to commuters at between $66.7 million and $85 million.
He estimated the average distance travelled to be 40 kilometres a day, at a cost of 50 cents a kilometre for a mid-size car. Estimating that about 97,000 cars would be on the road due to the strike over the 23 working days in a month, he arrived at a cost of $66.7 million. A higher number of cars on the streets, say 123,000, would yield costs of $85 million.
Wow, what is this man smoking?
- FACT: 108,840 take public transit in Ottawa-Gatineau, NOT 200,000.
- FACT: The average commuting distance in Ottawa-Gatineau is 16.2 KM round trip, NOT 40 KM.
- FACT: The CAA reports that the cost to drive your car is about 15.8 cents per KM for gas, tires, and maintenance NOT 50 cents per KM. These prices are based on 92.5 cent/litre gas, and would surely be lower today. It makes no sense to include the costs of loans, depreciation, insurance or any other "normal" costs as you would incure them with or without a strike.
- You can't use 23 working days a month in your calculations, that doesn't factor in sick days, holidays, or vacation.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Public Transit is not an essential service
The ongoing Ottawa transit strike is causing people to push for public transit to be classified as an essential service. This is just plain wrong.
Repeat after me, public transit is a convenience, not an essential service.
Yes, I understand all the very good arguments about the usefulness of public transit services, such as but not limited to:
The Federal Government has the following definition for an essential service:
Subsection 4(1) of the PSLRA defines an "essential service" as "a service, facility or activity of the Government of Canada that is or will be, at any time, necessary for the safety or security of the public or a segment of the public". Services should be identified as essential where there are reasonable grounds for accepting the probability, or even the possibility, that human life or public safety would suffer if a work stoppage interrupted the duties of these employees. It should be noted that positions where occupants are to be available during their off-duty hours to report to work without delay to perform the essential services are also included.
The Ontario definition is similar.
No where is convenience, environment, traffic congestion, or other reasons listed.
People will argue that people can't get to doctor's appointments, or to the hospital for their treatments and other perfectly reasonable reasons, and therefore that proves it impacts the health and safety of the population. However, that is a simplification. People will get to their appointments by other means, they will take a taxi, or ride with a friend or family. Just like thousands of other people without access to public transit options.
The simplest argument to dismiss public transit as an essential service is the complete lack of public transit outside of large cities. Thousands upon thousands of Canadians survive without public transit options, they still get to the mall to do their shopping, they still get to the hospital or the doctors, or whatever else they need to do.
Contrast this to police, fire, ambulance, food inspectors, income and social services, or other services deemed essential. Every community has police or fire service, it might not be great especially in the deep rural areas, but it exists and functions.
Let's not rush to classify services as essential just because the lack of these services greatly inconveniences thousands of people. Contract negotiations for essential services usually ends up in binding arbitration, and binding arbitration usually ends up giving large pay raises and benefit upgrades. This makes the cost of the service more and more expensive. Look out how much fire and police now cost.
Repeat after me, public transit is a convenience, not an essential service.
Yes, I understand all the very good arguments about the usefulness of public transit services, such as but not limited to:
- Better for the environment
- Eases congestion
- Less expensive transportation option
- Especially helpful for the low income among us like the elderly
The Federal Government has the following definition for an essential service:
Subsection 4(1) of the PSLRA defines an "essential service" as "a service, facility or activity of the Government of Canada that is or will be, at any time, necessary for the safety or security of the public or a segment of the public". Services should be identified as essential where there are reasonable grounds for accepting the probability, or even the possibility, that human life or public safety would suffer if a work stoppage interrupted the duties of these employees. It should be noted that positions where occupants are to be available during their off-duty hours to report to work without delay to perform the essential services are also included.
The Ontario definition is similar.
No where is convenience, environment, traffic congestion, or other reasons listed.
People will argue that people can't get to doctor's appointments, or to the hospital for their treatments and other perfectly reasonable reasons, and therefore that proves it impacts the health and safety of the population. However, that is a simplification. People will get to their appointments by other means, they will take a taxi, or ride with a friend or family. Just like thousands of other people without access to public transit options.
The simplest argument to dismiss public transit as an essential service is the complete lack of public transit outside of large cities. Thousands upon thousands of Canadians survive without public transit options, they still get to the mall to do their shopping, they still get to the hospital or the doctors, or whatever else they need to do.
Contrast this to police, fire, ambulance, food inspectors, income and social services, or other services deemed essential. Every community has police or fire service, it might not be great especially in the deep rural areas, but it exists and functions.
Let's not rush to classify services as essential just because the lack of these services greatly inconveniences thousands of people. Contract negotiations for essential services usually ends up in binding arbitration, and binding arbitration usually ends up giving large pay raises and benefit upgrades. This makes the cost of the service more and more expensive. Look out how much fire and police now cost.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Greenshift shafts municipalities
As most of us are aware, the Liberal Green Shift shafts everyone, but it is really great to see counselors from the nation's capital come out swinging against the Green Shift.
Two Ottawa City Councillors suggest the Liberals Green Shift plan would cost Ottawa taxpayers at least an additional $3.5 million.
In a letter to Liberal leader Stephane Dion, Doug Thompson and Glenn Brooks say preliminary research into the impact of a carbon tax on Ottawa's operating budget has "alarming results."
They claim the Liberals carbon tax would increase OC Transpo's diesel fuel bill by $2.74 million, and Ottawa's fleet vehicle budget by $791-thousand.
Thompson and Brooks ask Dion if he is prepared to amend the tax to mitigate the new costs that the Green Shift plan will impose on Ottawa's "already tight budget."
The municipal budget at Ottawa is already heavily strained, there a massive property tax and surcharges raised every year. The Liberal Green Shift will only make this worse.
Say no against the Green Shift, it is bad policy and seriously bad economics.
We're better off with Harper.
Two Ottawa City Councillors suggest the Liberals Green Shift plan would cost Ottawa taxpayers at least an additional $3.5 million.
In a letter to Liberal leader Stephane Dion, Doug Thompson and Glenn Brooks say preliminary research into the impact of a carbon tax on Ottawa's operating budget has "alarming results."
They claim the Liberals carbon tax would increase OC Transpo's diesel fuel bill by $2.74 million, and Ottawa's fleet vehicle budget by $791-thousand.
Thompson and Brooks ask Dion if he is prepared to amend the tax to mitigate the new costs that the Green Shift plan will impose on Ottawa's "already tight budget."
The municipal budget at Ottawa is already heavily strained, there a massive property tax and surcharges raised every year. The Liberal Green Shift will only make this worse.
Say no against the Green Shift, it is bad policy and seriously bad economics.
We're better off with Harper.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Pettiness is well, petty.
In today's Ottawa Sun, reporter (columnist?) Susan Sherring it out attacking Mayor Larry O'Brien for his campaign fundraising shortfalls. This fundraising shortfall is somehow indicative of the Mayors failure to keep good on his “Zero means Zero” campaign promises.
The logic on how she ties this together is somewhat convoluted. It would be the same as saying Stephane Dion will run deficits because he hasn't paid off his leadership expenses. I don't think Stephane Dion will run deficits, I think he will spend billions on state-run feel good accomplish little social programs.
It’s easy to be disappointed by the failed “Zero means Zero” promise. But let’s be fair, this campaign fundraising shortfall caused more by:
This theory makes much more sense, especially when you consider that Mayor O’Brien raised more then a third of his total contributions after his victorious campaign.
Well that or maybe they were trying to buy influence.
The logic on how she ties this together is somewhat convoluted. It would be the same as saying Stephane Dion will run deficits because he hasn't paid off his leadership expenses. I don't think Stephane Dion will run deficits, I think he will spend billions on state-run feel good accomplish little social programs.
It’s easy to be disappointed by the failed “Zero means Zero” promise. But let’s be fair, this campaign fundraising shortfall caused more by:
- No one knowing who the hell he was when he started
- No one really thinking he had a chance to beat the incumbent
This theory makes much more sense, especially when you consider that Mayor O’Brien raised more then a third of his total contributions after his victorious campaign.
Well that or maybe they were trying to buy influence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)