Her decision to lend her party’s support behind the Ontario Liberal budget of this spring did not come as a surprise.

Yet just a few months ago, when polls seemed much more advantageous for the orange not only in Ontario, but in British Columbia and across the country as well, and with the Liberal minority government firmly embroiled in the power plant closure scandal, a spring election almost seemed inevitable in the insolvent province.

Tim Hudak’s Conservatives, having led in polls for all but four of the last thirty-three months, never considered propping a government in power they now see gaining momentum after barely surviving the winter.

Seeing as Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals are now almost guaranteed to survive until the fall, it will be two years that the party has conserved power while spending most of that time as the second or third-most popular party.

The distortion of the vote is a concept synonymous and indivisible from any representative democratic system.  When debates arise arguing the value of each system, even proportional ones can’t be considered to be perfectly proportional in the way power is funnelled through the system.  As one of many examples, alliances and coalitions of parties will distort the intentions of some voters.

However, most common debates address the way in which the government is formed.  For example, it has become common occurrence in Canadian federal politics to expect a majority government from a party that gets less than 40% of the popular vote.  Given that the majority government normally governs with little to no concern for the opposition, this “false majority” can be particularly disconcerting.

Another infamous example of voter distortion was the 1993 federal election, where the Bloc Québécois, with the fourth highest popular vote at 13.52% formed the Official Opposition with 54 seats, while the Progressive Conservatives, with 16.04% of the vote, won just two seats and lost their official party status.

Today, Ontarians could be forgiven if they believed Hudak’s Conservatives had opened their own coal power plants in the Leader’s office as a solution to the Liberal scandal given the profusion of smoke rushing out their leader’s ears.

A quick look at Charles Sousa’s spring budget – edited to match NDP demands – leaves no doubt as to the power hierarchy at Queen’s Park: The party that’s been leading consistently in popular support for the last few years sees the economic agenda slowly disappearing on the horizon of the political spectrum.

This distortion of the popular support of each party through the power structure leaves the NDP in a strange position.  Andrea Horvath’s not-so-difficult spring decision was between a very risky gamble for power in forcing an election, and a strong influence on the budget if she chose to cooperate with the Liberals.

The odds of that risky gamble were undoubtedly affected by the orange collapse in BC.  How likely is she to go all-in with a pair of kings when the neighbour just lost everything on a full house?

Historically, the NDP has achieved some of its greatest success in the very position Horvath presently finds herself in, giving her another not to gamble with it.

In a sense, she gets the best of both worlds: With a little political cunning, her party will take responsibility for the popular social programs and regulations she pushes through the Assembly while avoiding the heat for the inevitable cuts coming in the next few budgets if the Liberals or Conservatives – if they take power – hope to return to a balanced budget.

One only needs to consult the NDP’s website, where Jack Layton is credited with “rewriting the 2005 budget, [and] successfully divert[ing] $4.6-billion in corporate tax giveaways to important priorities like affordable housing, training and public transit” when he held the balance of power of Paul Martin’s minority government, and contrast with Thomas Mulcair, who barely gets the time to read the omnibus budget bills that get crammed down his and the rest of Canadians’ throats to understand that holding 100 seats yields him much less power today than the mere 19 the NDP held in a different context in 2005.

As Don Lenihan writes today on ipolitics, Conservatives emanating from Preston Manning’s populist Reform Party are gnawing their knuckles watching the Duffy-Wright scandal unfold.  As his caucus becomes increasingly divided in front of our eyes, is it not possible that its social and/or fiscal conservatives long for a day when they form their own party and perhaps hold the power of Stephen Harper’s government with a mandate to enforce transparency?

I’m well aware this party existed not long ago under two different names, and Harper himself emanated from that party, but his record in office shows fervent allegiance to neither transparency, nor social or fiscal conservatism; those principles have evaporated when coming in contact with power.  In fact, the latest dissent in his caucus is a rare response to his now habitual silencing of these wings of his party.

The absence of any cooperation of right-wing parties in recent history to pass federal legislation leaves little precedent to extrapolate a conclusion.  It might be reassuring for Stephen Harper that Mark Warawa and Stephen Woodworth won’t be inspired by the legacies of Tommy Douglas, Lester Pearson, Bob Rae, David Peterson and Jack Layton who all skilfully and productively cooperated on the other side of the spectrum.  The balance of power must certainly sound more appealing than the gag order and political dog fighting they are presently imposed.

There are plenty of political pundits available to predict which key issues will determine the fate of each party in 2013. That is why I will identify one issue for each party that will gain importance throughout the year, and perhaps have much more impact on the party’s future than the present headlines would have you know.

Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair seem convinced that divergent historical backgrounds, fundamental philosophical differences and specific oppositions on key issues prohibit their parties from seriously considering joining forces. While the NDP’s Nathan Cullen, and to a lesser degree, the LPC’s Joyce Murray have each grabbed headlines during their respective leadership races by supporting a stronger cooperation, they each failed to supplant the leading horses with that platform.

On the contrary, in Ontario, Kathleen Wynne’s Liberal Party and Andrea Horvath’s NDP seem poised to make concessions in order to keep Tim Hudak’s Conservatives out of power. Such a possibility would arise were the NDP to allow the Liberals to stand and fall on their own as a minority government.

This isn’t to suggest that a Liberal-NDP cooperation at the provincial level in Ontario would mirror the possibility of such a scenario at the federal level.

The federal and the Ontarian political landscapes are two widely different beasts:

In Ottawa, Harper’s Conservative Party is entering its seventh year, and soon, its third holding a majority, with very little challenge to its strategically sound grip on the electorate.

Furthermore, the “Natural Governing Party” has seen its seat-count reduced in every election since 2000 to the paltry third place total of 35 and the NDP has seen its share of seats rise since the same election to 100.

At Queen’s Park, Wynne just inherited a Liberal party entering its eleventh year in power. However, the squeaks and rattles on this Cadillac are deafening. Fresh from Dalton McGuinty’s unceremonious resignation, his party barely clings to power after he prorogued Parliament and alienated arguably his strongest ally in the community – the Teachers’ Union, all amidst speculations of a cover-up regarding the costs and motives of two power plant closures.

Since Wynne’s successful leadership bid, every day seems to reveal a new stitch in the fabric of a functional collaboration between the NDP and Liberals. Most recently, Andrea Horvath struck a chord in demanding a 15% decrease in auto insurance premiums. This can be added to her growing shopping list of demands in advance of the budget, along with subsidized job training for youth and the closing of a number of corporate tax loopholes.

So far, both Horvath and Wynne have expressed their desires to work together. Wynne actually vowed to work with both parties in opposition. The NDP demands have the appearance of popular policies pushed through at a convenient time by an opposition party in a strong position looking to influence a budget – not force an election.

Only time will tell how long this collaboration will last. Wynne publicly rejected the idea of a formal coalition soon after her leadership win. If she preserves her momentum in the polls, she probably won’t be as accommodating to the NDP for all her policy initiatives.

How then does that matter to the federal Liberals languishing in third place between annihilation and a return to relevance?

As recently as last summer, a majority of Liberal and NDP supporters backed the idea of the two parties merging.

Given how the critics have denounced both the Wynne and the Trudeau campaigns for their emptiness in policy and their utopian call for inclusive politics, it might come as a surprise that in the former’s case, such characteristics were perceived as the groundwork for collaboration with the NDP, while in the latter’s case, no such foresight has been suggested.

There are answers to this apparent dissonance.

On the one hand, Wynne was portrayed by everyone, including her main opponent Sandra Pupatello, as the candidate closer to the NDP. As for Trudeau, his rare policy stances have positioned him all over the political spectrum. He is most often described as a hereditary to Jean Chrétien’s small ‘l’ liberalism rather than his own father’s invasive federal government; while the latter successfully leaned on the NDP during his minority years, his son’s positions on financial matters seem irreconcilable with the NDP’s.

Why then even bring up the two scenarios conjointly?

For the Canadian electorate, distanced from the partisan quarrels so evident on Parliament Hill, a Liberal and NDP collaboration would provide an example of bipartisanship inconvenient for their federal cousins attempting to explain why they won’t collaborate to wrestle power out of the Conservatives’ grasp. This would seem particularly disconcerting considering the stated necessity – repeated by both parties – to avoid such a result.

As long as the Trudeau Train gathers momentum and increasingly threatens Mulcair’s power base, don’t expect to hear much more on the subject. It is no secret on the Hill these two don’t particularly get along, and Trudeau has finally offered a glimmer of hope to those proud Liberals who wouldn’t dare make a deal with the devil. Perhaps it is because they remember such a thing too well; the 2008 attempt at coalition remains a black mark on all three parties that were involved.

The situation in Ontario could very well be used to the federal Conservatives’ advantage. In constant campaign mode, they could find it quite useful to stir up more fears of left-wing conspiracies.

Wynne and Horvath’s cooperation won’t provide a framework to be reproduced at the federal level. What it could become is an inconvenient example of cooperation for their cousins in opposition in Ottawa.

http://rosalita55.blogspot.ca/

What can be said that we haven’t said already?  He was crap.  We could care less if he was a “good” man, a “family” man, if he never lost his temper with staffers, if he was genuine in his beliefs.  His beliefs sucked.  He was a quintessential statist.  McGuinty never came across a problem that he didn’t think couldn’t be solved with yet another law, yet another government bureau.  And he never seemed to be able to rebuff all the friends and family of the Ontario Liberals who pulled up the public trough to feed.

Some time when you have time on your hands, Google the names of the top ORNGE executives, and then add their names to a search with “liberal party” attached.  We need say no more.  The current Liberal Party of Canada president?  Before he had that gig he was a “business owner” building wind farms for the Ontario government.  Before he did that he worked for McGuinty.  Funny how that works.  McGuinty brings in the Green Energy Act, then one of his key staff leave to dip into the pot that was just created.  We could go on.  The media seems to never want to chase these threads.

Anyway McGuinty benefitted from having three pathetic Progressive Conservative leaders in succession. 

First you had Ernie Eves who decided to pull the PC’s to the centre and piss away all of the hard work done by the Harris government.  Ontario was fatigued with the PC’s after 8 years of Harris, but he might have still won had he painted a convincing vision of where he was going to take Ontario post-Harris.  He couldn’t. He deserved to lose because if people are going to vote Liberal-lite, why not just vote for the real thing?

Then you had John Tory.  A big lead in the polls going into the election.  But then he tripped up on the religious school funding.  Really he didn’t make a mistake on that issue, but that’s not the point.  What happened is that Tory had so few policy platforms that differed from the Liberals, everyone focused on just the one campaign pledge, and it happened to be the type of pledge that the blue-haired folks who would normally vote PC went “tsk tsk” and there was such a lack of other energizing platforms that the PC vote said “meh”, stayed home and McGuinty got another election majority.

Then this last time, Hudak has a 20 point lead two months before the election and he blows it.  We’ve discussed this before.  Brutal.

Now he’s leaving.  And of course there’s all sorts of accolades being tossed around, and the worst of them all is this notion that he’s being encouraged to run for the federal Liberal leadership.  Crap.  McGuinty knows he’s about to be taken to the wood shed over all of these scandals, and having “betrayed” the public sector unions.  So he’s running away.

Normally, this would be good.  Conservatives are usually called in to clean up the messes other governments create; Harris called in to clean up Bob Rae’s mess, Rob Ford called in to clean up David Miller’s mess in Toronto etc.  But in this case we have good cause to worry.  The Liberals are history, and Hudak is less than inspiring.  We may wake up a year from now and have Premier Horvath. 

God help us.

MGM

Re: Shaken By Bond’s New Drink Choice, Joe O’Connor, April 12.
I grew up on Sean Connery, so it’s been a long time since the world’s seen a brooding, kick-ass secret agent for her Majesty’s government. Daniel Craig’s giving us the goods, and yet people are wringing their hands because Bond may have a sip of beer in his latest adventure?
The reality is far less alarming. Heineken and the Bond family have had a relationship dating back to Goldeneye. He has also imbibed in other forms of alcoholic delights, such as Bolinger (he prefers the ’53 vintage) from Dr. No; brandy and Champagne made an appearance in Goldfinger; sake in You Only Live Twice and; looking at the Craig films, he drinks red wine and scotch, as well his specialty, a dry martini (“shaken, not stirred”). In Quantum of Solace, he actually sucks back a Dos Equis beer with Felix Leiter in a scuzzy bar.
According to stills released from the latest Bond film, Skyfall, Bond brandishes his famous Walther PPK, drives the Aston Martin and looks damn fine in a tailored suit. All classic, iconic images from the 50 year-old film series.
So, instead of the nervous hand-wringing about this new “development” in the Bond series, perhaps everyone should just chill out, crack open a cold one themselves, and enjoy watching 007 get on with kissing attractive women and blowing bad guys away in the style and luxury that he is accustomed.
Peter Sheldrick, writer/executive producer, bcdfilms, Toronto.

Will romance survive the digital age?

There are only a few hours left to tell us if the idea of romance will be lost
in today’s world of instant and impersonal electronic communications.
Let us know in 75 words or less by today at 2 p.m. EST Send responses to letters@nationalpost.com, and include your name and address.

Four votes against the CBC …

Re: Ad-Free Radio Makes Canada Smarter, Jonathan Kay, April 12.
Mr. Kay’s defence of the CBC amounts to: The end justifies the means. And his assessment of that end — discourse uninterrupted by advertisements — shamefully ignores the enormous social and economic destruction caused by the leftist ideas propagated by the CBC for decades. It is immoral, and should be illegal, for governments to force people to pay for public broadcasting. The fact that most developed countries have public broadcasting does not make it right. If people want commercial-free broadcasting they should be prepared to pay for it — and private companies will provide it.
Glenn Woiceshyn, Calgary.

Let me get this straight: Jonathan Kay used to write what he calls “anti-CBC harangues,” but that was in the bad old days, before they gave him air time to promote his book, a tome far too complicated for the simpletons working for and listening to private and — dare we say it? — commercial-infested radio. Nothing elitist about that Jonathan. Nothing at all.
Claire Hoy, Toronto.

Mr. Kay’s argues that asking Canadians to support CBC Radio One the way Americans support NPR would mean the death of the station because Canadians expect our government to pay for publicly minded enterprises. He may be right. If so, he has put his pen on yet another example of our country’s grossest national product: The hypocrisy of our liberal-left dominated intellectual elite, of which Mr. Kay would appear to be a card-carrying member.
This influential political cohort is in favour of anything, at any cost, that supports their world-view — as long as someone else picks up the tab, their chablis is perfectly chilled and they don’t get any dirt on their Roots. In their minds, “love thy neighbour” has become “make thy neighbour pay.”
Peter Strachan, Oshawa, Ont.

We read that CBC-1 is the radio of Canada’s intellectual elite. God help us.
Bill Skidmore, London, Ont.

… and 1 in favour

I agree with Jonathan Kay that “a thousandth of our GDP is not too a high price to spend for a smarter Canada.” CBC Radio One is something I value highly. There have even been programs (and books I learned of through the network) that have profoundly changed my thinking. We need high quality public broadcasting. The Conservative attack on the CBC is unfair and must be thwarted.
Jan Slakov, Salt Spring Island, B.C.

Celebrity advice not worth hearing

Re: Sarah McLachlan Condemns Canadian Seal Hunt In Open Letter To Stephen Harper, April 11.
Why oh why do some artists who achieve a level of celebrity for their artistic abilities get to a point where they believe they have some special insight into national or world politics, and worse, believe they have a duty to foist such opinions on us?
Sarah McLachlan, whose sole sense of credibility on the seal hunt issue is that she hails from Halifax, is a wonderful singer. But with the stroke of a pen she is also now put herself in the ranks of other irritating self-indulgent nitwits. As soon as an actor-artist-musician/celebrity-activist chooses to become a self-appointed spokesperson for a political cause or platform, they don’t just devalue the cause they are advocating for — they devalue their own credibility.
Any bartender at Privateers Wharf in Halifax would have as much credibility to speak out on this issue as Ms. McLachlan. And if she wasn’t a well-known “songstress,” she’d likely be throwing back a pint or two with the rest of us and have the good sense to know that the bar band was hired to provide entertainment, not make political speeches.
Mark Evans, Toronto.

Pierre Berton wrote a postscript in 1989 on this very subject in his book The Mysterious North and I quote: “ ‘The people of the seal,’ as the early anthropologists called them, are faced with the extinction of their traditional culture. The villains of the piece are the foolish and unthinking activists of the animal rights movement, who apparently care more for the welfare of animals than that of human beings … The people of the seal still eat the meat, but the skins now largely go to waste. The hunt has diminished; there is less reason for it. With nothing to do, the hunters sit idly in their houses, their sense of worth dwindling. The future is predictable. When the culture goes, when the traditional way of life vanishes, alcohol and drugs take over; murder, suicide, and child neglect follow … that is why I have no patience with Bridgette Bardot and her supporters in the animal rights movement. The ringed seal is not an endangered species. The Inuit of the Baffin coastline most certainly are.”
Ricardo Di Cecca, Burlington, Ont.

Horvath responds

Re: Ontario NDP Treads Softly, With No Stick, Scott Stinson, April 11.
I have to take issue with Scott Stinson’s column. Since New Democrats put out the call on April 3 for input on the budget, we heard two messages loud and clear: Ontarians want to be heard, and they think the budget presented by Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty is far from perfect. They don’t want the budget balanced on solely the backs of the disadvantaged or health-care cuts — they want jobs to be a priority.
We listened. We tried to address the biggest challenges. Some of our proposals came from our platform. Some did not. What we didn’t do was follow the Tory’s example and say: we want our whole platform in the budget or we walk away. We also understood the budget needed to be fixed, but that wouldn’t happen if we simply walked away. When Ontarians elected a minority government in October 2011, they sent a message: Get to work, and work together. That’s what we’ve been doing.
Mr. Stinson’s cynicism is disappointing. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that politicians would listen to voters. We’ve listened to Ontarians, and are trying to make a minority work.
Andrea Horwath, leader of the Ontario NDP, MPP Hamilton Centre.

F-35 cost

Re: F-35 lies Fly In The Face Of Dem­ocracy, Andrew Coyne, April 12.
Andrew Coyne appears to have been bedazzled by the holy writ issuing from the Auditor-General and Treasury Board. The only sensible way to communicate the cost of a program such as the F-35 is to give an initial acquisition cost, together with ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs on an annual basis. You can add them all up for a life-cycle cost, but doing so obscures significant information. For example, keeping the aircraft on the ground all the time would result in a much lower life-cycle cost, but such an absurdity would not become obvious unless the annual O&M costs were made visible.
Insistence on a life-cycle cost to the exclusion of all else strikes me as a political ploy to kill the F-35 program.
Roger Graves, North Gower, Ont.

With Canada being uniquely situated as a buffer between two well-armed superpowers, the best deal on new fighter jets might be found in a competition between the American F-35, and the Russian Sukhoi Su-35. Ideally, the winner of the competition would be supplying the aircraft for free, with the aim of increasing their national security from potentially belligerent opponents. Throwing in some freebie subs would sweeten the deal, and possibly show the Danes that we are not to be trifled with. Renegotiate the arms deal.
Norbert Kaysser, Port Coquitlam, B.C.

Re: Good Aircraft Are Worth The Cost, letter to the editor, April 11.
While I appreciate Major Charles Hooker’s opinion on the subject of Canada possibly acquiring the F-35, I have a big question: How do we know the F-35 is “the best aircraft available (in the procurement time frame)”?
The fact is, the F-35 is unproven. Give me a wad of cash and some dice and I’ll decide for you — the difference being, I won’t charge to toss the dice. Huge savings, guaranteed.
Simon St. Laurent, Toronto.

A single mother by choice on sperm donations

Re: When Can A Sperm Donor Be Called A Father?, April 11.
I have been a single mother by choice (SMC) since 1989, I was the primary organizer of one of the groups in Toronto. This past October, I attended the 30th anniversary of said organization in New York.
Women use different methods to have children, (adoption, artificial insemination by donor, or live donor) and there was a spokesperson for each of those, and more importantly, an adult child of each, who spoke of their experiences and freely answered questions.
The father issue — specifically a donor father for a sperm bank — was discussed by representatives of the leading sperm banks. This has become a very contentious issue for grown children attempting to research their roots.
The primary concern should be the well being of the child. In the scenario mentioned in this story, it was a tragedy that the birth mother passed away when the child was only three, but fortunate the grandparents could take on the responsibility. Why should the so-called father be allowed any rights, when he did not contribute financially or emotionally, and it is to be presumed the child was far more comfortable in her original surroundings?
SMC families have had our struggles, but our success rate, if it is to be judged by fact that 97% of our children are accepted by universities or colleges, is pretty darn good.
Anne M. Logan, Ballantrae, Ont.

MLK may have celebrated the gun registry’s demise

Re: Dishonouring MLK’s Dream, letter to the editor, April 12.
Letter-writer Al Yolles should have done his homework before composing his letter, in which he complained about Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech being “usurped” by MP John Williamson to celebrate the end of the gun registry.
Mr. Yolles is obviously unaware that the first North American gun control measures were enacted to reinforce black slavery. In pre-colonial Louisiana, the French Black Code permitted citizens to stop and beat “any black carrying any potential weapon.”
When the United States made the Louisiana Purchase and the first U.S. governor arrived to take charge of this new possession, the plantation owners petitioned to prevent free blacks from working in positions that required them to be armed, such as slave-catching. The thought that a black could be free also caused the slave-owning states to pass laws disarming all blacks, both slave and free.
I’d say that alluding to “I Have a Dream” is particularly apt in relation to having the right to carry arms. Further, the reference to James Earl Ray’s “unregistered” long gun is a red herring: all guns in 1968 were unregistered, not that being registered would have prevented the assassination.
Last, it may also further surprise Mr. Yolle to learn that marching to Washington alongside Dr. King on that famous day was none other than “Gun Control, Inc.’s” favourite bogeyman, Charlton Heston, who supported civil rights for all.
Andrew Spencer, Paris, Ont.

… but should we?

Re: Dishonouring MLK — Again, letter to the editor, April 13.
In relation to the assassination of Martin Luther King, a letter writer asks what we call in Yiddish two klutz questions: “If the gun had been registered, would Mr. King be any more alive today?” and “By what bureaucratic trick would the bullet from a registered gun be any less lethal?”
I agree that the long-gun registry was not infallible and it could not prevent all deaths; nor could it cure cancer. However, we live in a retrievable information age, and the spectre of our government seeking to destroy public records long ago paid for by the public is very curious indeed. There are currently over 1,000 active hate groups plying their trade in the United States. Paper trails on guns, especially military-style rifles like the Ruger-Mini-14 favoured by both Marc Gharby Lepine and Norway’s Anders Breivik, are very valuable to law enforcement, as was show in Mayerthorpe, Alta., where an accomplice to killer Jim Roszko received jail time for his role in helping a highly unstable man get his hands on a deadly weapon. Now that Bill C-19 is law, it will be ever easier for the James Earl Rays and Jim Roszkos — and for suicidally depressed men —to access deadly weapons.
Dr. Ron Charach, Toronto.

Making friends

Re: Hans Island Is Just The Beginning, editorial, April 12.
As a Canadian, I would be honoured to share a land border with Denmark. And since Hans Island is uninhabited, with no valuable resources to speak of, might I suggest a local partnership between Tim Hortons and Royal Copenhagen? Its flagship product: Maple Danish served on a fancy porcelain saucer. That might break the ice.
Jeremy Sale, Toronto.

Finally, a local politician gets it on making intensification fit into downtown neighbourhoods.

Ottawa Centre MPP Yasir Naqvi has an excellent grasp of how many residents of the core communities feel about overdevelopment. Mayor Jim Watson, an avid reader of The Bulldog, and city council might speak up in the same way. Here is Naqvi being quoted in the Sept. 22 issue of Ottawa This Week West:

I have knocked on over 30,000 doors in my community and I’ve been hearing a lot of frustration towards excessive and inappropriate development happening in our community — especially Ottawa Centre. … We’re not against development — we understand the need for intensification. But the challenge is the community strongly feels their voice is getting lost in the development going on and there’s a change in neighbourhoods without respecting the vision the community has in mind.”

To silent politicians on this issue, just to remind you, these are votes.

—-

THERE’S LOTS MORE ON THIS BLOG … SO TO RETURN TO THE MAIN BULLDOG PAGE, CLICK HERE

—-

One of the most efficient ways of keeping current about what’s on The Bulldog is by following it through Twitter and Facebook.

Click here to follow The Bulldog on Twitter.

Click here to follow The Bulldog on Facebook.

And don’t forget you can subscribe to The Bulldog through your favourite RSS feed.

E-mail Ken Gray at kengray20@gmail.com Gray welcomes these e-mails for possible publication in The Bulldog.

Ken Gray is an Ottawa journalist who was the Citizen’s city editorial page editor, municipal affairs reporter and a member of the newspaper’s editorial board. He writes a weekly column Wednesdays in the Citizen. During the early ’90s, he edited the Southam News-Toronto Star First Edition, one of the first new media ventures in Canada. For more than three decades, he has worked in many posts from reporter to senior editor at the Montreal Gazette, the Winnipeg Free Press, the London Free Press, the Regina Leader-Post and the Citizen. As well, Gray founded and taught a course in media law and municipal government at Algonquin College. He earned a master’s journalism degree and a honours bachelor’s history degree at the University of Western Ontario in the 1970s.

Ottawa’s Community Associations

Federation of Citizens’ Associations of Ottawa-Carleton, Alta Vista, Beacon Hill , Beaverbrook Kanata , Bellwood, Blackburn Hamlet, Briarbrook Morgan’s Grant, Bridlewood, Canterbury, Cardinal Creek , Carleton Heights, Carlington, Carlingwood, Carlsbad Springs , Cedarhill, Central Park , Centrepointe, Centretown, Chapel Hill South, Civic Hospital Neighbourhood , Constance & Buckhams Bay, Copeland Park , Country Place , Crystal Beach/Lakeview , Cumberland Village, Dalhousie, Dow’s Lake , Dunrobin, Faircrest Heights, Fairlea, Fallingbrook, Findlay Creek, Fitzroy Harbour , Galetta, General Burns, Glabar Park, Glebe, Glen Cairn , Glens, Greely, Half Moon Bay , Hampton Iona , Havenlea-Chapman Mills, Hearts Desire , Heron Park, Highland Park , Hintonburg , Hunt Club, Huntley, Island Park , Kanata Lakes , Kanata Town Centre, Kars, Katimavik-Hazeldean, Kinburn, Leslie Park , Lincoln Heights-Parkway, Lindenlea, Lowertown, Manor Park, Manotick, March Rural, McKellar Park , Munster Hamlet , Navan, New Edinburgh, Nicolls Island, North Gower , Old Ottawa South , Orchard Estates , Osgoode, Ottawa East, Community Council of Overbrook, Portobello South, Qualicum-Graham Park , Queensway Terrace North, Queenswood Heights, Riverside Park, Riverside South, Riverview Park, Rockcliffe Park , Rockcliffe Mews/Carson Grove, Rothwell Heights, Sandy Hill , Sarsfield, South Keys Greenboro, Southpointe, Stittsville, Stonebridge, Tanglewood-Hillsdale, Trend-Arlington, Vanier, Vars, West Barrhaven, Wellington Village , Westboro, Westboro Beach, Westcliffe Estates, Whitehaven, Woodpark

City Organizations

Citizens for safe cycling, Greenspace Alliance

The Ruins of Grace Hospital, June 2010 photo e. weeks

Perhaps it should now be known as “Dis-Grace” Hospital due to its dilapidated condition and the controversy surrounding a project that was initially regarded with so much enthusiasm. Closed and sold for $800,000 in 2004, the plan was to convert the site into a long-term care facility, something that is desperately needed in this area.

But the contractor hired by the provincial government to develop the facility is millions of dollars in debt. Work on the site continues to be delayed while the buildings sit empty, long-term care patients occupy coveted beds in the city’s two functioning hospitals and area residents grow increasingly frustrated and angry over the lack of action and the condition of the property.

Update July 12, 2011, from The Windsor Star:

Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath has called on the province’s Auditor General to investigate the long-term care bed crisis in Windsor and Liberal government’s decision-making around the failed bid to convert the former Grace Hospital into a 256-bed facility.

“Needless to say, this situation is inexcusable,” said Horwath in a letter sent to the auditor general’s office on Monday. “This failure to build these new long-term care beds has left seniors stuck on waiting lists. It has backed up emergency rooms, cancelled surgeries and forced the LHIN to apply a “crisis” designation.”

Horwath concluded that, “Windsor families deserve a thorough explanation to the many lingering questions” in calling for the audit investigation.

Read more of The Star’s article here.

Why don’t we travel back in time to 1946 when Grace Hospital served a vital role in the well being of the people of Windsor? Enjoy.

A Salute to the Girls of Grace Hospital

by Al Roach

Tossing their navy blue capes over the backs of chairs, they bolt their breakfast. Juice, porridge, bacon and toast today. The clatter of silverware.

“Marge sure got hell for bumping a patient in the O.R. yesterday.”

“I hear she lost her half-day.”

6:50 a.m. Rushing down the hall for morning prayers. Led today by Major Doris M. Barr, Superintendent of Nurses. Finishing with a not-too-enthusiastic rendition of “Whiter than Snow”.

And now the 12-hour day begins. With a two-hour break in the afternoon (if they aren’t too busy). Student nurses dashing off (everything is done on the double here) to duty in the Case Room, Nursery, Children’s Ward…

“Flora’s in Military today.”

“She’d better watch her backside.”

A long day of thermometers, bedpans, dinner trays, pills, injections, squaring of bed corners. A severe floor “super” who will, while chatting with patients, slyly run her finger along window sills to ascertain if our girls have dusted them.

Betty is on duty in Second South. Just a bit intimidated by the cantankerous old man in the Eager Room. Not unexpected. At $5 per day he has the most expensive room in the hospital.

Girls swishing about in their blue striped blouses (pink in the third and final year of training), highly starched white cotton aprons and bibs (no soft feminine curves allowed to show), cuffs, collars and caps. Black cotton stockings. Black, low-heeled oxfords. All very sensible and efficient.

Uniforms, one suspects, designed to eliminate any hint of sexual allure. In this respect they clearly fail in their purpose.

The day wears on for the girls in the Grace Hospital School of Nursing. No one is allowed to relax. There is a constant hum of efficiency. The hospital richly deserves its reputation as one of the finest anywhere in Ontario.

Practical lessons from nursing instructors such as Major Gladys Barker and Major Christine “Chrissy” Chapman.

This afternoon, down to the basement classroom for one of the formal lectures. Dr. Arthur Lyon is lecturing on gynecology. (One of the many subjects on which the provincial examinations will be based.) Tired young ladies fight off sleep. It isn’t the doctor’s fault.

Seven p.m. Or 7:15. Or 7:30. The day finally ends. Back to one of the five old houses on Oak, London [University] and Crawford, used as residences (before the central residence was erected on London Street, just west of the hospital, in 1954).

A few of the girls will go out with boyfriends this evening. But not many. And those who do will be careful to observe the 10 p.m. curfew. Well…most of them.

And the weekend is coming. Every other Sunday, time off from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. An entire four hours to do whatever they please (within the limitations of decorum). And, on the other Sundays, the coveted “two-off” — from 2 p.m. until signing-in time. Let the studying wait, it’s a holiday.

Any emolument? Certainly: $5 per month. For seniors, that is. For years One and Two, the stipend is $3 and $4 respectively.

A tough life? Perhaps. But when it’s all over, the march behind the Windsor Citadel Band, proudly playing “The Montreal Citadel”. The new white uniforms. Capes thrown back over shoulders, scarlet linings dazzling in the May sunshine. Down London Street and up Ouellette Avenue to H.M.C.S. Hunter for the graduation ceremonies.

A dozen red roses on each girl’s arm. The graduate’s pin proudly displayed. The photographs by Josephine A. Smith. The provincial examinations in September. The right to write Reg. N. after their names.

Joining the alumnae of hundreds of girls trained under such leaders as Brigadier Alice M. Brett from the time the Sally Ann bought the old Ellis home on Crawford to turn it into a hospital in 1920 until the final graduation in 1974.

A salute to you girls. They don’t make ‘em like you any more.

Raised in Walkerville, the late Al Roach wrote for The Windsor Star for 43 years and was a regular contributor to The Walkerville Times and The Times Magazine. He was the author of two books on local history, “All Our Memories”, and “All Our Memories 2″.

Read more of Al’s stories here.

More background on the current situation of Grace Hospital:
http://www.windsorstar.com/health/Frustration+mounts+with+repeated+delays+Grace+site+Windsor/4168145/story.html#ixzz1FJcNENL2The