Bill C-5 passes in the House of Commons. Now what?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
26 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Sorry, speed cameras aren't the problem
A spectre is haunting Canadian roads: the real prospect of actually having to pay a fine for not respecting the speed limit. As speed cameras proliferate, particularly in Ontario, some drivers are showing their displeasure. Many of the cameras have been vandalized and one in Toronto cut down six times. It's time for a deep breath. Speed cameras shouldn't disappear, they should multiply. The cameras are effective and, because their penalty is so easily avoided, they are fair. In fact, a recent poll for CAA showed majority support among Ontarians for the cameras. Politicians who pander to the minority of drivers who hate them are gambling with public safety. Those politicians span the ideological spectrum, from Ontario's Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford to former Ontario Liberal leader Steven Del Duca, now mayor of suburban Vaughan, and left-leaning Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow. So busy trying to placate drivers, these politicians ignore that speed cameras work. The hit in the wallet is sufficiently unpleasant that it convinces people to slow down. For evidence, consider that the number of tickets issued by any given camera typically goes down over time. That effect has been further demonstrated by research from a hospital and university in Toronto. According to their findings, referenced in a recent city staff report, the proportion of vehicles speeding went down 45 per cent after cameras were installed near schools and in high-collision areas. The cameras actually generate relatively little revenue, after administrative costs are deducted. Their effect on behaviour is more important than the money. Fines lead to slower driving, and less speeding equals fewer injured or dead people. That's because speed is dangerous. The brain has limits on how fast it can process information taken in from peripheral vision. So a driver going more quickly experiences a literal narrowing of their vision, making it harder to spot possible risks in time. And the distance needed to brake goes up dramatically with speed, doubling between 30 and 50 kilometres an hour. Both of those factors make a collision more likely. And if one does occur, speed will make it worse. A person hit by a vehicle travelling at 30 kilometres an hour has a 90-per-cent chance of surviving. Increase the speed to 40 kilometres an hour, though, and the survival rate drops to 60 per cent. A person hit at 50 kilometres an hour has only a 20-per-cent chance of living. Mr. Ford may commiserate with drivers 'getting dinged' for going '10 kilometres over,' but small increases in speed matter. So keep the cameras, even though there are aspects of the policy over which reasonable people can disagree. Cities tend to be cagey about how much over the limit a driver has to be going to be issued a ticket. There will be absolutists on either side – claiming that any violation is worth ticketing, or that everyone speeds and thus a big buffer is warranted – but the best solution is location-specific. Speed increases make a much bigger difference on a quiet residential street than on a highway. Another contentious point is the extent to which drivers should be warned about speed cameras. Ms. Chow called earlier this year for bigger and more visible warning signs, in order to be 'fairer' to drivers. On the face, this is a farcical idea. The speed limit sign is surely warning enough. Why add a sign that effectively says, 'We really mean it'? Still, if signs flagging the presence of speed cameras are the price that must be paid for their political acceptability, so be it. Because, in the end, it may not make any difference to the effectiveness of the cameras. Cities are typically littered with so many signs that they become background clutter for drivers. These will similarly fade from notice. People who rail against speed cameras because thousands or tens of thousands of tickets have been issued – framing this as unjust or evidence of government overreach – miss the point. The volume of infractions speaks to how common speeding has become. Police rarely take traffic laws seriously, so the chances of being caught by them are slim. Cameras are reviled because they change the risk calculus. Unhappy drivers should remember that choosing to exceed the speed limit is, in fact, illegal, and that there's an easy hack to avoid getting a ticket: lighten up on that right foot.
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
Why Canada's civil service needs more 'plumbers' and fewer 'poets'
Donald J. Savoie has spent decades studying the inner workings of Canada's federal bureaucracy. He's watched Ottawa grow more centralized and more crowded with what he calls 'poets,' policy thinkers and advisers, while the 'plumbers,' the front-line workers delivering services to Canadians, have not been prioritized. In an interview with National Post about the concept, as discussed in his recent book Speaking Truth to Canadians About Their Public Service, Savoie explains why that imbalance matters. Savoie is Canada Research Chair in Public Administration and Governance at Université de Moncton. Article content Article content Please briefly define what you mean by 'plumbers and poets' when it comes to the civil service. Article content Article content Article content Thank you for the question, that's a good one. A lot of times I've been interviewed about the book, and not many have caught on to the poets and the plumbers, and I think it's key. Article content Poets are people mostly in Ottawa, that are part of the government who work on policy issues, who work on liaison, on coordination or dealing with media or dealing with ministers so they define policy. Article content Plumbers are the ones delivering services to Canadians. Plumbers are the ones you applied to for a passport, plumbers are the ones you applied to for old age pension or whatever program that you want to access; they're the ones that deliver programs and services to Canadians. So the differences between poets to plumbers is fairly pronounced. Article content It's grown by leaps and bounds over the past 10 years. In 2014 it was 340,000, in 2025 we're up to 445,000, so you can see the difference there. It's over 100,000 more. Article content Article content How has that growth affected the ratio of plumbers to poets, and what's the correct ratio? Article content Article content The growth has clearly favoured the poets. And the reason I say that is just the sheer numbers of public servants in Ottawa — the number has grown. And it has not grown anywhere near the same amount in local and regional offices. Article content What's the right number? What's the right percentage? Frankly, it's difficult to answer that. I would remind you that 40 years ago about 25 per cent of federal public servants were in Ottawa, and 75 per cent out in the regions, and that sounded like a proper number. So my view is that we should strive towards that. Article content I can tell you that in France, England, and the United States, the number of public servants in the national capital, whether in London, or Washington, or Paris, is nowhere near the percentage we have in Canada. Article content In the U.K. for example, I'm taking a stab here, but like 75 per cent of public servants are outside of London, and the government over the past several years has made a deliberate attempt to move more and more public servants outside of London.
CTV News
2 hours ago
- CTV News
Rod Stewart shares his thoughts on '51st state' threat with Toronto crowd
Rod Stewart isn't a fan of U.S. President Donald Trump or his threats against Canada, and recently used a concert to amplify his sentiment on the matter. Video clips of Tuesday night's performance on Toronto's Budweiser Stage shows the 80-year-old rock legend sharing his thoughts on Trump's threats to make Canada the 51st state. Stewart's enthusiasm and support for Canada were dished out in the form of a tribute during his finale, where he brought out his dancers and musicians and projected a video above the stage, which he said he found on the internet. The clip in question was an altered version of Gloria Gaynor's 1978 hit 'I Will Survive,' with the lyrics changed to reflect Canada's strength in the face of Trumps threats of annexation, superimposed over images of Canadian landscapes and icons, like TTC streetcars and the Canadian flag. Some of the lyrics include the lines: 'We spent so many nights thinking how you did us wrong, we've banded all together, your tariff made us strong,' as well as, 'You know you're not so great, there's not a snowball's chance in hell we'll be your 51st state,' and 'We have all we really need, we will live without your greed, we will survive.' Stewart and his dancers shimmied on stage as the video played. After the clip was finished, Stewart addressed the audience with gusto. '51st state my f---ing ass,' he told the crowd as he pumped his fist. 'Go on Canada!' Tuesday's concert was part of Stewart's One Last Stop Tour, which featured opening act Cheap Trick. In June, the rock legend had to cancel several U.S. dates as a result of illness.
