voir dire - issue 3 (2013-2014)

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRE-LAW SOCIETY

CLOSE TO HOME VOLUMEIX ISSUEIII MARCH2014

VOLUMEIX ISSUEIII MARCH2014

voirdire

Voir Dire means “to speak the truth” in Old French.

Launched in April 2004 as the brainchild of Andrea Wong, Voir Dire

serves as a medium for promoting the knowledge, interest, and

involvement of U of T students considering a future in the field of law.

Voir Dire is published in print and online on academic quarterly basis.

WHAT’S INSIDE ?

WHEN HUMAN RIGHTS CLASH

6 SUPREME

COURT’S RULING ON CANADA’S

PROSTITUTION LAWS

9

CANADIAN STUDENT LOAN

DEBT

5

ON ACADEMIC

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

2

[Cover Page Image from http://www.wallpaperzhd.com/canada-flag-wallpaper.html]

THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC TRANSIT

IN THE CITY

10


ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM OF

SPEECH: REGULATING HATE SPEECH

ON CANADIAN CAMPUSES

Author: Tiffany Huynh

On September 24, 2013, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) released the 2013 Campus Freedom Index in order to measure how free speech is regulated in Canadian universities ("2013 Campus Freedom Index Released Today"). The JCCF assigned two letter grades, either an A, B, C, D, or F, to each university's administration and student union based on their policies and their practices (Dehaas). The final result was a total of six As, 19 Bs, 80 Cs, 43 Ds, and 32 Fs (Dehaas). Shockingly, 23 out of 45 universities failed to promote free speech and expression according to the report. In this essay, I argue for the need to distinguish between controversial opinions that elicit discomfort and acts that threaten to or actually cause harm, in order to defend academic freedom of speech, and ultimately, allow for genuine debates. Firstly, I will begin by explaining the difference between freedom of speech in society and academic freedom of speech. Secondly, I will address the role of the law in issues of involving freedom of speech. Thirdly, I will discuss the presence of power dynamics that influences how universities and the law should approach various scenarios. Finally, I will conclude my essay with a brief look at men’s issues, one of the newest hot topics, in order to ground my arguments.

It is important to distinguish between freedom of speech on campuses and freedom of speech in society. The role of universities is unique because their purpose is to be conductive to learning. Since people learn by being self-critical of their opinions, debates involving conflicting ideas are essential to the education of students. Thus, academic freedom of speech must be taken seriously and should not be easily compromised. The role of universities differs greatly from the role of society, which is generally understood to be a place to allow for stable and peaceful life. Often, universities are understood to facilitate discussions that contribute to the "marketplace of ideas". The marketplace of ideas refers to the idea that there is a free market in which

everyone can participate and the result from the discussion will be the best result. In other words, in a discussion of opinions, the idea is that the "right" opinion will disprove all other opinions, and the truth will emerge (Schabas 111). Using this metaphor, William Schabas, a professor of international law at Middlesex University, suggests that there is a need to regulate the market in order to prevent unfair competition like crack and pornography (111). Hence the question is not whether censorship should be permitted, but when it should be permitted and by whom (Schabas 111). Furthermore, I want to note that I think that the "marketplace of ideas" is an interesting metaphor to use since it assumes that the free market always produces the best result when this is often proven false in real life. Nevertheless, the "marketplace of ideas" is efficient in stressing the idea that only through the free exchange of speech can individuals develop their thoughts.

At this point, I wish to examine the Canadian laws in place to deal with the restriction of academic freedom of speech. Although the JCCF evaluated the universities' policies and practices to control controversial opinions, since the question is not merely when the line can be drawn but also by whom, it is also important to look at the role of the law in these matters. Schabas looks to human rights legislations to control hate speech, but he insists that there has to be “great flexibility and tolerance…to enact proper regulations to prevent abusive use of *human regulation+ platforms” (Schabas 112). There is a fine line between protecting freedom of speech to have genuine debate and preventing harm to other individuals. After all, other rights may be at stake as well. Nevertheless, Schabas points to two sources that play a role in controlling hate speech. Firstly, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights promotes the right to freedom of expression but the right is not absolute. Instead, the right can be “restricted by legal norms that are needed for the respect of the rights or reputations of others” (Schabas 113). Thus, any hate propaganda that encourages discrimination is prohibited. The second important source is the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination which, as the name of the treaty suggests, aims to prohibit racial discrimination. Both

voirdire

PAGE 3 VOLUMEIX ISSUEIII MARCH2014

treaties are ratified in over 100 states. However, some notable exceptions include the United States. In addition, another potential source of regulating free speech is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. Although it is less explicit on the limits of free speech, Schabas uses to the case of Keegstra v. Canada to show its potential. In the case, Dickson C. J. of the Supreme Court of Canada “cited article 20 of the Covenant and article four of the Racial Discrimination Convention to flesh out the limits on free speech for a free and democratic society as intended by the charter” (Schabas 114). Finally, Schabas observes that provincial human rights codes extend their reach much further in universities than the Canadian Charter (Schabas 114).Therefore, even if free speech is important to have genuine debates, because the university has the power to create knowledge that is accepted as valid, the university has to be wary of prejudices and discrimination. Many historically oppressed groups are now able to attend university and make their voices heard. Hence, the university must protect the dignity of these groups in order to avoid excluding their voices from important debates like the past. I suggest that this exclusion is a form of violence that not only threatens to lead to physical violence and emotional harm, but also restrict people from living (and even imagine living) in a viable world. Therefore, university policies and legislation must both be carefully balanced to allow universities to become a forum that creates knowledge to better understand our world and make it better.

Although it is clear from the results of the JCCF’s 2013 Campus Freedom Index that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line, I think that the most important factor to consider is the power dynamics involved. John Furedy, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, makes an important distinction between issue-directed opinions, person-directed opinion, threatening acts and physically violent acts (Furedy 131). He stresses that only issue-directed opinion should be fully protected and the other others can be “subject to increasing degrees of censure” (Furedy 131). This is not only consistent with the principle of academic

freedom since it allows for controversial opinions that may result in discomfort in many people. It also enables protection for people who may be threatened or harmed by the controversial opinion as well as the individuals who hold the controversial opinion. Furedy establishes this balance by considering if the power relationship is symmetrical or asymmetrical in cases of person-directed opinion (Furedy 133). The power relationship is symmetrical if the opinion-proposer has no “evaluative academic power” over the audience since the argument can be criticized for being based on irrelevant or wrong facts (Furedy 133). One example is when an academic shares her opinions to other academics or when a student shares his opinion to another student. It is worth noting that

it is the opinion that may be censured in these cases but not the opinion-holder. In other words, the university should not censure other opinions from the opinion-proposer, by, for instance, expelling him or her, simply due to one case in which the censorship of an opinion was deemed necessary.

On the other hand, an asymmetric power relationship is when the opinion-proposer does have “evaluative academic power” over the audience; the most common case of this is in a classroom. In these scenarios, if a student disagrees with the professor’s opinion, her evaluation may be “negatively affected by considerations that should be irrelevant to assessment process” (Furedy 133). Thus, this defeats


voirdire

the purpose of universities since it hinders genuine debate. I propose the need to look power dynamics as more than “evaluative academic power” to better understand how genuine debate is hindered. The relationship between a professor and his students is asymmetrical because the professor holds a privileged position as a legitimate knowledge-maker that knows some truths. On the other hand, while the student is still privileged in her ability to attend university to learn and voice her opinions until she is not seen as an expert. Thus, she is perceived to be learning from the professor who knows more. Consequently, the threatening person-directed opinions are not as weak arguments; they hold the ability to suppress the voices of certain groups (including members of the university) and subject them to potential violence. As a result, I agree with Furedy in that faculty members who propose threatening opinions in a person-directed form are censurable on academic grounds (Furedy 133). Finally, Furedy notes that all threatening acts and physically violent acts justify the censorship of faculty members (Furedy 134). I want to add that it is when person-directed acts are involved, rather than opinions, should the law become involved. After all, to tolerate such acts would seriously undermine the law’s duty to protect the safety of individuals as well as Canada’s commitment to protecting minority rights in order to foster a multicultural society that is based on equity.

I will conclude this essay by exemplifying my arguments through a brief analysis of one of the newest controversial topics: men’s issues. In 2013, the University of Toronto Students’ Union and the Ryerson Students’ Union both banned men’s issues awareness clubs (Dehaas). The UTSU stated the groups harassed women, and the RSU claimed one group was a “hate group” (Dehaas). Furthermore, in May of 2013, the Canadian Federation of Students stated that “messages from *men’s+ groups claim to be of equality, but are in fact messages that are misogynist” (Urback). Thus, one controversial event that I want to analyze is a bunch of posters found on Alberta campuses that “made a parody of a successful anti-rape campaign” (Urback). The message that men do suffer from false claims of sexual assault is valid but I strongly believe that an ethical approach to activism is not simply about the message, but also how one delivers the message. In this example, the

method used dismisses serious feminist concerns. Thus, it invokes a sense of discomfort that has a tendency to call for men’s group issues to not be seriously and is perceived to perpetuate misogyny. This is problematic for many reasons. Firstly, in order to truly create a more equitable space, feminist groups and men’s groups need to engage in genuine debate. It is not helpful to fall into the trap of constantly arguing about who is more oppressed; all groups experience privilege and oppression in varying degrees in an intertwined manner. Instead, the university should provide a forum for a debate that aims to recognize the differences between the two types of groups while looking for broader connections that link the experiences of both groups. For instance, although feminists often discuss femininity as a social construct, there is considerably less discussion about the social construction of masculinity. By ignoring men’s issues, the valid concerns of certain men, such as men of colour, queer men, disabled men, or men who are all of what I just mentioned, become unaccountable. In conclusion, while academic freedom of speech is not absolute, the right to voice one’s opinions, particularly directed around issues, must be not be easily compromised in order to allow for genuine debate, which is the very essence of universities.

References

"2013 Campus Freedom Index Released Today." Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms RSS. N.p., 24 Sept. 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.

Dehaas, Josh. "Half of Canadian Universities Fail at Free Speech: Report." Macleans On Campus. Rogers Publishing Unlimited, 24 Sept. 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.

Furedy, John J. “Academic Freedom, Opinions and Acts: The Voltaire-Mill Perspective Applied to Current Canadian Cases.” 44 U.N.B.L.J., 1995. 131-4.

Schabas, William A. “Free Speech on Campus: Lessons from International and Comparative Law.” 44 U.N.B.L.J., 1995. 111-8.

Urback, Robyn. "Robyn Urback: Move Over, Abortion - Men’s Issues Are the New Taboo Topics On campus." National Post Full Comment Robyn Urback Move over Abortion

Mens Issues Are the New Taboo Topics Oncampus Comments. Postmedia Network Inc., 26 Sept. 2013. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.

Image Credits

"Tony Gurr." Allthingslearning. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2014.


CANADIAN STUDENT LOAN DEBT Author: Jenny Du

Higher education – especially a postsecondary one – is of growing importance. For many, it determines success in their future and present career paths, while for others it is the first step towards higher education.

Unfortunately, pursuing a postsecondary degree has become increasingly expensive. In fact, may graduates are left with fewer education-related job prospects than in the past. Today, many students in postsecondary institutions across Canada are concerned about the financial debt their education will incur.

For most students, their personal savings earned from working minimum wage jobs are insufficient – financial aid in the form of parental support, scholarships, and student loans are essential. The Canada Student Loans Program (CSLP) and its provincial counterparts serve to buffer the consequences of uprising tuition. However, their efforts may be redundant for students whose higher education results in overwhelming debt.

University funding is largely dependent on tuition fees rather than governmental resources. According to the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the

federal government share of university operating revenue has decreased by 26%. Meanwhile, the tuition fee proportion increased by 23% (Mason 2013). As a result of the increase in tuition fees, there has been an analogous rise in student loans and student loan debt.

The significant increase in student loan debt has become more prominent in the past decade and is caused by several factors. A main factor is the limitation of the eligibility of students who qualify for student loans. Another cause is the rise in tuition fees, which subsequently increases the amount of required financial aid.

Had student debt remained parallel with inflation since the 1990s, graduates would not be facing today’s student loan burdens (Lederman 2006). Over the past decade, the average debt has increased by 58%. According to the Student Debt Crisis, within the past three decades the cost of completing a degree has increased by almost 1000% (Touryalai 2013). As of September 2012, the accumulated debt for a Canadian completing a university degree amounted to $25,000. On average, that takes approximately 14 years to fully repay (Lagerquist 2012). In September 2013, a Bank of Montreal student survey averaged postsecondary student debt to be more than $26,000 (Mason 2013). These average estimations are variable by province. For

voirdire

PAGE 6 VOLUMEIX ISSUEIII MARCH2014

instance, students in British Columbia are expected to owe nearly $35,000 in student loans (Mason 2013). In total, Canadian students have accumulated more than $15 billion dollars in federal student loan debt. Including money owed on lines of credit, credit cards, and provincial loan programs, Canadian students owe an estimated amount of $23 billion (Mason 2013).

Policymakers can improve the current student loan system. Considerations to be made include: increasing the eligibility for student loans, expanding the current debt-reduction programs, and “favoring assistance to most students in the form of loans, while targeting grants on those from low-income families for whom debt aversion is a significant problem” (Finnie 2010). It is in everyone’s interest to address the problem of student loan debts and implement positive changes. In addition to the burden of diminishing prospects of well-paying jobs after graduation, many young Canadians feel the burden of having to begin repaying their loans just six months after graduation (Mason 2013). Student loan debt is capable of affecting all aspects of later life, and is a huge contributing factor of distress and anxiety among today’s Canadian youth pursuing higher education.

References

Finnie, R. 2010. Measuring the Load, Easing the Burden: Canada's Student Loan Programs and the Revitalization of Canadian Postsecondary Education. C.D. Howe Institute. 155(1):2-29.

Finnie, R. 2002. “Student Loans, Student Financial Aid and Post-secondary Education in Canada.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2): 155-169.

Lagerquist, J. 2012. “Student debt: Average payback takes 14 years.” Personal Finance: Young Money. Financial Post.

Lederman, D. 2006. A Historical Look at Student Debt. Inside Higher Ed.

Mason, G. 2013. “University students: Another day smarter, but deeper in debt”. The Globe and Mail. Globe Debate.

Touryalai, H. 2013. “Student Loan Increase.” Forbes Business. Forbes.

Image Credits

"Could Student Loan Debt Soon Be Erased?" Edudemic. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2014.

WHEN HUMAN RIGHTS CLASH:

GENDER EQUALITY VERSUS

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AT

YORK UNIVERSITY Author: Malcolm Peck-McQueen

Human rights, which are central to our understanding of a democratic Canadian society, frequently conflict with each other. Thus, prioritizing some rights over others has become an inevitable consequence of protecting our civil liberties. Recently, this was the case at York University, where accommodation of a student's religious beliefs and practices conflicted with female students' right to be free from discrimination on the basis of gender.

During the fall 2013 semester, a male student requested to be excused from a group project for Professor J. Paul Grayson's online sociology class because the assignment required the student to publicly interact with his female peers. According to the student, this would violate his religious belief that men and women should not interact in public. In response, Professor Grayson decided to not excuse the male student from the project, despite the university administration's position that the request should be accommodated. The York University Dean of Arts, Martin Singer, ordered Professor Grayson to exempt the student from the group project on the grounds that that the online nature of the course meant that students from outside Canada had been excused from the assignment (Slaughter, 2014). Dissatisfied with the administration's directive, Professor Grayson and his department passed a resolution declaring that “accommodations for students will not be made if they contribute to the material or symbolic marginalization of other students, faculty, or teaching assistants” (Hopper, 2014). I argue that Professor Grayson ultimately made the right decision to refuse the male student's accommodation request.

First, the administration's logic in supporting the accommodation was flawed. Singer’s analogy comparing foreign students enrolled in the online course, and the religious student in question, is faulty. The rationale that can be used to justify the former


situation is simply that distance makes in-person group work impossible for students outside the country. However, in the latter case, the male student at York was not studying abroad and was capable of engaging in the project's group work. Instead, the underlying principle would be that male and female students should be segregated if religious convictions are invoked. Thus, while the former principle is concerned with ensuring the practical deliverance of education, the latter is inherently sexist in that it condones differential treatment of the sexes.

Moreover, the Dean argued that accommodation was ordered because it “would have no substantial impact on the experience of other students” (Slaughter, 2014). The crucial assumption Singer made is that female students in the class would not be aware that their male counterpart had been excused from the assignment. However, even if the female students were not made aware of this decision, their experience in the class would still be adversely affected. The point of academic group work is to encourage students to learn from each other, and thereby deepen their understanding of key concepts. Exempting the male student from group work would deprive his female colleagues of the opportunity to learn from his contributions to the project, and his opportunity to learn from them. The more troubling aspect of this rationale is the potential adverse effects to female students if the administration's assumption is false, and females were made aware of the accommodation. In such a case, female students would be given the impression that they are not worthy of working with male students. In fact, Grayson surveyed his class on this matter, and when given the facts about the accommodation, female students said they would feel angry, inferior, and discriminated against (Slaughter, 2014). Evidently, the Dean did not consider the larger picture when he determined that the accommodation request would not negatively impact other students.

But rather than solely considering why the York University administration was incorrect, it must also be considered why Professor Grayson was justified in denying the religious accommodation. The criticism of Grayson's decision centers on the male student's Charter right to freedom of religion. However, there is a strong counter-argument grounded in constitutional

law for limiting freedom of religion in this case. The Supreme Court of Canada's Oakes test for determining when a limitation of a Charter right may be permitted sets out straightforward criteria. The court said that the standard of interpretation of the Charter must be in accordance with the values expressed in the phrase “free and democratic society.” The first part of the test requires the Charter right limitation to be an objective related to substantial concerns in a free and democratic society. In the York University case, Professor Grayson's limitation of the male student's right to freedom of religion is directly related to a concern of a democratic society. Canada's democratic values include the equality of men and women. Grayson has stated that his reason for denying the student's accommodation request was that he wanted to uphold the societal belief of equality between the sexes (Slaughter, 2014). Thus, the limitation meets the first criterion of the Oakes test.


The second criterion requires that the limitation must be carried out in a manner that is reasonable and demonstrably justified. This entails a proportionality test in which the means of the limitation must impair the right as little as possible, and the effects must be proportional to the objective of the limitation. Again, the situation fits these criteria perfectly. Professor Grayson impaired the male student's right to religious freedom as minimally as possible. All that the student was required to do was participate in the course's group work that he signed up for. Grayson did not request that the student refrain from wearing religious apparel during the group work, or participate in the practices of other religions. Moreover, the student would only be required to publicly interact with his female colleagues until the project was completed. Afterward, the male student would be free to continue upholding his religious conviction against the intermingling of men and women. As for the relationship of effects to the objective, the limitation imposed by Professor Grayson was not disproportionate. The effect of the limitation was the temporary suspension of the male student's religious conviction, but the objective was to ensure equal treatment of women. The limitation was placed on freedom of religion in order to ensure that a category of citizens who make up approximately fifty percent of the population do not face discriminatory treatment. Thus, the minimally impairing means of limiting the male student's right to religious freedom were justified by the larger objective of maintaining the core value of gender equality in Canada's free and democratic society. In the end, Professor Grayson made the right decision to protect gender equality over freedom of religion.

References

Hopper, Tristin. (2014, January 9). York University Standing by Choice to Excuse Student from Group Work with Women over Religious Beliefs. National Post. Retrieved from http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/09/york-university-appears-to-be-standing-by-choice-to-excuse-student-from-group-work-with-women-over-religious-beliefs/

Slaughter, Graham. (2014, January 13). York University's Religious Accommodation Decision the Correct One, Dean Writes. Toronto Star. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/01/13/york_universitys_religious_accommodation_decision_the_correct_one_dean_writes.html

Image Credits

"National Post Editorial Board: Rights Crusaders Run Amok at York University." National Post Full Comment National Post Editorial Board Rights Crusaders Run Amok at YorkUniversity Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2014.


SUPREME COURT RULING ON

CANADA’S PROSTITUTION LAWS Author: Sarah Karim

In December 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada finally ruled that the three provisions of the Canadian Criminal Code related to prostitution are unconstitutional. By removing these legal constraints from the criminal justice system, sex workers are now separated from the stigmas associated with their work. The ruling followed the Bedford v. Canada case involving Terri Jean Bedford, Amy Libovitch and, Valerie Scott, where sections 210 and 212 of the Criminal Code were struck down (“Supreme Court strikes down Canada's prostitution laws,” CBC News). Both of these provisions, as well as section 213, are considered to be restrictive towards sex workers’ ability to control their work environment, while also infringing on their rights to life and liberty, under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What can Canadians expect following this landmark ruling? Over the course of the next year, the Supreme Court will implement new legislation regarding sex work in Canada. According to Justice McKay, this process can only be finalized after communicating with police and provinces. (“Canada's prostitution laws: What the court said”, CBC News). However, that being said, it is evident that regulating sex work has become a federal matter, when it should be dealt with by municipalities, in order to ensure the involvement of sex workers and enshrine their autonomy.

Furthermore, Brenda Cossman (University of Toronto head of the Bonham Sexual Diversity Studies Department) has made the following remarks, regarding the Supreme Court’s decision: “It casts sex work into the language of harm. It reflects the legal arguments that were made. It reflects the lower court decisions, where the focus was on how the law harms a vulnerable at-risk group...but there's nothing in the decision about sexual morality. There's nothing in this decision about sexual autonomy. There's nothing in the decision about decriminalizing prostitution.”

There is also speculation that Canada might adopt a Nordic model, in which sex work will be under the regulation of the Canadian government, and

autonomous regulation of sex work will be disregarded (Lucianna Ciccocioppo, University of Toronto Faculty of Law). The Nordic model is currently being used by Norway and Sweden, where governments have shifted their focus towards criminalizing those who purchase sex. Alternatively, the New Zealand model should be given serious consideration, as it better serves sex workers by focusing on their safety and protection. (“Prostitution laws: What are the Nordic and New Zealand models?” CTV News).

While this is a great achievement for Canada, it is important to consider the direction in which decision making will go from here.

References

"Canada's prostitution laws: What the court said." CBC News. CBC News, 20 12 2014. Web. 11 Feb 2014.

"Supreme Court strikes down Canada's prostitution laws."CBC News. CBC News, 20 12 2013. Web. 11 Feb 2014.

Ciccocioppo, Lucianna. "After Bedford v. Canada: sex trade panel draws crowds, protesters and passionate debate." University of Toronto Faculty of Law. University of Toronto Faculty of \ Law, 7 02 2014. Web. 11 Feb 2014.

"Prostitution laws: What are the Nordic and New Zealand models?." CTV News. CTV News, 20 12 2013. Web. 11 Feb 2014.

Image Credits

"The Vancouver Sun." Www.vancouversun.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2014.


THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC

TRANSIT IN THE CITY Author: Karishma Prasanna

The public transit system is used most frequently to travel in and around the Greater Toronto Area. The public transit system can sometimes turn out to be a huge hassle, especially during rush hour. Extremely crowded vehicles, sporadic schedules and constant ongoing construction plague the system and results in an ongoing stream of frustrated passengers. In response to the dissatisfaction, the city recently started a wide-reaching project to improve all areas of the public transit, ranging from streetcars to subways. Unfortunately, these plans have not materialized. Although, it must be acknowledged that the PRESTO fare system has been implemented throughout most of the transit network, that work on the Union Pearson Express is under way, and that there has been an improvement in GO transit services. However, changes in the rest of the system are progressing very slowly, while other projects remain stagnant. Politics are

usually blamed for the lack of success of some of these projects. Nonetheless, with an impending positive change in the leadership of the city this year, this could be the time for real positive progress.

Metrolinx, previously known as the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority, launched the ‘Big Move’ project in 2008 in order to provide “a solution to traffic congestion *and+ transit backlogs”1. The project has high goals and comes with an equally expensive price tag. The costs initially started at around $50 billion dollars, but have continued to rise over the months and years2. What started out as a plan to steer the city into a future of more efficient and shorter commute times has instead, led us down a disappointing pathway of confused decisions and wasted taxpayer money.

The first major blunder of the ‘The Big Move’ involved the Scarborough’s rapid transit (RT) line. While the city council originally approved a plan that called for a light rail (LRT) line, they later put an end to this plan, which resulted in a loss of millions of dollars invested in the LRT project. The council instead, decided to go down a different route and develop a subway line for


Scarborough3. This decision will approximately cost “taxpayers $1 billion over 30 years”3.

Despite this confusion, many delayed decisions and slow progress, there is hope. Many citizens look toward the upcoming city and provincial elections for a change in leadership that will perhaps be better equipped to execute this proposed plan. Regrettably, a change in political leadership might not help for two reasons:

Firstly, the overall consensus is that no matter what the next political steps may be, more funds are required. The city council is currently in the midst of a debate regarding a $6 million dollar subsidy for the TTC. Yet, The “system’s $9-billion, 10-year capital spending picture looks dire right now, with a $2.3 billion shortfall in needed purchases of new equipment, repairs and maintenance.”3 Unfortunately, to the displeasure of many citizens, most of this cost is to be shouldered by taxpayer dollars, using numerous methods that include “ one-percentage-point HST hike, a fuel tax, high occupancy toll lanes, and a handful of other fees.”4

Secondly, while there might be a change in leadership, many exasperated citizens believe that this will do nothing for their dream of a transformed public transit system. This is because many citizens believe that the goals of politicians are far removed from their own when it comes to their dreams of an effective transit system. It seems the majority of parities recently in power have wasted time and money on fruitless and unnecessary projects, while ignoring the real challenges at hand. Many consider the recent Liberal decision to invest in the “extension of the Spadina line past York University”5, a completely unnecessary decision that will cost people more than it will benefit.

Citing the recent mix-up concerning the Scarborough LRT, bad investment decisions, and the prolonged timeline of most of the projects, people have become quite convinced that Metrolinx holds no real power. They consider that it is really the politicians behind the scenes pulling the strings5. The authority has lost most of its credibility and will find it hard to recover the trust of many citizens of Toronto. Metrolinx’s promise of “double ridership by 2033, complete numerous transit improvements and reduce commuting times significantly,”6 are all but forgotten. As the years pass, citizens are wary as to whether Metorlinx is making the right decisions. The company has not always been

as transparent as it vowed it would be, and lately they seem to bend more and more to the will of cabinet ministers, party and council members. It seems crucial to the success of the ‘Big Move’ project that Metrolinx begins to do its job independent of the political sphere and away from the pull of political pressures. Until then, we can only hope that Metrolinx will uphold its initial promises of a more cost and time effective public transit system.

References

1. Metrolinx Overview." Metrolinx Overview. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2014.

2. Royson, James. "Is Metrolinx Killing Our Transit Dreams?: James." Thestar.com. Toronto Star, 11 Dec. 2013. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

3. Kalinoswski, Tess, and Betsy Powell. "Scarborough Subway Confirmed by Toronto Council." Thestar.com. Toronto Star, 8 Oct. 2013. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

4. O'Toole, Megan. "Province Announces Advisory Panel to Review Metrolinx Investment strategy." National Post. N.p., 18 Sept. 2013. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

5. Barber, John. "Our Great Transit Non-Debate." Torontoist. N.p., 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

6. Royson, James. "Is Metrolinx Killing Our Transit Dreams?: James." Thestar.com. Toronto Star, 11 Dec. 2013. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

Image Credits

"Head Of TTC Fired; Toronto Council Divided About Transit." Teaching Kids News. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2014.

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF MARIA-CHRISTINA CHRISTODOULOU

ASSISTANT EDITORS ALEXANDRIA MATIC

NINA MODARESI

LAYOUT DESIGNER TIRTHAK PATEL

WRITERS ALI AUN SYED

JENNY DU KARISHMA PRASANNA

MALCOLM PECK-MCQUEEN SAHAR ROSTAMI SARAH KARIM

TIFFANY HUYNH

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRE-LAW SOCIETY

voir dire - issue 3 (2013-2014)

Documents