Talk:John Baird (Canadian politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is part of the Political parties and politicians in Canada WikiProject, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Politics in Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Removed POV since no specific examples of POV are given. Please feel free to add any positive things observers have said about him. I'll see what I can add. Homey 00:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thought that the picture before wasn't the best one.

You may be right but we can't just copy an image from Baird's website without permission. Homey 02:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 The Honourable 2 Lengthy article 3 Provincial politics section: first round of suggested changes 3.1 Resolved issues 3.1.1 #1 3.1.2 #2 3.1.3 #4 3.1.4 #6 3.2 #7 3.3 Unresolved issues 3.3.1 #3 3.3.2 #5

[edit] The Honourable

Okay, so what's the problem with The Honourable? Members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada are entitled to the prefix, unlike regular MPs. Why remove it? Digging.holes 06:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind, I just read the relevant part of the Style Manual. I personally feel it is a stupid policy ; nevertheless, I will abide by it until such time as it is changed or I stop caring. Whichever comes first. Digging.holes 06:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see the section of the style book on honorifics. Thanks.Homey 06:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't Mr. Baird have a website? How are his constituants supposed to contact him? Doesn't seem very organized..

Re: See http://www.johnbaird.com/--JForget 18:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lengthy article

This article is very long and may need some serious pruning. Thoughts? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• It may not come as a complete surprise that I disagree (although I have been meaning to revise this article for a while). CJCurrie 06:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• So most of the partisan attack from columnists is on the delete list. GoldDragon 22:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This a long article and could probably use some trimming. I think many of the political bios are getting off-track with too much criticism of minor things. The "OPSEU member" incident jumps out as an example. And some of the things like Hydrozilla, etc. could probably go too. --JGGardiner 09:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Got to note that everyting that Baird done in his provincial career is negatively criticized here, particularly by the Toronto Star. The Harris gov't policies were controversial, no doubt, but one would get the impression that it was all bad, which is misleading as Harris wanted to cut the deficit. GoldDragon 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree that everyt'ing (there is an apostrophe when you pronounce in the Carribean way, mon) is criticized. There is some balance, but not enough. All in all, it does look like someone has made a concerted effort to find criticism for most of the things he did, although I don't think we need shy away from listing his gaffes, of which there were many. I will try to take a look at this soon and suggest ways of making it less POV here on the talk page and see what otehrs think before making changes. Ground Zero | t 20:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Provincial politics section: first round of suggested changes

Here are my suggestions for improving the balance of the “Provincial politics” section of the article. If we can get consensus on these changes, I’ll make them, and then we can review the revised article to see if more changes are needed. Please place your comments in each sub-section. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (revised 13:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Resolved issues

[edit] #1

“During a televised debate in early 1996, Baird acknowledged that his government's privatization policies would likely result in lower wages for workers, but argued this would be balanced out by lower prices for consumers. REF Thomas Walkom, "Tories would trade good jobs for bad", Toronto Star, 29 February 1996, A25./REF”

– This pops up out of nowhere and with no context. I do not think that this one remarks merits inclusion in the article. A Wikipedia article about a person should not document everything he/she ever said. I recommend that this be deleted. Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this call. I wrote this sentence as the conclusion to a much longer paragraph, the rest of which has now been deleted. It doesn't have any particularly great significance on its own, and I had planned to remove it myself. I suspect we can probably just go ahead and delete it now. CJCurrie 22:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So we can move forward on this. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #2

“REF Jane Coutts, "15,000 fell off welfare in July, Tories say ", Globe and Mail, 17 August 1999, A7 and Caroline Mallan, "Workfare stats elude minister", Toronto Star, 17 August 1999, p. 1. Both articles were extremely critical of Baird's ability to handle difficult questions./REF”

– I think that his words speak for themselves. We do not need the opinions of a couple of reporters here about his ability to handle questions. I recommend that “Both articles… difficult questions.” be deleted. Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain where I stand on this one. Baird's first press conference was given extremely poor reviews from both the Star and G&M reporters. When I expanded the article in January 2006, I thought this was significant enough to mention. If others disagree now, I won't object to the sentence's removal. CJCurrie 03:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So it will go then. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The proposal was not to delete the reference, only to delete the descriptive sentence that followed it: "Both articles were extremely critical...." I'll restore the reference. Ground Zero | t 13:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #4

“Baird opposed the Harris government's plan to amalgamate the city of Ottawa with neighbouring municipalities, but was unable to prevent it from passing the legislature in 1999 REF Dan Nolan, "Tory MPPs talk merger with caucus", Hamilton Spectator, 30 November 1999, A01./REF”

– Individual members of legislative assemblies are very rarely able to prevent passage of legislation. This is an unreasonable standard to set through mention here. I recommend that this be revised as follows:

“Baird opposed the Harris government's plan to amalgamate the city of Ottawa with neighbouring municipalities, which was approved by the Legislature in 1999.” Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Basically a benign change, and not particularly controversial. CJCurrie 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No dispite there. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #6

“When campaigning for federal office five years later, Baird acknowledged that the syringe event demonstrated "immature judgement" on his part.REF"Baird is the clear choice", Ottawa Citizen, 17 January 2006, B4./REF”

– Are we just ragging the puck here? We’ve already shown what a stupid move this was with Keith Norton’s comments, do we need contrition from Baird here? I think this is not needed and should be deleted. Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

When I expanded this article in early 2006, I had some concerns that my personal views about Baird were clouding my editorial judgement. (It will probably occasion very little surprise that my opinion towards Baird is mostly unfavourable, although not entirely so. I doubt readers will have much difficulty determining the limited areas where Baird's views coincide with my own.)

I decided to review my changes around the time of the last election, in order to ensure that I was providing a fair account of Baird's statements and positions. Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently thorough with this process, but that's an argument for another day.

In any event ... when I included the line, "Baird acknowledged that the syringe event demonstrated "immature judgement" on his part", my intent was to demonstrate that he was making a serious effort to move beyond the accusations of juvenile behaviour that dogged his early life as a cabinet minister. In other words, I was attempting to mitigate past criticism instead of amplifying it. Perhaps this didn't work quite as I intended.

If other readers believe that the line only serves to makes Baird look worse, I won't object to its deletion. CJCurrie 23:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #7

In the "Opposition member" section:

"Baird and New Democrat Peter Kormos were vocal critics of Speaker Alvin Curling for allegedly favouring his Liberal colleagues, saying that he sanctioned Conservative and NDP members for behaviour he would allow from Liberals. Kormos announced plans to introduce a resolution calling on Curling to resign from the post, and it was rumoured that Baird was considering a similar move. At one stage, Baird described Curling's job performance as an "absolute disgrace". REF Rob Ferguson, "New premium won't be listed separately on pay", Toronto Star, 19 May 2004, A09; "'Dysfunctional' legislature shocks Tory", CanWest News Service, 17 December 2004, A11./REF"

I don’t think old rumours belong in a Wikipedia article. I propose to delete “Kormos announced plans to introduce a resolution calling on Curling to resign from the post, and it was rumoured that Baird was considering a similar move” --- the remainder of the paragraph makes the relationship between the two clear enough. (This is the last change that I am suggesting to the "Provincial politics" section at this time.) Ground Zero | t 13:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did go a bit overboard there on the content when I added it. I agree that that section can be cut. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this should go. CJCurrie 23:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unresolved issues

[edit] #3

“A number of media reports subsequently criticized both the principle and the implementation of workfare in Ontario. REF One political columnist, Ian Urquhart, described the program as "largely a fraud". See Ian Urquhart, "Workfare program a fraud", Toronto Star, 18 August 1999, p. 1./REF”

And I am sure that there were media reports endorsing workfare and its implementation. I do not think that these media reports merit mention in this article, which is a biography of Baird, not an article on workfare. I recommend that this be deleted. Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to argue that this particular reference should be retained. Baird's debut performance as a cabinet minister was the specific impetus for much of the criticism of the workfare program, including Urquhart's piece in the Star. (I'll see if I can find proof of this.) CJCurrie 04:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

He's a selection from Urquhart's article:

WORKFARE IS the Tories' dirty little secret. The truth is that the much-ballyhooed program is mostly a fraud.

That became evident on Monday as John Baird, the rookie minister of community and social services, held an ill-advised press conference to trumpet the latest drop in the welfare caseload.

"Another 15,638 people left welfare in July," Baird boasted. "That brings the total since our government was first elected in 1995 to more than 412,000."

The press conference would have been a non-event if Baird had stopped there. But he went on to attribute the government's success largely to its "mandatory work for welfare" program, and that opened the door to reporters' questions.

Just how many welfare recipients are actually working for their cheques? Baird couldn't, or wouldn't, respond. When the questions kept coming, an aide abruptly ended the press conference and a red-faced Baird scurried out of the room. CJCurrie 05:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Was this criticism echoed across the political spectrum, as this column appeared to be singled out as it was particularly critical? Also as pointed out earlier, We do not need the opinions of a couple of reporters here about his ability to handle questions. I support its deletion. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another article from the same period:

Mike Harris came to office in 1995 on a wave of parsimony garbed in tough love. Workfare was the hot-button word that went straight to the suit pocket nearest the heart.

"The best social assistance program ever created is a real job, and this plan will generate hundreds of thousands of those," the Common Sense Revolution declared in 1995. Who could argue?

Four years later, the claims are more circumspect.

The Tories' 1999 platform said "we're proud to have helped close to 400,000 get off welfare and put their lives back on track since 1995."

Note that the claim is that their lives are "on track." The "real jobs" have disappeared from the rhetoric.

There is good reason for this. The evidence is becoming overwhelming that workfare is little more than a veneer giving dubious respectability to the reality that people in need are being denied support.

As of July, only 6,000 people were actually on workfare assignments. These jobs last six months, then someone else gets a turn.

This represents little more than 2 per cent of the welfare caseload. Last year's annual total was less than 5 per cent.

It is interesting to even have a number, however.

The previous minister of community and social services, Janet Ecker, managed to float through her entire time in the portfolio without any workfare number ever sticking to her for long.

We can thank her successor, John Baird, for letting the parsimony shine through. Harris himself underlined this yesterday. We shouldn't be focussing on how few got workfare jobs, he said, but how many lost their welfare cheques. So much for the best social assistance program ever created.

(Toronto Star, 18 August 1999) CJCurrie 00:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the left-leaning Toronto Star criticized the program, in two opinion columns. Also, what about the rest of the news sources across the political spectrum? And there must have been benefits to the workfare program too... GoldDragon 18:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember that the G&M ran some critical pieces about workfare-in-practice around the same time. CJCurrie 00:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There must have been supportive articles in the media too... GoldDragon 15:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #5

“Later in the year, Baird announced that his department would spend $26 million on shelters and other funding for the homeless. This decision was praised as a positive step, although opposition members criticized the plan for not providing funds for investment in affordable housing.REF James Stevenson, "Ontario to spend $26 million on shelters and programs for homeless", Canadian Press, 21 December 2000, 17:59 report. /REF”

– This reminds me of a pointless article headline I say in the Kingston Whig-Standard many years ago on the day after a federal election: “Local residents' views on election result: some like it, some don’t”. After the first sentence, the paragraph pretty much says, “Some supported the move, others didn’t.” I think this would be more concise without losing meaning if the paragraph stopped after the first sentence, i.e., that the second sentence be deleted. And Baird ran a ministry, not a department. He runs a department now. (I've made this change.) Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain this analogy really works. The Whig-Standard headline was indeed pointless, conveying nothing more profound than the fact that different people held different views about the same thing. With the "$26 million" sentence, I was trying to indicate why opposition members criticized Baird's spending decision: none objected to new money for shelters, but many thought that the government was pursuing a flawed strategy by not including funds for affordable housing under the same (metaphorical) umbrella.

I wonder if it might be better to rewrite this line instead of deleting it ... perhaps "Baird later announced that his department would spend $26 million on shelters and other funding for the homeless. Opposition members welcomed the new spending, but criticized the absence of funds for affordable housing", or something along those lines, would be acceptable.

And I apologize for the ministry/department error. CJCurrie 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Still prefer its exclusion entirely, as the opposition always points out what was not done. This would only be significant if the gov't reversed or fell short on a promise. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Was this edit premature? I believe Point 5 is still under discussion as well. CJCurrie 02:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is still under discussion. The question for is whether is directly relevant to bring up affordable housing in discussing Baird's announcement on a homeless strategy. I agree with the criticism that it is does not make sense to have a homeless strategy without addressing affordable housing, but I recognize that that is my opinion, and that others can argue that you can separate the two issues. Because there will not be agreement, I would leave the reference to affordable housing out. Ground Zero | t 13:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The opposition parties drew a connection between the issues, which may be sufficient grounds for us to mention their reaction in this context. I can understand the objection, though, and I realize that the wording may appear leading to some readers.

By way of another compromise, could I suggest that we include a reference to the opposition parties' criticism (re: affordable housing) in a separate sentence, without a direct link to the homelessness strategy? CJCurrie 03:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)