Phil Brown Nepean-Carleton 2008 Federal Election

Obama Is a Two-Faced Liar. Aw-RIGHT!

2009-01-30T19:17:00.002-05:00

This article by Greg Palast is really hilarious, and right on target! If only Harper's new budget were more like Obama's package!

Obama Is a Two-Faced Liar. Aw-RIGHT!

Spread the Wealth, Soak the Rich

2008-10-25T14:58:00.003-04:00

Two excellent articles have recently appeared on Truthout.org. The first article by Steve Weissman, Spread the Wealth? Soak the Rich?, explains precisely why progressive taxation and the resulting "spreading the wealth" is good for democracy, is inherently fair and moral, and represents good economic policy.

The second article by Michael Winship, For Whom the Bailout Tolls, really puts into perspective recent rants from the McCain campaign in the US against "spreading the wealth" through progressive taxation. What the Bush neo-conservatives and their corporate friends have been doing is precisely that, spreading the wealth, except that they have been acting like reverse Robin Hoods, taxing and exploiting average Americans and spreading the wealth upwards to themselves. This is a fine companion piece to Steve Weissman's article, demonstrating precisely why we need to reverse decades of doing the exact opposite and why progressives need to talk a lot more about a trickle-up theory of economics as an antidote to the self-serving trickle-down theory favoured by right-wingers.

THANKS EVERYONE!!

2008-10-15T10:32:00.003-04:00

Thank to all my supporters for your placing your confidence in me and the NDP team on October 14th. And special thanks the small but incredibly hard-working NDP campaign team who helped keep our vision of Canada in the public eye. While we didn't pull off any upsets here in staunchly-conservative Nepean-Carleton, the 14th was a success story for the NDP across Canada, ensuring that we will be in a position to hold the Harper government accountable in the new Parliament. Meanwhile, we'll keep building for next time!

Thanks again,

Phil Brown

Phil Brown on Peace and Human Rights

2008-10-13T13:05:00.001-04:00

I completely endorse the positions taken by Jack Layton and the NDP with respect to peace and human rights issues. My personal decisions to run for the NDP in both 2004 and 2008 were motivated in large measure by my opposition to George’s Bush’s aggressive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the militarization of space through so-called “missile defence”, and the erosion of civil liberties and international law in the name of the so-called “war on terror”. Guantanamo Bay, extra-judicial renditions and the prosecution of child soldier Omar Khadr tarnish the US reputation as a liberal democracy as well as all those other nations who fail to speak up against such abuses. In Canada, only the NDP has stood up forcefully to Stephen Harper in his slavish support of George Bush’s dangerous and indefensible policies.

Jack Layton's complete resonse to the Ceasefire.ca questionnaire

New Democrats make good fiscal managers!

2008-10-11T22:54:00.002-04:00

The Conservatives and Liberals have been trying to convince Canadians that the NDP cannot be trusted to run a fiscally-prudent government. They tell Canadians that the NDP will spend us into a deficit, the NDP cannot be trusted with fiscal management, and that he NDP are radical socialists who never met a tax they didn't like. They have a lot of Canadians convinced. But all of these statements are wrong. In fact, according to the Department of Finance, the NDP has the best record of any party in Canada when it comes to balancing budgets.

Tommy Douglas ran 17 consecutive balanced budgets while Premier of Saskatchewan and Roy Romanow's New Democrats took Saskatchewan out from under a Conservative deficit and continued to balance the budget.

Brian Mulroney talked about deficit reduction throughout his nine years as Prime Minister of Canada but he almost bankrupted the country, increasing our cumulative national debt from less than $200 billion when he took office in 1984 to nearly $550 billion by the time he left in 1993

In Ontario, the NDP is blamed for having run deficits under Bob Rae during a recession, but Mike Harris' Conservatives gets a free pass. In fact, Mike Harris and Ernie Eves behaved much like Mulroney, preaching fiscal restraint while slashing non-profit housing, social supports and education funding, privatizing hospitals and public services like water inspection, and downloading to municipalities, yet saddling Ontarians with a $5.6 billion deficit when the Conservatives were finally thrown out of office in 2003.

New Democrats are good fiscal managers because only the NDP is concerned about the well-being of all Canadians, and strives to manage public finances so as to provide the maximum public benefit, not to provide handouts to their corporate friends.

For more about the NDP track record, you can check out the following links:

NDP balances budgets better than Tories or Liberals

New Democrats most fiscally responsible: Federal government report

Elaine Gibson: Conservatives run deficit budgets too

Comic Clips

2008-10-11T22:02:00.005-04:00

My colleague David Sparrow in Don Valley West has produced and posted a delightful series of clips that tell how the NDP is different from all the other parties and why the NDP is the ONLY choice for change for Canadians.

Episode 1: Progressive? Not! The real story behind Canadian politics.

Episode 2: I'm just a "C". Conservative doublespeak vs. NDP support for small business and families.

Episode 3: Those Conservatives just don't want to listen to you .... David Sparrow and the NDP fully support our arts.

Episode 4: Greens and Liberals - one big happy family. Did you know that the majority of the Green's policies are actually to the right of the Conservatives? Not many people do.

Thanks David. Best wishes on the 14th! See you in Ottawa!

You can watch David's message at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ke6XccNUmI

In Don Valley West, vote DAVID SPARROW
In Nepean-Carleton, vote PHIL BROWN

Where will the money come from?

2008-10-11T19:56:00.005-04:00

I was asked at the door today where will the money come from to fund NDP programs.

The answer is actually quite simple. It's not that the money isn't there, it's that the Conservatives (and before them the Liberals) had very different priorities for it.

The Conservatives have planned a $50 billion cut in taxes for large corporations whose taxes are already lower than in the US. They claim that these corporations will use the extra money to create jobs. They don't tell you that the cuts will be unconditional and that those same corporations will be able to use those tax savings to invest in China, stash the cash in the Cayman Islands, or give the CEO a big raise. The Conservatives and the Liberals believe in "trickle-down" economics - the theory that if you give enough money to the rich, some of the benefits will trickle down to everyone else.

The Conservatives also believe in spending big time to fight an unwinnable war in Afghanistan, instead of investing in diplomacy and aid. Ottawa has just revealed that the war will cost at least $18.1 billion, or $1,500 per Canadian household, by 2011, just for the military effort, not including aid or veterans' costs.

Conservatives and Liberals are wrong when they say that the money isn't there for programs and services benefiting the majority of Canadians. It's just that the Conservatives and Liberals have their priorities wrong.

The NDP, on the other hand, sets the welfare of the Canadian people as its highest priority. New Democrats like me believe in "trickle-up" economics. We have no objection to successful businesses doing well and successful businessmen making good remuneration as a reward for their contibutions. But they shouldn't be benefiting from corporate welfare. Canada does not need "socialism for the rich". Corporate CEO's should not be gambling with the savings and pensions of Canadian workers, nor should they be taking advantage of government to take more but deliver less.

So when Conservatives and Liberals say the money isn't there for social or health programs, to provide a good start for our children and ensure that all Canadians have a decent place to live, decent food to eat and access to quality health care, what they really mean is that the money isn't there after they have spent it on all their other priorities - like corporate tax cuts or an unwinnable war. It's all a matter of setting the right priorities.

Like the point Tommy Douglas made in his famous "Mouseland" speech, it's time for the "Mice" (that's us) to stand up to the Cats and take back the priorities of government in favour of all Canadians, not just an affluent few.

The NDP's Plan for Children and Families

2008-10-11T19:17:00.002-04:00

Here are more details about how the NDP plans to help families with children.

New and Increased Child Benefit

We will phase in a new Child Benefit. This benefit, modeled on the existing Canada Child Tax Benefit, will expand in phases over four years to $5,000 a year per child, and consolidate the current piecemeal system of benefits and tax credits for children into a single, better, non-taxable monthly cheque to parents.

Families will be eligible for a maximum benefit of $5000 per child, paid in equal installments each month (a maximum monthly cheque of about $400).
Every family, regardless of their income, will receive a guaranteed benefit at least as large as they currently receive from various current programs ($100 a month per child, plus a $300 net tax benefit per child) exactly as at present.
Families with a net income of less than $188,000 a year will qualify for a benefit of up to $3,000 per child - up to $250 a month. This basic benefit will be calculated the same way the current Canada Child Tax Benefit works -- so working and middle class families receive the biggest benefit.
Families with a net income of less than $38,000 will receive support -- for a total of $5000 per child annually - in total about $400 per child a month. This additional support targets families who need the most help to make ends meet.

In addition, we will work with provinces to eliminate the provincial claw-back of much needed Child Supplement Benefits for families receiving social assistance.

More Child Care Spaces

We will work with provinces to create 150,000 new regulated childcare spaces in our first year and up to 220,000 annually after that.

We will establish a child care program in law for the first time through enacting the New Democrat's Early Learning and Child Care Act that will set standards to ensure our children receive the best possible care.

We will re-invest $1.45 billion from Stephen Harper's corporate tax giveaway to create a pan-Canadian child care and early learning program to make high quality, accessible, affordable, non-profit and licensed programs available to Canadian families.

More details about how the NDP will help families make ends meet can be found at the following link:

http://www.ndp.ca/platform/jobsandaffordability/makingendsmeet

Phil Brown talks about Child Care

2008-10-11T18:38:00.002-04:00

Phil Brown, NDP Candidate in Nepean-Carleton in the 2008 Canadian Federal Election, takes Conservative Pierre Poilievre to task at the Nepean-Carleton all-candidates meeting in Manotick on October 8th for his misleading claim that the Conservatives' allowance of only $100 per month has created child care spaces.

Phil Brown talks about Corporate Tax Cuts

2008-10-11T03:18:00.002-04:00

Phil Brown, NDP Candidate in Nepean-Carleton in the 2008 Canadian Federal Election, explains why the NDP opposes Stephen Harper's $50 Billion in tax giveaways to large corporations.

Phil Brown talks about Affordable Housing

2008-10-11T01:55:00.001-04:00

Phil Brown, NDP Candidate in Nepean-Carleton in the 2008 Canadian Federal Election, castigates Conservative Pierre Poilievre at the Nepean-Carleton all-candidates meeting in Manotick on October 8th for his claim that the NDP wants to keep people in social housing instead of helping them buy a house.

Phil Brown talks about Arts Funding

2008-10-11T00:31:00.000-04:00

Phil Brown, NDP Candidate for Nepean-Carleton in the 2008 Canadian Federal Election, talks about the need to fund the Arts

MOUSELAND - THE CARTOON

2008-10-10T17:40:00.002-04:00

Here is the original Mouseland cartoon, narrated by Tommy Douglas and introduced by his grandson, Kiefer Sutherland. This tells the story of mice who kept voting for cats, until one day ...

Pre-election Thoughts

2008-10-09T23:31:00.003-04:00

Hi Folks,

I've been on-line checking out the progressive sites both here in Canada and in the US for the latest election up-dates, and I'd like to share with you some of my thoughts as we approach the last weekend's campaigning prior to Tuesday's election:

Deregulation doesn't work! Conservatives in the US set off a financial crisis by letting investment banks and insurance companies run wild.
We need to reduce the tax burden on the middle-class and make sure the ultra-rich pay their fair share.
Corporations that ship jobs out of the country are NOT overtaxed. They should pay their fair share. Breaks should only go to companies that commit to creating and keeping jobs in Canada.
We need to invest in infrastructure, green jobs and health care to protect what we have and build for the future.
Health care is a fundamental right, not a commodity. Every Canadian deserves access to quality care based on need, NOT ability to pay.

Have a terrific holiday weekend and don't forget to vote on Tuesday!

Phil Brown

Stumpin Tom sings "Stickin With the NDP"

2008-10-09T22:51:00.003-04:00

Here's a pre-election musical treat - Stumpin Tom singing Stickin With the NDP

Phil Brown on Transit and Light Rail

2008-10-05T12:18:00.017-04:00

The following statement is based on some of the responses Phil Brown gave to a questionnaire from Friends of the O-Train, which has been published on-line at

http://www.friendsoftheotrain.org/?q=node/174#comment-476

While support for transit is NDP policy, the Party does not have specific policies regarding the details of transit plans in specific cities. As a professional planner, I have taken a keen interest in planning issues in Ottawa, not least of which has been transit planning. I have a Master of Science in Planning from the University of Toronto where my course of study included transportation planning, and I have always had a particular interest in transit systems - and particularly rapid transit. I have lived and worked in many different communities, including Kingston, Toronto, Stratford and Sudbury, and have made myself familiar with their transit systems. Consequently, I have well-formulated opinions with respect to transit in Ottawa which I will be outlining below. I want to emphasize, however, that these are personal views and should not be construed as representing official NDP policy.

What should the role of the federal government be in supporting transit expansion?

The NDP is committed to supporting rail transport and public transit, recognizing that this can play an important role in reducing energy consumption. Such support would include purchasing new hybrid buses for transit systems and investing in electric rail. The NDP sees this kind of strategy as a win-win situation. With every purchase of a new hybrid bus or new electric rail line, we achieve both reductions in carbon pollution and financial savings for our cities and transit authorities. In addition, by investing in transit, we also stimulate transit-related industry and help create jobs. More specifically, the NDP proposes stable, annual transit funding, combining an extra cent from the existing gas tax with revenue from making big polluters pay through our cap and trade program, investing more than $4 billion in transit over the first four years of our program.

What role (if any) should local MPs and MPPs play in helping to define what kind of transit solutions should exist?

The role of local MPs should primarily be two-fold. As advocates, they should be helping ensure that their communities are getting a fair share of Federal funding. However, there is also a responsibility to help ensure that funds are being wisely invested, particularly with a view to long-term efficacy.

Should the federal government insist on value for money for projects that it is a party to? How should this be determined? Or should the federal government simply provide grants (in addition to the cut of the gas tax) to municipalities, and let them sort it out?

There should always be some form of accountability when Federal funds are being expended. The Federal government has a particular responsibility to set overall goals and objectives, or the policy framework, within which the municipalities would prepare their detailed plans. Dialogue between levels of government and between municipalities and other relevant government agencies (like the NCC) should be encouraged and the checks and balances inherent in intergovernmental programs can help to ensure the best outcomes. One role of the local MP can be to help facilitate these dialogues.

If you feel that value for money is justified, should such a system result in transit improvements that increase ridership, while also simultaneously reducing the unit cost of transit services, particularly with respect to fuel consumption and pollution emissions? Or is it acceptable that value for money be expressed more simply in number of jobs created?

Transit investments should be made both with a view to dealing with present critical needs but also with a view to the long term. A long-term perspective should include realistic long term performance criteria and should be linked to broader long-term plans, particularly with respect to growth management. In addition, such a perspective should take into account life-cycle costing and the long-term effectiveness of the proposed solutions.

The existing Ottawa bus-based transitway was, in my opinion, penny-wise but pound-foolish. By opting for a busway and then determining a routing based on "least cost" options, Ottawa simply postponed the inevitable light-rail decision that is having to be addressed today. A lot of money was expended 30 years ago on infrastructure which will now have to be largely re-built to accommodate a true rail-based rapid transit system Moreover, routing decisions made at that time, most notably the "cheap" solution of running buses along the Ottawa River Parkway, mean that we do not have a reasonable right-of-way reserved for light-rail transit service to the west.

If you are an incumbent, please comment on your involvement with the transit file between 1997 and 2008.

I am not an incumbent, but I have been closely following transit issues, particularly within the context of the overall growth of the City.

You might also be interested to read a letter I wrote to the Citizen in 2006 on a subject relating to the former light rail proposal. A copy of the letter is still available on-line at the following site:

http://saveourgreenspace.blogspot.com/2006/05/ottawa-loves-its-buses.htm...

I strongly opposed the previous proposal to build a light-rail line south and then west to Barrhaven. The route was convoluted and would not provide the kind of fast and convenient transit that is the hallmark of a well-planned rail system. It was designed with too many conflicting agendas in mind. The happenstance of a disused railway line from Bayview south was the nucleus for the present O-train. As a route, it's not too bad, except that it does not allow trains to come all the way into downtown. However, it became the focus of the light rail initiative for a couple of key reasons.

Firstly, Ottawa transit planners prior to the last municipal election were in love with the bus-based Transitway. There used to be regular articles coming from OCTranspo spokespeople about how much better their busway was than rail transit. When eventually they were forced, through popular and political pressure, to plan the start of a rail-based system, their first instinct was to try to ensure that it would never compete with their busway. Whereas the busway was originally conceived as a first step towards a rail-based system, the transit plan concocted under Mayor Bob Chiarelli's leadership was designed to maintain the busway and ensure that the rail system would not compete with it or supplant it. Hence the City had been moving towards a plan to eventually construct an east-west light rail line between Kanata and Orleans that would actually pass through the north-south axis of Ottawa near Hunt Club Road, and require people heading downtown to change to the north-south line at that point - a ludicrous concept that would have had minimal impact on traffic volumes on the existing transitway and would have been doomed to become a white elephant. Who could seriously imagine that commuters from Kanata would take a train to the south end of Ottawa and then take a further train north again, instead of taking the bus along the existing Transitway.

Moreover, the transitway proposal was caught up in the imperative to develop Riverside South into a subdivision with an ultimate population in the order of 50,000. Key drivers for this development are the developers who have been assembling land in this area and are anxious now to begin to realize returns on their investments. Even though this area contains good agricultural land, with selected areas of valuable wetlands, the economic motivation to develop the area is paramount and this has been included in the Official Plan, notwithstanding the general thrust of the Official Plan to try to address growth in great measure through intensification and the fact that most of Ottawa's growth and travel corridors run east-west, whereas the north-south corridor is relatively poorly served by transportation corridors and north-south transportation options are restricted by a combination of physical features, notably the Rideau Canal and River, and existing built-up areas.

The lack of a transportation corridor serving this area was and still is a severe impediment to the future development of Riverside South. Councillors of the wards through which new roads must pass or where existing roads would need to be widened have rightly defended their residents against the potential influx of new traffic coming from the new suburbs in the south. The most controversial routes are the on-again off-again Alta Vista Parkway connecting to Nicholas Street and the widening of the Airport Parkway south of Bronson. The problem with the latter is that traffic on Bronson is already a major problem and adding more from the south will only make it worse. Other problem routes include Albion Road and Bank Street itself.

Prioritizing a light rail route to the south was therefore pitched as a solution to this dilemma. It was sold to the Councillors of the affected wards as a solution to allow the new growth in Riverside South to proceed without expanding or augmenting the road system. The theory was that the rail-based transit service will be so good to this new subdivision that everyone will use it instead of their cars. To further build political support, a Barrhaven extension was tacked on, even though the route from Barrhaven to downtown would be convoluted, running south, then east, then north and then east again. (Given that this planning coincided with the extension of the Transitway to Fallowfield and Woodroffe, I could never quite figure out why the transit planners expected people would take the train when they could take a much faster Transitway bus travelling a more direct route. The optimum way to serve Barrhaven with a rail-based system would be to cut a deal with Via Rail permitting running a train like the present O-train along the VIA / CN line, with a new station at Hurdman offering facilitated connection to the existing Transitway for passengers to continue their trip downtown.)

The problem is that even a relatively superficial review of the numbers produced by the planners for this development demonstrate that this rationale does not hold water. I attended a Planning and Environment Committee meeting a few years ago where the Riverside South Plan was being presented and learned some interesting things from the planners' presentations. In particular, it was the opinion of the transportation planners that the new subdivision, targeted for an eventual population slightly in excess of 50,000 according to the plan, could not reasonably be allowed to grow beyond 15,000 without the introduction of additional north-south road capacity to serve the area. Moreover, the planners indicated that even with the proposed light rail system in place, they did not expect the modal split to exceed 30 transit / 70 auto. What these numbers point to is that the proposed light rail will not become the alternative to roads which Councillors are counting on, and that if the development is allowed to proceed as planned, eventually the pressure will build so that the roads will have to be built or widened. We are already seeing early signs of this with the push to widen the Airport Parkway.

All of which begs the question whether the full extent of the growth being contemplated in this area is reasonable or appropriate, or whether the whole approach needs to be re-thought.

And so we come to the present transit proposal. Once again, a north-south line has trumped good transit planning due to the Riverside South development imperative. Instead of biting the bullet and solving the problems associated with building a rail system connecting the major population and commercial centres in Ottawa in an east-west axis, we are once again looking to building a north-south line as the major element, even though the greatest need and demand is east-west.

For all these reasons, I joined my voice to those who opposed the Chiarelli transit "boondoggle" and supported Alex Munter when he called for the file to be reopened and other options explored. I also supported the alternative proposals being put forward by Transport 2000. The shame was that for so many backers of the Chiarelli scheme, support for that particular concept became synonymous with support for light rail, whereas to others like myself, the scheme gave light rail a bad name and risked bringing the entire concept into disrepute as a white elephant.

My preferred solution would be to focus first on the east-west line, maintaining the existing O-train on its single track as a north-south line but extending the service to Leitrim and adding stations at Hunt Club and Blossom Park and some two-track sections to facilitate operations, and eventually connecting across the Ottawa River to Gatineau, preferably sooner rather than later since this transit link is sorely required. A park-and-ride at Leitrim would provide reasonable service to that area. Following the completion of the east-west line, and further growth in the south (assuming that such growth is inevitable), the upgrading of this line could take place to institute the same electric technology used for the east-west route. By that time, the population may have grown to the critical mass necessary to justify the additional investment necessary to upgrade the line.

Introducing east-west light rail first is a strategy generally in line with the fourth option in a recent City study, which concluded that this option made the most sense economically and was more environmentally friendly. This strategy would serve the existing built-up areas with the greatest population and address the highest need. It would also take some of the pressure off east-west roads and might at least delay if not eliminate the need to further widen the Queensway.

As to routes for the east-west line, the Ottawa River Parkway is inappropriate not just because of the potential impact on this important part of Ottawa's Riverfront, but even more importantly because it does not go through any major residential and employment areas. Good transit planning always tries to connect nodes of higher density and run as near as possible as to the centre of major built-up areas, not along their periphery. Subject to more exhaustive analysis, I would consider Carling Avenue as likely the most suitable location for the east-west line. This route could connect major shopping and institutional centres, including serving the Ottawa Hospital civic campus, and would spur further mixed-use intensification at key nodes such as the Westgate and Carlingwood shopping centres.

Technical challenges would exist, as they would for any solution, but they could be overcome with some innovative thinking. The greatest problem would be getting the line from Scott to Baseline, and it may be that the best location for this connection would along the present O-Train route, possibly with a spur of some kind being constructed in the Transitway trench to serve Tunney's Pasture and Westboro which are also high need and high demand areas and becoming more so with intensification.

Initially, such an east-west line should terminate within the Greenbelt at both ends, most probably Blair Station and Bayshore, to avoid the inefficiency of running rail transit through an extensive distance of open space, but future phases could be extended to Kanata and Orleans as development increases to the point of being able to justify the additional cost. In the meantime, the subdivisions outside the Greenbelt would continue to be served by buses connecting to the light rail system, using the existing Transitway infrastructure, unless in the future it became feasible to contemplate commuter rail along the railway lines along the lines proposed by Mayor O'Brien's task force last year.

Do you take transit to work, or to any activities?

No. I live and work on Ridgefield Crescent in the Lynwood Village section of Bell's Corners, where my partner and I have a home office. This is one of the worst-served communities in Ottawa with respect to transit. Except during rush-hours when there is an express bus 10 minutes away on Richmond Road, it takes 45 or more minutes to get downtown by bus. Moreover, the distances to the nearest bus stops for much of Lynwood Village are considerably greater than the urban standard. This came about in part due to resistance from local ratepayers some 20 years ago or so, several years before I moved here with my family, to a proposal to run a bus along Ridgefield Crescent, which is a collector road in the subdivision. The decision to not provide bus service to this area has never been revisited.

Please tell us of an experience you have had on transit in 2008.

Since I am not presently a transit user, I cannot give you an experience, but I can instead give you some personal opinions and some history.

Buses generally are not quiet, fast or pleasant. They are fine for relatively short trips but in larger cities you need some form of rail transit if you are really going to be able to significantly alter the modal split between transit and automobiles.

One of the great transit travesties of the mid-20th century was when the bus companies (GM in particular) ganged up on streetcars and effectively put them out of business in the immediate post-war years. Only a few cities, like Toronto, kept at least some routes which could serve as a nucleus for the streetcar and light rail growth now going ahead. I was a student at UofT during the 1970's and at one point interviewed the Commissioner of the TTC about streetcars in Toronto for a student radio documentary / class project. I recall what a near-run thing it had been for streetcars to survive the onslaught of buses. Too bad that in Ottawa they didn't.

I would like nothing better than to be able to head for a rail transit station serving Bell's Corners to go downtown, and then move about on a predictable streetcar system, but that will have to stay my private fantasy.

The reality in Ottawa is that we have a bus system designed almost exclusively to move people from the suburbs downtown in the morning and then back home at night. The routes are convoluted and nearly incomprehensible to anyone who is not a regular user of a specific route. Whereas most major cities have bus routes with some predictability, Ottawa buses seem to have none. How many bus routes in Ottawa show simply "Hurdman" as their destination? How useless is that? In Toronto, major roads all have their own bus route. If you get on a bus on Jane Street, you can reasonably predict that it will get you anywhere along Jane Street. Ottawa's main roads have no such service. In Ottawa, you can get on a bus on a major arterial only to have to change if you want to continue going along that arterial because the bus veers off in another direction or into a residential subdivision. The Baseline/Heron/Walkley corridor is a case in point.

We should instead have major bus routes that follow all the major north-south and east-west roads for most or all their length, with predictable names. Augmenting these major bus routes would be local collector buses connecting subdivisions to rapid transit stations in the hub and spoke model. Buses that terminate at a Transitway station like Hurdman should have nameplates that indicate clearly the name(s) of the major road or roads along which they travel en route, not just the destination.

My daughter was once coming home from downtown by bus and took a bus showing "Nepean Centre" as its destination. At the time, the Nepean municipal offices had only recently moved from Bell's Corners so she wrongly assumed that would get her back to our area. No such luck. She ended up stuck at the edge of the Greenbelt somewhere along either Woordroffe or Greenbank - she couldn't remember which because of her panic. Fortunately she was able to get another bus and eventually find a pay phone to call us for a rescue (in the days before ubiquitous cell phones). I still don't have a clue where "Nepean Centre" was supposed to be. Nepean doesn't really have a "Centre" unless you consider Centrepointe or a geographic centre somewhere in the rural area. Years later, when my daughter was attending Carleton, she used her grandfather's car (since he could no longer drive) because the bus route from here to there was at best convoluted during the day, and downright impossible in the evening after rush hour had ended.

For these reasons, Ottawa buses are unfriendly for visitors and do not properly serve people who are not conventional commuters. Frankly, bus service in Ottawa pales by comparison to the service in other Cities where I have lived, including Toronto and even smaller Cities like Stratford where I was once the City Planner back in the late 1970's.

I have never been able to understand why Bell's Corners, a community of 9,000 people, has such poor transit service within the community. We have a residential area on the south side of the Richmond Road / Robertson Road axis and a thriving employment area to the north, but no practical way to get from one to the other by transit. Smaller communities like the City of Temiskaming Shores (formerly New Liskeard and Hailebury) have better bus service within their community that we do here in Bell's Corners, and with a smaller population. A small local bus would help children get to and from school, allow people to take transit to work or shop and give mobility to seniors in our population. My mother spent the last 12 years of her life here in Bell's Corners and could never understand why the local bus service within Bell's Corners was so inferior (i.e. practically non-existent) compared to that in Kingston, where she had lived for over 30 years.

Do you have, or did you have, school-age children while living in Ottawa/Gatineau? If so, how do they get to school?

My three children are now all either in University or are University graduates. However, prior to this they all went to the schools in our immediate neighbourhood - Bell's Corners Public School, D.A. Moodie Intermediate School and Bell High School. Our choice to locate in Bell's Corners was guided in large measure by the fact that all three schools were within walking distance so our children would not have to be bussed. The high school is furthest from our house, a 25 minute walk, so in inclement weather we would drive them to the end of Stinson Avenue, and they would take the bus back, but that was followed by a 10 minute walk from the bus stop so it was not a usual practice for them to bus home. Sometimes they would visit their grandmother who lived on Stinson Avenue close to Bell High and we would pick them up from there.

Phil Brown
NDP Candidate
Nepean-Carleton
phone: 613-601-0639
email: phil@jacksonbrown.on.ca
campaign website: www.philbrown.info
business website: www.jacksonbrown.on.ca

Message from Phil Brown

2008-10-05T02:46:00.001-04:00

Dear friend,

In less than half a day, Canada's top CEOs pocket what ordinary Canadians earn all year.

It's time to close the gap. That means a decent minimum wage, secure jobs that put food on the table, affordable education, quality childcare and public health care that is accessible to all Canadians.

Stephen Harper's Conservatives don't stand up for average Canadians. They have done nothing to stop the closing of our industries or the export of our jobs. They have put our health and safety at risk by cutting vital services like food inspections. Instead of investing in our families, they have squandered billions on corporate tax giveaways.

As for the Liberals, their record is full of empty promises, scandal and inaction. They take your vote for granted and don't follow through.

Only the NDP has a plan to close the prosperity gap and lead the fight for fairness for today's families. Only the NDP will give Canadians full value for their tax dollars by investing in the programs and services Canadians want and need.

Phil Brown NDP Candidate for Nepean-Carleton

Phil Brown on the Issues

2008-10-05T02:45:00.001-04:00

Phil Brown & Jack Layton will work to make life better for you and your family on the issues that count:

Economic Security for Families

Fight to close the growing income gap ü End unfair gas price gouging and ATM fees
Establish a permanent national program of affordable licensed child care
Create a fair federal minimum wage of $10/hour
Fix Employment Insurance so Canadians qualify for the benefits they need and deserve

Education

Reduce crippling student debt and lower tuition fees by implementing the Canada Post-Secondary Education Act
Introducing more grants and lowering interest rates on student loans
Ensuring reliable federal funding to increase the quality and affordability of post-secondary education

Health Care

Create opportunities to train more doctors and nurses to reduce wait times
Introduce universal prescription drug coverage to protect families from soaring costs
Speed up recognition of credentials of foreign-trained professionals

The Environment

Make environmentally-friendly choices more affordable by investing in public transit, home and building retrofit programs, a green car strategy, and energy efficient furnaces and appliances Ensure cleaner air, land and water by taking on big polluters, forcing them to lower emissions and invest in greener solutions
Develop clean and renewable energy sources by investing in wind, solar, and tidal power and an east-west power grid
Promote a Green-Collar Jobs Plan to help spark Canada's transition to a low-emissions New Energy Economy

In Nepean-Carleton

Funding for a quality transit system
Licensed child care centres for our growing communities
Health professionals to serve our growing population
Support for students to stay in school without breaking the bank
Restore confidence in food safety

Phil Brown talks about the US economic crisis

2008-10-04T22:15:00.005-04:00

Phil Brown gave his analysis of the US economic crisis at the Barrhaven all-candidates debate on September 30, 2008. He was asked which US Presidential candidate he would support. Here is his response.

Pierre Poilievre shows his true colours on Residential Schools

2008-10-04T21:05:00.004-04:00

Pierre Poilievre comments on the Residential Schools apology on CFRA, June 11, 2008

Phil Brown Supports the Strandherd Bridge

2008-10-04T20:50:00.005-04:00

Phil Brown tells Pierre Poilievre that he isn't the only candidate supporting the construction of the Strandherd Bridge

Events

2008-10-02T18:54:00.000-04:00

Upcoming debates are as follows:

All-Candidates' Debate
Where: Walter Baker Centre – Food Court Area
When: Tuesday September 30, 2008
Time: 7:00pm-9:00pm

All-Candidates’ Debate
Where: St. James United Church 5540 Osgoode Main Street
When: October 1
Time: 7:00pm-9:00pm

All-Candidates’ Debate
Where: St. Leonards School in Manotick – 5344 Long Island Road
When: October 8, 2008
Time: 7:00pm-9:00pm

About Phil Brown

2008-09-16T18:49:00.018-04:00

Phil Brown is a businessman based in Bell's Corners, Nepean. Running for the NDP is a natural extension of his passion for social justice and his commitment to community service.

After graduating from Queen's University and working for a short time as a radio broadcaster, Phil graduated from the University of Toronto with a Master of Science in Planning in 1976. A Registered Professional Planner, he worked as a planning consultant and municipal planner in Pickering, Stratford and Sudbury.

In 1983, Phil helped establish Northern Non-Profit Housing, a Sudbury-based non-profit resource group developing co-operative and non-profit housing. Under his management, Northern expanded its operations throughout north-eastern Ontario.

Phil moved to Ottawa in 1987 and in 1989 established Jackson-Brown Associates Inc. with his wife and partner, Joanne Jackson. Jackson-Brown Associates is a consulting firm specializing in planning and developing community service facilities for non-profit organizations in eastern and north-eastern Ontario. Notable recent projects include new national headquarters for both the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) and the Royal Canadian Legion in Ottawa. Other projects include community health and resource centres, special needs housing and non-profit and co-operative housing.

Phil is an active volunteer with a strong community commitment. Since 2007, he has chaired the urban panel of the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment. Previously, Phil chaired the City of Ottawa Health and Social Services Advisory Committee, the Coalition of Community Health and Resource Centres of Ottawa-Carleton and the Committee of Adjustment of the former City of Nepean. He has also been a Director of Somerset West Community Health Centre, Rideauwood Addictions and Family Services and West End Legal Services, served as a trustee of the Federal Co-operative Housing Stabilization Fund, and volunteered backstage at Nepean's Centrepointe Theatre. He ran for the NDP in Nepean-Carleton during the 2004 federal election.

Phil and Joanne live in Bell's Corners, where they have raised their children Michelle, Mark and Sarah Jackson-Brown.

Phil has a strong personal commitment to social justice, human rights and civil liberties, and is keenly interested in history, politics and world events.

Contact the Phil Brown Campaign

2008-09-16T18:42:00.004-04:00

Get involved in the Phil Brown campaign!

Request a lawn sign!

Host an event and invite Phil to meet your neighbors!

Volunteer to help with the campaign! (e.g. sign crew, canvassing, attending events, phones, election-day)

Or, simply donate to Phil's campaign!
Mail a cheque payable to Official Agent for Phil Brown Candidate to the address shown below, or contact us by phone or email if you would prefer that someone drop by to pick it up.

Contact us by any one of the following methods.
(note: e-mail is generally the preferred method of communication)

E-MAIL:	philbrownndp@hotmail.com
PHONE:	(613) 601-0639
FAX:	(613) 596-2983
MAIL:	87 Ridgefield Crescent, Nepean, Ontario K2H 6T1