Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - July 29, 2013, Winnipeg, Manitoba C M Y K PAGE A9 V ANCOUVER - I remember the day my high school- aged son first asked for designer jeans. My husband and I had just come through a long decade of trying to get ourselves educated and into careers while raising two kids - which is a long way of saying that we were not rich. Our budget did not extend to designer jeans. Nor did I want to get into an on- going battle with adolescents whose expectations exceeded our income. In those days, government support for families with children came in the form of a modest family allowance cheque that arrived every month. So I told my son that, since he was now old enough to be discerning about style, he was now old enough to choose his own wardrobe and I would hand over his family allowance cheque each month for him to pay for it. If he really wanted designer jeans, it would take three cheques, but it was his choice. Then a funny thing happened. Once it was his money that was being spent, his values changed. As long as someone else is paying, you want - no, need - the best and the fanciest. Why not? When it is your own money, you become more careful. My son did not get himself designer jeans. He did not even get the big- box store standard jeans that I would have bought him. Suddenly, used jeans without labels from thrift stores were good enough to wear to school. All of us are more careful with our own money than when someone else is picking up the tab. That is why I get concerned when I look at who is and who isn't carrying the freight for government services in Canada. Government services from health care on down are paid for by taxes. However, according to 2010 tax return data, 58 per cent of us pay only five per cent of taxes. These are net taxes where any taxes paid are offset by government payments received. So it is safe to say that a good half of all Canadians have no skin in the game. What government provides does not come out of their pocket. Let me make very clear I am not beating up on the poor. I have often expressed and strongly support the view that, in a country as rich as Canada, no one should ever have to go cold or hungry or naked for that matter. However, I know half of Canada cannot afford to provide designer jeans for the other half, especially when those in the lower income half can be making up to $ 50,000 a year. This issue arose during a recent discussion on tax policy, that is, what form our taxes should take. Should we have mainly consumer taxes such as the GST or mainly income taxes and how do we choose? For many, the choice hinged on making the tax system ever more progressive, that is, increasing the absolute and proportionate tax burden on higher income people while reducing it at the bottom of the income scale. But, when you look at the data, we have already been there and done that. More than the bottom half of the population, not the bottom 10th, not the bottom fifth, not even the bottom third, contribute virtually nothing. Meanwhile, the top two per cent pay more than 30 per cent of all taxes and the very few among us ( 0.8 per cent, or less than one in a hundred) pay 20 per cent. This is how much tax the rich actually pay. It does not say how much more they could have, should have or would have paid had the tax system been seen to be more balanced. We cannot measure how many productive people choose to leave the country ( or not come here in the first place) because of high taxes. We know there are ways to legally avoid taxes. The simplest way is to work less and enjoy your wealth in the form of tax- free leisure. In our democracy, those paying little or no taxes also represent a good half of those eligible to vote. Since it is not their money, why should they not ask government for the very best services and why should they have to choose among them? Maybe it is time to stop treating half our population as dependent children and to start allowing them to contribute, even modestly to their society, and to making choices like responsible adults. Troy Media business columnist Roslyn Kunin is a consulting economist and speaker. - Troymedia. com 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Winnipeg Free Press Monday, July 29, 2013 A 9 POLL �� TODAY'S QUESTION Who should get the start at quarterback when the Blue Bombers play B. C. Aug. 5? �� Vote online at winnipegfreepress. com �� PREVIOUS QUESTION Do you agree with Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau that marijuana should be legalized? YES 62% NO 38% TOTAL RESPONSES 7,637 Winnipeg Free Press est 1872 / Winnipeg Tribune est 1890 VOL 141 NO 253 2013 Winnipeg Free Press, a division of FP Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership. Published seven days a week at 1355 Mountain Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba R2X 3B6, PH: 204- 697- 7000 BOB COX / Publisher PAUL SAMYN / Editor JULIE CARL / Deputy Editor ROSLYN KUNIN Have we turned Canada into a nation of freeloaders? W HEN it comes to implementing new public transit initiatives, it is often assumed speed is the critical factor in creating the most user- friendly transit experience possible. Yet, studies show frequency is more important in determining how quickly commuters will get where they are going. This may be somewhat counterintuitive, but it is the difference between catching " the" bus and catching " a" bus. The former means a long wait time between buses, so you must ensure you get on the one that meets your needs; in the latter scenario, there are plenty to choose from, and if you miss one you can be assured another will arrive shortly. If the idea that frequency trumps speed is difficult to grasp, imagine a gate at the end of your driveway that only opens every half hour. If you miss the opening, your entire schedule is thrown off and you are guaranteed to be late. According to transit experts, catching " a" bus means ideally having to wait no more than eight minutes for the next one to come along. Of course, frequency and speed do go hand in hand, and with most cities dealing with tight budgets - and therefore unable to increase frequency by buying more buses and hiring more drivers - they are instead turning to alternative technologies and policies to improve the efficiency of existing service. One approach is to do away with on- board fare boxes in favour of proof- of- payment systems along key lines. Passengers purchase tickets in advance, and validate their ticket with a time stamp while waiting at their stop. When the vehicle arrives, they simply step on. Once in a while, an inspector will board and ask to see people's tickets, and anyone who fails to produce a stub will be fined. The virtue of this system is that people can board quickly. The transactional hassles of payment and validation are handled during otherwise wasted waiting time. A few years ago, New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority discovered nearly 30 per cent of the time it took for a bus to complete its route was spent idling as passengers boarded and paid fares. Since the study was done, the MTA has moved to a proof- of- payment system on several lines, and buses are able to complete approximately four runs in the time it used to take them to do three, which increases frequency without having to operate more vehicles. To save even more time, transit systems across North America are installing signal pre- emption systems - wireless technology that switches a red light to green whenever a bus is approaching. Using global- positioning systems, a computer can calculate the expected arrival time of a bus at an intersection and either extend a green light or shorten a red one. The pre- empted traffic light returns to normal operation within a cycle or two. ( The computer also knows the bus schedule, so empty vehicles and those running ahead wait at the light like everyone else.) Not only does signal pre- emption increase the speed of the bus, it also improves the reliability of service, as vehicles are no longer as susceptible to being held up in traffic. This means more predictable wait times and fewer missed connections for passengers. Additionally, the system saves money and reduces idling. In Calgary, for example, transmitter- equipped buses save 2,000 gallons of fuel and nearly 50,000 pounds of carbon emissions per year compared with buses on regular routes. Moreover, cities can employ signal pre- emption technology on emergency vehicles to similarly improve their efficiency. Houston, for instance, has reduced travel time for ambulances by more than 20 per cent by using the transmitter system - a huge difference for a patient being rushed to hospital. Meanwhile, Plano, Texas, discovered its fire stations can each serve a wider area thanks to signal pre- emption. This saved the city having to build three additional stations, to the tune of $ 9 million in construction costs and $ 7.5 million in annual operating expenses. Winnipeg Transit has investigated signal preemption in earnest in the past, and with Winnipeg's EMS services currently looking at implementing such a system, Transit ought to work with them to see if there is opportunity for collaboration to simultaneously improve the efficiency of both departments. In addition, in the coming months the transit agency will be introducing articulated buses, which can allow for boarding at both the front and the back. As such, is there potential to introduce proof- of- payment systems along key routes where these larger vehicles will be used? While local planners and politicians remain focused on building a new rapid- transit line out to the University of Manitoba, this project should not dominate the discussion over transit policy to the exclusion of all else. Decision makers need to ask what other measures could be feasible here, in order to offer improved transit service throughout the city. Equipping the existing bus fleet with technologies like signal preemption or a proof- of- payment system may not be as sexy as building a transitway, but investing in these types of new technologies could be an effective and affordable way to provide Winnipeg with the reliable and efficient public0� transportation network it needs. Benjamin Gillies is a political economy graduate from the University of Manitoba, where he focused on urban development and energy policy. He works as a development consultant in Winnipeg. T HE six- person Florida jury that acquitted George Zimmerman of second- degree murder in the shooting death of black high school student Trayvon Martin, 17, has come in for criticism on a lot of fronts. It's been labeled racist ( five of the jurors were white, one was described as Hispanic or black), genderbiased ( all jurors were female), and firearms- friendly ( one juror said she once carried a concealed- weapon permit, three others said they either have guns in their homes or have family members who do). The common denominator of the attacks is that the jury's weighing of the evidence was skewed by colour, gender, or right- to bear- arms prejudices. Much of the criticism is fueled by the jury's abbreviated size. A reality that undermines critics of Canada's criminal jury system, who've long pointed to the American criminal justice system to support a small- is- good argument when it comes to juries. The argument in favour of reducing jury size is that financial or other hardships suffered by jurors - loss of income, absence from employment, removal from home - would be minimized, at least in the aggregate, by following the American example of smaller criminal trial juries. Savings in court costs and time, both to empanel and maintain the jury, are also touted as grounds to halve jury size from the current 12 to six. Numerous U. S. states permit six- person criminal trial juries. But, apart from Florida, only Connecticut permits them for serious felony charges, such as the second- degree murder charge Zimmerman faced. In Canada, only Alberta has ever had sixperson criminal juries. But in 1969, with little debate, it upped the required number of jurors to 12, to bring itself in line with all other provinces. ( Public discussion was limited to questioning whether the province was doing so just to " keep up with Ontario.") The reasons for retaining 12- member criminal juries are compelling. Some of those reasons surfaced in the fallout from Zimmerman's acquittal. Twelve jurors yield a more representative group than six, and thereby better reflect the opinion of a broader cross- section of the community. Moreover, the larger the jury, the more likely minority ethnic or racial views will play into its deliberations. Tellingly, the dearth of racial diversity in the six- person Zimmerman jury has been repeatedly faulted. A 12- member jury also, generally, has better collective recall, and renders more accurate factbased verdicts, than a six- member panel. American studies suggest a larger jury is more faithful to what's actually admitted as evidence in court because one or more members of a larger jury will inevitably remember essential pieces of information others don't, and bring that information to the attention of the rest of the jurors. The little research available also suggests a 12- member jury is more given to robust discussion of the evidence than a six- member group. Not surprising then, that statistical data indicate the risk of convicting an innocent person increases as the number of jurors decreases. There's also the issue of group dynamics: The smaller the deliberating group, the more possible a skewed result. It's not unknown for a charismatic or oddball juror to try to sway everyone else to his or her position. Such manipulation of opinion is more likely to succeed where only five other personalities are in play. There's literally safety in numbers when it comes to juries. The use of 12- member juries dates back to 14th- century England. Why 12 was fixed as the optimal number is historically obscure. But the rationale seems to have been that a larger jury made for a breadth of maturity and judgment on tap to weigh evidence and evaluate witnesses - a proposition as valid now as it was then. The arguments in favour of scaling back the size of criminal juries in Canada are largely fiscal ones. Fiscal arguments should never be dismissed out of hand. But cost considerations must yield to government's fundamental duty to protect its citizens' rights, even - perhaps especially even - its criminally- accused citizens. The protests in dozens of U. S. cities, and the post- acquittal quasi- critical comments of President Barack Obama, underline that a jury's rendering not only a just verdict, but also a broadly accepted one, hinges, in part, on its size and representative diversity. Too small and homogeneous a jury, and you risk the result in the Zimmerman case - a decision large swaths of the population neither trusts nor respects. In jury trials, size matters. Douglas J. Johnston is a Winnipeg lawyer. DOUGLAS JOHNSTON BENJAMIN GILLIES Zimmerman verdict rebukes smaller- jury advocates Speed not only factor in making transit rapid JOHN WOODS / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS ARCHIVES A_ 09_ Jul- 29- 13_ FP_ 01. indd A9 7/ 28/ 13 7: 18: 10 PM ;