A leaner, more representative council composition for Niagara Region.

There have been a number of words written about upcoming changes to the Municipal Act but there have not been many regarding the change that will require regional municipalities to review the composition of their councils after the 2018 election, and after every second regular election thereafter. The mandatory review after the 2018 election will provide an excellent opportunity to alter the composition of council in Niagara to one that is both more agile and more reflective of the will of the electorate.

Reviews by regional municipalities
(6) Following the regular election in 2018 and following every second regular election after that, a regional municipality shall review, for each of its lower-tier municipalities, the number of members of its council that represent the lower-tier municipality.
Regulations
(7) The Minister may make a regulation changing the composition of a council of a regional municipality if the regional municipality does not, in the period of time that starts on the day the new council is organized following a regular election referred to in subsection (6) and ends on the day two years after that day, either,
(a) pass a by-law to change, for one or more of its lower-tier municipalities, the number of the members of its council that represent the lower-tier municipality; or
(b) pass a resolution to affirm, for each of its lower-tier municipalities, the number of the members of its council that represent the lower-tier municipality.

The 12 municipalities in Niagara have widely varying populations so in order to be somewhat representative by population there are regional councillors elected from the larger municipalities: St. Catharines 6; Niagara Falls 3; Welland 2; Fort Erie 1; Grimsby 1; Lincoln 1; Port Colborne 1; Pelham 1; Thorold 1; Niagara-on-the-Lake 1. The smallest municipalities, Wainfleet and West Lincoln, send only their mayors to regional council. Even with 1/30th of the seats in council, the smallest municipality (Wainfleet) is over-represented. With a population of 6,356, residents of Wainfleet represent around 1/68th of the 431,346 residents of Niagara Region (numbers from the 2011 census). Niagara on the Lake, with 2 seats on council represents 1/15th of the voting power with 1/28th of the population (15,400) versus Fort Erie (29,960) who with the same two seats is represented just about perfectly. St. Catharines and Niagara Falls are seriously underrepresented with their six and three regional councillors. Thirty seats just doesn’t work.

The Municipal Act only specifies that a council shall consist of, at minimum, five members including the head of council. Niagara Region with a directly-elected chair will have thirty-one elected members. Any future composition starts with 13 as a minimum number because there are 12 mayors from lower-tier municipalities; it is impossible to send a fraction of a person to council; and the regional chair also will sit.

Fair representation at council is not the only thing missing in the current system. The method of electing a large number of regional councillors is seriously deficient. In 2014, 33,016 ballots were cast in the St. Catharines elections. There were 15 candidates for regional council, and voters could choose up to six to elect. The average voter chose 3.5 candidates—of a potential 198,096 votes 74,388 went to candidates who were elected, 41,994 to candidates who were not elected, and 81,714 went to no one at all. In 2010 there were 19 candidates, and voters chose on average 3.9. It is hard to make a case that there is an electoral mandate for candidates elected in 5th and 6th place. (let alone seventh—when 4th place was elevated to chair in 2014, 7th place was elevated to council).

There are consequences to sending people to council when the system that elected them is not legitimate (see Petrowski, Andrew, who came 6th in 2010 and then 5th in 2014 with the advantage of being an incumbent).

With new population results (from the 2016 census) arriving in February 2017 the numbers will be available to reapportion seats in council. There will be the option of shuffling the existing seats to better match municipal populations, the option of adding still more seats, or the option of reducing the size of council and weighting the votes of councillors to represent the populace they represent. The third option is the best one.

A smaller council with weighted voting solves several problems with the existing system. Reducing the number of councillors elected in St. Catharines and Niagara Falls will allow for better quality councillors elected from a more legitimate system. An individual councillor on a smaller council would have better access to staff to have reports prepared or questions answered, and a smaller council is more efficient at debate time.

The voting system at council is already electronic so there is no reason to limit voting to whole numbers. If a system were to be chosen where the Wainfleet mayor was given a voting weight of 1.0 it would be easy to give a weight of 5.1 to the votes of a reduced contingent of three St. Catharines councillors (plus the mayor), a weight of 4.6 to the votes of 2 Niagara Falls councillors (plus the mayor), and so on down the line.

There would continue to be lower-tier municipalities given more voice in council (changing the procedural by-law to apportion time on a weighted basis is not likely to happen) than their population should allow but that voice would not correspond with a matching vote when questions are actually called.

An unwillingness to consider weighted voting is to continue to send councillors with no legitimacy to a council where many lower-tier municipalities are greatly over-represented or greatly underrepresented. Thirty is already too large a council to be efficient, and expanding that number even further to better represent population numbers from the 2016 census would perform even less efficiently. When combined with voting data that indicates only three councillors in St. Catharines and two councillors in Niagara Falls are elected by anything that resembles a legitimate mandate the path to follow is clear: reduce the size of council and weight votes to make representation fair.

Niagara Region should respect policy made at Queen's Park

I will admit that my initial reaction to the recent statement by Chair Caslin (advising Queen’s Park to respect the decisions of council) was not at all positive, because that statement advocated the furtherance of policy that I do not agree with. Given some time to reflect, and taking a deeper dive into the election that resulted in Mr. Caslin becoming chair I can find a new respect for the logic of the position while still being completely opposed to that position as policy.

It is easy to point out that the circumstances that led to Mr. Caslin becoming chair and question the legitimacy of the process. That does not change the fact that with the rules as they are, the ascension to chair was an efficient one. If someone, in 2014, had the goal of becoming chair there was no reason to declare it to the voting public and, since a previous council had limited the pool of candidates from which to appoint the chair to the 30 newly elected members of council, there was no reason to worry about an outsider being elected.

With these criteria in mind, the most efficient use of resources would be to allocate just enough resources to claim sixth place in the regional council race and then lobby the incoming council successfully for the ultimate target of becoming chair. If I were analyzing a baseball team whose goal was to win the World Series and they were able to efficiently use the minimum allocation of resources to do so (gaining the last playoff position and then making a successful run to claim the prize by using one top-flight pitcher) I would laud that efficiency. In the same spirit, I laud Mr. Caslin for a successful strategy.

The statement published through Postmedia was a statement from the Chair of Niagara Region, as appointed under the only law that was in effect at that time, and is representative of the will of council (that council’s position is completely wrong is immaterial—it is the duty of a chair, as presently elected, to represent, unqualified, the will of council). I have to admit that after looking at the dismal election turnout numbers, and the low information with which those that do show up base their vote, that I don’t at least partly agree that an at-large elected chair will not always be the most qualified candidate willing to run.

More engagement by the electorate is necessary, and I believe that it is at least possible to make some improvements in turnout by having a declared candidate with declared goals run openly for the office of chair. I believe that a chair elected in such a way will be liberated from being merely the voice of council assembled and be able to use their own discretion to present a message based on ever-changing blends of the opinion of council and their own opinion with the ultimate arbiter of their success being the electorate. Finally, I believe that the decline of the quality of print media (particularly at Postmedia) has greatly reduced the ability for electors who would be willing to expend at least a little bit of effort to be informed to be able to do so. Getting back to 60% engagement by an at least partially informed electorate is a massive challenge and direct communication from a directly elected chair can only help.

We can disagree with council, and with individual members, but the truth is that they are players in a game with rules that they don’t make. Attempting to maintain a system that has been beneficial for them is logical for players within a system. Additionally, current members should be given credit for participating in the system at all—most people don’t.

The democratically elected government of the Province of Ontario made the correct, evidence-based, decision to amend an Act which is within their authority. I am very pleased that the next level of government made the choice to alter the system—that does not mean that a current member of council, including the current chair, will not be the best candidate in the next election. To anyone who believes themselves to be the best candidate for chair: October 22, 2018 is approaching—show your best.

The choo-choo isn't everything.

The news is in on rail service to Niagara; there was a big show with a choo-choo train and everything. Maybe now that it can't scare off an announcement of more choo-choo trains the word can get out: There is already GO service to (and from) Niagara; an hourly bus service that has far more capacity than usage. And, because Niagara Falls is a place that people actually want to come to rather than just flee, in addition to weekend choo-choo trains Metrolinx also doubles the bus service on weekends (with an express to avoid the parking lot "stations" in Hamilton, Grimsby, and St. Catharines).

There is also no lack of service going to Toronto. If someone wants to be in Toronto for 9:00 tomorrow morning there will be no less than three buses leaving Bridge St. in Niagara Falls that will accomplish exactly that. There would be no problem finding a parking space. No problem getting a parking space on Stanley either. The problems with the current service are not problems with moving people to and from Toronto. The problems are: infrequent or non-existent local transit to pick up points; no fare or schedule integration with local services (such as they are); no placemaking at all.

The benefits of the project, if successful, will not be seen on the tracks; they will be seen in the areas in and around the mobility hubs. The Niagara Falls station has to be a hub for local transit and the WeGO visitor transportation service, and with fare integration so that Presto is all that is required. The hub has to be a signature piece of placemaking where incoming people will be inspired to shop, linger, and take selfies. It has to be the centre of a new density of both residential and commercial spaces in downtown Niagara Falls.

In St. Catharines the hub will have to be a one-site switch point for GO/regional transit/local transit. Lincoln was completely bypassed in this announcement and for the project to be worth their while in the short term there will have to be frequent regional transit (with fare integration to both local connections and GO) to the St. Catharines hub. The same is true for the other municipalities, the ones that didn't expect a station: Welland, Thorold, Pelham, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Port Colborne, Fort Erie, Wainfleet, West Lincoln. For these places to get value from the project there has to be more than just a choo-choo train going to Niagara Falls twice a day in the evening and twice a day in the morning. Relocating service from Fairview Mall to an area just outside of downtown is also a big benefit. And, again, not just for trains. To maintain current service levels, ten GO buses will leave there per day to compliment the seven departure train service to Confederation Station.

The communications for the website from the business case last year didn't use train iconography, it used bus iconography.

Whether they were conscious of it or not, the communications team gave a strong message that replacing a 35 trip/day service with a 14 trip/day service would be foolhardy. It may be choo-choo trains that are easy to sell to the public and unsophisticated press, but the reality is that frequency of service, integration of both fares and schedules to/from local/regional/GO services, and density around hubs is what will make this plan worthwhile. Getting the hubs built, plus Metrolinx's expertise, plus some trains, is a great deal to only be paying 1/3 for.

If Niagara wants to get a head start on the goodies that are on the way they can get on a bus today. It's not all about the choo-choo train, and there isn't champagne and caviar on GO trains. Promise. And maybe now that the commitment to choo-choo trains is in place marketing will be allowed to promote the robust service already here.

It's the hub, not the trains.

Minister of Transportation Steven Del Duca is going to be in St. Catharines today to make the announcement that sometime in the future, a GO Rail line from West Harbour station in Hamilton to Downtown Niagara Falls will be a reality, and the initial run will feature two morning rush hour trains from Niagara Falls and then one train shuffling between St. Catharines and Hamilton until two evening rush hour trains cross the canal to Niagara Falls.

The announcement will not be specific, of course. But with all the consultants and all the give and take with Metrolinx, and the St. Lawrence Seaway, and CN, and whoever else; that will be the end result, eventually. The last time the mayors and CAOs were in front of the public, with the April 2015 business plan, the plan was to fire off two five car trains from Niagara Falls in the morning, park one at the siding at Lewis Road, and run the other one back and forth from West Harbour to St. Catharines. The other train would run back to the Falls for the afternoon rush, and park there to do it all again the next day. If buses were eliminated completely to save operating costs (which was actually proposed in that document), then NF service would go from a robust 35 trips a day with the current bus schedule to 4 trips per day (and at a higher cost).

Besides proposing to completely ditch the robust GO bus system that already comes to Niagara Falls, the April 2015 business plan also had the most disgusting of all station possibilities: there were 355 surface parking spaces proposed, in an area a previously requisitioned Community Improvement Plan suggested some sort of fitness centre/arena be placed. To make it worse, the business case predicted a peak parking demand of 85 vehicles for all-day service in 2031. 355 surface parking spaces was a guaranteed parking crater in an area that really needs something positive to happen.

The potential upside of the plan is in the hands of the latest set of consultants, hired to make recommendations about the station areas regarding placemaking, multimodality, pedestrian priority, complete & livable communities, and density and diversity. In short, everything that is lacking in Niagara is in the scope of this consulting team.

GO stations in places like Bowmanville can be big parking lots that swallow cars driven by individuals in ridiculous subdivisions, because no one ever has ever said, “When we go to Canada, we have to go to Bowmanville!” In Niagara Falls, we are blessed with geography that brings 10 million visitors notwithstanding the many failings of the city in placemaking, the arts, walkability, or just about any advantage a strong urban society can offer. A GO Station here should be a destination in itself, and a hub to other transportation options in the city, like the robust WeGO system. There is no shared system of fare payment in Niagara that uses a smartcard; a stronger Metrolinx presence here will ensure that Presto can be used on local systems as well as GO. A signature mobility hub can bring modern urban ideas to a place that desperately needs them, in addition to being the centre of public transportation in Niagara Falls encompassing Niagara Transit, Niagara Regional Transit, WeGO, and GO.

If GO rail comes, replaces the bus service, and proves to be an engine for 85 people to drive from their stupid subdivision to park and ride immediately to West Harbour station and then on to Toronto then it will have been a huge failure and a waste of the small amount of resources thrown at it. It will also have been a drastic reduction in service. If GO rail comes and brings with it a modern mobility hub; maintains the existing bus service; centralizes transportation services; makes Presto the universal payment method; and promotes intensification; it can actually be something great.

The strange opposition to Bill C-210

There will be a vote today (1 June 2016) on whether to send Bill C-210, an act to amend the National Anthem Act (gender), to the committee stage for eventual passage. It’s not a new idea, changing “thy sons” to “all of us” command. There are no good reasons to oppose the change; all parties in the House of Commons have been in favor of making the change at some point; even the Conservatives made a pledge to “ask Parliament to examine the original gender-neutral English wording of the national anthem.” (in the Speech from the Throne to open the 3rd session of the 40th Parliament)

What is a Member of Parliament to say in opposition when there are no good reasons to be in opposition? At second reading on 31 May 2016 Mr. O’Toole (Durham) claimed that

It is wrong for a country to tread on its heritage and history, even when some of those heritage symbols, songs, and anthems may seem a little dated when looking at it through the lens of 2016. That is really what we have come to with a debate about our national anthem.

One who feels that way might also appreciate the heritage and history of our language. A few short phrases later, Mr. O’Toole proved that to be untrue by saying,

Anthems, symbols, heraldry, and heritage are the connections we have to the past. We can learn now by looking at them, but we should be very reticent to change them, because they are part of our history.

If someone is reluctant to make a small change to the anthem, they should also be reluctant to abuse the word “reticent”.

Mr. Kmiec (Calgary Shepard) was

initially going to support this bill. I thought changing and adopting the words “in all of us command” would have returned the wording closer to the 1908 version by Mr. Justice Robert Stanley Weir. I thought that would be the correct thing to do.

So why will he be voting “nay” to sending the bill to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage? Because he polled his constituents and they were 87% opposed. Mr. Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan) proposed tacking the question on to the referendum the Conservatives are constantly clamoring for regarding electoral reform.

These appeals to direct democracy are the worst - as a Member of Parliament you are paid very well to occasionally substitute your judgment over a snapshot poll of the whims of your constituents at any given moment. If your only task as a parliamentarian is to stand up for the majority opinion of your riding at the time of any given vote then you might as well have a service animal in your seat.

There are plenty of votes among the 338 to get this bill to committee, and then later on vote three to send it to the Senate. Hopefully a few Conservative members will see fit to vote the right way on this one.

St. Catharines sub-Standard.

“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for country.”

There aren’t many rules more fundamental to printing a passable newspaper than the insistence that phrases within quotation marks present exactly what was written, or spoken, by the subject. When newspapers fail to deliver on that basic premise they fail to justify their own existence.

Postmedia operates dozens of newspapers around the country, and while the quality of many of them has likely suffered under their ownership, few can be as terrible as the St. Catharines Standard. Today, March 29, 2016, the front page of that paper contains an article that not only fails to meet the basic standard of transcribing a quotation correctly, but also miscites that same quotation.

In that article, the author makes an attempt, presumably, to invoke Samuel Johnson’s words: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Johnson’s words were cited in James Boswell’s Life of Johnson, which is in the public domain and can be checked to ensure accurate citation by anyone with an internet connection.

The front page of The Standard printed, within quotation marks, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” It might not seem like much, the difference in article between “a” and “the”. For a publication that has any illusions of being good it is everything. Either what you print is accurate, or it isn’t. Citing the wrong subject presents a whole other level of what is either indifference or incompetence.

That misquotation was to be found after this bit of excellence:

The refugees were among those who recently moved into the Days Inn in St. Catharines after they had leave their Hamilton hotels to make room for concertgoers attending the Garth Brooks shows in that city.

In what level of school would sentences like that get a passing grade? That was found not on a grade three writing assignment but on the front page of a daily newspaper. That bears repeating: “had leave their Hamilton hotels” was found on the front page of a daily newspaper.

I will come back to my out of place lead sentence now. By the standards set by The Standard, I can implore you to recall the words once written by myself, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for country.” The fact that the quotation is neither correctly attributed to President Kennedy’s inaugural address nor even accurate should fail to be of any importance. It is only inaccurate by a word, and I did write it: right there in line one.

There is an environment of what is either incompetence or indifference at that newspaper. It doesn’t really matter which one it is, although indifference may be more insulting to what readers remain.

One would think that someone whose name is associated with such consistent garbage would have some shame about it, and at the very least endeavour to do better.

Not so at The Standard. The editor-in-chief has made it clear how proud he is of the work they do there. Those don’t sound like the words of someone intent on perpetual improvement of processes going forward, and they also don’t sound like the words of someone who would do the right thing and resign.

Postmedia is in the midst of lobbying to allow even more foreign ownership of media in Canada. Why? To preserve the quality news they publish every day? The simple truth is there is no quality in the areas that need it most. And not “no quality” in that the editorial voice of a newspaper is for sale. “No quality” in that newspapers can no longer be trusted to perform the most basic functions of presenting quotations accurately or presenting decent sentences.

The Toronto Star wrote on January 30, 2016,

Postmedia is giving private ownership of an essential public service a bad name. Its charade of pretending to operate its papers in the public interest cannot end soon enough.

Clearly, absentee ownership does not care what garbage runs on pages under their name, otherwise there would have been changes a long time ago. Just as clearly, the perpetrators of this garbage don’t have the dignity required to resign. The insultingly low quality, then, is set to continue into the foreseeable future. The message to Niagara is that they are not worthy of a quality product, and that is a shame.

Tanglewood North

The federal budget was announced March 22, and it contains billions of dollars for the arts, billions of dollars for infrastructure, and significant money to promote tourism. What if there was a project in the Niagara region that encompassed all three of those things?

There is, kind of. Not so long ago the Toronto Symphony Orchestra and the National Arts Centre  were pushing for a project that would bring their art to Niagara-on-the-Lake for summer performances. The idea was to emulate the wildly successful offshoot of the Boston Symphony Orchestra - Tanglewood.

It was known as Project Niagara, or Tanglewood North. The land was to be donated by Parks Canada, a beautiful location right on Lake Ontario. The symphonies would play in a 2,400 seat amphitheatre.

Part of the cost of the project would be doing something with the sewage lagoons presently on the site. Maintaining sewage lagoons seems like it may fall into the category of unsexy but crucial infrastructure projects our Prime Minister was promising before budget day. Tanglewood North would also require some new roads for access, and that area could really use some new roads.

Bringing two world-class symphonies to the region would be absolutely huge and would be an amazing compliment to the Shaw Festival and the wineries of the area. The prestige of having that kind of world-class presence could only help to bolster the already positive image of local wine operations.

Promoting gambling interests is not something I like to do, but the clientele that would attend the symphony may translate to a significant amount of added play in Salon Privé.

The chief executive officer of the National Arts Centre, Peter Hernndorf, remains the same. There is new leadership at the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, with Jeff Melanson in the CEO post.

Tanglewood North was a great project when it was conceived, and remains a great project today. Maybe with the new focus on the arts the project can finally have its moment. It would be a win for the National Arts Centre, a win for the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, and a win for the region.

More:

https://beta.thestar.com/entertainment/music/2010/07/13/tso_nac_pull_the_plug_on_project_niagara.html

https://beta.thestar.com/opinion/2009/07/01/roll_the_drums_for_project_niagara.html

https://beta.thestar.com/entertainment/music/2010/04/08/is_niagaraonthelake_ready_for_a_major_music_festival.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/ottawa-toronto-orchestras-push-plan-for-niagara-summer-festival-1.754641

https://www.niagararegion.ca/news/notices/aug202015.aspx

The editor guy is PROUD of this garbage?

This, on the same day Doug Herod's good column is assigned a by-line that isn't him, and with an incorrect photo caption as well.



And others recently. Be proud.

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/2016/03/14/lafleche-do-better-on-sexual-harassment-brock-u

Can't agree on the time on front page, can't get tenses correct, can't make sentences. Be proud.

Still not fixed.

Seven words before one is wrong. "distain" juxtaposed with "We have pride back". Be Proud.

Probably getting five Big Mac orders wrong would put someone's job on the line at McDonald's. At Postmedia you can be consistently terrible and no one cares.

Local media in 2016. Not good.

The St. Catharines Standard, under its masthead, proudly states "SERVING ST. CATHARINES AND NIAGARA SINCE 1891" on the left, and "POSTMEDIA" on the right. It has an imprint on page A2. It acts the part of being a daily newspaper in the traditional sense.

Traditional it is not. Traditional papers check facts before publishing them. Traditional papers proofread and eliminate spelling and grammatical errors before publishing them. Traditional papers prominently display when they are publishing a different version of a story than that they had previously deemed fit to print. Traditional papers run a list of corrections to their errors. These are things that made traditional papers a trustworthy source of news. And The Standard, under its current leadership, fails at all of them.

Masthead of a fallen newspaper

Today, March 19, 2016, The Standard is publishing an editorial about Earth Hour. They don't do many editorials, and after reading this one that is probably a good thing. It isn't controversial, and the position could pretty much be summed up as "Make as many hours Earth Hour as you can."

It contains the same problems with commas that are allowed to make their way into so many stories at that paper:

But again, that movement is slow and hopefully, not too little too late.

The real problem is revealed a few short paragraphs later. In an attempt to laud Brock University for increasing their waste diversion rate they actually write the opposite.

And Brock University says it has reduced its waste diversion rate to 68.5 per cent as of last year, keeping a lot of junk out of landfills.

They probably got the number wrong too: Brock's report of May 12, 2015 says they managed to increase their waste diversion rate to 65.8% in 2014. If The Standard has another source, which coincidentally has the same digits in a different order that would be something.

The culture of The Standard being what it is, the print version of this editorial will likely stand uncorrected. The existence of that same culture means that should they decide to correct the online version they will do so with no notice of correction.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is in the midst of a study on Media and Local Communities. Just before bringing her committee in camera at the end of the meeting on February 23, the chair, Hedy Fry, made the offhand comment

I have a question that I would love to ask you, but I think we're running out of time. I would like to ask you to please send the answer in writing. Now you are regulating broadcasting, radio-television, and telecommunications. Who is going to regulate, in terms of accuracy, the digital platforms? Anyone can put anything out there and nobody knows if it's accurate or if the quality is there. People read it and they buy it. The big question is how we regulate this. That's a huge question. Maybe you could send us an answer.

Anyone can put anything out there and nobody knows if it's accurate or if the quality is there, she despaired. Ms. Fry might as well have been specifically talking about The Standard. The quality certainly isn't there, and the accuracy has to be questioned as well.

The truth is that many online platforms provide more transparency about altered content than is the case at The Standard. Altered posts on Facebook get tagged as "edited" with a link to see previous versions. Once a tweet is crafted and sent on twitter there is no altering it; it either remains as is or is deleted. Any replacement tweet will show a newer timestamp. Even in Wikipedia the entire revision history back to the original lousy article is readily available.

Postmedia has allowed the newspapers they own to fall short of being worthy of the name newspaper. Altering published material with no notice in a newspaper is not good. It's not good like Napoleon having the barn wall changed in Animal Farm not good. All news sources are equal. Some are less equal than others.

The Standard's shabby editorial that I have written about here is not an isolated bout of awful. It probably wouldn't make a bottom 5 list of awful for the week, but it is what is current.

Postmedia has given the editor-in-chief title for three papers in this area to Peter Conradi. I have focussed on The Standard because it is still a daily newspaper, but the Niagara Falls Review and Welland Tribune are not at all good either. All three have some decent writers but the tolerance of garbage has created a culture where it often seems the stories that make their newspaper have not even been proofread once. If Postmedia doesn't care enough to fire the editorial staff responsible for that disaster of a paper then the parties responsible should have a small shred of dignity and quit.