The cover of the July 27, 2009, issue of Maclean's

The cover illustration on the July 27 issue of Maclean’s, constructed from a series of manipulated images, certainly is, well, provocative.

It features a less-than-flattering image of Toronto Mayor David Miller stuffed into an aluminum garbage can, banana peel adorning his scalp, with raccoons foraging around the rotting detritus at the container’s bottom.

And lest the reader think the current four-week-old garbage strike is the only reason “Toronto stinks,” the accompanying display type offers some additional clarity: “Skyrocketing costs, soaring taxes. Now a summer garbage strike. How Canada’s biggest city got itself into this mess.”

Ironically, the colourful coverage by Canada’s national newsmagazine comes on the heels of Miller’s efforts to push back against negative publicity generated by a recent newsfeature in the San Francisco Chronicle, in which the paper put the Canadian city at the top of its “World Travel Watch,” citing the unpleasantness for travellers posed by the lengthy municipal workers strike in Canada’s largest city. (Windsor got sideswiped in that piece, too.)

In response, Miller appeared on CNN to try to counter the article’s impact and reassure visitors. On Friday, the mayor held a press conference to underline his confidence in the “resilience” of Torontonians.

The Maclean’s illustration certainly took me aback in that, at first blush, it appeared strangely pro-labour. It’s certainly the kind of cover that would engage my journalism students in lengthy debate — about photo illustration generally, but also about the kind of editorial statement being made here and whether it meets, or should have to meet, journalistic chestnuts about fairness and balance.

When Maclean’s posts a link to the feature story inside, I’ll post it here. Meanwhile, what’s your view?

One of Bombardier's high-speed trains

Interest in HSR in Ottawa has been, shall we say, restrained. Even a small system in Ontario’s Windsor-Quebec City corridor or between Calgary and Edmonton would cost billions to build (special track must be laid on a custom track bed) and maintain (because of the speeds involved, careful track inspection and repair is a neverending task).

Environmentalists love the concept for obvious reasons. And High Speed Rail Canada’s travelling road show earlier this year was arranged with the assistance of municipalities, economic development boards and other groups that are likely to benefit if Canada were to dip its toe into the pool. But not everyone embraces the idea.

As I stated in a newspaper column shortly after the London symposium, I think HSR’s time has come. However, Andrew Coyne, national editor of Maclean’s, expressed the view this week that high-speed rail in Canada is a bad idea — now and for the foreseeable future. The concept, at least as applied to Canada, is “insane,” he says, repeatedly foisted on politicians and the public by people and interests that are “impervious to reality.”

Now comes word that the Ontario Transportation Ministry is about to begin a survey among users of the heavily travelled Highway 401 to get their views on high-speed rail. (This comes a day after the same government promised rebates to people who buy electric cars, which the Toronto Star, at least, says is a questionable scheme.)

Canadian companies such as Bombardier have been building high-speed rail cars and locomotives for European and Asian systems for years. There’s just no market for them in North America. And according to the Canadian Steel Producers Association, there are currently no manufacturers of steel rails in Canada.

But the public debate over whether Canada should get on track toward the driving of a new “last spike” on a high-speed rail plan is a timely and welcome one.

John Stackhouse

Unless you’re a subscriber to Maclean’s, you may have missed senior writer Anne Kingston’s substantial business piece in the July 6 edition, titled “As the Globe turns.” It’s a timely and detailed look at the recent changes at the newspaper’s helm, in which former editor-in-chief Ed Greenspon was ushered out the door whilst former Report on Business editor John Stackhouse was anointed his successor. You can read Globe and Mail publisher Phillip Crawley’s memo to staff here. As of today, Maclean’s has not yet posted the Kingston piece; when they do so, I’ll post a link here.

Kingston is right about Stackhouse’s “gruelling work ethic.” Among G&M editorial staff, at least, he had long been expected to be the newspaper’s next EIC. On the news desk, during the time I was a page editor there as well a frequent fill-in as production editor, Stackhouse developed a reputation for calling the front-page story lineup only after deliberate and considerable thought, then second-guessing himself constantly through the evening as new developments and other stories arose. It had production staff tearing their hair out at times, but usually resulted in a superb front page.

Stackhouse is able to focus, with singleminded and laser-like attention, on the task at hand and then execute with a calm and unmistakable authority. Greenspon’s style, by contrast, is more abstract, probing and sensing. The talk among newsroom staffers was that Greenspon, a veteran of the Ottawa political scene, was interested in diplomacy or senior civil service as a future chapter in his career. We’ll see.

A final, personal note about Stackhouse: I had the pleasure of being his copy editor when I joined the business desk at The London Free Press in early 1988. He was at that time the department’s go-to business reporter, working alongside Brent Jang, currently the Globe’s transportation reporter. Stackhouse left London for Toronto shortly thereafter.