# ONTARIO budget....bring on the election?



## carverman

> Here's some of what we can expect, according to those sources:
> • An income tax increase for those who earn greater than $150,000
> • No new gas taxes or increases to the HST
> • $29 billion, over 10 years, in transit and transportation investments
> • *Some Government of Ontario 'asset sales'*
> • A tax hike on aviation fuel
> • An increase in tobacco taxes
> • A rolling back of tax credits for corporations
> • Personal support workers who take care of elderly will get a $4 pay increase over the next two years, from $12.50/hour to $16.50/hour.
> • *An infusion of $2.5 billion, over 10 years, for a “Jobs and Prosperity Fund”. The fund will dole out corporate grants to attract business to the province.* (Source: CTV News)
> • A cut in the “debt retirement charge” which currently appears on Ontario residents' Hydro bill. (Source: CTV News)
> • An initial roll out of an Ontario Pension Plan


Comments invited.


----------



## HaroldCrump

That list reads like a horror story, carver.
But...I don't think there will be an election.
The NDP will have some "closed door negotiations" with the Wynne govt. and they will emerge with concessions for their vote banks.
The NDP will offer conditional support to the Liberals to keep the leaky boat afloat, just as they have done in the last 2 years.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> That list reads like a horror story, carver.
> But...I don't think there will be an election.
> 
> The NDP will offer conditional support to the Liberals to keep the leaky boat afloat, just as they have done in the last 2 years.


Well in that case...we are in for some tough times ahead, indeed.


----------



## andrewf

Harold, I think you're being more than a little melodramatic. 

I also like how the activities of the Libs and NDP are democratically illegitimate and paying off vote banks, unlike the PCs, right?


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Harold, I think you're being more than a little melodramatic.


What's melodramatic about the NDP seeking concessions for their support base in exchange for propping up the minority govt?
You mean this hasn't happened before?


----------



## andrewf

Describing a budget as a horror story. Like The Shining, etc. 

"Here's Johnny!"


----------



## Zoombie

All bills and no pay makes Johnny a po' boy


----------



## carverman

It's official..another 40? billion in spending and the current deficit will rise by 1 billion this year alone.

Eliminating the deficit has been pushed now to 2018..and at 1 billion a year added to the deficit...by 2018, if they are still in power..pushed out even more.

Horvath was absent at this budget, so I'm predicting a spring election coming up.


----------



## Ostracized

I'm pretty pissed about the Ontario pension plan. Can someone tell me how this isn't a tax on the responsible in favour of the irresponsible?


----------



## andrewf

Because you're going to receive a benefit (actuarially speaking). You can either save less or invest more aggressively because you'll be receiving a larger DB pension in retirement.


----------



## Ostracized

andrewf said:


> Because you're going to receive a benefit (actuarially speaking). You can either save less or invest more aggressively because you'll be receiving a larger DB pension in retirement.


Well, I'm clueless so please let me know:

What if I die? Do my beneficiaries get the balance of my Ontario pension?

What if I leave the province? Will my pension follow me?

If the answer to either of those is no, then this is not my money, it is the government's money which _maybe _I'll get some of if I'm lucky in 35 years.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Describing a budget as a horror story. Like The Shining, etc.


Yes, this is the fiscal version of _The Shining_ and _The Exorcist_ rolled into one.
Projected deficit is now over 40% of GDP.
Their revenue receipt projections have been proven wrong 4 years in a row, and yet they are still assuming over-optimistic revenue numbers to balance the budget by 2017.

If this isn't a tax-and-spend budget, I don't know what is.

Now it is my turn to wonder whether you seriously endorse and condone this type of fiscal behavior.
If not, what would you like to see happen? More taxes?


----------



## andrewf

Ostracized said:


> Well, I'm clueless so please let me know:
> 
> What if I die? Do my beneficiaries get the balance of my Ontario pension?
> 
> What if I leave the province? Will my pension follow me?
> 
> If the answer to either of those is no, then this is not my money, it is the government's money which _maybe _I'll get some of if I'm lucky in 35 years.


I think CPP has spousal survivor benefits, right? But note my use of the word 'actuarially'. This is now different than paying into a workplace DB plan and dying before you receive benefits.

And you would receive any benefit accrued to you regardless of where you live. Same goes for CPP.


----------



## andrewf

Harold I don't endorse the spending or failure to reduce the deficit. We do need infrastructure investment. But I haven't seen any credible plans for how the opposition would reduce the deficit, either. What does Hudak plan to cut to balance the budget? The Liberals have stuck their heads in the sand, after receiving Don Drummond's report and promptly shelving. We need to have the adult conversation about what the spending priorities should be, and we're not having it. The fault for that lies primarily on the Liberals but also the PC and NDP.


----------



## jamesbe

I've got enough pension, I'm 35 with over $400k saved up. Should I stop saving now and spend like mad?


----------



## andrewf

Maybe. That's your call.


----------



## GoldStone

Ontario Pension Plan would hike payroll taxes. That can't be good for employment. Ontario unemployment rate is higher than Canada's national unemployment rate. Increasing payroll taxes will further disadvantage Ontario.


----------



## GoldStone

Many Ontarians stereotype QC as fiscally irresponsible. Well, take a look at these numbers:

ON debt/GDP ratio

2009: 35.1%
2013: 44.0%
*up 25.4%*

QC debt/GDP ratio

2009: 50.1%
2013: 53.6%
*up 7%*

This is shocking, isn't it? QC has been more disciplined lately. ON is out of control.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> We need to have the adult conversation about what the spending priorities should be, and we're not having it.
> The fault for that lies primarily on the Liberals but also the PC and NDP.


I said earlier - it is naïve to expect any adult conversation given how polarized the Liberals have made the political situation during their 4 consecutive terms.
Whenever even a half-hearted attempt has been made at an adult conversation, it has been thwarted by the vested interest groups, primarily the unions.

Our dear friend McGuinty tried to impose wage freezes several times, and was stonewalled, thwarted, and outright refused each time respectively.

In 2010, he did manage to pass legislation through the parliament imposing an across-the-board public sector wage freeze.
However, a year later, the Auditor General found that the various departments, ministries, and agencies simply ignored the legislation and went ahead and did their sweet free will anyway.

_*The Ontario public-sector wage freeze that wasn't* _

The very vote banks that put the Liberals into power, and have sustained them for 4 terms, are preventing any adult conversation around spending.
Unless and until the Liberals can disentangle themselves from the powerful unions, there cannot be any progress.

Supporters of the Ontario Liberal party - such as yourself - have to recognize that your party has been poisoned and hijacked by these groups.


----------



## GoldStone

andrewf said:


> Harold, I think you're being more than a little melodramatic.


How about Andrew Coyne? Is he melodramatic too?

Andrew Coyne: Wynne’s budget makes Bob Rae’s NDP look like flinty-eyed fiscal conservatives


----------



## GoldStone

Macleans:

A unicorn budget built on delusion and magical math


----------



## andrewf

I think he is, to an extent.

And yes, increases in payroll tax (aka pension savings) will have short run effects. I don't think they really matter in the long run. It's also hard to quantify how much of that will just be substituted for other saving. Regardless, the fed Ministry of Finance has confirmed that an actuarially fair expansion of CPP (akin to the new ORPP) is relatively benign.

Harold, I feel your frustration, especially on the public sector compensation bonanza. I'm to the right of the Ontario Libs, especially under Wynne. But I can only look in despair at the Ontario PCs and Hudak. And don't kid yourself that there aren't some seriously unsavoury vote-banks in the PC base. Check out the Ontario Landowners Association.


----------



## andrewf

And while we're comparing debt:GDP, under Harper, the fed gov't debt to GDP went from 28.6% of GDP in 2008-09 up to 33.9% in 2010-11, an increase of 18.5%. And that is with the federal government benefiting from a buoyant resource economy in the West. So Harper is a bit better than the Ontario Libs and far worse than Quebec.... To put things in perspective.


----------



## GoldStone

Federal debt/GDP ratio

2009: 44.0%
2013: 49.0%
up 11%

To recap, the last 5 years:

ON: up 25%
QC: up 7%
Fed: up 11%

All numbers come from the same source.


----------



## andrewf

Here's what I used:

http://www.macleans.ca/general/a-quick-look-at-canadas-federal-debt-to-gdp-ratio/



> — By 2004-05, it was down to 38.7 per cent and hit 28.6 per cent in 2008-09.
> [...]
> — The global recession reversed the progress, however. Deficits returned and by 2010-11 the ratio had climbed back to 33.9 per cent.


----------



## sags

This is a skillfully crafted election budget............that will be very difficult for the opposition to campaign against.

Will the NDP and PC candidates go door to door, campaigning against spending on healthcare, education, pensions, or collecting taxes from corporations and high income earners?

To have any chance of winning an election, the opposition will have to put forth an alternative platform, that makes sense to the voters, while addressing the same issues prominent in the budget.

The days of winning elections with tax cutting pledges are long gone.

City mayors who won municipal elections on their tax freeze platforms have been dismal political failures.

Mike Harris style "Common Sense Revolution" political rhetoric is still a bad memory for a lot of Ontario voters.

We will see if the NDP or PC parties are up to the task.


----------



## bayview

I'm only interested in whoever can clawback some of the $1billion "lost" in the gas plant scandal!


----------



## HaroldCrump

bayview said:


> I'm only interested in whoever can clawback some of the $1billion "lost" in the gas plant scandal!


That money is gone forever...just like the $1B for eHealth.


----------



## carverman

Ostracized said:


> I'm pretty pissed about the Ontario pension plan. Can someone tell me how this isn't a tax on the responsible in favour of the irresponsible?


Here's the way I see it. If you are (or will be) entitled to receive some other pension (besides CPP/OAS), and have a RRSP or DC?DB? plan..you will be paying out of your salary to support
those that don't have much. Yes, you will be entitled to apply and receive the OPP at 65 or whatever age you qualify..but if you don't make it to 65 or your income is high enough they
can claw most of it back in income taxes..it's a case of the provincial gov't "robbing Peter (you) to pay Paul (new immigrant or a TFW) that is allowed to stay.


----------



## carverman

GoldStone said:


> Macleans:
> 
> A unicorn budget built on delusion and magical math


This scares me!


> Ontario will make up for it with plans to pile onto its already massive debt load. The budget projects the debt to rise by $42 billion by 2017, to $310 billion. The province’s debt-to-GDP ratio will rise with it, to 40.8 per cent from a low of 17.7 per cent in 2007. That will cement Ontario’s place as the second-most indebted province in Canada after Quebec.


Wynne and her Fiberals will be gone in the next year or two and leave a big mess for the next one to cleanup, which from the sounds of things will not be that easy any more.
.you can't just keep taxing people to death to make up for any economic shortfall. If this trend continues into the next gov't, future generations will be left with a lot of bills to 
pay for things that they were not responsible for.
The US debt is in the trillions due to their unecessary military involvement...but at least in Ontario, we can expect Rapid Transit, and other benefits from all this money
they are going to spend to increase the debt.


----------



## sags

In most metrics I have seen, Ontario spends less per capital on a lot of items than other Provinces.

Ontario also sends 11 Billion dollars more to Ottawa........than it receives back in transfer payments.

Some of Ontario's expenses are created by laws enacted by the Federal Government. 

It isn't a simple black and white..........Ontario is a big spender issue.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Twist and turn as you might, you cannot get away from the fact that this is a highly irresponsible , profligate, tax-and-spend budget - epitomizing what this party and administration truly stands for.
The GDP growth and revenue receipts project in the budget are ludicrous.
We can call it the _tax, spend, and a whole lot of pixie dust_ budget.


----------



## andrewf

It is somewhat incoherent for Coyne to complain about the tax rises while also saying that the tax increases are just symbolic and don't raise significant revenue.


----------



## HaroldCrump

The definition of "rich" is a line in the sand - it can be blown away and re-drawn anytime, based on political motives.
Last year, it was $500K.
Now, it is $220K - no wait, it's $150K.
Next, it will be $100K.

You see, _there is no end to this tendency for tax grab_.
They are having to progressively lower the definition of "rich" because the punitive tax increases are not able to keep pace with their voracious rate of spending.
_It never will._
Their need to blow money away on boondoggles is a bottomless pit - no amount of tax increases will ever be enough.

We are not dealing with rational people here.


----------



## andrewf

Something like how Harper spent $1.1 billion hosting G8/G20, vs $30 million for London or $12 million for Pittsburgh? But I know you only care about waste when it's not your 'team'.


----------



## HaroldCrump

I have always accepted and criticized the Harper administration for the largest public sector expansion in recent history.

However, the fact remains that the federal govt. under Stephen Harper has not only balanced the budget (after running up record deficits), they have done so while providing tax cuts (primarily TFSA, 2% GST cut, and lower corporate taxes).
Whereas, the Ontario provincial govt. is diametrically opposite - not only have they not balanced the budget, there is no hope in Dodge of doing so by 2016, and all this while raising taxes since 2003.

I am sorry, but if you wanna stack up the fiscal record of the Harper federal govt. vs. the Ontario liberal govt., it isn't looking good for you at all.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Breaking news :

_*Horwath won’t support budget, Ontario heading to polls*_


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Breaking news :
> 
> _*Horwath won’t support budget, Ontario heading to polls*_


Ok, Harold..good thing you are not a betting man!



> That list reads like a horror story, carver.
> *But...I don't think there will be an election.*
> The NDP will have some "closed door negotiations" with the Wynne govt. and they will emerge with concessions for their vote banks.
> The NDP will offer conditional support to the Liberals to keep the leaky boat afloat, just as they have done in the last 2 years.


My prediction now is that the Fiberals are finished. Not sure yet if it will be Hudak or Horwath..but I don't think Wynne(Mcguilty) will get back in..too much damage
done and at least 50% of the voters that turn out will be aware of that.


----------



## sags

NDP support has been shrinking.......and going to the Liberals, so perhaps Horwath hopes an election will stop the leakage.

The Liberals have a good budget to campaign on. Their message is clear........vote for it or not.

We will see what the NDP and PC propose..........and how it stacks up against the Liberal platform.

If Hudak persists with his 1 million jobs type of nonsense..........he will be a non factor.

The NDP have voted against Liberal proposals that would have been popular with their supporters...........so their election platform will probably be higher spending and higher taxes, than the Liberals proposed in the budget, or they will find their supporters moving over to the Liberals in greater numbers.

Let the games begin..............


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> If Hudak persists with his 1 million jobs type of nonsense..........he will be a non factor.
> 
> Let the games begin..............


I want Hudak to promise " a chicken in every pot"!



> It wasn't just chicken. During the presidential campaign of 1928, a circular published by the Republican Party claimed that if Herbert Hoover won there would be “a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.”


I'll take a Mercedes, thank you Tim! 
Andrea...better up the anty and pay my hydro bill please!


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> Ok, Harold..good thing you are not a betting man!


Ha, yes, I limit my betting to stocks, not politics :biggrin:
Well, Ms. Horwarth finally had to gumption to pull the plug.

Now, the question becomes whether the voters will follow through and make a change.
We will be spending yet more money (money that we probably can't afford) on the polls, so it better yield some different results.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> I have always accepted and criticized the Harper administration for the largest public sector expansion in recent history.
> 
> However, the fact remains that the federal govt. under Stephen Harper has not only balanced the budget (after running up record deficits), they have done so while providing tax cuts (primarily TFSA, 2% GST cut, and lower corporate taxes).
> Whereas, the Ontario provincial govt. is diametrically opposite - not only have they not balanced the budget, there is no hope in Dodge of doing so by 2016, and all this while raising taxes since 2003.
> 
> I am sorry, but if you wanna stack up the fiscal record of the Harper federal govt. vs. the Ontario liberal govt., it isn't looking good for you at all.


Sorry Harold, I must have missed it. I have never seen you critique federal waste (other than public sector compensation).


----------



## Toronto.gal

HaroldCrump said:


> Well, Ms. Horwarth finally had to gumption to pull the plug.


I think this became obvious only yesterday, so the political bet had most likely been correct up to that point. :biggrin:


----------



## fraser

I think that people in Ontario are between a rock and a hard place.

The provinces finance's/deficit are in the toilet and neither party seems to understand that the economy is in transition. Ontario's credit rating is on the verge of being downgraded.

They have two VERY poor options to vote for. It will be interesting to watch the campaign and the vote on election night.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Sorry Harold, I must have missed it. I have never seen you critique federal waste (other than public sector compensation).


I wasn't in support of the F-35 spending, either.

Anyhow, fact remains that despite the "waste", the federal govt. under Harper have managed to balance the budget in about 5 years, and delivered tax cuts.
Ontario provincial govt. has done the exact opposite.

I don't think there is even a case to judge the fiscal performance of the federal govt. vis-à-vis Ontario.


----------



## sags

The Harper government might finally get back to where they started..............with a balanced budget next year..........or the year after.

But they have also added 135 Billion dollars to Canada's debt, since taking over from Paul Martin's Liberal government.

Government spending has increased dramatically under Harper as well.........so it isn't as though he has been frugal with our money.

Harper talked the talk...........but didn't walk the walk.


----------



## fraser

Absolutely. I believe that Harper grew the civil service by ten percent so that he could make a show of reducing it when it was politically expedient and when voters would actually forget that he was the one who grew it in the first place.

The latest was spending millions in advertising for an economic program that did not even exist. Go figure.

It is only money....but it is OUR money!


----------



## BoringInvestor

HaroldCrump said:


> I wasn't in support of the F-35 spending, either.
> 
> Anyhow, fact remains that despite the "waste", the federal govt. under Harper have managed to balance the budget in about 5 years, and delivered tax cuts.
> Ontario provincial govt. has done the exact opposite.
> 
> I don't think there is even a case to judge the fiscal performance of the federal govt. vis-à-vis Ontario.


Yes, but the Federal government gets to rely on money from resource-rich Alberta. and Saskatchewan, whereas Ontario is transitioning away from a manufacturing-dominated economy.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> But they have also added 135 Billion dollars to Canada's debt, since taking over from Paul Martin's Liberal government.


But sags, as a % of GDP, debt is actually down under the Harper administration vis-à-vis Ontario Liberals.
Under the Ontario Liberals, both the gross debt (pun intended) as well as a % of GDP has only risen.

Also, if you recall, Late Minister Flaherty's next priority on the job was going to be reduction in the net debt.
He stated that clearly during the last budget, as well as said publicly in interview both immediately before and after resigning.
That was one of his main rationale for not being too keen on the income splitting issue.

In other words, the finance team at the federal level was keenly aware of the debt and had made it a top priority.
This is in addition to already balancing the budget this year.

Compare that vis-à-vis the Ontario provincial govt. where not only is there no plan for tacking the deficit (let alone the debt), they are living in open denial.



> Government spending has increased dramatically under Harper as well.........so it isn't as though he has been frugal with our money.
> Harper talked the talk...........but didn't walk the walk.


Canada is the first G7 nation to balance the books after the financial crisis.
And this has been achieved in addition to delivering net tax cuts across-the-board (TFSA, 2% GST cut, etc. benefit everyone).
Canada's fiscal performance has been the best in the G7 without question.

Seriously, you are now going to compare the fiscal performance of the Harper federal govt. with Ontario liberals?
Really?


----------



## fraser

Ontario has been 'transitioning away from a manufacturing-dominated economy' for the past seven or eight years. This is the real problem and neither political party want to face up to it, let alone make thoughtful changes. It is the same old, same old.


----------



## HaroldCrump

What transitioning away?
There is no transition...Ontario is simply losing the manufacturing business because of its uncompetitive tax structure, inefficiencies, and uncompromising union-based labor model.
We got our a*s handed to us by the US and Mexico in manufacturing.

Seven or eight years? LOL.
When will be accept the fact and move on?


----------



## andrewf

What will be interesting is how the inevitable cuts to health and education will impact outcomes.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Harold, I admire you for sticking to your guns. You are right in much of what you say but you are arguing against idealogs here. Notice how the format is always the same when arguing with the usual suspects? When cornerned with inconvenient facts, they argue back by changing the subject and carrying on their usual grievances with tax cuts. It does not matter what you say. They do not listen and will defend those on their side of the political spectrum to the death, no matter how crooked or incompetent. They do not listen but just keep repeating same tired old rhetoric. I am glad you stick up for your beliefs (many of which I share) but I think common sense is lost on those who are arguing with you here.


----------



## sags

andrewf said:


> What will be interesting is how the inevitable cuts to health and education will impact outcomes.


The Ontario government announced spending cuts to Ontario schools for the deaf, blind, and disabled.

People are angry about it........and demand the cuts be reinstated.

The Harper government laid off civil employees in the EI and CRA departments. The inevitable processing delays forced the government to quickly re-hire the staff to clean up the backlog.

People don't want cuts to services or programs they access.

They want the government to either cut somewhere else..........or don't cut at all.

Poll after poll has shown that Canadians would rather pay higher taxes than cut benefits.


----------



## Eclectic12

fraser said:


> I think that people in Ontario are between a rock and a hard place.
> 
> The provinces finance's/deficit are in the toilet and neither party seems to understand that the economy is in transition. Ontario's credit rating is on the verge of being downgraded.


+1 ... that's where I have hard time getting a reading on where people are. 
I can't blame them for not being in a "let's make a change" mood with the choices that are currently out there.

I believe they tried the "let's go with a protest vote" already with the Bob Rae gov't.


Cheers


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Poll after poll has shown that Canadians would rather pay higher taxes than cut benefits.


Well, Ontarians are going to get a poll in a few weeks that will let them express themselves one way or another on that topic.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Poll after poll has shown that Canadians would rather pay higher taxes than cut benefits.


Which polls?
The ones like these:

Q: Would you like cuts to health care and education?

a. Yes
b. No

How about the pollsters ask questions like the following:

Q: The govt. is proposing to expand full-day kindergarten from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm.
How much extra taxes are you willing to pay to support the hiring of additional day care workers?

a. $100 a week
b. $200 a week
c. $300 a week
d. WTF


----------



## Nemo2

sags said:


> Poll after poll has shown that Canadians would rather *have someone else* pay higher taxes than cut benefits.


FIFY. :wink:


----------



## sags

Well Nemo2............that is an even better plan :encouragement:


----------



## HaroldCrump

Toronto.gal said:


> I think this became obvious only yesterday, so the political bet had most likely been correct up to that point.


Apparently, even the big union groups were also surprised by Ms. Horwarth's decision.
They had taken it for granted that the NDP will surely support this budget, since it is so union-friendly.
Unifor, in fact, urged Horwarth to not topple the govt. and let the budget pass.

Some of the union members were saying on the radio that they are displeased with the NDP and will cast protest votes in favor of the Liberals.

Ms. Waynne may, after all, have the last laugh.


----------



## fraser

I have no doubt that this election will take many twists and turns. 

It won't be over until the fat lady sings.

It will be interesting to see how accurate the polls are borne out. You never know, it could be another surprise BC type outcome.

They will be putting a great deal of lipstick on that pig.


----------



## andrewf

The polls aren't very conclusive at this point. They seem to show the Libs and PCs tied, with a wide range of vote spreads, and the NDP lagging but Horwath having the best personal numbers.


----------



## Oldroe

My first thing is slime ball attack adds lose my vote.

And every time I see Hudak the hair on the back of my neck stands up.


----------



## carverman

Oldroe said:


> My first thing is slime ball attack adds lose my vote.
> 
> And every time I see Hudak the hair on the back of my neck stands up.


this..

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/19/tim-hudak-ndp_n_4627071.html


Attack ads?..there will be plenty..spin doctors are already spinning their webs
Look for:

Wynne jogging down some road..telling us that she is "running for Ontarioans and if she gets back in, she will spend another $50 billion on the budget items"
Hudak politicizing on Liberal waste, cancelled gas plants etc and more Liberal waste of taxpayers dollars and his party's mandate to create a million jobs over the next few years
Old 2011 Ontario Conservative party election platform (there will be some updates no doubt)
http://talknuclear.ca/2011/05/2011-ontario-progressive-conservative-party-platform/
NDP...recycle the previous election platform
http://ontariondp.com/en/policy


----------



## HaroldCrump

fraser said:


> It won't be over until the fat lady sings.


I wouldn't call Kathleen Wynne fat.


----------



## HaroldCrump

I wonder what will happen if the election results yield, more or less, the same result i.e. a minority Liberal govt.
Will either the NDP or the PCs support this very same budget that they just balked at?
Or will Wynne modify the budget to suit one of the parties?

The way things stand right now, the most likely outcome seems to be a hung parliament with the same seat distribution, give or take.


----------



## sags

The NDP and Liberals can and would work together.

Neither of them would support most of the PC platform..........so Hudak would have an unenviable choice to make.

Compromise on his agenda to stay in power............or put forward a contentious issue and have it defeated.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Of course the NDP and the Liberals are like-minded...they are cut from the same cloth.

My question is - if we end up with a similar composition of the parliament - would the NDP support the budget they just balked at, or would the Liberals amend the budget to meet the NDP's demands?
And if they are ready to do that anyway, why go to the polls?

One of them has to lose face and change their position.

I suspect there is something that is telling the Liberals (perhaps a private poll) that they stand a chance at getting a majority govt.
They are gunning for a full majority govt.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> I wonder what will happen if the election results yield, more or less, the same result i.e. a minority Liberal govt.
> Will either the NDP or the PCs support this very same budget that they just balked at?
> Or will Wynne modify the budget to suit one of the parties?
> 
> The way things stand right now, the most likely outcome seems to be a hung parliament with the same seat distribution, give or take.


IF Wynne gets back in with a minority, they will have to modify what the NDP and Cons want in order to have anything done at Queens Park.


----------



## fraser

Could this election simply come down to which leader makes the most blunders....and looses votes?

If this is the case, then I suspect that Hudak is the most likely leader to place his foot firmly in his mouth and alienate undecided voters. Wynne is probably the least likely.

Assuming of course that they all tell the same amount of untruths or twist the facts to an unrecognizable degree.


----------



## sags

fraser said:


> Could this election simply come down to which leader makes the most blunders....and looses votes?


That would be about right...........in the era of 30 second sound bites and viral Youtube videos.

My dad used to say....Jean Chretien wins an election......disappears from sight for 4 years.....pops up and wins another election.....and then disappears for another 4 years.

I think he was right. The only thing I really remember about Chretien (except during election campaigns) was when the official residence was broken into and he was standing on the other side of the bedroom door in his pajamas.......holding a lamp.

Jean Chretien...........and the art of being invisible.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> I wonder what will happen if the election results yield, more or less, the same result i.e. a minority Liberal govt.
> Will either the NDP or the PCs support this very same budget that they just balked at?
> Or will Wynne modify the budget to suit one of the parties?
> 
> The way things stand right now, the most likely outcome seems to be a hung parliament with the same seat distribution, give or take.


I'm leaning toward a PC minority as the outcome, barring any epic f-up by Hudak.


----------



## GoldStone

My sincere sympathies to whoever wins the election. Ontario fiscal situation is dire. We need deep spending cuts or/and substantial tax hikes. General public doesn't seem to understand this.

Lack of awareness by the public = no political mandate to act = Ontario finances will continue to deteriorate.


----------



## MoreMiles

If the Liberal budget is passed from re-election, many small businesses will simply fire their T4 employees and hire part-time workers as contractors.... no payroll deduction or severance pay headaches. The top 2% do not get $220k personal income anyway... Rich people use corporation and tax management strategies not available to common salaried employees. So liberal's budget is an epic fail in my opinion. 

It sad we have 2 extreme parties, and the neutral one is becoming a communist. Haven't they learnt from Soviet Union that communism does not work? Even China has opened up to capitalism... yet Ontario is heading that way, wealth redistribution eh? Who is Liberal Party now? Robin Hood? I am truly disgusted by the current budget but there is really no better alternative. Sad.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> The only thing I really remember about Chretien (except during election campaigns) was when the official residence was broken into and he was standing on the other side of the bedroom door in his pajamas.......holding a lamp.


All I remember about Chretien was the sponsorship scandal.
_Selective amnesia _is a wonderful thing, innit? :biggrin:


----------



## carverman

MoreMiles said:


> If the Liberal budget is passed from re-election, many small businesses will *simply fire their T4 employees and hire part-time workers as contractors*.... no payroll deduction or severance pay headaches. The top 2% do not get $220k personal income anyway... Rich people use corporation and tax management strategies not available to common salaried employees. So liberal's budget is an epic fail in my opinion.


Well they can't immediately fire any RFT workers, but the evolution to PT workers has already started with many businesses...they hire at so much an hour depending on what the job requires, so no pension plan, other than whatever is compulsory Fed deductions. 
Wynne and her Fiberals are dreaming in technicolor if they think that the workplace will accept yet another contribution
from the workers and the employers. We already are seeing the effects with companies like Heinz (ketchup) pulling stakes and heading back south, leaving countless employees stranded
looking for work. Not too many jobs available for a tomato juice line worker or picker these days. This is just one example, there are others and no doubt, others may have the same idea
and planning on it. You can't just fire workers, but you can certainly pull up stakes and close the plant. 


> It sad we have 2 extreme parties, and the *neutral one is becoming a communist*. Haven't they learnt from Soviet Union that communism does not work?


You must mean socialism. The federal NDP (CCF) under Tommy Douglas had some communist ideals 


> Federally, during the Cold War, the CCF was accused of having Communist leanings. The party moved to address these accusations in 1956, by replacing the Regina Manifesto with a more moderate document, the Winnipeg Declaration. Nevertheless, the party did poorly in the 1958 election, winning only eight seats.





> After much discussion, the CCF and the Canadian Labour Congress decided to join forces to create a new political party, which could make social democracy more popular with Canadian voters. In 1961, the CCF became the New Democratic Party (NDP).





> Even China has opened up to capitalism... yet Ontario is heading that way, wealth redistribution eh? Who is Liberal Party now? Robin Hood? I am truly disgusted by the current budget but there is really no better alternative. Sad.


If you are disgusted with the Fiberal budget..wait after June 12..and see what happens.


----------



## Eclectic12

fraser said:


> I have no doubt that this election will take many twists and turns.
> 
> It won't be over until the fat lady sings...


What's going to be different than the last snooze fest?


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

carverman said:


> Well they can't immediately fire any RFT workers, but the evolution to PT workers has already started with many businesses...


What's this started bit? 
Coke was big on it, despite the union almost thirty years ago.




carverman said:


> We already are seeing the effects with companies like Heinz (ketchup) pulling stakes and heading back south, leaving countless employees stranded
> looking for work. Not too many jobs available for a tomato juice line worker or picker these days.


If you are tying Heinz to the budget ... it was the status quo that was cited by the local paper as well as my relatives that live in the area.

BTW ... there's no shortage of jobs for pickers ... the issue is that people are willing to work for (as seen by the foreign workers being brought in from places like Mexico, every year).




carverman said:


> You can't just fire workers, but you can certainly pull up stakes and close the plant.


Sure you can and it happens all the time ... it's just a matter of paying the appropriate amounts, where required.


Cheers


----------



## Nemo2

carverman said:


> You must mean socialism. The federal NDP (CCF) under Tommy Douglas had some communist ideals


Reminds me of this old quote:


> "The goal of socialism is communism." - Vladimir Lenin


----------



## mars

Maybe I'm missing something that someone else could explain. It seems that the words 'retirement crisis' have really popped up and become the theme of the day this last few years. So this is given as the reason for the expansion of CPP or the liberal ORPP. Where it becomes a little confusing is who are the ones with the retirement crisis? If you break it down into the various demographics of boomers, gen X, gen Y, millennials; which group is at risk for this retirement crisis?

Because the beginning of the boomer cohort is beginning to retire and will continue over the next 15 years or so I would naturally assume it would be this group that would be the ones in crisis. However, implementing savings now in either the CPP or ORPP is not really going to help those retiring in the next few years, maybe it will have a small impact on the ones at the end of the 15 years but even they will not see a large impact. I say this because I am also assuming that if the ORPP works the same as CPP your payout is all based on your contributions and years you contributed. This isn't going to help those people who are already retired or will retire in the near term. And as for the gen Y or millennials, the best way to hep them out with saving for retirement is if they could actually get better paying more meaningful jobs.

For me the real issue is that boomers for one reason or another are not retiring and therefore younger people cannot get meaningful work which is a problem because they cannot make enough money to spend to help the economy. Boomers are not driving the housing market, spending raising kids etc, these are things the younger generations do. And the better the jobs, the more inclined the boomers are to not retire, no incentive to leave a cushy job that pays well and you have no stress. To me this is the real retirement crisis. How do we make the transition from older workers into an enjoyable retirement and open up those roles for younger people to be able to start their lives.

Now in case you think I am one of those younger people, I am actually a gen X person who is right on the heals of the end of the boomer generation. I am actually looking forward to getting out of the rat race and have been preparing for it for a number of years and if things go as I have planned, I should be able to comfortably retire by the time I hit 55. 

So who do you think is having this 'retirement crisis' and how do you see the proposed changes being able to help them? Or does it? And is it all just a smoke screen because it is the hot topic of the day?


----------



## GoldStone

There is no retirement crisis. Ontario Liberals invented the crisis to create a captive pool of capital. They will use the capital to invest in Ontario infrastructure. They are very explicit about it in the budget. Here's the direct quote:

"By unlocking value from its assets and encouraging more Ontarians to save through a proposed new Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, new pools of capital would be available for _Ontario-based_ projects such as building roads, bridges and new transit."

They are afraid to raise taxes to fund infrastructure. ORPP is an end run around an explicit tax hike. The talk about "retirement crisis" is just smoke and mirrors.

BTW, _"encouraging more Ontarians to save"_ is Orwellian language. It's not like Ontarians will have any choice about payroll deductions.


----------



## GoldStone

Jack Mintz: Ontario pension unnecessary and expensive



> The key difficulty with the proposed Ontario Retirement Pension Plan outlined in the province’s new budget is that it’s trying to address a problem that doesn’t exist. “Ontarians are Undersaving for Retirement,” claims the government. But there is no evidence to support the claim that all Ontarians are undersaving. Studies by McKinsey and Statistics Canada, which are the best done, show that about 80% of Canadians have more than adequate retirement income. *In fact recent Statistics Canada work suggests over-saving*, which some behavioural economists have attributed to excess of precaution over risk.


my bold for emphasis


----------



## sags

A completely different view based on a study by BMO........

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/08/28/boomers-retirement-shortfall/

An Ontario Pension Plan won't be large enough to solve the complete problem, but it will certainly help the many retirees who won't have much income beyond basic government benefits. (All those people who are counting on working past their due date, an inheritance, winning a lottery or hoping their kids support them).

It won't help Canadians who live in other Provinces.........although PEI and Manitoba are talking about joining up with Ontario in the same fund, and Saskatchewan already has a DC type of pension plan.

If Harper isn't going to act.........the Provinces will.

Harper already knows what's coming..............and that is why the OAS was raised to age 67.

Pooled Pension advocates, such as Jack Mintz.......know that if Ontario and other Provinces develop their own pensions........the pooled pension scheme is dead.......if it already isn't.


----------



## GoldStone

sags said:


> A completely different view based on a study by BMO........
> 
> http://business.financialpost.com/2013/08/28/boomers-retirement-shortfall/


1. "The BMO results were based on an online survey of 291 pre-retirement boomers". That's just laughable. It's not a study.
2. The article you linked talks about boomers. ORPP can't help them. There is not enough time left to accrue meaningful sums.


----------



## sags

How about an extensive study by the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, that concluded 2/3rds of Canadians are not saving enough to meet their retirement spending needs.

One of their key recommendations was to shift away from DB types of savings plans and back to DB types of plans. Another key factor was real estate ownership.......as many baby boomers plan to sell their home to fund their retirement.

http://actuaries.ca/members/publications/2007/Final CIA_Retirement_e.pdf

CIBC also did a study.......with much the same results as BMO.

https://www.cibc.com/ca/advice-centre/retirement-planning/short-on-savings.html

True though, that the Ontario Pension Plan won't benefit those close to retirement, but the next generation will be in even worse financial shape as DB pension plans have disappeared from workplaces, and they may not enjoy the same real estate boom as their parents did.

Jack Mintz had an almost identical article in the same paper in 2010.

He is pretty well universally against any pensions.........affordable or not.


----------



## GoldStone

sags, the study you linked is far more nuanced than you make it sound. It doesn't say we have a crisis. It's doesn't recommend anything as drastic and blunt as ORPP.


----------



## mars

Here is a link to Morneau Sheppell who have written that they do no believe there is a retirement crisis approaching and they go on to back up that statement using statistical and actuarial analysis.

http://www.morneaushepell.com/ca-en/insights/why-canada-has-no-retirement-crisis-fred-vettese

Now sags you agree that the ORPP will not benefit those who are close to retirement such as the boomers but will help those who come after the boomers. I believe that having the boomers retire and the following generations fill those positions so that the following generations can actually earn better incomes will allow them to better start using the current savings vehicles that are available to them.

I'm actually one that is coming behind the boomers and I do not think the ORPP will assist me much as I have been diligent in my own savings and investing for retirement. What it will do is take away the income that I have available to me to continue those investments. Just about two years ago I was let go from the employer where I was working, I had worked there for 11 years. It was a private company and had a DB pension plan. When I left I had the choice of leaving the plan with the company or transferring the money to a LIRA. I ended up transferring the money to a LIRA. I know the investment advisor I met with was shocked by my decision until he ran the numbers that I had already run. When he found out how bad the returns are on the DB plan he was convinced I was doing the right thing moving the money to a LIRA and investing on my own. The one thing a DB plan is give people a feeling of a sense of security, it doesn't really give you great rates of return. And anyone who worked for a few companies such as Nortel who went backrupt and had to reduce the payout of their pension benefits would probably tell how they all had a sense of security with their pensions right up until it was cut.


----------



## GoldStone

sags said:


> Jack Mintz had an almost identical article in the same paper in 2010.
> 
> He is pretty well universally against any pensions.........affordable or not.


Care to provide a reference to support your claim? 

I don't think you will be able to. Here's another article by Mintz. He recommends that governments should focus reform efforts on poor and low income Canadians:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/20...us-reform-effort-on-those-who-have-the-least/

So he is not against pensions. He is against unnecessary grand government schemes such as ORPP.


----------



## sags

There isn't much sense carrying on the debate, as there are numerous articles from both sides of the fence.

Similar Jack Mintz's articles have always been followed by an opposing view..........so I would expect to see one coming any day now.

People can read both viewpoints and make up their own mind.

I wonder though....if Ontario voters vote out the Liberals because they are angry about the proposed pension plan......what does that say?

We know Canadians have record levels of personal debt, have very little financial knowledge.....and very low savings.

Would they be voting down the pension plan.........because they don't agree with such financial details as might be discussed here..........or is the motivation to receive the cash so they can spend it?

It is after all............a paltry maximum of $1200 a year. Would people really take that $1200 and invest it wisely?

Somehow............I think not.

Somebody is going to pay for the retirees with no money, and already 35% of retiree receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement.

That number........and the cost.......will surely go up and taxpayers will be paying for it.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> It is after all............a paltry maximum of $1200 a year. Would people really take that $1200 and invest it wisely?


OK, so if $1,200 is _paltry_ how do you suppose it will magically produce a retirement income that will be substantial enough to offset this so-called retirement crisis?
A pension plan is not Tinker Bell's magic pixie dust.
It can't take a paltry sum and enable present day Ontario workers to retire at 52 with a condo in the Bahamas, sipping martinis at 4:00 in the afternoon.
This is nothing more than an elaborate appropriation scheme to keep funding the Liberals' boondoggles and Ponzi schemes.

As for a retirement crisis - the only crisis is a retirement apartheid.
A retirement/pension haves vs. havenots
A crisis created precisely by these types of policies.
That crisis cannot be solved by appropriating a paltry $1,200 from our paycheques.


----------



## carverman

mars said:


> Maybe I'm missing something that someone else could explain. It seems that the words 'retirement crisis' have really popped up and become the theme of the day this last few years. So this is given as the reason for the expansion of CPP or the liberal ORPP. *Where it becomes a little confusing is who are the ones with the retirement crisis? * If you break it down into the various demographics of boomers, gen X, gen Y, millennials; which group is at risk for this retirement crisis?


Good question. As a retiree with a DB company pension that is in the process of windup..I am being thrown in with the rest of the future retirees that have no savings or RRSPs/investments and own no property to sell to help them in the last few years of life. Many will not be able to collect CPP, because of the nature of their work 
(part time, under-the-table for cash) or living off welfare. 
Of course even the ORPP will not help these, as you need steady employment for the employer and worker to make these payments per paycheck along with the taxes and CPP benefit.
I think that the Fiberals want to finance the infrastructure building ($50 billion) with some kind of vehicle that is independent of the markets and controlled by the Ontario gov't, so that the money coming in from the workers (who qualify) will be invested in this fund to finance infrastructure and pay some kind of dividends to each ORPP pensioner's pension allotment.

As a retired pensioner, even with no mortgage, only property taxes (currently $255 per month), I couldn't survive for very long on what I get in CPP and OAS..about $1040 a month (taxable).
As costs and inflation continue to push up prices of shelter, food and heating/electricity, the Federal pension payout is definitely not going to be enough!




> Because the beginning of the boomer cohort is beginning to retire and will continue over the next 15 years or so I would naturally assume it would be this group that would be the ones in crisis.


Well not everyone retiring in the next 15 years will be in financial crisis/ Certainly not the unions, gov't employees, teachers, police/fire, and those that already have retirement plans..it's
for those that have nothing saved and have no assets. What is the percentage of these (havenots) VS those that have enough to retire on?...nobody knows...but if the Fiberals get
back in and establish the ORPP..it will be a cash cow (for investment) for their infrastructure building plans. The next gov't can borrow money from this fund (although this has to be
in future years as well) as currently, the ORPP is just a techni-colour pipe dream for the Fiberals.


> However, implementing savings now in either the CPP or ORPP is not really going to help those retiring in the next few years, maybe it will have a small impact on the ones at the end of the 15 years but even they will not see a large impact. I say this because I am also assuming that if the ORPP works the same as CPP your payout is all based on your contributions and years you contributed. This isn't going to help those people who are already retired or will retire in the near term. And as for the gen Y or millennials, the best way to help them out with saving for retirement is *if they could actually get better paying more meaningful jobs*.


I agree, IF they are qualified and have some experience to perform at these jobs. Not everyone has an MBA out there. 



> For me the real issue is that *boomers for one reason or another are not retiring and therefore younger people cannot get meaningful work which is a problem *because they cannot make enough money to spend to help the economy. _Boomers are not driving the housing market, spending raising kids etc, these are things the younger generations do._ And the better the jobs, the more inclined the boomers are to not retire, no incentive to leave a cushy job that pays well and you have no stress. To me this is the real retirement crisis. How do we make the transition from older workers into an enjoyable retirement and open up those roles for younger people to be able to start their lives.


I think you have hit the nail on the head. Currently there is no real retirement age in the cushy office type jobs that pay well. As a matter of fact, the Feds raised the retirement age to collect FULL CPP benefits from 65 to 71..if one wants to continue working and not draw CPP at 65. Other than CPP disability, for any retiring, they may not be even able to qualify to draw CPP early at 60, like I did. Older people still working, have acquired substantial assets in their working lives and don't have to go out buy homes at inflated realestate prices and pay hefty mortgages, while trying to raise a young family, no wonder so many younger couples are in deep financial trouble. I don't see the picture getting any better. Sure, eventually all the retirees die off, some sooner than later, leaving some money for their relatives to help them out, but that doesn't change the rate of inflation or the high cost of housing which have to be born by the younger generations. 

I remember my next door neighbour telling me about buying his semi for $19,000 in the 70s...that was 44 years ago...now even in this working-class neighbourhood, his house could approach $289K if put on the market today..That's a hefty mortgage to pay off in 25 years for one wage earner. 



> So who do you think is having this 'retirement crisis' and how do you see the proposed changes being able to help them? Or does it? And is it all just a smoke screen because it is the hot topic of the day?


The upcoming retirement crisis IS REAL, but it will not affect everyone, certainly not people such as yourself that have the plan and resources to retire at 55..but are
you the 1 to 5% of your current generation that can?...that is the question.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Mike Harris style "*Common Sense Revolution" political rhetoric is still a bad memory for a lot of Ontario voters.*
> 
> We will see if the NDP or PC parties are up to the task.


So is the NDP under Bob Rae. Who's campaign promises was to "spend their way out of the recession"...with who's money? 
Does Horwath have the track record to bring Ontario out of one of the worst economic slumps and deficits in the last few years?
Me thinks not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_New_Democratic_Party


> She distanced the ONDP from former Premier Bob Rae, now interim leader of the federal Liberal Party of Canada,[27] by pointing out that he is the exception to the rule of NDP Premiers in other provinces who have been able to balance provincial budgets


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Harper already knows what's coming..............and that is why the OAS was raised to age 67.


And the CPP qualifications as well. I remember a while back that the Feds announced that those under 40,they will now have to wait a bit longer...
as they raised the bar for qualifying to draw CPP early at 60 at reduced pension payments.


----------



## fraser

Even if the Ontario Pension plan was implemented tomorrow, boomers retiring within the next ten or fifteen years will see very little pension benefit.

The real winners may in fact be the Federal Government. This may ultimately result in a reduction in the number of Ontarians who get the GIS, or a reduction in the amount of money that each recipient gets.


----------



## sags

It does look like the Liberals plan to use the funds from the Ontario Pension to pay for badly needed infrastructure.

It isn't necessarily a bad idea, considering that many large pension funds, hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds........are looking to make the same types of long term investments.

I would have a caveat though. Any decisions on which infrastructure projects would be funded.........should be made by the administrators of the Ontario Pension Fund. They should decide if the risk/reward is appropriate for a pension fund.

The CPPIB has experience in this regard, and perhaps it should be required that they "oversee" and "approve" the spending......after the Ontario Pension Plan board has already done so.

A "double" approval regime would calm fears the Ontario government was going to spend the money away foolishly.

As stated by the CPPIB, .....they are accountable only to retirees.....and not any government.


----------



## sags

Baby boomers won't be helped by any changes now.

As Garth Turner stated in his blog..........it is already too late.

The only solution for them...........is to increase the GIS benefit, and that is likely what will happen.

Low income seniors also qualify for subsidized housing, subsidized transit and some other benefits, that is going to cost the Provinces and local municipalities.

It would also appear that Garth Turner is correct on another assumption....a lot of homes are going to come up for sale.


----------



## HaroldCrump

fraser said:


> This may ultimately result in a reduction in the number of Ontarians who get the GIS, or a reduction in the amount of money that each recipient gets.





sags said:


> Low income seniors also qualify for subsidized housing, subsidized transit and some other benefits, that is going to cost the Provinces and local municipalities.


^ the above two statements don't make any logical sense whatsoever.
This is the same rhetoric being used by the Liberal govt. to ram this ORPP boondoggle down our throats.

The pensionable earnings for this new plan is $90K, yeah?
vis-à-vis the $52K or so pensionable earnings limit for the CPP?

Well, pray explain how does that help the recipients of GIS?
Which GIS recipient made $90K average career income?
Those that make even the median wage ($52K or so) as career average, will have full CPP and full OAS in retirement.
That is not the profile of GIS claimants.

GIS claimants made far, far less income as career average (for a variety of reasons - education, disability, misfortune, lack of career motivation, whatever).
But the fact is that $90K pensionable earnings is meaningless for those receiving GIS.
Their contributions into the ORPP will be negligible at best.



> It would also appear that Garth Turner is correct on another assumption....a lot of homes are going to come up for sale.


Yeah, well, everything appears yellow to one with jaundice.
Garth Turner has had his tunnel vision glasses on for over 10 years now.
He is completely incapable of seeing anything beyond, and other than, his obsession with a housing crash.


----------



## AltaRed

I agree with Harold. Those most likely to receive GIS will not have been earning enough to have paid much, if anything, into the ORPP. The demographic is completely different. This is really about a slice of folks just at or above the CPP/OAS recipient threshold.


----------



## GoldStone

HaroldCrump said:


> The pensionable earnings for this new plan is $90K, yeah?


Yeah. Up to 90K per person. Up to 180K per couple. Disgusting.

Is it really the role of the government to take care of couples making six digits?????

IMO, these high pensionable caps are very telling. I bet it worked like this:

Step 1: estimate future infrastructure spending to be funded by ORPP
Step 2: figure out where to draw the line so ORPP contributions match infrastructure spending


----------



## fraser

I think that the pension issue is first and foremost an election issue. A way to draw the voters attention away for the massive deficits, the $1Bil. Hydro fiasco, the deteriorating state of Ontario's manufacturing industry, high hydro rats, etc.

Same goes for Ring of Fire. It is bait and switch. Instead of discussing building a road and whining about investment perhaps they should try and clear off some of the environmental and aboriginal issues first. And they might even want to engage industry to develop a business plan.

The 'story board' will be everyone gets another Pension and thousands of jobs/prosperity will be created through Ring of Fire. 

It is Ontario against the world, well maybe just Ontario against the Federal Government.

The reality is something very different.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> A "double" approval regime would calm fears the *Ontario government was going to spend the money away foolishly*.
> 
> As stated by the CPPIB, .....they are accountable only to retirees.....and not any government.


Good point. The "responsible spending of taxpayers money for the cancelled gas plants, ORNGE, eHealth and other "job creation ideas" goes to show that you really cant
trust gov'ts to spend the money and have anything to show for it. If they had finished the cancelled gas plants, maybe we could even had a break on electricity rates..
but of course..somebody wouldn't be making a profit off taxpayers expense!

ORPP: This doesn't affect me as I have been retired now for 10 years, and already on early CPP benefits/OAS. For those out there that have nothing else to fall back on as far as
retirement income, at$1200 dollars a month for CPP/OAS, its barely enough to pay the rent. $14,400 gross is poverty level already, ok you don't pay hardly any income tax at
that level with your personal deductions..but even the price of cat food biggrin has gone up 20c at my local Freshco and this is almost 10c tax on that already.
If one had to live off a can of cat food thats $30 a month in 2014...imagine how much they will be charging 15 years from now! The food banks will be overwhelmed!


----------



## carverman

AltaRed said:


> This is really about a slice of folks just at or above the CPP/OAS recipient threshold.


Well *someone* has to support the never-do-wells and unfortunates that passed the years of these earning thresholds..and they also will get free medical care through OHIP.


----------



## MoreMiles

There is no accountability or consequence. If they have to personally pay back, lose government pension, or go bankrupt from these scandals, do you think they would be more careful? So no politician cares. They are spending your money while keeping their own fat pension and pay cheque.


----------



## sags

I am surprised so many people on this forum express the idea that DB pensions are so bad.

It is surprising because of the posts from people wondering how they are going to turn cash into monthly income.

There is also a fair amount of DB pension envy...........calling them unsustainable, gold plated........etc.etc.

Here.......the Liberal government is giving people an opportunity to divert some of their retirement savings (they are saving for retirement aren't they?) into a DB pension plan...........and they don't want it.

Buying an annuity is a better plan?

Buying money funds is a better idea?

Strange..........

The Liberal government is darned if they do.........and darned if they don't.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags, no one is saying that DB pensions are a bad idea per se (I never said so).
IMHO, the real conversation is not whether DB pensions are good or bad, but the sheer magnitude of the tax-payer funded total compensation of the public sector (at all 3 levels).
Some of us believe that the tax-payer is shouldering a very high, and unsustainable, burden for public sector compensation.

DB pensions is a big part of that.
However, it could easily have been the same had the compensation model been DC.
The future liabilities and guarantees associated with DB pensions make matters particularly worse, but it's not the only factor.

The tax-payer burden would have been onerous during the best of times, and given the current state of affairs, is punitive and unsustainable.
For the Ontario Liberal govt. to continue being in denial, not even acknowledging that there is a huge problem, is a shameless slap on the face of tax-payers.

Both Dalton McGuinty and now Wynne are to Ontario what M. Francesco Schettino was to the Costa Corcordia - _irresponsible_, _derelict_, and _asleep at the wheel_.


----------



## andrewf

This is not the most logical design. 15 percent replacement rate on income up to 90k. I think public pensions should provide 50 to 60 replacement of income up to about 40 or 50k, with optional DC savings beyond that.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Both Dalton McGuinty and now Wynne are to Ontario what M. Francesco Schettino was to the Costa Corcordia - _irresponsible_, _derelict_, and _asleep at the wheel_.


LoL! With the gov't waste that has gone on since McGuinty got in, they have no credibility. The TV pundits are predicting that Hudak will be the next choice for Ontario, but not sure
if it will be a majority or minority gov't.
Hudak was in the Milke Harris "common sense revoltion" which gaves a lot of hospital closures and the Walkerton contaminated water crisis to name a few. He wasn't
in the driver's seat then though..but..thanks to him, we now have the Drive Clean program. If he gets in will we see...
Common Sense Revolution Part II?

*



Hudak was re-elected with a 5,878 vote margin in the redistributed riding of Erie—Lincoln in the 1999 provincial election, and was named Minister of Northern Development and Mines on June 17, 1999. As part of the party's Provincial Mandate and environmental program, Mr. Hudak voted to enact the Drive Clean Program.

Click to expand...

*The drive clean movement is a bit of a joke...you pull in and they plug the machine into the OBDII connector, if no problems set..pay yer $35 and drive out.
If a problem is there to do with emissions, you can buy this "magic elixir" at CTC to make your old beater pass the test.


----------



## sags

Let's see what Hudak and Howarth bring to the table.

Will there be any televised debates?


----------



## mars

Unfortunately I don't really believe much of what any say. The parties will say anything they think will get them elected. I wish they would just save all the rhetoric and just spell it out like it is. Here is the amount we receive in revenues from the various sources and here is where we plan to spend that money. I took a look at the 2013-14 budget plan and it was over 200 pages long and it wasn't until somewhere around page 190 where they actually started showing this information.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> I think public pensions should provide 50 to 60 replacement of income up to about 40 or 50k, with optional DC savings beyond that.


Even CPP does not provide that.
But yes, 50% income replacement upto the current maximum pensionable earnings of about $52K sounds fair.
I can support that as a CPP expansion case.

But employer contribution should stop at that - no further DC contributions beyond that.
Anything beyond that should be personal responsibility via RRSP, TFSA, non reg., etc.

The current public sector models of 2% accrual rates based on 5 highest years' average is just outrageous.


----------



## fraser

That is a lot of money to take out of the system. Workers would realize a decrease of about 3.8 percent in the take home pay on the first 52K ( approx. 2K per year/$166 month). Employers would see a wage cost increase of 4.9 percent on salaries under 52K. Sounds great, but Ontario is already behind the curve on manufacturing costs. This would simply drive more jobs south or offshore. It would be different if the economy was in good shape.

Why would you want to limit how much an employer can pay an employee either in the form of salary of benefits...including pension benefits? 

It is a private matter between employer and employee. Many employers who currently have DC or DB plans contribute much more than this in their respective plans.


----------



## martin15

Sorry, perhaps silly question here.

Is this new ORPP pension idea designed to replace CPP, or will it run beside it ?


Because I think 'another' 4% from half employees and employers will only drive more jobs and more investment out of Ontario.


----------



## carverman

martin15 said:


> Sorry, perhaps silly question here.
> 
> Is this new ORPP pension idea designed to replace CPP, or will it run beside it ?
> 
> 
> Because I think 'another' 4% from half employees and employers will only drive more jobs and more investment out of Ontario.


It's a half baked idea and since Federal gov't doesn't want to change the way the CPP works, Ontario and other provinces would have to go it alone..which means yet another deduction for
both the employer and employee.

Wynne was hoping that other provinces who want a similar provincial public pension to come in with Ontario..but so far no other province wants that. It would get very difficult with
Ontario in the deficit hole if other provinces joined in, not to mention a administration nightmare for looking after a multi-province pension fund...isn't that what the CPP is already?
...and as we know the Ont Fiberal gov't has a good track record of wasting taxpayers money.. so that may not be such a good thing.


----------



## HaroldCrump

fraser said:


> That is a lot of money to take out of the system. Workers would realize a decrease of about 3.8 percent in the take home pay on the first 52K ( approx. 2K per year/$166 month). Employers would see a wage cost increase of 4.9 percent on salaries under 52K. Sounds great, but Ontario is already behind the curve on manufacturing costs. This would simply drive more jobs south or offshore. It would be different if the economy was in good shape.


Right, so then neither should Wynne's ORPP be implemented.
Anyhow, they have punted it down to 2017 to even _begin_ the implementation.
And it will be _phased in_, which probably means another 4 - 5 years before the full deductions start coming out of the paycheques.

Essentially, this allows the province to start spending _*now*_, and defer the actual revenue collection 5 - 8 years down the road.
By that time, this current crew of Wynne/Souza would be long gone and whoever is in power at that time will have to answer to the voters and tax-payers why they are siphoning off hundreds of $$ from their paycheques every month.



> Why would you want to limit how much an employer can pay an employee either in the form of salary of benefits...including pension benefits?
> It is a private matter between employer and employee.


Because _we_ are the employer for the Ontario public sector.



> Many employers who currently have DC or DB plans contribute much more than this in their respective plans.


Yup, and that is a huge problem (in the case of Ontario public sector).


----------



## sags

HaroldCrump said:


> Even CPP does not provide that.
> But yes, 50% income replacement upto the current maximum pensionable earnings of about $52K sounds fair.
> I can support that as a CPP expansion case.
> 
> But employer contribution should stop at that - no further DC contributions beyond that.
> Anything beyond that should be personal responsibility via RRSP, TFSA, non reg., etc.
> 
> The current public sector models of 2% accrual rates based on 5 highest years' average is just outrageous.


Gee......we actually agree on something Harold........things are looking up.........:chuncky:

The CPP currently pays 25% of the maximum pensionable earnings, so 50% would double the contribution rate. Increases could be implemented over a few years to lessen the impact.

The problem is convincing the Harper government that it is the "fair" way to go..........for all Canadians.

I agree that for a 30 year public servant.........a 60% of their highest earning years benefit is a bit much, since that is on top of CPP and OAS. I am not even sure how much benefit the extra % of benefits "nets" the retiree...........since there are clawbacks and extra taxes in the equation. The employer and union should sit down together and really crunch the numbers.....to see how much benefit retirees are really getting out of their higher contribution rates.

I found during my union contact years..........the "gross" is a lot different than the "net" results, and some "benefits" just aren't worth having.

For example.........we always had a "legal plan" that paid for wills and home sales etc.........handy but not extravagant.

But.....although used infrequently, it is a taxable benefit and even today after retirement for 9 years, I still have to claim the benefit as income on my tax return. 50 years of taxation (30 working and 20 retired) on a benefit used infrequently.......doesn't make a lot of sense financially.

Overtime premiums were another conundrum. The company pays the extra money, but the government taxes most of it away. It is the government who goes away with a big smile.

As they say.........the devil is always in the details.


----------



## Eclectic12

HaroldCrump said:


> sags, no one is saying that DB pensions are a bad idea per se (I never said so).


I was sure you'd previously posted that private DB plans were an unsustainable mess, that the public DB plans were too generous plus the reason they weren't in the same mess was that the tax payer was backstopping the plan and that RRSPs/TFSAs provided a sufficient alternative so that DB pensions disappearing was a move in the right direction.

So unless it was someone else who said these things, there seems to be an implication that DB pensions are bad.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

fraser said:


> ... Why would you want to limit how much an employer can pay an employee either in the form of salary of benefits...including pension benefits?


The reason I've read in the past is to level the playing field with those who don't have a pension through their employer.
This is the purpose of the pension adjustment (PA), where the rationale is that those without a pension have more RRSP contribution room available.




fraser said:


> ... It is a private matter between employer and employee. Many employers who currently have DC or DB plans contribute much more than this in their respective plans.


I'll have to check the earlier posts as I'm not clear what particular rates are being compared to.


Cheers


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Gee......we actually agree on something Harold........things are looking up.........:chuncky:
> The CPP currently pays 25% of the maximum pensionable earnings, so 50% would double the contribution rate. Increases could be implemented over a few years to lessen the impact.
> The problem is convincing the Harper government that it is the "fair" way to go..........for all Canadians.


Some retirement specialists have suggested that a 50% income replacement rate is more than adequate in retirement, in total (not just in pension income).
I know you don't want to hear of Fred Vettesse and Morneau Shepell, but their analysis suggests that given the declining consumption rate from traditional retirement age of say 65 onwards, approx. 50% replacement is more than adequate.

However, given the non pensioned savings (RRSP, non reg., real estate, inheritances, etc.) there is no need for 2% accrual rates based on highest salaries.
This is precisely what is creating the _retirement apartheid _(that is my term, not theirs, just for the sake of full disclosure).

On the one hand, we have tax payers funding 60% (or more) pensions based on highest salaries for Sunshine list level public sector bureaucrats, while on the other hand, the vast majority of workers are subject to capital market volatility and personal responsibility.
Socialism for some, capitalism for others.

So yes, we can go to a 50% income replacement model via CPP, however, that would require all these over-generous public sector plans to be wound down over time and somehow merged back into the CPP (or paid out as commuted values).
Without a concomitant tax reduction due to the reduction in public sector compensation, a CPP increase is simply yet another "tax hike".

Stephen Harper is in no mood to take on the public sector unions with just over 1 year left for elections.
It would be political suicide.


----------



## Eclectic12

HaroldCrump said:


> ... The current public sector models of 2% accrual rates based on 5 highest years' average is just outrageous.


I'd want to check what the recent changes have done across the board.

My experience with private DB pensions is that it's the same rate (though usually "best five of seven" years) where I'm contribution 5 to 6% of salary compared to my relatives in a public DB pension who contributed 9 to 12% of salary.


So it would appear that this part is not the expensive part of the pension.


Cheers


----------



## HaroldCrump

You are speaking of the inputs (i.e. contribution rates), whereas, I am talking about the outputs (i.e. the accrual rate at which pension amount is determined.


----------



## AltaRed

HaroldCrump said:


> You are speaking of the inputs (i.e. contribution rates), whereas, I am talking about the outputs (i.e. the accrual rate at which pension amount is determined.


Yes, but one cannot talk about the outputs unless one talks about the inputs, i.e. contribution rate. The real issue (inequality) is the contribution rate of the employer. Public sector DB plans are rich, but these are generally based on higher contribution rates (and not yet high enough to sustain the plan). The rub is the employer (you and me ultimately) are also putting in these 'higher than 9%' rates. Just like CPP is now limited to a 9% employer contribution based on actuarial sustainability, so should public sector employers be limited to 9% based on actuarial sustainability. 

It is also time to cut back on the 2% formula and limit the formula to regular (not including overtime) wages. I know of too many unions where public sector employees are granted great amounts of overtime in their last few years so they can stack the formula in their favour. That is a heavy burden on already unsustainable public sector pension plans.

The Cons have resisted any expansion to the CPP because labour would want employers to contribute 50% of that expansion and that is an additional payroll tax on society and business that would make Canada even more uncompetitive. I am dead against employers putting in more (and especially me as a taxpayer). Ontario will become even more uncompetitive if employers have to bankroll even more funds to the ORPP.


----------



## HaroldCrump

AltaRed said:


> Yes, but one cannot talk about the outputs unless one talks about the inputs, i.e. contribution rate. The real issue (inequality) is the contribution rate of the employer.


Yes, indeed that is the concern/inequality.
The vast majority of public sector plans have higher employer (tax-payer) contribution rates.
That is why looking only at employee contribution rates (as per Eclectic's post) is not enough, and does not expose the lopsided nature of this public sector compensation deal.

Also, defined benefit pensions are not the only aspect of escalating compensation costs, although they are a large part of it.
Other benefits, both during working years, as well as in retirement, are part of the issue as well.


----------



## fraser

I think that it is a waste of time to complain only about contribution rates or only about the accrual rates. It is the bottom line cost counts. Both can be adjusted.

I paid 0 contribution dollars for my company DB pension. It paid out at 1 percent of the best 5 out of last 10.

My sister paid 10, and later 12 percent for her public pension that paid out at 1.75 of the last 5 plus a COLA adjustment.

Which one cost the employer more bottom line dollars as a percentage of income? I am not an actuary. But I do know that my employer made some substantial top up payments over the years.

I agreed with Mr. Flaherty when he said that now is not the time to expand CPP. I feel the same way about the Ontario plan. In fact, I believe that it is politically motivated. Now is not the time to be taking money out of consumers hands or adding to the cost of doing business in Ontario.


----------



## sags

I don't oppose some of these "experts" who suggest a 50% rate for retiree pensions (private or public) is sufficient.

I oppose their theory there is no retirement crisis at all..........and that if there was.........pooled pensions are the solution.

I also find their assertions the problem will be solved with retirees working longer and longer..............as pixie dust.

People get old. They develop health problems. They are not as efficient as younger people.......and very few employers are actively seeking out older people because it is fraught with problems and higher costs to the employer.

The reality is that many employers are trying to push their older employees out the door, not hire more of them.

I do agree with them, that some retirees may be asset rich and income poor.........when they reach retirement.

The qualifications to collect GIS could be changed to include assets...........but we know what happened when that was suggested before.

Besides.............in my view, it is somewhat unseemly to force people to sell their home because they can't afford to live in it anymore, unless that is the only solution that can be found.

I don't think it is. There are other solutions. The easiest and most practical..............

Expand the CPP for everyone. 

I actually don't think we will ever see the Ontario Pension Plan implemented......even if the Liberals are elected again.

I believe it is a tactic to apply pressure on the Federal Government to move on CPP expansion.

The implementation of the OPP is after the next federal election, and perhaps there is a belief there will be a new Federal government......one that is more accommodating to expansion of the CPP.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> The CPP currently pays 25% of the maximum pensionable earnings, so 50% would double the contribution rate. Increases could be implemented over a few years to lessen the impact.


Not quite a doubling in contributions. Currently, CPP contributions are 6% to pay for the 25% replacement of income, and 4% to make up for previous under-contribution to CPP by boomers and their parents. So to double benefits going forward (to 50% replacement) would require a 6 percentage point increase in payroll deductions.


----------



## Eclectic12

HaroldCrump said:


> Eclectic12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd want to check what the recent changes have done across the board.
> 
> My experience with private DB pensions is that it's the same rate (though usually "best five of seven" years) where I'm contribution 5 to 6% of salary compared to my relatives in a public DB pension who contributed 9 to 12% of salary.
> 
> 
> So it would appear that this part is not the expensive part of the pension....
> 
> 
> 
> You are speaking of the inputs (i.e. contribution rates), whereas, I am talking about the outputs (i.e. the accrual rate at which pension amount is determined.
Click to expand...

The first part talking about "the same rate" is talking about outputs. 
Or are you arguing that there are DB pensions out there that set their input employee contributions based on a "best of a number of years" formula?

To be clear as crystal, the private DB benefit I've typically participated in are 2% x best five of the last seven years x years of service.


The second part is highlighting that despite the private formula being similar to the "outrageous" public one, the input contribution rates differ significantly.


My apologies for combining the two points, without enough detail.


Cheers


----------



## sags

It seems a reasonable idea to raise contributions by 6% to double the benefit for future retirees.

It is hoped that everyone is saving at least something for their own retirement, and directing some of those savings into the CPP doesn't seem a terrible idea, given the stellar record of the CPPIB.

If people are saving in a TFSA or RRSP...........or their employer is giving them an annual RRSP (which quite a few small employers do).......they could direct those into the CPP instead..........and the concern over "higher contributions and taking money out of the economy" would be largely abated........as the money was coming out of the economy anyways.

The only argument left..........would be that people can invest the money more wisely on their own.

True in some cases.............but untrue for the vast majority, who have neither the time or inclination to study investing as a whole.


----------



## fraser

You can't use CPP employer and employee rates to determine the cost of a 'future' public DB plan.

CPP costs are high, or to look at it a different way, their returns are low because CPP encompasses several 'social programs' that a typical DB would not. Moreover, the CPP plan also comprehends a 'make up' amount to account for unbalanced payments (program deficits) during the years after CPP was introduced. 

Mothers get an adjustment for child rearing years. CPP does not comprehend survivor benefits for a partner earning maximum the maximum CPP amount. That can mean zero or almost zero survivor benefits-not counting the $2500. death payment.


----------



## sags

Yet another article from Jack Mintz........containing all kinds of irrelevant nonsense.

Consider this nugget...........

_"Certainly, there is some evidence in Canada that *the very rich have moved to Alberta *to avoid paying high personal taxes elsewhere. Alberta’s top personal rate is 39%, almost 11 points less than the Ontario rate at the new income threshold of $220,000."
_

Yea sure Jack. The wealthy are selling their mansions in Toronto and heading out to Calgary in droves.

For a professor in Calgary..........he sure has a big interest in Ontario budgets.

He should concentrate on Alberta's budget.............they have problems of their own to solve.

Only in Alberta can you borrow billions of dollars to pay the bills and still call it a balanced budget.

http://business.financialpost.com/2...ss-its-most-critical-problem-economic-growth/ Jack Mintz article

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinio...anding+math+Alberta+budget/9605788/story.html Alberta Budget Process


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Yet another article from Jack Mintz........containing all kinds of irrelevant nonsense.


sags, it is not irrelevant drivel.
These are real problems that the present Liberal govt. in Ontario is facing.

The problem is that over the last 11 years, the Liberal administration has become entrenched, entitled, corrupt, and complacent.
They have been voted back in 3 times consecutively due to the preponderance of their vote banks in highly populated areas of the GTA and Southern Ontario.

The attitude of the administration is similar as yours - all criticism is irrelevant nonsense, everything is fine, we are doing great.
_*Just shut up and pay your taxes*_ - that is the attitude.



> Yea sure Jack. The wealthy are selling their mansions in Toronto and heading out to Calgary in droves.


Surely you are not denying that there is no migration of highly skilled, professional jobs from Ontario to Alberta?
This has been going on for since at least 2004/5.

The definition of "wealthy" may be debatable.
I am referring to skilled professionals, such as engineers, accountants, doctors, I.T. professionals, management graduates, etc.
I personally know several folks (including family friends we have known for decades) that moved to Alberta to take up high-paying jobs there.
Between 2004 - 2006, R/E in Alberta was cheap, salaries high, and general cost of living was a lot lower.
Since then, R/E has increased a lot, but salaries have increased faster.

The old guard in Ontario (and Quebec) have to admit that manufacturing no longer provide the so-called "good jobs" any more.

Note the following:
_Alberta attracts more rich households than any other province in Canada. About 1.4% of Albertan households earn more than $500,000, accounting for 15% of Alberta’s personal income. 
In Ontario, only 0.8% of households are this rich, accounting for 9% of personal income. 
Other provinces, such as Nova Scotia and Quebec which boast the highest marginal tax rates, have even fewer high-income households. 
Higher personal tax rates for upper income households in Ontario might be good politics but add little to revenue growth._

Calling this trend, which has been clear and going on for over 6 years now, is like sticking your neck in the sand and refusing to admit deep, structural problems with the Ontario economy.


----------



## fraser

You need only look at the numbers. Numbers like Ontario's GDP growth, GDP as a percentage of the Canadian GDP, Provincial debt, budget deficits, employment rates, productivity vis a vis NA and world competition. It has been going on for 10 years. Not all attributable to the Government in power-there are structural and transitional issues. 

But the current Ontario Government has failed to acknowledge and address the issues in any meaningful way. And it appears that they have no intention of doing so in the current election.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Calling this trend, which has been clear and going on for over 6 years now, is like sticking your neck in the sand and refusing to admit deep, structural problems with the Ontario economy.


Ok, most of us admit that the Ontario economy, huge debt and mounting deficit is the big issue here, but how does any of the 3 candidates running for Premier in this upcoming election fix that.
It's like having a several billion dollar credit card, but not being able to even make the minimum monthly payments...how long as an individual could one continue without being forced into bankruptcy?


----------



## sags

Established tax rates for the "very rich" and corporations are mostly smoke and mirrors.

The wealthy and corporations don't pay anywhere near the established "tax rate". 

They have many legal tax avoidance opportunities at their disposal.............and they use them.

I do agree in the sense............that raising tax rates is redundant..........if you aren't even collecting the current rates.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> Ok, most of us admit that the Ontario economy, huge debt and mounting deficit is the big issue here, but how does any of the 3 candidates running for Premier in this upcoming election fix that.
> It's like having a several billion dollar credit card, but not being able to even make the minimum monthly payments...how long as an individual could one continue without being forced into bankruptcy?


Stopping the bleeding is the first step.
The Liberals election platform is the exact opposite...everything they are proposing to do will simply cause more lacerations.
Sorry to be so gory.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Established tax rates for the "very rich" and corporations are mostly smoke and mirrors.
> The wealthy and corporations don't pay anywhere near the established "tax rate".
> They have many legal tax avoidance opportunities at their disposal.............and they use them.
> I do agree in the sense............that raising tax rates is redundant..........if you aren't even collecting the current rates.


Ontario does not have a taxation problem.
They have a spending problem.
Raising taxes to cover the deficit does not work, as long as the spending is not controlled.

To use carverman's analogy above, paying off the billion $$ credit card will not help matters if they turn around and re-borrow the same billion all over again.
Then what?
Double taxes again?

The first rule of any individual debt management program is to stop spending, not trying to find ways of raising money to pay off the card.
When in a ditch, stop digging.
Then figure out how to get out.


----------



## andrewf

Ontario is never going to be able to compete with Alberta on a level playing field because Alberta is using large resource royalties to pay for social programs. They are blowing their resource bounty on current consumption and not turning it into a durable advantage for the province.


----------



## andrewf

Governments aren't people. It is not very illuminating to use personal analogies to guide government policy.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Ontario is never going to be able to compete with Alberta on a level playing field because Alberta is using large resource royalties to pay for social programs. They are blowing their resource bounty on current consumption and not turning it into a durable advantage for the province.


Alberta has problems of its own, of course.
The difference is that Ontario has been financing its gluttony through deficit, whereas, Alberta has been financing it with energy royalties.
But the roots of the problems are very similar.

_*Alberta pays the price of overcompensated public employees*_


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Governments aren't people. It is not very illuminating to use personal analogies to guide government policy.


Yeah, we have heard that one before - I am sure Greece, Spain, France etc. use the same logic.

There is a limit to govt. spending, esp. one financed through deficit.
If that weren't true, there would theoretically be no limit for economic growth through deficit spending.
We could have grown nominal GDP to any % we wanted through deficit financing.


----------



## andrewf

I didn't say there is no limit to the amount of debt an economy can service. Just that applying the same principles as personal finance to public finance is intuitive, but not very accurate.


----------



## fraser

This says a lot about the state of Ontario's economy and Government stewardship/leadership over the past 10 years:

But we’re already heading off the cliff. The provincial deficit is ballooning. According to Livio Di Matteo in a recent Fraser Institute report, we have the third-lowest rate of private-sector job creation in the country. We’ve had the slowest growth of all the provinces for a decade. We’ve been poorer than the rest of the country since 2005, and today we are 5.6 per cent poorer. GDP per person in the rest of Canada is $48,463. In Ontario, it’s $45,933


----------



## sags

The debates will be interesting............as Wynne is very good on her feet........and to put it politely........Hudak isn't.


----------



## andrewf

I have to imagine that the PCs will be very careful in this campaign, given how they essentially blew the last two, going up against unpopular governments. But on the other hand, their 'jobs plan' is pretty hard to believe.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Wynne is a very good public speaker.
She has no accent, speaks loudly and clearly, and grammatically correct.
She does full justice to her Masters degree in language.

Even McGuinty was a relatively smooth debater, but I think Wynne is better.

Among the 3, Hudak is the worst debater.
It will weigh heavily against him.


----------



## HaroldCrump

I am interpreting the early signs and polls as most people voting along their ideological lines.
This is a very divisive and polarizing situation, and even the moderates are taking sides.
I'm afraid this election will boil down to a small number of swing seats, and the densely populated Liberal vote banks in the GTA and Southern Ontario.


----------



## warp

sags said:


> Established tax rates for the "very rich" and corporations are mostly smoke and mirrors.
> 
> The wealthy and corporations don't pay anywhere near the established "tax rate".
> 
> They have many legal tax avoidance opportunities at their disposal.............and they use them.
> 
> .


SAGS:

Would you care to name all these "legal tax avoidance opportunities" that you speak of?

Let me make clear that using legal tax laws is hardly "avoidance", which is, in fact, a crime.

Still I would really like to know of all these "avoidance opportunities", ( legal or otherwise), that you speak of. Please enlighten me......thanks.


----------



## sags

warp said:


> SAGS:
> 
> Would you care to name all these "legal tax avoidance opportunities" that you speak of?
> 
> Let me make clear that using legal tax laws is hardly "avoidance", which is, in fact, a crime.
> 
> Still I would really like to know of all these "avoidance opportunities", (legal or otherwise), that you speak of. Please enlighten me......thanks.


The difference between illegal tax evasion and legal tax avoidance.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/lrt/vvw-eng.html

Tax avoidance disproportionally available to the wealthy.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABRE92L18120130324


----------



## sags

First day on the road........

Team Wynne takes an early lead.

Team Wynne 1 - Team Hudak 0.


----------



## HaroldCrump

If this election boils down to campaigning skills and campaign management, the Liberals will get a majority govt.
For the PCs to win even a minority govt., the voters have to agree that the Liberals have mismanaged the economy and are fiscally irresponsible.
But I am afraid, vested interests of certain groups will carry the election for the Liberals.


----------



## the-royal-mail

^ Which proves that our version of democracy is truly corrupt.


----------



## andrewf

This reminds me of the Republicans that worship the US constitution and their democracy, then promptly do everything in their power to disrupt their government when they don't like the result.


----------



## Eclectic12

Hmmm ... the players seem to be the same, vested groups seem to be the same and the issues seem to be the same ... why wouldn't it be a repeat of the last election so that there is another minority?


Cheers


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> This reminds me of the Republicans that worship the US constitution and their democracy, then promptly do everything in their power to disrupt their government when they don't like the result.


If you are likening the Ontario PCs to the US Republicans, keep in mind that they were not the ones that called the elections.
It was the far left NDP that toppled the govt.
PCs have been out of power now for over 10 years, and haven't done anything to disrupt the govt.

Not agreeing with the economic policies of an in situ administration is not disruption - that is the right of democracy.


----------



## andrewf

No I was referring to the implication that a vote for the PCs is right and good and honest, while votes for NDP/Libs are from shadowy 'vested interests', and therefore less legitimate. The world is not so black and white. 

And just to avoid any further confusion, I don't deny that those interest groups exist, but rather that all parties are necessarily beholden to them, including the PCs. NDP and Libs pander to unions, PCs pander to farmers/resource workers (billions in 'welfare' for these sectors), social conservative evangelicals, rural residents (disproportionate infrastructure spending, highways to nowhere), etc. This is just how the sausage is made. Being cognizant of the fact that your 'team', too, is beholden to interests that don't have the broader public interest in mind helps to keep parties somewhat honest.


----------



## Eclectic12

andrewf said:


> ... , PCs pander to farmers/resource workers (billions in 'welfare' for these sectors), social conservative evangelicals, rural residents (disproportionate infrastructure spending, highways to nowhere), etc...


Interesting ... maybe it's the Mike Harris influence but my impression was that the PCs pandered to business.


Cheers


----------



## andrewf

They do pander to big business, too, but that is probably more about donations than securing vote blocs.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> They do pander to big business, too, but that is probably more about donations than securing vote blocs.


Everyone panders to big business, just _different_ big businesses.
The Liberals pander to manufacturing and auto companies, because that is where their vote bank is (the unions).

As FDR said : _Sure he's a son of a b*ch, but he's *our *son of a b*ch_

Similarly, _yeah, it's a big business, but it is *our *big business_

The current Liberal party manifesto includes lots and lots of credits, sops, handouts, etc. for various businesses for "creating jobs".

If the NDP ever came to power in Ottawa, they will not waste a day in appropriating all the energy revenues and royalties from the mid-west, and re-distributing it to manufacturing and auto companies in Ontario & Quebec.


----------



## fraser

I actually think most of them are institutional whores.

They will pander to any group that provides them with the funds to finance their election or enough votes to win that election.

Most of them care about two things. Getting elected. Getting re-elected. Serving the public is probably number 8 or number 9 on the list.

And they will 'cross the street' at the drop of a hat if helps their chances of election/re-election.


----------



## carverman

This just in....
Tony Clement and Kathleen Wynne obviously don't see eye to eye....Tony said he is hoping that Wynne loses the election.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/video/tony-clement-hopes-kathleen-wynne-213000462.html

meanwhile..Tim is promising to freeze the public sector wages for 2 years to balance the budget by 2016...that's not going to get him any votes from the unions.

and Andrea really doesn't have much to say on the campaign trail..



> "We're ready to roll up our sleeves, listen to Ontarians, put their priorities first," she said.
> But concrete details on what an NDP government would bring were lacking.


Read more: http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ndp-leade...aign-platform-to-come-1.1806750#ixzz31Da2zcWY


----------



## HaroldCrump

Voters need to understand the implications of not freezing public sector wages...and not just wages, but a clamp down on overall compensation costs, including over-time, "sick" leave, etc.

There will have to be other, far deeper cuts to other services.
Fewer service hours, less front-line service employees at places such as Service Ontario, local libraries, transit frequency cutbacks, health care cutbacks, etc.

No political party has clearly explained what will be cut; and to be fair, it is hard for anyone to predict accurately what cut backs will need to be implemented over the next 4 years.

The Liberal party's implied promise is that public sector compensation is not negotiable by tax-payers, and budget deficits/debt concerns be damned.
They are implying that somehow, magically, the budget will be balanced by 2016 without any service cuts and a constant rate of public sector compensation increases.


----------



## sags

Harold.........voters don't care what it costs.

They want the services. They don't want cuts to their services. They want more services.

They don't care if taxes go up...........as long as they have their services.

The mind set is.......politicians are there to serve the people. I want to be served..........so serve me.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> Tony Clement and Kathleen Wynne obviously don't see eye to eye....Tony said he is hoping that Wynne loses the election.


Stephen Harper & his federal conservatives are not helping the Ontario PCs by doing thing like this:

*Kathleen Wynne says Stephen Harper ‘smirked’ and said people should save for their own retirement*

Of course, this is all a he-said-she-said war of words.
But the PM should not be saying something that is so blatantly hypocritical:
_It is individual responsibility to save for retirement, unless of course, you are an MP_

He ought to know more than anyone else that the MP pension plan is _the_ most generous in the country, bar none.
It also has the dubious distinction of having a unique funding status - 100% unfunded.
There is no pension management fund - the MP pension plan is purely paygo, just like OAS.


----------



## fraser

There is a challenge to freezing public sector wages.

It has been shown in several studies that public sector wages at the lower end are indeed high. Both in Ontario and Canada. No issue with some gradual adjustments there.

BUT, it has also been found that public sector total wage package (including all benefits) of professional staff and senior managers are in fact lower than private industry. This was certainly my experience when hiring candidates from the public sector.

Rather than a freeze, it would be better if they could implement some sort of salary comparisons on which to base/adjust salary AND modify those salaries by region. An employee in Vancouver needs to be paid more than an employee in Winnipeg.


----------



## HaroldCrump

You are right, fraser.
Freezing wages is a bad solution.
It creates bad blood, strife, and dissatisfaction.

And I believe it does not help in the long run, because those wages bounce back with a vengeance as soon as a more accommodative govt. gets back in power.
Mike Harris froze wages in Ontario for a while.
But no sooner did Dalton McGuinty come back in 2003, the unions were able to recover all the freezes, and then some.

It should never have come to this question of freezing wages, had they been more in line with private sector in the first place.



> It has been shown in several studies that public sector wages at the lower end are indeed high.


When the lower-end these days is apparently the Sunshine List, well yeah


----------



## Eclectic12

sags said:


> Harold.........voters don't care what it costs.
> 
> They want the services. They don't want cuts to their services. They want more services.
> 
> They don't care if taxes go up...........as long as they have their services.


You are apparently moving in different circles than I am. I hear constantly about how taxes are too high.

Yes people want services but most around me are questioning the value provided. 
If a valued service is delivered efficiently, they say they have no problem with increased taxes but with the numerous examples of waste, it is clear there is room to cut without affecting service.


Cheers


----------



## carverman

Hudak is now saying that IF he is elected, he will slash 100,000 public sector jobs and that will save the province $2 billion. I guess that's 100,000 + votes that he will not be getting.
I was hoping that we would see a change..but the way the election campaign is going..it's back to a Liberal minority gov't.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Yeah, I posted the same on the other thread.
Along with the rest of the details of his platform that was revealed this morning.

He didn't lose 100,000 votes - he lost 1.3 million votes - the approx. size of the Ontario public sector, and then some more.


----------



## Jungle

I would not want 100k people to lose their jobs but agree, some one has to stand up and say enough is enough. Really there are tough decisions to be made that won't be popular. 

In the long run, this is a better approach for sustainable government, but if he could do so without massive job losses it would be even better.


----------



## Jungle

Ya no one is going to vote so they can lose their job!


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Yeah, I posted the same on the other thread.
> Along with the rest of the details of his platform that was revealed this morning.
> 
> He didn't lose 100,000 votes - he lost 1.3 million votes - the approx. size of the Ontario public sector, and then some more.


So it sounds like a recycled version of Harris' "Common sense revolution...PT II).
In the last election some of his nonsense ads on TV didn't make a lot of sense .."cut this and cut that"...he lost a lot of votes and even though the public 
was tired of McGuilty after his first term,
he still managed to get in..and as a result, we got the cancelled gas plants....I really don't see much choice in this election either..


----------



## mars

I'm not sure if he will be able to find 100,000 jobs to reduce but I know I could help reduce a couple hundred in the health care area and it wouldn't affect 1 front line worker. Not sure how many people know how many finance people work at our hospitals. I know the details of one hospital (no I don't work there and have never worked there but I know the details) and they have 80 finance people working for them. Now if you make an assumption that every one of those people make $50k a year then they are spending $4 million a year on back room finance. This seems to be excessive to me. I know a couple of years ago the government installed a new software system and the idea was to consolidate a lot of the back office roles into one group which would have reduced the number of people at each hospital. Well this restructuring made it so far then the hospitals started complaining about losing their people and wouldn't agree to further consolidation. Personally I don't think they should be given a choice. I also believe that this could be done for all government agencies, each agency does not require a full slate of finance people. There could be one centralized payroll group for all of the Ontario government, same for accounts receivable, payables, purchasing, etc. This might even improve the efficiency between agencies if the finance group was all one.


----------



## MoreMiles

There are often more administrators than nurses and doctors combined in any given hospital. You have managers, supervisor of managers, program directors, directors of directors, chief of directors of directors of managers... Lots of 'made up fancy executive titles' Those people should be fired. Health care should be practiced on medical sciences, and not administrative bureaucracy. 

Or they should open up for privatization. It a government monopoly to protect those useless back office paper pushers in my opinion. They should get more front line health care workers with the same budget.


----------



## Retired Peasant

The same can be said for pretty much any government entity - hospitals, OPG, police, education boards, any/every Ministry. I don't think it would be too hard to find 100,000 (10%) jobs to cut.


----------



## HaroldCrump

IMHO, job cuts is an extreme measure, esp. at this stage.
Per StatsCan, there are approx. 1.4M public sector workers in Ontario.
Therefore, 100K represents a little over 7% of the workforce.
It is too drastic.

A combination of across the board wage freeze and clawing back some gold-plated pension benefits would be a better start.

Even the Liberal party, in its rare moments of sanity, would acknowledge the need for an across the board wage freeze (MCG tried half-hearted to do this twice during his second tenure).

Among the gold-plated pension benefits, some of the changes that could have good long-term impact could be:
- Increasing employee contributions to 50/50 for all those plans that are not already there.
- Freeze on early retirement provision (i.e. before 65) until budget is balanced _without raising taxes in any form_
- Freeze on inflation indexation until budget is balanced _without raising taxes in any form_
- Clawing back pension payments if alternative employment is sought after "retirement"
- Merge some of the smaller pension plans for regional municipalities, fire boards, police forces, crown corps. etc.
- Begin the analysis for an eventual "shared risk" model for all Ontario public sector plans, to be phased in over the next 5 - 8 years

My concern with job cuts is that it will be left up to the individual departments, boards, and ministries to identify individuals to render redundant.
This is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
Management has a huge vested interest in preserving their cushy back sides, and inevitably, will cut front-line services and staff.
The tax-payers are one of the largest employers in the province and need to negotiate for themselves good quality services at a lower cost, just like every other organization does.


----------



## Eclectic12

^^^^

I would add to the list reviewing Ontario corps and their pay, especially for executives.

As I recall, when Harris spun the infrastructure section into SuperBuild, the top executive's pay jumped from something over $100K to something over $300K the following year where the justification was that the competition now included private industry.

I'd bet that despite the changes in the private landscape, the pay package probably hasn't changed much.


Cheers


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> We need to have the adult conversation about what the spending priorities should be, and we're not having it.





HaroldCrump said:


> I said earlier - it is naïve to expect any adult conversation given how polarized the Liberals have made the political situation during their 4 consecutive terms.
> Whenever even a half-hearted attempt has been made at an adult conversation, it has been thwarted by the vested interest groups, primarily the unions.


*This *is why we can never have an _adult conversation_. It is naïve to expect one in these circumstances.

_Labour leaders from across Ontario rallied in Windsor, where more than 500 people were at the Caboto Club on Tuesday night for a 'Stop Hudak' event.
They say Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak isn't labour friendly and needs to be stopped from becoming premier.

Chris Taylor, the president of the Windsor District Labour Council, referenced Hudak's stance with auto manufacturers, like Chrysler, as one of the reasons organized labour is working against the PC leader._


----------



## the-royal-mail

Thanks Harold. Vote banking is alive and well and is a threat to democracy. Elections are effectively rigged by special interests rather than the greater good.


----------



## andrewf

I don't get it. You mean because unions are protesting? I don't know how effective they are beyond their membership. I pretty much discard everything they say, including economists who work for unions (aka paid shills).


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> I don't know how effective they are beyond their membership.


Their membership is large, and they are very potent force in the balance of power.
The OPSEU have also come down heavily on the PC platform.

According to HRSDC, nearly 30% of Ontario workers are unionized, incl. public sector.
Between the CAW/Unifor/USW, and the OPSEU, the coverage is probably 95% of all unionized voters in Ontario.

That pretty much guarantees that the unions can sway elections easily.


----------



## MoreMiles

HaroldCrump said:


> Their membership is large, and they are very potent force in the balance of power.
> The OPSEU have also come down heavily on the PC platform.
> 
> According to HRSDC, nearly 30% of Ontario workers are unionized, incl. public sector.
> Between the CAW/Unifor/USW, and the OPSEU, the coverage is probably 95% of all unionized voters in Ontario.
> 
> That pretty much guarantees that the unions can sway elections easily.


So a 30% of special group can determine the future of the rest of 70%... What kind of democracy is this? They should follow what most (ie. non unionized) people have to go through, not the other way around.


----------



## HaroldCrump

MoreMiles said:


> So a 30% of special group can determine the future of the rest of 70%...


Well, 30% of the voters voting for a particular party is enough the swing any election.
Add in the fact that in the other 70%, voter turnout is pathetically low.

That 30% is actually a very active and vocal voting group.
Given that aggregate voter turnout is less than 50%, chances are only 20% of the other 70% are voting.



> They should follow what most (ie. non unionized) people have to go through, not the other way around.


I agree !
But try telling them that.


----------



## fraser

Gee......we just might have to give some thought to moving back to Ontario if Hudak gets a majority.

Based on his promises, Ontario is going to be the promised land by 2016/2017. A chicken in every pot and a pot on every stove so to speak.

IF his promises are based on reality and IF he actually delivers. 

I think we may have better odds at the casino.


----------



## sags

The latest polls shows the Liberals may be heading towards a majority government.

The PC message isn't resonating with the voters.

http://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...ynnes_liberals_in_front_after_good_month.html


----------



## bgc_fan

sags said:


> The latest polls shows the Liberals may be heading towards a majority government.
> 
> The PC message isn't resonating with the voters.
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...ynnes_liberals_in_front_after_good_month.html


That article was over a month old. 
But the PC' message isn't very convincing with the trickle down economics and voodoo to make up job growth. Based on recent history, I think we can pretty much rule out corporate tax cuts = job growth. 
That being said, neither the Liberal or NDP campaigns are convincing either.


----------



## HaroldCrump

fraser said:


> Based on his promises, Ontario is going to be the promised land by 2016/2017. A chicken in every pot and a pot on every stove so to speak.


And the Liberals' promises are different than Hudak's exactly how?
Ms. Wynne's plan can be called _lalaland _at the very best, and just flat out lies and deceit more realistically speaking (something she and her party know all about).

Anyway, from the latest opinion polls, it sounds like you guys will have your dream come true - a majority Liberal ship under Wynne as Captain and Souza as First Mate.
Sail on, matey.
_Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum._


----------



## sags

Oops....wrong link.

This poll was released today, with the Liberal lead growing.

http://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...s_a_tough_sell_with_voters_poll_suggests.html


----------



## rikk

"Discover how your politics align with Ontario’s political parties at http://www.cbc.ca/elections/ontariovotes2014/votecompass " Now, this is only what they claim their politics are :listening_headphone.


----------



## gibor365

sags said:


> Oops....wrong link.
> 
> This poll was released today, with the Liberal lead growing.
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...s_a_tough_sell_with_voters_poll_suggests.html


As per 680 new another poll today showed PC lead at 39% and Libs ar 30%  All those polls are BS


----------



## gibor365

rikk said:


> "Discover how your politics align with Ontario’s political parties at http://www.cbc.ca/elections/ontariovotes2014/votecompass " Now, this is only what they claim their politics are :listening_headphone.


Mine results:
PC 67% 
LIB 49%
GRN/NDP 45%


----------



## nortel'd

rikk said:


> "Discover how your politics align with Ontario’s political parties at http://www.cbc.ca/elections/ontariovotes2014/votecompass "


I completed the survey and they need to add “decline my ballot” as one of the choices for the demographics question #1 “If the election were to take place today, which party would you vote for?”

Rather than “spoil” my ballot as I had originally planned, I am going to “decline”. Declining a ballot is legally permitted in a few Canadian provinces, including Ontario. It amounts to voting "none of the above."

Declined ballot
53. An elector who has received a ballot and returns it to the deputy returning officer declining to vote, forfeits the right to vote and the deputy returning officer shall immediately write the word “declined” upon the back of the ballot and preserve it to be returned to the returning officer and shall cause an entry to be made in the poll record that the elector declined to vote. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.6, s. 53.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90e06_e.htm#BK137


I am not comfortable voting for any of my provincial ridings three candidates. There is no fourth party and I want to be counted.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

So Hudak's solution to the economy/deficit is to put 100,000 gainfully employed, tax-paying public sector workers on UI? All the while not affecting services? And at the same time cut tax revenues, particularly corporate taxes? Isn't this Reagonomics and Mike Harris all over again?


----------



## bgc_fan

OhGreatGuru said:


> So Hudak's solution to the economy/deficit is to put 100,000 gainfully employed, tax-paying public sector workers on UI? All the while not affecting services? And at the same time cut tax revenues, particularly corporate taxes? Isn't this Reagonomics and Mike Harris all over again?


You missed the part where that creates 40K of jobs as they get re-hired back to deal with the demographic need over the next 8 years.


----------



## GoldStone

100,000 cuts would bring the size of the civil service all the way back to... wait for it.... wait for it.... wait for it.... year 2009.

OMG, this is the end of the world as we know it. 

Remember how awful life was in 2009? Thank god we hired more civil servants to take care of us.


----------



## HaroldCrump

How can Hudak say that the Liberals haven't created good, well-paying jobs...they have created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Just look at the Sunshine List.


----------



## carverman

nortel'd said:


> Rather than “spoil” my ballot as I had originally planned, I am going to “decline”. Declining a ballot is legally permitted in a few Canadian provinces, including Ontario. It amounts to voting *"none of the above."*
> 
> Declined ballot
> 53. An elector who has received a ballot and returns it to the deputy returning officer declining to vote, forfeits the right to vote and the deputy returning officer shall immediately write the word “declined” upon the back of the ballot and preserve it to be returned to the returning officer and shall cause an entry to be made in the poll record that the elector declined to vote. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.6, s. 53.


I didn't realize we have this option on the ballot. If this is actually available on election day, I may be tempted to go out on my wheelchair and vote "none of the above"


----------



## joncnca

The only thing Hudak could do that's more harebrained than what he's now proposing is to declare war on Iraq and look for weapons of mass destruction in the oil fields. At least that might create some jobs, I guess. But that kind of personal attack may be a low blow. His policies can fail on their own merits. 

Some of these proposed policies demonstrate a total lack of understanding about society and economics beyond the most (over) simplistic concept of debt = bad. We know debt is bad, but even Harper ran a deficit, and certainly there needs to be more accountability with public spending but Hudak's plan will cripple the province for a generation, like Harris' did. 

He thinks private businesses will fix all our problems? That is not the purpose of a business. A (large) business only appears to care about the social fabric because government requires it to do so. What private business is going to educate our children for the purpose of creating intelligent, well-informed citizens? None. The goal of the business is to make money for its owners or shareholders regardless of its social impact, so it will nickel and dime the kids, the staff, and parents. Big race to the bottom. 

And why would you care if you are high up in that big business (I'm not even including small business because the deception is that small businesses will actually suffer)? Who do you think drives your business? The shrinking middle class, that's who. So maybe you may gain in the short term, but Hudak's policies are bad for EVERYONE in the long run because it doesn't address any underlying social issues. 

Maybe he wants to cut so deeply into education and public services so that people in the future will not be smart enough to see through the nonsense.

Total lack of understanding about society and economics. Society is specifically not a business, it is too important to be operated as one. 

The other parties aren't perfect by the way. No political party is uniformly revered, I'd imagine anywhere in the world. But these fiscal conservative (these terms need changing, the connotations are totally misleading) policies Hudak is peddling are way out there. I know that's his intent, but absurdity for the sake of being different is manipulative, insidious, and ultimately damaging to everyone, including big businesses. 

They would turn Ontario into an unhealthy, uneducated, poorly serviced, unattractive-to-business, fourth rate cesspool that's unworthy of investment by private businesses. And if history has anything to say about it, they will probably not be able to balance the budget either. At least they can pretend to create jobs by re-hiring people that are layed off when they realize they totally messed up. 

And all the ragging on unions is puzzling to me. If you don't belong to one, shouldn't you be trying to raise your own standards to meet theirs, rather than dragging them down? Race to the bottom isn't good for anyone. Don't you have kids and future generations to think about? Don't you want them to have more than you had?


----------



## carverman

As election day approaches, and the anniversary of the Walkerton tainted water tragedy..*(a product of Mike Harris" common sense revolution PC government and Tim Hudak, cutting water inspecting jobs in Ontario*, which left two incompetent municipal workers responsible for looking after water purification, which they neglected to fix broken clorinators leading to 7 deaths and hundreds permanently injured from a particular nasty strain of EColi that destroys internal organs)..
Tim Hudak responded to Wynne's visit to Walkerton and bringing up the fact that Hudak and Harris' gov't were responsible for the tragedy)....

Paraphrased..."Well we won't be cutting any water inspectors this time"...

*Here's how he plans to create 1 million jobs in Ontario over the next 8 years:* ( *Dear CMF readers...you do the math and reason his flawed? logic)*



> 1. Eliminate 100,000 jobs in public sector over four years, then keep it in line with population growth which would help *create 43,184 jobs* over the following four years.


 _(ok that's 56,816 shortfall RIGHT THERE!)_



> 2. Cut regulations on business, such as so-called "eco-fees" for recycling, *which would create 84,800 jobs.*


 (how exactly does eliminating a provincial gov't tax create new jobs?)



> 3. Abolish the College of Trades and eliminate restrictions on the skilled trades, which would help *create 170,240 jobs.*


_(ok..but the so called unregulated "skill trades' would have to search employment, so it's still not an automatic job for each candidate, just because a regulating body has been eliminated in the process)
_


> 4. Reduce corporate taxes to eight per cent — down from the current 11.5 per cent — which would *create 119,808 jobs*.


 _(ok that's more money (profit) for the corporations pocket, but that won't necessary encourage the corporation to create new jobs based on the tax reduction)
_


> 5. Reduce corporate taxes to eight per cent — down from the current 11.5 per cent — which would *create 119,808 jobs*.


 _(ok Tim..give us the hard facts on this one..I see it as just more money in the pocket of a corporation that may or may not create more jobs as a result..Are you going to create "job creation inspectors" to go out to EVERY CORPORATION/EMPLOYER in Ontario to see that new jobs are being created from the tax saving?)_



> 6. Put the province in charge of all rail-based transit and major highways in the Greater Toronto Area; establish a new east-west express line connecting Etobicoke to Scarborough, through Toronto's downtown. Expand major highways and GO Transit. This would *create 96,000 jobs*


. _ (ok this would increase the gov't bureacracy..which you are trying to reduce Tim)_



> 7. Lower energy prices by cutting the bureaucracy at Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation; end subsidies for wind and solar power and reduce the number of provincial electricity agencies. This will help *create 40,384 jobs*.


_(Ok Tim we all agree that the fatcats at Hydro One and OPG have to go because we desparately need to keep these now 6 month increases on our hydro bills from going through the roof..but how does eliminating some of the fatcats at the Electricity bureaucracy..create new jobs...is it 'ABRA-CADABRA..if elected, I will waive my magic wand and PRESTO..we have 40,384 jobs because you are planning to sell (privatize) OPG to Bruce Power and try to sell off Hydro One...(the money gobbling monster) to whoever out there that wants to buy it...which then can raise hydro rates to help pay for retaining those "new jobs"..former skilled hydro line workers...and we can't just hire anyone off the street for these jobs, RIGHT TIM?...)_



> 8. Participate in free trade agreement with British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, which would create *1,592 jobs*


 _(ok free trade?..how many jobs has free trade with the US created..most of the manufacturing has gone to China over the last decade or so)_

*Tim, IMHO, I think you are being fed a "multicolour dream" in order to score brownie points with the electors. IT (the 1,000,000 NEW JOBS) IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!*


----------



## carverman

joncnca said:


> The only thing Hudak could do that's more harebrained than what he's now proposing is to declare war on Iraq and look for weapons of mass destruction in the oil fields. At least that might create some jobs, I guess. But that kind of personal attack may be a low blow. His policies can fail on their own merits.
> 
> Some of these proposed policies demonstrate a total lack of understanding about society and economics beyond the most (over) simplistic concept of debt = bad. We know debt is bad, but even Harper ran a deficit, and certainly there needs to be more accountability with public spending but Hudak's plan will cripple the province for a generation, like Harris' did.
> 
> He thinks private businesses will fix all our problems? That is not the purpose of a business. A (large) business only appears to care about the social fabric because government requires it to do so. What private business is going to educate our children for the purpose of creating intelligent, well-informed citizens? None. The goal of the business is to make money for its owners or shareholders regardless of its social impact, so it will nickel and dime the kids, the staff, and parents. Big race to the bottom.
> 
> And why would you care if you are high up in that big business (I'm not even including small business because the deception is that small businesses will actually suffer)? Who do you think drives your business? The shrinking middle class, that's who. So maybe you may gain in the short term, but Hudak's policies are bad for EVERYONE in the long run because it doesn't address any underlying social issues.
> 
> Maybe he wants to cut so deeply into education and public services so that people in the future will not be smart enough to see through the nonsense.
> 
> Total lack of understanding about society and economics. Society is specifically not a business, it is too important to be operated as one.
> 
> The other parties aren't perfect by the way. No political party is uniformly revered, I'd imagine anywhere in the world. But these fiscal conservative (these terms need changing, the connotations are totally misleading) policies Hudak is peddling are way out there. I know that's his intent, but absurdity for the sake of being different is manipulative, insidious, and ultimately damaging to everyone, including big businesses.
> 
> They would turn Ontario into an unhealthy, uneducated, poorly serviced, unattractive-to-business, fourth rate cesspool that's unworthy of investment by private businesses. And if history has anything to say about it, they will probably not be able to balance the budget either. At least they can pretend to create jobs by re-hiring people that are layed off when they realize they totally messed up.
> 
> And all the ragging on unions is puzzling to me. If you don't belong to one, shouldn't you be trying to raise your own standards to meet theirs, rather than dragging them down? Race to the bottom isn't good for anyone. Don't you have kids and future generations to think about? Don't you want them to have more than you had?


*Well stated JONCNCA... Remember the fairy tale about Rumpelstiltskin requiring the princess to spin straw into gold?...
the PC party spin doctors are busy, (like Rumpelstiltskin) , helping Tim spin election promises into "gold" to try to convince Ontarioans, that he will actually turn the stagnant Ontario economy around. 
I'm waiting for Tim's.."and if elected..I will put a chicken in every pot" speech. 
*


----------



## andrewf

Is Hudak seriously proposing we not license plumbers, electricians, gas fitters, mechanics, etc? Why stop there and eliminate licenses to practice medicine and law?


----------



## sags

What surprises me is that Hudak had years to develop a well thought out platform.......and the best he came up with is a disjointed collection of questionable strategies, that have the appearance of being hastily thrown together.

Hudak has endured screw ups from the first days at the music studio (when he was advocating cutting their funding).....to the failure of securing the proper paperwork in the subway incident. The Hudak team didn't even have a bus ready for the campaign and took a chartered passenger bus for reporters with Hudak following in a car.

Wynne seems to be much better prepared, showing up at the right events...the right days...the right message.
The Liberals had a fully electronically reconditioned bus ready to go from the onset of the campaign.

Maybe it is a stark difference in the quality of the "teams" behind them, but that too says something about how effective Hudak would be able to govern Ontario if he was elected.

The Tories seem a little disheveled in this campaign. Is it possible they were surprised by the election call?


----------



## Marguerite Gilmore

The Ontario budget will increase taxes on high income earners, tobacco and aviation fuel, according to a document obtained from a source outside the Liberal government.


----------



## nathan79

Not surprising since Ontario has some of the lowest income tax rates in the country for high income earners. Only Alberta, Yukon and Nunavut are lower.


----------



## Abbie Darcy

*ONTARIO budget....bring on the election?*

The week before Charles Sousa tabled the Ontario budget that failed to pass


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> Tim Hudak responded to Wynne's visit to Walkerton and bringing up the fact that Hudak and Harris' gov't were responsible for the tragedy)....*Paraphrased..*."Well we won't be cutting any water inspectors this time"...


*The actual quote:* 'Asked whether his proposed 100,000 job cuts would include water inspectors, Mr. Hudak said: “I don’t think anybody would even contemplate that.” 

Whom is Ms. Wynne campaigning against? Seems only the conservatives, but which one? To score points, Ms. Wynne first began the election with strategic attacks on the PM, and now on Harris merely using the Walkerton tragedy. Against Hudak [MacLeod], the best she could do so far, has been to sue for $2M. What a bold campaign!

*'There is something grotesque in dredging up the 14-year-old Walkerton tragedy. Negative advertising is one thing, but playing the crass game directly from the podium is something else. In a fairly nasty campaign so far, Ms. Wynne's staged event in Walkerton is a low point that smacks of desperation. Or maybe it is just strategic stupidity'.* Indeed.


----------



## joncnca

andrewf said:


> Is Hudak seriously proposing we not license plumbers, electricians, gas fitters, mechanics, etc? Why stop there and eliminate licenses to practice medicine and law?


Yes, I was even mentioning this to my wife the other day.

First of all, the reason you need to be licensed is because these are dangerous jobs and the new/young apprentices can get seriously hurt or killed if they don't have the right kind of training and qualification.

Second, the public at large is TOTALLY beholden to people in these trades, much as one might think investment bankers and flashy portrayals of rich entrepreneurs are the most important people in society. Who here knows how to build their own house? Not many, I imagine. Do you really want someone unqualified to be fitting your gas line? An then for someone equally unqualified to try and fix the problem? I like that point about medical and legal licenses.

Third, there's a pretty nebulous leap of logic between eliminating the College of Trades and creating jobs. Eliminating the regulating body doesn't guarantee jobs. But you will definitely get a reduction in the quality of tradespeople. Unless you're making the assumption that the number one reason businesses aren't creating jobs in the trades is because there's a regulatory body ensuring the qualifications of the tradespeople...but there are many more pressing factors to consider than this. Moreover, even businesses (legitimate ones) want high quality, competent tradespeople and not Joe Schmoe with no training. Companies that want tradespeople, want good tradespeople. You're not doing them any favours by flooding the market with unqualified candidates.

Total lack of understanding about about society.

His recent exemption of "water inspectors" and previously of "doctors, nurses, police" from his cuts are another demonstration of the lack of understanding about society. It seems like these exemptions were concocted as a band-aid solution to his rising controversy, and not driven at all by a desire to look out for the province's long term interests. These individuals are EXTREMELY important in society, and I would never begrudge their special status. But how do you reduce the load on police and reduce crime? Support the education system. How do you unload doctors and nurses? Support the surrounding health care system to prevent illnesses and disease. Wait, these are being cut. His policies are all reactionary, single-minded, and have no vision for the future for the society at large.

And on the Walkerton issue, it's delusional to think that Tim will not or does not exploit the failure of the other parties at every opportunity. And delusions to think that the Conservatives do not deliver speeches to vetted crowds, while the others do. And delusional to think that the Conservatives do not have "vote banks." They all do these things, and they have all f***ed up royally at some point or another. But let's be fair, I'm feeling generous.

Our job is to see through that political BS, and Tim's platform still smells bad.


----------



## Toronto.gal

GoldStone said:


> 100,000 cuts would bring the size of the civil service all the way back to... wait for it.... wait for it.... *wait for it.... year 2009.*
> 
> OMG, this is the end of the world as we know it.
> 
> *Remember how awful life was in 2009?* Thank god we hired more civil servants to take care of us.


You know how ST/LT memory works. 

Waiting for the debate to remember some good old facts - June 3rd appears to be the day.


----------



## HaroldCrump

joncnca said:


> Some of these proposed policies demonstrate a total lack of understanding about society and economics beyond the most (over) simplistic concept of debt = bad.


And Ms. Wynne & her ex Dalton McGuinty had a great understanding of society & economics?
How is that working out for Ontario?
Well, I have to say MCG had a great understanding of _social engineering_ - he was able to dupe the voters into voting for his party three times consecutively.
This is despite a spate of multi-billion $ scams & scandals, like eHealth, Ornge, gas plants, etc.

People that complain the loudest about cut to public services have no idea what services they are talking about, how much it costs, and are perfectly happy to hand over their hard-earned tax dollars to corrupt, entrenched, and fatcat administrations like MCG/Wynne.



> We know debt is bad, but even Harper ran a deficit


There is not one govt. in the G20 that did not run a deficit during 2008 - 2009.
Canada is the _first_ G7 nation to balance its budget.
And this has been accomplished by _lowering_ taxes, not _raising_ taxes.

OTOH, the Liberal administration inherited a perfectly balanced budget, and ran it into the ground, long before the 2009 recession hit.
And they have done this despite raising taxes.

_Who_ did you say does not have an understanding of economics? :biggrin:



> He thinks private businesses will fix all our problems? That is not the purpose of a business.


Oh right, it is the purpose of government to create jobs and ensure a "chicken in every pot".



> So maybe you may gain in the short term, but Hudak's policies are bad for EVERYONE in the long run because it doesn't address any underlying social issues.


And how exactly does the policies of the incumbents help _underlying social issues_?
Which social issue is Wynne addressing?



> Total lack of understanding about society and economics. Society is specifically not a business, it is too important to be operated as one.


You are taking clichés and assigning it to various political parties and leaders based on who you like or don't like.
Hudak as never said a word about invading Iraq or chemical weapons.
He has never said he wants to "operate society".



> They would turn Ontario into an unhealthy, uneducated, poorly serviced, unattractive-to-business, fourth rate cesspool that's unworthy of investment by private businesses.


So far, the credit for all of the above go to the Liberal administration under the fearless leadership of MCG & Wynne.



> Don't you have kids and future generations to think about? Don't you want them to have more than you had?


Stop using random clichés and assigning it to your favorite political parties.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Good post, Harold, thanks for exposing the useless rhetoric for what it is. Sad that some people actually believe that left-wing drivel.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> The Tories seem a little dishevelled in this campaign. Is it possible they were surprised by the election call?


Hudak has had a couple years to work on a sound election platform to reflect what is happening in Ontario today and the big mess "McGuilty" and the Fiberals have left us, taxpayers holding
a bag of nothing to show for the BILLIONS SQUANDERED AND WASTED...my tax money..your tax money. While I must admit that Wynne does have some saving grace with her election
platform...it is too ambitious considering Ontario has dug itself a deep financial hole...and it is going to take a government with sound judgement, prudence and sensitivity to how to achieve
all the things required now WITHOUT DRIVING US DEEPER INTO THE HOLE, leaving the next generation or even the generation after that to pay for the mistakes again.

Hudak is recycling his old stupid TV ads from the last election...where he is sitting at a table and exclaiming 'CUT! CUT! CUT! and no election platform explaining on how those cuts will:
1. Achieve a balanced budget and eliminate the deficit by?
2. Reduce gov't waste and redundancy to save us (as one of the Dragon's Den regulars would say) M-O-N-E-Y! How do I save money?
3. Address the common issues that is affecting low income earners, seniors especially..HST on heating and electricity! "McGuilty" (sp?) brought that in by cowtowing to Harper to gain some concessions, now it's costing us plenty..these are essentials of life..and if this past winter is any example..we need some relief right away with the next gov't.
Had Hudak come up with a REALISTIC ELECTION PLATFORM and not this..if made King..I will create 1 million new jobs but cut 900,000 old jobs,
and probalbly create an unemployment line like Ontario probably has seen since the dirty thirties. 

Andrea ,,,clueless on how to run a provincial gov't efficiently, but no doubt she will get most of the votes that Hudak would have got..


----------



## realist

andrewf said:


> I don't get it. You mean because unions are protesting? I don't know how effective they are beyond their membership. I pretty much discard everything they say, including economists who work for unions (aka paid shills).


As opposed to economists that work for political parties?


----------



## andrewf

Can we go back to the fact that Hudak believes that unlicensed electricians, plumbers, gas fitters and mechanics should be able to work on homes and cars? And it should just be buyer beware?

This seems like a major step back, and any claims that it will create jobs are highly dubious.


----------



## andrewf

realist said:


> As opposed to economists that work for political parties?


Most parties don't employ economists, or at least ones that have a public profile.


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> Is Hudak seriously proposing we not license plumbers, electricians, gas fitters, mechanics, etc? Why stop there and eliminate licenses to practice medicine and law?


Maybe half of those really don't need license.... I was told that even cleaner workers must be licensed...


----------



## gibor365

nathan79 said:


> Not surprising since Ontario has some of the lowest income tax rates in the country for high income earners. Only Alberta, Yukon and Nunavut are lower.


BC is also lower


----------



## gibor365

gibor said:


> Maybe half of those really don't need license.... I was told that even cleaner workers must be licensed...


_First of all, the reason you need to be licensed is because these are dangerous jobs and the new/young apprentices can get seriously hurt or killed if they don't have the right kind of training and qualification._ many of those "training and qualification" just show off


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> Can we go back to the fact that Hudak believes that unlicensed electricians, plumbers, gas fitters and mechanics should be able to work on homes and cars? And it should just be buyer beware?
> 
> This seems like a major step back, and any claims that it will create jobs are highly dubious.


Definetly! I don't care if somebody has license or not , for me important that he will do a good job, and I can check reviews on Internet , ask relatives/friends about quality of everyone's job


----------



## sags

Actually, the Ontario Liberals inherited a 5.6 Billion dollar "hidden" deficit from the Mike Harris PC government.......who themselves inherited a 10 Billion dollar deficit from the Bob Rae NDP government.

All governments seem to pass deficits on to the next political party coming into power.

It is true that Ontario's debt has risen sharply during the McGuinty years, at least some of which was attributable to addressing the education, health care and infrastructure deficits created by the Harris years. Some of the current deficit is rightfully claimed due to wasteful spending.

It is interesting to note that while Ontario's debt to GDP ratio has continued to climb upwards, the value of Ontario assets has also climbed considerably.........leaving Ontario in a better position as per "net debt" ratio of asset values to debt liabilities than in the past.

So it isn't as dire as some media and politicians would portray it to be.

http://www.ofina.on.ca/borrowing_debt/borrowhistory.htm


----------



## gibor365

sags said:


> Actually, the Ontario Liberals inherited a 5.6 Billion dollar "hidden" deficit from the Mike Harris PC government.......who themselves inherited a 10 Billion dollar deficit from the Bob Rae NDP government.


Thus, Mike Harris PC government reduced deficit by 4.4 billion! Not too bad!
But seriusly, I just don't understand voters who gonna vote for party that created Ontario power plant scandal when Gas plant cancellations cost $1.1 billion !!! Only this fact should put fat X on this party for near future


----------



## the-royal-mail

10 years of health premium, numerous other taxes and debt/deficit higher than ever before. What a ringing endorsement for taxation as a solution to deficits.

Those Liberals should be booted into jail, not just out of office.


----------



## carverman

Can't seem to edit my posts.all I get is a blank reply when I click on EDIT.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> Can't seem to edit my posts.all I get is a blank reply when I click on EDIT.


I am having the same problem since last few days.
Sounds like another thread is required under the _Forum *Isses *_section ;o)


----------



## fraser

I would have to agree with Gibor. Some time ago we decided that we would never reward a political party for massive errors in judgement simply because they appear to be the least favourable alternative. I would say that the 1BIL mistake was the first error in judgement, the second error being the on going cover up story.

We live in Alberta. We have already decided that no matter how we feel about the opposition party we simply will not reward the current bunch for their abysmal failures and their sense of entitlement over the past 10 years. I know the game is usually to change leaders and put the fear of God into us luckless taxpayers that the world will come to an abrupt end if we vote for the other gang. And we feel exactly the same about the Harper Government especially now that Flaherty has passed away. That just does not work for us any more.


----------



## mars

It is interesting to read what people write about understanding economics as I begin to wonder if anyone understands it. I have to say I did take a few economics courses in University but decided it wasn't for me when the professor basically said you could prove any point by just drawing the lines where you need to prove your point. Guess I had a more scientific proof in mind so economics really didn't do it for me. 

Someone mentioned about public sector jobs being good paying and tax paying employees. You are right that the public sector does pay taxes on their earnings, however, 100% of what they are paid comes from money gained from taxes. So it is like you giving me $100 and I give you back $20, you are still out $80. As to increasing taxes to corporations, sure you can do that and take the revenue into the government coffers, but you do understand that if taxes are raised on companies, they are going to increase the prices they charge the consumer (aka you). At the end of the day, companies are not going to lose money, they will just increase prices end of story.

The simple fact is, you only have two things to change, you increase revenue or you reduce costs. Increasing revenues for a government means getting it from individuals and as mentioned above it doesn't matter if it is through higher taxes for companies or on one part of the population it will all come back to every individual.

One of the places I worked was a unionized environment and the members could not understand why things kept going up in price, yet at the same time they wanted a large raise. They didn't make the connection that when they got a raise it increased the cost of making the product which in turn meant the company increased the selling price of the product which meant they paid more for the product when they went to buy it.

People are always looking for someone else to pay. The problem with all the various parties is they have gotten away from providing the basic services required necessary for a functioning society and pander to special interests and all the parties do it.


----------



## gibor365

I don't want to vote for PC, but I want to vote against Liberals!
Regarding all those licenses , I just don't understand why they should be on provincial level....if they were on Federal, all provinces will save $$... I doubt that electricity in Manitoba is different from ON, or dogs in AB different than dogs in SK


----------



## andrewf

gibor said:


> Definetly! I don't care if somebody has license or not , for me important that he will do a good job, and I can check reviews on Internet , ask relatives/friends about quality of everyone's job


The average consumer doesn't know whether a gas fitter has done a good job until their house explodes.


----------



## Eclectic12

gibor said:


> Definetly! I don't care if somebody has license or not , for me important that he will do a good job, and I can check reviews on Internet , ask relatives/friends about quality of everyone's job


Odd ... there seem to be lots of people who checked the reviews, references etc. who ended up with crap work that violated code.

The problem is bad enough that some guy by the name of Mike Holmes had plenty of material for thirteen years worth of shows.
One renovation was so badly done he felt he had to tear down the house. As a result of that example, he decided to start a foundation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Holmes


Cheers


----------



## bgc_fan

gibor said:


> I don't want to vote for PC, but I want to vote against Liberals!
> Regarding all those licenses , I just don't understand why they should be on provincial level....if they were on Federal, all provinces will save $$... I doubt that electricity in Manitoba is different from ON, or dogs in AB different than dogs in SK


There is a red seal program that essentially regulates qualifications across all of Canada. However, I'm not too familiar with the requirements at the provincial level, i.e. if there is some other regulation that applies.


----------



## gibor365

andrewf said:


> The average consumer doesn't know whether a gas fitter has done a good job until their house explodes.


I'm just curios...do you always check certificates of people who work in your house or on your car? Do you thing those theoretical licenses are really worth it? Would you select window installer who has license , but some bad reviews, or guy who has hundreds of positive reviews , but don't have Ontario license?! 
As an example, I've talked with so many mutual funds traders who has many certificates from Ontario Securities Commission , but had no knowledge at all!


----------



## andrewf

I would pick someone who had a license AND good reviews. Thanks for the softball question.


----------



## carverman

mars said:


> It is interesting to read what people write about understanding economics as I begin to wonder if anyone understands it.
> 
> People are always looking for someone else to pay. The problem with all the various parties is they have gotten away from providing the basic services required necessary for a functioning society and pander to special interests and all the parties do it.


I'm not an economist, but I do understand basic economics from a laymans perspective. The current scheme for gov'ts is based on the age old adage."you rob Peter (the taxpayer and consumer)
to pay Paul" (gov't services and industrial/supply chain). Somewhere in there there has to be a happy balance..where "Peter" gets value for the gold he has to give up to the gov't he elects
to run things for him..and Paul has to provide value for the taxpayer money he receives in contracts etc. 

What has to stop is the gov't political pandering, waste, overspending, and inefficiency that is causing the current situation that we see in Ontario.
Who do we as taxpayers (and voters) vote for in the coming election? Sure I know that I can only vote for those candidates that are the ballot in my riding..PC or Liberal..or NDP.or some other
minority party that you can basically use as a protest vote because you know there isn't a hope in hell that that minority candidate will get enough votes to go to Queens Park.

The way I see it now:
X- If I vote for a Liberal candidate (that means my vote goes to a big spender that has inherited McGuinty's legacy of taxpayer waste, ballooning deficits and other political messes that have got
us into this economic mess in the first place.

X- If I vote for my PC candidate, that means I am throwing dice (craps) and hoping I don't lose by picking a gov't that will CUT! CUT! CUT! and create a huge mess with unions causing strikes
gov't employee walkouts and more future turmoil because of poorly thought out economic strategy.

X- If I vote for NDP, I am really gambling with dice (craps) and I better either kiss the dice..or kiss something else goodbye..I remember the big mess with Premier Rae and the last NDP
gov't..we never did climb out of that hole..we just dug a deeper one with the gov'ts that followed..Mike Harris and then McGuinty.

So...what is the solution?


----------



## Eclectic12

bgc_fan said:


> There is a red seal program that essentially regulates qualifications across all of Canada. However, I'm not too familiar with the requirements at the provincial level, i.e. if there is some other regulation that applies.


According to the red seal program web site:


> Through the Program, tradespersons are able to obtain a Red Seal endorsement on their provincial/territorial certificates by successfully completing an interprovincial Red Seal examination.


If they were regulating the trades, there would be no need of a provincial/territorial certificate as the Red Seal would the only qualification needed nationwide.


One article I read was pointing out that some employers who work in multiple provinces will prefer a red seal qualified person where other employers prefer their provincial qualifications as the province ones are seen as a higher standard.


Cheers

*PS*

It seems to be a way to limit the qualifying exams to two (i.e. province plus red seal) instead of one for each province/territory.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> The average consumer doesn't know whether a gas fitter has done a good job until their house explodes.


LOL!..I like that one. I can see the ad on some local Kijji....under services....Gas fitter willing to install your furnace/hwt cheap! cheap! cheap! You pay me in cash, and no bill and you save the tax.


----------



## gibor365

Eclectic12 said:


> One article I read was pointing out that some employers who work in multiple provinces will prefer a red seal qualified person where other employers prefer their provincial qualifications as the province ones are seen as a higher standard.
> 
> 
> Cheers


If we have ONLY federal qualifications , those problems won't exist


----------



## gibor365

carverman said:


> So...what is the solution?


1. Vote for whom you hare less 
2. Boycott elections (I'd like to see 15-20% paticipation, than maybe something will be changes)


----------



## gibor365

Interesting stats for our riding:
Immigration: Riding 46%, Provincial 28%, national 20%
Post-Secondary degree: Riding 38.5%, Provincial 33%, national 33%
Avg Family Income: Riding $101,117, Provincial: $90,526 National: $82,325
and this is from 2006...now immigratants are much more...

Does it mean that if higher immigrants % -> higher income and education?!


----------



## bgc_fan

Eclectic12 said:


> According to the red seal program web site:
> 
> 
> If they were regulating the trades, there would be no need of a provincial/territorial certificate as the Red Seal would the only qualification needed nationwide.
> 
> 
> One article I read was pointing out that some employers who work in multiple provinces will prefer a red seal qualified person where other employers prefer their provincial qualifications as the province ones are seen as a higher standard.
> 
> 
> Cheers


They may not regulate the trades per se, but rather a national qualification. Yes, I could see the occasion where an employer prefers the higher standard qualification where it exists.


----------



## gibor365

gibor said:


> 1. Vote for whom you hare less
> 2. Boycott elections (I'd like to see 15-20% paticipation, than maybe something will be changes)


3. In many riding there will be Communist party http://communistpartyontario.ca/


----------



## carverman

I want to see accountability in the Ontario gov't. 

Those directly responsible for wasting our money to be brought to justice, and made to pay restitution for money squandered due to political interference and pandering. 

Start with the 1.1 Billion gas plant cancellation. Bring McGuinty to justice with all those responsible for this blatant irresponsibility to the Ontario taxpayers. 

Make them repay in instalments from their salaries, and other financial assets. 

I'm tired of senators pilfering the public purse with illegal expenses and politicians not accountable for their actions. 

Believe me if it was you or me, we would be swiftly slapped with a lawsuit and brought to trial and made to repay damages and make full restitution....I am waiting still to see when that happens with the provincial gov't.


----------



## Eclectic12

gibor said:


> If we have ONLY federal qualifications , those problems won't exist


True ... but that's not the situation we are in, is it?

Then again, we could also be like the US used to be where my mom's friend dictated to her husband what states would be acceptable to move to as she had decided that the fifth exam for the fifth state was as much as she was willing to write. :biggrin:


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

gibor said:


> 1. Vote for whom you hare less


Which is what I believe most voters are doing ... which is delaying any action.




gibor said:


> 2. Boycott elections (I'd like to see 15-20% paticipation, than maybe something will be changes)


I don't see any point ... this is commonly described as laziness.

I believe spoiled ballots or choosing "none of the above" would at least would send a message.


Cheers


----------



## gibor365

Eclectic12 said:


> Which is what I believe most voters are doing ... which is delaying any action. I don't see any point ... this is commonly described as laziness.
> 
> I believe spoiled ballots or choosing "none of the above" would at least would send a message.
> 
> 
> Cheers


What actions?! "spoiled ballots or choosing "none of the above" - so what, still participation will be 45-55% and nobody cares, but if 10%-20% will go to vote -> it will be a strong message.... 
I'm against current election system at all (as I mentioned in other thread), I'm for proportional system.... However, if we're going to vote, I will vote for PC as , by no means, we don't want thiefs-liberals to rule the province....
P.S> Boycotting election and laziness -> 2 different things (even though the result is the same), do you think East Ukraine people who is boycotting upcoming Ukraine election are just lazy?!


----------



## sags

I don't see the link between eliminating trade certifications and creating jobs.

I also don't see the link between eliminating lesser paid education assistants and replacing them with another teacher.

There also seems to be a link missing between combining Ontario Works and Ontario Disability to eliminate cost.......and hiring social workers to interview each beneficiary of the programs to draw them up a life program.

Lots of links missing in Tim Hudak's platform. The deeper he goes into the program.........the more scattered it looks.

At this point, he appears to be throwing ideas against the fence and hoping something will stick with the voters.

Wynne is simply "staying the course", standing behind the details of her budget and taking the opportunities that Hudak is giving her.

Harper, Clements, and Oliver jump in to the Ontario Pension plan, and she swats them off with a well rehearsed line about Harper's own civil service pension being 6X an average pension.

She appears in Walkerton on the anniversary of the tragedy, and the media makes the connection to Mike Harris for her.

She has had it far too easy so far.


----------



## Eclectic12

gibor said:


> What actions?!
> 
> "spoiled ballots or choosing "none of the above" - so what, still participation will be 45-55% and nobody cares, but if 10%-20% will go to vote -> it will be a strong message....


Most the media reports as well as gov't officials I can recall being interviewed describe declining voter turnout as voters "not caring".
Is a 10% turnout going to change this assumption? I doubt it.

Lots of votes for "none of the above" clearly rules out "not caring" or "apathy" as the cause.




gibor said:


> P.S> Boycotting election and laziness -> 2 different things (even though the result is the same), ...


The only discussion about low turnout for Ontario elections that I can recall from the media/gov't was brainstorming ways to make voting more popular. Record lows have already been set so I am thinking the same old explanations/solutions are going to be trotted out. 




gibor said:


> ... do you think East Ukraine people who is boycotting upcoming Ukraine election are just lazy?!


The media is reporting a possibility of a boycott so I suspect there's little chance the Ukrainian gov't will think this way.


Cheers


----------



## GoldStone

*Ontario 2003-2013
*









Hudak proposed to cut 100,000 government jobs, or about one-third of the new positions added under McGuinty.

-- just the facts


----------



## Eder

I hope Ontario votes for change...it has been sad to see the decline of the province over the last years.


----------



## Toronto.gal

gibor said:


> Thus, Mike Harris PC government reduced deficit by 4.4 billion! Not too bad!
> But seriusly, *I just don't understand voters who gonna vote for party that created Ontario power plant scandal *when Gas plant cancellations cost $1.1 billion !!! Only this fact should put fat X on this party for near future


U 4got the 'S' in scandal.

I would say let's not underestimate those that neither live in Dreamland nor believe in MFC [money fairy calculations]. 

Wasting billions of tax-payers $$$$$$$$$s is not just 'water under the bridge', no matter how often the 93 year old, and longest-serving mayor Ms. McCallion wants to repeat that statement.

The Liberal gov. in less than a decade grew the public service by nearly 20%, now compare that to the population growth if you wish to defend that record, and also compare it to that of the private sector, as well as that of his predecessorS to give you the picture of just how liberal that gov. had been with our money, in good & bad times. To believe this % can remain as is, or that it will change under same gov., is way more unrealistic than any of Hudak's proposed numbers.

As Coyne put it yesterday, 'it comes down to which you think is more likely: that the Liberals will break their promises, or that the Tories will keep theirs.' Some Carlo Collodi quotes come to mind.:biggrin:


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> As Coyne put it yesterday, 'it comes down to which you think is more likely: that the Liberals will break their promises, or that the Tories will keep theirs.' Some Carlo Collodi quotes come to mind.:biggrin:


Or conversely (deal with the devils you know (Fiberals under Wind) or take a chance on the devil you don't ( Hudak and the EXTREME numbers he's pulling out of the air as a solution to the problem)

My prediction: Fiberals get back in with a minority for sure, maybe even a majority. Horwath will lose credibility for triggering the election as the NDP has no solution to the problem, EITHER.
The Ontario PCs (after the election should kick Hudak to the curb and find a new leader. They will get nowhere as along as he's their mouthpiece.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> 1. (deal with the devils you know (Fiberals under Wind)
> 2. ( Hudak and the EXTREME numbers...)
> 3. My prediction: Fiberals get back in with a minority for sure, maybe even a majority.


*1.* Except that by now, we have gotten to know the 'EXTREME' Fiberals *too well* already. What rhymes with








*2.* Even if those numbers had been more drastic, the Liberals are still the ones sounding more out of touch.
*3.* You're beginning to sound like another member here, who's already been posting multiple poll results.  

It's a bit too early to tell which way it will go.


----------



## warp

sags said:


> First day on the road........
> 
> Team Wynne takes an early lead.
> 
> Team Wynne 1 - Team Hudak 0.






Several weeks into campaign:

Wynne sounds more like an idiot every day....( and her fellow idiot Ms. McCallion joins in )

Team Hudak-----4

Team Wynne......0


----------



## gibor365

GoldStone said:


> Hudak proposed to cut 100,000 government jobs, or about one-third of the new positions added under McGuinty.
> 
> -- just the facts


and I'm fully agree with Hudak , definitely those nothing-to-do-and-get-high-pay positions should be eliminated. Too bad he (Hudak) tells those numbers: 100,000 , 1,000,000 etc, but still he's the only leader who should be Ontario PM...
btw, watch Q&A with him on OMNI, impression is not too bad....
If we go to vote -> only PC


----------



## carverman

warp said:


> Several weeks into campaign:
> 
> Wynne sounds more like an idiot every day....( and her fellow idiot Ms. McCallion joins in )
> 
> Team Hudak-----4
> 
> Team Wynne......0


Anyway you slice it, it's still a lot of baloney. Nobody has a clue anymore on how to get out of this financial quaqmire.

Fiberals want to spend their way out and increase the deficit each year.
Cons want to cut just about every public service except the water inspectors ....
NDP, want to cut the HST on electricity.. but the feds may not want to do that...maybe only allow the province to cut the 8% provincial tax...SO MORE THAN LIKELY THAT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN EITHER!


----------



## Nemo2

carverman said:


> "you rob Peter (the taxpayer and consumer)
> to pay Paul" (gov't services and industrial/supply chain).


As has often been said....."If you rob Peter to pay Paul....you can always count on Paul's vote".


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> Anyway you slice it, it's still a lot of baloney. Nobody has a clue anymore on how to get out of this financial quaqmire.
> 
> Fiberals want to spend their way out and increase the deficit each year.
> Cons want to cut just about every public service except the water inspectors ....
> NDP, want to cut the HST on electricity.. but the feds may not want to do that...maybe only allow the province to cut the 8% provincial tax...SO MORE THAN LIKELY THAT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN EITHER!


With the above said, not sure how you're predicting a possible majority for the Fibs? Never say never, but that would be so absurd if it were to happen.


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> With the above said, not sure how you're predicting a possible majority for the Fibs? Never say never, but that would be so absurd if it were to happen.


Credibility with all 3 party leaders is the key here, and past performance may have something to do with it.
I have seen too much of this in the past to believe that a fresh start for Wynne is going to prevent more waste in the next 4 years than already has happened under McGuilty,
and more than likely we will see some more, if they get back in.
Hudak doesn't really have any credibility, so he is the "wild card" right now.
NDP really screwed up Ontario under Bob Rae's leadership as a past Ontario gov't...wouldn't vote for them if they were the last party on earth...it's socialism.

So that leaves basically the other two...eeny-meany-mini-moe...close my eyes and let the ouija board do the voting.


----------



## sags

Hudak not only lacks credibility........but he also lacks a coherent message that resonates with voters.

His "doom and gloom" forecasts don't spell out the whole picture of Ontario........and the voters know it.

Debt.......so what? 

Interest rates are at the lowest on record and NOW is the time to acquire "long term" debt to build badly needed infrastructure for the future. Would Hudak prefer to borrow when interest rates are higher......or not address the infrastructure needs at all?

Ontario suffered in the recession..........after having to spend billions to repair the damage to education, healthcare and public services left by the Harris government. It took a long time and a lot of cooperation between school boards, hospitals and the government to sort out the mess......and Ontario voters certainly don't want to abandon the effort and return to the days of chaos.

Ontario has the ability to collect government revenues and has the capacity to prudently increase the revenue over time, which makes comparisons to Greece and other European countries, not very useful. Ontario currently has the ability to restructure debt for long periods of time at record low interest rates........to build for the future prosperity of the Province.

Additionally, Ontario has a comprehensive and valuable portfolio of public assets as collateral for debt, so there is little danger of a borrowing crisis for Ontario.

Ontario will do just fine without all the hacking and slashing that Hudak wants to implement. Parents of school age children don't want educational assistants removed from the classroom. Ontario citizens don't want to return to the days of long line ups and waiting periods for government services they need. Workers in Ontario want a Defined Benefit Pension Plan they too can participate in. Ontario voters don't want to eliminate green energy initiatives and replace them with nuclear plants.

The choice is clear for Ontario voters.

The future............as presented by Hudak or Wynne.

Which will they choose?


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Hudak not only lacks credibility........but he also lacks a coherent message that resonates with voters.
> 
> His "doom and gloom" forecasts don't spell out the whole picture of Ontario........and the voters know it.
> 
> Debt.......so what?
> 
> Interest rates are at the lowest on record and NOW is the time to acquire "long term" debt to build badly needed infrastructure for the future. Would Hudak prefer to borrow when interest rates are higher......or not address the infrastructure needs at all?
> 
> Ontario suffered in the recession..........after having to spend billions to repair the damage to education, healthcare and public services left by the Harris government. It took a long time and a lot of cooperation between school boards, hospitals and the government to sort out the mess......and Ontario voters certainly don't want to abandon the effort and return to the days of chaos.
> 
> Ontario has the ability to collect government revenues and has the capacity to prudently increase the revenue over time, which makes comparisons to Greece and other European countries, not very useful. Ontario currently has the ability to restructure debt for long periods of time at record low interest rates........to build for the future prosperity of the Province.
> 
> Additionally, Ontario has a comprehensive and valuable portfolio of public assets as collateral for debt, so there is little danger of a borrowing crisis for Ontario.
> 
> Ontario will do just fine without all the hacking and slashing that Hudak wants to implement. Parents of school age children don't want educational assistants removed from the classroom. Ontario citizens don't want to return to the days of long line ups and waiting periods for government services they need. Workers in Ontario want a Defined Benefit Pension Plan they too can participate in. Ontario voters don't want to eliminate green energy initiatives and replace them with nuclear plants.
> 
> The choice is clear for Ontario voters.
> 
> The future............as presented by Hudak or Wynne.
> 
> Which will they choose?



This is becoming a useless and expensive provincial election with no clear choice. Horwath should resign as leader of the NDP after triggering the election with no clear party mandate for
Ontario.

Hudak..well most of us know what he's all about..he's committed political suicide and dug himself "a grave" in remaining as leader of the Ontario PC. He should resign after losing this election AGAIN!



> Kathleen Wynne was quite correct in responding to Hudak, “That’s 100,000 people no longer able to earn a living, no longer paying taxes and buying goods. It’s 100,000 families who could lose a breadwinner … you don’t create jobs by cutting jobs.” The idea is self-evidently reckless. In offering it as his first campaign promise, Hudak has probably turned the election into a referendum on it and himself.


----------



## fraser

If Hudak does not make it this time then he is out. No question. And if he does not choose to resign, the party will unceremoniously dump him.

My guess is that there are movers and shakers within the Conservative Party of Ontario who are already casting their net to identify potential leadership hopefuls.

This is a blood sport.


----------



## Toronto.gal

sags said:


> *1.* *Debt.......so what? Interest rates are at the lowest on record *
> *2.* after having to *spend billions to repair the damage* to education, healthcare and public services left by the Harris government
> *3.* *Ontario voters* don't want......choice is clear for Ontario voters.
> *4.* *comparisons to Greece and other European countries, not very useful*.


*1.* 'So what', now that's the needed optimism! With historically low interest rates, let's stop arguing about the piddly 10B+ in current interest payments, and just pile up a few more billions to the debt; say 20% in the next few years, and just worry about any spending cuts when interest rates will rise? Why worry in 2014 about what you can worry in 2024, at which point a Liberal leader might say that 'It’s time for renewal/time to bring new blood.' That was the other optimistic message coming a mere year after the former leader's 3rd mandate. But no worries, this time the budget will be balanced by 2017/18 via 'new blood' & money fairies. 

*2.* And spend the Liberals did! From 2003 to 2013, the net debt almost doubled. Add an additional 20% to that, what would be the increased debt? Looks very rosy; no need to even have a butter-knife approach. 

*3.* You don't speak for all of us.

*4.* You really see no comparisons whatsoever?

*'The Greek example provides demonstrable consequences to Ontarians if the status quo and inaction are the policies pursued with respect to Ontario’s deficit and debt.'*
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uplo...blications/state-of-ontarios-indebtedness.pdf

You're right, there is no 'doom and gloom forecast'; it's just been a decade of profligacy, so vote for another decade of BORROWING/SPENDING/TAXING.


----------



## el oro

Over the past few years, the credit rating agencies have reduced the outlook of Ontario from stable to negative and in one case reduced the assigned credit rating. Status quo will breed more of the same over time. You don't need higher interest rates to have higher interest payments.

Also, the doom and gloom was outlined in the "Drummond report" commissioned by the Liberals, which they chose to ignore.


----------



## sags

Ontario net debt to GDP is 37.5 %.

Greece net debt to GDP is 173 %.

Ontario's economy is growing.............Greece's economy is contracting 3-4% per year.

Ontario's net debt to GDP is far below Japan (140%), the US (87%), and many other countries.

Brazil is touted as a benchmark for low debt to GDP at 34%...........just slightly lower than Ontario.

Ontario's debt is far from a crisis point, but it is a handy excuse for cutting public services to fund lower taxes for corporations, which is a core component of PC doctrine.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2013/11/08/worlds-largest-debtor-governments-2013/


----------



## fraser

Maybe so.

I think that when the voters actually get pencils in hand to mark the ballot, their desire to punish the Liberals for past failures may well be stronger than their dislike or distrust of Hudak. 

The voters may suspect that they cannot trust Hudak, but the Liberals have proven that they cannot be trusted and have failed miserably to protect the public purse. It will be difficult for Wynne to overcome this. I think that Canadians very much have a sense of fair play and justice.....this ultimately will not help Wynne's team. 

Wynne would like to put the Hydro fiasco and cover-up behind her and behind the party. Will the voters permit this??? I have no idea. We will find out on election day.


----------



## carverman

fraser said:


> Maybe so.
> 
> I think that when the voters actually get pencils in hand to mark the ballot, their desire to punish the Liberals for past failures may well be stronger than their dislike or distrust of Hudak.
> 
> The voters may suspect that they cannot trust Hudak, but the Liberals have proven that they cannot be trusted and have failed miserably to protect the public purse. It will be difficult for Wynne to overcome this. I think that Canadians very much have a sense of fair play and justice.....this ultimately will not help Wynne's team.
> 
> Wynne would like to put the Hydro fiasco and cover-up behind her and behind the party. Will the voters permit this??? I have no idea.


Hmmm..inasmuch as I think Hudak is pulling numbers out of the air for the campaign..I DO LIKE what he is proposing.. I dearly would like to see the "scumba' Liberals who squandered billions to
stand up before a judge..even though in the end, even if found guilty..probably no jail time...but then..didn't the notorius Kabel brothers of Walkerton eventually get some jail time....oh ok..
that was because 7 people died and hundreds injured because of their ineptitude. 

Ontario PC Leader Tim Hudak says he will launch a judicial inquiry into the billion-dollar gas plant scandal if he’s elected premier, and expects Kathleen Wynne and former premier Dalton McGuinty to testify.
“It is time we had a government that puts your interests first — and not the jobs of the Liberal Party,” said Hudak on Sunday, standing in front of the concrete remains of the plant in Mississauga.
Hudak vowed he would find out why billions were spent on two gas power plants in Mississauga and Oakville that were never built. 
“I expect both Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne will have to stand before a judge and testify about their actions.”


----------



## carverman

fraser said:


> Maybe so.
> 
> I think that when the voters actually get pencils in hand to mark the ballot, their desire to punish the Liberals for past failures may well be stronger than their dislike or distrust of Hudak.
> 
> The voters may suspect that they cannot trust Hudak, but the Liberals have proven that they cannot be trusted and have failed miserably to protect the public purse. It will be difficult for Wynne to overcome this. I think that Canadians very much have a sense of fair play and justice.....this ultimately will not help Wynne's team.
> 
> Wynne would like to put the Hydro fiasco and cover-up behind her and behind the party. Will the voters permit this??? I have no idea.


Hmmm..inasmuch as I think Hudak is pulling numbers out of the air for the campaign..I DO LIKE what he is proposing.. I dearly would like to see the "scumbag" Liberals, who squandered billions of
Ontarios taxdollars, and we will be paying for that for a L-O-N-G time.
to be brougjht before a judge..even though in the end, even if found guilty..probably no jail time...but then..didn't the notorius Kabel brothers of Walkerton eventually get some jail time....oh ok..
that was because 7 people died and hundreds injured because of their ineptitude. 

Ontario PC Leader Tim Hudak says he will launch a judicial inquiry into the billion-dollar gas plant scandal if he’s elected premier, and expects Kathleen Wynne and former premier Dalton McGuinty to testify.
“It is time we had a government that puts your interests first — and not the jobs of the Liberal Party,” said Hudak on Sunday, standing in front of the concrete remains of the plant in Mississauga.
Hudak vowed he would find out why billions were spent on two gas power plants in Mississauga and Oakville that were never built. 
“I expect both Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne will have to stand before a judge and testify about their actions.”


----------



## sags

Hudak already knows how the 1.1 Billion (an estimation of costs to cancel existing contracts AND to relocate and build alternative plants) is accounted for.

After all, one day before the last election.........._"October 5th 2011, asked if he'd scrap the Mississauga plant if he formed the next government, Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak replies: "That's right. Done. Done, done, done."_

Of the figure (whatever the disputed figure turns out to be) 250 million was the cost of cancelling contracts and ceasing work on partially completed plants. The balance is the estimated cost of replacing the lost energy with another plant or other sources.

The term "gas plant scandal" was coined by the opposition parties, who accused the government of cancelling the plants for political rather than environmental reasons.

There is little to dispute that the cancellations were politically motivated, as there was a groundswell of opposition to the plants in both Oakville and Mississauga, and the Liberals were facing revolt in their own party.

Hudak's new policy is to scrap green energy projects and replace them by building nuclear plants.

If people don't want gas plants or windmills near them............wait until they hear there is a nuclear plant going up in the neighborhood.

I don't think most Ontario voters are going to decide their vote in this election, based on the debate about the cancelled gas plants. 

There are bigger issues that have their interest and concern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_power_plant_scandal


----------



## andrewf

It is remarkably hypocritical of Hudak to criticize the cancelation of the gas plants when he was advocating the same policy. I think the mistake all the parties made was caving in to opposition to the plants. Gas plants are safe and necessary to provide power in the GTA, especially given opposition to expanding transmission capacity.


----------



## sags

NIMBY in full play.......and one reason that I don't think the "gas scandal" is as big a deal for many people as the media portrays it to be.

Many people could relate to the opposition by the residents of Mississauga and Oakville, and wouldn't want a gas plant built in their neighborhood either.

They also don't want windmills, solar farms, hydro towers, or nuclear plants in their "hood".

Ontario needs energy............but NIMBY is a difficult thing for politicians to deal with.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> NIMBY in full play.......and one reason that I don't think the "gas scandal" is as big a deal for many people as the media portrays it to be.
> 
> Many people could relate to the opposition by the residents of Mississauga and Oakville, and wouldn't want a gas plant built in their neighborhood either.
> 
> They also don't want windmills, solar farms, hydro towers, or nuclear plants in their "hood".
> 
> Ontario needs energy............but NIMBY is a difficult thing for politicians to deal with.





> Opposition to the Oakville plant grew. On October 1, 2010, local opponents rallied at the Ontario legislature and brought in American environmentalist Erin Brockovich
> to help generate publicity for their fight with the government. Liberal MPP for Oakville Kevin Flynn battled his own government's plan for the gas plant.
> 
> October 2010 Liberal energy minister Brad Duguid announced the cancellation of the Oakville gas plant.[9] Ceding to increasing opposition, Duguid proposed to offset
> increased power demand through improvement to transmission lines and cites higher demand projections for electricity in the area when the plant had been proposed
> four years earlier.


Ah yes! the "secret weapon" they used on citing their case of pollution from emissions...Erin Brockovich..and we do remember her from the movie by the same name,
as she championed the cause of custormers of the Pacific Gas and Power, who were polluting their drinking water in California, causing cancers etc. 

Ok so this all started because local residents around the gas plant area didn't want to breathe air that still had a large component of emissions, down wind. 
So they petitioned their MLAs , which in turned on McGuinty, who decided that it was better to appease the angry crowd and save a couple Fiberal
seats in the next election. 
So the conclusion is that we don't want garbage dumps, polluting industries, gas plants, nuclear power plants, solar farms, windmills, and any other electricity generators close by..
but just a clean inexpensive source of electrical generators and we want our electricity rates lowered ...and the dreaded HST removed.....anything else?

"Not in my backyard, you won't!"...the slogan that will end up costing us more for electricity and garbage disposal (increased muncipal taxes).


----------



## andrewf

Carver, Hudak would have canceled the gas plants, too. No one looks good.

Thanks for sharing the wiki article, sags. I never paid much attention to the gas plant 'scandal'. Interesting that the billion dollars wasted meme is pure BS and requires some very creative accounting. The actual amount wasted by canceling the plant is in the neighborhood of 250 million.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> Carver, Hudak would have canceled the gas plants, too. No one looks good.
> 
> Thanks for sharing the wiki article, sags. I never paid much attention to the gas plant 'scandal'. Interesting that the billion dollars wasted meme is pure BS and requires some very creative accounting. The actual amount wasted by canceling the plant is in the neighborhood of 250 million.


True Andrew, after some research online, I found out he was gung ho to cancel the gas plants..talk about a wolf in sheeps clothing....credibility..who can we believe now?

Hudak is planning to launch a lawsuit against Wynne for the deletion of the emails. Wynne is tactfully campaigning in areas where Hudak might have a presence in the past (like Walkerton) and re-inforcing the message that cuts in the public service may not be such a good thing..reminding the people of Walkerton about the water pollution tragedy, 
that may have been the result of the Harris gov't cutting water inspectors. 

In retrospect, if the water inspection cuts hadn't taken place, would the Walkerton water tragedy been avoided with all the drain off from huge pig farms in the area?

What Walkerton needed at the time was to *upgrade their antiquated water treatment plant,* which now has been, as Wynne toured the new facilities in her campaign tour, but that came after the the tragedy occured and the province paid out HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS to the victim's families..and some lawsuits are still pending for possibly hundreds of millions more. As they say there is usually more than one cause that results in a tragedy...antiquated facilities with a broken chlorination, and two local yokels that were put in charge of the town's water by the town council THAT WERE NOT QUALIFIED for the job. 

This was the direct effect of Harris' "Common sense Revolution"..and we all know what THAT did for ONTARIO which is now deeper in debt than it ever was.


----------



## Toronto.gal

andrewf said:


> 1. Carver, Hudak would have canceled the gas plants, too. No one looks good.
> 2. Thanks for sharing the wiki article, sags. I never paid much attention to the gas plant 'scandal'. Interesting that the billion dollars wasted meme is pure BS and requires some very creative accounting. The actual amount wasted by canceling the plant is in the neighborhood of 250 million.


*1.* No matter what was said by others, the scandal or whatever u guys wish to call it, belongs to the Liberals. 
*2.* Why rely on wiki when there is a detailed 24 pg. report? 

*Subtotal—Costs Incurred plus Estimated Future Costs* = $1.112B
*Total—(Costs Incurred plus Estimated Future Costs) minus Estimated Future Savings* = $675M

Even if the figure were the lower one [or even 1/2 of that], it's still much higher than the $40M we had been told initially. As well, there were all those 'questionable decisions', ie: 'The auditor found the premier’s office promised to compensate the developer, TransCanada Energy, for the full financial value of the contract, even though she believes the province could have gotten out of the deal at a much lower or even no cost if it simply waited.' 

http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/oakville_en.pdf


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> *Subtotal—Costs Incurred plus Estimated Future Costs* = $1.112B
> *Total—(Costs Incurred plus Estimated Future Costs) minus Estimated Future Savings* = $675M
> 
> http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/oakville_en.pdf


but there's more to this than "meets the eye".it's all smoke and mirrors right now...



> TCE expected to pay about $56 million for the site of the Oakville plant. The cost of the site for the Napanee
> plant is only $1.1 million. The difference of about $55 million is a benefit to TCE.
> 55
> However, under the contract for the Napanee plant, TCE will, if necessary, be responsible for up to
> $18.25 million in capital costs related to the site.
> (up to 18.25)
> Some needed infrastructure already built and available to TCE at Napanee site
> Under the Napanee plant contract, TCE has the right to share certain infrastructure, such as water intake
> and discharge systems for cooling, storm water discharge, and a sewage system, already in place at OPG’s
> existing Lennox Generating Station (located next to the Napanee plant site). Building this infrastructure at
> the Oakville plant would likely have cost TCE more than the $5.6 million, plus incremental costs, it will be
> paying OPG for the sharing arrangement.


Ack! Thanks T.G. Now we can be assured of rising hydro rates for many years.


----------



## Toronto.gal

andrewf said:


> Thanks for sharing the wiki article, sags. *I never paid much attention to the gas plant 'scandal'*. Interesting that *the billion dollars wasted meme is pure BS and requires some very creative accounting.* The actual amount wasted by canceling the plant is in the neighborhood of 250 million.


Why did u not pay attention, aren't you an Ontarian, or had not been a big enough waste in your opinion? If you had not even read sags' wiki link until today, :biggrin: are you really in a position to call the waste 'pure BS'. 

*carverman:* you're welcome.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> but *there's more to this than "meets the eye".*it's all smoke and mirrors right now...


Well sure, it's not exactly a small potato scandal, no matter how some wish to make it so. Remind us again why McGuilty resigned ONE year after winning his 3rd election?

So you're able to edit I C; I tried a few minutes ago under another thread, but just got a blank page.


----------



## andrewf

Toronto.gal said:


> Why did u not pay attention, aren't you an Ontarian, or had not been a big enough waste in your opinion? If you had not even read sags' wiki link until today, :biggrin: are you really in a position to call the waste 'pure BS'.
> 
> *carverman:* you're welcome.


I pay very little attention to local media, but it seems I was misled about the cost of canceling the plant--something I opposed at the time, but no party did. I was aware of the hubbub about the gas plants--saw the signs opposing it in 2009. I was aware they canceled it, and being annoyed at both the Libs and PCs for supporting the cancelation. Hudak has no grounds to complain as he would have done the same thing.

How aware are you of the billion dollars wasted on a weekend summit in Toronto and Huntsville? 

The AG report includes the eventual power plant construction cost. How can the full amount be a waste if we get a gigawatt of power production capacity out of it? The billion dollars figure was invented by the opposition more interested in scoring points in a situation where they were all guilty of pandering than any genuine concern over management of taxpayer money. Had they been genuinely concerned they would have had the courage to support the construction of necessary infrastructure in the SW GTA, especially after the contact was signed. Hudak intended to eat the same cancelation costs. He said so unequivocally during the last election.

I don't know how you can conclude anything but that they are all guilty of wasting taxpayer money to pander to NIMBYs.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> How aware are you of the billion dollars wasted on a weekend summit in Toronto and Huntsville?


That's Harper's "funny money"..along with Tony "Cementhead ...spending 50 million on gazebos in Huntsville.



> The AG report includes the eventual power plant construction cost. How can the full amount be a waste if we get a gigawatt of power production capacity out of it? The billion dollars figure was invented by the opposition more interested in scoring points in a situation where they were all guilty of pandering than any genuine concern over management of taxpayer money. Had they been genuinely concerned they would have had the courage to support the construction of necessary infrastructure in the SW GTA, especially after the contact was signed. Hudak intended to eat the same cancelation costs. He said so unequivocally during the last election.


It would have been a LOT cheaper to finish the project although generating a kwh of power from Nat Gas is very expensive compared to hydro electric, coal and nuclear.

We have enough power plants in mothballs as it is. The Napanee generating plant designed to run on bunker oil was too expensive to run
when the cost of a barrel of oil steadily went up. Sure they can convert it to gas plant for a "few million more" but the antiquated 315KV hydro lines/towers (built in the 70s) may not be enough to carry the load back to Toronto/Niagara which is the biggest user. That is going to cost hundreds of millions alone to modernize, never mind bring the old Napanee generators up to modern standards. Somebody is going to profit from this decision immensely. 

The Fiberals will continue to spend money they don't have on infrastructure distribution and that my friends is a smoke and mirrors game they are playing. Sure they will get rid of the money
losing green energy program on your hydro bill and the old debt retirement cash cow, but watch a new charge on your hydro bill coming soon called INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING to bring that power back 250km or more to the GTA and watch those costs skyrocket in the next few years.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/04/29/Northwest-Transmission-Line/


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> That's Harper's "funny money"..along with Tony "Cementhead ...spending *50 million on gazebos in Huntsville.*


Not to split hairs, but there was more to the G8 Legacy Fund Projects than gazebos.
http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/prog/g8-info-eng.html
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/english/parl_oag_201104_01_e_35220.html

*Andrew:* all governments are experts at wasting our money, but you're comparing apples to oranges here; not even the level of hypocrisy & lies involved can be compared.


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> Not to split hairs, but there was more to the G8 Legacy Fund Projects than gazebos.


Yes, you are right...it was more than just gazebos..it was also some picnic tables and a few bricks shy of a load.

Sundridge: Improving downtown and providing new facilities for the local park
Investment: $875,000

The Town installed a* new picnic shelter and new exterior for the existing band shell, and planted trees at the local park. It also revitalized its downtown with new interlocking brick sidewalks, new signage, new street signs and a new free-standing clock.* 

Sundridge...middle of nowhere...next to Algonquin park...population 985....so that's about $9000 spent for each inhabitant for a picnic shelter, a few trees and a few bricks in sidewalk.
Tony Clement..s-t-r-et-ch-ing out those tax dollars for us.


----------



## sags

In a somewhat odd turn of events.......I find the Toronto Sun website the best source for information on the election.

They go into depth on what Wynne proposes..........and then rips it apart.

They have numerous anti-Wynne and pro-Hudak articles every day..............but they do cover the details.

Columnist Christine Blizzard is on a mission against Wynne.........with an article a day dedicated to Wynne's political demise.

I don't agree with Blizzard............but give her credit for bringing the details up for consideration, and trying to create some interest in the general public.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> Yes, you are right...it was more than just gazebos..it was also some picnic tables and a few bricks shy of a load.


I didn't say it wasn't a pork barrel scandal, just that multiple projects were done with that $45,758,945M. 

32 projects to be exact as per the AG spring 2011 report posted upthread - Chapter 2 - Exhibit 2.2.

And btw, do recall I posted the above mentioned report only because I had been asked the following funny question by Andrew: *'How aware are you of the billion dollars wasted on a weekend summit in Toronto and Huntsville?'
*


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> I didn't say it wasn't a pork barrel scandal, just that multiple projects were done with that $45,758,945M.
> 
> 32 projects to be exact as per the AG spring 2011 report posted upthread- Chapter 2 -Exhibit 2.2.


Yes, all in Clement's Muskoka riding. Pork barrel politics?..you be the judge. 

Tony..I would like a gazebo, interlock bricks and a nice lamp post in my back yard please.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> Pork barrel politics?..you be the judge.


What other type is there?


----------



## HaroldCrump

So the G20 meeting was a waste of tax-payer money?
How about the Pan Am games?
Why is that not a boondoggle?

*Just the security is expected to cost $240M*

*Overall costs are expected to be over 2.5 Billion.*

It is a 14 day event.
Seems to be in line with the cost of G20, give or take a few million.

I wonder if any Occupy-style protestors will be boycotting the Pan Am games and demonstrating on the streets of Toronto.
How many cars will be vandalized and shop windows will be smashed?

And, above all, how many protestors will be brutally beaten by over-aggressive, borderline-criminal cops given a free-for-all brutality license by the provincial govt?


----------



## Beaver101

HaroldCrump said:


> So the G20 meeting was a waste of tax-payer money?
> *How about the Pan Am games?
> Why is that not a boondoggle?*
> 
> *Just the security is expected to cost $240M*
> 
> *Overall costs are expected to be over 2.5 Billion.*
> 
> It is a 14 day event.
> Seems to be in line with the cost of G20, give or take a few million.
> 
> I wonder if any Occupy-style protestors will be boycotting the Pan Am games and demonstrating on the streets of Toronto.
> How many cars will be vandalized and shop windows will be smashed?
> 
> And, above all, how many protestors will be brutally beaten by over-aggressive, borderline-criminal cops given a free-for-all brutality license by the provincial govt?


 ... this is going to be *one hell of an EXPENSIVE nightmare *for all participating cities and taxpayers :frown:


----------



## sags

With all the negative news about jobs leaving Ontario..............there is some good news lately.

The Heinz plant has been sold and will reopen, Unilever closed one plant but will expand 2 other Ontario plants, some new food processing plants are opening and expanding.

Southwestern Ontario is a hub for agriculture and the goal of becoming a food processing centre is taking shape.

It isn't all the doom and gloom that Hudak talks about.......

http://www.lfpress.com/2014/05/19/frozen-pizza-maker-officially-opens-london-operation


----------



## sags

Not everything the government is involved in will make a profit or break even, but I don't think the Pan Am Games should be one of them.

Museums, libraries, community centres, swimming pools, soccer fields, baseball diamonds.........all worthwhile expenditures by a government to build strong communities.

Sports events.........not so much.


----------



## HaroldCrump

To me, the G20 is the same conceptually as the Pan Am games - just an ego boost for the country/province.
The criticism applicable to G20 is equally applicable to the PA games.

And sags, speaking of museums, libraries, community centers, etc....you realize, right, that those are the _first _services that get cut during crunch time.
When a govt. squanders away precious tax dollars at other boondoggles, and cuts - inevitably - have to be made, those are the first to go.

Therefore, those that don't see anything wrong with all this insane public sector compensation, union pandering, useless infrastructure projects, etc. need to understand that when crunch times come (and they will come surely, sooner or later), these community services will get cut.

The McGuinty & Wynne camp can thump their chests today and claim that they will not cut public services, and that the _other bad guy_ will cut services, but rest assured, the tides will turn and the clock will swing back at some point in the next 4 - 5 years.
Then, whichever poor bugger is in charge, will bear the brunt of cutting services.

In the meantime, Wynne & Souza would have ridden off into the sunset with their Sunshine List pensions, full benefits, and a cushy private sector lobbyist job.


----------



## gibor365

Looking at increase-taxes-for-everything trend, I sometime think...why do we need this stressful jobs we work at?! To subsidize lazy people who don't want to work or hyperspenders?! maybe better just to use the system?! Retire at age 50-55, spend majority of savings on luxury travel , recreation etc ?! and when we run out of money, just start getting full "basket" : CPP, OAS, GIS, future Ontario PP and so on


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> So the G20 meeting was a waste of tax-payer money?
> How about the Pan Am games?
> Why is that not a boondoggle?
> 
> *Just the security is expected to cost $240M*
> 
> *Overall costs are expected to be over 2.5 Billion.*
> 
> It is a 14 day event.
> Seems to be in line with the cost of G20, give or take a few million.
> 
> I wonder if any Occupy-style protestors will be boycotting the Pan Am games and demonstrating on the streets of Toronto.
> How many cars will be vandalized and shop windows will be smashed?
> 
> And, above all, how many protestors will be brutally beaten by over-aggressive, borderline-criminal cops given a free-for-all brutality license by the provincial govt?


For Pan Am, they are at least building new athletics facilities. Whether you think that is appropriate is another question, but the cost is not out of line with recent Pan Am hosts. 

On the other hand, other G20 hosts before and after Toronto spent closer to $50 million in hosting the summits. For Harper, it was an excuse to create a billion dollar slush fund to lavish on conservative ridings. But no one brings it up any more, while simultaneously railing about the decision to move a power plant at great expense, due to local opposition.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Southwestern Ontario is a hub for agriculture and the goal of becoming a food processing centre is taking shape.
> It isn't all the doom and gloom that Hudak talks about.......


There is some merit to Tim Hudak's following statement:

*Skilled immigrants no longer choose Ontario, Tim Hudak says*

In the latest survey published by the Money Sense magazine, destinations in BC, Manitoba & Saskatchewan receive more new skilled immigrants than Ontario.
Among Ontario, Ottawa receives more than any city in Southwestern Ontario, primarily driven by a plethora of govt. jobs (their words, not mine).

All doom & gloom, probably not (yet) - but Ontario has some very serious challenges that require changes, not status quo solutions of tax & spend.


----------



## fraser

This is not at all surprising.

Immigrants tend to go where there are jobs and opportunity. Ontario' s manufacturing sector is shrinking, GDP growth is lower than I think all but three other provinces.

None of the political parties are providing any concrete platform about exactly how they are going to promote growth and transition the Ontario economy. So far it is just a bunch of idle promises and an over abundance of hot air and flatulence. I think they all want to get elected and then figure it out later.


----------



## sags

The article is a little confusing.

Hudak says "skilled" immigrants are going to other Provinces......and then says he wants to ensure immigrants have skills recognized by Ontario employers.

Are the immigrants skilled or aren't they?

I suspect a lot of the immigrants are service sector workers heading for the McJobs.

I don't know where Hudak is getting his information. 

Maybe he confused the temporary foreign worker program with real immigration.

Here is the top 10 list of places for immigrants to live, according to Immigration Consulting in 2013.

"_Which City is the Best Place to Live for New Immigrants?

Burlington, Ontario (40 minutes South/West of Toronto) is the best place to live for new immigrants according to MoneySense. MoneySense used the following key factors to determine their findings: Income, Employment, Housing price, Weather, Crime rates and Access to medical treatment.

Top 10 Places to Live for New Immigrants!

1. Burlington, Ontario
2. Vaughan, Ontario
3. Calgary, Alberta
4. Richmond Hill, Ontario
5. Toronto, Ontario
6. Oakville, Ontario
7. West Vancouver, British Columbia
8. Saanich, British Columbia
9. Markham, Ontario
10. Vancouver, British Columbia_"


----------



## fraser

These may be the top 10 places to live for new immigrants but it does not say if that is where they actually go. Just like the top ten places to retire, etc. It is probably simply a weighted mix of things that are appealing to new immigrants. 

New immigrants don't care too much about weather, crime rates, access to medical when they first come. I would think that finding a job is first and foremost in their minds...the other considerations come later.


----------



## gibor365

fraser said:


> New immigrants don't care too much about weather, crime rates, access to medical when they first come. I would think that finding a job is first and foremost in their minds...the other considerations come later.


Not really, It depends from where immigrants are coming and what are their skills...


----------



## carverman

fraser said:


> This is not at all surprising.
> 
> Im I think they all want to get elected and then figure it out later.


+1 ^


----------



## sags

Politics...........the most believable storyteller wins.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Top 10 Places to Live for New Immigrants!
> 
> 1. Burlington, Ontario
> 2. Vaughan, Ontario
> 3. Calgary, Alberta
> 4. Richmond Hill, Ontario
> 5. Toronto, Ontario
> 6. Oakville, Ontario
> 7. West Vancouver, British Columbia
> 8. Saanich, British Columbia
> 9. Markham, Ontario
> 10. Vancouver, British Columbia[/I]"


Where did you get that list from?
That is most certainly not the Money Sense March 2014 list.
I am looking at the copy right now.

Burlington is indeed #1, however, all the other cities are different than your list.
Ottawa is #2, but not on your list.
2 cities from Manitoba - Winnipeg & Brandon are on the list.

Burlington is the _only _Southwestern Ontario city on the list.

http://www.moneysense.ca/property/canadas-best-places-to-live-2014-top-10-places-for-new-immigrants


----------



## HaroldCrump

fraser said:


> None of the political parties are providing any concrete platform about exactly how they are going to promote growth and transition the Ontario economy.


I think that is where the difference of opinion among political parties (and voters) lies - whether you believe it is the government's job to create jobs, or whether you believe the govt. needs to create an environment conducive to business and then stay out of the way.

The Liberal party way is the heavy-handed, paternalistic way of economic management i.e. _I am from the government and I am here to help_.

They want to use direct, targeted grants & subsidies, cherry pick sectors and companies, cherry pick groups to benefit, and of course - failing all else - dig right in and create hundreds of thousands of administrative jobs directly (which is what has been happening in last 5 - 7 years).

What the PCs are proposing is the opposite i.e. cut govt. spending by freezing public sector wages, reducing administrative positions through managed and unmanaged attrition, de-regulation, asset sales, etc. and use the revenue thus freed up to provide both corporate and personal tax cuts.

I think those are the two diametrically opposite choices.

The NDP is basically a rounding error at this point.


----------



## sags

Since the article was written in 2013..........I assume the list is from Money Sense in 2013.


----------



## andrewf

I'm not sure that's right. PC's will just give government aid to sectors/companies that are politically relevant to them, including farmers, tourism and resource extraction.


----------



## gibor365

_2 cities from Manitoba - Winnipeg & Brandon are on the list.
_ I don't think this is because immigrants want to go there.... simply, Manitoba has special immigrants programs, I know many Russian - Israeli guys who cannot get qualified by Federal immigration program (or don't want to wait years for interview) and immigrate to Winnipeg per MB immigration program...but after many of them trying to escape to Ontario


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Politics...........the most believable storyteller wins.


We are just little children and want to believe that there is still a Santa Clause.
Tell us a story..Wynne..about how you plan to save (or spend) Ontario and spend most of tax money in the GTA.
Timmy...We love to watch your smoozin on TV with your baby on your shoulders..that gives us a warm feeling that you will be a father figure to us as the..... firing begins..
Andres...where is Andrea anyway?

Ok, today the potential fury of the "hounds from hell'..the attack ads are released...


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Since the article was written in 2013..........I assume the list is from Money Sense in 2013.


So, in 1 year, 5 S/W Ontario cities dropped off the "most favored destination" list for new skilled immigrants.
IMO, that corroborates Hudak's point.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> So, in 1 year, 5 S/W Ontario cities dropped off the "most favored destination" list for new skilled immigrants.
> IMO, that corroborates Hudak's point.


Well first of all you need definitions of skilled immigrants..most now are from the ME. Second of all Hudak needs to wake up and smell the coffee...
practically everything now is MADE IN CHINA.

I bought a 'yARDWORKS" brand wheel barrow and garden rake this week at CTC..guess where these were made>.....

Sorry Timmy, but you are delusional if you think you can fire 900,000 and then create 1,000,000 new jobs over the next 8 years. IF by some chance a million new jobs will somehow
get create, it won't be in Ontario.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> So, in 1 year, 5 S/W Ontario cities dropped off the "most favored destination" list for new skilled immigrants.
> IMO, that corroborates Hudak's point.


I think you may be putting too much stock in a magazine top ten list.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> I think you may be putting too much stock in a magazine top ten list.


Well, I was responding to sags' claim that S/W Ontario is _a hub for agriculture and the goal of becoming a food processing centre is taking shape_.
I think that is a wildly optimistic prognostication, based on one Heinz plant employing barely 100 workers.

It is Manitoba & Saskatchewan that can be called a hub of agriculture, not Ontario.
ON may have been a hub of manufacturing, but those days are long gone with the wind.

Wynne & Horwarth are delusional if they think they can re-instate Ontario as the hub of manufacturing of North America, just based on a few million $$ grants to auto companies, and pandering to the CAW/USW.


----------



## Oldroe

And Hudak is explaining 100,000 jobs lost will create work. It's hilarious watching him stammer and weasel. The guy make my hair stand up.


----------



## HaroldCrump

The govt. should create 100,000 new jobs every year.
Soon we will have full employment.
Everyone will have Sunshine List salaries.
Everyone will have full defined benefit pensions under the new ORPP.

It is wonderful to live in a welfare state.


----------



## sags

Southwestern Ontario has always been a hub for agriculture and food processing.

Over the years some have come and gone.........but many still remain and more are coming.

And why not...........southwestern Ontario is the heart of mixed farming.........everything from fruit to vegetables to meat processing.

McCormicks, Heinz, Coke, Kelloggs, Dr. Oetker, McCains, Clubhouse Foods, Cuddy Foods, meat packers, dairy processors, bakeries, grain mills, poultry farming, egg farming, fruit orchards........not to mention a Lake Erie fishery............fresh perch dinners.........Yummy.

I have been to Saskatchewan many times, as my wife is from a farming family there.

You will find mostly grain and beef farming there.

Manitoba........I don't know enough to comment.

Ontario feeds much of Canada, and it is a hungry world.

If anything..........the Ontario government should be spending on developing the food industry and export options.

Spending for the future...........isn't even on Hudak's radar. 

His plan is to cut, cut and cut from the people...........and give, give, give to the corporations.


----------



## sags

Hudak is the "Debbie Downer" in this election campaign.

Ontario is a huge and wealthy Province, with great diversification and home to most Canadians.

There is lots to be happy about in Ontario.

Owing some debt.............which isn't even approaching a crisis level..........isn't the big deal Hudak claims it is.

Natural GDP growth and government public service attrition will solve a lot of the problem.


----------



## sags

Good Lord.........Hudak now wants to scour the universities to find immigrant students to fill jobs.

First we educate them........then we give them our jobs.

Great plan Tim.............and who is in attendance but none other than John Baird.........one of the architects of the very unpopular Temporary Work Program. 

What is it about Ontario/Canadian workers and students that the PCs don't like?

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/20/hudak-wants-to-help-talented-immigrants-in-ontario


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Wynne & Horwarth are delusional if they think they can re-instate Ontario as the hub of manufacturing of North America, just based on a few million $$ grants to auto companies, and pandering to the CAW/USW.


Exactly! GM is spending a lot of money on the recent recalls..something that they should have done 10 years ago, when it would have cost them a lot less. You can't rely on the auto makers
to continue manufacturing if its not economical for them in Canada. The Asian cars have take a huge chunk out of GMs market in recent years. If GM decides to pull up stakes and retreat
to the US, they will. They may do it in stages (streamlining /consolidation of operations) but it can still happen. Remember the Camaro plant in St. Therese? QC...they shut it down when
they decided not to produce Camaros there (mainly because it was no longer economically vialble (unions etc) to produce it there. 

Now fast forward a few years later...it's back but made in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Camaro_(fifth_generation)
The Brampton auto plant was mothballed by Chrysler for a few years..



> On 1 May 2009, both the Brampton Assembly and Windsor Assembly plants were shut down as a result of Chrysler's bankruptcy protection filing on 30 April 2009, in the United States, affecting about 2,700 employees at the Brampton Assembly and 4,400 at the Windsor Assembly. A Chrysler parts plant in Etobicoke, Toronto operated until 10 May 2009, when it was closed down for 30 to 60 days, affecting 300 employees, while it went through restructuring under court-ordered creditor protection.[18]
> 
> After the reorganization, Chrysler announced the launch of new models of the 300 and Charger to be produced in the Brampton assembly plant, beginning in 2010.[19] The factory began production of the redesigned 2011 Chrysler 300 in January 2011. At this time, total employment was 2,871 (2,733 hourly; 138 salaried) working two shifts.[20]
> 
> In 2012, employees at the Chrysler factories in Windsor and Brampton, *Ontario ratified the CAW’s labor agreement by an overwhelming majority, without any information from the automaker about plans for new products or investment at either plant.*[21] As of December 2012, the Brampton Assembly Plant is the single largest employer in Canada's 11th largest city.[22]


"Wind" and " Hotair" are delusional that the big manufacturing (or what is left in Ontario) is going to stay, just because they want to pour more taxpayers money into "creating jobs"


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> Well, I was responding to sags' claim that S/W Ontario is _a hub for agriculture and the goal of becoming a food processing centre is taking shape_.
> I think that is a wildly optimistic prognostication, based on one Heinz plant employing barely 100 workers.
> 
> It is Manitoba & Saskatchewan that can be called a hub of agriculture, not Ontario.
> ON may have been a hub of manufacturing, but those days are long gone with the wind.
> 
> Wynne & Horwarth are delusional if they think they can re-instate Ontario as the hub of manufacturing of North America, just based on a few million $$ grants to auto companies, and pandering to the CAW/USW.


Southern Ontario is _already_ a hub for food processing. It is a major industry here. It is driven by the population density of Ontario and proximity to the majority of the Canadian population, and it's not going to be significantly affected by the outcome of this election. Processed food tends to be made close to market to reduce transportation costs. 

http://www.aofp.ca/Default.asp?id=about-the-industry&l=1



> The Ontario food and beverage processing sector is a critical contributor to Ontario’s provincial economy:
> 
> -	The sector generates $39 billion in economic activity, provides over
> 125,000 direct jobs and exports close to $7 billion in product annually.
> 
> -	In 2010, food and beverage processors comprised the second largest
> manufacturing sector in terms of value of shipments and employment
> in Ontario.
> 
> -	Ontario is the 3rd largest food cluster in North America.
> 
> -	Food and beverage processing is the first customer to farmers, with
> Ontario-based food processors buying about 65% of food-related farm
> production from farmers.
> 
> -	Total revenue and value of shipments grew 8% from 2005 to 2010,
> even with the occurrence of the 2009 recession. Other major Ontario
> manufacturing sectors, such as electrical equipment, appliance and
> component manufacturing and motor vehicle manufacturing, saw
> significant revenue decreases during that same five year period.
> 
> -	Food and beverage processing businesses and their impacts are distributed
> throughout the different regions of Ontario.
> 
> -	There are close to 3,000 food and beverage processing businesses in the
> province, of which many are located in rural communities.
> 
> -	The food and beverage processing sector is developing, new, high quality
> products that improve the health and wellbeing of people.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> Southern Ontario is _already_ a hub for food processing. It is a major industry here. It is driven by the population density of Ontario and proximity to the majority of the Canadian population, and it's not going to be significantly affected by the outcome of this election. Processed food tends to be made close to market to reduce transportation costs.


Hmm..Heinz is pulling out, so is Kelloggs, from what I heard...and may shift production to..the US or maybe even China. 
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blo...ggs-plant-closure-in-london-ont-mike-moffatt/


----------



## sags

Carverman.........interesting statistic on GM I heard on BNN the other day.

GM has recalled 50% more cars (15 million) than it manufactured last year (10 million).

That isn't good..........but a lot of the recalls go back to the days when the "bean counters" ran GM.

Quality and engineering took a back seat to financial wizardry...........

GM's plan was to "cut to prosperity"...........not unlike the current PC message........and we now know how it worked out for GM.

They will sort through it.........as they have replaced "bean counters" with "car people and engineers", but it will take time to repair the damage.

In a side note.........driving down Highway 401...........the CAMI plant in Ingersoll has a whole lot of new Equinox and Terrains sitting in fields.

I expect some good bargains coming on those models soon. I am looking to buy a new GMC Terrain.

Gotta support the hard working local folks.


----------



## sags

carverman said:


> Hmm..Heinz is pulling out, so is Kelloggs, from what I heard...and may shift production to..the US or maybe even China.
> http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blo...ggs-plant-closure-in-london-ont-mike-moffatt/


From what I have read.........the Heinz plant may be sold to another food processor. Dr. Oetker pizza, a German company just finished a new plant in London and will be using local produce.......so some of the Leamington area tomatoes may be used there. The company says they will use local produce in their products.

Kelloggs........I haven't heard of anything going there yet. The plant is very old though. It was there when I was a kid..........50 years ago. A bunch of us used to tour it every day in the summer.......for a free Snack Pack and then walk across the road to the Coke bottling plant for a free cold one. It got so they were expecting us.


----------



## Eclectic12

carverman said:


> Hmm..Heinz is pulling out, so is Kelloggs, from what I heard...and may shift production to..the US or maybe even China...


It shows a sign of concern .... but I don't see how it changes that the growth, even during 2009.

Then too, according to my brother-in-law, the reason so many greenhouses are going up is that the payback is just under three years.


Could we be doing better? 
Absolutely ...

Is it dying like other manufacturing?
.... Not.


Cheers


----------



## andrewf

carverman said:


> Hmm..Heinz is pulling out, so is Kelloggs, from what I heard...and may shift production to..the US or maybe even China.
> http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blo...ggs-plant-closure-in-london-ont-mike-moffatt/


That's what you call an anecdote. Old inefficient plants are routinely closed. You never read the newspaper stores about new plants being built or expanded. Colonial Cookies in Kitchener just expanded production and employment. Did you read about that in the paper?


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> 1. We are just little children and want to believe that there is still a Santa Clause.
> 2. Timmy...We love to watch your smoozin on TV with your baby on your shoulders.......


*1.* And in $$$$$$$$$ fairies. 

I just don't get why some think that the 10% reduction is so much worse than McGuinty's increase of nearly double that amount.

Ontario's debt is near $300B from the $138.8B McGuinty inherited in 2003. Who sounds more irrational when saying that the budget will be balanced by 2017 without any cuts? Why make tough decisions now when they will be inevitable in the future [for others] anyway? 

And since when politicians don't lie & exaggerate? So Wynne would have no way of balancing the budget with her promised policies, and Hudak would not cut/create jobs exactly as he's proposing.

*2.* And Wynne prefers explaining a lot while on the run, with just candidates and supporters.

“Premier Wynne has been a runner her entire life and it shows in the principled approach she brings to leadership. *This ad showcases her fierce determination and unwavering pursuit of her goals,*” said Liberal campaign co-chair Tim Murphy. *That 30 second video tells all that much?* :biggrin:

http://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...preelection_ad_showcasing_kathleen_wynne.html

And on Monday, yet another announcement on the run, that of turning Ontario Place into a year-round music venue. But wait, why was the place closed in the 1st place?

I must admit that her jogging/walking skills are better than mine.


----------



## Toronto.gal

Oldroe said:


> The guy make my hair stand up.


And the ladies make u smile? each:


----------



## Toronto.gal

Again the edit function does not work. 

I'm breathless. 

http://globalnews.ca/video/1316602/global-reporter-interviews-premier-wynne-during-morning-jog/


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> *1.* And in $$$$$$$$$ fairies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on Monday, yet another announcement on the run, that of turning Ontario Place into a year-round music venue. But wait, why was the place closed in the 1st place?


Why did they close it..it was a money losing venture right from the beginning. ..they were charging too much and there wasn't that much there for small children compared
to the City of Torionto run theme park on the island. 



> Over and above these capital and cleanliness projects, Ontario Place also made significant investments in entertainment, marketing and sponsorship for its 40th anniversary celebrations. *Free grounds admission was offered to the public for the first time in 20 years. Live e*ntertainment performances were quadrupled, to over 2,000. Advertising was reinstated, with a new ad campaign developed by Draft FCB of Toronto. And a significant sponsorship of the 40th birthday celebration by CTV generated over $1,500,000 in extra advertising value. Ontario Place was recognized in 2011 by IAAPA as a worldwide finalist for a Brass Ring Award in the category of Best Integrated Marketing Campaign.
> 
> The results of this considerable and broad-based effort generated a significant, measurable, and immediate turnaround in the attendance numbers, park revenues, and public perceptions of Ontario Place in 2011.
> 
> Total park attendance *increased 9% to 880,001 despite a below average year for concerts at the Molson Canadian Amphitheatre*...


----------



## mars

sags said:


> Southwestern Ontario has always been a hub for agriculture and food processing.
> 
> Over the years some have come and gone.........but many still remain and more are coming.
> 
> And why not...........southwestern Ontario is the heart of mixed farming.........everything from fruit to vegetables to meat processing.
> 
> McCormicks, Heinz, Coke, Kelloggs, Dr. Oetker, McCains, Clubhouse Foods, Cuddy Foods, meat packers, dairy processors, bakeries, grain mills, poultry farming, egg farming, fruit orchards........not to mention a Lake Erie fishery............fresh perch dinners.........Yummy.
> 
> I have been to Saskatchewan many times, as my wife is from a farming family there.
> 
> You will find mostly grain and beef farming there.
> 
> Manitoba........I don't know enough to comment.
> 
> Ontario feeds much of Canada, and it is a hungry world.
> 
> If anything..........the Ontario government should be spending on developing the food industry and export options.
> 
> Spending for the future...........isn't even on Hudak's radar.
> 
> His plan is to cut, cut and cut from the people...........and give, give, give to the corporations.



Sags, you do know that Coke has downsized significantly over the last few years. They have closed 2 of their production facilities in the province and created one large plant that is automated and requires fewer people than required to run the other locations. Also, as for McCains, their major operations are in New Brunswick (head office included) and PEI where they get most of the potatoes for their french fries. Another place that has been downsizing is the dairy industry as Natrel (Sealtest) closed at least two facilities, one in London and the other in Brantford. You may wonder how I know, well I happened to work for both Coke and Natrel so know the companies very well. You also commented about the western agricultural business. Well the west is also the second largest pulse producer and the largest exporter of pulses in the world. Manitoba is the largest grower of hogs in Canada and everyone knows of Alberta beef. BC has the Okanagan region which more than surpasses southern Ontario for fruits and vegetables, grapes and wine production. Not to mention the corn, wheat, and other grains produced throughout the western provinces. Oh, and Manitoba also have the largest distillery in North America where the majority of the liquid for products such as Crown Royal is produced.

Although I do agree that Ontario has a good agricultural business, it isn't in the same league as western Canadian agriculture. If you want to go east, Nova Scotia apples and blueberries and huge. Fiddle heads from New Brunswick, potatoes from PEI. Not to mention the growth of fish farming which has taken root on the east coast.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> Why did they close it..*it was a money losing venture*.....


Yes, I know that. My point was that I'm wondering about the revitalization plan of the Liberals. 

*Wynne said:* '..we now realize again the enormous potential of our urban waterfront and the enormous contribution it can make to our quality of life, but that's only true if we develop it responsibly. A Liberal government would also join with the private sector to build some kind of attraction that is of historical and cultural significance on the site. Can't tell you what that will be, but that is very much a part of the vision.' 

What Wynne promises for sure, is that there will be no condos/residential development, even when a previous panel had only suggested using 10% to 15% of the land for such use.

*'Wynne’s Ontario Place plan might similarly rely on a combination of borrowing and pixie dust if she continues to ignore fiscal realities in favour of political positioning.'*
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...e-ignores-the-advice-of-another-expert-panel/

What do the other 2 say? Per Wynne, they have no vision.


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> Yes, I know that. My point was that I'm wondering about the revitalization plan of the Liberals.
> 
> What do the other 2 say? Per Wynne, they have no vision.


She's going for the pie in the sky vision with Ontario Place. While it may still be an attraction for some. it has had it's day.
Kiddies like CentreVille (Centre Island) because its a picnic area as well as an amusement park. Does Toronto need another amusement park so close..and we have Wonderland up the 400?


> This ruling-out of condos should come as no surprise. The Liberals are well accustomed to making popular proclamations (and occasionally, seeing them through), damn the consequences. Cancelling two gas-fired Ontario power plants to win a couple of seats in the 2011 election was the most obvious, and most expensive example. Wynne seems to be doing the same thing here by promising a condo-free waterfront in hopes of winning the NDP-held riding of Trinity Spadina. To hell with the consequences.


Spending a 100 million is just the tip of the iceberg...sell it off and build Condos..they will collect a lot more for the space than they EVER WILL AS AN AMUSEMENT Park. 

BTW, I was involved with a 70mm IMax production for Ontario place many many years ago in the 70s, when it was first built..after seeing the movie, there wasn't a heck of a lot else to look at...maybe after 50 years, 
they have made some improvements..I don't know..but the way I see it, if the gov't is running it..it will still be a money losing venture...no matter how much money they pump into now..or in the next 10 years.


----------



## andrewf

"sell it off and build Condos"

That's a bit short-sighted. Do you not believe in having public space? Parks, etc.?


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> "sell it off and build Condos"
> 
> That's a bit short-sighted. Do you not believe in having public space? Parks, etc.?


They can keep some of it as parkland for public space..but to pump another $100 million + ?? into a money losing venture..why bother. Mostly visitors..the locals probably go once and that's
it.


----------



## Nemo2

carverman said:


> BTW, I was involved with a 70mm IMax production for Ontario place many many years ago in the 70s, when it was first built


_North of Superior_?


----------



## Beaver101

carverman said:


> They can keep some of it as parkland for public space..but to pump another $100 million + ?? *into a money losing venture..why bother*. *Mostly visitors..the locals probably go once and that's it*.


 ... +1. Can't remember when I last went to Ontario Place but definitely no more than 3 visits. It ain't no Disney World that's for sure.

The most memorable :biggrin: part was the 70mm IMax dome - gave me a headache after one viewing (no disrespect though).


----------



## Toronto.gal

andrewf said:


> "sell it off and build Condos"
> 
> That's a bit *short-sighted.* Do you not believe in having public space? Parks, etc.?


What is short-sighted? Seems you missed the initial '2012 vision' mentioned in the link I posted upthread.

*Ontario Place should use a portion of its 155 land-water lot property (10 to 15 per cent) for residential development.... *
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/ontarioplace/recommendations.shtml

*carverman:* I was thinking same, that Centreville Amusement Park is pretty big & popular, and not only with kids. And then, there will be the legacy of the 2015 Games also. :biggrin:

Regarding the 70mm IMax, you're part of Toronto's heritage! each:


----------



## carverman

Nemo2 said:


> _North of Superior_?


Yes. I was working at Eastern Sound Studios in Yorkvile at the time, and we did the audio soundtrack for North of Superior. I had a chance to see it on the big screen down there
as part of the production crew when we set up the huge sound system for the screen . 300watt Crown Amps and studio sound speakers. We had some issues with the acoustic
tuning, but after some technical inovations we got the sound balanced and working properly. It was very impressive in 70MM.


----------



## Nemo2

carverman said:


> It was very impressive in 70MM.


It sure was! Still remember the (float) plane coming at you across the lake...it was great.


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal;250145
Regarding the 70mm IMax said:


> I suppose. Never thought of it like that. I was just doing my job for what I was being paid for..technical expertise. BTW, I don`t know if you remember Jim Henson and the first Muppet Movie..the one with the song `Rainbow Connection`written by Paul Williams for the first Muppet TV Special. The video production for it was done at VCR Productions next door.
> Lighthouse, Anne Murray, Perth County Conspiracy, Murray McLaughlin, John Allen Cameron and countless more Canadian recording artists cut their albums there.
> 
> Salim Sachedina was in charge of the funds, and Murray Gold was my manager.... I really miss those days! I`m still living in the 70s I suppose.
> 
> http://salimsachedina.com/?p=167


----------



## andrewf

Sell it off to me means sell the entire thing. I for one think Toronto should preserve some waterfront land as public space.


----------



## sags

I don't know why Ontario didn't partner with Toronto and a Las Vegas casino (Wynne?) and build a casino at Ontario Place.

Maybe not enough acres?

If Ontario donated the land, they could have negotiated for public space developed by the casino........maybe world class indoor botanical gardens, waterfalls, leisure and picnic areas, an outdoor bandshell, indoor theater..........lots of possibilities.........a hotel........maybe everything flowing and connected to the casino.

Profits from the casino revenue could be retained towards maintenance and improvement of the complex.

If you look at what some of the Las Vegas hotel concepts are......the sky is the limit, and it could have been a world class destination for the millions of Canadians and Americans within a few hours drive.

Maybe there is a good reason they aren't interested. If I recall correctly, Rob Ford wanted the casino built there.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> I don't know why Ontario didn't partner with Toronto and a Las Vegas casino (Wynne?) and build a casino at Ontario Place.
> 
> Maybe not enough acres?
> 
> If Ontario donated the land, they could have negotiated for public space developed by the casino........maybe world class indoor botanical gardens, waterfalls, leisure and picnic areas, an outdoor bandshell, indoor theater..........lots of possibilities.........a hotel........maybe everything flowing and connected to the casino.
> 
> Profits from the casino revenue could be retained towards maintenance and improvement of the complex.
> 
> If you look at what some of the Las Vegas hotel concepts are......the sky is the limit, and it could have been a world class destination for the millions of Canadians and Americans within a few hours drive.
> 
> Maybe there is a good reason they aren't interested. If I recall correctly, Rob Ford wanted the casino built there.


Small minded "tinkin" comrade. Some of the wealthest people live in the downtown core and that would be a perfect place to build casino, maybe get rid of the Imax dome (or incorporate it
into the casino...naw..it's ahd it's day and for a 800 seat theatre won't bring in the revenue that casino will.. 

Wynne first of all:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...es-the-odds-on-toronto-casino/article9984705/

and Rob Ford..


> At a hastily called news conference, Ford accused Premier Kathleen Wynne of “playing games” by not committing to a hosting fee of at least $100 million for Toronto.
> “If the province won’t agree (to) that $100 million, then folks, the deal is dead. We are not going to carry on the casino debate,” the mayor said, adding he plans to shelve the city manager’s casino report at the next council meeting, in June.
> The Star confirmed a short time later that the formula guarantees Toronto $53.7 million a year for hosting a downtown casino.



Here's the main problem..Wynne and Ford hate each other and will NEVER work together as long a one..or the other..is in public office.

So Wynne's hair brain scheme would to be pump in another 100 million of TAXPAYERS MONEY..to refurbish an old dinasaur (like herself) into some kine of theme park that might attract a few
visitors per year....


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> I don't know why Ontario didn't partner with Toronto and a Las Vegas casino (Wynne?) and build a casino at Ontario Place.
> 
> Maybe not enough acres?
> 
> If Ontario donated the land, they could have negotiated for public space developed by the casino........maybe world class indoor botanical gardens, waterfalls, leisure and picnic areas, an outdoor bandshell, indoor theater..........lots of possibilities.........a hotel........maybe everything flowing and connected to the casino.
> 
> Profits from the casino revenue could be retained towards maintenance and improvement of the complex.
> 
> If you look at what some of the Las Vegas hotel concepts are......the sky is the limit, and it could have been a world class destination for the millions of Canadians and Americans within a few hours drive.
> 
> Maybe there is a good reason they aren't interested. If I recall correctly, Rob Ford wanted the casino built there.


Small minded "tinkin" comrade. Some of the wealthest people live in the downtown core and that would be a perfect place to build casino, maybe get rid of the Imax dome (or incorporate it
into the casino...naw..it's HAD it's day, and for a 800 seat IMax theatre won't bring in the revenue that casino will for Toronto and the province. 

Wynne first of all:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...es-the-odds-on-toronto-casino/article9984705/

and Rob Ford..


> At a hastily called news conference, Ford accused Premier Kathleen Wynne of “playing games” by not committing to a hosting fee of at least $100 million for Toronto.
> “If the province won’t agree (to) that $100 million, then folks, the deal is dead. We are not going to carry on the casino debate,” the mayor said, adding he plans to shelve the city manager’s casino report at the next council meeting, in June.
> The Star confirmed a short time later that the formula guarantees Toronto $53.7 million a year for hosting a downtown casino.



Here's the main problem..Wynne and Ford hate each other and will NEVER work together as long a one..or the other..is in public office.

So Wynne's hair brain scheme would to be pump in another 100 million of TAXPAYERS MONEY..to refurbish an old dinasaur (like herself) into some kine of theme park that might attract a few
visitors per year....


----------



## Toronto.gal

sags said:


> ...it could have been a world class destination for the millions of Canadians and Americans within a few hours drive. Maybe there is a good reason they aren't interested. If I recall correctly, Rob Ford wanted the casino built there.


Ford had wanted the casino at Exhibition Place predicting that it could bring the most revenue than in other locations; $100M in annual revenue it was suggested.

But you have the holistics & romanticizers if you will [u can pick ur own adjectives], who believe a revitalized Ontario Place could be turned into yet another wonderful park for millions to play and take breaths of fresh air, but that casinos = a health hazard, says some, including a medical officer. 

*'Internet gambling, although widely available, turns out to be one of the least common forms of gambling, at least the type that lead to problem gambling..'*' Really?!
http://tvo.org/video/186005/david-mckeown-gambling-health-hazard
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...plans-for-a-casino-in-toronto/article9366586/

*Hudak's line was:* '...we can start treating people like adults & let them make their own decisions.'


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> I don't know why Ontario didn't partner with Toronto and a Las Vegas casino (Wynne?) and build a casino at Ontario Place.
> Maybe not enough acres?


Any proceeds from the sale or re-vitalization of Ontario Place is but a drop in the bucket of Ontario's finances, given the rate at which the current administration is spending money.
I find it ironic that you object to privatization of other aspects of the govt., but are okay with selling Ontario Place to private developers for building casinos, other entertainment, etc.

Focusing on non issues like what to do with Ontario Place - and creating a mini-controversy over it - suits the liberals just fine.
It detracts attention from their multi-million $ scams and profligacy in other aspects of administration.

Perhaps Ms. Wynne can take that tractor she was driving so expertly and raze Ontario Place to the ground :biggrin:


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> Ford had wanted the casino at Exhibition Place predicting that it could bring the most revenue than in other locations; $100M in annual revenue it was suggested.


It could even bring in more thatn $100 million a year..but it has to be built the way to attract gamblers. Much better use of the space than some old crumbling infrastructure amusement park wannabee.
However there is a much opposition to a casino downtown as there is a desire to have one. Wynne as premier, also has to face the wrath from other mayors (Niagara etc) that want a casino there.
Isn't there one in Niagara already?
Ottawa wanted one, but the stuff shirts here decided against it and gamblers flock across the river to Gatineau and spend their money in Quebec.



> But you have the holistics & romanticizers if you will [u can pick ur own adjectives], who believe a revitalized Ontario Place could be turned into yet another wonderful park for millions to play and take breaths of fresh air, but that casinos = a health hazard, says some, including a medical officer.


Laff! Yes,,we can just see those millions flocking to Ontario Place in a winter such as we have had. A Casino where everything is indoors (Vegas Style..Baby!) is what Toronto needs. 
That will bring in the money the province and Toronto desparately needs right now..who cares about the habitual gamblers..even if you don`t build a casino there..they will flock to other casinos (like Thousand Islands Charity Casino) and spend their money there..and there are lots more outside the GTA. 



> *'Internet gambling, although widely available, turns out to be one of the least common forms of gambling, at least the type that lead to problem gambling..'*' Really?!
> *Hudak's line was:* '...we can start treating people like adults & let them make their own decisions.'


First thing that Hudak has said that actually makes sense.


----------



## bgc_fan

Well, Ottawa's situation was a little different. It wasn't so much a question of having a casino, it's more a question of where. Melnyk wanted to build one in Kanata near the Scotiabank Centre, but the council decided on supporting the Rideau Racetrack and having that being upgraded. So, we end up spending tax payer's money supporting a gambling site that actually loses money.


----------



## carverman

bgc_fan said:


> Well, Ottawa's situation was a little different. It wasn't so much a question of having a casino, it's more a question of where. Melnyk wanted to build one in Kanata near the Scotiabank Centre, but the council decided on supporting the Rideau Racetrack and having that being upgraded. So, we end up spending tax payer's money supporting a gambling site that actually loses money.


Ottawa Council should someday wake up and smell the coffee. Gambling at the racetrack..that W-A-Y out of town, and no hotels nearby with the race track barely surviving was not their best idea. 
The gamblers prefer to flock to Gatineau..WhY?
Entertainment, food and the atmosphere...if you are going to drop a lot of money at the tables or slots, you want to enjoy it.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> 1. Here's the main problem..*Wynne and Ford hate each other *
> 2. So Wynne's hair brain scheme would to be *pump in another 100 million of TAXPAYERS MONEY*..
> 3. to refurbish an *old dinasaur* (like herself) into some kine of theme park that might attract a few visitors per year....


*1.* Which I can understand, except I found that Wynne should have put the animosity aside during the ice storm, but she didn't.

*2.* They sure are experts at burning our $$$$$$s.

Back in 2012, it was NO to casinos and *YES* to some residential development. 2014 = NO to both. What changed? An election, of course. Ms. Blizzard [thanks sags] got it right when she said that Ms. Wynne is running against herself.

Similar to the gas plants, Ontario Place was closed in 2012, but only after 1st spending $$$$$$s in renovations the year prior, and just like those plants, that money went poof.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/13/shuttering-ontario-place-shows-liberals-have-no-plan-opposition

*3.* Only 61.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> 1. Isn't there one in Niagara already?
> 2. even if you don`t build a casino there..they will flock to other casinos


*1.* That would be Fallsview, and about 10km from there, there is also Casino Rama. 
*2.* I agree, especially when they are not far.


----------



## carverman

Thanks T.G..here it is...more Liberal stupidity...spend 1.8 million and then shut it down. And this is the candidate that wants to be premier again to spend us deeper into the hole.
Pprojecting that her spending habits will add only 1 billion per year to the existing deficit..if she survives 4 years, that's another 4 billion added to nearly 12 billion already. 

That will skyrocket the deficit up to 16 billion..."Infinity and beyond". Who is going to pay
for this deficit? She's like someone handed a CC with no limits and out of control....who is going to pay for this deficit?




> The aging waterfront park has been struggling for years and is *effectively subsidized about $20 million a year*, Duncan said.
> 
> To stop that financial bleeding, Duncan announced Feb. 1 that much of the park — including the waterpark, rides and Cinesphere — will close indefinitely, while the Molson Amphitheatre, marina and the Atlantis restaurant continue to operate.
> 
> That means a brand new, $750,000 Two Flume waterslide built last summer may never be used. It was part of a $1.8-million package of repairs and improvements to the waterpark *which fell behind schedule due to bad weather*


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...bout-11-7b-deficit-if-economy-slows-1.2418456


----------



## HaroldCrump

_*The NDP official platform has just been released*_

As expected, it is full of rosy promises such as widening all major highways, freezing auto insurance rates, freezing tuitions, etc.
The only tax increase that is apparent is a 1% increase to corporate tax rates back to 12.5%.
This would mean the new personal tax brackets proposed by the liberal budget are not in the NDP plan, so the highest marginal tax bracket will stay at $500K.

Of course, it doesn't add up how the budget will be balanced in 2017 as they claim.
A 1% increase in corporate taxes aint gonna do it.


----------



## Beaver101

That does it ... I'm voting for "None of the Above". Has anyone found out that there is such a selection on the ballot since I don't ever recall seeing one.


----------



## bgc_fan

Beaver101 said:


> That does it ... I'm voting for "None of the Above". Has anyone found out that there is such a selection on the ballot since I don't ever recall seeing one.


No but you can always decline the ballot.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90e06_e.htm#BK138


----------



## bgc_fan

carverman said:


> Ottawa Council should someday wake up and smell the coffee. Gambling at the racetrack..that W-A-Y out of town, and no hotels nearby with the race track barely surviving was not their best idea.
> The gamblers prefer to flock to Gatineau..WhY?
> Entertainment, food and the atmosphere...if you are going to drop a lot of money at the tables or slots, you want to enjoy it.


You'd think common sense would prevail. Considering that it would most likely be private money building the casino in Kanata with all the synergy of the ice rink and surrounding businesses. OTOH, it was just a short 20 years ago, that ice rink was in the middle of nowhere. Not that I imagine the Rideau Racetrack area is getting that much development.


----------



## Beaver101

bgc_fan said:


> No but you can always decline the ballot.
> http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90e06_e.htm#BK138


 ... thanks. But how are these ballots accounted for in the election results? I don't suppose there is a category for "Declined" ballots but would be laughable if this category (if accounted for) leads in the polls ... imagine 51% votes or submits as "Declined"... each:


----------



## bgc_fan

In theory, they should be accounted for. I suspect that the percentage is really low because people don't actually do it, or people don't know about it. This kind of reminds me of "Brewster's Millions", could you imagine someone campaigning on the Declined platform just to prove a point? Considering the relatively low turn out for elections, if people aren't voting because of disinterest and not laziness, they could make up a fairly high percentage and it would be amusing and sad to see someone beat by the amount of declined votes. What it shows is that people are motivated to vote, but you're just not providing a reason to vote for you.


----------



## sags

Sell Exhibition Place for development and give a renewable 100 year lease to a world class casino developer to build a destination casino, and develop the surrounding land for public use.

Maybe move the ROM to a new home........and sell the old property as well.

From what I see..........neither Hudak or Wynne are talking about such things for Ontario.

They are too busy sniping at each other over who spreads the manure the thickest.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Auctioning off public land or leasing to private developers is a side conversation that distracts from the true issues of the election.
It will not help solve the fiscal problems of the province.

Without a clear plan to cut spending, any revenue thus received from leasing out public land will simply disappear down the black hole of amok public spending.

Public sector will be given another 4% wage increase, OPP will get another 8% next year, teachers will strike (again) for more sick leave & pay raises, province will hire another 100K administrative workers next year, and before you know it, the Ontario/Exhibition Place lease revenue will be gone with the wind.

We don't need "creating" accounting solutions - we need a commitment and a plan to control spending.
But, first, 2 of the parties have yet to even acknowledge that there is a problem to begin with.

Their denial to admit the problem is worse than Rob Ford's denials.


----------



## gibor365

From what i see, unfortunately, there is a very good chance that Libs will form minority government , So , if again PC and NDP will vote against budget.... will we have another elections ?!


----------



## HaroldCrump

gibor said:


> From what i see, unfortunately, there is a very good chance that Libs will form minority government , So , if again PC and NDP will vote against budget.... will we have another elections ?!


That would be the perfect job creation plan !
A perpetual election campaign - an election every 6 weeks.

The best side effect of that is no effective provincial budget!
Voters should unite to keep _all _political parties _*out *_of the parliament.


----------



## gibor365

HaroldCrump said:


> That would be the perfect job creation plan !
> A perpetual election campaign - an election every 6 weeks.
> 
> The best side effect of that is no effective provincial budget!
> Voters should unite to keep _all _political parties _*out *_of the parliament.


Exactly  Job creation numbers will go up  and no tax increase/ONPP as we won't have budget...


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> _*The NDP official platform has just been released*_
> 
> As expected, it is full of rosy promises such as widening all major highways, freezing auto insurance rates, freezing tuitions, etc.
> The only tax increase that is apparent is a 1% increase to corporate tax rates back to 12.5%.
> This would mean the new personal tax brackets proposed by the liberal budget are not in the NDP plan, so the highest marginal tax bracket will stay at $500K.
> 
> Of course, it doesn't add up how the budget will be balanced in 2017 as they claim.
> A 1% increase in corporate taxes aint gonna do it.


Government spending and some waste have contributed to the growth of Ontario's debt. The eHealth scandal, power plant cancellation scandal, and the Ornge scandal are often cited as examples of wasteful or ineffective government spending causing the growth in debt, though they have only increased debt by a small percentage.[11]



> Ontario government's direct subsidies to corporations average $2.7 billion per year over the past five years (in 2011).[12] It has been argued that business subsidies such as to the Ontario's automotive sector does not help create widespread economic growth or new jobs, rather it only contributes to increased spending and debt.[13]


It's is NOT going to be balanced in 2017, that is 2.5 years from now...The deficit was 16 billion now in 2014 approaching how many billlon more? 
While there may be "a snowballs chance in hell"that the NDP with Horwath will get in power, the long shot (hell freezes over), the NDP would have to raise the PST in order to balance the budget, +
hit the smokers, drinkers and car drivers. What else can they tax which could be considered "sin taxes"..


----------



## HaroldCrump

carver - promises by the Liberals and the NDP to balance the budget are the equivalent of Cato's _*Carthago delenda est*_.
You familiar with the context of that, yeah?

This is the same _yeah yeah we will balance the budget, *of course*_.

_They have no intention whatsoever of balancing the budget.
Not in 2017, not in 2018, not ever._

They do not even consider the debt/deficit to be a problem in the first place.

Hudak is making a huge strategic mistake by claiming his plan will balance the budget one year in advance.
He should, instead, be claiming that his plan is the _only_ one that has even a modicum of chance of balancing the budget at some point.


----------



## carverman

gibor said:


> From what i see, unfortunately, there is a very good chance that Libs will form minority government , So , if again PC and NDP will vote against budget.... will we have another elections ?!


I predict that the Fiberals will get in with a minority gov't. 
With Wind promising to spend money like THERE IS NO TOMORROW and not fire anybody, as Hudak is planning..the vote will shift back to the Liberals, which were trailing
the PC about a week ago in the polls, now they are neck and neck. 

NDP will always be there in the background. I don't know what will happen when Wynne gets back in, I guess they will have to argue it out, because as sure as hell, there will not be another election again..if the results are the same as with the last gov't. 
Maybe a couple of seats will get switched here and there..but lets face it...nobody believes the One million jobs election propoganda. Those that actually vote in this one will vote based on "WHATS IN IT FOR ME?"


----------



## Toronto.gal

HaroldCrump said:


> 1. As expected, it is full of rosy promises....
> 2. Of course, it doesn't add up how the budget will be balanced in 2017 as they claim.


*1.* It's those rosy promises that make 2 of our leaders run 4 office, smile, and give them that rubicund glow. each: 

*2. * Sure, they can afford to party/spend non-stop for all kinds of largesses, but no worries, they will still be able to balance the budget. Isn't that called TFE101 [tooth fairy economics]? 

Why then, make balancing a priority? That's why cutting 10% of the public sector through attrition, etc., [or more accurately rebalancing the workforce between sectors] is such a terrible idea according to Horwath & Wynne; after all, didn't the latter create 100K jobs in same sector just in the last 5 years [almost twice that since 2003], so why cut them now & trigger a recession? It doesn't make sense at all, does it? Since when have numbers made sense? 

*Ont. debt:*

*- 2003* = $139B
*- 2012* = $255B [as some believe, the huge increase had been merely as a result of the damage the prior gov. had done]. 
*- 2014* = CHECK WITH YOUR OWN EYES!

But hey, paying over $10B to service that debt is no big deal, say some. Compare that figure with the other big expenses, ie: post-secondary education, and then say, as sags has, 'debt...so what?....now is the time to borrow MORE'. 

- How many private sector jobs have been lost in same time period that public sector was going up and up?
- How many of the 362 recommendations made by the Drummond report back in 2012 [that the Liberals commissioned] were implemented? Was even a butter knife used following said report?

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/reformcommission/chapters/report.pdf

Hot off the press: [AGAIN] *'You listening Ontario'?*
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...atings-you-listening-ontario/article18790943/


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> carver - promises by the Liberals and the NDP to balance the budget are the equivalent of Cato's _*Carthago delenda est*_.
> You familiar with the context of that, yeah?
> 
> This is the same _yeah yeah we will balance the budget, *of course*_.
> 
> _They have no intention whatsoever of balancing the budget.
> Not in 2017, not in 2018, not ever._
> 
> They do not even consider the debt/deficit to be a problem in the first place.
> 
> Hudak is making a huge strategic mistake by claiming his plan will balance the budget one year in advance.
> He should, instead, be claiming that his plan is the _only_ one that has even a modicum of chance of balancing the budget at some point.


"Carthage must be destroyed in order not to pose a threat to Rome'...and so fast forward to modern times...Ontario...where the politicians squander our money recklessy,
and promise that they will make it better in 3-4-5-10 years time, and Ontario will be so much better for their efforts.

Bring us your poor, your sick, your lame from other countries and pack them into the major cities and overflow the welfare rolls and health care,create one million jobs for them to get them off welfare...lets call it workfare. Borrow money to build infrastructure and maintain the status quo...somebody out there will still make money from all the contracts..so it's
all good?..right?


----------



## gibor365

_Former Ontario premier Mike Harris is in Kyiv as co-leader of the 500 Canadians who will observe the Ukrainian presidential election. About 2,000 observers are arriving from around the world, and Canadians are the largest group._ 
What a joke!!! 25% of ALL WORLD observers are from Canada! And who is paying for this?!


----------



## carverman

From the Ontario financial commission report 2012



> Action must begin very soon. The deficit is expected to be $16 billion this year.* By 2017–18, it
> will almost double –– and the debt will climb to more than half of gross domestic product* –– if
> the status quo is left in place. Decisive, firm and early action is required to get off this slippery,
> and ultimately destructive, slope.


And there you have it in a nutshell folks..we are headed for serious trouble unless we take a different road from here on.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Toronto.gal said:


> *- 2014* = CHECK WITH YOUR OWN EYES!
> ...
> as sags has, 'debt...so what?....now is the time to borrow MORE'.


Indeed...the Liberals have crafted the perfect Ponzi scheme to keep the debt binge going on.
You see, the new pension plan (ORPP or whatever they are calling it today) will be created with a new investment management board.
In the meantime, province will issue a new set of infrastructure bonds, green bonds, me-bonds, you-bonds, etc.
These bonds will be lapped up by the pension plan, under mandated regulation to invest a certain portion in govt. bonds.

btw, a new breed of 100K govt. workers will be hired to work in that new pension board.
The vast majority of such workers will be on the Sunshine List.
But wait...those workers will *not* be invested in this ORPP, no sir, they will be invested in the gold-plated provincial pension plan.

They have worked it all out perfectly.


----------



## carverman

They seriously need a "None of the above" on the ballot. None of the present leaders have a good vision of where we need to be in 4 years time.


----------



## gibor365

_btw, a new breed of 100K govt. workers will be hired to work in that new pension board_ very smart  as more gov workers, more chances that Libs will rule for good....


----------



## Toronto.gal

Honestly, if people don't like to listen to what is being said by X,Y,Z, I wonder what they READ, just WIKI? But even that has facts. 

Anyway......................let's not lose hope YET.

And people, NOT voting is NOT the answer.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> "Carthage must be destroyed in order not to pose a threat to Rome'...


Cato used to deliver bombastic speeches in the parliament.
He was in the habit of ending all his speeches with the phrase _Carthago delenda est_
This was his way of drumming up support for his military campaigns, and keep the senate from asking uncomfortable questions such as..._how much are all these wars costing_?

So _Carthago delenda est _is the modern "and the budget must be balanced".

The liberal agenda goes like this:

- Hire 100K workers every year
_The budget must be balanced_

- 8% annual pay raises for entire public sector
_The budget must be balanced_

- $10B in new public transit funding
_The budget must be balanced_

- $60M for new teaching assistants, expanded school hours, etc.
_The budget must be balanced_

- $10M for downtown revitalization
_The budget must be balanced_

- $100M for manufacturing and auto sector grants
_The budget must be balanced_

and so on, and so forth it goes.


----------



## Toronto.gal

Maybe we should post the net-debt daily in big bold red numbers. 

Can't wait until June 3rd.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Cato used to deliver bombastic speeches in the parliament.
> He was in the habit of ending all his speeches with the phrase _Carthago delenda est_
> This was his way of drumming up support for his military campaigns, and keep the senate from asking uncomfortable questions such as..._how much are all these wars costing_?


Thanks T.G....I was not big on Roman history....more like Russian based on my mother's stories. :biggrin:



> - $10B in new public transit funding
> _The budget must be balanced_
> 
> - $60M for new teaching assistants, expanded school hours, etc.
> _The budget must be balanced_
> 
> - $10M for downtown revitalization
> _The budget must be balanced_
> 
> - $100M for manufacturing and auto sector grants
> _The budget must be balanced_
> 
> and so on, and so forth it goes.


Sounds like a good plan, so after each spending spree (as above) the budget must be balanced. I would vote for that.


----------



## Retired Peasant

Beaver101 said:


> That does it ... I'm voting for "None of the Above". Has anyone found out that there is such a selection on the ballot since I don't ever recall seeing one.





carverman said:


> They seriously need a "None of the above" on the ballot. None of the present leaders have a good vision of where we need to be in 4 years time.


People assume their only choices are the big three. There are other parties. I am usually surprised to see 5 or 6 names on the ballot when I get to the poll. You rarely hear anything about them. (Jeez, I just looked, http://www.elections.on.ca/en-CA/CandidatesAndParties/PoliticalParties/ and there are 17 registered political parties in Ontario! - including one called 'None of the above')

Anyway, do folks here even consider other parties? Green, libertarian (reading their platform, I'd think quite a few at CMF would be libertarian). Granted, not every riding has a candidate, but declining the ballot is not the only alternative.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Retired Peasant said:


> Anyway, do folks here even consider other parties? Green, libertarian (reading their platform, I'd think quite a few at CMF would be libertarian). Granted, not every riding has a candidate, but declining the ballot is not the only alternative.


Those marginal parties and candidates usually get the "protest" votes.

Anyhow, this election seems more about voting _against _someone rather than _for _someone.
A large number of voters will be voting Liberal or NDP to "stop Hudak".
Similarly, many voters will be voting PC to "oust McWynne".

The question is which group among the swing voters will weigh on the other.


----------



## gibor365

Retired Peasant said:


> Anyway, do folks here even consider other parties? Green, libertarian (reading their platform, I'd think quite a few at CMF would be libertarian). Granted, not every riding has a candidate, but declining the ballot is not the only alternative.


In our riding only 4 candidates: Libs, PC, NDP, Green.... no other candidates except Libs has any chance


----------



## Beaver101

Retired Peasant said:


> People assume their only choices are the big three. There are other parties. I am usually surprised to see 5 or 6 names on the ballot when I get to the poll. You rarely hear anything about them. (Jeez, I just looked, http://www.elections.on.ca/en-CA/CandidatesAndParties/PoliticalParties/ and there are 17 registered political parties in Ontario! - including one called 'None of the above')
> 
> Anyway, do folks here even consider other parties? Green, libertarian (reading their platform, I'd think quite a few at CMF would be libertarian). Granted, not every riding has a candidate, but declining the ballot is not the only alternative.


 ... I voted Green last time but it didn't make difference so if the "None of the Above" can weight against the big 3, then you can count me in!


----------



## gibor365

Soon we'll see a lot of "lawn signes" everywhere...
Just wondering if I can put lawn sign with test like "Do not vote Liberals" or "Boycott elections" ?!


----------



## HaroldCrump

There are already lawn signs everywhere.
Those are the committed voters.

But the election will be decided by the swing voters.
According to that voting compass website, 32 ridings are too close to call - that is huge.


----------



## bgc_fan

Of course, if one of the 4th+ parties doesn't have a candidate in your riding, you are stuck with the big 3. 
The fact that people are essentially voting against the candidates speaks volumes about the quality of choices and lack of appeal. 
Of course, you could actually investigate the candidates themselves and see how they represent, or would represent your interests. While most strictly toe the party line, there are some who have their own thoughts.


----------



## HaroldCrump

This is a highly polarized election.
There is hardly any scope for individual candidate's thoughts, approaches, and ideas.

I think each party is trying to deliver a consistent, united message.


----------



## Eclectic12

gibor said:


> Soon we'll see a lot of "lawn signes" everywhere...


Apparently your community is behind the times ... I've been noticing the lawn signs for about a week.


Cheers


----------



## sags

Publishing the net debt to GDP %............would show how well Ontario is doing, compared to most other countries.

There is lots of room to spend to build for the future economy.........and revenues will increase as the GDP increases. 

Investment into the Province is a higher priority right now....than paying down debt.

As the farmers say.........Make hay while the sun shines.


----------



## sags

Essentially the message boils down to.........

Hudak...........stop the economy in it's tracks and pay down debt. 

(cut 100,000 jobs, eliminate green projects, stop infrastructure spending, create deficits in education)

Wynne..........spend to build and grow the economy for the future, by increasing the debt.

(establish an Ontario Pension Plan, create jobs in infrastructure, support green energy projects)

Two very different proposals for the future of Ontario for the voters to choose from.


----------



## Synergy

Eclectic12 said:


> Apparently your community is behind the times ... I've been noticing the lawn signs for about a week.


Yup, the dreaded lawn signs are everywhere...


----------



## sags

And the phone calls have started..........got one from the NDP today.


----------



## gibor365

Eclectic12 said:


> Apparently your community is behind the times ... I've been noticing the lawn signs for about a week.
> 
> 
> Cheers


Maybe  Mississauga-Streetsville , didn't see even one yet


----------



## el oro

sags said:


> Publishing the net debt to GDP %............would show how well Ontario is doing, compared to most other countries.
> 
> There is lots of room to spend to build for the future economy.........and revenues will increase as the GDP increases.
> 
> Investment into the Province is a higher priority right now....than paying down debt.
> 
> As the farmers say.........Make hay while the sun shines.



So, the Ontario net debt to GDP is at ~37%. It's at an all-time high and growing but not too bad when compared to most countries. If increasing this percentage is the right thing for Ontario, what percentage should we aim for or start to be concerned? Was the doubling of the debt over the past decade provide an overall benefit in your opinion?

"Investment" implies an acceptable return on your money. Which of the big expenditure items from any of the party platforms are investments? 
-The TTC is not profitable so I don't see how expanding transit is an investment. It may improve quality of life by reducing commuting times but I would not expect to see any significant productivity boost because you would just leave home later. 
-Infrastructure is not an investment when you're just fixing up crumbling roads in the same way that re-paving your driveway is not a personal investment. It is just maintenance. Building the road to the ring of fire for development would be an investment, however.
-Green energy? It may reduce certain emissions but I don't think it helps the wallet.

When I take a closer look, it appears that certain parties want to increase the debt to maintain or increase quality of life today, while incurring increased interest/maintenance costs and no expected commensurate increase in revenue.

Please enlighten me, someone. I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## andrewf

Maintenance is investment. Ask any business owner.


----------



## el oro

You know what I meant.

Just to be explicit then... programs that restore infrastructure to original design or prevent failures would be classified as capacity maintenance “investments”. These are a necessary expense that are easily justifiable, economically, but do not provide an increase in recurring savings or revenue. eg. Re-paving roads, fixing potholes, replacing existing parts of something with the same part.

ROI/growth investments, on the other hand, would change or add infrastructure to produce recurring savings or revenue. eg. Road to the ring of fire, toll roads, replacing existing parts of something with a different part/material to reduce future operating costs.


----------



## carverman

$1600 Gold by 2011 said:


> So, the Ontario net debt to GDP is at ~37%. It's at an all-time high and growing but not too bad when compared to most countries. If increasing this percentage is the right thing for Ontario, what percentage should we aim for or start to be concerned? Was the doubling of the debt over the past decade provide an overall benefit in your opinion?


If Wynne gets in with her new budget spending it will double WITHIN the next 4 to 8 years. She also has warned in her pre-budget that the deficit will rise by 1 billion per year. We are already running a 16 billion deficit by some sources and even if the Liberals manage to hang in there for 4 more years..assuming they get a majority, Ontario's debt and deficit are going to rise. 
Is this a good thing? Well it all depends on your perception. SOME people may get the benefits, others won't...is that the "chicken in every pot" benefit scenario?.....I don't think so! 
As an eastern Ontario tax payer, what happens in the GTA (aka "the centre of the universe" as far as the provincial gov't is concerned)..stays in the GTA...and is NO BENEFIT to me.



> "Investment" implies an acceptable return on your money. Which of the big expenditure items from any of the party platforms are investments?
> -The TTC is not profitable so I don't see how expanding transit is an investment. It may improve quality of life by reducing commuting times but I would not expect to see any significant productivity boost because you would just leave home later.


As more and more immigrants pack into Toronto, the ring roads (401 and Gardner/QEW) will get worse and worse as far as commute time. Expanding the TTC and GO Train service is seen as a necessity in the GTA, because not only the price of gas is going up (and you can be sure that there will be a gas tax for infrastructure (roads/rapid transit) tacked on to a litre of gas just the way they tacked on the HST, As the pump price rises, so does the provincial revenue. Owning car in Toronto, with a lot of people living in condos and apts where you have to pay for parking, or the older homes in the downtown core with no driveways, paying for parking at home and then at work has become uneconomical. So in a sense, it is an "investment for the future" not in monetary terms, but out of necessity....getting back and forth to work.


> -Infrastructure is not an investment when you're just fixing up crumbling roads in the same way that re-paving your driveway is not a personal investment. It is just maintenance. Building the road to the ring of fire for development would be an investment, however.


With the ever increasing volume of traffic..buses, delivery trucks and those that still commute with their own cars, it is necessary maintenance, just like the 150year old sewers and water mains in some areas..but this comes as a huge cost these days to the city. Who is going to pay for this? Not me as an Ontarioan, I don't live in the GTA, and I don't pay the property or other taxes there...so don't hit me in my wallet to pay for something that will benefit someone else.

Ring of fire? Who cares..except the First Nations. 


> The Ring of Fire is the name given to a massive planned chromite mining and smeltering development project in the mineral-rich James Bay Lowlands of Northern Ontario. *The Ring of Fire development would impact nine First Nations, and potential developers are required to negotiate an Impact Benefit Agreement with these communities prior to development*. The region is centred on McFaulds Lake, near the *Attawapiskat River in Kenora District,* approximately 400 kilometres (250 mi) northeast of Thunder Bay, about 70 kilometres (43 mi) east of Webequie, and due north of Marten Falls and Ogoki Post, which is near/on the (Albany River) west of James Bay.


"I fell into a burning ring of fire, and it burns burns burns my a**, as my taxes get higher"
Since there are no roads up there..what is the final cost of each mile of highway going to cost me in the permafrost? 


> The cost to construct one lane-mile of a typical 4-lane divided highway can range from
> $3.1 million to $9.1 million per lane-mile in rural areas depending on terrain type


Lets take a median of $7 million per lane for a two lane divided highway at todays construction costs ($14 million x 400 km?) = $5500 million (5 billion)....maybe that is
what is really going to push Ontarios deficit up by 1 billion per year..an expensive road leading to nowhere. 

Please tell me how a chromite mining venture is going to benefit me? Why should I as a taxpayer pay for roads and infrastructure way up the far north? Let Chief Teresa Spence and the First Nations bands she controls, invest in that instead of her diamond mines. I'm sick of that .....(wont say it here)..... asking for more handouts again.




> -Green energy? It may reduce certain emissions but I don't think it helps the wallet.


Agreed, nothing wrong with it, but it is very expensive, subsidized energy and it only provides a tiny component of Ontario's power requirements, and as the population increases demanding more energy in the next 10 years, it will be inadequate. So what is the cheapest source of energy? Nuclear. Building more reactors in Darlington, which is much closer to the GTA than antiquate mothballed Napanee generator which will be converted to a gas plant (nat gas is a commodity based on supply and demand) , is the real solution. If Wynne had any sense, she would see that. 



> When I take a closer look, it appears that certain parties want to increase the debt to maintain or increase quality of life today, while incurring increased interest/maintenance costs and no expected commensurate increase in revenue.


Couldn't have said it myself any better.


----------



## bgc_fan

carverman said:


> Please tell me how a chromite mining venture is going to benefit me? Why should I as a taxpayer pay for roads and infrastructure way up the far north? Let Chief Teresa Spence and the First Nations bands she controls, invest in that instead of her diamond mines. I'm sick of that .....(wont say it here)..... asking for more handouts again.


The same benefit Albertans get when we subsidize their oil sands development and other oil ventures, royalties that go into the provincial coffer. Remember that Alberta was a have-not province until money was given to develop the original oil fields. Ontario has the disadvantage of not having oil, but at least has some minerals of worth. Since governments (fed and prov) don't seem to have any concept of supporting the knowledge industry (see RIM, Nortel, etc.), they only seem to understand mining, farming, and oil this project is right up their alley.


----------



## carverman

> In a statement released on Wednesday, Democracy Watch asked Elections Ontario — by threat of court action — to advertise the fact that voters have the legal right under section 53 of the Elections Act to decline their ballot (i.e. *vote “none of the above”*) and have it *counted separately from a spoiled ballot.*
> [Section] 53. An elector who has received a ballot and returns it to the deputy returning officer declining to vote, forfeits the right to vote and the deputy returning officer shall immediately *write the word “declined” upon the back of the ballot and preserve it to be returned to the returning officer and shall cause an entry to be made in the poll record that the elector declined to vote.*
> R.S.O. 1990, c. E.6, s. 53.”


Finally another choice for voters and this one is counted.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Essentially the message boils down to.........
> Hudak...........stop the economy in it's tracks and pay down debt.
> (cut 100,000 jobs, eliminate green projects, stop infrastructure spending, create deficits in education)


That is your spin on it.
Of course, Hudak's intention is not to stop the economy, quite the opposite.
He wants to kick-start the sluggish economy.

There is also a fundamental, ideological difference here (which I believe you will probably agree with) -
The PCs believe that job creation is the business of private sector.
The govt. should create a low tax, low regulation environment, and stay out of the way.

In stark contrast, the Liberals believe that the govt. must take a heavy-handed, paternalistic approach towards job creation.
If the private sector is not stimulating the economy enough, the govt. must intervene directly and create "good", high paying jobs (mostly in administration).
Regardless of the cost and future ramifications of such a policy (i.e. debt, deficit, imperfect markets, etc).

I agree with you that these are _two very different proposals for the future of Ontario for the voters to choose from_.
As I said above, this is a very polarized election and there is apparently no middle ground.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> *1.* Agreed, nothing wrong with it [green energy], but it is very expensive, subsidized energy and it only provides a tiny component of Ontario's power requirements, and as the population increases demanding more energy in the next 10 years, it will be inadequate. *So what is the cheapest source of energy? Nuclear.* Building more reactors in Darlington, which is much closer to the GTA than antiquate mothballed Napanee generator which will be converted to a gas plant (nat gas is a commodity based on supply and demand), is the real solution.
> 
> *2.* If Wynne had *any sense*, she would see that.


*1.* Speaking of energy, did you watch 'Energizing Politics' on the The Agenda last night?

It was an interesting discussion, especially the 2nd half involving the 'energy experts.' 1st part was with the politicians, which had been more entertaining than informative. 

The video doesn't seem to be up yet, but if interested, here is a short video from 2013 on same topic. 
http://tvo.org/video/197970/bob-chiarelli-ontarios-new-energy-plan

*2.* Mr. Acchione, the CEO of Ontario Society of Professional Engineers & a guest on the show yesterday, indicated that politicians don't like to speak to engineers too often, ie: they know better with their MALS or whatever other degrees.


----------



## andrewf

The Agenda is really a great resource for Ontarians who want to be informed rather than just entertained. It's too bad that it too would probably be axed in the upcoming spending cuts.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> The Agenda is really a great resource for Ontarians who want to be informed rather than just entertained. It's too bad that it too would probably be axed in the upcoming spending cuts.


This is the true effect of irresponsible spending.
I said to sags somewhere upthread that when a govt. spends willy-nilly, and mostly to appease lobby groups, inevitably cuts have to be made, the first things to go are perhaps the most useful things for ordinary citizens, such as libraries, informative (but non entertaining) TV programs, low-volume transit routes, etc.

Just this morning, there are rumors of similar cuts at the CBC:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/entert...+Radio+onlineonly+watchdog/9867223/story.html


----------



## Toronto.gal

sags said:


> 1. *Ontario net debt to GDP is 37.5%*/Greece net debt to GDP is 173 %. Ontario's economy is growing.............Greece's economy is contracting 3-4% per year.
> 2. *Ontario's debt is far from a crisis point, but it is a handy excuse for cutting public services* to fund lower taxes for corporations, which is a core component of PC doctrine.
> 3. Essentially the message boils down to *Hudak...stop the economy* in it's tracks and pay down debt...*Wynne..........spend to build and grow the economy *for the future, by increasing the debt.


*1.* You generally prefer to speak in smaller numbers, ie: in %s, so could it be that perhaps you don't understand the bigger picture? Greece’s net debt to GDP is much higher than Ontario's at present time, but what you don't seem to notice or don't like to point out, are the consequences of *inaction* when it comes to reducing debt. What actions exactly, caused Greece's net debt to GDP go from the near 40% back in the 80's [where we are now], to 3 digits? Let's just catch up to Greece's debt by voting the Liberals for another decade or two, and let's just ignore the warnings from experts for another 10 or 20 years.

*2. *You keep saying ad nauseam that all is rosy, but there is a LOT of RED & lots of warning signs. Do you ever read any reports in full, or 1/2 even from those that know more than you [us]? 

Below are the %s you like to talk about, but in total net debt, that will translate into [color]$300B+[/color] any minute, and probably another 10B in another year with the RED party.

2014 budget:









So how exactly is racking up billions of dollars *far *from crisis & mere 'handy excuses'? When should we start to worry?

*3.* Those totally in favour of borrowing/spending/taxing like there is no tomorrow [not to mention wasting, and yes, yes, ALL do this very well], rather than reducing our significant debt/deficit, care *way less* about others than they have convinced themselves that they do, and I'm not talking about just politicians.


----------



## andrewf

Well, the CPC have an axe to grind when it comes to the CBC. Ie, the cuts are to some extent ideologically motivated. I think they've shown tactical restraint to avoid kicking up too much public opposition. The base certainly wants CBC shut down (not just privatized).


----------



## Toronto.gal

Anyone else has problems with the edit function? It works on and off.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Toronto.gal said:


> Anyone else has problems with the edit function? It works on and off.


You mean the blank edit post, right?
I've been having that problem for about a week.


----------



## Toronto.gal

Yes Harold.

*Edit:* it works now, but not for the post I wanted to correct under same thread, lol.


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> *1.* Speaking of energy, did you watch 'Energizing Politics' on the The Agenda last night?
> 
> It was an interesting discussion, especially the 2nd half involving the 'energy experts.' 1st part was with the politicians, which had been more entertaining than informative.
> 
> The video doesn't seem to be up yet, but if interested, here is a short video from 2013 on same topic.
> http://tvo.org/video/197970/bob-chiarelli-ontarios-new-energy-plan
> 
> *2.* Mr. Acchione, the CEO of Ontario Society of Professional Engineers & a guest on the show yesterday, indicated that politicians don't like to speak to engineers too often, ie: they know better with their MALS or whatever other degrees.


I admire Steve Paikin. Watch him a lot on TVO..he is on the ball and doesn't beat around the bush when he is question politicians.

Ok I watched the video segment with Chiarelli. Here are some gleanings from it.
"Thirdly..we need affordable power"

The SAMSUNG (WINDFARM DEAL) was and still is a bad deal.
The Fiberals are not going to invest in nuclear and not to keen on refurbishing the nuclear generators at Darlington and elsewhere (Bruce?) because of past cost over runs..
and they may even "shut down the program" and find some other way Hydro etc.
"generate too much electricity ..give it away or sell it at a cheaper price...
IESO generated 6 billion in profit
"catch up on the 31 billion dollars invested"
For users of 800kwh per month..they show a graph that in 2013, around $138 will rise to $210 in 2032. ( 50% increase in electricity cost in 19 years time)

Do you think the Fiberals (Chiarelli) have a good understanding of what needs to be done to Ontario's electricity infrastructure and investment? 
Does Hudak? Does Horwath and the NDP?


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Well, the CPC have an axe to grind when it comes to the CBC.


Sure, every political party has its own set of favorite villains and sweethearts.
For the NDP, corporations are Dr. Evil, and unions are sweeties.

When rent-seeking lobby groups coax governments to spend money on them (such as negotiating far above average wage increases by unions), they are essentially licensing the govt. to cut spending in other areas according to its own biases and political interests.
Voters need to understand that.
Turning a blind eye towards irresponsible spending is essentially a carte blanche to the political party.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> When rent-seeking lobby groups coax governments to spend money on them (such as negotiating far above average wage increases by unions), they are essentially licensing the govt. to cut spending in other areas according to its own biases and political interests.
> Voters need to understand that.
> Turning a blind eye towards irresponsible spending is essentially a carte blanche to the political party.


I for one, have no intention of supporting the unions..but on this cancelled gas plant controversy..who is lying and who is stretching the truth?

Chiarelli ( Agenda interview with Paikin ) said that ALL THREE PARTIES were in favour of cancelling the gas plants in Oakville/Mississauga .
Ok If they all agree that was what should be done, why is Hudak wanting a commission to investigate the email erasures when Wynne took over, regardless of who ordered it.
Nothing here makes a lot of sense. It boils down to finger pointing.."it wasn't me..it was them!"


----------



## Toronto.gal

Here's the video 4 those interested. 

Listen to the politicians first, as that's how the program started.
http://theagenda.tvo.org/


----------



## HaroldCrump

The issue is one of transparency, not whether all/some of the parties were in favor of cancelation.
The tax-payers deserved to know the full cost of the cancelation _before the money was spent_.
We shouldn't require an inquiry commission to find out how much the cancelation cost.

Essentially, we ended up spending _more _money on public sector fatcat bureaucrats to find out how much money was wasted by public sector fatcat bureaucrats.

Dalton McGuinty lied over and over again on the full cost of cancelation.
He kept denying that he was aware of the escalating costs of cancelation.

Which, btw, is not the first or the only time he has lied to the parliament or an inquiry commission.

Anyhow, e-mails were deleted. That is a fact.
Who deleted them, and who knew?

Clearly, neither Hudak or Andrea Horwarth deleted the emails, nor were aware of the deletion.
That buck stops with McGuinty and/or Wynne.

So Hudak is making a political issue out of this, right?
So what?
Would any other political party have done differently if the shoe were on the other foot?
This is an election campaign.
_Of course_, every political party will try to extract maximum capital gain out of every situation, every controversy.

The responsibility for the lack of transparency, lies, and destruction of evidence lies with the Liberal administration, not the opposition parties.


----------



## Eclectic12

Toronto.gal said:


> Anyone else has problems with the edit function? It works on and off.


It's been an intermittent problem for me over about the last two weeks.

Sometime closing the browser to login again works and sometimes it doesn't.


Cheers


----------



## carverman

Chiarelli is not in favour of refurbishing the existing nuclear plants because right now gas is cheaper and he mentioned that inspite of the 2 cancellations,
and there are now 19 gas plants in Ontario that are functional..so big deal..what is all the fuss about.

Wall Street Journal.."Cheap natural gas unplugs Nuclear power rival:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304459804577281490129153610


----------



## andrewf

Don't we already have an AG report that indicates the cost of the cancellation? It seems to have been about $250 million. Hudak hasn't said how he might have both cancelled the plants and saved the money.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> It seems to have been about *$250 million*


Did Wynne tell you that? 
*
AG report puts it at almost $1.1 billion*

Anyhow, there are two separate issues - the final, full cost of cancelation is one thing.
But the suppression of facts is another issue (incl. the alleged deletion of emails).

The lies and deceit that follow the suppression of truth are often worse than the original truth itself.


----------



## Beaver101

Hey, the public's piggy bank doesn't have a bottom - it's pitless! according to the self-entitled political oinkxs oinkxs :disgust:


----------



## HaroldCrump

Beaver101 said:


> Hey, the public's piggy bank doesn't have a bottom - it's pitless! according to the self-entitled political pigs. :disgust:


sags said above that people do not mind paying taxes.
His exact words were:

_voters don't care what it costs. 
...
They don't care if taxes go up_

So there you have it.
Taxpayers are the ultimate cow that can be perpetually milked.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> Chiarelli ( Agenda interview with Paikin ) said that *ALL THREE PARTIES were in favour of cancelling the gas plants*...


How about starting at the beginning? The boondoggle & subsequent cover-up, belongs to the Liberals. It wasn't the conservatives who picked the locations of those gas plants, was it? And it wasn't them who had cynically cancelled them in mid-campaign either. But let's be realistic, expecting transparency from the corrupted Liberal gov. is asking too much.

Call the Conservatices & NDP hypocrites [dah]. However, neither party owns this scandal, but hey, Ms. Wynne did not even want to blame McGuinty for it, so let's at least share the blame with anyone else that hasn't left town.

I still remember McGuinty saying after winning his 3rd consecutive election, that his 'major minority' [losing the former by a seat], had nevertheless given him a very strong mandate to follow with his agenda, but what did he do instead? Know the song 'I Ran So Far Away - by A Flock of Seagulls? :disgust: 

If Ms. Wynne is elected with also a 'major minority', we shall see how long she will be able to pursue her agenda....and if she wins a major majority, then maybe u should follow McGuinty. 

*Eclectic:* I tried what u suggested, but it does not work. The strange thing is that I have been able to edit posts today [tested a couple], but the post I needed to edit/correct, just gives me a blank page.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Toronto.gal said:


> but hey, Ms. Wynne did not even want to blame McGuinty for it


She said _it was a mistake_. (her words)
That's it. Period.

McCallion agrees that it is all _water under the bridge_.

What, that's not good enough for you?
Pound sand.
Too bad. So sad.


----------



## Toronto.gal

HaroldCrump said:


> 1. Did Wynne tell you that?  AG report puts it at almost $1.1 billion.
> 2. The lies and deceit that follow the suppression of truth are often worse than the original truth itself.


*1.* I think it was wiki. :biggrin: I posted the AG report a few days ago, but why read a 24 pg. report?
*2.* Indeed.


----------



## Beaver101

HaroldCrump said:


> sags said above that *people* do not mind paying taxes.
> His exact words were:
> 
> _voters don't care what it costs.
> ...
> They don't care if taxes go up_
> 
> So there you have it.
> Taxpayers are the ultimate cow that can be perpetually milked.


 ... and what kind of "people" don't care if taxes go up, union people? Actually, the 3 political Stooges :disgust: should be working for free as they should be serving the Public.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Beaver101 said:


> ... and what kind of "people" don't care if taxes go up, union people?


People that don't pay taxes don't care if taxes go up.
People that benefit from income re-distribution via taxes don't care if taxes go up.
Unions belong to the second category.


----------



## sags

Many voters are unhappy with the Liberals over the "scandals", but according to the polling thus far.........are not dissatisfied enough to vote for Hudak.

They simply aren't interested in his reduce taxes by cutting services message.

To win...........he has to convince them they are wrong.


----------



## Toronto.gal

Beaver101 said:


> ... and what kind of "people" don't care if taxes go up....


Those with bags of $$$$$$ 2 burn, I mean spend [check sags' avatar]. :biggrin: 

Yes sags, you've been telling us from 1st day of campaign that Liberals have been in front...thanks.


----------



## Beaver101

Toronto.gal said:


> Those with bags of $$$$$$ 2 burn, *I mean spend [check sags' avatar]. *:biggrin:
> 
> Yes sags, you've been telling us from 1st day of campaign that Liberals have been in front...thanks.


 ... you're right, that's a HUGE bag too. LOL!


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Many voters are unhappy with the Liberals over the "scandals", but according to the polling thus far.........are not dissatisfied enough to vote for Hudak.


You are right - focusing on the scandals of current administration will not win the election for either the PCs or the NDP.

If Ontario voters cared about Liberal scandals and scams, they would have voted them out in 2007. Or 2011.


----------



## Beaver101

HaroldCrump said:


> You are right - focusing on the scandals of current administration will not win the election for either the PCs or the NDP.
> 
> If *Ontario voters cared about Liberal scandals and scams, they would have voted them out in 2007. Or 2011*.


 ... or a dismal % for 2014.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Latest polls are projecting a Liberal minority govt. (basically status quo).
I think the budget has already been cleverly crafted for that situation.

They will drop some of the provisions in there - which they never intended to implement anyway - and keep the rest of the provisions that they truly care about.

I suspect the pension plan scheme will get dropped - Wynne's liberals don't give a flying rat's behind about retirement security for un-pensioned private sector workers.

Other provisions, such as the new taxes and the change in tax brackets, will stay - that is what they truly care about.


----------



## fraser

I have to wonder if the NDP's poor performance so far, and the proposed Liberal budget, won't move some NDP votes over to the Liberals? 

This would hurt Hudak big time and may win the Liberals a few extra seats at the expense of the NDP. Hudak needs to split this vote if he has any chance at winning.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> They don't care if taxes go up[/I]
> 
> So there you have it.
> Taxpayers are the ultimate cow that can be perpetually milked.


That's not entirely true..some of us do care...but most, especially the younger generation that don't have much to begin with...don't care one way or the other and probably won't
be voting either...Now if Justin Beiber was running as a candidate for the "Goofy party"..that's another story.


----------



## HaroldCrump

fraser said:


> I have to wonder if the NDP's poor performance so far, and the proposed Liberal budget, won't move some NDP votes over to the Liberals?


Yup, that is almost a certainty.
Within a couple of days after the NDP voted down the budget, several major union leaders were fuming.
The budget had been custom designed for them.

They were in the news publicly fuming and claiming that they will vote for the Liberals just to spite the NDP.



> This would hurt Hudak big time and may win the Liberals a few extra seats at the expense of the NDP. Hudak needs to split this vote if he has any chance at winning.


I don't think there is any hope of Hudak stealing even 1 vote from that vote bank.
Traditional NDP voters would rather vote for a yellow dog than vote PC.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Latest polls are projecting a Liberal minority govt. (basically status quo).
> I think the budget has already been cleverly crafted for that situation.


That's what I've been predicting all along. Hudak "blew it" right from the start..and well Andrea...we love ya..but we don't want your party to be running the gov't of Ontario.



> They will drop some of the provisions in there - which they never intended to implement anyway - and keep the rest of the provisions that they truly care about.
> 
> I suspect the pension plan scheme will get dropped - Wynne's liberals don't give a flying rat's behind about retirement security for un-pensioned private sector workers.


Of course..there will be all sorts of concessions when they get back to sitting....because the reality check by the voters has set in and they have to learn how to get along.



> Other provisions, such as the new taxes and the change in tax brackets, will stay - that is what they truly care about.


Cash cows is what they desperately need. Airline fuel tax (watch the surcharges on fuel go up after that), gas tax, cigarette/booze tax increase,maybe raise the current $90 licence tags to $100..a nice round number and some more innovative taxes?

As far as the "ring of fire" big plan..screw the Indians..(sorry I meant the First Nations)..we can't afford to build infrastructure to nowhere..and who knows if that chromite mine will ever materialize with them running the show...we all know how Chief Spence milked Harper for MILLIONS that went unaccounted for...nothing to show for it in improvements at Attawaspiskat...so..do you really think that Ontario taxpayers building a very expensive highway 400km above Thunder Bay is really going to change things?..other than create some construction jobs....the rest remains to be seen. Private enterprise should be paying for those improvements.


----------



## andrewf

The $1.1 billion figure includes that cost of building a power plant in Napanee. A power plant was needed regardless, so to call it waste requires very creative accounting.

"*The 'Costs incurred' of cancelling the gas plants is $253 Million according to the Auditor General's report.* The 'Estimated future costs' include gas delivery and management services for a new Napanee plant, gas and hydro connections for that future Napanee plant, the cost of additional gas for potentially less efficient turbines, transmission system upgrades (which were already planned [19]), line losses for the distance power has to travel from Napanee, and for replacement power beginning in 2017. The Auditor General subtracts future savings from that figure to arrive at $675 Million.* Opposition parties use the total cost of cancellation and include the cost of building the Napanee replacement plant while leaving out the cost savings.*[20]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_power_plant_scandal

Are we interested in reality or catchy slogans? The waste is bad enough to not require deceptive rhetoric, which only hurts the case of critics.


----------



## warp

In Ontario we don't need to vote Hudak in...but we definately NEED to vote Wynne OUT.

AS for the NDP, God help us if they ever get elected again.

I have a simple test: 
If the unions, particularly the public sector unions, including teachers, etc, start fuming about a Budget, ( or when a budget they love gets turned down in Parliament), a law change, an election, or anything else for that matter...then that is what is needed to be done for the good of the Province.


----------



## gibor365

carverman said:


> ...but most, especially the younger generation that don't have much to begin with...don't care one way or the other and probably won't
> be voting either....


Not entirely true, my son 18 y.o., 1 year University....he's definetely gonna vote only for PC


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> The $1.1 billion figure includes that cost of building a power plant in Napanee. A power plant was needed regardless, so to call it waste requires very creative accounting.
> 
> The Auditor General subtracts future savings from that figure to arrive at $675 Million.* Opposition parties use the total cost of cancellation and include the cost of building the Napanee replacement plant while leaving out the cost savings."
> *


*

Any cost estimate numbers you hear from the gov'ts now, you can pretty much double/triple by the time the final costs come in. They really don't have a clue. 

Lets look at this gas scandal from a cost perspective of what it would have cost to build both 800mw plants in Oakville and Mississauga.

The cancellation cost is just the tip of the cost iceberg.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sit...ENDIX2-AEMO-transmission-cost-assumptions.pdf

If they plan on rebuilding the antiquated Napanee bunker oil generator and converting it to gas, there has to be a new transmission line built to bring the power back to the GTA.
We are talking roughly 243 km here. 

To generate the needed 800mw in Napanee means new transmission line has to be built as well as a new switching station and transformers to accomodate these high power lines
to handle 1000mva @500/330KV and maybe higher still to minimize LINE LOSSES. The current estimate in Aus $ is 1.8 million x 243km = 474 million. 
(Currently you can consider the Australian dollar and the Canadian to be equal exchange)
This is what it will cost for the new transmission line . The conversion of 1960 technology generators to modernize them for the higher voltage transmission line..$$$,$$$,$$$ (in hundreds of millions)

Anybody thinking that this political move will save us money and bring in cheaper power for Ontario..well..lets say this generation and the next generation will be paying for it for a long long time.
Don't be surprised if the "Debt retirement" cash cow is given a new name "Transmission infrastructure debt charge"*


----------



## fraser

Looks to me like two parties will be looking for a new leader after the election. NDP and one other. Unless things change it could be the Conservatives.


----------



## carverman

fraser said:


> Looks to me like two parties will be looking for a new leader after the election. NDP and one other. Unless things change it could be the Conservatives.


There will be a leadership race for sure. The NDP really don't stand a chance to get in, so if the unions are happy with Horwath's attempts at disrupting the Liberals in the chance that
some change might take place, more than likely they will still keep her...if she wants it.


----------



## sags

After watching recent documentaries like "Death By China".........it becomes apparent than Ontario politicians are just one group who are trying to address the aftermath of a misguided free trade policy with China.

The jobs Ontario has lost, and the increasing debt are problems that stem from the inclusion of China into world trade.

After decades.......the promise of free trade with China have not been fulfilled.

North America has made few export inroads to the market in China. Even companies like Google get shut out.

The working class in China has made little progress as well. Slave conditions in factories have not improved their lives.

North America gave the Chinese our jobs......in the mistaken hope they would embrace western style democracy.

Hudak, Wynne, Horwath........are all fighting the same demon........but from different political approaches.

They are left holding the bag......trying to figure out how to clean up the mess.....for failed free trade with China.

Blame the Liberals or the Conservatives...........both have been in power and supported a trade policy that has devastated North America.

All that our politicians can do is keep plugging a leaking boat.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> After watching recent documentaries like "Death By China".........it becomes apparent than Ontario politicians are just one group who are trying to address the aftermath of a misguided free trade policy with China.
> 
> The jobs Ontario has lost, and the increasing debt are problems that stem from the inclusion of China into world trade.
> 
> All that our politicians can do is keep plugging a leaking boat.


Well it's not just Ontario politicians, some of the blame has to rest on the shoulders of the federal gov't. But lets face it, what manufacturing jobs are left in ONtario, besides the auto industry?
Food production ok..you definitely don't want that to happen in China with practically no safeguards there. Mining. Some lumbering. Road construction. Building trades. Mixed farming.
Consumer goods? No. 
Ok so Hudak is promising 1 million jobs will be created in the next 10 years? Where exactly? Service industry maybe some, but that means to service anything these days, you have to be
qualified, so that would mean increase the funding for training programs for trades like mechanical, plumbing, building, electrical and other skilled trades.
I doubt that the restaurant.fast food industry will be willing to absorb too many Canadian workers..they like the TFW (temporary foreign workers) program, where they pay no benefits and very
low minimum wages.


----------



## sags

Ontario isn't unique in the loss of manufacturing.

The "rust belt" of Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania have been devastated by the loss of manufacturing jobs.

Job loss is a North America problem.......and it all flows back to the misguided policy of free trade with China.

Ontario politicians aren't trying to address the problem. They are trying to address the results of the problem.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Ontario isn't unique in the loss of manufacturing.
> 
> The "rust belt" of Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania have been devastated by the loss of manufacturing jobs.
> 
> Job loss is a North America problem.......and it all flows back to the misguided policy of free trade with China.
> 
> Ontario politicians aren't trying to address the problem. They are trying to address the results of the problem.


Thank goodness we still have the auto industry as a major employer, and the tire makers, although a few of the tire makers have "streamlined" operations in the last 20 years.
What the employers want is qualified and skilled workers in the respective trades. There may be still some production line workers where they can take people off EI and put them
to work...but these people have to be suited for these jobs in the first place.
You can't take a office worker (male or female) and put them on a tire making line without some experience. The auto makers have their unions that protect them as well.

Hudak's election concept "1 million jobs in 10 years" is both is both a comfort and wishful thinking. What is the unemployment right now in Ontario...7.4% for a population of 13.5 million.
What is not known is the number of full time workers making decent wages and paying taxes out of the population of over 13 million. How many retirees, how many children, how many
unable to work for one reason of the other. While there will be a lot of workers (baby boomers) retiring in the next 10 years or sooner, does the current gov't have any idea of
how many positions will be eliminated once the full time person retires? Probably not...and if by some miracle they do...how many will be needed in each sector so that the
colleges or other types of training available can help to fill these positions. 

Here's the other thing.


> Ontario, for example, will see 190,000 job positions go unfilled.[5] Canada will have as many as 1.8 million jobs without the right quality of people to apply for them by 2030.


Will the community colleges and universities be able to turn out skilled people to fill these 190,000 jobs that need the right quality of people?


----------



## carverman

Just heard from the Lt. Gov of Ontario on a program called CONTEXT, where the discussion was about hiring disabled people.
Currently there are (according to the Lt. Gov) 1.8 MILLION disabled people in Ontario out of a population of around 13.5 million. 
That's 1 in 9 people that is disabled, depending on their disability they may or may not be able to find suitable work. 

900,000 of these are living off social assistance and dependent on taxpayer dollars for their survival.

I would like to see how Hudak with his "1,000,000 jobs plan in 10 years"... (does that translate to 100,000 jobs per year?) going to accommodate the disabled?


----------



## fraser

Even if you ignore the past and focus clearly on ONLY the numbers two things will become apparent.

The first is that Ontario, by any measure, is in serious trouble economically-because of debt, current spending, and the projected growth rate of the economy over the next three years.

The second is that not one of the political parties appears to be truly addressing these complex issues. Their numbers don't add up. They are based on the 'figures lie and liars figure' approach to fiscal planning. The three parties are not using real numbers and solid policies to move Ontario forward. They are using them for self interest-to get re-elected or to gain power. Not really any different from most political races. But this one could cost Ontario dearly in the long run.


----------



## carverman

fraser said:


> Even if you ignore the past and focus clearly on ONLY the numbers two things will become apparent.
> 
> The first is that Ontario, by any measure, is in serious trouble economically-because of debt, current spending, and the projected growth rate of the economy over the next three years.
> 
> The second is that not one of the political parties appears to be truly addressing these complex issues. Their numbers don't add up. They are based on the 'figures lie and liars figure' approach to fiscal planning. The three parties are not using real numbers and solid policies to move Ontario forward. They are using them for self interest-to get re-elected or to gain power. Not really any different from most political races. But this one could cost Ontario dearly in the long run.


Agreed. This election (necessary or unnecessary as the case may be), is costing us MILLIONS! 
Other than Wynne running around campaigning with the tabled budget numbers, the other two have no real plan put together that spells out exactly what they plan
to do to head off the economic crisis that is going to happen. They should have taken more time and had some kind of agenda ready, knowing there was a budget coming up, but they didn't and were caught unprepared at the last minute. Saying they will balance the budget by 2018 (4 years from now) is just an election promise..they need to get a plan
together that spells out EXACTLY how that is going to be accomplished. 

So the way I see it:
Spending your way out, is not a good plan as it just adds to the current financial burden..however, some spending in key areas may be necessary...the big question is..Where is the funding for these programs going to come from?

Cutting existing jobs, unless they are through attrition, is not a good solution. If you lay off employable workers that are not of pensionable age, how are they going to support themselves, and of course, they will not be contributing to the tax coffers through employment taxes or individual spending.


----------



## sags

Manufacturing jobs in Ontario aren't going to Alberta, or anywhere else in Canada.

A few are going back to the US.........but the vast majority are going to China, Mexico, India or some other low cost producer.

There is no doubt......these low cost producers maintain their low wage environments by having no regulations regarding......workers, safety, or the environment. They hire children at slave wages, operate dangerous work environments and pollute the country they live in.

In China........people can barely breath the air. People get hurt and are dragged out of the workplace and left to beg on the street. We have continually found dangerous material in their products..........from lead in children's toys to tainted food products. The "middle class" in China are the people who own the factories.......not the people who work in them.

It isn't fair trade to deal with such countries and we have gained nothing from it.

The US has given the Chinese most of their manufacturing.........and then when they didn't have any money because they had lost their jobs..........they borrowed the money from the Chinese to buy the goods.

The Chinese now have both the manufacturing capabilities and hold the US debt.

What benefit did the US get out of the deal?

Landfills and oceans full of plastic crap..........that's what.

Our politicians are trying to fill the gaps left from federal free trade policies. They are fighting a losing battle.

We can cut expenses and services..........until we can't cut anymore.........and then what?

What our politicians could do.......but won't for political reasons, is point the finger at the Federal Government and demand the "free trade" deals be amended or terminated.

Until that day happens, it is just deferring from the real problem.

I predict it will continue as it is..........until some day the US will default on their debt to China.

Then we will see what happens when China tries to claim it's US assets purchased with US dollars.

China knows what is coming in the future and that is why they are gearing up their military.

There IS going to be a military confrontation between the US and China someday.

Edit...........Some Republican and Democrat politicians are starting to realize what has been going on and there is some push back against free trade agreements as they are currently structured. They also understand how China has been manipulating their currency to maintain their low labor cost environment.

It is one of the few things both sides can both agree on.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> The "rust belt" of Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania have been devastated by the loss of manufacturing jobs.


They are slowly but surely getting some of those jobs back.
Because of very cheap energy costs in the US (the exact opposite of Ontario), and rising costs in China, etc. some of the jobs are coming back to the US.
Of course, many US states and municipalities are providing heavy tax subsidies and incentives to the manufacturers for relocating there, something that Ontario cannot (and probably should not) try to match.



> Job loss is a North America problem.......and it all flows back to the misguided policy of free trade with China.


Not entirely.
A lot of manufacturing activity has gone to Mexico, esp. in the hot auto sector.
If you want to point a finger to someone for taking Ontario auto sector jobs, it is Mexico - not China.
Mexico has non unionized environment, far cheaper labor costs, and a very accommodating govt.



> I predict it will continue as it is..........until some day the US will default on their debt to China.
> Then we will see what happens when China tries to claim it's US assets purchased with US dollars.
> China knows what is coming in the future and that is why they are gearing up their military.


China has already made those preparations.
They just smacked the US right on the face by signing that long-term gas supply deal with Russia.
At a time, when the US is trying to impose sanctions on Russia, China went ahead and assured Russia of stable gas revenues for decades to come.
It is a slap on the face of Obama's administration.

Anyhow, back on topic, the NDP has a plan to subsidize auto-sector jobs by using tax-payer dollars to pay part of the salary of each hired auto worker.
Is that the type of direct policy action you are looking for?
Essentially, the tax payer will pay part of the salary of each worker.

Nice, innit.
We all should have jobs where part (or all) of our salaries and benefits are paid by other people :rolleyes2:


----------



## sags

Supporting employment through tax dollars is a complex subject though.

Should we allow people on welfare to get a job........and still maintain some of their health and day care benefits for their families? Or do we want to ensure they can't work or go to school.....because they would lose their income and benefit support?

I think it makes sense to lower the individual cost for each welfare recipient if possible, and provide a pathway to get off social dependency permanently.

Should we subsidize companies hiring apprentices...........I think we should, otherwise why would they bother to hire and train them. Skilled workers are needed......but nobody wants to train them. 

The auto industry...........support only through an apprenticeship program for skilled trades, or through loans that have to be repaid in full.

Yes, manufacturing can leave and auto manufacturers can build new plants in Mexico, or somewhere else.

But their "market" is here in North America, and if they want to sell their cars here.........they should build them here.

That should be the same for any products. If a company wants to sell in our marketplace.......earn profits from our marketplace.......they should manufacture in our market place.

If that was our policy, companies couldn't blackmail taxpayers for handouts. If a company like GM said we aren't going to manufacture in Canada anymore.......we say "fine, you won't be selling any GM vehicles here".

It doesn't seem all that complicated to me.

I am still waiting for a "free trade" advocate to describe what the "benefits" are for us.

Cheaper goods ?...........doesn't really matter if people don't have jobs.

Is it too much for Canadians to expect free trade to be fair ?


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> T
> Not entirely.
> A lot of manufacturing activity has gone to Mexico, esp. in the hot auto sector.
> If you want to point a finger to someone for taking Ontario auto sector jobs, it is Mexico - not China.
> Mexico has non unionized environment, far cheaper labor costs, and a very accommodating govt.


Because of the free trade, cheap and willing labour force and the auto sector not having to pay any benefits..is there any other reason why they shouldn't take advantage of that.
Remember Stronach's auto parts plant Magna in Aurora? 



> According to a NPR broadcast on March 23, 2007, Magna showed interest in acquiring the Chrysler division of DaimlerChrysler. However on 14 May 2007, it was announced that Cerberus Capital Management had won the acquisition bid for $7.4 billion.


not sure if this is true.but..



> In 2010, Spanish National Court Prosecutor Jose "Pepe" Grinda Gonzalez alleged that elements within the Russian Mafia had acquired a significant share in Magna International [17





> China has already made those preparations.
> They just smacked the US right on the face by signing that long-term gas supply deal with Russia.
> At a time, when the US is trying to impose sanctions on Russia, China went ahead and assured Russia of stable gas revenues for decades to come.
> It is a slap on the face of Obama's administration.


Proof that the US cannot economically force sanctions and make them stick. Iran is the same.



> Anyhow, back on topic, the NDP has a plan to subsidize auto-sector jobs by using tax-payer dollars to pay part of the salary of each hired auto worker.
> Is that the type of direct policy action you are looking for?
> Essentially, the tax payer will pay part of the salary of each worker.


Well the NDP (socialist) party has always been in cahoots with the unions...so other than the union vote, they will only get the stragglers on election day.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Does anyone have any recent updates on the implementation of the ORPP (Ontario Pension Plan)?
It seems a committee has been set up for this purpose (surprise, surprise).

Anyhow, the following statement from a *newspaper article this morning *worries me:

_Most of the details — such as which employers would be required to participate in the plan — haven't been worked out. 
...
The Liberals say the ORPP would be mandatory, except those whose employers already offer registered pension plans._

^ so if it is compulsory for companies operating in Ontario to pay into this govt. pension plan, most (if not all) will stop offering Group RRSP plans to their employees, right?
No company will pay into two separate retirement programs (actually, three - including CPP).

Companies will dissolve Group RRSP plans, and instead hand-over the 1.9% employer contribution to the ORPP fund.

Also, what does it do to base salaries for employees without any sort of RPP right now (the target market for this scheme)?
Does everyone take a 1.9% pay cut?
Or does everyone get an effective 1.9% pay raise?

The following is also troubling:

_The Liberals say the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan would offer a "targeted," rather than guaranteed, income in retirement. 
That means you get a payment but the exact amount depends on the investment return. 
The CPP, by contrast, pays out a fixed amount. 
Ambachtsheer refers to it as a "defined ambition plan," as they're known in Europe._

So this is basically a "shared risk" pension plan, not a true defined benefit plan.
This is not a replacement for the CPP-enhancement proposal, as Wynne & Souza claim it to be.
It's kind of half-way between CPP-enhancement and the PRPP proposed by the federal govt., which is a full DC plan.


----------



## fraser

One thing that will happen is that many employers who have DC plans will adjust those plans downward to reflect the Ontario plan, thus keeping their payroll costs constant. I suspect that very few will want to incur additional payroll costs. Employees will have the option to reduce their DC contributions by an amount equal to the Ontario plan deduction.

Those employees who do not currently have any plan will essentially get a small pay raise (in the form of the employer contribution) and a lower take home pay (1.9 percent less the tax shield). The employer will see a 1.9 percent increase in payroll taxes for all wages below $100K. Not to mention the admin costs-especially for small businesses.

It is not a true DB plan as we know it.


----------



## warp

One thing they never "worry" about is the increased time, effort, and cost it adds to small businesses, and employers, to comply with all their dumb madatory plans.

Who compensates employers for all the extra time and effort, which would be better spent actually running their businesses????......NOOOOOOBODY!


----------



## HaroldCrump

The message from big govt. is just hand over your money to us, we will take care of it. We will re-distribute it fairly and ensure social justice.
Don't ask any questions.
I am from the govt. and I am here to help.


----------



## Eclectic12

HaroldCrump said:


> ... Anyhow, the following statement from a *newspaper article this morning *worries me: ...
> 
> The Liberals say the ORPP would be mandatory, except those whose employers already offer registered pension plans.[/I]
> 
> ^ so if it is compulsory for companies operating in Ontario to pay into this govt. pension plan, most (if not all) will stop offering Group RRSP plans to their employees, right?
> 
> No company will pay into two separate retirement programs (actually, three - including CPP).
> Companies will dissolve Group RRSP plans, and instead hand-over the 1.9% employer contribution to the ORPP fund...


YMMV ... if there's no employer contributions to the Group RRSP, there's no need to wrap up the plan. 
If there's already a DC pension, this would be considered a registered plan which makes for an exemption, correct?

Where there is a Group RRSP with employer contributions ... the question is whether the employer decides to wrap up the plan or simply drop the employer matching as they can tout that "the ORPP is better" plus as a good employer, they want to keep the Group RRSP available.




HaroldCrump said:


> ...Also, what does it do to base salaries for employees without any sort of RPP right now (the target market for this scheme)?
> Does everyone take a 1.9% pay cut?
> Or does everyone get an effective 1.9% pay raise?


I expect that most will end up with a cut in take home pay and those companies who are having trouble recruiting people will hand out a pay raise .... again, YMMV.


Cheers


----------



## carverman

warp said:


> One thing they never "worry" about is the increased time, effort, and cost it adds to small businesses, and employers, to comply with all their dumb madatory plans.
> 
> Who compensates employers for all the extra time and effort, which would be better spent actually running their businesses????......NOOOOOOBODY!


Most large employers have automated payroll...it's just adding some more numbers to the deductions for the employee and a special account for the employer contribution which is then
transfered electronically to the receiver of the ORPP, I would think.


----------



## Eclectic12

fraser said:


> One thing that will happen is that many employers who have DC plans will adjust those plans downward to reflect the Ontario plan, thus keeping their payroll costs constant...


A DC plan just like a DB plan is registered so why wouldn't the company with a DC plan ignore the ORPP?
Of course the final details might change this but at this point, it looks like an employer with a DC plan would not have to join the ORPP.


Cheers

Those employees who do not currently have any plan will essentially get a small pay raise (in the form of the employer contribution) and a lower take home pay (1.9 percent less the tax shield). [/QUOTE]



It is not a true DB plan as we know it.[/QUOTE]


----------



## fraser

I was assuming that DC plan members would also have to be in the Ontario plan...clearly a misunderstanding on my part.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Eclectic12 said:


> If there's already a DC pension, this would be considered a registered plan which makes for an exemption, correct?


My understanding yes, nothing would change in this case.

Having said that, all sources are saying it is not clear what the scope for this plan will be.
Will they be including small businesses, with or without small DCP plans?
What about employers that may already have signed up for the federal PRPP, which came into effect in 2013, I think.
I have personally not heard of any notable corporations signing up for PRPP, but there could be scores of companies already in the process of enrolling for the PRPP scheme.

Will they be exempting corporations offering GRRSP plans, since the ORPP is not a true DBP.
It appears to be a hybrid between a DCP and the proposed voluntary contributions into an expanded CPP.



> Where there is a Group RRSP with employer contributions ... the question is whether the employer decides to wrap up the plan or simply drop the employer matching as they can tout that "the ORPP is better" plus as a good employer, they want to keep the Group RRSP available.


Yeah, it is up in the air.

There is a difference for the employees in this situation though...the difference between the benefit of a GRRSP vs. a pooled pension plan.
A $ dropped from the GRRSP contribution is not equal to a $ in the ORPP.
Just like a $ in an individual RRSP is not equal to a $ in a DBP.


----------



## sags

If Wynne is re-elected, I wouldn't be surprised if she delays implementation of any Ontario Pension Plan until after the next Federal election.

There is a strong possibility of a Liberal government in Ottawa, which would be more agreeable to expanding the CPP, which is what Ontario and the other Provinces wanted to happen.


----------



## Eclectic12

fraser said:


> I was assuming that DC plan members would also have to be in the Ontario plan...clearly a misunderstanding on my part.


In terms of what is "known" at this point ... it appears so.

However, I can't help but wonder what the final arrangement will be. As I understand it, some DC plans have no employer contributions and low employee contribution rates. I'd have thought the gov't would want more of an economy of scale but I guess it was easier to use "registered plan" as a simple yardstick.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

HaroldCrump said:


> My understanding yes, nothing would change in this case.


That's the way I understood it as well ... though plans or detail have been known to change from pre-election to post-election.




HaroldCrump said:


> Will they be exempting corporations offering GRRSP plans, since the ORPP is not a true DBP.
> It appears to be a hybrid between a DCP and the proposed voluntary contributions into an expanded CPP.


The use of "pension" would suggest a Group RRSP, which registered, would not count and therefore companies that only offer this would have to join. 





HaroldCrump said:


> There is a difference for the employees in this situation though...the difference between the benefit of a GRRSP vs. a pooled pension plan.
> 
> A $ dropped from the GRRSP contribution is not equal to a $ in the ORPP.
> Just like a $ in an individual RRSP is not equal to a $ in a DBP.


That's where some employers may decide to keep the Group RRSP as an additional benefit to their employees and others that don't see the need if the ORPP is up and running. It's likely to vary.


Cheers


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> There is a strong possibility of a Liberal government in Ottawa, which would be more agreeable to expanding the CPP, which is what Ontario and the other Provinces wanted to happen.


_*Strong*_ possibility? ...wow !
If you are right, there will be nowhere to hide for many people.
A Wynne-led govt. at the provincial level, and a Trudeau-led federal govt. in Ottawa...
A dream come true, for many folks, I am sure, but a nightmare for some.


----------



## andrewf

Unfortunate, this thing called democracy. We can't enjoy one party states.


----------



## carverman

> Wynne has pledged to spend $1 billion to build a transportation route to the remote Ring of Fire deposit, with or without Ottawa's help, if the Liberals are re-elected.


I guess Wynne has been talking to Bob Rae, who is soliciting the Fiberals for the Indians in northen Ontario communities. If she gets in..1 Billion (it will be A LOT MORE THAN THAT) will
be spent from taxpayers FUTURE DOLLARS. A highway going to nowhere in the lower James Bay area via ThunderBay. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ontario_Ring_of_Fire

the First Nations bands want the jobs in their area of the "ring of fire" to go to them, with their band members providing expertise and labour.



> In an interview with CBC on 27 June 2013, Les Louttit, the deputy grand chief of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, the group that represents the nine First Nations,
> 
> 
> 
> argued that serious problems have been neglected for decades. Two to three years is not enough time for skills training to train locals for construction jobs
> 
> 
> 
> , for example. Louttit noted *the gap in First Nations high school and post-secondary education that has existed for many years.*[1] Anja Jeffrey, director of the Centre for the North at the Conference Board of Canada, stressed traditional hunting as one of the key issues.[1]
Click to expand...

So that is just the tip of the iceberg..training the Indians to do the job properly, not sabotage the project..and lets not forget Chief Teresa Spence (Idle No More)
and her "management" of Federal money. This trend will continue with any provincial money pumped into that area.
Of the 9 First Nations on their reserves...a total of 1833 inhabitants (from Wiki data)..OF WHICH MORE THAN HALF ARE EITHER CHILDREN OR MOTHERS, so you could say
that the able bodied men will be somewheres around 900....if they want to work that is.
$1,000,000,000 for about 900 (or less) possible jobs..how much of taxpayers money (that we don't got right now) will be spent on this..over 1 million per able bodied person,
or $500K+ for every man, woman and child.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Unfortunate, this thing called democracy. We can't enjoy one party states.


Which is exactly what you will get if sags prediction comes true, no?
Funny how it is alright when it is ideology that *you *favor.


----------



## Toronto.gal

sags said:


> There is a *strong possibility of a Liberal government in Ottawa*.....


Strong possibility according to which 2013 poll sags? From what I'm reading in 2014, it's quite the opposite. At any rate, IMHO, I don't think your dream scenario will play out, maybe one, but not both. 

Ms. Horwath surely did not hold back nor wasted any time yesterday in attacking Ms. Wynne, with a clear/loud/strong opening statement [was she explaining why we're having an election u think?]. 

'...we have to clean up the corruption at Queen's Park...the day the OPP showed up at Queen's Park, and took those hard drives out of Queen's Park, was the day that I heard the people of Ontario say that they had had enough...they had enough of the Liberal betrayals, enough of their lies, enough of the wasted billions and billions for their own gain, and Ms. Wynne was at the center of it, she was a senior cabinet minister, she was the campaign co-chair, she endorsed it all...' 

Ms. Wynne of course kept blaming all problems on what was done or not done before 2003.

Mr. Hudak a no show. June 3rd should be a real fight.


----------



## HaroldCrump

*Horwath has deeper problems of her own*


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> Which is exactly what you will get if sags prediction comes true, no?
> Funny how it is alright when it is ideology that *you *favor.


Governments change. The Ontario Liberals will be removed either in this election or the next one (which probably won't be long from now, given that it is unlikely to be a majority). I think that it is probably time, it's just unfortunate that the government in waiting is fairly lacklustre. 

The fed Tories are also getting long in the tooth and starting to pile up baggage that is preventing them from acting on some files. We need changes in administration to bring in new leadership. Harper was the leader the CPC needed to lock down the crazies and successfully execute a Liberal lite governance style, while working incrementally or through symbols to nudge government policy to the right. The base was satisfied for a while but they aren't really happy with Liberal lite. And Harper has really galvanized the people who don't support the CPC as strongly disliking him. The CPC is going to need a fresh face to break the animosity if they hope to get another majority.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Ref. _the government in waiting is fairly lackluster_ - that applies to the federal level as well.
Trudeau & his yuppies are not ready to form a serious govt.
Mulcair is a write-off. Just his views on energy policy make him unelectable by 2/3rds of the voters.

I believe succession planning for Harper is underway.
But he still has one federal election left in him, at least.
If the succession planning goes well, he might leave mid-term after the 2016 elections (assuming he is able to form a govt.).
He still hasn't fulfilled his entire goal of a surplus budget and more tax cuts, but it is quite close.

Unfortunately, senate reform is not on that list.
Neither are further cuts to public spending.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Ref. _the government in waiting is fairly lackluster_ - that applies to the federal level as well.
> Trudeau & his yuppies are not ready to form a serious govt.
> Mulcair is a write-off. Just his views on energy policy make him unelectable by 2/3rds of the voters.


Agreed. Trudeau doesn't have the maturity to stay away from sensitive topics. This latest view on Pro Choice has got some voters and even members of his own caucus upset. 
He would have been a lot smarter (iMO) to stay away from controversial topics and start building a vision for Canada, if he was to (ever) get elected.

Mulcair...he took over from Layton and the only reason the NDP became the official opposition was because of Layton's popularity, the swing vote and the demise of the Bloc in 
Federal politics where in Quebec they voted for just about anything with two legs, even if some of the candidates were not bilingual and hastily propped up by the NDP to provide
and alternative to the Bloc (where there was a voters revolt apparently at that time), and secure some votes that were going to be wasted anyway. 

H


----------



## gt_23

andrewf said:


> Governments change. The Ontario Liberals will be removed either in this election or the next one (which probably won't be long from now, given that it is unlikely to be a majority). I think that it is probably time, it's just unfortunate that the government in waiting is fairly lacklustre.
> 
> The fed Tories are also getting long in the tooth and starting to pile up baggage that is preventing them from acting on some files. We need changes in administration to bring in new leadership. Harper was the leader the CPC needed to lock down the crazies and successfully execute a Liberal lite governance style, while working incrementally or through symbols to nudge government policy to the right. The base was satisfied for a while but they aren't really happy with Liberal lite. And Harper has really galvanized the people who don't support the CPC as strongly disliking him. The CPC is going to need a fresh face to break the animosity if they hope to get another majority.


How do these types of discussions always become about Harper for Liberals? If $90k (which was reimbursed and not a loss) is what you consider baggage, then bring on more of it. The Ontario Liberals have outright destroyed tens of billiions over the last decade and wasted even more through inefficiencies. This doesn't even factor in forever-lost econimic activity due to their policymaking. Whether you agree with them or not, Harper has delivered on the majority of his promises consistently.


----------



## carverman

gt_23 said:


> How do these types of discussions always become about Harper for Liberals? If $90k (which was reimbursed and not a loss) is what you consider baggage, then bring on more of it. The Ontario Liberals have outright destroyed tens of billiions over the last decade and wasted even more through inefficiencies. This doesn't even factor in forever-lost econimic activity due to their policymaking. Whether you agree with them or not, Harper has delivered on the majority of his promises consistently.


Yes, I have to agree with you gt_23. What I find hard to take is that the Fiberals of Ont and "Wind" are going to squander billions more on the Indian mining venture. 
Most of us have heard the appeal of the PM of Turks and Caicos to convince Canada that it would be a good thing for Canadian tourists (read snow birds) to vacation in the Turks and Caicos if they were part of Canada and keep that money in Canada, if they became the 11th province or failing that at least a territory like the Yukon or NWT.


That billion that Wind wants to invest in the road to nowhere, invested in a sunny climate year round in the Turks and Caicos. , would bring in billions more for Ontario. 



> Proposed union with Canada
> See also: Proposed provinces and territories of Canada
> 
> A great number of tourists who visit the Turks and Caicos Islands are Canadian. In 2011 arrivals from Canada were about 42,000 out of a total from all countries of about 354,000.[31] Owing to this, the islands' status as a British colony, and historical trade links, some politicians in Canada and the Turks and Caicos have suggested some form of union between Canada and the British territory.


----------



## andrewf

If you think the only mistakes Harper has made is the coverup of the Senator expense fiddling, you may want to look in the mirror when throwing accusations of bias. The billion dollars spent on G8/20 (which we didn't get a power plant out of), and the untold billions wasted on F-35 procurement being at least two examples. Never mind the non-fiscal incompetence/scandals.

My post was not a value judgement of whether Harper has done the right things, just commenting on the fact that he now has a very solid % of the population with strongly negative perceptions. That is a liability for any party hoping to form government again, much less one trailing in the polls.


----------



## sags

Harper has broken a few pledges along the way as well........

Income trusts, Senate reform, balanced budgets.........to name a few.

McGuinty wasn't the only politician with his fingers crossed behind his back, while campaigning for election.


----------



## carverman

SAULT STE. MARIE, ONT.—Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne says every time former Progressive Conservative premier Mike Harris opens his mouth it helps her campaign




> Mike Harris commented: “I think my record of over a million new jobs by cutting taxes and regulation and red tape and bringing balance budget, I think that record is a pretty good one.
> And I, personally, it wouldn’t bother me to be compared to that record,” Harris told the political program.I think it’s the only province or state or country in the world I know of that’s going backwards on deficit and debt. Everybody else, I think, understands the problem of running up deficits and debts and leaving these to future generations,” Harris stated.
> 
> *“For some reason or another Ontario is the odd province out, which perhaps explains why we’ve lost so many private-sector jobs, Why we, credit rating gets downgraded, why we’re now a have-not province.*
> So, I understand they don’t want to talk about that record,” said Harris, who was premier from 1995 to 2002.


----------



## andrewf

Macleans did a piece on how the 'million jobs plan' has been crumbling. The PCs made basic mistakes in understanding the impact of their policy proposals, confusing person-years of employment with permanent jobs. As it turns out, Hudak's plan would result in 75,000 jobs created over the business as usual scenario, less the 100k he plans to eliminate from the civil service.

Now, I don't think the government should be measuring policies in terms of job creation per se. And I don't oppose sensible restructuring of public services that includes reducing head count. It's more concerning to me that Hudak and team don't seem to understand basic economics, and would make policy decisions based on erroneous interpretation of economic impacts.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Income trusts, Senate reform, balanced budgets.........to name a few.


How are those broken promises?

The income trust model was out of control.
It was being abused by large corporations to avoid paying taxes.
Things came to a head when BCE announced it was considering converting to an income trust.
There were also rumors that the big 5 chartered banks were asking themselves, why not us? We can be income trusts, too.
Jim Flaherty had to put a stop to that.

As for balanced budgets, yes, they did run a deficit during the 2008/9 crisis, but which govt. did not?
In fact, Canada has inarguably the *best* record in managing its finances under Harper & Flaherty.
Our deficits were amongst the smallest in the G7, and we are the first ones to balance our books.

With the possible exception of Switzerland, no other Western Hemisphere nation can boast managing their finances after the recession as well as Canada did.

As for senate reform, that is a very complex & constitutional issue.
There is a lot of disagreement among various parties on what exactly is the right solution.
It can hardly be called a broken promise when no one can agree on exactly what the reforms should be, and how to go about securing all the 15 levels of approval required to implement even the smallest of changes.

Also, why is it that every discussion about the provincial elections has to turn into a Harper-bashing fest?


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> Liberal Leader Kathleen *Wynne says every time former Progressive Conservative premier Mike Harris opens his mouth it helps her campaign*


More like she helps herself. Also helping her campaign, has been McGuinty's silence, but Ms. Horwath in particular, won't let her forget him. 

The 1M jobs [aka promises], in politics, it means the figure is an exaggeration, so why so many are referring to that # as though it were a precise one, beats me. Of course it is not! 

How many jobs were added/lost in the last decade? Is that # going to improve with the Liberals/NDP U think?


----------



## HaroldCrump

Hudak's 1M jobs promise is no less wildly exaggerated than the Liberals promise of balancing the budget by 2016 while increasing spending at the same time to the tune of billions of $$.

I wonder why PCs and the NDP are not calling her white bluff.
In the game of lying politicians, Hudak is a freshman, while Wynne is a sophomore.
Dalton McGuinty has already graduated magna cum laude.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Hudak's 1M jobs promise is no less wildly exaggerated than the Liberals promise of balancing the budget by 2016 while increasing spending at the same time to the tune of billions of $$.
> 
> I wonder why PCs and the NDP are not calling her white bluff.
> In the game of lying politicians, Hudak is a freshman, while Wynne is a sophomore.
> Dalton McGuinty has already graduated magna cum laude.


So the bottom line is : "We haven't got a clue on how to fix Ontario, but we would like you to vote for us so we can keep our cushy jobs as leaders of the party.


> Premier Kathleen Wynne made $198,873 in 2013, a little less than her predecessor Dalton McGuinty.
> HUDAK	TIM	Leader, Official Opposition / Chef de l'opposition officielle	$180,885.96	$269.61 (taxable benefit)
> HORWATH	ANDREA	Leader, Third Party / Chef du troisième parti	$158,157.96	$235.74 (taxable benefit)


source:
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/2012/legassembly12.html


----------



## Beaver101

HaroldCrump said:


> Hudak's 1M jobs promise is no less wildly exaggerated than the Liberals promise of balancing the budget by 2016 while increasing spending at the same time to the tune of billions of $$.
> 
> I wonder why PCs and the NDP are not calling her white bluff.
> *In the game of lying politicians, Hudak is a freshman, while Wynne is a sophomore.
> Dalton McGuinty has already graduated magna cum laude*.


 ... LOL! and from which high school? (I'm thinking of The 3 Stooges High)


----------



## Toronto.gal

HaroldCrump said:


> 1. It was being abused by large corporations to avoid paying taxes....*Jim Flaherty had to put a stop to that.*
> 
> 2. As for balanced budgets, yes, they did run a deficit during the 2008/9 crisis, but which govt. did not? In fact, Canada has inarguably the *best* record in managing its finances under Harper & Flaherty. *With the possible exception of Switzerland, no other Western Hemisphere nation can boast managing their finances after the recession as well as Canada did*.
> 
> 3. Also, why is it that every discussion about the provincial elections has to turn into a Harper-bashing fest?


*1.* Completely agree!

*2.* Canada had the strongest recovery among the G7 for sure. Just recently reading a 2013 article, in a broader comparison, the countries that did better in the initial recovery were Australia/Brazil/Chile/Israel/NZ/Poland/SK/Turkey. Not much to criticize in this respect, eh? It's also no accident that a Canadian is the current Bank of England governor; first ever foreigner to hold such a post I might add, and not for his good looks or British wife either.










Wonder what the chart would look like had the Liberals been in power.

*3.* You know why.


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ... LOL! and from which high school? (I'm thinking of The 3 Stooges High)


Dewey, Cheatem & Howe?
Now the latest on the Ontario election campaigns...

Larry plays Wynne, Andrea plays Curly and Tim Hudak as Moe....calculating how they will improve things if they win ..their "fly catcher invention" is their cam-pains to attract flys...er..Ontario Voter..same difference. What is the saying about flys.." easier to catch them with honey than with vinegar.

The Three Stooges in "Three Pests in a Mess"...how appropriate. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_ODWeadi-k


----------



## Toronto.gal

HaroldCrump said:


> Hudak's 1M jobs promise is no less wildly exaggerated than the *Liberals promise of balancing the budget by 2016 while increasing spending at the same time to the tune of billions of $$.*


That is *not* a promise [exaggerated or otherwise], but a complete lie, since what she says she'll do to balance the budget is completely impossible.

Reading below article, I had to wonder why is so much easier for Ms. Wynne to name Harris, but not her wonderful predecessor?

'...."efficiencies" usually mean fewer jobs, and Ms. Wynne wants no part of that. The public service will have the same number of jobs, she says, maybe more! Oh and the deficit will be reduced at a rate of about $4-billion a year for the next 3 years, even though it was reduced at a rate of about a 10th of that over the past 4. Easy-peasy.' 

Amazingly indeed, her lies & nonsense are working, for now anyways.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...nnes-nonsense-actually-appears-to-be-working/

Has anyone read The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation - by Drew Western? I haven't, but a review of it [not the title] has me intrigued.


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> T
> 
> Has anyone read The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation - by Drew Western? I haven't, but a review of it [not the title] has me intrigued.


I only read the "three stooges economics":biggrin:


----------



## Toronto.gal

^ :biggrin:

As for the magna, at least it wasn't summa. I can think of a few more suitable non-Latin honours for the dodger. :shame:


----------



## Beaver101

carverman said:


> Dewey, Cheatem & Howe?
> Now the latest on the Ontario election campaigns...
> 
> Larry plays Wynne, Andrea plays Curly and Tim Hudak as Moe....calculating how they will improve things if they win ..their "fly catcher invention" is their cam-pains to attract flys...er..Ontario Voter..same difference. What is the saying about flys.." easier to catch them with honey than with vinegar.
> 
> The Three Stooges in *"Three Pests in a Mess"...how appropriate*.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_ODWeadi-k


 ... :highly_amused: :highly_amused: :highly_amused: .. ROFL ...


----------



## HaroldCrump

Toronto.gal said:


> That is *not* a promise [exaggerated or otherwise], but a complete lie, since what she says she'll do to balance the budget is completely impossible.


*Of course *it is a lie...a complete lie.
Even worse, there is non even an _intention_ to balance the budget.
Just a blatant, nonchalant disregard for tax-payers.



> Amazingly indeed, her lies & nonsense are working, for now anyways.


There will always be people that will vote for incompetent incumbents because of F.U.D. being spread about the challengers.

As Michael Douglas said in _The American President_:

_People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. 
They drink the sand because they don't know the difference._

Powerful lobby groups and Super PACs like _*The Working Families Coalition*_ have spread so much F.U.D. that many people just don't know anymore.
No wonder Ontario voter turnout is less than 50%.


----------



## fraser

I suspect that the more revealing information from that chart would lay in the breakdown of those Canadian numbers during the same period. And more specifically the Ontario and the Quebec numbers. Neither province did so well. Their manufacturing sectors have been hit hard and will probably not recover. I suspect that the Saskatewan, Alberta, and to some extent the BC numbers cover up for the Ontario/Quebec numbers. These economies are very much in transition but not one of the three parties in this election are addressing this transition in any meaningful way.

Philip Cross's lead article in FP this morning claims that real per capita income in Ontario has actually decreased for the past two years. He links this directly to retirement savings and the impact that the proposed Ontario pension plan could have on people.

I think that Flaherty did a very good job.

I would not jump to the general conclusion that the federal Conservatives do a much better job than the federal Liberals in managing the economy.

If you doubt this, just look at the massive buildup of public debt, the massive increases in the yearly deficits, and the financial mess that was left by the Conservative Mulroney Government during their years in power. Paul Martin had the difficult task of slaying this financial dragon.


----------



## sags

I guess it all depends on how the numbers are calculated.........

On a per capital basis, if Ontario is in crisis..........Alberta is a basket case.

_Ironically, debt-free Alberta has the largest total liabilities per capita in the country. "On a per-capita basis, Albertans face the largest total liabilities at $147,641 among the provinces, followed by Ontarians ($121,117) and Quebecers ($119,354). Prince Edward Islanders face the smallest total government liabilities per capita at $89,736, followed by Manitobans ($92,708) and New Brunswickers ($93,809)."_

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/Sask+financial+health+gets+marks/9689401/story.html


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> On a per capital basis, if Ontario is in crisis..........Alberta is a basket case.


I agree that Alberta has lost its way when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

Not surprisingly, the causes are pretty much the same as Ontario - _*out of control public sector unions demanding more and more compensation and bankrupting the public coffers*_.


----------



## sags

I agree to cut the overpaid management hierarchy all you want.........but leave the front line low to average paid workers doing their jobs.

But, you know that isn't going to happen.

The public servants making the decisions on who gets the axe............will be the highly paid ones at the top.


----------



## HaroldCrump

That is exactly what happens when you have profligate governments running amok for years (such as the one in Ontario).
Eventually, inevitably, things come to a head where cuts have to be made.

The _first_ things to get cut are community services such as libraries, community centers, parks, pools, services like Service Ontario, etc.
Those are all staffed by front-line workers, and those are the ones that get the axe.

That is why it is important to stop profligate governments from doing too much damage well in advance.
This administration should have been voted out in 2007, and most certainly in 2011.


----------



## fraser

As an Albertan I would say that we do have a problem but the problem has not been caused by out of control public sector unions.

The issue has been on of a Government that has been in power for 43 years. They use the civil service as an extension of the party. This senior group of beaurocrats, and party members have a sense of entitlement second to none. Alberta pays the highest per capita for most provincial services because of abject mismanagement. Health care of a prime example of this but it stretches to other ministries. Untendered contracts awarded to political friends are par for the course here. Last year's flood remediation has resulted in literally hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts being awarded with NO tender process. I can no longer remember how many Health Care reorganizations we have had......along with the massive severance payments attached to each one.

We just got rid of a Premier who was in the process of building a private penthouse for herself -in a Government building at Provincial expense. She felt that she was too good to travel with other members and always used a second, private aircraft to fly between Edmonton and Calgary. 

The per capita debt in Alberta is by in large private debt, not public debt. There is a HUGE difference. It is also the result of a strong and growing economy. Unfortunately the Government has done little or nothing to attract non resource based industry. This will be to our detriment during the next downturn.


----------



## gt_23

sags said:


> Harper has broken a few pledges along the way as well........
> 
> Income trusts, Senate reform, balanced budgets.........to name a few.
> 
> McGuinty wasn't the only politician with his fingers crossed behind his back, while campaigning for election.


Seriously? Senate reform was stopped by the Liberal unelected justices in the Supreme court....they have way to much power and no accountability.

Balanced budgets? I suppose you think it was Harper's fault that the GFC started a year into his tenure. And if you recall Harper and Flaherty propososed austerity and only initiated stimulus to prevent an election.

You have a point on Income Trusts, but not the other two.


----------



## andrewf

The federal conservatives inherited amongst the best fiscal balance among industrialized countries. They ramped up spending even faster than the Liberals before them, cut revenues, and created a structural deficit. When the economy weakened, they presided over a deficit they created through high spending growth and revenue reduction. To give them credit for reversing some of their spending increases seems a bit perverse.

Now we have people saying that it doesn't matter that the PC's job creation plan will actually result in a net decrease of jobs vs status quo, because dishonesty is not a bug but a feature when it comes to politics...


----------



## andrewf

gt_23 said:


> Seriously? Senate reform was stopped by the Liberal unelected justices in the Supreme court....they have way to much power and no accountability.


This is just wrong. SC has several CPC appointed judges, and they also supported the majority ruling on the Senate reference. SCoC did not prohibit changes to the Senate, they just clarified that the government of the day cannot unilaterally change the Senate without approval from a broader consensus. It's a good thing that the government of the day can't just ignore the Constitution when it is inconvenient.




> Balanced budgets? I suppose you think it was Harper's fault that the GFC started a year into his tenure. And if you recall Harper and Flaherty propososed austerity and only initiated stimulus to prevent an election.


They promised at the G20 meeting before the 2008 election to implement stimulus of 2% of GDP in 2009 and 2010. Look it up. This is before the coalition fiasco.

Never mind that they increased spending at a higher compound rate than the Liberal government that preceded them.

I think you're accepting the revisionist history that they want you to believe rather uncritically.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Now we have people saying that it doesn't matter that the PC's job creation plan will actually result in a net decrease of jobs vs status quo, because dishonesty is not a bug but a feature when it comes to politics...


It is bizarre that someone who is not even close to winning the election is already being accused of dishonesty, while an administration whose _only _legacy has been corruption, lies, deceit, and dishonestly is getting away scot-free.
At least let the guy win the election first before the hate-fest begins.


----------



## fraser

Many dyed in the wool federal Conservatives will not, or do not like to acknowledge the fact that Stephen Harper's Government actually GREW the size of the civil service by 10 percent.

They then made a big show of announcing the downsizing. 

If they had not grown it by ten percent, they would not have had to downsize it by eight percent. 

But the optics would not have been as good.....and at the end of the day, optics is all that matters to a Government in power.


----------



## BoringInvestor

HaroldCrump said:


> It is bizarre that someone who is not even close to winning the election is already being accused of dishonesty, while an administration whose _only _legacy has been corruption, lies, deceit, and dishonestly is getting away scot-free.
> At least let the guy win the election first before the hate-fest begins.


How is it possibly bizarre?
The numbers in the jobs plan are bunk.

Hudak could do one of two things: 
a) own up to it, and move on, or 
b) double-down and claim math has a bias against the PC party.


----------



## carverman

*1 million jobs created in 8 years? It appears that the Ontario PC are using flawed math to arrive at those numbers.
*
In reality due to growth only about half a million possible jobs MAY BE created..but the PC election team used PERSON YEARs instead of RFT jobs..and that got blown out of proportion to ..
well 2, 354,000 person years and then they used some flawed formula to come up with the Million Jobs plan..
In reality if he was to fire 100,000 workers, the actual new jobs may be closer to 10,000?

Tim..you better come up with a new slogan you have only about 15 days left..and it's not looking good. 

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit...jobs_plan_based_on_faulty_math_editorial.html


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> It is bizarre that someone who is not even close to winning the election is already being accused of dishonesty, while an administration whose _only _legacy has been corruption, lies, deceit, and dishonestly is getting away scot-free.
> At least let the guy win the election first before the hate-fest begins.


So we shouldn't analyze what the leader of the alternative governing party is saying until _after_ he's elected? You do realize that elections are our opportunity to act on this kind of info, right?


----------



## carverman

carverman said:


> *1 million jobs created in 8 years? It appears that the Ontario PC are using flawed math to arrive at those numbers.
> *
> In reality due to growth only about half a million possible jobs MAY BE created..but the PC election team used "PERSON YEARs"
> instead of RFT jobs..and that got blown out of proportion to .. well 2,354,000 person years, and then they used some flawed formula to come up with the Million Jobs plan..
> 
> In reality if he was to fire 100,000 workers, the actual new jobs may be closer to 75,000?
> 
> Example: If a RFT worked at the same job for 8 years, the PCs were counting his job as 8 person years = 8 PEOPLE WORKING FOR 1 YEAR AT A JOB
> Statistics can be a bit confusing to the initiated..and economists are saying that the PCs used the wrong formula.
> 
> Hudak mentioned that he is sticking by the original numbers they had at the start and he isn't about to change it.
> Probably because he may be more prepared for the June 3 TV debate with the old (even if incorrect) numbers than coming up with a new set of fudged numbers and being a politician
> he can always bafflegab his way around these numbers if attacked by Wynne/Horwath.
> 
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit...jobs_plan_based_on_faulty_math_editorial.html


----------



## fraser

I think that Hudak's numbers are just as good and as believable as Wynn's or Horwath's.

I would not bet 10 cents on the veracity of any of them. Pie in the sky election numbers with no substantive backup. All of them. As it has always been.


----------



## bgc_fan

fraser said:


> I think that Hudak's numbers are just as good and as believable as Wynn's or Horwath's.
> 
> I would not bet 10 cents on the veracity of any of them. Pie in the sky election numbers with no substantive backup. All of them. As it has always been.


The problem is that the 1 million jobs is a significant platform plank and is being undermined by misinterpretation of data. That brings the competency of the person in question. Worse, the fact that he keeps defending it when faced with evidence that it's wrong speaks to an ideologue, I.e. I don't care if it's wrong, I believe its right, so it's right. Not exactly qualities that a leader should have.


----------



## carverman

bgc_fan said:


> The problem is that the 1 million jobs is a significant platform plank and is being undermined by misinterpretation of data. That brings the competency of the person in question. Worse, the fact that he keeps defending it when faced with evidence that it's wrong speaks to an ideologue, I.e. I don't care if it's wrong, I believe its right, so it's right. Not exactly qualities that a leader should have.





> "*I stand behind our numbers*," he said at a furnace-making facility in Niagara Falls, Ont. "I simply believe that permanent tax reductions on job creators, more affordable energy is going to create jobs."
> 
> Hudak has promised a PC government would bring a million jobs to Ontario over the next eight years, although about *half of those would be created through normal economic growth, regardless of which party is in government.*
> 
> But first the Liberals, and now a number of prominent economists, including a former federal associate deputy minister of finance, have poked holes in Hudak's numbers, focusing in particular on the possibility that the *Tories misinterpreted information from a report they commissioned from the Conference Board of Canada.*
> 
> The report, which analyses the impact of reducing corporate and personal taxes, uses the term "person years of employment" in its projections, which some economists suggest the *Tories have confused with permanent jobs, resulting in a vast overestimation of just how many new positions their plan for the province would create.*
> 
> "*I stand behind our numbers*," "I simply believe that *permanent tax reductions on job creators, more affordable energy is going to create jobs*."





Well that kinda wraps it up doesn't it..who is credible out there at this point?.., as I sit down with my morning coffee and corn flakes from the box with the "Big Rooster and fill out my special ballot.

Andrea?..who promises to lift the PST from the HST on electrical bills? I supported her in a previous election when she promised to defeat McGuilty's implementation of the HST..especially on electrical and heating bills..DIDN'T HAPPEN!

The Fiberals?, with their blantant history of waste and squandering of taxpayers money, now promising to "make it all right" , by blowing a few more Billion, that we don't got
AND balancing the budget by 2016...or maybe more like infinity and beyond?

Tim?...with his flawed math, his chop! Chop! Chop! Ontario public sector jobs and promising to balance the budget by...2016, 2018...well you pick a year..any year will do..because it ain't
going to happen with some one that already has demonstrated weak accounting skills..

Green Party? Libertarian? The Party-of-New-Hope? Who?


----------



## sags

All of these politicians have to get their head out of their arse..........and give us some details.

1 million jobs.........yea right. How exactly does that happen?

A balanced budget by 2016..........how do you accomplish that when you are spending more than you are earning ?

100,000 job cuts......who and why.........are those particular job cuts the ones that should be implemented.......or somewhere else?

There are solutions, but it takes creativity and thinking outside of the box. I am not sure any of our politicians are capable of that. The truth is that a lot of our politicians are career politicians, who have never worked for any length of time in the real world. They don't observe how solutions are found in private industry all the time.....and it sometimes involves the cooperation of both employer and employee, union and non union, to ensure their workplace remains viable.

There is a difference between ....we are going to whack 100,000 jobs.....and we are going to creatively reduce the public workforce over a number of years, where it will be least disruptive to the employees and the public.

There is a difference between.....we are going to balance the budget in 2 years, but don't have a clue how we will do it..........and we are going to freeze all department budgets and start reductions of 5% a year starting next year.

I am hearing nothing but the same old rhetoric from the three parties.

PC.......cut to prosperity.......Liberals........spend to prosperity.......NDP......cut insurance rates.


----------



## carverman

bgc_fan said:


> The problem is that the 1 million jobs is a significant platform plank and is being undermined by misinterpretation of data. That brings the competency of the person in question. Worse, the fact that he keeps defending it when faced with evidence that it's wrong speaks to an ideologue, I.e.* I don't care if it's wrong, I believe its right, so it's right. Not exactly qualities that a leader should have*.


Iisn't this basically the same as McGuilty, swayed by others when he made the final decisions on the gas plants, and eHealth. McGuilty in his first campaign indicated in a public speech that he would NOT implement any new taxes. Shortly afterwards, the OHIP tax was implemented and later on he brought in the HST. He lied throughout his tenure as Premier. 
While Wynne may not be cut from the same cloth as McGuilty, she took over nursing a sick horse (Ontario) and now feels confident she has restored it to good health and ready for more spending of taxpayers money.

Influenced by others, and especially the negotiator (Bob Rae) for the Northern Ontario Indians to spend a billion dollars (and a lot more!) on some mining project that yet remains to be viable. 

Have the Indians contributed to paying income taxes and consumption taxes? No, they are on their lands and do as they want..
so Wynne, leave them alone and look after the people that do make a difference to Ontario's economic developement...we the taxpayers.


----------



## bgc_fan

carverman said:


> Iisn't this basically the same as McGuilty, swayed by others when he made the final decisions on the gas plants, and eHealth. McGuilty in his first campaign indicated in a public speech that he would NOT implement any new taxes. Shortly afterwards, the OHIP tax was implemented and later on he brought in the HST. He lied throughout his tenure as Premier.


I'm not sure what your point is. That reality steps in and sometimes you have to change plans? The HST was actually a good thing in that it eliminated, or should eliminate the need for 2 entities collecting sales taxes. Or are you saying that because the Liberals did it, the Conservatives should be able to do it as well? Sorry, the Harper government has been playing that song way past its best before date and if that's your only defense, then why should I vote for you when you're pointing out that you're no different than the previous government that you said you would clean up?

BTW just because I'm not keen on Hudak, doesn't mean I'm keen on the other choices. When the election was called, I was leaning towards him, but seeing how things are playing out, I'd say no.



> Influenced by others, and especially the negotiator (Bob Rae) for the Northern Ontario Indians to spend a billion dollars (and a lot more!) on some mining project that yet remains to be viable.


You might want to take a look at this article:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...fire-s-potential-and-promise-action-1.2657380

Basically, all the parties are looking to spend some money on it. People keep concentrating on the Indians, but I like to think of the big picture. For example, in the article it points out that Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. was planning on spending $3B developing the project, but because of lack of certainty over the all-season road, they're pulling out. People like to promote supporting business through tax cuts, but I don't. I prefer it when they are supported through something that is concrete, such as infrastructure. According to the article, development could add $1B to Ontario's GDP annually. The comparison to the oil sands is apt, how much federal subsidies went into that development? Here's an old article by CTV stating that federal subsidies were worth $1.4B in 2008, due to tax breaks and lower royalties. Since these are ongoing, I'd say why did we develop the oil sands? Just so that profitable oil companies can make more money?
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada-s-oilpatch-subsidies-said-to-total-2-8b-1.570200


----------



## carverman

bgc_fan said:


> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...fire-s-potential-and-promise-action-1.2657380
> 
> People keep concentrating on the Indians, but I like to think of the big picture. For example, in the article it points out that Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. was planning on spending $3B developing the project, but because of lack of certainty over the all-season road, they're pulling out. People like to promote supporting business through tax cuts, but I don't. I prefer it when they are supported through something that is concrete, such as infrastructure. According to the article, development could add $1B to Ontario's GDP annually. The comparison to the oil sands is apt, how much federal subsidies went into that development? Here's an old article by CTV stating that federal subsidies were worth $1.4B in 2008, due to tax breaks and lower royalties. Since these are ongoing, I'd say why did we develop the oil sands? Just so that profitable oil companies can make more money?


You can't compare the oil patch and Alberta to the Northern Ontario Indians and resources on their lands. 
First of all, the Northern Ontario bands have a history of mismanaging financial resources and it is doubtful that they have the knowledge and business acumen to handle a mining project that size. I understand that outside interests don't want to go in there if they can't ship the ore to a smelter..after all it has to be smelted to be turned into chromium, copper and any other minerals that are in hot demand on the market.....BUT this takes a co-ordinated effort on the part of the Indians (which have nothing as far as financial resources) and have 100% say what happens on their lands. If they don't agree with what is happening, they simply blockade outside interests and the disputes can take months or even years
to settle.

Chief Teresa Spence (Attawapiskat) is one example..of squandering millions of federal money from Harper (no wonder he's no longer interested in partnering this project) and misappropriating the rest in her self interests, while her entire band live in squalor and poverty, while she invests in diamond mines and drives a cadillac SUV and promotes the INM (idle no more) movement.


----------



## bgc_fan

carverman said:


> First of all, the Northern Ontario bands have a history of mismanaging financial resources and it is doubtful that they have the knowledge and business acumen to handle a mining project that size. I understand that outside interests don't want to go in there if they can't ship the ore to a smelter..after all it has to be smelted to be turned into chromium, copper and any other minerals that are in hot demand on the market.....BUT this takes a co-ordinated effort on the part of the Indians (which have nothing as far as financial resources) and have 100% say what happens on their lands. If they don't agree with what is happening, they simply blockade outside interests and the disputes can take months or even years
> to settle.


Who says anything about the band running the show? Obviously if agreements aren't in their best interest, i.e. environmental concerns, they may blockade, but I haven't seen any news implying that they would be managing the operation. Here's an article about the impact of the development. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/23/ring-of-fire-ontario-first-nations-reserves_n_3964227.html
From that article, it looks more like they would be interested in being able to have jobs for the younger members and develop businesses based on supply chain requirements, i.e. food for the employees coming from outside. 
The concerns about impeding development are valid, but that needs to be worked out before money is spent. The concerns about fiscal mismanagement is a non-sequitur seeing as it appears that established companies would be running the operations and not the band.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> 1. million jobs created in 8 years? It appears that the *Ontario PC are using flawed math to arrive at those numbers.*
> 2. *Tim*..you better come up with a new slogan you have only about 15 days left..and *it's not looking good.*


*1.* This wasn't exactly yesterday's big news; those numbers were never meant to be believed anyway, and according to Andrew Coyne, he said [with an apology], that those who were to vote for any party on that basis alone, were morons. 

*2.* And how is it looking for Ms. Wynne/Ms. Horwath today U think? Did U listen to what they said/or didn't say yesterday? That had been the more unenlightening news of the day IMO.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1359195/o...fuses-to-rule-out-coalition-to-stay-in-power/


----------



## HaroldCrump

BoringInvestor said:


> The numbers in the jobs plan are bunk.


So are the numbers in the Liberal plan.
Not just the budget-balancing plan, but the so-called "pension plan" as well.



> Hudak could do one of two things:
> a) own up to it, and move on, or
> b) double-down and claim math has a bias against the PC party.


Wynne could do one of two things: 
a) own up to *all the scandals, lies, deceit*, and move *out*, or 
b) double-down and claim _*truth *_has a bias against the *Liberal *party.


----------



## BoringInvestor

HaroldCrump said:


> So are the numbers in the Liberal plan.
> Not just the budget-balancing plan, but the so-called "pension plan" as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Wynne could do one of two things:
> a) own up to *all the scandals, lies, deceit*, and move *out*, or
> b) double-down and claim _*truth *_has a bias against the *Liberal *party.



Harold - you've avoided the point.

Your initial comment was:

_It is bizarre that someone who is not even close to winning the election is already being accused of dishonesty, while an administration whose only legacy has been corruption, lies, deceit, and dishonestly is getting away scot-free. At least let the guy win the election first before the hate-fest begins._

This is nonsensical.
The math in the PC plan has been exposed as faulty. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it was an honest mistake and not an 

Now that we know their math it's incorrect, what do you expect a leader to do? 
Deny, or accept responsibility and move on?


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> You do realize that elections are our opportunity to act on this kind of info, right?


Absolutely.
At the same time, an election is also our opportunity to pass judgment on the incumbent administration and their performance.
Time and time again, in all democratic countries, voters kick out an under-performing or corrupt administration as a protest vote.

IMHO (you probably disagree), this election is basically about two questions:
#1 - Does the Wynne Liberal party deserve to be re-elected for the 4th consecutive time?
If the answer is no, then:
#2 - Which of the other 2 main parties has the better platform?


----------



## HaroldCrump

BoringInvestor said:


> Harold - you've avoided the point.


No, the whole point is that a different standard is being applied when judging one candidate vs. the other one.
There are two sets of rules.

Hudak's job creation math is faulty, ergo, he does not deserve to be premier.
Wynne's math is faulty as well, and in addition, her administration is ridden with corruption, deceit and fiscal incompetence - but it is alright - she deserves to be premier just because [insert your ideology here]


----------



## Toronto.gal

Sounds like perhaps another 'water under the bridge' boondoggle. But if the PC allegations are false, and Ms. Wynne is telling the truth, why are we hearing about this 'secret' bailout only today? 

*Ontario Tories allege Wynne hid $317-million bailout of real-estate project*
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...al-estate-project-pcs-allege/article18904215/


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> No, the whole point is that a different standard is being applied when judging one candidate vs. the other one.
> There are two sets of rules.
> 
> Hudak's job creation math is faulty, ergo, he does not deserve to be premier.
> Wynne's math is faulty as well, and in addition, her administration is ridden with corruption, deceit and fiscal incompetence - but it is alright - she deserves to be premier just because [insert your ideology here]


Techically neither one deserves to be Premier,
but so far Wynne has not done the financial damage to Ontario that McGuilty has done.
Hudak, has no track record we can go back on, he was under Harris for a while as a lessor peon of Harris' gov't, but has never assumed the responsibility to Ontario taxpayers of managing a sound financial program.
Certainly, in these uncertain financial times, cutting back on spending may be better than spending money we don't have, but at the same time we don't want our taxpayer services cut to the point that
the extended wait times for medical treatment, or other social benefits are cut as well.
Somewhere in the middle of these diametrically opposed ideologies..there has be a happy medium, but the NDP is not offering this.


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> Sounds like perhaps another 'water under the bridge' boondoggle. But if the PC allegations are false, and Ms. Wynne is telling the truth, why are we hearing about this 'secret' bailout only today?
> 
> *Ontario Tories allege Wynne hid $317-million bailout of real-estate project*
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...al-estate-project-pcs-allege/article18904215/


Another reason that Wynne cannot be trusted with taxpayers money. 
Not only is she willing to spend hundreds of millions to "redevelop" money losing Ontario Place and build a $1B+ road in Northern Ontario
to the Indian reservations, but all of these hidden agendas come to light NOW, where somebody is profiting from the rest of us that pay taxes. 
There is no transparency with the Fiberals. This HAS to STOP NOW!


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> but so far Wynne has not done the financial damage to Ontario that McGuilty has done.


Ah, so we must _wait_ for Wynne to do enough fiscal damage?
If we have to _wait_ for a premier to do more fiscal damage, might as well take a chance with Hudak or the NDP.

Secondly, this is a highly convenient strategy for incompetent and corrupt parties...let one leader run the province down into the dust, then swap him/her out for a new face, and use that justification to get re-elected.
In 2018, after Wynne would have devastated Ontario further, the Liberal party will simply swap her out with someone else, and get re-elected.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> but so far Wynne has not done the financial damage to Ontario that McGuilty has done.


Not a fair 'Premier' comparison considering Ms. Wynne has had the position for, as she put it, 'a year and a bit.' But give her 4 years, she just might match McGuinty's 9.4 years in 1/2 the time.


----------



## Nemo2

Toronto.gal said:


> Not a fair 'Premier' comparison considering Ms. Wynne has had the position for, as she put it, 'a year and a bit.' But give her 4 years, she just might match McGuinty's 9.4 years in 1/2 the time.


So...can we put you and Harold down as 'undecided'? :biggrin:

(Me, I voted Liberal _once_ in my life......Federally, circa 1968....P.E.T. OK, I was young-ish and more stupid than I am today..it that's possible......and, judgmental or not, it'd be a cold day in Hell, etc, etc....)


----------



## Toronto.gal

^ LOL Nemo, definitely NOT. :biggrin:

To be clear, I was not suggesting that Ms. Wynne deserves to be elected, quite the contrary.


----------



## Nemo2

Toronto.gal said:


> To be clear, I was not suggesting that Ms. Wynne deserves to be elected, quite the contrary.


I may be dumb, but I'm not _totally_ oblivious to irony & disparagement. :wink:


----------



## BoringInvestor

HaroldCrump said:


> No, the whole point is that a different standard is being applied when judging one candidate vs. the other one.
> There are two sets of rules.
> 
> Hudak's job creation math is faulty, ergo, he does not deserve to be premier.
> Wynne's math is faulty as well, and in addition, her administration is ridden with corruption, deceit and fiscal incompetence - but it is alright - she deserves to be premier just because [insert your ideology here]


No - the point is Hudak's math is faulty; and given that it's faulty we evaluate his actions afterwards.

I expect a leader to lead - which means taking responsibility and moving on when things under their watch go wrong.

That's a very fair standard to apply to anyone. 
Hudak has failed.

Given that Hudak can't admit to an obvious, unambiguous, error, how do you expect him to govern when larger issues emerge re: governmental programs and spending? 
Is he showing himself to be honest, truthful, and worthy to lead (you're welcome to say the same standard should apply to the Liberals and he is the 'lesser' of two evils, but I'm talking specifically about Hudak in this circumstance).

I'd say in this specific case - no, he hasn't. 
Do you agree?


----------



## HaroldCrump

BoringInvestor said:


> I expect a leader to lead - which means taking responsibility and moving on when things under their watch go wrong.


Ha ! And does that gold standard apply to the incumbent?



> Hudak has failed.


And I suppose McGuinty & Wynne pass the gold standard with flying colors?



> Given that Hudak can't admit to an obvious, unambiguous, error, how do you expect him to govern when larger issues emerge re: governmental programs and spending?


So the only logical outcome of your arguments is that you will not be voting on June 12th, yeah?
You are protesting the complete lack of standards (and basic math skills) among our top 3 parties by abstaining from voting.

If not (i.e. you will be voting), then clearly your gold standards are "flexible".

Anyhow, as I said above, to me, there are only two questions:
- Is current administration worth re-electing?
- If not, who among the two main opposition parties has a better platform?


----------



## BoringInvestor

HaroldCrump said:


> Ha ! And does that gold standard apply to the incumbent?
> 
> 
> And I suppose McGuinty & Wynne pass the gold standard with flying colors?
> 
> 
> So the only logical outcome of your arguments is that you will not be voting on June 12th, yeah?
> You are protesting the complete lack of standards (and basic math skills) among our top 3 parties by abstaining from voting.
> 
> If not (i.e. you will be voting), then clearly your gold standards are "flexible".
> 
> Anyhow, as I said above, to me, there are only two questions:
> - Is current administration worth re-electing?
> - If not, who among the two main opposition parties has a better platform?


Harold - you are purposely ignoring my straightforward questions, and projecting views and opinions onto me.
If you want to talk about who has the best vision for Ontario, who should lead, fine, we can have that chat.

But first, can you answer, directly (and without a need to reference others), my question:
*In this particular circumstance has Hudak shown qualities such as honesty, personal integrity, and leadership, and if not should it impact how we can judge him as a leader?*


----------



## andrewf

Harold's argument seems to boil down to: Hudak should be elected because Wynne (or more specifically, her predecessor) were so awful. If it were a sack of potatoes leading the PC party, the argument would be the same (and probably more popular than Hudak).

This seems somewhat irrational to me. And all debates will start with the conclusion of 'elect Hudak' and work backwards from there. There's nothing Hudak could do to not earn Harold's vote.


----------



## BoringInvestor

andrewf said:


> Harold's argument seems to boil down to: Hudak should be elected because Wynne (or more specifically, her predecessor) were so awful. If it were a sack of potatoes leading the PC party, the argument would be the same (and probably more popular than Hudak).
> 
> This seems somewhat irrational to me. And all debates will start with the conclusion of 'elect Hudak' and work backwards from there. There's nothing Hudak could do to not earn Harold's vote.


Which is both understandable, and not, at the same time.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Ah, so we must _wait_ for Wynne to do enough fiscal damage?
> If we have to _wait_ for a premier to do more fiscal damage, might as well take a chance with Hudak or the NDP.
> 
> Secondly, this is a highly convenient strategy for incompetent and corrupt parties...let one leader run the province down into the dust, then swap him/her out for a new face, and use that justification to get re-elected.
> In 2018, after Wynne would have devastated Ontario further, the Liberal party will simply swap her out with someone else, and get re-elected.


Hiow true! I was thinking the same thing myself. I am leaning towards Hudak (no real choice) but I will wait to send in my special ballot after the June 3 TV debate.
Frankly at this point I have no confidence in any of the three..but there is always the green party, if I need to "park" my vote somewhere, I suppose.


----------



## HaroldCrump

BoringInvestor said:


> Which is both understandable, and not, at the same time.


The argument to re-elect Wynne's Liberals is also entirely based on the "Stop Hudak" rhetoric and FUD.
Which is both understandable, and not, at the same time.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Hudak should be elected because Wynne (or more specifically, her predecessor) were so awful.


Ah, but how grossly you under-estimate Wynne !
You do her deep injustice.
Just wait and watch...she will soon outshine her illustrious predecessor in terms of fiscal [in]competence.
All indications are pointing towards that.



> There's nothing Hudak could do to not earn Harold's vote.


Similarly, there's nothing the Liberals could do to not earn your (and some others') vote.


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> Not a fair 'Premier' comparison considering Ms. Wynne has had the position for, as she put it, 'a year and a bit.' But give her 4 years, she just might match McGuinty's 9.4 years in 1/2 the time.


Yes you are probably right T.G. With her big spender budget, we will end up a lot worse in 4 years time..if she lasts that long with minority. If by some chance she gets a majority..God help us!
While I'm in favour of improving transit and infrastructure in the GTA, I am NOT in favour at this time of building a 400km Billion dollar road leading to nowhere. While Ontario is responsible for it's
highways, the maintenance on secondary roads has been handed over to the townships. Let the Indians chip in 50% and maybe...but no use building that road unless developers of the mines have
signed on,,,otherwise left up to the Indians..it will turn out just like Mirabel airport...an albatross on the federal enconomy. The feds are actuall thinking of tearing down Mirabel now.


----------



## Nemo2

carverman said:


> just like Mirabel airport...an albatross on the federal enconomy. The feds are actuall thinking of tearing down Mirabel now.


Yup...a real bit of legerdemain to rename Dorval after P.E.T. when, (if _anything_ was to be named after him), it should have been Mirabel.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> Ah, but how grossly you under-estimate Wynne !
> Similarly, there's nothing the Liberals could do to not earn your (and some others') vote.


No, not similarly. I have been making fair critiques of Hudak and have defended Wynne/McGuinty against some of the hyperbolic excesses leveled at them, but by no means am I cheerleading for them. I have criticized the government on numerous points. And I am by no means happy with their performance. I was prepared to vote for Hudak if he presented a credible plan. His plans lacks credibility, which means it will be abandoned immediately. Hudak is an unknown quantity.


----------



## andrewf

carverman said:


> I am NOT in favour at this time of building a 400km Billion dollar road leading to nowhere.


I will remind you that the prior government also invested a great deal upgrading highways to the north. Have you seen the 400/69 to Barrie lately?


----------



## sags

The widening of the 400 is a good example of badly needed infrastructure creating jobs.

Record low borrowing rates........is the best time to do the work.........especially when they create jobs.

That is the prudent use of credit............


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> I will remind you that the prior government also invested a great deal upgrading highways to the north. Have you seen the 400/69 to Barrie lately?


Andrew. I have no objection to the Ontario gov't spending taxpayers money on road infrastructure used by commerce and commuters in Ontario and taxpayers going to their cottages
in Muskoka. Yes, the taxpayers deserve upgraded roads for their gas tax and income tax money. What I am objecting to is Wynne's plan to spend BILLIONS on a road (even two)
lane gravel from Thunderbay north to way up north in Indian territory. Even if the mining operation got off the ground, there is no smelter there..that would require several BILLION
more in 2014 tax dollars to make it viable..otherwise the ore has to trucked over 400km to Sudbury, where there has been a "ring of fire" for years.

What is the ECONOMIC viability of a huge oil sands truck carrying TTONS of ore 400km one way to the smelter in Sudbury and then going back empty another 400km to pick up another load? 
This scheme is NOT the SAME as the Alberta oil sands, where trucks cart the oil sand to a local processing facility to extract the tar based oil and then pipe it down
to a refinery in Alberta At $100+ a barrel, it is economically viable now, but it wasn't 20 years ago when the price of oil was much less per barrel. 

What are the fuel costs/operator costs to drive a single truck approximately 600 to 800 km? How much ore can be mined in a given month and is that smelted ore economically viable to pay for the operation itself and most of all TURN A PROFIT for mining venture, the Indians, and lets not forget.... the Ontario gov't share for our investment. 



> R*ing of Fire as Ontario's Oil Sands[edit]
> In May 2012, Cliffs Natural Resources announced a "$3.3-billion investment to build a chromite mine, transportation corridor and processing facility in northern Ontario's Ring of Fire that would lead to a new generation of prosperity in the north, with thousands of jobs and new infrastructure." Natural Resources minister Michael Gravelle announced that the smelter would be in Sudbury, Ontario.[7]
> 
> and as far as work provided for the locals..
> 
> 
> 
> February 2013 briefing notes for Clement warned that the Matawa First Nation communities were among the "most socio-economically challenged in Ontario, impacting their ability to meaningfully participate in large complex projects."[14] Most of the "working age population in the Matawa First Nation communities have not completed high school."[14][notes 4][15] Three of the nine local Matawa First Nations were "under financial intervention (co-management)."[14] Matawa First Nations lack "exposure to a development of this magnitude combined with low educational attainment and other factors suggests that the communities do not currently have the capacity to address the various issues related to the Ring of Fire."[14]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On 26 April 2013, Tony Clement called the Ring of Fire the Oil Sands of Ontario.[4] On 13 June 2013, Cliffs announced it would put its $3.3-billion project on hold pending results of negotiations between First Nations and Queen's Park.[8]
> 
> Tony Clement said that the Ring of Fire would bring "about a 100 years of mining activity that will spin-off jobs and economic activity for generations."[5]*


Tony Clement..the guy that spent 50 million on gazebos in his own riding..is not the consultant, I would base my decision on to see if this whole scheme is economically viable now.
Anytime the gov'ts get involve with an economic venture with the Indians, it generally proves to be disastrous economically. *They are NOT entrepreneurs*.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> I was prepared to vote for Hudak if he presented a credible plan. His plans lacks credibility, which means it will be abandoned immediately.
> *Hudak is an unknown quantity.*


It is simply a primitive fear of the unknown - some folks would rather vote for the known certainty of corruption, profligacy, and mismanagement, rather than take the chance on an "unknown quantity".

The same standards and touchstone that is being used to write off Hudak should also be applied to the incumbents - it would only be fair.

I am not asking or expecting you to change your mind, of course - but pray _exactly _what is Hudak guilty of so far?

A jobs plan that is using some questionable numbers (which are from StatsCan, btw) - that is all.

The entire premise of that Toronto Star article quoted above (which is being used to write off Hudak as unworthy of trust) is based on the controversial topic of whether there is truly a skilled labor shortage in some areas of the economy such as the skills trades and in certain areas of the economy.
There are several sets of opinions, depending on who you ask and which data set you accept.
The federal opposition parties blame the Harper govt. for over-blowing the skills shortage.
But, at the same time, there are reports that StatsCan is not measuring the labor statistics correctly.

So Hudak's numbers are perhaps part of this controversy as well.

Regardless, this is an election campaign - all the parties are making all sorts of promises.
Hudak's election platform is no different than any one else's.
The election platforms of the other two main parties are just pie-in-the-sky and pixie dust.

How can Hudak be called untrustworthy when Wynne is making such obviously ludicrous claims of balancing the budget by 2016 while increasing spending (and public sector employment) manifold.
If we stack-rank the promises and claims of each of the three main parties on a scale of unbelievable-ness, Hudak's is not the worst at all.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> How can Hudak be called untrustworthy when Wynne is making such obviously ludicrous claims of balancing the budget by 2016 while increasing spending (and public sector employment) manifold.
> If we stack-rank the promises and claims of each of the three main parties on a scale of unbelievable-ness, Hudak's is not the worst at all.


So it boils down to "best of the worst"? 

Just to show you that all 3 candidates need a reality check...I got an email today from one of Howath's NDP supporters telling me that they want to remove the HST from the 
hydro bills to save families an average of $120 a year. Back in the second election, when McGuilty was implementing the HST, Horwath was telling us she would "Kill the HST".
Didn't happen. Just an empty election promise like this one....whoever is in power on June 12th cannot remove the GST component without leave of the Federal gov't. 

The GST was on the electricity before McGuilty harmonized the Ontario tax..that is Harper's tax, and I don't think any elected Ontario party can simply remove it.
The feds collect millions on the GST applied to heating and electricity.

It;s just a lot of election BS.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> Didn't happen. Just an empty election promise like this one....whoever is in power on June 12th cannot remove the GST component without leave of the Federal gov't.


They are talking about removing the PST portion of the tax (i.e. the 8%).
GST was always there for hydro (and gasoline).
The issue is to remove the erstwhile PST portion, which will reduce bills by 8%.

Bringing hydro, gas, and gasoline under the HST was nothing more than a huge tax grab.
Just another way to raise taxes, while claiming _I will not raise taxes_.



> that is Harper's tax


Well, Mulroney's :biggrin:
Instituted to (guess what) - wipe out the deficit.
Back in 1991.



> The feds collect millions on the GST applied to heating and electricity.


In that case, aren't you thankful that the Harper govt. reduced it by 2%?


----------



## BoringInvestor

HaroldCrump - I take it you're not interested in answering my question re: Hudak's response to the million jobs claim. 

I'll assume it's because the answer makes you uncomfortable about Hudak's leadership qualities.

Thanks.


----------



## fraser

Hudak has leadership qualities??? First I have heard of it.

There seems to be no discussion among those who are qualified to assess the 1 Million jobs plan. It is a farce. There is no pea under that shell.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> They are talking about removing the PST portion of the tax (i.e. the 8%).
> GST was always there for hydro (and gasoline).
> The issue is to remove the erstwhile PST portion, which will reduce bills by 8%.


Yes, I'm aware of that Harold..but this NDP doob..blantantly indicated they are planning to remove the HST...again, just like Hudaks "Million Jobs scheme"..nobody checks to see what they are using for
election fodder to attract votes to their side..is factual and correct. 


> Bringing hydro, gas, and gasoline under the HST was nothing more than a huge tax grab.
> Just another way to raise taxes, while claiming _I will not raise taxes_.





> Well, Mulroney's :biggrin:
> Instituted to (guess what) - wipe out the deficit.
> Back in 1991.


Sidestep here from the main topic..but when you mentioned Mulroney...
Yes, Bags of Cash Mulroney..probably the most corrupt PM Canada has ever had. Heard he's now running Quebecor..watch more "bags o cash" being filtered off to his Swiss bank accts.
Some of us still remember Mulroney and the Air Canada Air Bus scandal. Airbus paid out an undisclosed BRIBE to get Mulroney to influence (peddling) AC to buy these jets instead of going
to competition. The money WAS deposited "arms length" into numbered swiss accts under a alias, RCMP investigate Mulroney on the scandal, but he's pretty clever..and they couldn't
pin him down enough to convict him in court. He later sued the gov't for his legal bills. 



> In that case, aren't you thankful that the Harper govt. reduced it by 2%?


Yes, because if Wynne gets back in, sooner or later they will raise the PST on the HST by 1% or 2%.
Fiberals are out of control!


----------



## sags

Carverman...........look at the bright side......

If the roads to the north don't work out for industrial use..........they will make dandy atv trails...............


----------



## HaroldCrump

BoringInvestor said:


> HaroldCrump - I take it you're not interested in answering my question re: Hudak's response to the million jobs claim.
> I'll assume it's because the answer makes you uncomfortable about Hudak's leadership qualities.


What exactly do you want to know?
Who am I voting for?
I am voting for the PC candidate in my riding.

Is every single statement in the PC election manifesto accurate - probably not.

But it is the best plan I have seen among the top 3.
The other challenger (NDP) does not have a plan - any plan.

As for the incumbents, I will not vote for them because of various reasons I have articulated several times.

And speaking of discomfort, just listen to the radio and TV attack ads by left wing lobby groups and Super PACs like the Working Families Coalition and the Elementary Teacher's Association.
They are squirming in the seat of their pants at the prospect of even a minority Hudak govt.


----------



## carverman

fraser said:


> Hudak has leadership qualities??? First I have heard of it.
> 
> There seems to be no discussion among those who are qualified to assess the 1 Million jobs plan.
> It is a farce. There is no pea under that shell.


+1 ^


----------



## Toronto.gal

sags said:


> Record low borrowing rates........is the best time to do the work.........especially when they create jobs. *That is the prudent use of credit....*........


Oh yes, we know from experience how prudent the _Lie_berals are [that's who you're talking about, right?]. 

Party on & let's get to the 1/2 trillion in net-debt.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Toronto.gal said:


> Party on & let's get to the 1/2 trillion in net-debt.


Don't worry - when Justy boy comes Prime Minister in 2015, the federal govt. will bail-out Ontario.
At least, that's the plan.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Carverman...........look at the bright side......
> 
> If the roads to the north don't work out for industrial use..........they will make dandy atv trails...............


Sags..you are thinking outside the box again.:biggrin:

I used to work for Telesat Canada (Anik) back in '72. Telesat was forced to supply emergency telephone service by small satellite stations (trailers basically) on all these Indian communities
and sometimes things got "sabotaged" by the Indians on these Northern Ontario reservations. Because the trailers were heated in the winter, they would break into the trailer and use
it for an OUTHOUSE and tamper with the communication equipment, We had to dispatch repairment by plane to fly into these remote Indian communities to restore operation. From what
my co-workers described afterwards, it was a trip almost into HELL! 

Upon arrival, the chief would meet our guys at the airport and demand payment for their "taxi service"...usually a skidoo which they used year round (even with no snow in the summer months)
and when the ski-doos got broken,,they got another handout from the federal gov't to replace them. Squalor everywhere. No sign of any entrepreneurial activity,
So yes, you are right. If the mining operations don't work out for one reason or another..the Indians can drive their ATVs up the gravel roads all the way to ThunderBay, and Ontario will
be on the hook for repairing this road forever,


----------



## BoringInvestor

HaroldCrump said:


> What exactly do you want to know?


I want to know the answer to this question:

Now that we know the calculations in the Million Jobs plan are bogus (let's assume it was incompetence, and not a deliberate act to deceive):
*As Hudak continues to defend the numbers, has Hudak shown qualities such as honesty, personal integrity, and leadership, and if not should it impact how we can judge him as a leader?*


----------



## HaroldCrump

BoringInvestor said:


> *As Hudak continues to defend the numbers, has Hudak shown qualities such as honesty, personal integrity, and leadership, and if not should it impact how we can judge him as a leader?*


I have no qualms with voting in Hudak as a premier.
I have also made it clear that _in my opinion_, he is the best choice at this time.
That said, I am not his political advisor, his campaign manager, or his personal aide - I can obviously not vouch for his integrity and give you a gold certificate.

There are only 3 main names candidates on the ballot - pick one, or stay home.

Too bad so sad, we can't have Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, and Winston Churchill running for Ontario premier.

Now, how about you tell us who you are voting for and *As Wynne continues to defend the Liberal Party, has Wynne shown qualities such as honesty, personal integrity, and leadership, and if not should it impact how we can judge her as a leader?*


----------



## fraser

I think that the leaders debate may sway the large swath of undecided voters.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> I am leaning towards Hudak (no real choice) but I will wait to send in my special ballot after the June 3 TV debate.


If you are waiting until the debate to make up your mind about Hudak, I can tell you right now, it's not going to turn out well for him.
He is not a good debater (or even a good public speaker).
In 2011, he got run all over by McGuinty who is a very smooth and seasoned actor.

He does a little better in one-on-one interviews.
If you like, you can watch his interview with Amanda Lang on the LOLX show from this Tues.
Link below:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/Lang+&+O'Leary+Exchange/ID/2460295345/


----------



## Beaver101

I'm a voter and our so-called leaders of tomorrow can debate until the cows come home ... I'm voting for None of the Above as they're all liar liars pants will be on fire! :biggrin:


----------



## Nemo2

Beaver101 said:


> I'm a voter and our so-called leaders of tomorrow can debate until the cows come home ... I'm voting for None of the Above as they're all liar liars pants will be on fire! :biggrin:


Surely voting for the best of a bad bunch is preferable to (possibly) enabling the worst of a bad bunch to get (re)-elected?


----------



## HaroldCrump

Nemo2 said:


> Surely voting for the best of a bad bunch is preferable to (possibly) enabling the worst of a bad bunch to get (re)-elected?


That is my opinion as well.


----------



## Toronto.gal

HaroldCrump said:


> Don't worry - when Justy boy comes Prime Minister in 2015, the federal govt. will bail-out Ontario.


Well, worried I am, and I'm not alone.

Back to Ontario, the party that gets the title for the most scandal-plagued/borrow/tax/spend & waste habitué, is not all that questionable. Can same Liberals improve their record in these under Ms. Wynne?

Speaking of bailouts & scandals, it hasn't just been few that we've had to swallow, but an endless list from eHealth/coal & gas plants/MPAC/OLG/Orng/Samsung/slush funds, and on and on; and oh, speaking of the former, what a coincidence about Mr. David Rounthwaite, brother of Ms. Wynne's spouse, going from top lawyer there, to current CEO [just an interim position since last month, so we're told, hence the job was not posted, but approved by the eHealth board, ofc.]. 

Looks like we're about to add yet one more boondoggle under the above mention list - déjà vu.

Ontario has the lowest voter turnout in the country; apathy is an interesting thing, the key reasons people give for this are not all that surprising: no candidate good enough/no interest in anything/no time.

Waiting for the debate.


----------



## Toronto.gal

Nemo2 said:


> Surely voting for the best of a bad bunch is preferable to (possibly) enabling the worst of a bad bunch to get (re)-elected?


+1.


----------



## carverman

And so it begins...Fiberals will own office towers, and build roads to nowhere...keep on spending like there is no tomorrow!



> Wynne put a *positive spin on the fact the province now has to buy the MaRS office tower to stop the charity from defaulting on loans, saying it will be good for the government to own more office space across the street from the legislature.*
> "This is a process whereby we would be consolidating government functions that are now in other buildings, not owned by government, in one building that would then be owned by the government," she said. "That's a responsible thing to do."
> The Liberal leader said Hudak was using MaRS to distract from the fact that the Conservatives made a basic math error in calculating they could create one million jobs over eight years, the centrepiece of their "fundamentally flawed" platform.
> "They have put forward a platform that's based on a mathematical error, and so they're going to do anything between now and June 12 to make sure that people are not thinking about that," said Wynne.


----------



## Beaver101

Nemo2 said:


> Surely voting for the best of a bad bunch is preferable to (possibly) enabling the worst of a bad bunch to get (re)-elected?


 . . and who is the "worst" of the bad bunch? Libs or NDP or PC or NDP or PC or Libs or NDP or Libs or PC? They all look the same poison to me ... :disgust: 

Larry, Curly or Moe, hmmm???


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> If you are waiting until the debate to make up your mind about Hudak, I can tell you right now, it's not going to turn out well for him.
> He is not a good debater (or even a good public speaker).
> In 2011, he got run all over by McGuinty who is a very smooth and seasoned actor.
> 
> He does a little better in one-on-one interviews.
> If you like, you can watch his interview with Amanda Lang on the LOLX show from this Tues.


Yes, I have to agree. In this interview with Amanda Lang, he is more at ease and speaking about the details of he would do and that problems that Ontario is facing right now.
I picked up on him saying "Politicians have to put your money where their mouths are'...Translation" they have to be more accountable from now on with taxpayers dollars. because there
isn't as much to go around anymore in the current economy.

I also like the fact that he mentioned.: If they don't balance the budget, he will cut their pay and his pay...nice motherhood statement, but I doubt we will see that happen.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> I also like the fact that he mentioned.: If they don't balance the budget, he will cut their pay and his pay...nice motherhood statement, but I doubt we will see that happen.


Well, he's gone on record with that statement.
It has been recorded on TV.
If he doesn't follow through with that, it will be a major embarrassment for him.
He has also said that all MPP salaries will be frozen for 4 years from the time he's elected (if elected, of course).

A far cry from the 25% raise that Dalton McGuinty gave himself and all the politicians in 2007.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Toronto.gal said:


> Well, worried I am, and I'm not alone.


Aww...I was trying my best to mimic the pirate terrorist from _*Captain Phillips*_ - _Don't worry, Irish. Everything will be okay_

So, let me try again:
_Don't worry, T.Gal. Justy boy will bail-out Ontario. Everything will be okay_


----------



## Toronto.gal

^ Gotcha! Hakuna matata.


----------



## HaroldCrump

BoringInvestor said:


> re: Hudak's response to the million jobs claim.


*If Hudak's math doesn't add up, neither does anyone else's*


----------



## Toronto.gal

Beaver101 said:


> . . and who is the "worst" of the bad bunch? Libs or NDP or PC or NDP or PC or Libs or NDP or Libs or PC? They all look the same poison to me ... :disgust:


You left out some potential variables, ie: coalition of manipulators. Imagine piling up deficits x 2? Go for it!


----------



## Beaver101

Toronto.gal said:


> You left out some potential variables, ie: coalition of manipulators. Imagine piling up deficits x 2? Go for it!


 ... I'm not going for any of these parties just as I'm not going for (or to) the BAN AM game ... :biggrin:

X marks the spot:
[ X ] = NONE OF THE ABOVE = DECLINE TO VOTE


----------



## BoringInvestor

HaroldCrump said:


> I have no qualms with voting in Hudak as a premier.
> I have also made it clear that _in my opinion_, he is the best choice at this time.
> That said, I am not his political advisor, his campaign manager, or his personal aide - I can obviously not vouch for his integrity and give you a gold certificate.
> 
> There are only 3 main names candidates on the ballot - pick one, or stay home.
> 
> Too bad so sad, we can't have Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, and Winston Churchill running for Ontario premier.
> 
> Now, how about you tell us who you are voting for and *As Wynne continues to defend the Liberal Party, has Wynne shown qualities such as honesty, personal integrity, and leadership, and if not should it impact how we can judge her as a leader?*


You're not answering the question.

You keep reiterating your point: "he's the least worst/best of the three".
I'm not asking that. If you don't want to answer, then just say as much and stop dancing around the issue.


My question is simply: as he continues to defend a plan he knows perfectly well is flawed (as opposed to admitting it and moving on), he's now being intentionally untruthful with the electorate. 
Is this the mark of a good leader and should the electorate factor this into their judgement?


----------



## Toronto.gal

Beaver101 said:


> 1. ... I'm not going for any of these parties
> 2. I'm not going for (or to) the BAN AM game ... :biggrin:


*1.* The 'go for it' had been a general comment.
*2.* :untroubled: Considering where u live, like you'll be able to escape it. :tiger:


----------



## HaroldCrump

BoringInvestor said:


> My question is simply: as he continues to defend a plan he knows perfectly well is flawed (as opposed to admitting it and moving on), he's now being intentionally untruthful with the electorate.
> Is this the mark of a good leader and should the electorate factor this into their judgement?


Every voter must decide for himself/herself what is acceptable or not acceptable to them.

I have decided, and I have clearly said what I decided (although I don't owe it to anyone to reveal who I am voting for).

How can I tell you (or anyone else) what to believe?
Will you vote for Hudak if I tell you to?

How come I am answerable *to you *for Tim Hudak's actions, but you are not answerable to me for the actions of the Liberal Party since 2004 (or whoever you support)?


----------



## Toronto.gal

BoringInvestor said:


> *You keep reiterating your point:* "he's the least worst/best of the three". I'm not asking that. *If you don't want to answer, then just say as much and stop dancing around the issue.*


And you keep asking. 

If he's not answering to your satisfaction, why do you keep asking then?! Are you his boss or what? Do you answer all the questions posed to you here?


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> I am not asking or expecting you to change your mind, of course - but pray _exactly _what is Hudak guilty of so far?
> 
> A jobs plan that is using some questionable numbers (which are from StatsCan, btw) - that is all.


It was from a study they commissioned from the Conference Board of Canada. The problem is not with the numbers, but their total incompetence in interpreting those numbers when evaluating the merit of their policy proposals. That is assuming they were not intentionally trying to mislead people.



> So Hudak's numbers are perhaps part of this controversy as well.


Hudak's conclusions based on the CBoC's analysis is completely wrong. When confronted with the fact his team made a mistake, he decided to double down on the error. This is not a sign of good leadership or judgement. In my line of work, that behaviour gets you fired.




> How can Hudak be called untrustworthy when Wynne is making such obviously ludicrous claims of balancing the budget by 2016 while increasing spending (and public sector employment) manifold.
> If we stack-rank the promises and claims of each of the three main parties on a scale of unbelievable-ness, Hudak's is not the worst at all.


I don't know. Promising to create a million jobs is a real whopper. When I first heard the number, I was immediately suspicious, given Ontario's workforce is only ~8-9 million. As it turns out, his plan is for a net reduction in jobs vs status quo. Promising a million currently unemployed people a job is not a small untruth.

Honestly, I'm not happy with any of the choices on offer in this election. It drives me crazy that we can't have a serious fiscal conservative alternative.


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ... I'm not going for any of these parties just as I'm not going for (or to) the BAN AM game ... :biggrin:
> 
> X marks the spot:
> [ X ] = NONE OF THE ABOVE = DECLINE TO VOTE


Sorry to disillusion you Beav, but I recieved my secret ballot in the mail..it list 5 candidates..and no other option. They sent it to me by special courier. 
On the ballot itself, it just says>

I vote for "Candidate Given Name(or Intiatials) and Surname...

Not sure if "Decline"goes in the line where a candidates name is to be written. They told me to place my ballot in the secrecy envelope provided, then place the secrecy envelope in the Elector confirmation
envelope, sign the envelope, affix postage and mail.


----------



## Beaver101

carverman said:


> Sorry to disillusion you Beav, but I recieved my secret ballot in the mail..it list 5 candidates..and no other option. They sent it to me by special courier.
> On the ballot itself, it just says>
> 
> I vote for "Candidate Given Name(or Intiatials) and Surname...
> 
> Not sure if "Decline"goes in the line where a candidates name is to be written. They told me to place my ballot in the secrecy envelope provided, then place the secrecy envelope in the Elector confirmation
> envelope, sign the envelope, affix postage and mail.


 ... how come you got a 'secret' ballot to vote? What's so secret about the 3 Stooges?

I gather the procedures for my district (downtown TO) is different from yours. I just received notification of the voting date plus location and the time when the voting stations are open. When I get there, I'll ask if I can put a Decline on my ballot. If not, then I resort to my backup plan - the GrayPower party gets my vote! :biggrin:

Btw, is anybody getting these stupid pre-election brainwashing propaganda "vote for me" blah blah blah messages? How annoying and a waste of my voice mail tape!


----------



## sags

I wouldn't worry too much about Ontario's debt.

These things have a way of working themselves out.

We had the hand wringing about pension shortfalls during the recession......and a few years later many pension funds are returning to full funding and surpluses.

Economies grow.......revenues rise faster than anticipated........

In the US.........the deficit has been cut by doing nothing.........as their economy slowly expands.

Remember the Republicans who shut down the government and wanted to hack and whack everything in sight? They lost that battle......and the US economy has improved without all their proposed program slashing.

Heck, they don't even talk about it anymore. Then it was about Obamacare......and that has faded away.

Lately it was past intelligent failures......

Conservatives are always trying to create a crisis where one doesn't exist, to support implementation of their failed ideology and economic theories.

Trickle down economics......corporate tax cuts create jobs.....less regulation.........all failures.

Wynne has the right idea..............which is that Ontario must invest to grow.

Infrastructure, health care, education, partnerships with business........built the past and will build the future.


----------



## sags

It should be recognized that Wynne had the courage to challenge Harper's refusal to expand the CPP.......by creating an Ontario Pension Plan.

I think that showed Wynne has the "grit" to take on the Federal politicians on subjects that are important to Ontarians.

Would Hudak challenge Harper on anything to defend Ontario?

I don't think the people could count on it.

The PCs have to get over Dalton McGuinty. He is gone.......old news.......nobody cares anymore.

Wynne is in charge now.......there is a new sheriff in town............


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ... how come you got a 'secret' ballot to vote? What's so secret about the 3 Stooges?


Sorry beav, but it is top secret. :biggrin:



> Btw, is anybody getting these stupid pre-election brainwashing propaganda "vote for me" blah blah blah messages? How annoying and a waste of my voice mail tape!


I got an email from the NDP, suggesting that if I vote for them, they would "kill the HST" on electricity if Andrea gets to play Premier instead of a "wannabee"...they also solicited
for a donation as her campaign costs are exceeding what's in the party's coffers. 
I'm still waiting for a "chicken in every pot" election propoganda.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> I wouldn't worry too much about Ontario's debt.
> 
> These things have a way of working themselves out.
> 
> Wynne has the right idea..............which is that Ontario must invest to grow.
> 
> Infrastructure, health care, education, partnerships with business........built the past and will build the future.


So you must be a graduate of the Harvard School of Business then?


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> The PCs have to get over *Dalton McGuinty. He is gone.......old news.......nobody cares anymore*.
> 
> Wynne is in charge now.......*there is a new sheriff in town*............


New sheriff in town..eh? fast forward to *3.48*...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xobyX2DWT4


----------



## Toronto.gal

sags said:


> 1. I wouldn't worry too much about Ontario's debt.
> 2. Wynne has the right idea..............which is that Ontario must invest to grow/Wynne is in charge now.......there is a new sheriff in town.


*1.* Of course, why would a senior 'spender' worry? 

You told us in the retirement thread what a big spender you are: 'We are retired, *living the good life, and spend every dime we can get our hands on*.....Last year it was about $85,000.' And I say *good for you!!* [assuming you're not borrowing], so it's nice of you to be so NOT concerned about the debt of non-retirees, like perhaps your own children/grandchildren?

*2.* 1 million jobs vs. eliminate the projected $12.5-billion deficit by 2017-18 = a lot [some] of baloney vs. full of baloney. Yes, the latter has the right idea because Ms. Wynne has magic powers. 

To make any sort of improvements, it starts with reducing: boondoggles/debt/the unaffordable hugely increased gov. payroll/taxes/spending - those are some of the non-bogus numbers I care about.

Gov. borrowing/spending like there is no tomorrow is not only irresponsible, but also contrary to economic growth.

Sure, we should believe & trust in what Ms. Wynne is promising because her math is stronger. And if anyone is worried about the latest 'alleged' MaRS bailout, no worries for it's 'water under the bridge': 'everyone should calm down about the cost of the Liberals’ decision to cancel the Mississauga and Oakville gas plants, because it’s only $2.01 per year for 20 years on their hydro bills' [Chiarelli, who was appointed Energy minister by the new 'sheriff' - that's the Liberal mentality, past/present/future].
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...that-317m-mars-bailout-would-raise-questions/

*This I believe:*

"There is only one party that's putting forward a platform to cut public sector workers and that's the Progressive Conservatives," Wynne said after touring a school in Sault Ste. Marie. "Will we implement a program of layoffs? Absolutely not."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...not-cut-ontario-public-service-jobs-1.2655914

*This I believe is necessary:*
Going back to the size of 2009 through gradual cuts/natural attrition/privatization. 

*This I 1/2 believe:*
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/05/29/jack-m-mintz-hudaks-tax-cuts-82000-jobs/


----------



## carverman

T.G...The PCs have the unions uneasy and I saw a TV ad yesterday for the first time from the OSSTF that basically spelled gloom and doom if the PCs get in, so they should be
voting NDP in this coming election.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> T.G...The PCs have the *unions uneasy*.....


*Carverman:* it would seem that the advanced voting, which started today, has the 'principled' Liberal leader a bit uneasy also. 

“It is shocking that the party of Jack Layton and Stephen Lewis — the party that has traditionally supported social programs, the party that should have supported our budget — would be thinking about supporting Tim Hudak,” Wynne said at a rally. "A vote right now for Andrea Horwath might be a vote for Tim Hudak. But a vote for Kathleen Wynne is a vote for Kathleen Wynne." 

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario...ipled_stand_over_possible_tory_coalition.html

*Signed:* 'unprincipled' voter.


----------



## BoringInvestor

HaroldCrump said:


> Every voter must decide for himself/herself what is acceptable or not acceptable to them.
> 
> I have decided, and I have clearly said what I decided (although I don't owe it to anyone to reveal who I am voting for).
> 
> How can I tell you (or anyone else) what to believe?
> Will you vote for Hudak if I tell you to?
> 
> How come I am answerable *to you *for Tim Hudak's actions, but you are not answerable to me for the actions of the Liberal Party since 2004 (or whoever you support)?


Just so we're all clear: you don't care that Hudak is lying about his plan in the face of overwhelming evidence. 

And that's fine - so just say as much instead of replying 3-4 times and specifically avoiding the question.


----------



## BoringInvestor

Toronto.gal said:


> And you keep asking.
> 
> If he's not answering to your satisfaction, why do you keep asking then?! Are you his boss or what? Do you answer all the questions posed to you here?


Yup. I'm his boss.


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> *Carverman:* it would seem that the advanced voting, which started today, has the 'principled' Liberal leader a bit uneasy also.
> 
> “It is shocking that the party of Jack Layton and Stephen Lewis — the party that has traditionally supported social programs, the party that should have supported our budget — would be thinking about supporting Tim Hudak,” Wynne said at a rally. "A vote right now for Andrea Horwath might be a vote for Tim Hudak. But a vote for Kathleen Wynne is a vote for Kathleen Wynne."
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario...ipled_stand_over_possible_tory_coalition.html
> 
> *Signed:* 'unprincipled' voter.


Yup, as I predicted a couple weeks ago..IF the Fiberals (Wynne) manage to slide in with a minority, they will be throttled by Hudak and Horwath, to cut out a lot of the planned spending.
The pie in the sky schemes will be the first to go..the road to nowhere for the Indian bands and the money wasted to rebuild Ontario place for starters. BOTH WILL END UP LOSING 
MONEY for the taxpayers!
The other thing they need to do ASAP is to do something with the hydro rates which are contiunually going up. If they can't lift the PST off hydro, then they better come up with an equivalent
soluition. They blew their credibility when they cancelled the gas plants. 
They should all take a cut in pay, but especially the Liberals. Even if we can't pin McGuilty or Wynne down, it is time for PAYBACK to the taxpayers of ONtario. Teach them all a lesson
to be more accountable in the future!


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> *Carverman:* it would seem that the advanced voting, which started today, has the 'principled' Liberal leader a bit uneasy also.
> 
> “It is shocking that the party of Jack Layton and Stephen Lewis — the party that has traditionally supported social programs, the party that should have supported our budget — would be thinking about supporting Tim Hudak,” Wynne said at a rally. "A vote right now for Andrea Horwath might be a vote for Tim Hudak. But a vote for Kathleen Wynne is a vote for Kathleen Wynne."
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario...ipled_stand_over_possible_tory_coalition.html
> 
> *Signed:* 'unprincipled' voter.


Yup, as I predicted a couple weeks ago..IF the Fiberals (Wynne) manage to slide in with a minority, they will be throttled by Hudak and Horwath, to cut out a lot of the planned spending.
The pie in the sky schemes will be the first to go..the road to nowhere for the Indian bands and the money wasted to rebuild Ontario Place for starters. BOTH WILL END UP LOSING 
MONEY for the taxpayers!

The other thing they need to do ASAP is to do something with the hydro rates which are continually going up. If they can't lift the PST off hydro, then they better come up with an equivalent
solution. They blew their credibility when they cancelled the gas plants. 

Also, they should all take a cut in pay, but especially the Liberals.
Even if we can't pin McGuilty or Wynne down, it is time for PAYBACK to the taxpayers of ONtario. Teach them all a lesson to be more accountable in the future!


----------



## carverman

Th*e New Democrat accused Wynne of grasping at straws in an effort to distract voters from the wasted public money.
Despite her refusal to rule out a possible coalition or support of another party after the vote, Horwath slammed Hudak's pledge to slash the civil service as she said her aim was to overcome the odds and form a government.
"I am running to be premier of this province," she said.*

good luck there Andrea..most of us still remember Bob Rae's NDP gov't.


----------



## carverman

> The New Democrat accused Wynne of grasping at straws in an effort to distract voters from the wasted public money.
> Despite her refusal to rule out a possible coalition or support of another party after the vote, Horwath slammed Hudak's pledge to slash the civil service as she said her aim was to overcome the odds and form a government.
> "I am running to be premier of this province," she said.


Ok,,where are the 3 stooges..they can do just as good a job as these bozos!
Lets see..Hudak is suing Wynne, Wynne is going after Horwath, Horwath is slamming Hudak, and the unions are not happy with Horwath, I see a full circle.........
well since two of them are women.. I'll stop here......before I get myself in trouble with CMF.


----------



## Nemo2

carverman said:


> most of us still remember Bob Rae's NDP gov't.


I lived in B.C. at the time, but I do remember _this_.....same bunch, give or take: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Ferry_Scandal

(And also seeing a car in Vancouver with a mocked-up B.C. license plate in the rear window with NDP-NFG on it.)


----------



## sags

carverman said:


> So you must be a graduate of the Harvard School of Business then?


No, I just follow Dr. Paul Krugman.

He graduated with a BA in economics from Yale, a PHD at MIT, and was a Professor of Economics at Princeton.

He also won a Nobel Prize in economics.

Nothing from Harvard though.


----------



## sags

The Conservatives like to point to Greece and other Euro countries as examples of Ontario's future.

They point out the debt levels those countries had......but never tell the story of what happened when they went down the "austerity" path of job and program cuts.........which were forced on them by the bankers.

They experienced deep unemployment and recessions..........that is what happened.

In the US.....Obama fought off the right wing "whack and hack" Republicans, spend the money needed to stimulate the economy, and their deficit has sharply declined as the economy grew.

What would all these job cuts and austerity measures, combined with a housing crash in Canada, do to the economic situation in Ontario? It is a nightmare scenario............

If you want to leave your children and grandchildren in an Ontario deep in a recession or worse...........vote for Hudak.

If you care about your children and grandchildren's having the opportunity to retire with some stable income,........ support the Ontario Pension Plan.

If you care about your children and grandchildren having a job when they get out of school laden with debt.......don't vote for Hudak, who wants to cut their tuition aid, eliminate future jobs, and hope a corporate tax cut creates new jobs........even though they didn't in the past.

Mike Harris tried the same solutions in Ontario and it was a disaster. 

Hudak's proposals are far worse than the Harris government.

It isn't surprising to me.......that Ontario voters aren't warm to Hudak's plan.

Harris and Hudak are cut from the same cloth.....Been there....done that....no thanks.


----------



## sags

Hudak keeps repeating.........we have to go back to 2009 levels in the public sector.........2009.....2009.......2009?

What happened in 2009.........that is so important?

Is the population the civil servants serve the same in 2014 as it was in 2009?

Are the programs they have to administer the same in 2014, as they were in 2009?

Were no new laws, programs, legislation enacted between 2009 and 2014 that created a need for more public servants?

What is it about 2009..........that am I not aware of?


----------



## sags

Jack Mintz's proposition that corporate tax cuts creates jobs was directly contradicted by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Bank of Canada Mark Carney years ago........who both lamented the total lack of job creation from previous corporate tax cuts.

Demand for products and services creates jobs...........not tax cuts.


----------



## carverman

Nemo2 said:


> I lived in B.C. at the time, but I do remember _this_.....same bunch, give or take: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Ferry_Scandal
> 
> (And also seeing a car in Vancouver with a mocked-up B.C. license plate in the rear window with NDP-NFG on it.)


Hmmm..in Ontario, the MOT would not allow this. After all, this is equivalent to "flippin' the bird" at your MLA.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> No, I just follow Dr. Paul Krugman.
> 
> Nothing from Harvard though.


Tsk! Tsk!..you are not keeping fine company with our illustrious past Premiers..:biggrin:

http://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...ed_to_harvard_for_prestigious_fellowship.html

and 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ring-of-fire-talks-off-to-productive-start-bob-rae-says-1.1396975


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> The Conservatives like to point to Greece and other Euro countries as examples of Ontario's future.
> 
> Mike Harris tried the same solutions in Ontario and it was a disaster.
> 
> Hudak's proposals are far worse than the Harris government.
> 
> It isn't surprising to me.......that Ontario voters aren't warm to Hudak's plan.
> 
> Harris and Hudak are cut from the same cloth.....Been there....done that....no thanks.


So yer filo-so-phee is: Deal with the devil you know VS the devil you don't know?:biggrin:


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Hudak keeps repeating.........we have to go back to 2009 levels in the public sector.........2009.....2009.......2009?
> 
> What happened in 2009.........that is so important?


It was the beginning of the "big recession"...the US almost fell apart with the sub=prime mortgage greed..and Nortel who was paying my full DB pension up until Jan 1/2009 went bankrupt so had some
economic impact on me!



> Is the population the civil servants serve the same in 2014 as it was in 2009?


No, the population has increased in 5 years...however the provincial gov't and civil service can still provide good service in spite of the increase...no need to increase the size of the civil service because
we had a few more babies born or immigrants move in.

I will refer to an poster on a cubicle at my former employer (Nortel)..."In the old days..it took 10 people to do the job..now it takes a COMPUTER and 10 people to do the job"... jes sayin'. :biggrin:



> Are the programs they have to administer the same in 2014, as they were in 2009?


Far as I know..have there been any earth shattering gov't service creations besides eHealth and ORNGE, and the OPA. (Ontario Power Authority)



> Were no new laws, programs, legislation enacted between 2009 and 2014 that created a need for more public servants?


I'm sure Wynne would have your answer on the tip of her tongue. 



> What is it about 2009..........that am I not aware of?


This....

http://www.ehealthontario.on.ca/en/news

and this..
http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/bankruptcy.php

and maybe this..we like our fish glowing in the dark..with candlelight and wine..
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/2009/12/23/nuclear_plant_spills_tritium_into_lake.html

and I know you don't like Tim..but he does have a point about Dalton and his Fiberals..
http://timhudakmpp.com/news/mcguint...dress-liberal-debt-jobs-or-spending-problems/


----------



## Nemo2

Paul Krugman:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...nd-again-why-does-anyone-still-listen-to-him/



> Other equally eminent economists have taken a much less sanguine view of this “vulgar Keynesianism”, openly questioning his back-of-envelope calculations about a mega-stimulus. In a parallel debate about the policy options open to the United Kingdom, there seems a rather stronger argument against additional borrowing even in terms of Krugman’s own “simplish IS-LM model”. And, as Greg Mankiw has pointed out, in an earlier debate about the wisdom of deficit finance – when the President was a Republican, not a Democrat, and when the stimulus took the form of tax cuts and spending on war – Krugman himself took the diametrically opposite position.........//........The federal debt in public hands back then was $2.8 trillion, 35% of GDP. Today it is approaching $12 trillion, more than double as a share of GDP. The projected ten-year deficit then was, as Krugman states, $3 trillion; now, the equivalent figure is more than double that. And yet today we supposedly have no “train wreck” to worry about; indeed, it would be fine if the debt were a trillion dollars bigger.
> 
> Yes, I know, that was then and this is now; this time is different, we’re in a liquidity trap, and all that. But what about 2008, the year the crisis began? For some strange reason, at that time Krugman vehemently opposed the presidential candidate arguing for – as he himself acknowledged – the larger fiscal stimulus. His name was John McCain – “McCain the Destroyer”, as Krugman crudely called him. Four years later, Krugman explicitly acknowledged that Mitt Romney’s (admittedly vague) fiscal plans would “blow up the deficit” and – shamelessly using an argument he had previously derided – compared the United States in such a high-deficit scenario with Greece.
> 
> In short, if Paul Krugman truly has won “a stunning victory” in “an epic intellectual debate” – as he recently claimed – it appears to have been over … Paul Krugman.


----------



## carverman

Nemo2 said:


> Paul Krugman:
> 
> http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...nd-again-why-does-anyone-still-listen-to-him/


Because he has a PHD (Piled Higher and Deeper) degree in economics?


----------



## carverman

Ok, its coming down to the wire...now the nasty stuff comes out. 



> Perhaps that's why Horwath, for example, has refused to brand Wynne herself as corrupt or Hudak has not yet called her a crook.


I'm sure it's only a matter of time. The losers on election night will be licking their wounds.


----------



## Toronto.gal

Nemo2 said:


> Paul Krugman:
> 
> http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...nd-again-why-does-anyone-still-listen-to-him/


'Of course [Liberal Economist] Mr. Krugman might be right! Of course "the other side" teems with knaves and fools, because knavery and foolishness are the human lot. But we know what he means: I am right. Those who disagree with me are vicious idiots.' 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/demo...t?zid=319&ah=17af09b0281b01505c226b1e574f5cc1


----------



## Toronto.gal

And speaking of 'fools, knaves' and knavesses [sic], *thanks Sags* for bringing Ms. Blizzard to my attention. 

*Liberals have no business lecturing anyone on math* - While critics were busy splitting hairs over Tim Hudak's bad campaign math, they seem to have forgotten how excruciatingly bad with numbers the Liberals have been over the past 10 years
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/31/liberals-have-no-business-lecturing-anyone-on-math


----------



## Nemo2

Toronto.gal said:


> http://www.economist.com/blogs/demo...t?zid=319&ah=17af09b0281b01505c226b1e574f5cc1


Excerpt please......(I'm not a subscriber).


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> And speaking of 'fools, knaves' and knavesses [sic], *thanks Sags* for bringing Ms. Blizzard to my attention.
> 
> *Liberals have no business lecturing anyone on math* - While critics were busy splitting hairs over Tim Hudak's bad campaign math, they seem to have forgotten how excruciatingly bad with numbers the Liberals have been over the past 10 years
> http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/31/liberals-have-no-business-lecturing-anyone-on-math


Frankly nothing surprises me coming from the Fiberals. They are acting like a bunch of gangsters. As far as "the math" the Fiberals used "harvard economics 101" 

*Harvard economics Ec10*


> Let’s start with where the protesters are correct. First, Ec 10 is a defined and therefore limited course. As taught by Mankiw, a great talent, it conveys modern macro-and microeconomics mostly through the prism of capitalism, rather than through socialism or communism. It’s also true that there is a gap in the U.S. between rich and poor; although whether that’s a problem per se has to be debated. T*hird, and most important, macroeconomic theory did fail to predict the most recent recession. At Harvard in 2007, many professors and students took for granted that we were in an era of “great moderation,” and that life should henceforth progress smoothly down the decades*.


http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...understand-economy-commentary-by-amity-shlaes

There you have it!... they are all "cut from the same cloth"..the respected school where our former Premiere and Mr. Ignatieff (failed Liberal Prime Minister candidate) are passing on their learned ways to unsuspecting economic students.
you take yer Keynesian theory, toss it out the window and preach from the hip based on past experience.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> most of us still remember *Bob Rae's NDP gov't.*


Can't remember those days 2 well carverman [2 young & uninterested], :frown: but I have read about the math of the then NDP premier Bob Rae & his treasurer Floyd Laughren. However, let's not worry so much as Energy Minister Chiarelli would advise coz Ms. Wynne and Charles Sousa will do better! 

Who'll be the better custodian of Ontario's economy/reduce spending, and who'll be the most extravagant with your tax $$$$$$s? 

Anyone with some math skills care to predict what the added or reduced billions to the current deficit will be under another Liberal gov.? Oh, I forgot, we already have those figures: it will drop by about 1/2 in 1/2 a term, then completely fade away with the magical Liberal wand by 2017-2018, now that's the kind of 'wonky math myths' we can all believe in, since to be fair, they did manage to reduce the deficit by $1.5B in 4 long & painful years, so ppppffffffttttt, should be easy-peasy with all the generous spending in mind & more experienced mathematicians! 

*Deficit per Mr. Sousa:*

- 2010 = $14B
- 2014/15 = $12.5B [overall savings of $1.5B : 4 years = 375M savings!]
- 2015/16 = $8.9B
- 2016/17 = $5.3B
- 2017/18 = poof, all gone, with that exactly? Ah yes, they did promise to cap hospital parking rates [after 1st increasing them year after year, lol]

Seems that voters flocked to the advance polling stations from day 1, at least that's what I saw when I went to pick up a book at the library yesterday [also a voting poll station at same community center]. If it had not been for the long line-up, I might have voted myself. I have been voting in same place and never have I seen it so busy.

Alberta, here we come!


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> Can't remember those days 2 well carverman [2 young & uninterested], :frown: but I have read about the math of the then NDP premier Bob Rae & his treasurer Floyd Laughren. However, let's not worry so much as Energy Minister Chiarelli would advise coz Ms. Wynne and Charles Sousa will do better!
> 
> Who'll be the better custodian of Ontario's economy/reduce spending, and who'll be the most extravagant with your tax $$$$$$s?
> 
> Anyone with some math skills care to predict what the added or reduced billions to the current deficit will be under another Liberal gov.? Oh, I forgot, we already have those figures: it will drop by about 1/2 in 1/2 a term, then completely fade away with the magical Liberal wand by 2017-2018, *now that's the kind of 'wonky math myths' we can all believe in,* since to be fair, they did manage to reduce the deficit by $1.5B in 4 long & painful years, so ppppffffffttttt, should be easy-peasy with all the generous spending in mind & more experienced mathematicians!


T.G. When the "fit hits the shan", they will become creative with the math, so it will always look like we are getting ahead with the deficit..but in reality..it's still there. 

It's that warm feeling you get knowing that your vote actually counts and helps the nearly dead horse get up again.:biggrin:


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> Can't remember those days 2 well carverman [2 young & uninterested], :frown: but I have read about the math of the then NDP premier Bob Rae & his treasurer Floyd Laughren. However, let's not worry so much as Energy Minister Chiarelli would advise coz Ms. Wynne and Charles Sousa will do better!


Ontario was in a recession when Bob Rae was elected Premiere in 1990.


> Ontario in the 1990s was in the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, with a 1993 deficit of $12 billion annually





> There are many reasons for the Rae government's loss of popularity between 1991 and 1993. The NDP had never governed Ontario before, and Ontario was experiencing its worst recession since the Great Depression. The government backtracked on several campaign promises, most notably the introduction of public auto insurance, which caused disagreements among the party and supporters, especially left-wingers such as cabinet ministers Howard Hampton and Shelley Martel. A number of scandals in cabinet and caucus also cut into the government's popularity.


So if you read yer Wikipedia history on floor crosser Bob Rae..he wasn;t the worst premier..McGuiilty takes that prize,,,but the apple (Horwath) doesn't fall too far from the tree(Rae's
NDP gov't) .....and hopefully history will not be repeated on June 12.


----------



## sags

There is a big difference between the Republican idea of stimulus and the Democratic idea of stimulus.

The Republicans want to give government money to the banks, corporations in tax cuts, and increased military spending.

The Democrats want to give government money to build infrastructure, support people who are unemployed, and small business grants.

Paul Krugman supports the Democratic plan for stimulus............and opposes the Republican plan.

As history shows, government stimulus did flow to the banks and corporations and remained as excess cash on their balance sheets.

The stimulus did almost nothing for average Americans.

What Hudak is saying in his support of corporate tax cuts.........is that the late Jim Flaherty and Mark Carney were both wrong in their assessment that previous corporate tax cuts failed to create jobs.

Flaherty and Carney would hardly be considered as leftist Liberals.........


----------



## fraser

Notwithstanding that I am unimpressed with Hudak and believe that his platform has holes, I could not bring myself to vote for Wynne. If only because I believe that after a Government has been in power for 10 years it is time to toss them. Entitlement, greed, and corruption sets in. And this applies to any party. 

Do I think that Hudak will cut 100K jobs or create 1M jobs? No. I believe that if elected, the harsh reality of management will sink in and his Gov't will chart a slower course. Just as it will be if Wynne is re-elected. 

It is the same old same old. New party gets in and they decide to 'audit' the books and truly understand the financials. This is typically code for 'there is no way we can do what we promised' or 'you really didn't believe us did you'. They will claim the financials understate the actual fiscal challenges and delay all their promises by saying
'we will delay our election commitments until the finances are in better shape'. Two years later just about all of those luckless voters will have forgotten it all anyway. It has always been so.

I could not bring myself to reward someone for failure. I would have to hold my nose, vote for Hudak, and pray that Conservative Party members and advisors separate fact from fiction on Hudak's platform promises. After all, in many respects they are as outlandish as the Liberal and the NDP platforms. But one thing remains true...successive Ontario Governments for the past 15 years have failed miserably in their duty and have set the province up for financial failure-private and public. The numbers tell the true story.


----------



## Nemo2

Toronto.gal said:


> Seems that voters flocked to the advance polling stations from day 1


Busy this afternoon when we went to the mall to vote.


----------



## sags

Good to see a lot of interest in the election at the early voting.

Sometimes a big turnout means sweeping changes............time will tell.


----------



## carverman

fraser said:


> Notwithstanding that I am unimpressed with Hudak and believe that his platform has holes, I could not bring myself to vote for Wynne. If only because I believe that after a Government has been in power for 10 years it is time to toss them. Entitlement, greed, and corruption sets in. And this applies to any party.


This is the dilemma most Ontario voters will be forced with between now and June 12. 



> Do I think that Hudak will cut 100K jobs or create 1M jobs? No. I believe that if elected, the harsh reality of management will sink in and his Gov't will chart a slower course. Just as it will be if Wynne is re-elected.
> 
> 
> 
> The big mill wheels of gov't grind slowly. Yes, there will be *pain to bear*...but no matter who gets in, and who gets instant gratification...big business in tax breaks or the consumer...we have to share the pain...it's a bit like having acquire a financial nest egg during your marriage years, but faced with losing most of it during divorce...
> we go through the financial pain, the legal meat grinder. If we "divorce" the big spender, we will experience some pain.
> 
> 
> 
> It is the same old same old. New party gets in and they decide to 'audit' the books and truly understand the financials. This is typically code for 'there is no way we can do what we promised' or 'you really didn't believe us did you'. They will claim the financials understate the actual fiscal challenges and delay all their promises by saying
> '*we will delay our election commitments until the finances are in better shape*'. Two years later just about all of those luckless voters will have forgotten it all anyway. It has always been so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's about the best we can expect. There are no miracles left no matter who gets in. They can give us the grim truth (if we can handle the truth)...or fudge the math,
> to make it look better than it actually is, so they can pat themselves on the back for doing a "better job" than the previous gov't that they will take every opportunity to blame wherever possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could not bring myself to reward someone for failure. I would have to hold my nose, vote for Hudak, and pray that Conservative Party members and advisors separate fact from fiction on Hudak's platform promises. After all, in many respects they are as outlandish as the Liberal and the NDP platforms. But one thing remains true...s*uccessive Ontario Governments for the past 15 years have failed miserably in their duty and have set the province up for financial failure-private and public. The numbers tell the true story.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All we can do is vote for change and *hope we are right* in our choice. The horse is dead..maybe someone out there will kick it back to life?
Click to expand...


----------



## carverman

Sorry for interrupting "car sales dudes"..but weez got a more serious issue to discuss here..the Ontario election next week..and who amongst the money wasters, job cutters, in-bed-with-the-unions, etc
should we elect in a united front.



> *Ontario's unions are working to identify specific ridings to see where their resources —with regard to time and money — can best be used to defeat a PC candidate.*
> They've also launched an ad campaign, via the Working Families coalition, *to ensure that the 30 per cent of their 1 million members who voted for the Conservative party in past campaigns don't do it in 2014*.


Now this is plainly WAR against .. the right that wants to "reap the dead wood" and resow with new growth.
Now here is something I can drink to..



> In December 2012, Hudak announced that if he were to form government he would allow beer, wine and spirits to be sold at corner stores throughout the province. Hudak also said he would sell part of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario or some of its stores, to the private sector and is open to the idea of a full sell-off of the LCBO.


I like that...get rid of the union occupied Beer Store and LCBO...and privatize it..maybe we will see beer go down in price. Now as far as the displaced union workers...retrain them to...
be:<pick one>
Walmart greeters, car sales, road workers (one works but the rest of the gang stand around and watch), IT specialists (oh..too late..those jobs have gone to India), how about buskers?...yes
that is a good self promoting job..and they need a monkey with a cup...now where is that Ikea monkey when you need him??


----------



## sags

Ontario privatized the new super jail in Penetanguishine to some US company.........and the results were a disaster.

After a few years, Ontario refused to renew their contract and the jail is administered by the government again.

Ontario built Highway 407 with taxpayer money.........and then sold it to a private company.

The tolls for use of the road have gone up..........not down.

Ontario privatized the vehicle license bureaus............and registrations are no cheaper (the fees are levied by the Province) but the lines grew longer as less staff is utilized to handle the workload.

Hudak wants to privatize the LCBO. Why........would it be a good idea to "sell" a profitable business?

Perhaps someone can point to an instance where privatization of a government asset provided....... either better service or lower costs?


----------



## sags

I don't find it surprising that unions are planning to spend their dollars in the most effective manner.

It is the primary mandate of the unions to advocate for their dues paying membership.

Many other associations and groups lobby on behalf of the interests of their members.

What is surprising....... is that Conservatives seem to find it unfair for others to oppose their ideology.


----------



## carverman

Further on privatization of Ontario's LCBO and Beer stores.\



> On January 11, 2005, the Government of Ontario announced the appointment of an expert panel to review the distribution and sale of beverage alcohol in the province. The Terms of Reference for the review included consideration of how Ontario’s beverage alcohol system compares to other jurisdictions. To support this element of the Panel’s work, Grant Thornton LLP was contracted to gather research with respect to the beverage alcohol systems in:


http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/consultations/basr/interjur.html#_Toc105916892


Sell off both, use the revenue to pay down the deficit..bust up the unions, rehire as private non-union individuals.

Thank you..now I'll collect my consultant's fee..$1,000,000 and a few bottles of Glenfiddich single malt as a bonus...


----------



## sags

That would be good.......except the government can't have it both ways.

If they sell the LCBO to private business........they get the immediate cash from the sale.........but lose the ongoing revenue.

Busting up the unions and hiring non union low wage employees...........will be done by new owner.........for the benefit of the new owner.

The prices "could" come down if privatized........or they could stay the same or go up.......with the profit going to the new owners.

Which is more likely to happen?


----------



## Toronto.gal

Nemo2 said:


> 1. Excerpt please......(I'm not a subscriber).
> 2. Busy this afternoon when we went to the mall to vote.


As a piqued Clive Crook put it, writing for Bloomberg View: "A line has been crossed when the principal spokesmen for contending opinions have no curiosity whatsoever about their opponents’ ideas and radiate cold, steady contempt for each other. That’s dangerous. Civil society depends on a minimum threshold of tolerance and mutual respect. Fall too far below it, and the seething paralysis you see in Washington could soon be the least of your concerns. This is America’s biggest political problem -- and Krugman’s not part of the solution."

Here is Mr. Crook's article [a London School of Economics graduate]:

*Paul Krugman’s Proud War on Fools, Knaves and Lunatics*

http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...gman-s-proud-war-on-fools-knaves-and-lunatics

*2.* Busier than Saturday even, so it was good to see people exercising their right to vote, and we did same!

And guess which candidate was in my neck of the woods yesterday?  

I have to thank Ms. Wynne's speech from Saturday....it's what gave us the push to vote on day 2....I think first time we voted in advance [if I remember correctly].


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> That would be good.......except the government can't have it both ways.
> 
> If they sell the LCBO to private business........they get the immediate cash from the sale.........but lose the ongoing revenue.
> 
> Busting up the unions and hiring non union low wage employees...........will be done by new owner.........for the benefit of the new owner.
> 
> The prices "could" come down if privatized........or they could stay the same or go up.......with the profit going to the new owners.
> 
> Which is more likely to happen?


Gov't gets the revenue from the sale + liquor taxes..yes there are liquor taxes on beer, wine and hard liquors. Timmy will bust up the unions and everyone can 
negotiate to get their old jobs back with the independent operators. 

Simple solution to the unions milking the system and the gov't...and the taxpayers used as cash cows.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> 1. Bob Rae..he wasn;t the worst premier..McGuiilty takes that prize.....
> 2. hopefully history will not be repeated on June 12.


*1. *That's what I meant when I said that Ms. Wynne with Mr. Sousa would likely do better with their delusional calculations called:










Deficits fixing themselves with continued & insane gov. growth is what we're supposed to believe in, but God help us if Hudak's numbers were 1/2 dreamed.

*2.* We shall soon find out.


----------



## Toronto.gal

sags said:


> 1. What is surprising....... is that *Conservatives seem to find it unfair for others to oppose their ideology.*
> 2. *Good to see a lot of interest in the election at the early voting*. Sometimes a big turnout means sweeping changes............time will tell.


1. Only Conservatives?! :biggrin: 
2. Agree!


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> *1. *T
> Deficits fixing themselves with continued & insane gov. growth is what we're supposed to believe in, but God help us if Hudak's numbers were 1/2 dreamed.
> 
> *2.* We shall soon find out.


Lets face it, T.G.. no matter who gets in on June 12, IF they get in with even with a minoriity, there will be a lot of unhappy people (taxpayers) in the province.

If the Fiberals get back in, the taxpayers will get screwed with more out of controlled spending, deficit increase and other nasty backroom deals. (not good),
but the other two will try and defeat or negotiate a different comprimise deals. 

If the PC get in, the gov't workers wll more than likely get screwed as their jobs are either eliminated or labelled redundant (same thing)_ and again a lot of comprimised back room deals. 
It will cost the taxpayers HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS FOR SEVERANCE AND ANY VACATION PAY DUE upon termination (not good) 

If the NDP get in, the Unions will be happy, but more than likely some segments of the taxpayers will get screwed financially and there will be back room deals as well (not good)


----------



## Nemo2

Toronto.gal said:


> Clive Crook





> It’s true that the modern Republican Party includes a growing number of extremists


Yup....the Republicans have 'extremists' while the Dems have lovable cuddly and caring 'moderates & progressives'. :rolleyes2:


----------



## sags

carverman said:


> Gov't gets the revenue from the sale + liquor taxes..yes there are liquor taxes on beer, wine and hard liquors. Timmy will bust up the unions and everyone can
> negotiate to get their old jobs back with the independent operators.
> 
> Simple solution to the unions milking the system and the gov't...and the taxpayers used as cash cows.


The government already collects the taxes.........so there would be no gain from privatization there.

The government wouldn't share in increased profits from cheaper labor costs...........so there would be no gain there.

Basically, privatization would be to collect one lump of cash in exchange for the eternal profits from the sales.

I would hope if the LCBO was sold to private industry, the sale would gather sufficient revenue to make it worthwhile.

Of course, Ontario consumers should expect an immediate hike in prices.........to offset the cost of the purchase.

Any consumer who believes the privatization of the LCBO would lead to lower prices.........is living in a dream world.


----------



## Toronto.gal

^^That had not been the key point of the article. Most times, there's plenty to ignore from what one hears/reads, and that's when the brain's supervisory attentional system [reasoning] comes very handy. each:


----------



## Beaver101

> carverman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets face it, T.G.. no matter who gets in on June 12, IF they get in with even with a minoriity, there will be a* lot of unhappy people (taxpayers*) in the province.
> 
> If the Fiberals get back in, the* taxpayers will get **screwed *with more out of controlled spending, deficit increase and other nasty backroom deals. *(not good),* but the other two will try and defeat or negotiate a different comprimise deals.
> 
> If the PC get in, the gov't workers wll more than likely get *screwed* as their jobs are either eliminated or labelled redundant (same thing)_ and again a lot of comprimised back room deals.
> It will *cost the taxpayers HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS FOR SEVERANCE AND ANY VACATION PAY DUE upon termination **(not good) *
> 
> If the NDP get in, the Unions will be happy, but more than likely some segments of the *taxpayers will get screwed *financially and there will be back room deals as well *(not good)[/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> ... god help us Ontario taxpayers! And later more prayers for Toronto taxpayers!
Click to expand...


----------



## Nemo2

Toronto.gal said:


> ^^That had not been the key point of the article. Most times, there's plenty to ignore from what one hears/reads, and that's when the brain's supervisory attentional system [reasoning] comes very handy. each:


T'was just something that made me chuckle.


----------



## Zoombie

sags said:


> ....
> 
> Hudak wants to privatize the LCBO. Why........would it be a good idea to "sell" a profitable business?
> 
> Perhaps someone can point to an instance where privatization of a government asset provided....... either better service or lower costs?


Privatized liquor stores are the best. Government still gets some revenue via taxes, and the consumer gets better prices, wayyy better hours, and more selection. 
Liquor stores are private here in AB and I can't even imagine it being run any other way. Where would I buy booze at 11 pm on a long weekend Sunday?


----------



## fraser

The debate should be interesting.

What will be even more interesting is the polls that will be taken a few days after the debate. I have to wonder where the needles will point and whether or not the percentage of undecided voters has decreased. And even more importantly-the poll results that only take into consideration those who actually intend to vote vs. those who are in the general polling sample and have no intention of voting.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> *1.* If the *Fiberals *get back in, the *taxpayers will get screwed with more out of controlled spending*, deficit increase and other nasty backroom deals
> *2.* If the *PC* get in...It *will cost the taxpayers HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS FOR SEVERANCE AND ANY VACATION PAY *DUE upon termination (not good)
> *3.* If the *NDP* get in, the *Unions will be happy*....


*1.* A Liberal win x 4 years, is what a newspaper reader has accurately called a sure way to 'Wynne and Lose at the same time'. 

Back in 2012, when the accumulated debt was around $260B, economist Don Drummond wrote that without austerity measures, that figure would rise to $411B within 5 years. Fast forward 2 years, we're already near $300B, so if he was correct, it means that the debt will increase another $100B+ in another 3 years with the red party. Mr. Drummond had 362 recommendations in his report, how many were implemented? Current figures contradict their answer: "We have implemented around 80 per cent of the Drummond recommendations, while rejecting those that would diminish public services, like the rollback of Full-Day Kindergarten or the 30% Off Tuition Grant." Implemented 80% while rejecting only 2 recommendations? Or is it that they were not about to list all 289.6 followed recommendations?

http://kathleenwynne.ca/fully-costed-2014-liberal-plan/

And Mr. Drummond's projected $30.2B deficit by 2017 would seem closer to reality than the projected $5.3B by Ms. Wynne's finance minister Mr. Sousa, followed by total elimination a year thereafter.

*2.* Not for the 10%; whatever the % of some of the useless middle management positions about to be relocated to MaRS, has got to go. 

*3.* What does that say?

'For the first time in 60 years the Ontario Provincial Police Association (OPPA) ventured directly into politics by releasing two videos attacking Hudak‎’s plan.'


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> *1.* A Liberal win x 4 years, is what a newspaper reader has accurately called a sure way to 'Wynne and Lose at the same time'.


Well this is what I'm expecting..the big question will we see an unstable minority gov't ..or..a "out of control" majority?



> Back in 2012, when the accumulated debt was around $260B, economist Don Drummond wrote that without austerity measures, that figure would rise to $411B within 5 years. Fast forward 2 years, we're already near $300B, so if he was correct, it means that the debt will increase another $100B+ in another 3 years with the red party.


The actual debt does't matter as much as the DEFICIT..which is what the gov't pays out to its creditors/employees to service it's debts, VS how much they take in in income tax, corporation taxes and HST.
This is the critical number..because if it rises too much due to more borrowing etc..Ontario could somehow default on payments and that would affect it's credit rating to borrow more money to pay creditors or finance big projects. Its not rocket science but simple economics..and we don't need Harvard professors to tell us that.


----------



## Toronto.gal

^ I noted 2 projected deficits..........which one is more colourable do u think? No need to answer.


----------



## sags

Hudak is being less than honest when he only uses the "cut spending" parts of the Drummond Report to support his ideology.

The report also recommended elimination of tax loopholes, elimination of business subsidies, increased royalties for resources, full cost of water servicing to business, parking fees at Toronto GO parking lots, higher capital requirements for companies to pay for possible environmental damage, transfer incarceration costs after 6 months to the Federal Government, and although the Commission was mandated to NOT include increased taxation in it's report.........the report concluded that balancing the budget and paying down the debt will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, without some tax increases. The report recommended a hike in the HST.....as it favored consumption taxes over income taxes.

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/reformcommission/

The report also stated that Ontario's growing debt was more the result of a rising Canadian dollar, than mismanagement of the economy by the McGuinty government.

Overall, it stated that Ontario fared pretty well during the recession, considering the circumstances.

It also stated that Ontario was NOT in a debt crisis.......was NOT comparable to Greece and other European countries for numerous reasons.......and wouldn't be unless the government failed to slow spending increases AND raise revenues.

Hudak's "whack and hack" platform is not supported by the findings of the Drummond Report.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Hudak is being less than honest when he only uses the "cut spending" parts of the Drummond Report to support his ideology.
> 
> The report also recommended elimination of tax loopholes, elimination of business subsidies, increased royalties for resources, full cost of water servicing to business, parking fees at Toronto GO parking lots, higher capital requirements for companies to pay for possible environmental damage, transfer incarceration costs after 6 months to the Federal Government, and although the Commission was mandated to NOT include increased taxation in it's report.........the report concluded that* balancing the budget and paying down the debt will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, without some tax increases. The report recommended a hike in the HST.*....as it favored consumption taxes over income taxes.
> 
> http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/reformcommission/


Thanks for that link on the report of the state of the economy for Ontario. I'm reading it slowly. 

The report also stated that Ontario's growing debt was more the result of a rising Canadian dollar, than mismanagement of the economy by the McGuinty government.
Well it's good to know then that McGuilty wasn't responsible for all the fiscal problems. 


I have been suspecting that the consumption tax (HST) will be raise to 15%..that extra 2% may keep Ontario's head above water..but there is no real long term solution without some
pain for everyone. I'm glad that the rich will pay more in income taxes, but everyone will be paying more eventually. There is no magic wand to make things right no matter
who gets in now.. a lot of damage has been done..and to attract lost industry is going to take a lot more than just tax breaks for corporations. Some US states are giving generous
grants for industry to relocate in their state with little or no taxes. This IS NOT going to happen in Ontario, so the erosion of Industry is still going to happen, no matter who
gets in on June 12.


----------



## sags

McGuinty wasted some money.......lots of money........but I don't think it fair to blame the recession, or the rising Canadian "petro" dollar on him.


----------



## sags

I agree.

There is going to have to be pain shared by everyone.

There is going to have to be a combination of things to address the deficit........and then the debt.

Some spending cuts.....some tax hikes.....some tax loopholes and benefits eliminated.

None of the candidates is talking about that really.

Wynne has half the solution (increase revenues)...........Hudak has the opposite half. (cut spending)

The Drummond report was rejected by both business and unions........because they only supported "their" half of the solution and didn't like Drummond's proposals for the "other" half.

If one of candidates could set aside their partisan ideology.........they might actually put both halves together.


----------



## andrewf

^ Yup. Deficit since 2003 in Ontario: all big bad McGuinty. Federal deficit since 2006? Everyone's fault but Harper. People have some amazing partisan blinders on. The deficits have largely the same causes.


----------



## sags

It is kind of strange.............

McGuinty gets vilified as the inept bad guy who doesn't see a deficit he doesn't like..........and Harper parades around the world accepting accolades and lecturing leaders from other countries on the merits of good financial stewardship.

McGuinty inherited a deficit and deficits in education, infrastructure and health care........and Harper inherited a surplus and the country in good enough shape to immediately cut corporate taxes and the GST.

Sometimes........life just isn't fair.........


----------



## el oro

sags said:


> The report recommended a hike in the HST.....as it favored consumption taxes over income taxes.
> 
> The report also stated that Ontario's growing debt was more the result of a rising Canadian dollar, than mismanagement of the economy by the McGuinty government.
> 
> Hudak's "whack and hack" platform is not supported by the findings of the Drummond Report.


The report did not recommend raising HST. It stated that “it should be understood that it takes a lot of tax rate effort to get much relief from the spending restraint” (in essence, cut spending > increase taxing) and mentioned that HST would be the most economically neutral form of taxation. What has worked in the past? (Quotes above were taken directly from the report)



> Four provinces that carried out vigorous and successful deficit-cutting exercises — Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Ontario — all relied on spending restraint or outright cuts to*a much greater extent than tax increases.


It also does not state that the growing debt was moreso from the rising dollar / bad economy. It states...



> The roots of Ontario’s current fix lie in both the economy and in the province’s record of failing to*keep growth in government spending in line with revenue growth.


The bottom line of the report is for Ontario to address fiscal challenges. The PC party is the only one even talking about reining in spending. Unfortunately, they are going above and beyond (unnecessarily and against the explicit advice of the report) to eliminate the deficit one earlier. Imo, it would have been preferable if one of the parties simply used the report as their platform.

Spending big now and magically eliminating the deficit in ~4 years just doesn't add up.



> Beyond 2017–18, spending will probably accelerate as a consequence of population aging... If we do not seize the opportunity now to begin creating a system that delivers more value for the money we spend, Ontarians a decade or two hence will face options far less attractive than the ones we face today.


Sure, the PCs have flaws in their platform but I don't see how a fiscal conservative can vote for the other big two when you look at the big picture.


----------



## sags

The rest of the paragraph puts the first sentence into context.

_The roots of Ontario’s current fix lie in both the economy and in the province’s record of failing to keep growth in government spending in line with revenue growth. _

_Ontarians have long been accustomed to their economy growing faster than the rest of the country. This was once true: in 15 of the 21 years from 1982 to 2002, Ontario grew faster than the national economy. But changing economic conditions have hit Ontario harder than other provinces over the past decade; in all nine years from 2003 to 2011, Ontario’s real economic growth was below that of the rest of the country.

*The reasons are simple. Beginning in 2003, the Canadian dollar began a strong ascent that lifted it from the persistent lows of the previous decade (around 70 US cents) to the recent highs (around parity with the U.S. dollar) during the past four years, with only a brief dip in late 2008 and early 2009. This surge in the currency made Ontario’s exports more expensive for foreigners to buy and rendered the province’s exporters less competitive, while also making imports cheaper.*

*The impact on Ontario’s nominal GDP was huge.* The contribution of trade to the economy is measured by net exports, the difference between what the province sells outside its boundaries and what it buys from other countries and provinces. Ontario’s net exports to other provinces, where there was no currency effect, remained relatively stable. But the contribution to GDP of net exports to other countries first vanished entirely and then began to detract from Ontario’s growth. The financial crisis and resulting U.S. recession, during which auto sales fell by about one-third, aggravated this trend. The province’s international trade surplus, which accounted for 4.3 per cent of GDP in the 1998–2002 period, disappeared by the middle of 2006 and was replaced by a trade deficit, which in the first three quarters of 2011 diminished nominal GDP by 7.5 per cent. _

The Commission was clearly irritated their mandate did not include raising taxes to lower the deficit. The exclusion of this vital tool to balance the budget was mentioned numerous times throughout the report.

It is technically correct the report didn't specifically recommend raising the HST.......because they weren't allowed to, as they mentioned numerous times throughout the report. Instead they discussed a preference for raising "consumption" taxes over other tax forms, and mentioned the HST is a consumption tax,..........to make their point.


----------



## sags

There is no doubt that governments have to spend money more efficiently.

An aging population and shrinking workforce, are going to put enormous pressure on government programs.

I fail to see how Hudak's message has anything remotely to do with addressing the future problems.

He is simply determined to cut the public service to 2009 levels, which is an incredulous goal in 2014 and beyond.

He wants to fatten corporate treasuries........with even more tax cuts that they already enjoy.

He wants to cancel infrastructure and green energy projects that would build Ontario's future.

Wynne is right.........when she says Hudak's plan would plow Ontario straight into a deep recession.

If he wants to lead the Province.........he has to have an idea for better solutions than what he has proposed.

His platform looks like it was developed by one of the right wing "think tanks", wanting a chance at retribution on public sector employees..........at any cost........including losing an election the PCs should have been able to win............for the second time.

Hudak has been getting some very bad advice from somewhere.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> It is kind of strange.............
> 
> McGuinty gets vilified as the inept bad guy who doesn't see a deficit he doesn't like..........and Harper parades around the world accepting accolades and lecturing leaders from other countries on the merits of good financial stewardship.
> 
> McGuinty inherited a deficit and deficits in education, infrastructure and health care........and Harper inherited a surplus and the country in good enough shape to immediately cut corporate taxes and the GST.
> 
> Sometimes........life just isn't fair.........


Its a strange world we have created for ourselves. "It doesn't get any better than this'......


----------



## carverman

$1600 Gold by 2011 said:


> The report did not recommend raising HST. It stated that “it should be understood that it takes a lot of tax rate effort to get much relief from the spending restraint” (in essence, cut spending > increase taxing) and mentioned that HST would be the most economically neutral form of taxation. What has worked in the past? (Quotes above were taken directly from the report)


Undoubtedly millions of taxpayers dollars were spent on that report and at some point it will be used to influence the basis for gov't policies and decisions. 
Ontario started off with a 3% pst in the 60s...currently it's 13% and only by the virtue that Harper lowered the GST in two stages from 7% to 6% to 5%.
Consumption taxes are much easier to impose than income taxes..all they need to to come up with a slight increase in the next budget and raise it from 13 to 14% and then later on to 15%.
This is 2014 after all..the penny is long gone..nobody bats an eye when another penny is added or rounded off as the case may be in our new penniless society....note the pun here. 

Consumption tax increases over the years 1960 to present
http://www.veooz.com/photos/KHD6eEO.html


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> The Commission was clearly irritated their mandate did not include raising taxes to lower the deficit. The exclusion of this vital tool to balance the budget was mentioned numerous times throughout the report.
> 
> It is technically correct the report didn't specifically recommend raising the HST.......because they weren't allowed to, as they mentioned numerous times throughout the report. Instead they discussed a preference for raising "consumption" taxes over other tax forms, and mentioned the HST is a consumption tax,..........to make their point.


As a consumer, I have no problems if the consumption taxes are raised.. after all...you noveau riche driving yer new BMWs and Mercedes, living in yer million dollar Plus homes in the GTA, 
sponging off the rest of us with your investments on the stock markets and real estate...should by all rights .....pay your fare share too.:biggrin:


----------



## Toronto.gal

$1600 Gold by 2011 said:


> Spending big now and *magically eliminating the deficit in ~4 years just doesn't add up*.


No, it does not add up, but I suppose the Liberals are just calm & honest daydreamers, and that the only dishonest & evil politician = Hudak.

Mr. Drummond started the report by clearly stating that a Status Quo Scenario would result in a $30.2 billion deficit by 2017, NOT the $5.3 billion projected by Mr. Sousa with just a few implemented changes. 

'Our message will strike many as profoundly gloomy. It is one that Ontarians have not heard, 
certainly not in the recent election campaign, but one this Commission believes it must deliver. 
If Ontarians and their government are going to come to grips with the fiscal challenges that lie 
ahead, *they must understand the depth of the problem and its causes. Ontario must act soon 
to put its finances on a sustainable path and must be prepared for tough action — not just for 
a few years, but at least until 2018.'*


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> No, it does not add up, but I suppose the Liberals are just calm & honest daydreamers, and that the only dishonest & evil politician = Hudak.
> 
> Mr. Drummond started the report by clearly stating that a Status Quo Scenario would result in a $30.2 billion deficit by 2017, NOT the $5.3 billion projected by Mr. Sousa with just a few implemented changes.
> 
> 'Our message will strike many as profoundly gloomy. It is one that Ontarians have not heard,
> certainly not in the recent election campaign, but one this Commission believes it must deliver.
> If Ontarians and their government are going to come to grips with the fiscal challenges that lie
> ahead, *they must understand the depth of the problem and its causes. Ontario must act soon
> to put its finances on a sustainable path and must be prepared for tough action — not just for
> a few years, but at least until 2018.'*


Here are some simple solutions for the "hot air" artists campaigning out there.

1. Stop spending and wasting money on pie in the sky dreams. If the GTA needs rapid transit upgrades...raise the fares and let the users bear some of the cost from the benefits
2. Cut all politicians salaries by 10% and make future salaries based on performance
3. Raise the PST portion to 7%
4. Raise income taxes on those earning over 100K a year and raise the income tax surcharges as well
5. Change the civil service workday to 4 paid work days per week, they get a free day (or long weekend each time) and Hudak doesn't have to fire 100K which will cost us taxpayers
hundreds of millions in severance payouts
6.Create an party independent office that monitors all spending and any snafus that the party in power may create..NO MORE EXPENSIVE GAS PLANT CANCELLATIONS for political reasons.
7. Make the premiers office answerable to the monitor..full transparency.
8. Raise the gas tax (actually it will be raised when the pst portion is raised to 9%)
9. Sell off the beer stores and LCBO..gov't should not be in business but to serve the people


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> No, it does not add up, but I suppose the Liberals are just calm & honest daydreamers, and that the only dishonest & evil politician = Hudak.
> 
> Mr. Drummond started the report by clearly stating that a Status Quo Scenario would result in a $30.2 billion deficit by 2017, NOT the $5.3 billion projected by Mr. Sousa with just a few implemented changes.
> 
> 'Our message will strike many as profoundly gloomy. It is one that Ontarians have not heard,
> certainly not in the recent election campaign, but one this Commission believes it must deliver.
> If Ontarians and their government are going to come to grips with the fiscal challenges that lie
> ahead, *they must understand the depth of the problem and its causes. Ontario must act soon
> to put its finances on a sustainable path and must be prepared for tough action — not just for
> a few years, but at least until 2018.'*


Here are some simple solutions for the "hot air" artists campaigning out there.

1. Stop spending and wasting money on pie in the sky dreams. If the GTA needs rapid transit upgrades...raise the fares and let the users bear some of the cost from the benefits
2. Cut all politicians salaries by 10% and make future salaries based on performance
3. Raise the PST portion to 9%
4. Raise income taxes on those earning over 100K a year and raise the income tax surcharges as well
5. Change the civil service workday to 4 paid work days per week, they get a free day (or long weekend each time) and Hudak doesn't have to fire 100K which will cost us taxpayers
hundreds of millions in severance payouts
6.Create an party independent office that monitors all spending and any snafus that the party in power may create..NO MORE EXPENSIVE GAS PLANT CANCELLATIONS for political reasons.
7. Make the premiers office answerable to the monitor..full transparency.
8. Raise the gas tax (actually it will be raised when the pst portion is raised to 9%)
9. Sell off the beer stores and LCBO..gov't should not be in business but to serve the people


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> 1. Thanks for that link on the report of the state of the economy for Ontario. I'm reading it slowly.
> 2. Undoubtedly millions of taxpayers dollars were spent on that report


*1.* I actually posted the link on May 22nd; had you not missed it, you would have finished the phone book by now. 

The report had been commissioned by the Liberals, but fast forward 2.4 years, much of it [like 99%], was ignored by the same cut-spending timid Liberals.

*2. * Not quite:

- $1.5K per day x 100 days for Mr. Drummond
- $900 per day x 100 days for commission members Mr. Giroux/Ms. Pigott/Ms. Stephenson
- $420K total 

I'm delighted that tonight's debate will be moderated by The Agenda's Steve Paikin! And while you wait for it, here's a look back [2005/17 minute video]
http://theagenda.tvo.org/blog/agenda-blogs/preview-wynne-hudak-horwath-debate

Enjoy!


----------



## carverman

*The McGuinty slush fund*


> A 2007 auditor generals' report found that the Liberal's doled out $32 million in cultural grants with a process that "was not open, transparent or accountable."
> "It was one of the worst I have ever seen, with virtually no controls," the AG wrote, according to the Windsor Star.
> "Many organizations received grants simply because the minister of citizenship and immigration or his staff had some knowledge of their needs or because a member of the organization had had a discussion with, or had made verbal requests to, the minister or his staff."
> One of the most wacky payments highlighted $1 million grant to a sports organization.
> "One of the many examples highlighted by the Auditor General was a $1-million grant to the Ontario Cricket Association when the association only asked for $150,000," then MPP Tim Hudak wrote in an op-ed at the time.
> *The association then deposited $500,000 of the funds in a GIC because they did not need the money."*


The Fiberals were spending taxpayers money like drunken sailors, while "rapng" the poor and the lower middle class with HST tacked onto electricity and heating..two staples
that every family needs...shame to the Fiberal!


----------



## Beaver101

> carverman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The McGuinty slush fund*
> 
> The Fiberals were spending taxpayers money like drunken sailors, while "rapng" the poor and the lower middle class with HST tacked onto electricity and heating..two staples
> that every family needs...*shame to the Fiberal![/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> . .. does the word "shame" exists in the Fib party's dictionary?
Click to expand...


----------



## Toronto.gal

sags said:


> 1. I fail to see how Hudak's message has *anything remotely to do with addressing the future problems.*
> 2. He is simply determined to *cut the public service to 2009 levels, which is an incredulous goal* in 2014 and beyond.
> 3. *Wynne is right.*


*1.* Of course you would. 

*2. *As 'incredulous' as the 100K jobs added in the last 5 years, don't you think? You don't think a balance is needed now for that reason?! How many gov. jobs were added in the last 10 years vs. population growth, which would have been necessary to justify such an increase? Any idea how many private sector jobs were lost in the last 10 years? 
*
Quoting Goldstone*: 'Hudak proposed to cut 100,000 government jobs, or about one-third of the new positions added under McGuinty.'










*3.* Yes, always! Quoting you: '*What is surprising....... is that Conservatives seem to find it unfair for others to oppose their ideology.'* :biggrin:


----------



## Nemo2

carverman said:


> 9. Sell off the beer stores and LCBO..gov't should not be in business but to serve the people


The Beer Stores are not government owned.

Otherwise....carry on!


----------



## HaroldCrump

This election is unfortunately boiling down to one massive mother-of-all voting along partisan lines.
All the rent seeking groups seem to have joined forces to "stop Hudak"

The machinations of the _Working Families Coalition_ are well known.
So is the lobbying of the Elementary Teachers Union.

Earlier this week, the *OPP police union jumped into the political fray by issuing attack ads against Hudak*.

Each and every one of them is spreading pure F.U.D. against the most basic, common sense, spending cuts and responsible budgeting.

As for the OPP, this particular group is one of the worst culprits when it comes to rent-seeking, lobbying, and vote rigging.
They are single handedly responsible for the poor financial states of several towns and municipalities, as well as the provincial debt burden.

*Small municipalities across Ontario crushed by soaring OPP policing costs*

*Eastern Ontario communities struggle with police costs*

It should be noted that this has been one of the most favored groups (along with the teachers union) under the reign of Dalton McGuinty.
Time and time again, they have been awarded far above average, almost obnoxious, pay raises and benefits.

*McGuinty defends 8.5-per-cent pay hike for OPP in 2014*

Essentially, the lobbying efforts of these rent-seekers boils down to this : 
_We don't give a flying rat's behind about fiscal common sense. We want gold-plated raises, benefits, and pensions. Tax-payers be damned_

This election will have nothing to do with industrial policy, employment strategy, or any kind of policy matter.
It is all about the rent-seeking, leftists Super PACs misleading the voters with FUD.

andrewf keeps saying _we need a reasonable debate_ - well, there aint none.
sags, you speak of Nobel prize winning economic thinking of Krugman, etc. - well, no one gives a rat's behind.
At this point, I'll take all of Krugman's insanity over the FUD of these lobby groups.


----------



## carverman

Seven days left in the Ontario election campaign...

and this cartoon pretty much summarizes it as it stands thus far...


----------



## Toronto.gal

I hope the RCMP will now take over the current Ornge/gas plants, and who knows what other criminal investigations.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Toronto.gal said:


> I hope the RCMP will now take over the current Ornge/gas plants, and who knows what other criminal investigations.


Agreed...given the latest attack ads by the OPP, there is a huge conflict of interest in the OPP continuing this investigation.
In fact, all current and past scandals of the Ontario Liberal administration ought to be handed over to the RCMP, with the oversight of a judicial committee.

In the unlikely event that Hudak does form a provincial govt. on June 12th, can we even trust the OPP to align its interests with public safety any more?
Is it really a police force any more, or just a lobby group?

Are we saying that our public service employees like teachers and policemen will perform their duties diligently if and only if a political party of their choice is in govt?
Because that is what it seems like, given the lobbying efforts of these groups.


----------



## warp

warp said:


> In Ontario we don't need to vote Hudak in...but we definately NEED to vote Wynne OUT.
> 
> AS for the NDP, God help us if they ever get elected again.
> 
> I have a simple test:
> If the unions, particularly the public sector unions, including teachers, etc, start fuming about a Budget, ( or when a budget they love gets turned down in Parliament), a law change, an election, or anything else for that matter...then that is what is needed to be done for the good of the Province.


I have never replied to my own quote, but here it is.

As was expected, every public sector union, and teachers union, etc, has ads running on tv, radio, on the internet, and in print, all day long, warning us poor Ontario residents about how Hudak and his Conservatives want to ruin your lives.

Now even the idiot OPP union has chimed in, because Hudak had the nerve to suggest that their overly generous pay (and overtime), will be frozen for 2 years along with EVERY other Ontario public servant.

All these unions have one thing in common...they are all self serving morons, conviniently forgetting how Ontario is drowning in a sea of debt, created mostly by that idiot McGinty by constantly giving in to their outrageous demands and pay raises to BUY their votes!

It's time to vote for a leader and a party who will stand up to these theives, and Wynne is certainly NOT that.


----------



## sags

Still a lot of undecided voters who could determine the outcome of the election.

It should be a good debate..........


----------



## HaroldCrump

warp said:


> All these unions have one thing in common...they are all self serving morons, conviniently forgetting how Ontario is drowning in a sea of debt, created mostly by that idiot McGinty by constantly giving in to their outrageous demands and pay raises to BUY their votes!


They are not workers' unions (any more), fighting for the safety and fundamental rights of workers.

The days of _Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch_ are long gone.

These are highly political, well-funded, Super PACs.
I suppose they are the true realization of Galbraith's _countervailing power_.
But even he could not have imagined the lengths to which this will go.


----------



## sags

I am always a little baffled by how police services can run up such big costs.

Where does all the ticket fine money go?

We live at a 3 way stop........and whenever a police officer sits in our parking lot.......he can't keep up with all the people who slow down but don't stop at the corner.

I would think if they parked a couple officers there all day....they could pay the wages for the entire force for the day.

I wouldn't mind being "privatized" to look after that corner, and I won't charge anything for wages. I will just keep the fine money.

$100 a ticket for as fast as I could write them up.............count me in.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Where does all the ticket fine money go?


Into the same endless money pit where the rest of our tax $$ go.



> I would think if they parked a couple officers there all day....they could pay the wages for the entire force for the day.


Ha ! not even close.
One of the articles linked above had the starting salaries of the lowest grades of OPP.
I think it was in the mid $80K range.
The 8.5% pay hike proposed for 2014 ticks that to just over $90K.
And that's just the base salary.

That's a whole lotta traffic tickets !


----------



## sags

8.5% a year increase?...............whaaaaat.

Never heard of that before. That is just plain wrong.

I would replace the whole force before I would agree to that.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> I would replace the whole force before I would agree to that.


You have my vote


----------



## Synergy

HaroldCrump said:


> You have my vote


Same here! I have a relative who after completing law school decided to go into the OPP. The decision was based on $$$ - salary, benefits, pension, etc. Not that lawyers can't make a really good living, but the competition is getting fierce and harder should one decide to live in a smaller community.


----------



## MRT

HaroldCrump said:


> Into the same endless money pit where the rest of our tax $$ go.
> 
> 
> Ha ! not even close.
> One of the articles linked above had the starting salaries of the lowest grades of OPP.
> I think it was in the mid $80K range.
> The 8.5% pay hike proposed for 2014 ticks that to just over $90K.
> And that's just the base salary.
> 
> That's a whole lotta traffic tickets !


According to OPP's website:

http://www.opp.ca/ecms/index.php?id=98

Recruit Constable(5th Class)
From the first day of training
$49,751.00

Probationary Constable (4th Class)	
After graduation from training	
$63,434.00

Constable (3rd Class) 
$72,501.00

Constable (2nd Class) 
$80,658.00

Constable (1st Class)
After 36 months
$90,621.00


----------



## Synergy

Anyone know how to make one of those pole / questionnaires? It would be interesting to see who CMF members are voting for...


----------



## warp

Synergy said:


> Anyone know how to make one of those pole / questionnaires? It would be interesting to see who CMF members are voting for...


I would think/hope most of the people on this board will be voting for Hudak and the PC.

People here are mostly savers and investors, and so are worried about the sorry state of the Ontario economy after 10 years of stupid Liberal government. As well they should be incensed at the obvious and complete waste of , and lack of respect for, taxpayer money over the last 10 years.

I have known some public union people over the years.....and they seem unconcerned with saving for retirement, having a jolly old time with vacations etc. The reason becomes clear when you realize all the benfits they get to pay for out of pocket medical and dental eexpenses etc......and the fact that they can look forward to a full and GENEROUS pension when they "retire", which will be paid to them forever, and will be fully indexed to inflation. 

Regular folks, and small business owners can't even dream of such a wonderfull payout, with the insult being that through their and their childrens ever increasing taxes, are in fact paying for these fat pensions for underworked government employees. This will inevitably lead to higher and higher deficits, with bankruptcy assured at some point if changes are not made NOW........( see Greece)

It is absolutely outrageous, so at least try and vote for a leader and party who might try and make a dent in this scandalous system.


----------



## Nemo2

Synergy said:


> Anyone know how to make one of those pole / questionnaires? It would be interesting to see who CMF members are voting for...


Done.....(sorta)


----------



## HaroldCrump

MRT said:


> According to OPP's website:


Yeah, *this article *I was referring to talks about a class 1 officer.

It is clear that many towns and municipalities are having serious challenges with police costs.
In some cities, police payments (current salaries, not including deferred liabilities like pensions) are consuming 50% or more of city revenue (incl. traffic tickets).

Regardless of what a 1st class officer or a 2nd class officer makes in nominal terms, if a large number of cities cannot afford it, then the costs are too expensive.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/08/31/the-high-cost-of-policing

It was also found recently that many *Canadian cities top the list of police costs in the world, not just North America*.
Even mid-sized cities like Winnipeg were on that list, above large, metropolitan cities like Chicago and New York.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Regardless of what a 1st class officer or a 2nd class officer makes in nominal terms, if a large number of cities cannot afford it, then the costs are too expensive.
> http://www.torontosun.com/2012/08/31/the-high-cost-of-policing
> 
> It was also found recently that many *Canadian cities top the list of police costs in the world, not just North America*.





> Ironically, the only politician who really raised a public stink about the police contract was Premier Dalton McGuinty, who called it overly generous, prompting a letter from Mukherjee blaming McGuinty for setting the precedent, with his own expensive deal with the OPP.


Talk about "the pot calling the kettle black!"


However, on Timmy's job creation front..here is where some of those 1,000,000 jobs in 10 years can come from.



> And if the city wants to reduce its costs by cutting the number of* paid-duty officers earning $65-an-hour at construction sites*, and replacing them with lower-paid traffic guards, there’s little point in complaining to Police Chief Bill Blair.


10,000 on duty police officers guarding all the real estate development in the GTA is $650,000 of taxable salaries.


----------



## Synergy

Nemo2 said:


> Done.....(sorta)


Thanks Nemo2, great work!


----------



## HaroldCrump

The liberal agenda is essentially:

Invest in education = raises for teachers union

Invest in safety = raises for OPP union

Invest in infrastructure = raises for TTC & Go Transit union

Invest in energy = more windmills & HST on hydro

Job creation plan = hire more govt. workers


----------



## andrewf

It's about as fair as saying the conservative agenda is to let the poor fend for themselves or die in the gutter.


----------



## HaroldCrump

I am merely echoing the attack ads by the Elementary Teachers union and the OPP, which are both backed by the Liberal party.


----------



## sags

I didn't see the whole debate but listened on the radio and saw some portions of it.

I thought Hudak presented himself very well, by adding some details to his plans.

I was also surprised that on some issues, the Liberals and Conservatives could almost agree.......almost.

I find the practice of candidates not looking at each other when the other is addressing them...a little arrogant and rude. They just stand there.........staring off into space.

I think that started in the US Presidential debates.

I didn't think there were any "knockout" blows...but of the three leaders...I thought Hudak gained the most.

How much that means..........I don't know.


----------



## gibor365

Synergy said:


> Anyone know how to make one of those pole / questionnaires? It would be interesting to see who CMF members are voting for...


I created it
http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showt...ds-for-June-election-after-NDP-rejects-budget

not many participated


----------



## gibor365

MRT said:


> According to OPP's website:
> 
> http://www.opp.ca/ecms/index.php?id=98
> 
> Recruit Constable(5th Class)
> From the first day of training
> $49,751.00
> 
> Probationary Constable (4th Class)
> After graduation from training
> $63,434.00
> 
> Constable (3rd Class)
> $72,501.00
> 
> Constable (2nd Class)
> $80,658.00
> 
> Constable (1st Class)
> After 36 months
> $90,621.00


Even more important for cops huge benefits they have....it's practically double salary .... I worked for 8 years in Israeli police and think benefits in Canada not much worse


----------



## fraser

If I had my way, I would have hooked each one of them up to a lie dectector unit for the entire debate.


----------



## carverman

Watched the debate in its entirety. It was plain to see that Wynne was under attack by the other two and was putting on a brave front to defend her actions with McGuilty and later on when she took over. She spent more time apologizing for the gas plant scandal, eHealth and ORNGE than discussing their plans to deal with the deficit, which Hudak was quick to 
point out that the Liberals were just used overspending on credit cards instead of trying to balance finances. 

Hudak attacked Wynne and mentioned that if she knew it was bad decisions at the time, why did she approve the cancellations etc?
She retorted back that she was part of McGuinty's cabinet and had to "tow the line", but she was apologizing for it now.

If her actions, statements and body language were prime examples..you could basically see that she was squirming in front of the cameras.

Of the 6 questions selected, they tended to deviate from the questions and start the attack again...gas plant scandal and "funny math", and then Horwath was butting in while the other person was speaking.
Clearly she was trying to dominate the round robin discussion of the 6 issues presented as questions.
Hudak OTOH, used the open arms body language as an attempt to reinforce the points he was trying to make..and reminded me of one of those toys that you crank and up
pops a Jack in the Box with its arms outstretched. I know..it's just his style of public speaking..but it kinda reminded me of Prime Minister Turners funny laugh when he
was nervous speaking in public. 

Because each one has some bad history attached to their party, I didn't perceive any clear winner in this debate, but from a public speaking strong point, 
I would put Horwath as the "winner" on terms of her presentation style to the public.

cartoon of the debate on tv


----------



## andrewf

To challenge the meme of Ontario spending wildly, I think it is worthwhile to mention that Ontario spends less per capita that just about every other province. If Ontario is a spendthrift basket case, what does it say about the rest of the country that spend more per capita and have generally more government employees per capita?

I think it's fair to say that Ontario should be getting better value for money in public sector compensation, but it's not immediately obvious to me that Ontario is spending far more than it should be, compared to its peers.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1326379/ontario-election-reality-check-the-leanest-government-in-canada/


----------



## sags

+1


----------



## el oro

You're certainly right about that andrewf. However, Ontario needs to play the hand they've been dealt. Another excerpt from the Drummond touching on this point:



> Ontario is neither a high-tax nor high-spend province. It does not enjoy the easy pickings of
> natural resource revenue, nor is it a major recipient of federal transfers in comparison with the
> rest of Canada. To meet its own goal of a balanced budget in seven years, the government will
> have to cut program spending more deeply on a real per capita basis, and over a much longer
> period of time, than the Harris government did in the 1990s.


----------



## sags

It is interesting that the Drummond Report didn't fault any specific governments as out of control spenders who created a pile of debt........but looked at the facts and determined that although it isn't anyone's "fault"..............it still has to be addressed.

The Commission recommended a prudent overhaul of spending in all areas......from the public service to big business.

It provided some insight into the need for a combination of spending limits to increased revenues.........as the solution.

Unfortunately, none of the political parties are interested in fully supporting the Drummond Report....as it conflicts with their own pre-conceived ideology. 

The report was designed as a whole........and picking out only some recommendations....renders the report useless.

What we have here..........is not a failure of ideology.........but a failure of leadership from all parties.


----------



## carverman

This morning's IPSOS Poll (if that is any indication) put Hudak and his PCs ahead of the other two, which are basically neck and neck.


> Election Debate Viewers Say Hudak Wins, Gets Knock Out Punch While Horwath Impresses, Wynne Falters
> 
> Hudak Named as Leader with Best Policies & Ideas (36%, up 6 points), Ahead of Horwath (31%, up 7 points) and Wynne (28%, down 3 points)


Of course, you have to take these opinion polls with a grain of salt. Voters may have different opinions from the way they actually vote..based on popularity and presentation (of the candidates) 
over election mandates and policy.

Back at the beginning of May (9), Ipsos gave Wynne the most points in the "poll popularity race" but it is clear from the outcome of last nights debate that Wynne is struggling now to keep
up. That McGuinty "monkey on her back" keeps haunting her..and it is tough to remember that...."when you are up to yer a** in alligators, the first objective was to drain the swamp"...

It's still a tough call., as the unionists are very prominent in this election..more prominent than in the last one..because they have more to lose in this one ..possibly their jobs.


----------



## sags

The results of this election will all depend on how the left vote is split, as they are now facing the same scenario conservatives had......when the Reform Party and the PCs split their vote and Chretien cruised down the middle to majority governments.

A strong performance by the NDP...........and Hudak could win a minority government.

I can't see a scenario where the PCs win a majority since they just don't have a big enough base of support.


----------



## sags

carverman said:


> It's still a tough call., as the unionists are very prominent in this election..more prominent than in the last one..because they have more to lose in this one ..possibly their jobs.


Not surprising really..........

If a leader was proposing massive tax hikes on seniors........I would think the Grey Panthers would be back in action.

People become more interested and active....when it is their butt on the line and not the "guy down the road".


----------



## Toronto.gal

sags said:


> *If a leader was proposing massive tax hikes on seniors*........I would think the Grey Panthers would be back in action.


Of course you would make such a comparison, but then again, you did admit only yesterday, of not even knowing OPP's salaries + increases. :sleeping: 

Nothing whatsoever 'massive' about cutting 10% of a bloated gov. over a period of several years. Do you know how many gov. workers retire annually btw?

- Ms. Horwath was as confident & strong as in the last debate, and yes, many will have focused on her pretty smile and smart black suit as well.

- Mr. Hudak was the one that made the most sense [to me], though the election still seems to be about only him. Best line IMO: "You're acting like someone who's won the lottery, when you know you're bankrupt."

- Ms. Wynne was the shocker of the night from her very 1st response. She noted after the debate, that it had been her 1st such debate, however, it was as if she had not expected the gas scandal question, for which one would have thought she had had plenty of experience/practice already! I actually felt sorry for her. Had the 1st question come at the end, I think the debate would have turned out very differently for her. You know what they say about confidence.

- Steve Paikin was as good as always in his role of moderator.

It's the small % that have not yet made up their minds that will make the difference.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Not surprising really..........
> 
> If a leader was proposing massive tax hikes on seniors........I would think the Grey Panthers would be back in action.
> 
> People become more interested and active....*when it is their butt on the line and not the "guy down the road*".


Absolutely..your own personal survival is at stake.


----------



## hystat

My stomach turned a few times - once with the creepy smile Hudak did when he was talking about a kid with autism graduating high school. The guy really looks like he's an actor in a movie playing the "slimy politician". shiny forehead and all. 
He goofed on the math big time at one point saying the first 9% of his job cuts would reduce the workforce by 250,000 positions then 350,000 or something. The Hudakulator was seriously melting down.
Wynne had one opportunity to squish him but she was too nervous focusing on her next lines... lol

I'm glad she got "Tier 4" in in response to Horwath's claim the buses are "dirty diesel". Man, Tier 4 diesels are clean as a whistle. Unbelievable to call them dirty. The exhaust will be cleaner than the sewer gas they're sucking in in stinky TO. 

My wife and I had a few belly laughs with the Betty in Belleville, and Suzy in Sudbury type schtick of Horwath and Hudak. I hate that stuff. "You know just the other day I was talking to a commoner in serf ward 3"

I just really hope for a minority coalition as the PC's and NDP are just too radical in their campaigns to take Ontario in a 180 from the course it is on.

and the response to the lady in Port Hope or Cobourg worried about the cost to run her Cadillac SUV out to the bingo- shoulda been "tough beans" - your town would be a ghost town if it weren't so near Toronto - suck it up and give the urban centers some transit. "This is a provincial election, not a municipal one - all Ontarians need to work for a better Ontario"
no risk takers on that stage -one or two honest from-the-hip responses coulda shook things up


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> when it is their butt on the line and not the "guy down the road".


99% of the unionized public sector workers have nothing to worry about.
The reduction that Hudak is taking about will be over a period of 4 years and primarily through regular attrition and superannuation.

What the unions are truly worried about is losing their gold-plated status in society - the above average wage increases, the gold pensions, the 3 weeks of "sick" days, the 4+ weeks of vacations, etc.
That is why the various unions are doing all this fear-mongering and FUD spreading.


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> Of course you would make such a comparison, but then again, you did admit only yesterday, of not even knowing OPP's salaries + increases. :sleeping:
> 
> Nothing whatsoever 'massive' about cutting 10% of a bloated gov. over a period of several years. Do you know how many gov. workers retire annually btw?
> 
> - Ms. Horwath was as confident & strong as in the last debate, and yes, many will have focused on her pretty smile and smart black suit as well.


ROFF!! Maybe that was the attraction?? <carver gives head a shake>...no, it was her public speaking presentation..she dominated that debate and I spent more time focussing on what she was saying
than the other two. it's just too bad she is on the "wrong side of the fence" from my perspective..but there will be others that feel she would make a good Premier because she appeals from the
"we are there for you" and not the political rhetoric and double speak of the other two.
I really liked her rebuke of Hudak when she directed a volley at him.."where where you Mr. Hudak when all the scandals were happening?



> - Mr. Hudak was the one that made the most sense [to me], though the election still seems to be about only him. Best line IMO: "You're acting like someone who's won the lottery, when you know you're bankrupt."


That was a good one from him, so at least he wasn't just acting the "game show host" part. 



> - Ms. Wynne was the shocker of the night from her very 1st response. She noted after the debate, that it had been her 1st such debate, however, it was as if she had not expected the gas scandal question, for which one would have thought she had had plenty of experience/practice already! I actually felt sorry for her. Had the 1st question come at the end, I think the debate would have turned out very differently for her. You know what they say about confidence.


Well she knew she would have a hard time with that, and ORNGE and eHealth..more wasted billions by the Fiberals. But wasn't she the minister of euducation under McGuinty? So she should have been better
prepared. Even if she had to hire a personal consultant for a crash course on public speaking...however the fast pace of the electioneering and running around the province precluded that.


> - Steve Paikin was as good as always in his role of moderator.


He is a relaxed and good speaker..and quick with his wit.


----------



## carverman

hystat said:


> My stomach turned a few times - once with the creepy smile Hudak did when he was talking about a kid with autism graduating high school. The guy really looks like he's an actor in a movie playing the "slimy politician". shiny forehead and all.
> He goofed on the math big time at one point saying the first 9% of his job cuts would reduce the workforce by 250,000 positions then 350,000 or something. The Hudakulator was seriously melting down.
> Wynne had one opportunity to squish him but she was too nervous focusing on her next lines... lol
> 
> I'm glad she got "Tier 4" in in response to Horwath's claim the buses are "dirty diesel". Man, Tier 4 diesels are clean as a whistle. Unbelievable to call them dirty. The exhaust will be cleaner than the sewer gas they're sucking in in stinky TO.
> 
> My wife and I had a few belly laughs with the Betty in Belleville, and Suzy in Sudbury type schtick of Horwath and Hudak. I hate that stuff. "You know just the other day I was talking to a commoner in serf ward 3"
> 
> I just really hope for a minority coalition as the PC's and NDP are just too radical in their campaigns to take Ontario in a 180 from the course it is on.
> 
> and the response to the *lady in Cobourg worried about the cost to run her Cadillac SUV out to the bingo-* shoulda been "tough beans" - your town would be a ghost town if it weren't so near Toronto - suck it up and give the urban centers some transit. "This is a provincial election, not a municipal one - all Ontarians need to work for a better Ontario"
> no risk takers on that stage -one or two honest from-the-hip responses coulda shook things up


What does that have to do with anything? She chooses to live in a small community where there is no buses or rapid transit..just like hundreds of thousands of
Ontarioans that are faced with rising costs of operating a vehicle to go to work. This may have been a wasted time question.

Bang on in your analysis and synopsis of what was less than entertaining, but they had to boil down the questions from about a 1000 to 6 to give them 15 minutes each. 
Sometimes they drifted off topic in their focus for attacks on each other, and at times you couldn't make out what each one was saying because the other was speaking out of turn 
with a rebuke. Happens though when the discussion becomes heated and human emotion takes over instead of rationale.

All three really need some lessons and experience with DEBATE 101 and maybe public speaking staying on topic.:biggrin:


----------



## HaroldCrump

hystat said:


> once with the creepy smile Hudak did...The guy really looks like he's an actor in a movie playing the "slimy politician". shiny forehead and all.


Every human being has their own peculiar mannerisms, twitches, and ticks when under pressure or in the limelight.
Some bite their nails, some tug at their hair, some grind their teeth, some jingle coins in their pockets, etc.

It is outright unfair to judge someone based on their looks and/or mannerisms.

And it is not as if Kathleen Wynne is the splitting image of Audrey Hepburn or Grace Kelly.
One could make similar disparaging remarks about her looks and mannerisms.



> My wife and I had a few belly laughs with the Betty in Belleville, and Suzy in Sudbury type schtick of Horwath and Hudak. I hate that stuff.


Agreed, but they all do that.
Thanks to popular media that expect political leaders to "identify with the people", and be "people person", etc.
Politicians have to be charming, personable, endearing, etc.

George Clooney should run for premier of Ontario.

Someone like Abraham Lincoln would never have been elected in the day and age of television and pop media.
This is the day and age of charming politicians like Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy.
We know exactly how "charming" their extra-curricular life was.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> <carver gives head a shake>...no, it was her public speaking presentation..she dominated that debate.....



Which part of 'confident & strong' did you not understand? :confused2: 

My point had been that her presentation [physical] will help her as well. Just read *hystat* post. Capiche now?

I agree about her public speaking skills [she won in that respect], and Harold can confirm that. :biggrin:


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> Which part of 'confident & strong' *did you not understand? *:confused2:
> 
> My point had been that her presentation [physical] will help her as well. Just read *hystat* post. Capiche now?
> 
> I agree about her public speaking skills [she won in that respect], and Harold can confirm that. :biggrin:


Who's arguing? I like the lady from a personal point of view..and if she crossed the floor to PC..I would be more than happy. She has the confidence that is needed in the Legislature.


----------



## Toronto.gal

HaroldCrump said:


> Every human being has their own peculiar mannerisms, twitches, and ticks when under pressure or in the limelight.
> Some bite their nails, some tug at their hair, some grind their teeth, some jingle coins in their pockets, etc. *It is outright unfair to judge someone based on their looks and/or mannerisms.*


+10!

And pretty much what I told my son last night after he made an immature remark himself while watching the debate together [at least his immaturity was due to age rather than ignorance, or worse].


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> Who's arguing? I like the lady from a personal point of view..and if she crossed the floor to PC..I would be more than happy. She has the confidence that is needed in the Legislature.


Tim Hudak seemed to be propping her up a bit yesterday.
On more than one occasion, he said to Wynne _You are not answering the questions asked by Ms. Horwath_.

I wonder if Hudak is hoping for a minority govt. supported by the NDP...

Anyhow, Horwath is fast losing the support of the harder left base of her party.
They wanted her to vote for the budget because it was very union & socialist friendly.

I also get the sense that Horwath is open to supporting the Wynne govt. (again).
More than once she agreed with Wynne yesterday - on green energy policy and on a couple of other topics.

There _really _isn't that much difference between the Wynne Liberals and the NDP under Andrea.
As Hudak pointed out, the NDP MPPs vote along with the Liberals 97% of the time anyway.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Every human being has their own peculiar mannerisms, twitches, and ticks when under pressure or in the limelight.
> Some bite their nails, some tug at their hair, some grind their teeth, some jingle coins in their pockets, etc.
> 
> *It is outright unfair to judge someone based on their looks and/or mannerisms.*


You may remember John Turners "nervous laugh"..it was annoying to me when he served in his short term as PM. Public speaking requires discipline and awarness of body language.
You may note that whenever Harper speaks, he gets up and buttons his jacket and starts reply in a calm manner. 



> And it is not as if Kathleen Wynne is the splitting image of Audrey Hepburn or Grace Kelly.
> One could make similar disparaging remarks about her looks and mannerisms.



..and I just think that Andrea is more attractive...nice white teeth and nails and her hair has a pleasing look. 
I could go on..but I'll stop here as obviously you will tell me (no doubt) that I am biased. :biggrin:


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> Who's arguing? I like the lady from a personal point of view..and if she crossed the floor to PC..I would be more than happy. She has the confidence that is needed in the Legislature.


"<carver gives head a shake>...no, it was her public speaking presentation.."

The above 'no' gave that impression, so just wanted to make clear that I was in agreement.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> ..and I just think that Andrea is more attractive...nice white teeth and nails and her hair has a pleasing look.


Well, _now_ we know who you are voting for and why.
Who cares about deficit, education, infrastructure, health care, etc... :biggrin:


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> "<carver gives head a shake>...no, it was her public speaking presentation.."
> 
> The above 'no' gave that impression, so just wanted to make clear that I was in agreement.


Darn!..it's the old "men are from Mars and women are from Venus" mindset wreaking havoc again.:biggrin:


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Well, _now_ we know who you are voting for and why.
> Who cares about deficit, education, infrastructure, health care, etc... :biggrin:


If it's not coming DIRECTLY OUT OF MY OWN POCKET....why should it bother me?
But you are making an assumption here Harold...I said I find her a younger and more attractive person and IF she was
leading the "other party", she would (more than likely) be a shoe-in for Premier. However, strange things can happen on June 12.


----------



## Toronto.gal

HaroldCrump said:


> 1. I wonder if Hudak is hoping for a minority govt. supported by the NDP.....
> 2. As Hudak pointed out, the NDP MPPs vote along with the Liberals 97% of the time anyway.


1. I thought same.
2. His 2nd best line IMO.

Some good points made in this article:

*'Since any policy that would cause economic pain to politically significant constituencies is seen as off-limits, politics becomes a game of simultaneously promising low taxes, big government entitlements and unfunded pension liabilities.'*
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...tion-a-perfect-case-study-of-western-decline/


----------



## andrewf

A PC NDP coalition (formal or informal) is pretty untenable. Both parties would have to put too much water in their wine to get much done. What Hudak wants is to bolster NDP support to put more seats in contention, hoping that the vote split gives his party a majority. The PC vote is very inefficient (it takes a high % of popular vote to get a majority).

Latest from threehundredeight.com. I'm surprised the Liberals are holding in there. I expected the PCs to be in minority government territory. I guess it could still break that way.












Toronto.gal said:


> Nothing whatsoever 'massive' about cutting 10% of a bloated gov. over a period of several years. Do you know how many gov. workers retire annually btw?


The question is how 'bloated' it really is. Ontario per capita spending and per capita government workers is low vs other provinces. 10% seems arbitrary to me. If they can point to services no longer needed, or levels of service that can be diminished, we can talk about that. The idea that it is all middle management is laughable. (middle management--everyone's favourite whipping boy. One wonders why there are any middle managers at all)


----------



## sags

The unions are targeting Hudak ?

I think it is the other way around.

Slash 100,000 jobs.......cut corporate taxes.......right to work laws......

Hudak makes Mike Harris look like a closet Liberal.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> The unions are targeting Hudak ?
> I think it is the other way around.


The OPP union does not "own" the uniform and the cops used in their attack ad.
That asset belongs to the citizens/tax-payers.
They had no right to leverage the cops (paid for by the tax-payers), the uniforms, the police vehicles, and other equipment depicted in the advertisement.

If Hudak and the PC Party were not granted permission to film their ad on the TTC subway, neither should the OPP Union be allowed to leverage public assets for their political messaging.

There are clearly two classes and rules in society - union and non-union.

That aside, an elected govt. has every right to reduce govt. staffing levels.
Just as an elected govt. has been allowed over the past 11 years to increase staffing levels many x times.



> Hudak makes Mike Harris look like a closet Liberal.


McGuinty & Wynne made Bob Rae look like a fiscal conservative.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> The unions are targeting Hudak ?
> 
> I think it is the other way around.
> 
> Slash 100,000 jobs.......cut corporate taxes.......right to work laws......
> 
> *Hudak makes Mike Harris look like a closet Libera*l.


LoL! Do you think Hudak is still very green at the election game with throwing all the negative effects up front? I do like his gumption to tell us like it's going to be..but that could very well
be a costly mistake on June 12.. had he just concentrated on Fiberal waste, he would have been a shoe-in...now..it's still up in the air. His campaign (IMO) puts the Fiberals at an advantage.
EVEN if he has "faulty math" on the job creation...leave the cuts out of the campaign..that is plain political suicide. Anybody that has a public service job is feeling threatened by Hudak.
"Not a good play..Einstein!"


----------



## sags

I haven't seen the advertising, but I don't disagree with your observation Harold.

The OPP officers have a right to voice their opinion, pay for advertising, protest or anything else any free citizen has the right to do.......but they have no right to use government property to do so.........anymore than anyone else does.

Clearly a dubious decision by some union leaders. The message could have been otherwise conveyed.

But while on the topic of policing costs....the RCMP pay rates are negotiated by the Conservative Federal Government and look higher than the OPP pay rates. Not a bad pension either......full retirement after 25 years.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/recruitin...ages-eng.htm?gclid=CIT5jKD-4b4CFeZaMgodASgA0w

Just saying.........don't get your hopes up that Hudak will be any different.

Conservatives love the police. Rob Ford used to love the police. I don't think he still does.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


>


Looks like the Fiberals may have a 10 seat lead if this data is believable. Maybe somebody told Wynne to keep a low profile at the debate and let public opinion take its course.
They were showing the Fiberal strong holds in the Ottawa area on CTV today on the news...Chiarrelli is Energy Minister here...he has promised to "re-adjust"the hydro rates
IF he gets back in, and has been keeping a low profile during this election..the other candidates have nothing to offer publicly.

As I predicted a couple weeks ago..a status quo (Liberal minority) gov't again.........and again.....everyone else licking their wounds after the election and wondering why it
was even necessary in the first place. The best thing for the PCs after the election is to team up with the NDP to avoid any stupid costly mistakes from the Fiberals over the
next four years..otherwise Ontario will be screwed up even more than it already is....and....oh yes..Kick Hudak to the curb!


----------



## andrewf

I'm not sure why anyone thinks a PC+NDP coalition is a viable outcome.


----------



## sags

andrewf said:


> I'm not sure why anyone thinks a PC+NDP coalition is a viable outcome.


Not viable and wouldn't last long.........but it would be fun to watch.

I am stocking up on popcorn........just in case.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> Darn!..it's the old "men are from Mars and women are from Venus" mindset wreaking havoc again.:biggrin:


Sorry carv, I missed this response yesterday.

You're right, I jumped the gun, so please accept my apologies!

I had read your post 2 fast, but now I understand what the humourous head shake had been all about [pretty Andrea].


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> *1.* Looks like the Fiberals may have a 10 seat lead if this data is believable.....
> *2.* Kick Hudak to the curb!
> *3. *Ontario will be screwed up even more than it already is....


*1.* That the Liberals are in the lead was not exactly unpredictable; few thought that the debate would have made much difference.

Not surprising at all, when you also consider all the attacks against Hudak's 10% reduction of our bloated gov., and most definitely yes, despite the time & $$$$$$$$$s spent on consultants' fees [Ontario Place revitalization visions x2/Drummond Report, etc.], there is definitely waste & surplus staff in that 10%. But even if we were told that the % of bureaucrats & plain redundancy was 1% for example, many would still want zero reduction in gov. spending. 

10% ÷ by 4 years = 2.5% ÷ by firstly the big bureocratic circles, duplicative/overlapping/redundant programs, retirees, etc., not a brutal 'whack and hack' goal, and the former would/should bear the brunt of the cuts, which would not be a difficult choice in the least.

Good workers lose their jobs every day, that is a fact of life; there are no jobs until you retire any more; it's called reality.

As Harold mentioned, 'All the rent seeking groups seem to have joined forces to "stop Hudak". They most certainly have.' *'Corruption runs deep in the Liberal party'*, had been Ms. Horwath's best line IMO, and voters seem to be ok. rewarding that. :hopelessness:

*2.* You think Mr. Hudak would want to stay, even if not kicked to the curb? 

*3.* A certainty.

Millions spent in the 2014 election [let's not forget the 2011 election that lasted a year], seems to have translated into 4 more years of boondoggles/debt/deficit/spending. 

In the interim, a look back at 3 consecutive Fiberal rule: 

http://canadiansforintegrity.org/di...-the-Top-of-CFI-s-Most-Disreputable-List.html

*Go to minute 2:25: * Like that smile carv? :biggrin:
http://www.torontosun.com/videos/3605529157001#3606189278001


----------



## Toronto.gal

sags said:


> He is simply determined to cut the public service to 2009 levels, which is an *incredulous goal* in 2014 and beyond......


When I read this article, your dramatic statement immediately came to mind. :biggrin: The spending figures from the Liberals are the only numbers so many have found the most credulous & unquestionable ones. :fatigue:

*Reject Hudak, or embrace Armageddon. According to Ontario's public unions, it's your choice.*
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...ng-to-ontarios-public-unions-its-your-choice/


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> *
> 
> Good workers lose their jobs every day, that is a fact of life; there are no jobs until you retire any more; it's called reality.
> 
> 2. You think Mr. Hudak would want to stay, even if not kicked to the curb? *


*
"Cast as evil job killer"..well I think his time is up, he's a fool to hang on, if he loses on June 12. He's got a point about reducing the bureaucracy but don't do the "sledgehammer" approach during
the election when there are so many fence sitters in this election. I could have done a much better job coming up with an election campaign than the guys he hired. 
I believe in the old adage."walk softly but carry a big stick"



Go to minute 2:25:  Like that smile carv? :biggrin:
http://www.torontosun.com/videos/3605529157001#3606189278001[/QUOTE]

Ooooooooooo! That smile, those pearly whites....she reminds me of BC Premier Christy Clark..Ya gotta look good in front of the cameras!"*


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> Ooooooooooo! *That smile, those pearly whites*....


I should have been more specific - 2:57 to be precise. :biggrin:


----------



## HaroldCrump

I think carverman's has had it.
If we get an NDP coalition govt., I am squarely blaming him.


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> I should have been more specific - 2:57 to be precise. :biggrin:


Sorry but it doesn't do anything for me. She should change her glasses...looks too much like a grade school m"arm. When I see her speak..I think of the some of the old Peanuts/Charlie Brown
cartoon specials...where Charlie B. is in school and the marm talks to him in a wah-wah-wah-wah trombone voice. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04&feature=kp


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> I think carverman's has had it.
> If we get an NDP coalition govt., I am squarely blaming him.


I want to see more of Andrea's..umm..pearly whites and her nice smile.....:biggrin:


----------



## hystat

HaroldCrump said:


> Every human being has their own peculiar mannerisms, twitches, and ticks when under pressure or in the limelight.
> Some bite their nails, some tug at their hair, some grind their teeth, some jingle coins in their pockets, etc.
> 
> It is outright unfair to judge someone based on their looks and/or mannerisms.


It wasn't mannerisms. It was over-rehearsed bad acting. Hudak didn't have any noticeable mannerisms that I could see. Not sure what you noticed or are referring to.


----------



## HaroldCrump

hystat said:


> It wasn't mannerisms. It was over-rehearsed bad acting.


_*Every*_ politician - without exception - goes through extensive training, handling, and profiling of this kind.
That is just the reality of modern day media and politics.
Not everyone has a photogenic face and great looking physical features.
Not every politician can be an ex movie star.

Maybe his PR trainers told him to keep smiling at the camera to conceal the enormous stress of the situation & the campaign.
Many public figures have plastic-y smiles.

As I said, it isn't as if Kathleen Wynne is the splitting image of Audrey Hepburn or Grace Kelly.
We'll leave aside carverman's opinion of Andrea for a moment.

Did you notice Wynne continuously spreading her arms wide in that ridiculous hugging gesture?
She keeps doing that all the time.

It seems more like a medieval beggar begging for alms.
Perhaps she is begging for the voters to believe her lies, apologies, and give them another chance.


----------



## Nemo2

Perhaps she's attempting to emulate this:


----------



## Beaver101

^ ... right, with her (now all hers) predecessor's track record .. hellujah, praise the Lord if she gets to keep the job! :disgust:

How about a mid-finger salute in return ...


----------



## HaroldCrump

So she is saying : _Come onto me all who are heavy laden and I will relieve you of your money with high taxes and boondoggles_

- paraphrased Matthew 11:28-30


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Not everyone has a photogenic face and great looking physical features.
> Not every politician can be an ex movie star.
> 
> We'll leave aside carverman's opinion of Andrea for a moment.


..and what's wrong with my opinion of Andrea? I liked her smiling face and she is serious about being the next Premier.
I'm just glad that Bev Oda wasn't in tbe running...with a cigarette hanging out of the corner of her mouth like most pictures of her. 



> Did you notice Wynne continuously spreading her arms wide in that ridiculous hugging gesture?
> She keeps doing that all the time.


You mean this?...:cheerful:



> It seems more like a medieval beggar begging for alms.
> Perhaps she is begging for the voters to believe her lies, apologies, and give them another chance.


I wasn't tuned in that well to what she was saying..but what I did hear.."I apologize for that" a few times..started to sound like Charlie Browns teacher..wah-wah-wah-wah in that
sonorous trombone voice.


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ^ ... right, with her (now all hers) predecessor's track record .. hellujah, praise the Lord if she gets to keep the job! :disgust:
> 
> How about a mid-finger salute in return ...


lets not be too harsh of Kathleen...however I was transfixed by Andrea's...<carver thinking..thinking..thinking. ) her um....well ...nice white teeth.:couple_inlove:


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> ..and what's wrong with my opinion of Andrea?


Nothing is wrong at all !
All I am saying is that politicians are usually not the prettiest bunch (your opinion of Andrea notwithstanding - that is what I mean).

Many people are inept when it comes to public speaking and social settings, esp. in high pressure situations like debates.
We shouldn't be judging candidates based on their appearances and mannerisms during debates.
In the case of Wynne's & the liberal party, we have 11 years of incompetence to judge them against - we don't need to resort to critique their appearances.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> In the case of Wynne's & the liberal party, we have 11 years of incompetence to judge them against - we don't need to resort to critique their appearances.


Well lets be fair here, Harold..Wynne only came on the scene when all the damage was done. She has a lot of <insert word here> to take on the responsibility of Premier and face all that verbal
critique every day. Any normal person would break down and call it quits and she hasn't. Lets not paint her with the same tar brush as we would McGuinty..who is the real culprit..but after all
he did resign..like Hudak mentioned he would if he can't get the budget balanced or the million jobs created. Tim..start preparing that resignation letter now!

Appearance and body mannerisms are everything on TV. 
If the wicked witch of the west was representing one of them.,,we all would be turning our heads and not paying attention.

I feel the need for a group hug here.


----------



## hystat

I couldn't give a hoot what they look like, or if they have twitches or atchiforya, but being disingenuous can manifest itself in a whole bunch of physical ways. My original comment about Hudak's forced smile was an example of that.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> She has a lot of <insert word here> to take on the responsibility of Premier and face all that verbal critique every day.


None of those apologies was sincere.
They are simply a way to deflect criticism, blame the one absent (DMcG), and carry on with business & corruption as usual.

This liberal party is full of habitual liars.
McG lied over and over again to the parliament, to inquiry committees, to the media, to the voters.

I see no reason Wynne is any different.
She was part of MCG's inner circle, and held several important cabinet positions in his administration.

She is also ingrained into the same institutions and vote banks that are the strongest Liberal supporters, such as the teachers' union.

She is old wine in new bottle. That is all.



> Lets not paint her with the same tar brush


Why not?
To date, she has not done one single thing to prove otherwise.
She has continued the same policies, the same direction, the same agenda.

In fact, she was brought in precisely to win over new vote banks that MCG was not winning.

The teachers' union had it with MCG.
After being the most favored vote bank for 8 years, MCG & the ETFO union had a following out in 2012.
Relationship soured.
The teachers' union wanted him gone.
They wanted to install an even more docile puppet...enter, Ms. Katheleen Wynne.

There are other lobby groups, too, that Wynne is going to bring to the table, but let's leave that aside for now.



> but after all he did resign


So what?
Resigning after 9 years of causing mayhem and fiscal insanity does not help.
What is to say that Wynne will not do similar damage and then "resign" in 2018?

Anyhow, resignations for politicians don't mean anything.
It is simply an excuse to take up super lucrative jobs in the private sector like Dwight Duncan has done.
And yeah, even Mike Harris & Mulroney did the same.

DMCG retired with a very generous severance package...he is all set.
Let's us not shed a tear for his "resignation".

If you ask me, he should be in jail, not kicking back at a cottage in Muskoka (or wherever he is spending his "retirement").


----------



## Toronto.gal

Speaking of appearance, were Mr. Hudak's platform close to that of Ms. Wynne in the spending dept., no matter if he were the spit & image of Daniel Craig or Richard Kiel, he would be in the lead. The 'do not harm' policies don't seem to apply to the latter, only the former.

Now let's make everybody happy.


----------



## Beaver101

Puleeze .. no more pictures o/w I'm going to puke. :blue:


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> Puleeze .. no more pictures o/w I'm going to puke. :blue:


+1 ^ ..unless it's ****Andrea*****..then keep them coming. :indecisiveness: (chance to use those silly extraneous smilies in this forum too)


I iz gonna be a union man.... (apologize....there we go again with that ..."puke" .....overused word......to Neil Young for his lyrics:applause:


> I'm proud to a union man
> I make those meetings when I can, yeah
> I pay my dues ahead of time
> When the benefits come I'm last in line, yeah.
> 
> I'm proud to be a union man.
> 
> Every fourth Friday at 10 am
> There's a local meeting of the A F of M, yeah!
> 
> This meeting will now come to order
> Is there any new business?
> 
> Yeah, I think 'Live music are better'
> Bumper stickers should be issued.
> 
> What was that?
> 
> 'Live music is better' bumper stickers
> Should be issued


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> I see no reason Wynne is any different.
> She was part of MCG's inner circle, and held several important cabinet positions in his administration.
> 
> She is also ingrained into the same institutions and vote banks that are the strongest Liberal supporters, such as the teachers' union.


So also fair to say that Hudak, as part of Harris' cabinet, was party to the culture of reckless dismantling of government that lead to the deaths of 7 people and illness of thousands in Walkerton? No reason to think he won't make the same kinds of decisions that will endanger public safety?


----------



## hystat

sometimes Wynne has prescription lenses. Other times she has the same glasses with non-prescription glass in them. That must just be a continuity thing. On days she wears contacts, she also wears the frames so people recognize her?

then as I was thinking that, I went to look for a pic, and look what google image search shows as popular searches.... Hey I didn't say it, but now that google mentions it...


----------



## andrewf

From Macleans:
What a real fiscally conservative plan for Ontario would look like

The problem is that Hudak's plan is somewhat reckless in the fiscal department. If he's concerned about Ontario's debt, he shouldn't be planning to significantly reduce revenues until the debt has been reduced to a more comfortable level. Net revenue reduction is unlikely to do much to stimulate demand in Ontario. I could get on board with tax changes that leave revenues roughly where they are now but improve Ontario's tax competitiveness (shift tax burden from corporate income taxes/taxes on investment to consumption taxes like HST). Instead Hudak plans to keep Ontario's debt:GDP levels elevated by using spending cuts to fund revenue reductions. It's hardly a prudent approach to Ontario's fiscal challenges.


----------



## andrewf

Update from threehundredeight.com.










Looks like the Liberals are in majority territory. I don't think the debate's impact is reflected in the polls yet. I can only hope that if the Libs win, they will have campaigned on the left but instead govern on the right (like Chretien). They will have the breathing room to do that if they have a majority.


----------



## bgc_fan

andrewf said:


> Looks like the Liberals are in majority territory. I don't think the debate's impact is reflected in the polls yet. I can only hope that if the Libs win, they will have campaigned on the left but instead govern on the right (like Chretien). They will have the breathing room to do that if they have a majority.


Kind of the reason why the Federal Liberals were considered the Natural Governing party as they were fairly centrist.

I'm a little surprised by the showing of the PCs though. Mind you Hudak probably lost all of Ottawa because of he won't provide funding for Phase 2 of the LRT plan for Ottawa, but will provide funding for more subways for Toronto.


----------



## sags

HaroldCrump said:


> So she is saying : _Come onto me all who are heavy laden and I will relieve you of your money with high taxes and boondoggles_
> 
> - paraphrased Matthew 11:28-30


I knew that gesture was familiar but couldn't figure out why.........and now I know.

It was from church.......and the minister welcoming the congregation.


----------



## sags

I must admit that the more I listen to Hudak.......especially during the debate.......the less draconian his "job cuts" appear.

I think he made a huge mistake by leaving the starting gate with...........I am going to cut 100,000 jobs statements.

It immediately put him on the defensive to explain the cuts, and the other leaders had a field day with it.

He could have simply said........"he would freeze all hiring UNTIL the public service is at a more sustainable level. We estimate the public service will naturally reduce at a rate of 1% a year through retirements".

If you want to wake somebody up..........the worst way to do it is to grab them by the feet and pull them out of bed.

Better for all concerned to do it gently.......

Because of his early statements, Hudak has appeared throughout the campaign as cold hearted and abrupt. That may be an entirely false impression of him......but it is what it is. He has also been forced on the defensive for the entire campaign.

The 100,000 jobs quote also set a lot more public servants on edge than necessary.........because they don't know exactly where the 100,000 job cuts are located. That has meant that all public servants feel threatened......even though there may be no reason for them to feel that way. Are the cuts in education.......healthcare........policing? Are they front line workers........upper management? How many more than 100,000 public servants will vote "against Hudak" out of fear they "might" be among those losing their jobs?

I remember whenever our company announced future layoffs.......everyone ran to the seniority boards to see how many people were "below" them in seniority. The 100,000 job cut pledge cast a wide net, involving not only the employees themselves but also their families and friends.

Ontario voters may well have supported a more "gentle" approach to reducing the cost of the public service.

The 1 million jobs pledge should have been left on the planning table........and replaced with something more credible.

If Hudak fails to win.........I think it more the fault of his election planning team than from Hudak's personal performance.

Overall.......I think he has presented himself as a good leader stuck with an ill advised platform.

Maybe it is the "back room boys" who need to be replaced..........not Hudak.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> I must admit that the more I listen to Hudak.......especially during the debate.......the less draconian his "job cuts" appear....
> 
> Because of his early statements, *Hudak has appeared throughout the campaign as cold hearted and abrupt. That may be an entirely false impression of him..*....but it is what it is. He has also been forced on the defensive for the entire campaign.


of course not..he's just another Ontario politician, seeking election to the highest office in the Legislature where he can stand up with his welcoming arms and tell everyone that
the people of Ontario have given him the mandate to go ahead and "trim the fat" with a clear concience. ...and if he doesn't balance the budget by 2018..or 2022..he will resign just
like the other ones before him. 



> The 100,000 jobs quote also set a lot more *public servants on edge than necessary.........because they don't know exactly where the 100,000 job cuts are located. *That has meant that all public servants feel threatened......even though there may be no reason for them to feel that way. Are the cuts in education.......healthcare........policing? Are they front line workers........upper management? How many more than 100,000 public servants will vote "against Hudak" out of fear they "might" be among those losing their jobs?


Stupid approach to trying to win a campaign. That doesn't sit well when everyone who is a public servant in Ontario, teachers, police, fire, and other services are nervous....he would have
done much better just going around smiling like Andrea and baby kissing......everyone likes politicians that kiss babies...not the "other places."



> Ontario voters may well have supported a more "gentle" approach to reducing the cost of the public service.


Yup..as I indicated in of my previous posts..he should have adopted one slogan from Woodrow Wilson..."speak softly..and carry a big stick"...it would have worked 
for the background for his campaign.



> If Hudak fails to win.........I think it more the fault of his election planning team than from Hudak's personal performance.
> 
> Overall.......I think he has presented himself as a good leader stuck with an ill advised platform.
> 
> Maybe it is the "back room boys" who need to be replaced..........not Hudak.


Alll of them should "fall on their swords" after the election...he's given it away..to Wynne that just had to go around and apologize over and over ad nauseum.


----------



## Nemo2

carverman said:


> should have adopted one slogan from Woodrow Wilson..."speak softly..and carry a big stick"...it would have worked


Teddie Roosevelt.


----------



## carverman

Nemo2 said:


> Teddie Roosevelt.


Right you are Sir. It was before my time and I'm not big on American history when it comes to their presidents. 



> Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."
> 
> Roosevelt claims the phrase to be of West African origin, but I can find no corroborative evidence for that assertion. If it truly was proverbial in 1900 it ought to be easy to find earlier citations of it, but I can find none. Nor is there any record of the phrase actually being used in West Africa before Roosevelt's time. Whether Roosevelt actually believed, for whatever reason, that the expression was West African, or whether he knew that it wasn't and was indulging in a form of 'Confucious he say' hokum in order to impart a degree of distinction to it, we don't know. It is certainly possible that he coined the phrase himself.





> Roosevelt called his domestic policies a "*Square Deal*", promising a fair deal to the average citizen while breaking up monopolistic corporations, holding down railroad rates, and guaranteeing pure food and drugs.


"Our Tiimmy" could have done well by the phrase above as well. 

and 



> Reknowned for his rhetorical skills, Roosevelt’s alteration of this "homely old adage" did not detract from it’s original meaning. *His analysis of the message supported his belief that words and actions that went unvalidated would only attract frustration and scorn. He emphasized that, even a ’big stick’ offered very little protection for ’empty words’, ’broken promises’ and ’unfulfilled actions’. Self-respect had to be earned through hard work and determination!*!


Similar Phrases: "He who hesitates is lost"
"You will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"

What we need and sadly lacking in our times is good statesmen...statespersons?)


----------



## carverman

here is it is...just need the gift wrap around it on election night...don't shoot the messenger please. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/05/22/ontario-election-2014-wynne-liberal-poll_n_5372594.html


----------



## sags

I agree.........the messaging in this campaign was poorly planned by the Tories.

The words "cut", and "eliminate" offend the senses of a lot of people, especially those sitting in the line of fire.

The agenda could have been outlined.........and remained truthful........with better phrasing.

If Hudak had said..........."we are going to allow the public service to shrink through normal attritution"......things might be different for him.

Now he is stuck in the position of trying to "soften" his message with greater detail about how the reduction will be implemented.......and it makes him look like he is waffling on his earlier position and backing down from the original plan..........because he wants to get elected.

Wynne on the other hand, has managed to make balancing the budget sound like it will be a naturally flowing event.

Somehow, I doubt that it will.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> I agree.........the messaging in this campaign was poorly planned by the Tories.
> 
> The words "cut", and "eliminate" offend the senses of a lot of people, especially those sitting in the line of fire.
> 
> Wynne on the other hand, has managed to make balancing the budget sound like it will be a naturally flowing event.
> 
> Somehow, I doubt that it will.


Although we were hoping for change,more than likely now, it ain't gonna happen, although the message from voters is very clear now for the Liberals and Wynne.
You cannot and will not alienate the powerful union lobby in Ontario with talk of cutbacks and people losing their jobs for some "pie in the sky" ill conceived job creation program.

Like a famous president once said.."Don't murder an opponent that is going to commit (political) suicide".


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Looks like the Liberals are in majority territory.


You should be happy.
The ultimate liberal dream of a majority McGuinty style govt. will come to fruition.

Hudak will most certainly lose his party leadership, and likely Horwath will too.
It is going to take at least 2 years for both parties to gather their chips and sort themselves out.

In the meantime, Wynne, Souza & Co. will have carte blanche to fulfill their real plan of high taxation and massive govt. expansion.

Given the lack-lustre, almost reluctant campaign run by the NDP, one must wonder whether it was truly Horwath's decision to topple the govt.
This would be a gift of a majority govt. to the liberals by the NDP.
The unions that control the NDP could have forced her to call an election so that they could all vote for the Liberals and smash the PCs for a long-long time.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Hudak will most certainly lose his party leadership, and likely Horwath will too.
> It is going to take at least 2 years for both parties to gather their chips and sort themselves out.


I predict that as a two time loser he is GONE! 
Just saw the latest Wynne ad on CTV this morning. She's mixing with all ages of people, reading to kindergartners, and high fiving with a 3 or 4 year old. That is just as good as kissing babies. 



> Given the lack-lustre, almost reluctant campaign run by the NDP, one must wonder whether it was truly Horwath's decision to topple the govt.
> This would be a gift of a majority govt. to the liberals by the NDP.
> The unions that control the NDP could have forced her to call an election so that they could all vote for the Liberals and smash the PCs for a long-long time.


Whatever Horvath's strategy was, she knew she was backed up by the unions and decide this was the time to "go for it." 
Personaly, while there were things in the budget that indicated more callous spending, at least the contractors of Ontario (and the people they employ) would get some benefit from the budget.
Hudak and Horwath (H&H) could have argued on the key points of the budget as it got read in the Legislature.
Obviously there was a lot of friction between all three of them and at first none were prepared for an election..but it seems now that the Liberals have caught up and on the right track as far
as their TV ads,,,focus on improvement and not attack ads. 

Timmy, who was going to pull out the funding for Ottawa's LRT... HAS LOST PRETTY MUCH ALL THE OTTAWA VOTE now.


----------



## Toronto.gal

sags said:


> 1. *I must admit that the more I listen to Hudak*.......especially during the debate.......*the less draconian his "job cuts" appear.*
> 2. He has also been forced on the defensive for the entire campaign.


*1.* I had to read that twice to believe it was coming from you! I'm also glad that some here helped you recognize the above fact [even when you did not admit the latter]. 

*2.* Well, of course, since the focus of the so called 'no harm' policies were focused entirely on Mr. Hudak.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> Whatever Horvath's strategy was, she knew she was backed up by the unions and decide this was the time to "go for it."


But she hasn't gone for it.
The NDP have run a very reluctant, lack-luster campaign.
They hardly even have a platform.
Other than a couple of minor differences, there really isn't that much different between the NDP and the Liberals (she didn't even bother denying it when Hudak said the same during the debate).



> Timmy, who was going to pull out the funding for Ottawa's LRT... HAS LOST PRETTY MUCH ALL THE OTTAWA VOTE now.


Well, he lost 1.4M votes during the first week of election campaigning.
That is the number of public sector workers in Ontario, give or take.

There may have been the odd govt. worker that might have voted for the PCs in the past, but on June 12th, every single govt., municipal, agency, etc. workers will vote against the PCs.

There are about 8M voters in Ontario.
Out of which approx. 50% won't vote (going by the voter turnout of last 2 elections).
A guaranteed 1.5M out of the 4M that will go to the polls will vote against the PCs.
Add in the private sector unionized workers in auto, manufacturing, etc. (another 1M out of the total 2.5M unionized workers in Ontario, incl. public sector).

At this point, he has already lost 2.5M votes out of the 4M.

It is almost a mathematical impossibility for Hudak to win.
I am very disappointed with how this campaign has been run by the PC brass.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> What a real fiscally conservative plan for Ontario would look like


I _*love*_ it how "fiscal conservatism" has been hijacked to define what is basically the Liberal party platform in this election.
Basically, you can take any policy platform and call it fiscal conservatism, yeah?

There is no mention of reducing recently raised taxes.
There is no mention of reducing the _cost_ of providing services (i.e. govt. labor costs).
There is no mention of the various collective bargaining agreements that derailing the fiscal situation of the province.

I like it how the author has deftly managed to sell the idea of service cuts _without_ corresponding tax reductions.
Essentially, what he is saying is that let us offload more govt. services to the private sector without cutting taxes and without reducing the cost of services.

_The article is a poor, thinly veiled attempt to re-frame the Liberal agenda as fiscal conservatism._

Anyhow, anything in this article notwithstanding, we are not even close to a point where we can even begin talking about fiscally conservative policies.

How can you have any sort of a sound economic plan when there are all these multi-billion $$ corruption scams and boondoggles.
You cannot talk about taxation policy and spending policy when you have over-entitled public service unions holding the tax-payers hostage and extracting outrageous rents from the public coffers.
Without addressing those, there cannot be any sound economic policy.

That would like trying to run a marathon with fetters around your ankles.

We can talk about what is, or is not, fiscal conservatism later.
Let us first get rid of the deep-rooted corruption, lies, and boondoggles of the current administration.
And restraint the militant unions behaving like mad mangy mastiffs.

Then we can talk about fiscal conservatism.


----------



## Toronto.gal

HaroldCrump said:


> 1. You should be happy.
> 2. In the meantime, *Wynne, Souza & Co. will have carte blanche* to fulfill their real plan of high taxation and massive govt. expansion.
> 3. one must wonder whether it was truly Horwath's decision to topple the govt./This would be a gift of a majority govt. to the liberals by the NDP.


*1.* He is, though he won't admit it. 

*2.* Totally gelastic in illogicalness & ridiculousness! :hopelessness: 

For the math, I would have added Chiarelli to the title - cancellation of 2 gas plants = just a cost of an always fresh TH coffee [less a donut]. Now that's the kind of competence & hoo/voo-doo math, that born yesterday tax-payers can believe in!

*Ms. Wynne:* “The people of Ontario…have a choice between safe hands and risky tactics.” :shame:

*3.* Andrea's move had been unexpected for sure. Quite the gift if the Fiberals run away with a majority.

*Carverman:* did you set your alarm for 8 p.m. tonight? Ms. Horwath will defend her platform on The Agenda.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Toronto.gal said:


> *Carverman:* did you set your alarm for 8 p.m. tonight? Ms. Horwath will defend her platform on The Agenda.


carverman isn't here.
He has already used a time machine to travel to 8:00 pm and watch the show before everyone else.

You know it's the same time machine that Wynne plans to use to magically wipe the deficit in 2016....


----------



## fraser

I find it difficult to believe any politician.

So, I tend to judge them not by what they promise to do, but what they have done.

In the case of Ms Wynne, this is fairly straightforward. We can easily see how the past 11 years has gone.

She would not get my vote. It goes against my grain to vote for someone who has been an integral part of such a poor record of service.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> At this point, he has already lost 2.5M votes out of the 4M.
> 
> It is almost a mathematical impossibility for Hudak to win.
> I am very disappointed with how this campaign has been run by the PC brass.


 Well what can we say. It seems to be his fallacy as leader of the PCs..and the Harris "common sense revoltution albatross" hanging off him. 

That is a LOT WORSE than the McGuinty monkey on Wynne's back.
Wynne's closet of mismanagement-wastes, graft, and fat salaries will be soon forgotten as they move forward after next Thursdays election.

Hudak will be licking his wounds for his rather too brusk attack on the public servants of Ontario and the "you do the math" job creation scheme.

Hiorwath will hang in there because SHE or WYNNE will pick up the non polarized seats....

and as Porky Pig signs off on the end of the Looney tunes cartoon..adayada..that's all folks!


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> carverman isn't here.
> He has already used a time machine to travel to 8:00 pm and watch the show before everyone else.
> 
> You know it's the same time machine that Wynne plans to use to magically wipe the deficit in 2016....


I'm using the common sense time machine..circa 2014. I will licence it out to Wynne for attempting to wipe out the deficit by 2016. If everybody is working on all these infrastructure projects,
they won't be crying in their beer for being laid off by Hudak..that keeps the Ontario juggernaut/economy rolling. Wynne and her Fiberals then gloat that they saved Ontario by creating REAL JOBS.

As far as the deficit increasing...they will use the same funny math that Hudak is using for his job creation scheme and we the taxpayers will be none the wiser...they will push it back to 2018 and if everyone is working, paying taxes..who knows..the Fiberals may even pull the rabbit out of the hat and surprise us.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> 1. taxpayers will be none the wiser...
> 2. they will push it back to 2018....


*1.* And why so many believe/swallow it all. Remember Ms. Wynne mentioning in the debate, math discussions [deficit/taxes] with 5th graders? Why do you think he picked that grade? :biggrin:
*2.* It's already been done!


----------



## marina628

My daughter is in 5th grade and was not too impressed with what she was showed in school and what she took from it , the Liberals had to supply the content because for 4 days at home all we heard was about Tim Hudak is going to fire all the teachers.I tend to keep politics and religion out of my discussions so that's all I will say lol


----------



## Nemo2

marina628 said:


> My daughter is in 5th grade and was not too impressed with what she was showed in school and what she took from it , the Liberals had to supply the content because for 4 days at home all we heard was about Tim Hudak is going to fire all the teachers.I tend to keep politics and religion out of my discussions so that's all I will say lol


I guess that's the Canadian equivalent of "It's Bush's fault"?


----------



## Toronto.gal

A report some years ago, showed that nearly 1/2 of working-age adults in Canada, had skills, such as math & writing, at a level considered to be the minimum required to function in a modern society and economy, ie: grade 5.

Some companies write their documents, ie: contracts, in 'Plain Language' as a result.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> his rather too brusk attack on the public servants of Ontario


Just heard a new attack ad on the radio from the Fire Fighters' Union association against Hudak/PCs.

With all these openly partisan attack ads by public service unions, Ontario residents need to clearly understand what this means:
That so-called public service employees paid for by the tax-payers will deliver services _if and only if_ their chosen political party continues to govern.

We will not be provided with services (or will be provided with deliberately poor, scaled back services) _unless_ we guarantee to meet all their demands and expectations reg. 100% job security, salary raises, benefits, pensions, early retirement privileges, etc.
As well as ensure a continuous and sustained expansion of their ranks.

Want public service unions to work? Shut up and pay your taxes.

If they slap you across the face by demanding 12% raises (like the teachers did in 2009, at the height of the recession), simply turn your other cheek.
Don't question, don't whine...just pay up.


----------



## carverman

marina628 said:


> My daughter is in 5th grade and was not too impressed with what she was showed in school and what she took from it ,
> the Liberals had to supply the content because for 4 days at home all we heard was about Tim Hudak is going to fire all the teachers.


Obvously Ms Wynne made it a point to spend some time in the public schools, and spread some fear mongering propoganda ...and it worked!:biggrin:


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> That so-called public service employees paid for by the tax-payers will deliver services _if and only if_ their chosen political party continues to govern.
> 
> We will not be provided with services (or will be provided with deliberately poor, scaled back services) _unless_ we guarantee to meet all their demands and expectations reg. 100% job security, salary raises, benefits, pensions, early retirement privileges, etc. As well as ensure a continuous and sustained expansion of their ranks.
> 
> *Want public service unions to work? Shut up and pay your taxes.*
> 
> If they slap you across the face by demanding 12% raises (like the teachers did in 2009, at the height of the recession), simply turn your other cheek.
> Don't question, don't whine...just pay up.


And pay up we should. With todays inflated economy, where everything is going up that much anyway, why should the police, firefighters, nurses, teachers etc take a pay cut?
If Hudak had his way, he would be cutting and slashing indiscriminately to the bone without any regard for the working middle class poor. We would have strike after strike after strike
for the next 4 years. At least with the Fiberals, they get to keep their jobs and get reasonable negotiate pay raises, everyone is paying taxes, everyone is buying consumer goods and the economy
keeps on rolling regardless of the deficit or debt. That is the way it is in the western democratic capitalist societies. History has told us that Draconian tactics are very recessive and in the
end lead to revolts.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> With todays inflated economy


What inflated economy?
Govt. tells us that inflation is 1.2%, no?
Inflation is supposed to be at historical lows.
Our own central bank is warning about "deflation".

If that's the case, why does the public service need 8%, 10%, 12% raises?
Where is the disconnect?

Which group is lying to us - StatsCan & BOC or the unions?

Either way, the only group getting screwed here are middle-income, private sector tax-payers.

Just this year alone, some of the largest groups are getting 8%+ raises, including the OPP.
The teachers are already under a 4% annual raises contract, right after the 10.2% raises contract reached in 2009 (when Wynne was Minister for Education - surprise, surprise !).



> why should the police, firefighters, nurses, teachers etc take a pay cut?


No one is proposing a pay cut, not even Hudak.
He has proposed a pay freeze.
Ironically, it was the Liberal's God Dalton McGuinty who attempted to impose wage freezes - twice.

In 2010, the unions steamrolled all over his legislation and went ahead and secured a 4% pay increase anyway.
McGuinty then proceeded to _lie _to the parliament in 2010 that there was a public sector wage freeze.
This lie was caught and exposed by the Attorney General in 2011 when it was revealed that the vast majority of Ontario public sector workers were given "performance bonuses" in lieu of pay raises.
In some cases, the bonuses were so generous that a 4% pay raise would have been cheaper for the tax-payers.

Then in 2012, he attempted to impose a contract on the teachers union that was offering far less than what they were demanding.
That is when the ETFO said they've had enough with DMcG.
They promptly egged the party brass to organize his departure, and replace him with a far more docile and accommodative puppet - Kathleen Wynne.



> If Hudak had his way, he would be cutting and slashing indiscriminately to the bone without any regard for the working middle class poor.


You have been listening to the attack ads.
This is the same FUD and vitriol being spewed by the militant, rent seeking unions.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> 1. And pay up we should.
> 2. History has told us that Draconian tactics are very recessive and in the end lead to revolts.


*1.* I would think most people have no problem paying their fair share, not to mention the generous donations many make throughout the year. 

*2.* Draconian tactics, LOL. I would ask the group you mentioned, to work in some other country for 1 month, then talk about extreme & heavy-handed measures. 

*Ms. Wynne:* 'taxes are the price we pay to look after each other' - sure, no spending-cuts needed when you have tax-payers. Is it the role of the gov. to look after those that do not need help?!


----------



## Nemo2

Toronto.gal said:


> A report some years ago, showed that nearly 1/2 of working-age adults in Canada, had skills, such as math & writing, at a level considered to be the minimum required to function in a modern society and economy, ie: grade 5.
> 
> Some companies write their documents, ie: contracts, in 'Plain Language' as a result.


And this, for many of them, means little more than that they recognize that the letters formulate words......comprehension/subtlety? Fuggedaboutit!


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> No one is *proposing a pay cut, not even Hudak.
> He has proposed a pay freeze.*
> Ironically, it was the Liberal's God Dalton McGuinty who attempted to impose wage freezes - twice.
> 
> 
> 
> Same diffierence. Harris tried that with the nurses. McGuinty did that with the teachers..where did all their "saving the taxpayers money" lead us..to the Fiberals and the worse money wasting mismanagement
> in Ontario's recent history.
> 
> 
> 
> They promptly egged the party brass to organize his departure, and replace him with a far more docile and accommodative puppet - Kathleen Wynne.
> *You have been listening to the attack ads*.
> This is the same FUD and vitriol being spewed by the militant, rent seeking unions.
Click to expand...

You wish. I'm just vexing my opinion.


----------



## Toronto.gal

HaroldCrump said:


> 1. No one is proposing a pay cut, not even Hudak. He has proposed a pay freeze.
> 2. This is the same FUD and vitriol being spewed by the militant, rent seeking *unions.*


*1.* But you can understand how such confusion could arise from such a draconian measure of freezing high salaries in the 1st place. As Nemo mentioned, you're dealing with 'fuggedabout comprehension,' so 'freeze' is not plain language enough.
*2.* If only we could get rid of them all. ig:


----------



## sags

In today's politics, I think the Prime Minister/Premier..........makes all the decisions.

The MPs have no input and the cabinet ministers have very little.

All the foot soldiers do is carry out the orders from whomever is sitting in the big chair.

Personally, I think a majority government would be better than a minority with support from the NDP.

With a majority.........Wynne wouldn't have to pander to the NDP on things like lowering insurance premiums which is never going to happen, unless the government offers government insurance to force competition. 

With a majority government she will have no one to blame but herself.......and apologies won't cut it.

As Harper has learned.......a majority government can mean legislation is adopted that alienates the population one segment at a time, until eventually there are few segments of the population that want to keep you in power.

Pay heed Ms. Wynne.........if you win..........you will be on probation.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> I
> With a majority.........Wynne wouldn't have to pander to the NDP on things like lowering insurance premiums which is never going to happen, unless the government offers government insurance to force competition.
> 
> With a majority government she will have no one to blame but herself.......and apologies won't cut it.
> 
> Pay heed Ms. Wynne.........if you win..........you will be on probation.


She's already on "probation"..the gas plant scandal is back on.


> Late Thursday, the Ottawa Citizen reported that OPP detectives served a court order at Queen's Park asking staff to hand over key records regarding the alleged cover-up of the Liberal government's $1.1 billion decision to cancel the construction of two power plants during the 2011 election campaign.
> "The judge-issued order requires staff to hand over various records, including visitor logs for the times police believe an off-the-books computer tech accessed hard drives in the premier’s office,* four days before Kathleen Wynne was sworn in.*
> 
> "Detectives are trying to see who, if anyone, ordered the destruction of emails in an alleged coverup to hide the true costs of cancelling gas plants in Oakville and Mississauga."
> The police also indicated that, as part of their due dilligence to obtain the court order, they had interviewed former premier Dalton McGuinty, in April.


Based on the story of the little red hen..

"Who ordered the destruction of those emails?" asked the burly gruff OPP sargent?
Not me..said Kathleen...
Not me ..said Dalton..
Not me said Andrea
Not us said the insiders in Kathleen's cabinet
Not us said the former insiders in Dalton't cabinet.
Not us said the taxpayers
Not us said the unions

"Then I and my supporters will 'eat my words"..said the little red hen (Kathleen)


----------



## Beaver101

carverman said:


> Obvously Ms Wynne made it a point to spend some time in the public schools, and spread some fear mongering propoganda ...and it worked!:biggrin:


 ... yes, only for 5/6th graders ... high school kids would be more than happy to hear of less classes. :biggrin: 

Seriously, what kind of legacy is Windy and all those fat-mouthed politicians are trying to leave to the younger generations of Ontario? Just charge and max it out ... somebody will be paying for all those debt loads.


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ... yes, only for 5/6th graders ... high school kids would be more than happy to hear of less classes. :biggrin:
> 
> *Seriously, what kind of legacy is Windy and all those fat-mouthed politicians are trying to leave to the younger generations of Ontario*? Just charge and max it out ... somebody will be paying for all those debt loads.


Good point Beav. I was sick of them before the election, sick of them during the campaign and no doubt be sick of them, whomever wins..and now as it winds down, the old gray mare isn't
what she used to be, nor is the bucking middle age bronco, who should have been retired to pasture a long time ago. That leaves one that you can't lead to water or make her drink because
she's trotting to the tune of a different drum...ah Ontario politics..starting to sound like a cheap paperback that you buy at the airports when you have nothing else to do but sit and wait.
..and read yesterday's paper full of yesterdays news.

June 13, 2014...Ontario elects < ?> after what was the worse scandal filled 3 years. 
Waste, Deceit, Lies, Corruption, Lawsuits, Destroyed records, vindication of the guilty, punishment of the innocent, praise of the non participants and glory enough for all...


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> You should be happy.


Not especially. I'm not sure I will even vote.



> Given the lack-lustre, almost reluctant campaign run by the NDP, one must wonder whether it was truly Horwath's decision to topple the govt.
> This would be a gift of a majority govt. to the liberals by the NDP.
> The unions that control the NDP could have forced her to call an election so that they could all vote for the Liberals and smash the PCs for a long-long time.


This is pretty tin-foil hat. I think the NDP thought there was more weakness in the Liberal support base than there was. Horwath could have just supported the budget.


----------



## fraser

The outcome of the election may not be decided on election night. And who takes over could also be at issue.

Imagine if you will a result that shows a Conservative minority, followed by the Liberals with 5 less seats, then the NDP. If the Conservatives cannot get support to govern with any one of the two remaining parties, then the Liberals could well form a minority Government IF they had the support of the NDP. I suspect that we will have a minority. Not sure which. But it will be interesting to watch what happens. It might also suggest another election in 2 years.


----------



## Synergy

fraser said:


> It might also suggest another election in 2 years.


Great, more money well spent...


----------



## carverman

latest from the Toronto Star..



> It really depends on how it gets treated by the media. People get bored with this stuff so it has to be something dramatically new to really have an impact (in polls),” he said, adding the Tories and NDP may have milked a controversy dating back to 2011.
> The pollster extrapolated this week’s regional results to project a *narrow Liberal majority of 57 seats in the 107-member legislature (up from 50 last week*) to 39 Tories (down from 42) and 11 for the NDP (down from 15).
> That’s because the *Liberals traditionally have the most efficient vote, winning by narrow margins in Ontario’s many urban ridings* while the Conservatives run up large pluralities in fewer rural constituencies.


Poll may be forshadowing June 12.....if the Liberals win 57 and the PC/NDP 50,,,,Wynne gets a majority this time.
Horwath will hang on as she needs the job, Hudak hard to say...but they can stand up all they want and Wynne will continue unrolling her budget as planned.

If Ontarioans have forgotten over the election campaign..


• An income tax increase for those who earn greater than $150,000
• No new gas taxes or increases to the HST
• $29 billion, over 10 years, in transit and transportation investments
• Some Government of Ontario 'asset sales'
• A tax hike on aviation fuel
• An increase in tobacco taxes
• A rolling back of tax credits for corporations
• Personal support workers who take care of elderly will get a $4 pay increase over the next two years, from $12.50/hour to $16.50/hour.
• An infusion of $2.5 billion, over 10 years, for a “Jobs and Prosperity Fund”. The fund will dole out corporate grants to attract business to the province. (Source: CTV News)
• A cut in the “debt retirement charge” which currently appears on Ontario residents' Hydro bill. (Source: CTV News)
• An initial roll out of an Ontario Pension Plan


----------



## HaroldCrump

Just musing here a little bit (since the outcome of the election is more or less clear at this time)...ex premier Dalton McGuinty reminds me in many ways of Tony Blair, ex British PM.
They are about the same height, give or take, and have the same bone structure.
They seem to have the same permanent smirk on their faces.

And they are both habitual, very convincing, liars.

_Iraq has the ability to deploy biological weapons within 45 minutes_ - Tony Blair [circa. 2003]

_I will not raise taxes_ - Dalton McGuinty [circa. 2003]

I have had the privilege of living under the reign of both of these stalwarts.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> This is pretty tin-foil hat.


Not entirely 
_*Horwath is not as opposed to supporting a PC coalition as you might think.*_



> Horwath said she could not support "Liberal corruption" or the PC's plan to cut 100,000 public-sector jobs.


Okay, so does this mean that if the PCs don't cut 100K jobs, she _might_ support them?
If that is all it might take for the PCs to get into govt. that can easily be arranged.
Hudak has clarified that he's not actually planning to issue 100K pink slips - many of the position reductions will be through regular attrition and superannuation.

From that statement, it seems supporting the "corrupt" party is not an option for her.
Since the Liberal party has put forward no changes on the corruption front (i.e. not admitting malfeasance for any of the top 5 scams), it sounds like on principle she should not be propping up a minority Liberal govt.

It could all be a moot point on Thu. if the Liberals wins a majority.


----------



## andrewf

Harold, you're very selective in your condemnation of politicians' dishonesty. Harper has reversed himself on some of his more prominent promises. He imposed new taxes on income trusts, which he swore up and down he wouldn't do. He flat out lied about creating fixed election dates to prevent incumbent parties from strategically dropping the writ. Anyone with a basic understanding of constitutional law knows that such a law is unenforceable. He's lied repeatedly about acting on climate change, and I suspect in a very duplicitous way. He never intends to implement carbon regulation, but lies to voters and says he would, if only to fool voters. He also argued that climate policies he previously proposed would destroy the economy once his opponents support them.

I don't expect politicians to never reverse themselves when situations change. They should be responsible enough not to make categorical commitments. But on the other hand, we shouldn't be so selective in dealing out opprobrium based on which team we're rooting for.


----------



## andrewf

I wonder if the LPO wins a minority plurality, but the PCs form government in coalition with the NDP (bizarro world), whether the same people who criticized the 2008 Dion coalition as the "coalition of the losers" who describe the PC/NDP government the same way.

I ask that rhetorically, because the answer is obviously no. People don't care about hypocrisy.

Smart of Horwath to keep her options open. I just think a PC/NDP government would be incredibly dysfunctional and short-lived.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Smart of Horwath to keep her options open. I just think a PC/NDP government would be incredibly dysfunctional and short-lived.


No, not smart of Horwath.
She has put herself in an untenable situation, IMHO.

She has openly and publicly condemned the Wynne administration as "corrupt".
She pulled support because of the repeated refusal of the LBO to make themselves accountable via the Accountability Commissioner Office proposed by the NDP (sic).
Her entire rationale for bringing down the govt. was that she "could not bring myself to support" this corrupt administration.

If she now does a full 180 and supports the exact same govt. with the exact same policies and platform, she loses all credibility.
She runs the risk of coming out worse than Hudak.

Methinks she is not sleeping too well these days.

The _*only*_ face-saving situation out of this for Horwath would be an outright majority win for the LBO.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> He imposed new taxes on income trusts, which he swore up and down he wouldn't do.


Flaherty's position on this one is well known by now.
Too bad I was not a fly on the wall when this discussion would have happened between Flaherty and Harper.
The federal govt. as a whole had no choice in this matter.
This tax "feature" was being abused by corporations.
Matters came to a head when BCE announced that they would be converting into an income trust.
There were rumors that even the Big 5 chartered banks were mulling a conversion to income trust structure.

I suspect Harper may have disagreed with Flaherty, but in the end, it was the right thing to do.

A similar situation exists regarding the income splitting issue.
Flaherty was clearly at odds with the Prime Minister on this matter.
We shall never know who would have eventually prevailed.

Anyhow, given the bad press that this idea has received, I suspect it off the table.



> He's lied repeatedly about acting on climate change, and I suspect in a very duplicitous way. He never intends to implement carbon regulation, but lies to voters and says he would, if only to fool voters. He also argued that climate policies he previously proposed would destroy the economy once his opponents support them.


Any given country's (or administration's) position is relative to others'.
Who are we comparing Harper's stance on climate change vis-à-vis?
China's?
Or Obama's?
The same Obama that has basically written a carte blanche to the fracking industry to frack away to glory...without regard for any environmental consequences, short term or long term.
The same Obama that is now in the process of changing America's energy export laws to facilitate export of oil and LNG.

The US, under the "leadership" of Obama is in the process of the most aggressive and unrelenting anti-environment policy since the days of robber oil barons like Rockefeller and Drake.
Compared to Obama, Harper is a Green Peace activist.


----------



## sags

Yes, the situation of more corporations becoming income trusts forced Harper and Flaherty to renege on their election promises, but they should have known the future consequences of their promise on income trusts........just as McGuinty should have know the resistance to the gas plants would be fierce.

Whether a lack of foresight..........or ineptitude.........it's the same weaknesses......regardless of which political party it comes from.

The problem isn't that Harper or McGuinty changed their views.

It is that they saw no problem with their plans in the first place.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> Flaherty's position on this one is well known by now.
> Too bad I was not a fly on the wall when this discussion would have happened between Flaherty and Harper.
> The federal govt. as a whole had no choice in this matter.
> This tax "feature" was being abused by corporations.
> Matters came to a head when BCE announced that they would be converting into an income trust.
> There were rumors that even the Big 5 chartered banks were mulling a conversion to income trust structure.
> 
> I suspect Harper may have disagreed with Flaherty, but in the end, it was the right thing to do.


Harper is on record saying there is no such thing as a good tax. Hard to square that with not allowing corporations to take advantage of an advantageous tax structure. I'm not sure how untenable it was, as the government would not have lost much revenue, even if corporate taxes went to zero. The income from trusts feeds through primarily to Canadian tax payers. Corporate taxation is very slippery, and raising rates tends to have little impact on revenues.




> Any given country's (or administration's) position is relative to others'.
> Who are we comparing Harper's stance on climate change vis-à-vis?
> China's?
> Or Obama's?
> The same Obama that has basically written a carte blanche to the fracking industry to frack away to glory...without regard for any environmental consequences, short term or long term.
> The same Obama that is now in the process of changing America's energy export laws to facilitate export of oil and LNG.
> 
> The US, under the "leadership" of Obama is in the process of the most aggressive and unrelenting anti-environment policy since the days of robber oil barons like Rockefeller and Drake.
> Compared to Obama, Harper is a Green Peace activist.


What matters is that every time Harper has proposed a policy to deal with climate change, he has failed to implement it. He has intentionally deceived voters to defuse the climate debate in elections. It doesn't matter what other jurisdictions do. If Harper believes inaction is the right course (and it is not an uncommon position, held by much of his base), he should stand on that. All I know is that it is hard to defend this repeated dishonesty while attacking other politicians for breaking promises.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> No, not smart of Horwath.
> She has put herself in an untenable situation, IMHO.
> 
> She has openly and publicly condemned the Wynne administration as "corrupt".
> S
> Methinks *she is not sleeping too well these days.*
> 
> The _*only*_ face-saving situation out of this for Horwath would be an outright majority win for the LBO.


Funny that you should say that Harold..but I was thinking the same thing. I think that she has gotten herself into a "snit" if I may use that word because she believes that 
she is the ONLY chioice for Ontario (and the voters of course) now leading up to a couple days before the election. I see her as another Christy Clark 



> Following the BC Liberal Party's election victory in 2001, Premier Gordon Campbell appointed Clark Minister of Education and Deputy Premier.[10][11] She brought in a number of changes[which?] that were claimed to increase accountability, strengthen parental power in the decision-making process, and provide parents greater choice and flexibility in the school system.[citation needed] These changes were unpopular amongst teachers, school board members, opposition politicians, and union officials who argued that the decision not to fund the pay increases agreed to by the government resulted in funding gaps. The changes made were challenged by the BC Teacher's Federation, and were later found to be unconstitutional.


I see her as another strong contender in the women emerging these days contending for the seat of power in their province. Allison Redford was another that had to step down to controversy as
"going too far" and abusing her power as a Premier....of course the women who are engaged in politics are not the only ones seemingly abusing their powers and status when they get to the top.
IMO opinion (note that I didn;t use H), its a serious political culture erosion going on....who was it that once said ""Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Methinks that Andrea has now pulled all the stops, "no holds barred..down and dirty" and when you hear her say "corruption" although she is right, it is an indication that she is now
"going for the jugular" after Wynne. * There will be no support from her for Wynne after this election*, and I doubt for Hudak either. 

But is history repeating itself?... perhaps she can be likened to a modern day "Joan of Arc" that could also go down in flames.... on election night.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> Methinks that Andrea has now pulled all the stops, "no holds barred..down and dirty" and when you hear her say "corruption" although she is right, it is an indication that she is now
> "going for the jugular" after Wynne.


Except that she hasn't actually run her campaign in that fashion.
I don't see any evidence of the NDP pulling all the stops, no holds barred, getting down and dirty, and going for the jugular of the LPO, as you put it.
Quite the contrary.
This has been one of the most reluctant, lack luster campaigns by the NDP in recent memory.

Which is even more bizarre considering that _they_ forced the election...they, of all parties, ought to have prepared well in advance.
They _knew_ what was in that budget document.

She did perform well in the debate, though.

If it is indeed true that this is Horwath's last gasp at power, then this is how it will turn out...on the 12th, when the NDP do not get a majority (extremely unlikely), Horwath will resign as party leader.
As we agree, if she supports the LPO, she will lose all credibility.
So she will refuse to support and resign.
A new, interim NDP leader will be appointed.

There will be several days of haggling, horse-trading, and closed door negotiations, and finally, the NDP caucus will emerge with the agreement to support the Wynne minority govt. (again).
They will declare to their support base that they have managed to "win" several key concessions from the Liberals.

Such as a promise to cut auto insurance rates by 15% at some point in the future.
Perhaps a rise to the corporate tax rates after 2018 or so.
Maybe even the Office of the Accountability commissioner (or whatever they are calling it this week), complete with a staff of 500 civil servants, 499 of which will be on the Sunshine list.

And some miscellaneous, completely irrelevant, concessions around math education, teaching assistants, and other marginal minority interest issues.

No, sorry, rollback of the HST on hydro bills is not included.

So, welcome to 4 more years of NDP propped Liberal govt. controlled and managed by the public service unions.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> as the government would not have lost much revenue, even if corporate taxes went to zero.
> The income from trusts feeds through primarily to Canadian tax payers.


And that is precisely where the loss of revenue comes from, not from the corporate taxation side of things.

The income trust structure was not just a tax loophole for the corporations, but also for rich retirees.
Rich retirees were using flow-through income from trusts, REITs, and other non eligible dividend paying entities to reduce their taxes payable.
It is as if both the income trusts corporations, and their primary beneficiaries (the rich seniors) were colluding to shift the bulk of the tax burden to younger workers.

The age credits, income splitting, the lack of a regular T4 income, and the avoidance of the dividend gross-up enabled rich retirees to structure their affairs in a manner that significantly reduces their tax liability.

Smashing the income trust structure, and forcing the vast majority of them to convert to regular corporations closed that tax loophole.

I do not fault Flaherty & Harper for that move against income trusts (even though that was probably more Flaherty than Harper).
What I do hold against Harper is the unprecedented expansion of the federal public service.
Had they not done that, the budget would have been balanced a lot sooner and there would have been opportunities for further tax cuts, whether it took the form of TFSA room changes or cuts to direct taxes like income tax rates or a further GST cut.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Except that she hasn't actually run her campaign in that fashion.
> I don't see any evidence of the NDP pulling all the stops, no holds barred, getting down and dirty, and going for the jugular of the LPO, as you put it.
> Quite the contrary.
> This has been one of the most reluctant, lack luster campaigns by the NDP in recent memory.


True..but I was referring to Horwath herself..she believes she should be "Queen" and set things right for her loyal subjects..where ever they may be.


> Which is even more bizarre considering that _they_ forced the election...they, of all parties, ought to have prepared well in advance.
> They _knew_ what was in that budget document.
> She did perform well in the debate, though.


Maybe then it was just Andrea, sleeping on her decision and giving Wynne notice that she would not support her on the budget? 
Sounds like the NDP were expecting the "same old-same-old"..and then it changed instantly when Wynne dissolved the current session of the Ontario Legislature.
Yes, she (Horwath) did very well in the debate, I thought..poised, sharp witted with her retorts to hammer on Wynne and Hudak. I like her as a politician,..just don't like her party. 



> If it is indeed true that this is Horwath's last gasp at power, then this is how it will turn out...on the 12th, when the NDP do not get a majority (extremely unlikely), Horwath will resign as party leader.
> As we agree, if she supports the LPO, she will lose all credibility.


Hard to say..she may hang on for a few days to make her personal decision, but it is plain to see (at least on the surface) that she does not like what Wynne is going to do, even if it's not personal..which it may be. If Wynne comes out with a minority or even a majority, Hudak should fall on his (biblical speaking) sword and resign.
He is not going to have any credibility in the next session of the legislature for sure and he didn't have much before the election..but he does represent "change",
if that's what Ontario voters want...however..politics being what it is..there can be last minute surprises on the vote counts for the seats in each riding.
You just never know...maybe the 'dark horse running" could just come in to win. :rolleyes-new:



> There will be several days of haggling, horse-trading, and closed door negotiations, and finally, the NDP caucus will emerge with the agreement to support the Wynne minority govt. (again).
> They will declare to their support base that they have managed to "win" several key concessions from the Liberals.


Yes, back room negotiations on the budget and policy will be the order of the day. 


> Such as a promise to cut auto insurance rates by 15% at some point in the future.
> Perhaps a rise to the corporate tax rates after 2018 or so.
> Maybe even the *Office of the Accountability commissioner* (or whatever they are calling it this week), complete with a staff of 500 civil servants, 499 of which will be on the Sunshine list.


We need that for sure after the scandals..and 500 jobs created..(out of "1 million") is a start...it may be money well spent to prevent further waste. 



> No, sorry, rollback of the HST on hydro bills is not included.


I have to say that this removal of the HST on electricity..is Horwath's "fuzzy logic or math"...Harper's GST was there to begin with...they certainly can take off the PST portion and reduce it back to 5%,
but Harper won't allow it to be removed completely with a loss of (possibly) hundreds of millions in tax revenues on hydro bills now and into the future. 



> So, welcome to 4 more years of NDP propped Liberal govt. controlled and managed by the public service unions.


Sigh!..well at least we are dealing with the devil(s) we know.:hopelessness:


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> We need that for sure after the scandals..and 500 jobs created..(out of "1 million") is a start...it may be money well spent to prevent further waste.


It won't make an iota of difference because the lies, deceit, and cheating is endemic in the Ontario bureaucracy.
Why else is it that all the major public service unions are participating in this "stop Hudak" campaign?
What allows tax-payer paid public service workers to leverage tax dollars to tell voters who to vote for and who not to vote for.

The rights of public service workers is limiting to exercising their 1 vote for whichever party they fancy, just like the rest of us.

The OPP is investigating McGuinty and his staffers for the data deletion, yeah?
The same OPP that is aggressively campaigning in favor of the same political party - and against the party that has promised to launch a judicial inquiry.
How is not there a huge, glaring conflict of interest?

The Office of the Accountability Commissioner will be more of the same - it will be staffed with unionized civil servants, all highly paid on the Sunshine list.
Some of them might be internal appointments and transferees from other departments, such as the Ministry of Health (overseeing the eHealth & ORNGE scams), or Ministry of Transportation (overseeing the Metrolinx boondoggle), etc.
It will be in their vested interest to continue this culture of rent-seeking and red tape.

Let the OPP demonstrate true independence and non partisanship by charging Dalton McGuinty, David Livingston, Peter Faist, and Laura Miller.
Those people should be in jail.



> Sigh!..well at least we are dealing with the devil(s) we know


That is the kind of attitude that has kept the Liberals in power for three consecutive terms.
It is the acceptance of corruption, mediocrity, and incompetence, just because you fear the "unknown".

Keep voting for the Liberals, and will still be having this same conversation in 2018.


----------



## fraser

I do not envy any of the leaders who becomes Premier.

Ontario's debt situation reminds me very much of what Paul Martin faced after the Mulroney Conservative Gov't. was defeated. Masses of public debt which had reached an abyss. Ontario provincial debt has increased about 50 pecent since 2008-just under $95B over 5 years and it is growing at a much faster rate than the provincial economy. 

Let's hope that interest rates remain stable and that the Government has the good sense to address the issue well before any interest rate increase. If nothing happens, deficits continue, and debt grows at almost twice the level of GDP growth, Ontario is headed for a very unhappy place. The real question is do any of these substandard leaders have the guts to deal with the challenge or do they have any potential cabinet ministers with the intestinal fortitude to point out this looming danger to the rest of the cabinet/party lemmings.


----------



## HaroldCrump

fraser said:


> Let's hope that interest rates remain stable and that the Government has the good sense to address the issue well before any interest rate increase.


The Ontario govt. won't have control over the rates, esp. if another downgrade by Moody's or S&P occurs within the next year or so.
Assuming that Wynne forms a minority or majority govt., and that there is no (credible) deficit reduction plan, it is possible a downgrade could happen as early as this year.

Ontario currently spends about 9.1% of revenues on interest payment, but it is the fastest growing budget expense item (growing by 5.5% annually).
An uptick in bond yields will make the situation a lot worse.

Hence, the incumbent administration's plan to continue funding the drunken spending via "green" bonds and "infrastructure" bonds - all bought (conveniently) by the new Ontario Pension Plan Investment Board.
Build Ontario, and give everyone a golden pension - what's wrong with that :rolleyes2:


----------



## fraser

A Moody's downgrade will PALE in comparison if we have a 2-3 point increase in interest rates over the next 4 years.

I read that Ontario now spends about $11B on debt servicing. An increase of one percentage point in interest rates will increase this by $3B. So, if rates go up by 2 percent over the next four years, and debt levels remain constant, debt service costs could increase by $6B-an increase of over 50 percent. This is a very scary thought-especially if the debt keeps increasing in the interim.


----------



## sags

Since when was 9% budget for interest payments and 37% debt to GDP ration.............a debt crisis?

Ontario isn't even close to a debt crisis, and Hudak knows it.

He just has to convince voters there is..........so they will accept his "slash and burn" policies.

Hudak...... Harper.........conservatism in general..........is yesterday's news.

They will all be replaced by progressive thinkers and they can join the Religious Right, the Tea Party and Sarah Palin on the antique shelf.


----------



## fraser

The size of the debt is not in and of itself a crisis.

What is a crisis is the combination of existing debt and GROWTH of the debt. Debt in Ontario should not be allowed to continue at a rate that is almost double the growth rate of the provincial economy. The end result in four years would be a disaster.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> 37% debt to GDP ration.............a debt crisis?


It is actually 40.2% now.
37% was last year, I believe.
It is rising as we speak, yeah?
By the time you read this, it would be 41% already :biggrin:

That said, it is not simply the gross % - it is also the rate of growth.
As fraser pointed out in the post above, the rate of growth is alarming, to say the least.
50% growth rate in 5 years is not natural.

For you (and other liberal apologists) to say that it's alright is delusional.



> Since when was 9% budget for interest payments


Actually, 9% is pretty bad.
It is the 3rd highest item on the expense list.
And its rate of growth is higher than health care and education spending.
It is projected to become the top most expense item over the next 3 years, by Ontario Finance Ministry's own projections.

This will have the "crowding out" effect i.e. other services will get cut.
First to go will be front-line, community services.
Then the cuts will be deeper, incl. education and health care.
The province will offload more deficits to the towns and municipalities, leading to increases in property taxes and even further cuts to community services.



> Ontario isn't even close to a debt crisis


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Since when was 9% budget for interest payments and 37% debt to GDP ration.............a debt crisis?
> 
> Ontario isn't even close to a debt crisis, and Hudak knows it.


If you consider that the Ontario taxpayer also has a share of the Federal debt, it's much worse. At the rate the Ontario debt is growing, we could hit combined Federal+Provincial debt-GDP ratio of 100% within 4 years.


----------



## KaeJS

carverman said:


> • A cut in the “debt retirement charge” which currently appears on Ontario residents' Hydro bill. (Source: CTV News)


Well, at least _this_ is good news. :biggrin:

:stupid:


----------



## HaroldCrump

KaeJS said:


> Well, at least _this_ is good news.


Not so fast...even though the DRC is ending, so is the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit.
The net effect is an _*increase*_, not a decrease in the bill.

*Ontario hydro bills to rise despite end of Debt Retirement Charge*

Literally _nothing _in that list quoted by carverman is good news for tax-payers and consumers.


----------



## KaeJS

HaroldCrump said:


> Not so fast...even though the DRC is ending, so is the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit.
> The net effect is an _*increase*_, not a decrease in the bill.
> Literally _nothing _in that list quoted by carverman is good news for tax-payers and consumers.


_"The government intends to bring an end to the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit (OCEB) which takes 10% off bills, adding about $180 to the average family’s hydro bill."_

:eek2:

Okay, now I'm not happy.


----------



## carverman

KaeJS said:


> Well, at least _this_ is good news. :biggrin:
> 
> :stupid:


For now..but they will continue to let electricity rates rise every 6 months to make up for it. 

With the 1.1 billion it's going to take to get the Napanee generating station converted to gas and the new megawatt transmission line back to Toronto..don't be surprised if the debt retirement cash cow is replaced by a new "infrastructure improvement charge'"..the gov't giveth and the gov't taketh away.

However, I heard somewhere before the election that for families that are low income /welfare, they were going to give them a small discount to help them pay their
hydro bill, so that may replace the 10% clean energy benefit.

But..for all yuse financial gurus making those big bucks out there..sorry, but there will be NO relief on your hydro bills IF you are above $20K taxable income.


----------



## sags

Our hydro bill is $100 a month.

I assume that is what all my neighbors are paying as well.

A couple of us were talking about the election yesterday............and hydro bills never came up as an issue.

Is this a big issue for some............or a tempest in a teapot for a few?


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Our hydro bill is $100 a month.
> 
> I assume that is what all my neighbors are paying as well.
> 
> A couple of us were talking about the election yesterday............and hydro bills never came up as an issue.
> 
> Is this a big issue for some............or a tempest in a teapot for a few?


It is if your home is heated with electric baseboard heaters.


----------



## sags

I didn't think there was that many people who have electric heat.

Why don't we just subsidize people with older electric heating.........and let everyone else pay the same?


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> If you consider that the Ontario taxpayer also has a share of the Federal debt, it's much worse. At the rate the Ontario debt is growing, we could hit combined Federal+Provincial debt-GDP ratio of 100% within 4 years.


We're currently in the neighbourhood of 75% combined (35% fed, 40% prov). Ontario's deficit is not 6% of GDP, which is what would be needed to get us to 100% in 4 years. Just a quick fact check.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Our hydro bill is $100 a month.
> A couple of us were talking about the election yesterday............and hydro bills never came up as an issue.
> Is this a big issue for some............or a tempest in a teapot for a few?


It is a big issue.
You probably do not recall the long running _Energy Usage_ thread from about 2 - 3 years ago when the MCG govt. started raising electricity rates, mandated TOU meters, and introduced HST - all at the same time.
That had a substantial impact on the hydro bills for most people.

I was posting regularly on that thread for many months running with charts and graphs of my usage and bills before and after these changes.
My usage is amongst the lowest 10% of occupied homes in our town, and yet our bills have increased significantly.

Our usage was already as optimized as possible - even before your Dalton McGuinty came up with the brilliant idea of shoving TOU meters down our throats.
I can't speak for others, but we have always done laundry and run dishwashers at off-peak times, turned off lights, replaced all bulbs with CFLs, yada yada yada.
It was just common sense for us...heck, my parents were doing that 20 years ago - we don't need the Liberal Party to teach us energy conservation.

I won't rehash that entire discussion all over again, but essentially, the whole hydro thing is nothing more than a tax grab.
Granted, the HST portion goes to the Feds, and they kick back part of the revenue to the province, but regardless, it is a tax grab.

Given my highly optimized usage pattern, I claim that the TOU is punitive for people like us.

Remember this - this administration does not give a flying rat's behind about the environment, energy conservation, etc.
They need to keep coming up with more and more punitive ideas like this to grab taxes from working, middle class households to fund their scandals, corruption, boondoggles, and to feed the insatiable lobby group monsters that vote for them (i.e. the unions).


----------



## hystat

sags said:


> Our hydro bill is $100 a month.
> 
> I assume that is what all my neighbors are paying as well.
> 
> A couple of us were talking about the election yesterday............and hydro bills never came up as an issue.
> 
> Is this a big issue for some............or a tempest in a teapot for a few?


big.

Ontario has just about the highest electricity rates in the country. My bill has doubled in the last decade. I don't want to see it double again as I try to retire.


----------



## andrewf

Harold, not to rehash the discussion, but it impossible for TOU to be _just_ a tax grab. It does have effects on consumption for the marginal consumer, helping to shave peak demand. You being an eco-warrior electricity conservationist is irrelevant to the marginal consumer. And TOU benefits you if a disproportionate % of your consumption occurs off-peak, assuming the blended rate went up by the equivalent amount. I can understand railing agains the blended rate rising over time; I am totally baffled by your opposition to time of use pricing. It's like saying that hotels shouldn't be able to charge higher rates during periods of high demand, especially if they are mandated to provide a room to every guest.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> I didn't think there was that many people who have electric heat.
> 
> Why don't we just subsidize people with older electric heating.........and let everyone else pay the same?


Lots of homes built here in my area in the mid to late 70s still have electric baseboard heaters and their monthly electricity bills approach $400 in the coldest winter months/
These homes are not equipped with air ducts to allow gas heating or even A/C.

If the average consumption is about $80 to $100 a month..the rest in electrically baseboard heated homes is Heating.
So how much should the gov't (actually the taxpayers) compensate "victims" of gov't stupidity back then have to compensate on a heating bill of say $200-$300 a month
in the coldest winter months?

The Ontario gov't back in the 70s shamelessly allowed and promoted in some cases ALUMININUM WIRING (banned and grandfathered for many years now, UFFI foam insulation
(banned) and of course..the slogan "Live better electrically"...giving consumers, builders of homes and the buyers the ILLUSION that electricity would be so cheap from
Hydro electric dams and nuclear that it would be "practically" given away for free in the future.

This allowed some builders (like the ones that built homes in my area to build on the cheap thus maximizing their profits by not having to install ductwork or nat gas furnaces.
Initial homeowners that bought these "all electric homes" are now paying the price..thanks to:

electricity rate increases over the years and tiered rates now
HST (13%) imposed on the hydro bill
deregulation and additional charges appearing on the hydro bill
smart meters that ensure that the utility recovers some of their losses
poor home insulation in the walls of homes built in the 70s and 80s
and
provincial gov't (read Liberals) stupidity and waste of taxpayers money under McGuinty


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> Harold, not to rehash the discussion, but it impossible for TOU to be _just_ a tax grab. It does have effects on consumption for the marginal consumer, helping to shave peak demand. You being an eco-warrior electricity conservationist is irrelevant to the marginal consumer. And TOU benefits you if a disproportionate % of your consumption occurs off-peak, assuming the blended rate went up by the equivalent amount. I can understand railing agains the blended rate rising over time; I am totally baffled by your opposition to time of use pricing. It's like saying that hotels shouldn't be able to charge higher rates during periods of high demand, especially if they are mandated to provide a room to every guest.


Sorry Andrew, but I disagree,. The generators are running 24/7. 
The demand is higher in the daytime of course, when more people and industry are using electricity. 

*TOU is nothing but a cash grab to maximize profit for all involved at the expense of the consumers. * 

Gov't stupidity in decisions, lack of foresight, creating the ugly cash hungry monster called "Ontario Hydro"and then breaking it up into smaller parts to try and hide the fact that it was out of controlm and other bad decisions (green energy/SAMSUNG deal from hell) have now led to the worst energy crisis that Ontario may be facing soon.

Who do we have to thank for all this??????


----------



## andrewf

carverman said:


> Sorry Andrew, but I disagree,. The generators are running 24/7.
> The demand is higher in the daytime of course, when more people and industry are using electricity.
> 
> *TOU is nothing but a cash grab to maximize profit for all involved at the expense of the consumers. *
> 
> Gov't stupidity in decisions, lack of foresight, creating the ugly cash hungry monster called "Ontario Hydro"and then breaking it up into smaller parts to try and hide the fact that it was out of controlm and other bad decisions (green energy/SAMSUNG deal from hell) have now led to the worst energy crisis that Ontario may be facing soon.
> 
> Who do we have to thank for all this??????


carver, utilities have to build production capacity to meet peak demand, which costs money. The bigger the difference between peak and average demand, the higher the % of generating capacity that remains idle most of the time. Penalizing people for using energy on peak (when each incremental kWh is expensive to provide) and encouraging consumers to use energy off peak instead is an effective way to improve capacity utilization. It is also fairer and more equitable than selling a kWh that costs nearly a dollar to produce at peak for the same price as one that costs 4 cents at night.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> carver, utilities have to build production capacity to meet peak demand, which costs money. The bigger the difference between peak and average demand, the higher the % of generating capacity that remains idle most of the time. Penalizing people for using energy on peak (when each incremental kWh is expensive to provide) and encouraging consumers to use energy off peak instead is an effective way to improve capacity utilization. It is also fairer and more equitable than selling a kWh that costs nearly a dollar to produce at peak for the same price as one that costs 4 cents at night.


Andrew, you and I will disagree on this aspect until the cows come home. I respect and value your opinions though, because they come from a different thought perspective than mine.

As I mentioned, the generators (gas/hydro electric, nuclear) run 24/7. It is true that the load on the grid will be much heavier during the working week and working day (8am-6pm) but
the distribution infrastructure, transmission lines, transformers etc, have to be engineered and designed to take the peak load requirements for Ontario and have a safety margin as well. 

Staffing is 24/7 as well, especially at the generators,(Darlington/Bruce) so the salaries have nothing to do with the consumption timetable aspect.
The lowest tier rate is after 7pm and on weekends as well. What is the difference here...some industry may not have weekend shifts, but some industry does, like the auto industry.

So it takes the same amount of generating energy to produce that kwh..regardless of when it is produced..show me the production cost data otherwise.

So back to the tiered rate..this is nothing but an ill conspired cash grab to maximize profits from "captive" Ontario consumers and they can sell excess power to the Americans at
much lower cost..based on what the export market will bear.

This whole hydro fiasco needs to be overhauled! I'm not saying get rid of the TOU meters, those are still necessary and provide feedback to the utilities and the generators,
but there is absolutely NO REASON why Ontario electricity consumers and taxpayers that shoulder the burden of :
WASTE
MISMANAGEMENT
UNIONIZED COMPENSATION (PENSION AND WAGES)
SPOT MARKET PRICING
GENERATING AND DISTRIBUTION COSTS

be expected to be penalized, at the expense of profitability. Who owns the grid and generators in Ontario?


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> but it impossible for TOU to be _just_ a tax grab.
> ...
> I can understand railing agains the blended rate rising over time;


Perhaps each of those 3 changes per se would not have been so bad overall.
However, introducing all those 3 changes more or less around the same time (between spring 2009 and fall 2009) had a cumulative effect on hydro bills.
I mean:
- Additional 8% on hydro bills because of HST
- TOU pricing
- Massive rate increases (still continuing)

The last item is perhaps the worst of the culprit.
We used to be on the flat residential rate up until mid 2009.
However, between then and say mid 2011, the highest tier rate (peak) became *more than double *the previous flat rate, and the _lowest_ rate (off-peak) is 50% more than the flat rate.
Current peak rate is $0.14 and off-peak is $0.075.
The flat rate used to be $0.053, from what I recall.

The cumulative effect of all these changes has been a substantial increase in hydro bills.

That aside, the provincial govt. is playing soccer with hydro rates and billing issues.
For instance, when the TOU pricing was first introduced, off-peak rates started at 8:00 pm.
Because of public outcry, after the first summer season (that would be 2010), the off peak time was changed to 7:00 pm.
Why? How is 7:00 pm off-peak?

Around the same time, the clean energy "benefit" was introduced.
Why this "discount" of 10%?
If energy is so clean, why do we have to take 10% off everyone's bills, regardless of usage?
What happened to all those evil people that use electricity in the peak hours by running air-conditioning?

None of this has anything to do with energy conservation.
This is more about the govt. finding ways to eke out more revenue from consumers to keep hiding its poor financial situation.


----------



## carverman

Three of the country's most respected polling companies — Ekos, Ipsos and Abacus — all conclude that the *Kathleen Wynne Liberals and Tim Hudak Progressive Conservatives are neck and neck *ahead of Thursday's election.
EKOS (%)	IPSOS (%)	ABACUS (%)
Liberals	35 35	34
PCs	35	35	31
NDP	20	26	28


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> The cumulative effect of all these changes has been a substantial increase in hydro bills.
> 
> *That aside, the provincial govt. is playing soccer with hydro rates and billing issues.*
> For instance, when the TOU pricing was first introduced, off-peak rates started at 8:00 pm.
> Because of public outcry, after the first summer season (that would be 2010), the off peak time was changed to 7:00 pm.
> Why? How is 7:00 pm off-peak?
> 
> *Around the same time, the clean energy "benefit" was introduced.*
> Why this "discount" of 10%?


Harold, the 10% discount is a political ploy to give Ontario electricity consumers a false sense that their ill conceived Samsung wind farm deal was a good thing.
The energy produced by the wind farms and any solar in Ontario.IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE THE MOST EXPENSE FORM OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCED!
So this energy is subsidized by the consumer. Not sure if the subsidy is from increased TOU rates, or the "debt retirement" cash cow, because there
is NOTHING TRANSPARENT from the Fiberals!
Silly to think otherwise with all this smoke and mirrors presentation by the Ontario gov;t. 


> If energy is so clean, why do we have to take 10% off everyone's bills, regardless of usage?
> *What happened to all those evil people that use electricity in the peak hours by running air-conditioning?
> *
> *None of this has anything to do with energy conservation.
> This is more about the govt. finding ways to eke out more revenue from consumers to keep hiding its poor financial situation*.


A/C in the summer used to be a luxury, now practically every home has central air. On those hot humid days between the middle of June and middle of August, the A/C can run up to 12 hrs a day or more that causes a severe load on the grid, and I understand that. I agreed to a deal with Ottawa Hydro for a energy conservation digital thermostat installed at my house. It is wi-fi, so Ottawa Hydro can turn off my air up to 15 minutes at a time during the peak, when the sun is the hottest and demand is the greatest. For installing it Ottawa Hydro gave me a check for $20 for participating in their program . I did so, not because of the promise of a $20 check, but because I believe in conservation for everything, not just energy. 

Wintertime, the furnace fan runs 24/7 as well, but it does not consume the same amount of energy as A/C compressor and furnace fan combined...but the compressor does not run all the time in the hottest part of the day either.

AFAIK, this whole scheme started after the big blackout on August 14 in 2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003


----------



## andrewf

Here's the update from threehundredeight. Looks like we're likely to be back to square one. The next term is going to be even more dysfunctional than the last one.


----------



## Eclectic12

carverman said:


> ... Gov't stupidity in decisions, lack of foresight, ... have now led to the worst energy crisis that Ontario may be facing soon...


Most people refer to an energy crisis as a shortage, which makes me wonder, what crisis?
Last year for example, Ontario was paying NY state to offload the *excess* energy.


IMO it's a cost crisis, not an energy crisis.




carverman said:


> ... Who do we have to thank for all this??????


Voters who spend years complaining about what's going on but aren't applying any sort of sustained pressure to change the situation.


Cheers


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> Here's the update from threehundredeight. Looks like we're likely to be back to square one. The next term is going to be even more dysfunctional than the last one.


same old-same old..but more bickering and timeouts, Horwath will hang in as she (NDP) really didn;t have a chance at forming a gov't anyway.
I see a struggle tomorrow with "Win" and "Hudie"" though. 

Here in Ottawa Carleton..the energy minister (Chiarelli) has HUGE signs on every street corner in his riding and lots of lawn signs. 

I noticed also yesterday, that some of the competitors signs seemed to have been knocked down in the overnight hours. 
He will take this one with a VERY comfortable margin. Ottawa has traditionally a lot of Liberal representation and support, although people are looking for some change after all these scandals, when it comes down to it..
Everyone wants to hold onto their jobs and our Mayor wants the Provincial gov't to chip in their 33% for the LRT. This was a big issue here when Hudak mentioned that he would (possibly reduce or cut the funding to balance the budget)...bad move Timmy!!!!


----------



## carverman

Eclectic12 said:


> Most people refer to an energy crisis as a shortage, which makes me wonder, what crisis?
> Last year for example, *Ontario was paying NY state to offload the *excess* energy.*
> 
> 
> IMO it's a* cost crisis*, not an energy crisis.


Here's the other interesting bit of trivia Eclectic...The Ontario Liberals were actually paying Bruce Power NOT TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY to keep up the electricity spot market price. Bruce was suppose to overhaul one of its reactors and didn't bother to bring it on line....why?...too much excess capacity! 
Now, *Should* the Fiberals force OPA to bring on the spare generators and reduce the cost of electricity to the taxpayers.,,,NO of course not!..
They prefer to sell the excess capacity to the US at reduced wholesale prices!







> Voters who spend years complaining about what's going on but a*ren't applying any sort of sustained pressure to change the situation*.
> 
> Cheers


How are we going to do that? Organize a revolt and march on Queens Park? Let Wynne or Hudak handle it?


----------



## Eclectic12

carverman said:


> ... As I mentioned, the generators (gas/hydro electric, nuclear) run 24/7.


Nuclear generators run 24 x 7 as their shutdowns/restarted as time consuming as well as expensive.
The rest are relatively easy to shutdown, with far more shutdowns.

In fact, one company alone shutdown over three hundred times to fatten their profits, as highlighted in a report on waste. 



> The Ontario electricity market's official watchdog has reported on power generators getting paid for not producing power, but what caught my eye was how some have a knack of really giving it to us. They gave an example of a generator that shuts down for two hours, then restarts. By staying online, the generator would have collected $10,000 in revenue. But by shutting off, then back on, a qualifying generator gets about $50,000 in revenue. In a six-month period last year, the panel found 426 occasions when generators had shut down, then restarted in two hours or less. One generator was responsible for 336 of the shutdowns.


If the abusive two hour or less shutdowns are 426 in six months - how many more shutdowns happen in an average year?




carverman said:


> ... It is true that the load on the grid will be much heavier during the working week and working day (8am-6pm) but the distribution infrastructure, transmission lines, transformers etc, have to be engineered and designed to take the peak load requirements for Ontario and have a safety margin as well.


And that's another area of waste as the same report highlighted Northern generators putting in low bids for times they knew the transmission lines couldn't handle the power, won the bid and then were paid for *not* producing power as "it's the transmission companies problem that they can't deliver".




carverman said:


> ... Staffing is 24/7 as well, especially at the generators,(Darlington/Bruce) so the salaries have nothing to do with the consumption timetable aspect ...


 ... which are Nuclear and far different than a gas generating plant. 




carverman said:


> ... This whole hydro fiasco needs to be overhauled!


+1.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

carverman said:


> ... Now, *Should* the Fiberals force OPA to bring on the spare generators and reduce the cost of electricity to the taxpayers.,,,NO of course not!..They prefer to sell the excess capacity to the US at reduced wholesale prices!


If there's too much capacity today ... how is spinning up more capacity going to help?

It would seem supply/demand is not the key driver in the prices otherwise the existing overcapacity should have an effect.




carverman said:


> ... They prefer to sell the excess capacity to the US at reduced wholesale prices!


I guess you missed the article last year that reported Ontario giving NY State credits to take the excess power off our hands ... which means we paid them to take our power. 




carverman said:


> ... How are we going to do that?
> Organize a revolt and march on Queens Park?


Yes ... the status quo is going to end up with .... (wait for it ...) the status quo.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

HaroldCrump said:


> Perhaps each of those 3 changes per se would not have been so bad overall.
> However, introducing all those 3 changes more or less around the same time (between spring 2009 and fall 2009) had a cumulative effect on hydro bills.
> I mean:
> - Additional 8% on hydro bills because of HST
> - TOU pricing
> - Massive rate increases (still continuing)
> 
> The last item is perhaps the worst of the culprit.
> 
> We used to be on the flat residential rate up until mid 2009.


I'd say the last is the worst with the HST being a distant second.
The third is going to keep happening no matter what based on the costs/structure/abuses already documented.

If there was a TOU where all the rates went down, I doubt there would be any complaints.


As for "flat rates" - my experience is that it was "flat rates based on consumption". 
My rates per KwH jumped dramatically once I stopped using electric baseboard heat and started using natural gas.




HaroldCrump said:


> ... The flat rate used to be $0.053, from what I recall.


A bit low I suspect as I can recall my parents complaining about living so close to Niagara Falls and paying six cents plus.




HaroldCrump said:


> None of this has anything to do with energy conservation...


Likely not ... but at the same time, I've readily observed as well as had people report to me that TOU has changed their habits resulting in a shift of when they use electricity. From the gov't perspective, it sounds like having the icing and the cake.


Cheers


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> there is NOTHING TRANSPARENT from the Fiberals!
> Silly to think otherwise with all this smoke and mirrors presentation by the Ontario gov;t.


So we agree that hydro rates have nothing to do with energy policy and conservation, and more about politics, posturing, and smoke/mirrors?
Anyhow, IMHO, hydro is yet another ploy to extract revenue while claiming they are not raising taxes.

The Liberals have set up layers upon layers of bureaucracy in the hydro sector (the OPA, OPG, OEB, H1, etc.) - someone's gotta pay for all those Sunshine Listers.



> A/C in the summer used to be a luxury, now practically every home has central air. On those hot humid days between the middle of June and middle of August, the A/C can run up to 12 hrs a day or more that causes a severe load on the grid


Yet we are exporting hydro to other provinces, and even the US are rates lower than what Ontario consumers are paying.
Secondly, we are replacing highly efficient cheap sources of hydro with inefficient and expensive sources (i.e. replacing nat gas with wind).
They canceled the construction of two natural gas based plants, which would have been cutting edge, newly build plants (not refurbished) using natural gas, which is at decades low rates.
It is the also the cleanest burning among fossil fuels.

The opponents are focusing on the $1B penalties for canceling the gas plant, but neither Hudak or Horwath has mentioned that there is a far bigger cost of that cancelation - that of not using cheap and efficient sources of hydro.
The $1B is a mere drop in the $50B debt bucket of Ontario and can be recovered over time, but the damage done to consumers cannot be.

Hydro rates, like gas taxes, have more to do with maximizing revenue collection rather than environmental consciousness.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Eclectic12 said:


> If there was a TOU where all the rates went down, I doubt there would be any complaints.


Yeah, I'd have been okay with that.
That is how a carrot & stick policy works.
What we have now is a hang, draw, and quarter policy for hydro users.



> As for "flat rates" - my experience is that it was "flat rates based on consumption".


True, we were always at the lowest residential tier.
It was more than enough for our needs, I don't recall ever slipping into the 2nd tier during the flat rate days.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> Ottawa has traditionally a lot of Liberal representation and support, although people are looking for some change after all these scandals, when it comes down to it..


No, carver, no one is Ottawa is looking for any _change_ - they like it exactly the way it is, thank you very much.
Tomorrow pretty much 99% of all Ottawa voters will vote for the Liberal party.
The reason is obvious....


----------



## Eclectic12

HaroldCrump said:


> So we agree that hydro rates have nothing to do with energy policy and conservation, and more about politics, posturing, and smoke/mirrors?
> 
> Anyhow, IMHO, hydro is yet another ploy to extract revenue while claiming they are not raising taxes.


 ... more like 10% on one side and 90% on the rest, IMO.




HaroldCrump said:


> Secondly, we are replacing highly efficient cheap sources of hydro with inefficient and expensive sources (i.e. replacing nat gas with wind).


If the Niagara Falls report's observations are correct - we are underusing our Hydro capacity so the new plants can be built.





HaroldCrump said:


> They canceled the construction of two natural gas based plants, which would have been cutting edge, newly build plants (not refurbished) using natural gas, which is at decades low rates... The opponents are focusing on the $1B penalties for canceling the gas plant, but neither Hudak or Horwath has mentioned that there is a far bigger cost of that cancelation - that of not using cheap and efficient sources of hydro.


Maybe I missed an article ... but I thought that other than when/where, the two nat gas plants are still being built so for this particular case, it's not a replacement.

Then too ... I find it appalling that what appear to be easy to fix abuses (ex. constant two hour or less shutdowns) are being sent to "consultation".
What company willing to stoop to this is going to want to quickly shutoff their profit stream?


Cheers


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> No, carver, no one is Ottawa is looking for any _change_ - they like it exactly the way it is, thank you very much.
> Tomorrow pretty much 99% of all Ottawa voters will vote for the Liberal party.
> The reason is obvious....


You mean this?.. (see the red in Ottawa)
http://www.durhamregion.com/news-story/4541799-ontario-election-map-of-candidates-by-riding/

and 
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...s-clash-over-public-sector-jobs-during-debate


----------



## HaroldCrump

_*Libertarian Jean-Serge Brisson said the public sector needs to lose 300,000 jobs, not 100,000, to make Ontario competitive.*_

^ I guess he aint getting elected, at least not in Ottawa :biggrin: 

Anyhow, in my opinion, the 100K issue was a mistake on the part of PCs/Hudak.
Esp. since they later came back and said it is only through regular attrition and superannuation, and not pink slips.

This has allowed both Liberals and NDP to create a lot of FUD, misdirection, fear mongering, and derailed the campaign for the PCs.
IMHO, 100K job reduction - either through regular attrition/superannuation or pink slips - is not required just yet - _*as long as*_ they can impose a wage freeze.
A wage freeze is a better solution from all aspects.

Hudak has proposed a three step approach to reducing the public sector burden:
- Across the board wage freeze for all levels of public sector
- Unwinding of gold plated pension plans
- 100K reduction in staffing

Unfortunately, the last one has received the most attention and public ire, but it is the least effective/impactful.
The other two will go a long, long way in reducing the overall tax burden for Ontario residents.
But those are the hardest to do, and the one that requires a majority govt.


----------



## Eclectic12

HaroldCrump said:


> ... Anyhow, in my opinion, the 100K issue was a mistake on the part of PCs/Hudak.
> Esp. since they later came back and said it is only through regular attrition and superannuation, and not pink slips...


 ... which when one considers the PCa/Hudak had similar issues in the last election, one wonders what they were thinking.


Cheers


----------



## andrewf

Newsflash: "Libertarian believes in eliminating government; communist disagrees and calls for nationalizing major industries."

I think there's a good chance Hudak gets the boot after yet again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.


----------



## carverman

"TAR WARS"? or "Batman returns" ? The most recent Liberal attack ad shows Hudak as the "Joker" walking away from an "exploding" hospital.
Wynne responded (she has been saying in the Liberal TV ads that she approves the ads)..however...this flyer was distributed in a LIBERAL riding north of Toronto... "It's not consistent with what we have been doing throughout this campaign."



> The Progressive Conservatives were incensed Wednesday about a Liberal flyer substituting Tory Leader Tim Hudak as the psychopathic Joker from the Batman movie "The Dark Knight."
> The flyer, which was distributed in a Liberal riding north of Toronto, depicts Hudak laughing as he walks away from an exploding hospital.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Can we have an attack ad of Wynne posing for a photo next to the Parthenon in Greece, with protestors burning cars and throwing Molotov cocktails in the background?
With a newspaper heading in the footnote saying : _S&P downgrades Ontario's credit rating to C- as deficit mounts to $50B and bond yields jump to 8%_


----------



## andrewf

I wonder if the same people complaining about ridiculous movie character tropes objected to this as well:


----------



## sags

We will see how it goes tomorrow...........when the "people speak".

Wynne had it pretty easy in this election. 

Hudak spend most of his time on the defensive.

Howarth.........might as well have gone on vacation.

If Wynne doesn't win this "gift" of an election...........she should change careers.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> I wonder if the same people complaining about ridiculous movie character tropes objected to this as well


Apparently it was a Liberal incumbent in a riding north of Toronto that ripped off a copy of a scene from Batman on his computer. then multiple printed it and handed it out door to door as a "flyer". 


> Del Duca said in a tweet: “Please accept my apology. The flyer was a mistake for which I am sorry.”
> There was no further explanation of how the flyer was distributed or who approved it.


http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario...cumbent_sorry_for_tim_hudak_parody_flyer.html


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> We will see how it goes tomorrow...........when the "people speak".
> 
> Wynne had it pretty easy in this election.
> 
> Hudak spend most of his time on the defensive.
> 
> Howarth.........might as well have gone on vacation.
> 
> If Wynne doesn't win this "gift" of an election...........she should change careers.


It's hard to say how it will turn out after 9pm. From the polls, none of the 3 are what Ontario wants behind the "driver's seat"..each has demonstrated lack of common sense and thinking before acting. It's like a bunch of kids now
slugging it out to the "finish line". Horwath is convinced she wants to be premier according to her TV interview. Hudak commented on Wynne and her latest attack. Wynne didn't apologize this time but mentioned that the war
of words against Hudak was "inconsistent" with what they have been doing so far, when MPs take the liberty of manufacturing and distributing their own form of propoganda to constituents within their own riding.

I say fire them all and lets have byelections as well.


----------



## carverman

So here we are..Election day...and we are on Page 83! Lots of discussions and opinions. 
For those of us that are still interested, I guess we will know around the 11pm news..who won..although in the minds of some Ontarioans, there are no clear winners that can offer us clear solutions anymore!


So there will be no joy in "Mudville" tonight for some party affiliates and less than satisfaction for other supporters who feel they should have been given a chance on election promises alone.

From the latest pollster polls, most of us are turned off by all the scratching, kicking, mudslinging that has been goingon for the last 2 weeks..enough to make a grown man cry! 

I don't see any clear winner here or someone that I can trust to do the best for us with dignity, grace and respect of the people.

So more than likely it's the same old-same old..prices will go up, taxes on some things will go up, scandals and waste will appear somewhere along the line with whomever forms the next gov't

Honesty and transparency...will quickly be forgotten after the dust settles.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> We will see how it goes tomorrow...........when the "people speak".


A lot of voters tend to chicken out and vote for the incumbents on election day.
Preferring proven incompetence vs. the unknown

A large number of Liberal supporters do not like the corruption, the sleaze, the drunken spending, the deficit, the union pandering, etc.
But they continue to vote for it over and over again.



carverman said:


> For those of us that are still interested, I guess we will know around the 11pm news..


Don't hold your breath...we may not know who will form the govt. if it is a very close seat count between the Liberals and the PCs.
We may know the final seat count, but it could be a tie or a very close call.
Then it would depend on who stakes the first claim to form a govt. with the support of the NDP and/or Green/independents (if any).
Some ridings may be so close as to force a recount.

Although, as I said above, if a lot of people chicken out and vote Liberal at the last minute, the exit polls will turn out wrong and the Liberals could get back in with a safe margin (even if minority).


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> A lot of voters tend to chicken out and vote for the incumbents on election day.
> Preferring proven incompetence vs. the unknown
> 
> A large number of Liberal supporters do not like the corruption, the sleaze, the drunken spending, the deficit, the union pandering, etc.
> But they continue to vote for it over and over again.
> 
> Although, as I said above, if a lot of people chicken out and vote Liberal at the last minute, the exit polls will turn out wrong and the Liberals could get back in with a safe margin (even if minority).



Sigh!....
*Ontario's $90M election could bring province right back to where it started*



> TORONTO - Voters across Ontario head to the polls today to decide whether or not the battered minority Liberals deserve a fourth mandate, and with pre-election polls showing the governing party
> was in a virtual tie with the Progressive Conservatives, *there's a good chance the $90-million snap election will produce another minority government*.
> The province's economic recovery, job creation and the elimination of the $12.5-billion deficit dominated the 40-day campaign, which in the f*inal stages was marred by nasty personal attacks and accusations of voter manipulation*


Why can't everyone just get along?????


----------



## NorthKC

After 40 days of watching the debate and campaigns, reading platforms as well as reading their history and I still cannot decide who to vote for. I'm not sure if part of the problem is that I'm a recent transplant from the North to the South so I'm still thinking with the Northern Ontario mindset. The liberals screwed us over with the ONTC (look it up) and the TTC train refurbishment centre effectively driving the jobs out of the area. That combined with the lackluster fight to revive the mining industry are driving many businesses to lay off a lot of workers. In the riding here in the South, we have a very effective PC MPP who has done well to support his constituents but I don't agree with his party ideals. Why? Hudak's plan to eliminate the special needs assistant is exactly the same as Mike Harris in which I was screwed over when I was a student with special needs. If it wasn't for the assistant who chose to continue to help me without pay, I would not be where I am now. This is why I will never vote for the PC.

So that leaves the NDP and the Green Party. The NDP has always fought for the ONTC and trying to restore the mining and forestry in the North which will ultimately create jobs. If the North is thriving, it will also benefit the South. However, there's no plan to address the debt. The Green Party is the only one that makes the most sense (still a few points that I disagree with) but a Green MPP in my riding that has a Petrochemical Industry? Ha! Good luck with that! I pity the poor Green candidate as he's doomed from the start.

So, who the heck do I choose? I refuse to decline my vote as I don't think it will address the problem. Hopefully, I will be able to finalize my decision BEFORE I head to the polling station.

My prediction after the election will be an NDP minority with PC followed by a distant Liberals. I'm very much looking forward to seeing the results tonight.


----------



## carverman

NorthKC said:


> A
> So that leaves the NDP and the Green Party. The NDP has always fought for the ONTC and trying to restore the mining and forestry in the North which will ultimately create jobs.
> 
> So, who the heck do I choose? I refuse to decline my vote as I don't think it will address the problem. Hopefully, I will be able to finalize my decision BEFORE I head to the polling station.
> 
> My prediction after the election will be an NDP minority with PC followed by a distant Liberals. I'm very much looking forward to seeing the results tonight.


Well it's definitely a crap shoot at this point...the latest polls indicate there are a LOT of undecided voters besides the "my grandfather voted <party> and I vote the same way..and if there was a dog running in my constituency.
I would vote for the dog as long as it's in the same party" 

.Its the swing vote (undecided to the last minute.."eeneey-miney-mo..close my eyes and put an x besides one on the ballot".. that will decide who gets in.
I see it as diametrically opposed values coming from all 3. You either vote for more spending and more deficit or cut/cut/cut or the NDP, and hope that "Queen" Andrea will take care of your needs.


----------



## Toronto.gal

andrewf said:


> I wonder if the same people complaining about ridiculous movie character tropes objected to this as well:


Why don't you stay in Ontario, at least until tomorrow? But if you want to compare, where is the exploding building? 

If someone deserves the title of terrorist, it isn't Mr. Hudak. Someone should enlighten Mr. Del Duca. 

Good summary of why the Liberals should be thrown out.

*'A vote for them is an endorsement of their record of mismanagement, waste and meddling. If Ontario returns another Liberal government, the record will [most definitely] continue, and that will be exactly what Canada's most populous province deserves.'
*
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/06/11/matt-gurney-ontarios-unelectable-liberals/


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> Why don't you stay in Ontario, at least until tomorrow? But if you want to compare, where is the exploding building?


It looks like the legislature at Queens Park to me. 



> *'A vote for them is an endorsement of their record of mismanagement, waste and meddling. If Ontario returns another Liberal government, the record will [most definitely] continue, and that will be exactly what Canada's most populous province deserves.' *


*
*

Well lets say T.G. that sometime after 9pm when the polls close, the voters will elect the next Queen or King...we are the "sheep-le" we are not worthy.
BTW,,tomorrow is FRIDAY THE 13TH,,,,,I hope nobody is superstitious of the calamity that may occur in the future.....maybe we can learn to "bend over" a little more..I'm sure there is still some hidden "gold" for them to find 
somewheres.:biggrin:


----------



## HaroldCrump

It will be Friday the 13th for two of the 3 party leaders.
Hudak will almost certainly lose his party leadership if he cannot form a govt.
Andrea also might (although the change may not be as dramatic as in the case of Hudak/PC).

Wynne, on the other hand, will not lose her party leadership even if the LPO fail to form a govt.
She is the ideal leader for the LPO, representing all the key vote banks, lobby groups, and vested interests.
She is everything that Dalton McGuinty was, and everything that he wasn't.

A PC minority govt. (supported or not by the NDP) is likely to be highly divisive and dysfunctional, so Wynne can easily wait for another election within 2 - 3 years max.


----------



## andrewf

The polling still seems to suggest a Liberal plurality is the likely result.

You can say that a vote for the LPO is an endorsement of all the dastardly things that they do/have done, but it's never quite that simple. Same as a vote for Harris/Eves wasn't an endorsement of negligently allowing thousands to get sick and several people die from improperly treated drinking water. Or voting for Harper endorsed waste on the G20, or F-35 procurement (which is an order of magnitude worse than anything Dalton and co did).

Every government screws up. If Hudak even becomes premier, he will do some bad things, just like any other potential premier. Only in the movies are the villains and heroes so black and white.


----------



## nathan79

It would be an interesting parallel to last year's Liberal win in BC. Voters have a higher tolerance for screw-ups and corruption than they let on. Most people in BC would not admit to voting Liberal, but when push came to shove a lot of them did anyway.


----------



## Toronto.gal

andrewf said:


> 1. Every government screws up.
> 2. If Hudak even becomes premier, he will do some bad things, just like any other potential premier.
> 3. Only in the movies are the villains and heroes so black and white.


*1.* Absolutely, but who believes/expects otherwise? 

*2.* So what is your point exactly? Keep the Liberals because we know the others would make mistakes also, so might as well stick with the corruption and lies of the past consecutive 11 years we know?

*3.* Yes, only in the movies, so what does that have to do with reality? Who is talking/wanting political heroes here? 

When in your opinion can voters say enough?! When in your opinion can we expect to hold the current gov. accountable for their actions? When in your opinion can we throw out a gov.? By your comments, if Liberals, then never?! 

In fact, the answers are way simpler than you make it sound.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Toronto.gal said:


> *3.* Yes, only in the movies


Speaking of movies, the 3 terms of Liberal govt. is like _*Groundhog Day*_.

Some voters probably feel like being in _*The Butterfly Effect*_ - no matter what we do, the end result is not changing.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Alright boys & girls, it's 9:00 pm - get your popcorn & pop ready, and watch the show.
The best entertainment tonight...


----------



## Nemo2

HaroldCrump said:


> The best entertainment tonight...


Geez, you must have low standards. :wink:


----------



## andrewf

Danger of a Liberal majority, it seems. I'm surprised that the PCs didn't do a better job of GOTV.

I feel for you guys. Although if it wasn't going to be a PC majority, I think a Liberal majority is a better outcome than a minority. A majority government provides the breathing room to make some unpopular changes early in the term.


----------



## HaroldCrump

It's a few mins. to 10:00 - the show is pretty much all over.
Looks like a majority is all but guaranteed for the LPO.
IMO, second to Wynne, it is Horwath who is most relieved.
This is a face-saving outcome for her.

For the rest of us...this is *Groundhog Day*.


----------



## carverman

Liberal sweep in Ontario = heading towards a majority at the expense of the PC and NDP.

So, I'm sure those of us that were involved in this thread already know..

1. what went wrong for the PC and Hudak.

2. What went wrong for the NDP and Horwath..

floor is open for your opinions.


----------



## andrewf

Hudak is going to get the boot. He really should have been able to win this.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Hudak is done, of course.
A larger question that will begin emerging now is...should Harper be worried?
A little over a year to go.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> It's a few mins. to 10:00 - the show is pretty much all over.
> Looks like a majority is all but guaranteed for the LPO.
> IMO, second to Wynne, it is Horwath who is most relieved.
> This is a face-saving outcome for her.


Horwath of course wants to keep her job, and she won her seat, but she has to think about her future with the NDP, because I'm sure they will be discussing her ability 
as a leader in the next election, whenever that may be.

Hudak won his seat as well. The question remains...who should take the fall for the PC?...his campaign managers/strategists?
or himself? With this disastrous outcome for the PC, no doubt changes will be in the works even if he shows up in the MLA with less crediibility than he had before.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Hudak is done, of course.
> A larger question that will begin emerging now is...should Harper be worried?
> A little over a year to go.


I think the federal PC and Harper have nothing to worry about right now. JT is putting his proverbial foot in mouth too many times, and he is showing how green he is. 
He's not ready (IMO) to take over as head of the country...he has to think before he speaks and Harper seems to have a bit more tact in that regard.

Harper also has Alberta and some other parts of Canada to back him up. Mulcair..what can we say...he's interesting in Question Period, but his party and himself are not
serious contenders for forming a National government. He managed to "squeak in" because of the demise of the Bloc and Layton's (temporary) popularity campaign.


----------



## carverman

Latest stats.. (Total seats in Legislature = 107)
LIBs=59 (need 54 for a majority)
PC= 27
NDP= 21

Tim Hudak has just announced in his concession speech that he will be stepping down as leader of the PC once a new leader is nominated.


----------



## andrewf

Saying Harper has nothing to worry about is a bit strong, given that his party has been behind in the polls for about 18 months now. If he even gets reduced to a minority, he will get pushed out as leader.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Yup, Hudak has resigned as party leader, although will continue to represent his own riding as MPP during this term.
This is a sad outcome, and one that possibly boils down to that one key decision (the 100K job cuts) made by the PC campaign manager.
Whoever came up with that idea is responsible for gifting the election to Wynne & the Liberals.

Given the state of the PC party, this could very likely be a 2 term govt. i.e. until 2022.


----------



## sags

This election wasn't even close............

Hudak and the PCs misinterpreted the depth of public outrage on the so called scandals, and put the focus of his campaign in the wrong place.

Mississauga mayor, Hazel McCallum was right.........."water under the bridge".

This election was about 20% unemployment levels for workers between 15 and 24 years of age. This election was about investing in transportation and badly needed infrastructure. Investments for the future that create good jobs.

This election was about keeping education assistants in the classroom and supporting teachers so they can provide the best education opportunities possible, for young people who are going to need a superior education to compete in the world.

And.........this election was about creating an Ontario Pension Plan........so that more people can enjoy a secure retirement.

Hudak campaigned against all those things.......that Ontario voters approve of.

He was swimming against the tide.........and although surprised at the number of seats the Liberals gained overall......I am not surprised at the success the Liberals enjoyed when considering the negativity and public disconnect the PCs demonstrated during the campaign.

Should Harper start to worry? I think he already has been. He is no longer hearing Justin Trudeau's footsteps gaining on him........he is now looking at Justin Trudeau's backside and has been long enough to have it memorized.

With a sizeable majority, Wynne can set about rebuilding Ontario......without interference from the opposition.


----------



## Eder

My condolences to Ontario...there will be problems ahead for this province, the majority has spoken...good luck.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> Saying Harper has nothing to worry about is a bit strong, given that his party has been behind in the polls for about 18 months now. If he even gets reduced to a minority, he will get pushed out as leader.


Ok, I'm not saying that he can't be pushed out as the leader of the PCs at some point, but polls are not the necessary the pulse of the nation. Harper, even though he has a lot of people that may dislike him, also he has the support of the west, specifically Alberta, which is the economic pulse of the nation. Oil = money and drives the economy. 
Ontario is facing a shortfall an a lot of challenges under Wynne , who tonight , 
in her victory speech mentioned that things will be a lot different in her majority gov't and Ontarioans won't regret the choice they made. Time will tell if she is right.

Harper, has pulled through in a couple of elections , and saw his opponents shattered and going back into the woodwork at Harvard or where ever not to surface again.

This definitely says something...and even though he made some bad choices, he also made some good decisions like cutting back on the GST, but this may be short lived now for Ontarioans,who had the HST forced upon them, causing electricity and heating costs to go up by 8%..a significant change that affects all the low income households.

I feel that this was a bad decision on McGuinty's part, but I doubt very much that there will be any change there as Ontario is running a deficit now, and if Wynne starts to implement what they want to do in their budget (improve infrastructure) , we will definitely be digging a lot deeper into our pockets to pay for it over the next 4 years of her majority gov't mandate.

You can't have your cake and eat it too when the economy is weak as it is right now. Jobs will be created (maybe not the million that Hudak ran his campaign on, but the 100,000 number of jobs in the public sector won't be cut either, and if everyone is working...they may have enough to pay their taxes and the HST as well.

Certainly we can't go back to recover the waste of the last 11 years...we can only move forward and hope that through new revenue streams and taxation, the deficit will be eliminated at some point.

Toronto seemed to be the area where there were a lot of upsets...the rest of the province is basically polarized.


----------



## carverman

Eder said:


> My condolences to Ontario...there will be problems ahead for this province, the majority has spoken...good luck.


Time will tell, we will either be better for it or worse off in 4 years time. If the deficit keeps growing, and the books are not balanced within 3 years,
we will be paying a lot more for everything as Ontario's credit rating will be de rated for borrowing more money.


----------



## el oro

The Liberal plan for balancing the budget is limiting/decreasing spending growth to 1.1% annually, while the revenue growth rate accelerates to 3.8% annually. Gooooood luck with that, Ontario.


----------



## martin15

Eder said:


> My condolences to Ontario...there will be problems ahead for this province, the majority has spoken...good luck.




People usually get exactly the government they deserve.

McSquinty must be peeing in his pants laughing, all his funny games will now be buried and forgotten.


----------



## Nemo2

martin15 said:


> People usually get exactly the government they deserve.


Exactly the words I used to my wife, (who is royally P.O.'d)......me, (as I approach 72 years of age), I figure, (as in the US), that those who supported this disaster will be the ones who eventually pay for it......and they'll likely never understand why. No sympathy here.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Yup, Hudak has resigned as party leader, although will continue to represent his own riding as MPP during this term.
> This is a sad outcome, and one that possibly boils down to that one key decision (the 100K job cuts) made by the PC campaign manager.
> *Whoever came up with that idea is responsible for gifting the election to Wynne & the Liberals*.
> 
> Given the state of the PC party, this could very likely be a 2 term govt. i.e. until 2022.


Yes. Hudak had more "skeletons in his closet" than Wynne. Hudak was around in gov't under Harris and Harris' failed "common sense revolution" slogan ...that did a lot of harm to Ontario,
health care, cutting back on the Nurses and Walkerton of course...where cutting back on water quality inspectors resulted in two UNQUALIFIED local yokels taking over water purification
which they just ignored.

Many Ontarioans remember the Harris days, and when they heard Hudak was going to attempt a similar situation with his 100K job cuts to the public service to balance the budget
on their backs, they rushed to the polls to leave their message to the PC. 

This was a fatal flaw in Hudak's campaign all along...the other thing "1 million jobs/faulty math", voters were willing to ignore because whether those jobs got created (or not) it did not AFFECT THEM directly,


----------



## carverman

Nemo2 said:


> Exactly the words I used to my wife, (who is royally P.O.'d)......me, (as I approach 72 years of age), I figure, (as in the US), that those who supported this disaster will be the ones who eventually pay for it......and they'll likely never understand why. No sympathy here.


Well Nemo...the war is over. We have winners and we have losers today. Had the other two run a different campaign strategy, the outcome might have been different..but...it wasn't.
*I predicted a Liberal win over 2 weeks ago on this forum..forget which page it was on now.*

All I can say is that this one was of the worst election campaigns in recent history!
Horwath took a gamble and she lost...ok..it's still status quo as far as her retaining her seats and actually gaining one at the expense of the PC. She should also resign as she triggered this election and gave Wynne complete power to do whatever the Liberals want to do with Ontario. 

Horwath could have left things as they were with the Liberal minority gov't to at least provide "sober second thought" to the budget issues that the Liberals proposed..NOW she will be sitting as an MPP, unable to do anything to change things.
She can stand up and denounce Wynne's proposed implementation of the Liberal budget all she wants..but she (and Hudak) won't be able to change a damn thing! 

She handed Wynne a majority gov't.....good thinking there!


----------



## OptsyEagle

OK, well we either got the devil we knew or some other devil, that was the choice.

Anyone have a vague understanding of this Ontario Pension Plan. I am self employed and get the pleasure of moving 9.9% of my earned income to CPP, since I do not have a nice employer to pay half. Will I now need to move 17% of my earned income to pension plans when I factor in the OPP.

I suppose it is better then an outright tax but it is still a lot of money to put into the hands of government people who want me to believe "were from the government and we're here to help".


----------



## carverman

Meet Hudak's (possible) replacement...BTW..she was the winner in my riding.



> The immediate front runner is MPP Lisa MacLeod who handily won her seat in Nepean Carleton.


With the election of Wynne, the first ELECTED woman premier of Ontario, I think Lisa has a chance in the next election. If she wins the nomination at the PC leadership convention,
she should get better qualified people and start working asap on a election platform. I'm sure that Wynne will have a few more issues coming up with overspending of taxpayers money.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/nepean-carleton-one-of-safest-pc-seats
..and she is good looking too...for a politician. :biggrin:


----------



## Nemo2

carverman said:


> ..and she is good looking too...for a politician. :biggrin:


Eye test time.......here's a good looking pol, (unfortunately she's from South Dakota):


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> This election wasn't even close............
> 
> Hudak and the PCs misinterpreted the depth of public outrage on the so called scandals, and put the focus of his campaign in the wrong place.
> 
> With a sizeable majority, Wynne can set about rebuilding Ontario......without interference from the opposition.


Ok,let's give Wynne a chance. She came in after McGuinty made a mess of things, so it's not her fault. 
Ontario, primarily the Toronto-Hamilton-Niagara corridor needs some infrastructure improvements. People are now spending far too much time stuck in rush hour traffic commuting to their jobs.
Solution for the future is modernization and expansion of the GO trains. 

Same with Ottawa..the Queensway is choked with traffic during rush hour. Get one accident and people can spend a lot of time in their cars idling. 
While it's not quite as bad as LA, it can be over the next 10 years, as the city expands from Orleans to Kanata and south. 

We need the LRT badly. People hate taking the buses because they take far too long to get across the city, although with the bus transitways improvement over the last 10 years,
it's a bit better.

Ontario needs the infrastructure spending. To delay it for 4 years or more will just complicate living for everyone. Yes, the cost of living along with everything else will go up for all of us...neither Wynne, Hudak or Horwath can prevent that.


----------



## Synergy

OptsyEagle said:


> Anyone have a vague understanding of this Ontario Pension Plan. I am self employed and get the pleasure of moving 9.9% of my earned income to CPP, since I do not have a nice employer to pay half. Will I now need to move 17% of my earned income to pension plans when I factor in the OPP.


"The self-employed would not be part of the new Ontario Retirement Pension Plan — though the budget says it “will consult to determine how best to assist” these workers — nor would Ontarians who already contribute to a workplace pension."

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...al-pension-that-could-be-integrated-into-cpp/


----------



## carverman

Synergy said:


> "The self-employed would not be part of the new Ontario Retirement Pension Plan — though the budget says it “will consult to determine how best to assist” these workers — nor would Ontarians who already contribute to a workplace pension."



It's a flawed pension plan. There should be a option available for the self employed to join the OPP and for those that feel they have enough pension already to opt out.


----------



## Eclectic12

HaroldCrump said:


> ... Some voters probably feel like being in _*The Butterfly Effect*_ - no matter what we do, the end result is not changing.


If the "cut 100K jobs" fiasco was as important as suggested here, then the voters wanting change should get their party of choice to hire better strategists, PR people and leaders, n'est pas? 




HaroldCrump said:


> ... one that possibly boils down to that one key decision (the 100K job cuts) made by the PC campaign manager.


This is silly ... Hudak is a parrot for the PC campaign manager? 
What kind of leadership is that?

(I had no idea the PC's were run like a dictatorship by the campaign manager. :biggrin: )


This seems like you are allowing your disappointment to lead you into hyperbole. 



Cheers


----------



## Toronto.gal

As Christine Blizzard put it, get ready for a horror show starting on Friday the 13th.

It would be a risible outcome, if it wasn't for the consequences that might follow. Carverman, I don't believe anyone participating here had predicted that the Conservatives would win, quite the contrary, even after the debate. 

I read it was another record low voter turnout; one source put it at 46%/another around 50%, and that was both surprising and surprisingly apathetic, but as Nemo put it, people neither understand, nor care to do so.

Now let's see how Ms. Wynne will build Ontario up with her and Mr. Sousa's superior math, and how long before the explosion of broken-promises/fibs/scandals/slash-and-burn begins. I do not envy her, and I think it will be a very tough 4 years for Ms. Wynne.

Mr. Hudak would of course resign, and I agree with Carverman that Ms. Horwath should have done same, although I believe her party would have won more seats had Ms. Wynne's message that a vote for the orange team = a vote for Mr. Hudak hadn't been so effective in the end.

Now, to the small & big C Tories, cheer up! 

*'This is the big issue: The province is out of money....Premier Wynne, clearly, is not one who'd prefer to lead a slush-and-burn government. It doesn't matter. That's what she's going to have to do, anyway.'*
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...l-impose-austerity-for-you-she-has-no-choice/


----------



## Eclectic12

carverman said:


> Yes. Hudak had more "skeletons in his closet" than Wynne ...
> 
> This was a fatal flaw in Hudak's campaign all along {cut 100K jobs} ...the other thing "1 million jobs/faulty math", ...


I disagree ... Hudak knew from the last election he wasn't trusted so IMO, his fatal flaw was not addressing the mistrust.

Both items reinforced what was already there.


Cheers


----------



## MoneyGal

carverman said:


> It's a flawed pension plan. There should be a option available for the self employed to join the OPP and for those that feel they have enough pension already to opt out.


The price (affordability) depends on forced participation. Ever wonder why annuities are 'so expensive'? Because not everyone buys them.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> - This election was about 20% unemployment levels for workers between 15 and 24 years of age.
> - This election was about investing in transportation and badly needed infrastructure.
> - Investments for the future that create good jobs.
> - This election was about keeping education assistants in the classroom and supporting teachers
> - And.........this election was about creating an Ontario Pension Plan........so that more people can enjoy a secure retirement.


sags, don't delude yourself.
The outcome of this election has nothing to do with any of those.
This election boiled down to one, and one only one, factor - the public service vote.

In prior years, they were probably a fair share of govt. workers, teachers, cops, etc. that voted PC for a variety of reasons (personal preferences, family voting history, regional bias, etc.)
However, in this election, because of fear mongering and FUD, each and every one of those public sector workers voted against the respective PC candidates.

I have been following Twitter, Facebook, and other social media over the last 2 - 3 weeks, and there are an overwhelming number of posts from people voting against the PCs because their job (or the job of some close family member) is in some form of govt./public sector.

A large % of vote that the PCs lost is the public service workers' vote they used to have in the past.

The message in this election is clear - Ontario public service workers have the b*s of the province in their clutches.
They get to decide who will rule at Queen's Park, what the taxes will be for the rest of us, and how that money will be spent (um, mostly on wages & benefits for themselves).

Long story short - unless you work for the public service in Ontario, there is a large red *X *on your forehead.
You are at the mercy of the unions.
If they slap you across the face by demanding outrageous raises & benefits, just turn the other cheek.
_Shut up and pay your taxes._


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> s
> _Shut up and pay your taxes._


Yes, I'm paying my fair share. Nothing against the PS. If this election is any indication..don't p*ss off the unions.


----------



## Nemo2

^ ^As is currently the case in B.C. with approx 86% of teachers voting for an all out strike. Teachers, overpaid and underworked, and who behave as if they're chained to sewing machines in a sweatshop........manning the barricades and spouting the rhetoric of the underprivileged while oblivious to the fact that they are treated/paid like the elite.

All this while somewhere in the region of 25% of Canadians are apparently functionally illiterate/innumerate.


----------



## Toronto.gal

^ ^^^ +1. 

The % is higher than 25%.


----------



## MoneyGal

This parent (me) took my dyslexic kid out of the public school system entirely rather than risk that outcome.


----------



## PuckiTwo

HaroldCrump said:


> The outcome of this election has nothing to do with any of those. This election boiled down to one, and one only one, factor - the public service vote.


Exactly, decreasing the vast amount of public employees is extremely unpopular and parties who want to be elected/re-elected will take that into consideration. Not only in Ontario. This Greek-style situation will continue until the non-government people stand up and vote for change. If they don't do it soon -they will be in the minority.

Same people who vote against austerity are quite likely also against foreign capital investment, pipelines, fracking, industrial development, anything what injects money into the system.


----------



## HaroldCrump

I said somewhere up-thread:

Invest for education = raises for teachers union
Invest for infrastructure = raises for TTC & GO union
Invest for safety = raises for OPP
Invest for jobs = raises for public sector unions


----------



## sags

Ernie Eves was a commentator on Global TV last night, and he said Hudak's biggest mistake was starting the campaign with his "100,000 job cuts" announcement. As Eves put it.........It put 1.2 million public service workers on notice that it could be them who were losing their jobs. Add in their family members and friends....and that is a lot of voters Hudak chose to attack.

Given Hudak's announcement.........I doubt those public service workers needed much urging from their union to vote for the Liberals.

It was also mentioned during the broadcast that some of Hudak's campaign planners were from the old Mike Harris government days.......and their strategy was too similar to the "Common Sense Revolution" for people to vote for Hudak.

All in all.............a terribly planned campaign by the Tories........but an honest one that put their ideology squarely in front of the voters......who promptly decided they weren't interested.


----------



## sags

The disasterous results of the election for the PCs in Toronto and surrounding areas.......showed what little impact a barrage of negative coverage by right wing media had on the Liberals.

Today the realization must be settling in at Sun media..........of how irrelevant they are to urban voters.


----------



## peterk

LOL

Good luck Onterrible, my _old_ home. You won't be getting another income tax dollar out of me ever!


----------



## the-royal-mail

^ agreed. Rotten to the core.


----------



## HaroldCrump

peterk said:


> Good luck Onterrible, my _old_ home. You won't be getting another income tax dollar out of me ever!





the-royal-mail said:


> ^ agreed. Rotten to the core.


It is interesting to observe...just on this CMF forum...how many folks have seemingly abandoned Ontario and moved westwards.

Granted, CMF is probably not a good sampling given the preponderance of well educated, skilled, employed individuals (most with healthy investment portfolios as well), however, the trend is telling.
This is classic "brain drain" i.e. human capital fleeing for greener pastures.

Eventually human capital drain becomes a financial capital drain when the abandoned province misses out on all the tax revenues.

This is what happens when you have long-term, entrenched governments that punish successful - potentially high-income - professionals with punitive taxation, hate mongering, and wastage of their tax contributions.


----------



## tygrus

I am not from Ontario, but I truly feel sorry for them. Libs in power again, Fords still in Toronto. This is the reason I will never vote again in any election. Wherever there is money or entrenched interests, thats where corrupt players go to and we then get them as our leaders. Doesn't even matter which party name anymore.

Personally, I have set up my life and my business in accordance. I have used all of the small business tax advantages in order to pay the most minimal taxes back to this corrupt establishment. I will not contribute to corruption.


----------



## MrMatt

HaroldCrump said:


> It is interesting to observe...just on this CMF forum...how many folks have seemingly abandoned Ontario and moved westwards.
> 
> Granted, CMF is probably not a good sampling given the preponderance of well educated, skilled, employed individuals (most with healthy investment portfolios as well), however, the trend is telling.
> This is classic "brain drain" i.e. human capital fleeing for greener pastures.
> 
> Eventually human capital drain becomes a financial capital drain when the abandoned province misses out on all the tax revenues.
> 
> This is what happens when you have long-term, entrenched governments that punish successful - potentially high-income - professionals with punitive taxation, hate mongering, and wastage of their tax contributions.


If it weren't for friends and family, I'd already be gone, but as good jobs continue to get scarce, unless you want to live in Toronto, the pressure is mounting.

That's really what this election was, Toronto is happy with the status quo, they're getting lots of tax dollars in infrastructure, and they're home to lots of the high paying government jobs. 
The Liberals have shown they're willing to spend billions to keep Toronto ridings happy.

They don't care what impact they have on the rest of the province, as long as they keep the Toronto votes, how many of the wind farms are there in Liberal ridings?

That's what the PCs didn't quite grasp, the Liberals have been awesome to Toronto. Also the million jobs plan was effectively respun as the 100k pink slip plan, which considering how "good things are" wasn't going to fly.

I was shocked when I heard a Wynne, "keep the good times going" themed ad, I wondered if they really are that out of touch, and apparently as far as election results show, I'm the one that doesn't get it.


----------



## gibor365

I can say only one thing....I'm embarrassed to live in this province  ... bunch of idiots....


----------



## HaroldCrump

We used to be the 2nd most stupid province...but now, with the Quebecers kicking out the PQ, I suppose are officially the first.


----------



## marina628

carverman said:


> It's a flawed pension plan. There should be a option available for the self employed to join the OPP and for those that feel they have enough pension already to opt out.


Self employed have option to pull a pay cheque as an employee so can contribute if they want much like we do for CPP.


----------



## gibor365

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...-live-riding-by-riding-breakdown-of-the-vote/
_Ontario Liberal landslide — with only about a third of the votes — is a powerful new argument for election reform_

This is what i was talking for a long time and in another thread on CMF.... The current Election system is ridiculous.... How Libs can get majority government if only 38.7% popular vote voted for them?! Ridiculous!!!


----------



## Toronto.gal

*Harold:* You mentioned the possibility of this gov. remaining in power until 2022, and though certainly not impossible, I think the more likely outcome in 4 years, will be a defeat as crushing as last night's victory was.

But should the out to lunch folks not wake up by then, it will be hello to a new place.


----------



## peterk

HaroldCrump said:


> This is classic "brain drain" i.e. human capital fleeing for greener pastures.
> 
> Eventually human capital drain becomes a financial capital drain when the abandoned province misses out on all the tax revenues.
> 
> This is what happens when you have long-term, entrenched governments that punish successful - potentially high-income - professionals with punitive taxation, hate mongering, and wastage of their tax contributions.


I mean I like Ontario. The only non-economic thing Alberta has going for it is the Mountains. Lakes and beaches, culture, dozens of closely spaced cities, diversity of landscapes/vegetation, proximity to East coast USA and Europe. Ontario has got Alberta beat hands-down in Quality of Province...

But I can only get a job that pays me 70k if I live there, maybe 90k if I moved up north. Compared to 130k in Fort Mac, or 100k in Calgary, it's a no brainer.

And that is for a professional. Any young person interested in the trades and working in Ontario should have their head checked! You'll make double or triple or quadruple what you do in Ontario if you come to Alberta!


----------



## gibor365

Toronto.gal said:


> *Harold:* You mentioned the possibility of this gov. remaining in power until 2022,


If there won't be election reform, it's very possible ... Libs will increase number of government workers again and again (the next increase -> they will hire new stuff to manage new onratio pension plan)... thus, they will be unbeatable....


----------



## marina628

Well guys I cant talk to my friends , family or neighbors on my facebook page since they are all teachers or firemen lol .I am just so glad not to be muzzled here lol .But for weeks even my new neighbors who i met for first time told me I should vote for liberals or they would be out of a job ,he works with school board and she is hospital worker.My niece is a teacher grade 6 with 3 years on the job and earned $78,000 last year not including the benefits.Be interesting to see how things play out in coming weeks and months.


----------



## HaroldCrump

MrMatt said:


> Toronto is happy with the status quo, they're getting lots of tax dollars in infrastructure, and they're home to lots of the *high paying government jobs*.


Toronto & Ottawa.
Yes, life's indeed grand if you are a public sector worker - either directly for the province or any of its myriad agencies, corps, etc.
The future is so bright for them that they need sunshades.


----------



## gibor365

Is there any statistics on the Web about election results by age, education, country of origin and so on?


----------



## pnky

marina628 said:


> Well guys I cant talk to my friends , family or neighbors on my facebook page since they are all teachers or firemen lol .I am just so glad not to be muzzled here lol .But for weeks even my new neighbors who i met for first time told me I should vote for liberals or they would be out of a job ,he works with school board and she is hospital worker.My niece is a teacher grade 6 with 3 years on the job and earned $78,000 last year not including the benefits.Be interesting to see how things play out in coming weeks and months.


There has been intensive lobbying by the unions. My 9 year old son was telling me yesterday that Tim Hudak is "going to fire 1 million people, perhaps his teacher too" and then hire a fresh million people. He got this at school


----------



## HaroldCrump

Toronto.gal said:


> *Harold:* You mentioned the possibility of this gov. remaining in power until 2022, and though certainly not impossible, I think the more likely outcome in 4 years


Don't underestimate the power of stupidity, corruption, and graft.
gibor mentioned above that over the next 4 years, they will hire more and more public workers.

Probably 100K _*a year*_ is my bet - the same amount that Hudak wanted to "lay off" over 8 years.

As the saying goes - _If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote_.


----------



## HaroldCrump

gibor said:


> Is there any statistics on the Web about election results by age, education, country of origin and so on?


That is not possible.
Ballots are secret.
The best you can get is demographics by ridings, and then compare against results in that riding.


----------



## Toronto.gal

gibor said:


> Is there any statistics on the Web about election results by age, education, country of origin and so on?


You don't really need stats. to have a good idea.

When it comes to age, the 18+ to 30 or so group, most likely knew more details about the Kardashian wedding than the election.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Leaving aside last night's results, this election campaign has made another trend very clear, which is far more disturbing than the Liberal majority -

It is the fact that our so-called public services - especially essential security services like police & fire - are no longer apolitical and arms-length.
They are aggressively campaigning for, and advocating, political parties that are more amenable to their interests.
And _interests_ are essentially their compensation, time-off, and other negotiated benefits.

So effectively, groups that are bound by oath and contracts to provide services have now become highly political and vested interest groups.
If or when a political party gets elected that is not amenable to their interests, expect widespread stoppages and poor service quality.

Used to be the case with only some groups such as teachers, transit drivers, etc...but now it is police, fire and hospital staff as well.


----------



## marina628

pnky said:


> There has been intensive lobbying by the unions. My 9 year old son was telling me yesterday that Tim Hudak is "going to fire 1 million people, perhaps his teacher too" and then hire a fresh million people. He got this at school


My daughter is in grade 5 and that was one of the things in a video they were shown too.


----------



## Toronto.gal

HaroldCrump said:


> Don't underestimate the power of stupidity, corruption, and graft.


Oh, I would never do that! I was just thinking about all the endless deteriorating possibilities ahead.....LOTS will happen in 4 years.

I dreamt that Ms.Wynne will resign à la McGuinty style.


----------



## kcowan

I was surprised to see Oakville and Burlington switch. I guess they have been taken over by government-funded families.


----------



## HaroldCrump

kcowan said:


> I was surprised to see Oakville and Burlington switch. I guess they have been taken over by government-funded families.


Yup, Burlington is a _bedroom community _full of people working in Toronto and taking the Lakeshore GO train morning and evening.
It is just a matter of %s that a large number of them are govt. workers in Toronto (and of course the City of Burlington).

Oakville is a union infested ex manufacturing dead zone.
No surprise where that vote went.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Toronto.gal said:


> I dreamt that Ms.Wynne will resign à la McGuinty style


It's possible...in 2018.
The LPO will rinse and repeat...a new leader will be appointed, who will apologize profusely on TV for all the corruption, lies, deceit, and sleaze.
High profile supporters will say _meh, it's water under the bridge_ circa 2014 Hazel McCallion

And voters will reward them with another term until 2022.
I guess I am more cynical than usual this morning.


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> *Harold:* You mentioned the possibility of this gov. remaining in power until 2022, and though certainly not impossible, I think the more likely outcome in 4 years, w*ill be a defeat as crushing as last night's victory was.*


This is my perspective as well T.G. I know that all 3 parties are broke right now and need to fill their coffers again to do anything partisan, even run a leadership convention for the PC,
but in a years time they should be able to recover at least financially.
the PCs need two things to even think of running a election campaign again.
1. A fresh new face, without the "common sense revolution" skeletons in the closet attached to the new leader
2. A proper well thought out campaign plan where they focus on "Building Ontario"...not cut! cut! cut!


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> I know that all 3 parties are broke right now and need to fill their coffers again


This is not entirely true.
The PCs are indeed broke.
One of the campaign coordinators of the PC party admitted last night that their campaign budget was badly constrained.

On the other hand, the Liberals had a carte blanche.
They were extremely well funded by the Working Families Coalition - the progressive (sic), union-backed, liberal Super PAC.
The Wynne campaign was told to do _whatever it takes_ to "Stop Hudak".

Hudak did not make the usual types of promises that garner large campaign donations from big businesses, such as cut corporate taxes to 0, grant unlimited mining rights, build infrastructure exclusively through PPP, etc.
In fact, he said he would _cut_ special grants and subsidies to big businesses.

Hudak's mistake is that he did not make any grandiose promises.


----------



## Toronto.gal

^^ Great minds think alike. :wink:

*Harold:* I meant resigning in 2015. Thank goodness for dreams. :biggrin:


----------



## andrewf

MoneyGal said:


> This parent (me) took my dyslexic kid out of the public school system entirely rather than risk that outcome.


That works for the upper middle class. It would be a shame to give up on the children of people who cannot afford private education.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> This is not entirely true.
> The PCs are indeed broke.
> One of the campaign coordinators of the PC party admitted last night that their campaign budget was badly constrained.
> 
> On the other hand, the Liberals had a carte blanche.


Well, I stand corrected, I suppose the NDP are also propped up with lots of cash to further the goals of the unions?
This election turned out to be a "war" in disguise when the Police unions also got involved...you can't stop the "juggernault" once it starts rolling. The unions were very p*ssed off. 



> Hudak's mistake is that he did not make any grandiose promises.


In a "war" strategic planning is everything..Hudak came into the election campaign thinking it was still 2002 and the common sense revolution could be re-instated. 
The million "dollar" jobs promise was just that....a pipe dream offered to try offset the cuts...didn't work.


----------



## gibor365

marina628 said:


> My daughter is in grade 5 and that was one of the things in a video they were shown too.


My daughter is in Grade 7 and she also mentioned that school management was promoting Libs, my daughter was the only one in the school who openly supported PC ... she mentioned that there are a lot of stuff in the scholl doing litterally nothing ...


----------



## Nemo2

gibor said:


> My daughter is in Grade 7 and she also mentioned that school management was promoting Libs, my daughter was the only one in the school who openly supported PC ... she mentioned that there are a lot of stuff in the scholl doing litterally nothing ...


In a fair world, (like _that's_ gonna happen), any such politicizing would/should be grounds for instant dismissal......(which of course it would be if anyone on the right had attempted it).


----------



## gibor365

carverman said:


> The million "dollar" jobs promise was just that....a pipe dream offered to try offset the cuts...didn't work.


This was his biggest mistake ... He never should've tell those round numbers: lay off 100,000 gov workers, create 1,000,000 working places.... his advisors sucked..... He should've tell that he wants to lay off limited gov workers who doing nothing....as each of those workers thinks that they "doing something"


----------



## gibor365

Nemo2 said:


> In a fair world, (like _that's_ gonna happen), any such politicizing would/should be grounds for instant dismissal......(which of course it would be if anyone on the right had attempted it).


But , the point is they will never tell directly: "vote Libs"  

In a fair world , representation in Parlament should be popular vote: 
Lib 38.7%
PC 31.2%
NDP 23.7%
GRN 4.8%


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> Well, I stand corrected, I suppose the NDP are also propped up with lots of cash to further the goals of the unions?


Not this time.
The unions openly abandoned the NDP, although I am sure their hardcore base (esp. in Northern Ontario) still voted NDP.
The public sector union bosses were p*ed off with Horwath for voting down a budget that was tailor made for the benefit of public sector unions.

It had everything...tax the evil "rich" people, hire more govt. workers, massive deficit spending, and so on - no wonder the unions were upset with Horwath.



> The million "dollar" jobs promise was just that....a pipe dream


You mean vis-à-vis the pipe dream of a budget balanced magically in 2016?
And a _pension-in-every-pot _by 2018.
And a high speed rail line from Windsor to Toronto by 2019, with a $10 per ride ticket.

#Hilarious


----------



## MoneyGal

andrewf said:


> That works for the upper middle class. It would be a shame to give up on the children of people who cannot afford private education.


Understood completely. I'm not giving up on anyone else's kid - still pay my full freight of property tax (and keep another kid in public school). I look at what is available for other kids with learning disabilities in the public system and I'm not willing to risk that outcome for my own kid.


----------



## andrewf

I respect that, but it means we are currently failing all those kids.


----------



## peterk

Call me crazy, but I think that number of votes should be based on taxes paid. Maybe everyone gets 1 vote as a base, but if you make more money (and pay more taxes) then you should get more votes! Of course that would be "unfair"... No doubt the same kind of unfairness as the rich who aren't paying their "fair share"...


----------



## bgc_fan

gibor said:


> But , the point is they will never tell directly: "vote Libs"
> 
> In a fair world , representation in Parlament should be popular vote:
> Lib 38.7%
> PC 31.2%
> NDP 23.7%
> GRN 4.8%


I assume that you would agree with that representation for the federal level as well:
Con 39.6% - 122 seats instead of 166
NDP 30.6% - 94 seats instead of 103
Lib 18.9% - 58 seats instead of 34
PQ 6.0% - 18 seats instead of 0
Grn 3.9% - 12 seats instead of 1

Or is it only when your party of choice loses that you bring this up?


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> As Christine Blizzard put it, get ready for a horror show starting on Friday the 13th.


Better get the movie then...or get on motorcycle and head out to Port Dover On. Big celebration in the summer months onj Friday the 13th.

http://www.680news.com/2014/06/13/bikers-gather-in-port-dover-for-friday-the-13th/



> It would be a risible outcome, if it wasn't for the consequences that might follow. Carverman, I don't believe anyone participating here had predicted that the Conservatives would win, quite the contrary, even after the debate.


Good to know that the "common sense revolution" is still alive and well on CMF. :biggrin:



> I read it was another record low voter turnout; one source put it at 46%/another around 50%, and that was both surprising and surprisingly apathetic, but as Nemo put it, people neither understand, nor care to do so.


You will always have that in any election..most prefer to do other things like watch the World Soccer Cup. 



> Now let's see how Ms. Wynne will build Ontario up with her and Mr. Sousa's superior math, and how long before the explosion of broken-promises/fibs/scandals/slash-and-burn begins. I do not envy her, and I think it will be a very tough 4 years for Ms. Wynne.


Well you have to understand T.G. that she is not the only one running the show..she has ministers and advisors, thinktanks-brain drains, lobbyists etc..and they all tend to influence the decisions
made for us. Get a few bad apples on your team and scandals will appear sooner..or later. But from her victory speech..at least for now..she has Ontarioans at heart..and that's a good thing
as Martha would say.



> Mr. Hudak would of course resign, and I agree with Carverman that Ms. Horwath should have done same, although I believe her party would have won more seats had Ms. Wynne's message that a vote for the orange team = a vote for Mr. Hudak hadn't been so effective in the end.


There was so much mudlslinging this past week and attack ads, that it got REALLY UGLY! Hudak is a two time loser and it makes sense he should resign..it would be really embarrassing to
have him run a THIRD time in 4 years..and lose again. If the horse is nearly dead..you take it behind the barn and shoot it as a well known outspoken Dragon's Den financial guru would say.




> *'This is the big issue: The province is out of money....Premier Wynne, clearly, is not one who'd prefer to lead a slush-and-burn government. It doesn't matter. That's what she's going to have to do
> *


* You can always find banks to lend money for infrastructure building..the Chinese would be more than glad..I'm sure.*


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> I respect that, but it means we are currently failing all those kids.


Some will fail on their own without our help.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Not this time.
> The unions openly abandoned the NDP, although I am sure their hardcore base (esp. in Northern Ontario) still voted NDP.
> The public sector union bosses were p*ed off with Horwath for voting down a budget that was tailor made for the benefit of public sector unions.
> 
> It had everything...tax the evil "rich" people, hire more govt. workers, massive deficit spending, and so on - no wonder the unions were upset with Horwath.


I don't think she will be around for the next election in 4 years time as a leader of the provincial NDP..her visibilty as the one that triggered the election and did not improve the NDP's
chances of forming a gov't will not go unoticed. I expect she will resign as leader at some point and just keep her MPP status. She. like Hudak doesn't have a clue on how to run the
province effectively.



> You mean vis-à-vis the pipe dream of a budget balanced magically in 2016?
> And a _pension-in-every-pot _by 2018.
> And a high speed rail line from Windsor to Toronto by 2019, with a $10 per ride ticket.
> #Hilarious


Well sometimes..sometimes dreams can become a reality...like winning the 649 on Friday the 13th.


----------



## buaya

Reading all the comments on this and other forums, it seems that the Liberals win got everyone here really upset. I do not know why, but the majority of those who voted had spoken and quite strongly too. Here are my thoughts on some of the comments I read.
1. Blaming the Union, OPP ads etc. This is so similar to the PQ blaming big money and the immigrant votes when they lost their referendum.
2. Give the individual voters more credit. They are not sheep that are that easily influenced by their unions.
3. The demographics of some ridings have changed but the PC did not. For example, in Milton (faster growing community) I know Ted Chudleigh personally. He won the last 4 elections. He was handily defeated this time. Not even close. Why? He forgot that his core group of supporters have either died or sold their farms and move away. 
4. Trinity Spadina. The Liberal candidate defeated the NDP incumbent. Again easily. Why? He virtually knocked on every door, some even twice during the campaign. 
Times are changing. Watching and hearing some of the comments of the defeated PC candidates remind me of whiny, bitter old men. Get over it. You lost.
Lastly, I did not watch the debate or any of the leaders when they were campaigning, but I watch their speeches on election night. Wynn was the most impressive. One of the panelist on CBC said that during the campaign, she was the most genuine of the 3 leaders. Tim Hudak seems to have this fake smile on him the whole time. True story. I attended a Ontario PC fundraiser for the first time just before the 2011 election. When Tim Hudak came to our table to speak to us, I was so turned off by that fake smile of his and some of his mannerism. 
Lastly, personally, I think the voters of Ontario made a good choice. I am a small business owner. I just bought another small manufacturer because I believe that we are starting to move into a period of growth in the next 5 years.


----------



## mrPPincer

Not a good day for Tea Party North obviously.

Not to worry friends; there's always 2018 

By then this whole evil "infrastructure" fiasco will have come to fruition and you will have your day!


----------



## andrewf

peterk said:


> Call me crazy, but I think that number of votes should be based on taxes paid. Maybe everyone gets 1 vote as a base, but if you make more money (and pay more taxes) then you should get more votes! Of course that would be "unfair"... No doubt the same kind of unfairness as the rich who aren't paying their "fair share"...


So, the US model?


----------



## andrewf

I think all the Liberal haters here are totally failing to understand the perspective of people they disagree with. Something to work on, perhaps. The fact is that people right of the Liberal party will always be a minority, so for the PCs to gain power, they have to appeal to nearly half of the current Liberal vote. That means putting lots of water in your wine. If they continue to flog Ayn Rand-inspired policies, they had better get very comfortable on the opposition benches.


----------



## sags

Kathleen Wynne deserved the majority win.

She was by far the best prepared leader, and put together the best team to run a campaign.

Hudak and Howarth both failed to show the type of leadership qualities necessary to transition Ontario into a new era of prosperity.

Wynne had the right policies for the times in which we live. 

Transit.........infrastructure........partnerships with business........development of the Ring of Fire resources......an Ontario Pension Plan.

This is what resonated with voters.........and it is why the Liberals won a sweeping victory.


----------



## Nemo2

Out in the car today....radio on....interview with PC operative.......saying "We never had an opportunity to say this.....or...we should have clarified that...etc." Reminded me of the old quote by Casey Stengel: "Can't anybody here play this game?"


----------



## carverman

MoneyGal said:


> The price (affordability) depends on forced participation. Ever wonder why annuities are 'so expensive'? Because not everyone buys them.


It's more to do with the insurance companies RIPPING OFF the consumer who buys them. A sizeable portion of your investment money is taken by brokers and the insurance companies
to manage the fund. It's just another way insurance companies "scam" the uniformed consumer. 



> With an annuity, you make a lump sum investment with an insurance company, either directly or through a broker, and the *money is invested during an accumulation phase to be paid out at a later time, either as one large payment or as a stream of payments. **The many fees associated with purchasing an annuity may cut into your return*. In addition to fees and commissions you pay your broker, you may also pay additional fees associated with the investment options you choose for your annuity. For instance, if you direct some of your annuity investment for mutual funds, you may have to pay additional broker fees for the mutual funds. If you decide to make changes to how your money is allocated, transfer fees may occur. For instance, if you direct 1/3 of your money to stocks but then decide to move it to a mutual fund, you may have to pay an additional transfer fee.


----------



## carverman

buaya said:


> Reading all the comments on this and other forums, it seems that the Liberals win got everyone here really upset. I do not know why, but the majority of those who voted had spoken and quite strongly too. Here are my thoughts on some of the comments I read.
> 1. Blaming the Union, OPP ads etc. This is so similar to the PQ blaming big money and the immigrant votes when they lost their referendum.
> 2. Give the individual voters more credit. *They are not sheep that are that easily influenced by their unions.*


They are part of the "flock" that feared job losses within their own union brotherhood. ...baaaaaa-aaaaaa!


> 3. The demographics of some ridings have changed but the PC did not. For example, in Milton (faster growing community) I know Ted Chudleigh personally. He won the last 4 elections. He was handily defeated this time. Not even close. Why? *He forgot that his core group of supporters have either died or sold their farms and move away.*


Demographics do change so that should come as no surprise, especially in progressive areas where there is a lot of change/development. 
That land that once was a farm sold to a developer after the original owner farmer has retired or died. 



> 4. Trinity Spadina. The Liberal candidate defeated the NDP incumbent. Again easily. Why? He virtually knocked on every door, some even twice during the campaign.
> Times are changing. Watching and hearing some of the comments of the defeated PC candidates remind me of whiny, bitter old men. Get over it. You lost.


I


> Trinity-Spadina is predominately an ethnic Chinese riding (Chinatown) and that would have some bearing on the former NDP incumbent who held the seat since 1999. The new comer is Han Dong Liberal.
> It makes a lot of sense that the ethnic vote would go to him rather than the incumbent Marchese, especially since Marchese didn't have much to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> the voters of Ontario made a good choice. I am a small business owner. I just bought another small manufacturer because I believe that we are starting to move into a period of growth in the next 5 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Kathleen Wynne in her post victory appearance on camera today, vowed more transparency and she would make good her promises to help the people of Ontario.
Click to expand...


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Kathleen Wynne deserved the majority win.
> 
> She was by far the best prepared leader, and put together the best team to run a campaign.
> 
> *Hudak and Howarth both failed to show the type of leadership qualities necessary to transition Ontario into a new era of prosperity.
> *
> Wynne had the right policies for the times in which we live.
> 
> Transit.........infrastructure........partnerships with business........development of the Ring of Fire resources......an Ontario Pension Plan.
> 
> This is what resonated with voters.........and it is why the Liberals won a sweeping victory.


The other thing sags; is that the people of Ontario decided to stick with the Liberals because the other two did not offer any significant improvements over what has happened,
or yet to take place.
Horwath pretty much ran her campaign on promising to lift the HST on hydro bills, but even if she actually had won (by some remote chance) , 
she would have no power (as premier) to lift the GST portion of the hydro bill that was there before McGuinty harmonized the sales taxes. and placed another 8% financial burden on households. This was flawed on her part just as much as Hudak's "million jobs math". If I remember back at the last election when McGuinty brought out the HST, she solicited
people in Ontario to fill the NDP coffers with political donations so she could "fight the implementation of the HST" which she was unable to do in the long run. She lost credibility
with me.

She and her unionist party would not make any significant improvements for Ontario either. She didn't have a sound platform to take to the voters of Ontario neither was she prepared after she decided to pull the rug from under Wynne's feet and trigger an election that was unnecessary and didn't change the outcome anyway other than relegate her now to backbencher status!


----------



## MrMatt

buaya said:


> Lastly, personally, I think the voters of Ontario made a good choice. I am a small business owner. I just bought another small manufacturer because I believe that we are starting to move into a period of growth in the next 5 years.


As a small business owner, aren't you concerned about;
Increases in payroll taxes and the new Ontario Pension costs?
Further increases in Hydro
More increases in minimum wage?
The upcoming tax hikes? Our debt is growing like crazy, and the budget isn't close to balanced, big tax hikes are coming.
The next multi million/multi billion dollar mistake/fraud?

Most of what I heard from the Pro Liberal side are simply that they think the Liberals have been doing a good job, or that Hudak would fire teachers and nurses, which wasn't even in his platform (in fact he called for increasing the number of nursing spots at schools to help cover the SHORTAGE of nurses)


----------



## carverman

MrMatt said:


> Most of what I heard from the Pro Liberal side are simply that they think the Liberals have been doing a good job, or that Hudak would fire teachers and nurses, which wasn't even in his platform (in fact he called for increasing the number of nursing spots at schools to help cover the SHORTAGE of nurses)


All that we the voters heard was that he was going to "fire 100,000 people in the public service" to pay down the debt.
If you happen to be a nurse, or teacher, or police/fire or any other gov't function..wouldn't you be worried about the future of YOUR JOB and vote Liberal.."Stop Hudak!"

That's exactly what happened in the last weeks with the attack ads. Maybe Hudak had good intentions..but all the public heard was CUT! cut! cUT! ..elminate 100,000 jobs from the payrolls,
stop the infrastructure spending, freeze wages....yada yada yada. It started to sound too much like Harris' "common sense revolution"..which was a dismal failure in strategy..and
a few people in Walkerton lost their lives because of that, score were permanently injured and there are still multi-million dollar class action lawsuits against the gov't of Ontario that
will be added to the nearly 300 Billion of debt.
But...it seemed like a good idea at the time.


----------



## buaya

MrMatt said:


> As a small business owner, aren't you concerned about;
> Increases in payroll taxes and the new Ontario Pension costs?
> Further increases in Hydro
> More increases in minimum wage?
> The upcoming tax hikes? Our debt is growing like crazy, and the budget isn't close to balanced, big tax hikes are coming.
> The next multi million/multi billion dollar mistake/fraud?
> 
> Most of what I heard from the Pro Liberal side are simply that they think the Liberals have been doing a good job, or that Hudak would fire teachers and nurses, which wasn't even in his platform (in fact he called for increasing the number of nursing spots at schools to help cover the SHORTAGE of nurses)


I had been a small business owner since 1980. During this time, I have NEVER paid minimum wage to any of my employees. That is not even a factor. Over the years, many changes had been made to the payroll, CPP, EI or other so call payroll taxes. OHIP that an individual use to pay themselves was shifted to a payroll tax. Guess what, at that time I had 6 employees. I had already agreed to pay for their OHIP. 
Ontario Pension Plan. I will wait and see the final draft. But guess what. It does not matter to me. As a small business these things do not affect us that much. Maybe if we have 50 employees, it does.
To me, being a small business owner, the main thing is to make a decent living, treat my employees well, pay them a fair wage for their skills. 
Hydro rates. Yes they are going up as well as gas prices. It is part of doing business. We cannot always increase our prices to reflect it. This year, with the coldest winter we had in a long time, my hydro cost was 3 times as much for Jan/Feb/Mar. It is a fact that we have to learn to live with. Part of the cost of doing business.
Another example. The low Canadian dollar vs the US dollar. It cost me 10-15% more in the raw materials we buy, but guess what - we are seeing an increase in business from some of our customers who use to buy directly from the US.
All I am saying is that if you look around and talk to some small business owners, we are starting to see an up swing in business. We are getting positive vibes and not negative ones that I had been reading about here and elsewhere. To me, the past few years, after the financial crisis of 2008, businesses that were inefficient were squeezed out leaving those that survived more healthier and able to take advantage of new business.
Take GM. When they were making cars in 3 shifts just to be the #1 automaker and literally selling them below their cost just to move them. Everyone knows what happen.
Look around. Small business (10 employees or less) have never been better. We, the owners, have never felt more positive. My wife had just sign a contract to spend $10,000 just to landscape the front and back of her house. Nothing major - about 300 square feet in all. And she had just paid $2,000 to paint the exterior windows and doors. It is just a small semi.


----------



## MoneyGal

carverman said:


> It's more to do with the insurance companies RIPPING OFF the consumer who buys them. A sizeable portion of your investment money is taken by brokers and the insurance companies
> to manage the fund. It's just another way insurance companies "scam" the uniformed consumer.


I don't seem to be able to quote your second quote, but it looks like you are quoting from an American source - where the word "annuity" has quite a different meaning than in Canada. There is no opportunity to "chose an investment return" or "make changes to how your money is allocated" for an annuity in Canada, where the term is limited to single premium income annuities (sometimes called "payout annuities"). The U.S. market is very, very different from the Canadian market and the word "annuity" is not really comparable between Canada and the U.S.


----------



## carverman

MoneyGal said:


> I don't seem to be able to quote your second quote, but it looks like you are quoting from an American source - where the word "annuity" has quite a different meaning than in Canada. There is no opportunity to "chose an investment return" or "make changes to how your money is allocated" for an annuity in Canada, where the term is limited to single premium income annuities (sometimes called "payout annuities"). The U.S. market is very, very different from the Canadian market and the word "annuity" is not really comparable between Canada and the U.S.


My apologies M.G..but in my case with my Nortel DB pension being collapsed and not knowing how many years I may have left, I have only two options offered on the table when the pension plan is wound up.
an annuity with an insurance company or a LIF...I've haven't explored the options completely, because I'm waiting to be formally notified by the pension plan trustees (Morneau-Sobeco), the amount of the acturized lump sum from the existing pension plan that I am entitled to (DB plan), and how I wish to invest it in those two options.

So far I've l heard from a few people is to ..."stay away from annuities, as the insurance companies take some of the money for administering the fund".


----------



## carverman

buaya said:


> IMy wife had just sign a contract to spend *$10,000 just to landscape the front and back of her house. Nothing major - about 300 square feet in all.* And she had just paid $2,000 to paint the exterior windows and doors. It is just a small semi.


Yowsa! $10,000 for 300 square feet? What are the bricks made of... Gold? :biggrin:

That's $33 for each square foot. I had an interesting experience with a interlock landscape guy on Kijji. He made big mess and I had to fire him, but all it cost me was $250 for his 3 days of work. 
I bought the interlock bricks 160 square feet ($4.50 sq ft) $720 and had them delivered @ $125 to my place. a cubic yard of stone dust and cubic
yard of Granular A and the replacement contractor is quoting $1200.00 to finish the job..about $2,000 all told (included HST)


----------



## Beaver101

buaya said:


> *I had been a small business owner since 1980*. During this time, I have NEVER paid minimum wage to any of my employees. That is not even a factor. Over the years, many changes had been made to the payroll, CPP, EI or other so call payroll taxes. OHIP that an individual use to pay themselves was shifted to a payroll tax. Guess what, at that time I had 6 employees. I had already agreed to pay for their OHIP.
> Ontario Pension Plan. I will wait and see the final draft. But guess what. It does not matter to me. As a small business these things do not affect us that much. Maybe if we have 50 employees, it does.
> To me, being a small business owner, the main thing is to make a decent living, treat my employees well, pay them a fair wage for their skills.
> Hydro rates. Yes they are going up as well as gas prices. It is part of doing business. We cannot always increase our prices to reflect it. This year, with the coldest winter we had in a long time, my hydro cost was 3 times as much for Jan/Feb/Mar. It is a fact that we have to learn to live with. Part of the cost of doing business.
> Another example. The low Canadian dollar vs the US dollar. It cost me 10-15% more in the raw materials we buy, but guess what - we are seeing an increase in business from some of our customers who use to buy directly from the US.
> All I am saying is that if you look around and talk to some small business owners, we are starting to see an up swing in business. We are getting positive vibes and not negative ones that I had been reading about here and elsewhere. To me, the past few years, after the financial crisis of 2008, businesses that were inefficient were squeezed out leaving those that survived more healthier and able to take advantage of new business.
> Take GM. When they were making cars in 3 shifts just to be the #1 automaker and literally selling them below their cost just to move them. Everyone knows what happen.
> Look around. *Small business (10 employees or less) have never been better. We, the owners, have never felt more positive. *My wife had just sign a contract to spend $10,000 just to landscape the front and back of her house. Nothing major - about 300 square feet in all. And she had just paid $2,000 to paint the exterior windows and doors. It is just a small semi.


 ... hard to believe ... but then I guess it depends on what "kind" of "small" business you're in that you feel so overly positive about paying more taxes, higher costs of doing business, more competition, etc.


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ... hard to believe ... but then I guess it depends on what "kind" of "small" business you're in that you feel so overly positive about paying more taxes, higher costs of doing business, more competition, etc.


Cost of living practically doubles every 40years, if you take 2% inflation per year 10 year = 20-25% more than it did 10 years ago and that is an average. I remember in the 70s..I bought my house in the Danforth-Woodbine area for $28K..yes $28K..I was making about $7500 a year at the recording studio in /71. Now that same house would be at least 400K+ .
19'72-2012 = 40 years...if REAL INFLATION is closer to 2% per year over 40 years, things cost at least 80% more these days.
It really doesn't matter how gets in...taxes, consumer goods (except for Asian made maybe) and services keep going up and up regardkess, 
Yeara ago yiou could run a business with an accountant maybe, now it takes a computer for inventory and an accountant.


----------



## kcowan

carverman said:


> Yowsa! $10,000 for 300 square feet? What are the bricks made of... Gold? :biggrin:
> 
> That's $33 for each square foot. I had an interesting experience with a interlock landscape guy on Kijji. He made big mess and I had to fire him, but all it cost me was $250 for his 3 days of work.


I suspect there are some planters being constructed and populated with trees and shrubs. That cost is substantially higher. But acting as general contractor should reduce the price. Plus a fixed price already has a buffer for risk built into the price.


----------



## Beaver101

carverman said:


> Cost of living practically doubles every 40years, if you take 2% inflation per year 10 year = 20-25% more than it did 10 years ago and that is an average. I remember in the 70s..*I bought my house in the Danforth-Woodbine area for $28K..yes $28K*..I was making about $7500 a year at the recording studio in /71. *Now that same house would be at least 400K+ *.
> 19'72-2012 = 40 years...if REAL INFLATION is closer to 2% per year over 40 years, things cost at least 80% more these days.
> It really doesn't matter how gets in...taxes, consumer goods (except for Asian made maybe) and services keep going up and up regardkess,
> Yeara ago yiou could run a business with an accountant maybe, now it takes a computer for inventory and an accountant.


 ... the cost of your house back then on the Danforth/Woodbine sounds about right during those times ... now the same house at least $400K+, try $600K+ with the hot house market (still) in TO. 

I think "real" inflation in the past 40 years was way more than a 2% average ... recall interest rates in the mid-80s were more than 10% ... it went up as much as 18% to 22% if I recall... depending if you were lending or borrowing and where.


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ... the cost of your house back then on the Danforth/Woodbine sounds about right during those times ... now the same house maybe more than $400K+, try $600K+ with the hot house market (still) in TO.
> 
> I think "real" inflation in the past 40 years was way more than a 2% average ... recall interest rates in the mid-80s were more than 10% ... it went up as much as 18% to 22% if I recall... depending if you were lending or borrowing and where.


Beav..I don't know if you remember the 70s..but HISTORY DOES REPEAT ITSELF..and Tim Hudak (although he was running for Premier not Prime Minister) has a lot of parallels with PC Prime Minister Joe Clark.
or Joe "Who?" as he was referred to in those days.
Beav..I was using 2% as a median..Yes, you are correct that for most years it was well above 2%. Take gasoline for instance. When I was living in Mississauga in 79, the cost of gasoline (Joe "Who" Clark
was PM) was just under $1.00 per IMPERIAL GALLON. Joe wanted to raise the gasoline taxes and back then that was "scandalous!" . An election was called over this!..and he lost the election to Trudeau.



> *Large budget deficits, high inflation, and high unemployment made the Liberal government unpopular. Trudeau had put off asking the Canadian Governor General to call an election as long as possible, in the hope that his party could recover popular support but it backfired, as there was growing public antipathy towards his perceived arrogance. Clark campaigned on the slogans, "Let's get Canada working again," and "It's time for a change - give the future a chance!"
> *
> In the latter half of the campaign, the Liberals focused their attacks on Clark's perceived inexperience. Their advertisements claimed "This is no time for on-the-job training," and "We need tough leadership to keep Canada growing. A leader must be a leader." Clark played into their hands by appearing bumbling and unsure in public.
> 
> When Clark undertook a tour of the Middle East in order to show his ability to handle foreign affairs issues, his luggage was lost, and Clark appeared to be uncomfortable with the issues being discussed. That incident was widely lampooned by Toronto Sun cartoonist Andy Donato. During the same tour, while inspecting a military honour guard, Clark turned too soon and nearly bumped into a soldier's bayonet; one of the first major media reports on the incident claimed, with some exaggeration, that he had nearly been beheaded.
> 
> Clark was bilingual but the PC party was also unable to make much headway in Quebec, which continued to be federally dominated by the Liberals. While Clark's 1976 leadership rivals were prominent in that province, Claude Wagner had left politics and recently died, while Brian Mulroney was still bitter about his loss and turned down an offer to serve under Clark.
> 
> Nonetheless, Clark's Progressive Conservatives won 136 seats to end sixteen continuous years of Liberal rule. The Progressive Conservatives won the popular vote in seven provinces. They also made huge gains in Ontario, particularly in the Toronto suburbs. However, they were only able to win two seats in Quebec,* leaving them six seats short of a majority*. The Liberals lost 27 seats, including several high-profile cabinet ministers, and Trudeau announced his intention to step down as party leader.


T


> hough the election had been held in May, Parliament did not resume sitting until October, one of the longest break periods in Confederation.[5] The gas tax in the budget soured Clark's relationship with Ontario Premier Bill Davis, even though both were Red Tories. Even before the budget, the government was criticized for its perceived inexperience, such as in its handling of its campaign commitment to move Canada's embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.


*During the 1979 election campaign, Clark had promised to cut taxes to stimulate the economy*. However, o*nce in office he proposed a budget designed to curb inflation by slowing economic activity, and also proposed an 18 cent per gallon (4 cent per litre) tax on gasoline in order to reduce the budgetary deficit.*[8] Finance Minister John Crosbie touted the budget as "short term pain for long term gain." Though Clark had hoped this change in policy would work to his advantage, it actually earned him widespread animosity as a politician who could not keep his promises, even in such a short period.



> Clark's refusal to work with the Socreds, combined with the 18 cents per gallon, led to the defeat of the government in the House of Commons in December 1979. On December 13, NDP Finance Critic Bob Rae attached a rider to a budget bill declaring that "this House has lost confidence in the government." The five Socred MPs had demanded the tax revenues be allocated to Quebec and when that was turned down, they abstained, which ensured the vote's passage on a 139-133 margin.[5]
> 
> Clark was criticized for his "inability to do math" in failing to predict the outcome, not only because he was a minority situation, but also because three members of his caucus would be absent for the crucial budget vote, as one was ill and two were stuck abroad on official business. The Liberals by contrast had assembled their entire caucus, save one, for the occasion.[9]


Ater the Liberals got back in with Trudeau (again), they quietly changed over to the metric system, cut that $1.00 a imperial gallon cost to about 25c per litre and installed the taxes on each litre of gas quietly..
no body complained because they thought that gas at 29c a litre (1.16 for 4 litres) was a "bargain" compared to a $1.18 (with the tax per gallon that Joe C wanted to put on).
..baaaaa!..we are the gov'ts sheeple. 

So fast forward to June 2014, with the rising civil wars/instability in the M/E..we will be paying this weekend.,,$1.40 per litre or ($6.35 per IMPERIAL GALLON (4.54 liters)..
.we can now put all that political double crossing by both the tories and liberals in our proverbial "pipes" and smoke it.:biggrin:


----------



## Eclectic12

carverman said:


> It's more to do with the insurance companies RIPPING OFF the consumer who buys them. [Annuities]
> 
> A sizeable portion of your investment money is taken by brokers and the insurance companies to manage the fund...


Odd ... there isn't anywhere near the rant about rips in the pensions provided and yet the insurance companies are heavily involved in those as well.

Of course, most pensions aren't optional ...




carverman said:


> So far I've l heard from a few people is to ..."stay away from annuities, as the insurance companies take some of the money for administering the fund"...


*giggle* ... if that's the criteria then you are looking at a mattress or similar as whether it's visible or not, no one including the gov't administers money for free.

Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

carverman said:


> All that we the voters heard was that he was going to "fire 100,000 people in the public service" to pay down the debt...
> 
> That's exactly what happened in the last weeks with the attack ads. Maybe Hudak had good intentions..but all the public heard was CUT! cut! cUT!...


The stories in the media before ads started quoted Hudak as saying exactly that so from what I can tell, it's less about what voters "heard" and more about Hudak and his strategists.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

carverman said:


> ... It really doesn't matter how gets in...taxes, consumer goods (except for Asian made maybe) and services keep going up and up regardkess, Yeara ago yiou could run a business with an accountant maybe, now it takes a computer for inventory and an accountant.


Hmmm ... not sure what the point is ... maybe that computers are expensive?

If so, from what I've observed - the computer is cutting costs or providing services that the consumer demands (ex. ability to order online) from the business.

One can try to run a business without a computer but that's likely turn away customers and add a ton of manual labour costs.


Cheers


----------



## Beaver101

carverman said:


> Beav..I don't know if you remember the 70s..but HISTORY DOES REPEAT ITSELF..and Tim Hudak (although he was running for Premier not Prime Minister) has a lot of parallels with PC Prime Minister Joe Clark. ...or Joe "Who?" as he was referred to in those days.
> Beav..I was using 2% as a median..Yes, you are correct that for most years it was well above 2%. Take gasoline for instance. When I was living in Mississauga in 79, the cost of gasoline (Joe "Who" Clark
> was PM) was just under $1.00 per IMPERIAL GALLON. Joe wanted to raise the gasoline taxes and back then that was "scandalous!" . An election was called over this!..and he lost the election to Trudeau.
> *During the 1979 election campaign, Clark had promised to cut taxes to stimulate the economy*. However, o*nce in office he proposed a budget designed to curb inflation by slowing economic activity, and also proposed an 18 cent per gallon (4 cent per litre) tax on gasoline in order to reduce the budgetary deficit.*[8] Finance Minister John Crosbie touted the budget as "short term pain for long term gain." Though Clark had hoped this change in policy would work to his advantage, it actually earned him widespread animosity as a politician who could not keep his promises, even in such a short period.
> 
> Ater the Liberals got back in with Trudeau (again), they quietly changed over to the metric system, cut that $1.00 a imperial gallon cost to about 25c per litre and installed the taxes on each litre of gas quietly..
> no body complained because they thought that gas at 29c a litre (1.16 for 4 litres) was a "bargain" compared to a $1.18 (with the tax per gallon that Joe C wanted to put on).
> ..*baaaaa!..we are the gov'ts sheeple. *
> So fast forward to June 2014, with the rising civil wars/instability in the M/E..we will be paying this weekend.,,$1.40 per litre or ($6.35 per IMPERIAL GALLON (4.54 liters)..
> .*we can now put all that political double crossing by both the tories and liberals in our proverbial "pipes" and smoke it*.:biggrin:


 ... LOL! That's why I very much dislike politicians, so much for being "leaders" to lead a flock ... policitians = a bunch of skunks! I only have a vague memory of the 70s as was still a kid but vividly remember my dad's painful decision to pay the heating (oil) bill or cut down on groceries. The former won since he didn't want to pay the over 30 days late penalty charges nor believe in using credit. While the kids didn't starve, we had more PB&J sandwiches meals. Mind you they were delicious though. :biggrin:

PS; Now it's Who's That = Hudak?


----------



## buaya

Beaver101 said:


> ... hard to believe ... but then I guess it depends on what "kind" of "small" business you're in that you feel so overly positive about paying more taxes, higher costs of doing business, more competition, etc.


It has nothing to do about being "positive" about paying more taxes, higher cost of doing business etc. When you own your own business, all of the above are part and parcel of doing business. Yes, I can complain, ***** and whine about all these things, but at the end of the day, I have to adapt to the environment I am in and do whatever it takes to succeed. 
The past 5 years, a lot have changed. We became much more global. Some businesses fold but newer ones have taken over. Some examples.
1. Print Shops. I used to own a graphics/print shop. In the 80's we could not keep up with the artwork required to set up forms for computers to print. It was virtually a license to steal. No one question the price you charge because it was so new that there were only so many "experts". When fax machines first came out, we charge $2 to send a sheet of paper. Carbon paper went the way of the Dodo bird when carbonless came around. Forms were all continuous. The laser printer has now wiped out this market. Seeing the change, I down size and I am now only a print broker. I use trade shops to supply me what my customers want. 
2. 5 years ago, most people groom (bathe) their own dogs. Now they will willingly pay a groomer $60 to groom their dog. I know because I supply a lot of shampoos to these groomers.
3. Nail shops. There are more nail shops now then convenience stores. Why. Most ladies do not do their nails now. Go to a Walmart superstore. There is a nail shop and a hair salon. 
All I am saying is that small businesses are very nimble. Although we do worry about higher taxes, higher costs (who doesn't), our main worry is watching the trends. We want to know if our customers are going to keep buying from us. If they are not, why? Usually price is a very small consideration on their part. Making sure that we are always on top of what is current. Having inventory that is outdated is a killer in small businesses.


----------



## Eclectic12

carverman said:


> Beav..I don't know if you remember the 70s..but HISTORY DOES REPEAT ITSELF..and Tim Hudak (although he was running for Premier not Prime Minister) has a lot of parallels with PC Prime Minister Joe Clark ... or Joe "Who?" as he was referred to in those days.


Clark at least had a reasonable strategy team and as I recall, adjusted what he was doing ... Hudak didn't seem to have a clue he needed to make adjustments. He seemed convinced that voters were outraged enough at the scandals that all he had to do was show up.




carverman said:


> ... When I was living in Mississauga in 79, the cost of gasoline (Joe "Who" Clark was PM) was just under $1.00 per IMPERIAL GALLON. Joe wanted to raise the gasoline taxes and back then that was "scandalous!". An election was called over this!..and he lost the election to Trudeau.


 ... and the Liberals promised not to raise the same taxes and when the smaller tax raises the Liberals brought in are added up, the Liberals raised the taxes *more* than the proposal that triggered the election. 




carverman said:


> ... no body complained because they thought that gas at 29c a litre (1.16 for 4 litres) was a "bargain" ...


It's worse than you think ... the conversion factor for imperial gallons to litres is 4.54 so that assuming the $0.29 is accurate, it's really $1.31 (ignoring any rounding).


Cheers


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> .
> 
> PS; Now it's *Who's That* = Hudak?


LoL! Past tense maybe?:biggrin: At least there is still a "Who: in there like "Whodat".


----------



## carverman

Eclectic12 said:


> Clark at least had a reasonable strategy team and as I recall, adjusted what he was doing ... Hudak didn't seem to have a clue he needed to make adjustments. He seemed convinced that voters were outraged enough at the scandals that all he had to do was show up.


Gas was at that time (trying to shake the cobwebs here) was either 99c or $1.00 per IMPERIAL (not US gallon) at that time. Canada was embracing the metric system around that point and when True-dough was sworn in (again), he had the gas retail switched over asap to liters. 

To "sweeten" the abrupt change on the pump sales cylinders since they were spinning much faster with the conversion, the gas tax got introduced and increased each month 
(I believe) to 4 cents per litre at some point and it went up from there as the price of oil went up. 25c + 4 cents tax x 4 Litres = 29 c x 4 litre = $1.16..at least in 1980,
and it started to go up from there. 

If you calculate the actual cost in Imperial gallons..the .54 Litre (14.5c) added to $1.16 = $1.31 per Imperial gallon..but since they were not longer selling it by the gallon, 
I didn't include the .54 litres. 




> ... and the Liberals promised not to raise the same taxes and when the smaller tax raises the Liberals brought in are added up, the Liberals raised the taxes *more* than the proposal that triggered the election.


Yes that was the farce..and Joe Who got defeated over it.





> It's worse than you think ... the conversion factor for imperial gallons to litres is 4.54 so that assuming the $0.29 is accurate, it's really $1.31 (ignoring any rounding).


Yes, I tried to explain it above,,,^


----------



## andrewf

Carver, I have no idea where you are getting your facts, but the federal excise tax on gasoline is only ten cents.


----------



## Eclectic12

carverman said:


> Gas was at that time (trying to shake the cobwebs here) was either 99c or $1.00 per IMPERIAL (not US gallon) at that time. Canada was embracing the metric system around that point ...


Apparently the cobwebs are fuzzy ... Trudeau's gov't started with the metric system in 1970 with the responsible agency, the Metric Commission, established in 1971.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_Canada




carverman said:


> ... and when True-dough was sworn in (again), he had the gas retail switched over asap to liters...


I'm afraid the time that has passed has created a revisionist version of the events for you.

Trudeau was in change on Jan 1st, 1979 when gas stations dropped imperial gallons and started with litres.
Joe Clark was in charge from June 4, 1979, to March 3, 1980.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/metric-conversion/

There would be no benefit to Trudeau.


Cheers

*PS*

The $0.04 a litre gas tax sounds more like Clark's budget. 
If I get time later, I'll see what I can find for what the Liberals did.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> Carver, I have no idea where you are getting your facts, but the federal excise tax on gasoline is only ten cents.


In the good ole days it was 4c a litre. They kept raising it over the years to 10c. The gst was added later on top of that and then the PST. 


> In 2012, taxes in Canada represented on average 39.3 cents per litre, which is approximately 31% of the pump price.


So there..and it will continue to go up as the price per litre climbs steadily. With all this M/E instabilty it is now $1.40 a litre and this is only June.
If Wynne needs more money as predicted in the next budget, they could raise the PST to 9% and that will raise it by 2c a litre more.


----------



## carverman

Eclectic12 said:


> Apparently the cobwebs are fuzzy ... Trudeau's gov't started with the metric system in 1970 with the responsible agency, the Metric Commission, established in 1971.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_Canada
> Yes, but the gas at the pump was sold in gallons until Clark got defeated..I lived through those times.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid the time that has passed has created a revisionist version of the events for you.
> 
> [quote
> Trudeau was in change on Jan 1st, 1979 when gas stations dropped imperial gallons and started with litres.
> Joe Clark was in charge from June 4, 1979, to March 3, 1980.
> http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/metric-conversion/


Don't care about when trudeau got in..after clark got defeated on the budget by the liberals...it was quietly changed to metric at the pumps..I was there buying the gas. 


> There would be no benefit to Trudeau.


.amd you could say no benefit to the people buying gas..I saw it as a conspiracy by the Liberals..they got rid of Clark by voting down his budget and triggering an election...
hey!..wait a minute..didn't Horwath do the same thing..but she didn't become premier the way she wanted to.


Cheers

*PS*


> The $0.04 a litre gas tax sounds more like Clark's budget.
> If I get time later, I'll see what I can find for what the Liberals did.


That's what I said.:greedy_dollars:


----------



## sags

I believe the metric system was brought in to accommodate trade with Europe, and lessen dependance on the US.

Remember that Trudeau wasn't a big fan of the US, and was interested in steering Canada in another direction.

It didn't materialize of course, and trade with the US has become our achilles heel.

Trade with Asia.........forget it. We have nothing but raw resources that they want.

Trade with Europe would have been a better deal..........as their standard of living more closely approximates our own.

Have no fear though. There is another Trudeau waiting in the wings to lead Canada into a better future.


----------



## Nemo2

sags said:


> Have no fear though. There is another Trudeau waiting in the wings to lead Canada into a better future.


:biggrin: I LOVE satire!


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> I believe the metric system was brought in to accommodate trade with Europe, and lessen dependance on the US.
> 
> Have no fear though. There is a*nother Trudeau waiting in the wings to lead Canada into a better futur*e.


This scares me more than Wynne..at least Wynne is somewhat predictable....we KNOW that prices and taxes will go up with her....Trudeau???????


----------



## sags

Trudeau has given some indications of how he would govern, but it may be more enlightening to consider what he wouldn't do. He can run his election campaign solely on what he wouldn't do.

He wouldn't criminalize the recreational use of marijuana. He wouldn't saddle young people with a permanent criminal record because they happened to be stopped in the wrong place........by the wrong cop........and hauled to court before the wrong crown prosecutor, while someone else has their joint taken away and are sent on their merry way.

He wouldn't criminalize prostitution and force prostitutes into plying their trade in desolate industrial parks and other hidden away places.

He wouldn't continually try to push through laws to suit his ideology, that don't meet Constitutional challenges and are continually rebuked by the Supreme Court, including his own appointees.

He wouldn't deny the existence of global warming.

There is and will be more...but considering what he wouldn't do...is probably why Trudeau is so popular with Canadians.

I think Canadians are fed up with the negativity of the Harper government. The majority government showed their true Reformer colors and Canadians don't like what they see.

On almost every issue, the Harper government is on the opposite side of popular opinion.

As demonstrated by his recent little speech on morals, Harper believes he knows best.

_The rallies come days after Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended the bill, saying that activities related to the sex trade are outlawed because they are harmful to women and society in general.

*"They are not harmful because they are illegal,"* Harper said Monday. *"They are illegal because they are harmful."*_

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/sex-wo...stitution-legislation-1.1869002#ixzz34f5q2OCH

What the heck does that even mean..........??


----------



## Eclectic12

carverman said:


> Don't care about when trudeau got in..after clark got defeated on the budget by the liberals...it was quietly changed to metric at the pumps..I was there buying the gas.


 ... and yet according to Canadian Encyclopedia in the second link has the gas stations selling in litres a full fifteen months ahead of Clark's defeat.




carverman said:


> Eclectic12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There would be no benefit to Trudeau. ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and you could say no benefit to the people buying gas...
Click to expand...

It all hinges on whether the change was made in 1979 or in early 1980.




carverman said:


> ... I saw it as a conspiracy by the Liberals..they got rid of Clark by voting down his budget and triggering an election...


They had to have the NDP vote the same, have five Social Credit MPs vote against or abstain and have three Tories unavailable to vote. 
So it wouldn't be a conspiracy with a guarantee of success - all the while Trudeau had announced his retirement.

So conspirators would have to have a good idea that Trudeau would stay on.


Cheers


----------



## buaya

carverman said:


> This scares me more than Wynne..at least Wynne is somewhat predictable....we KNOW that prices and taxes will go up with her....Trudeau???????


Wynne is a winner. Since winning to become a school trustee in the Mike Harris years, she has never lost a race. She has beaten John Tory when he was the leader of the PC and ran in her riding of Don Valley. She won the Liberal leadership against Sandra P. who, after losing to her did not even bother to run in the by election in Windsor or in this election.
I have always supported the PC, went to a few of their fund raisers etc. Never attended a liberal one, but to me Wynn is a winner who is guide this great province of Ontario to prosperity again. 
Prices and Taxes going up? Of course they will. That is a given no matter which party is in government. 
Trudeau? I will have to wait and see.


----------



## Eclectic12

sags said:


> Trudeau has given some indications of how he would govern, but it may be more enlightening to consider what he wouldn't do....
> He wouldn't continually try to push through laws to suit his ideology, ...


I guess that means he knows to limit his restrictions to new Liberal MPs, right? :biggrin:


Cheers


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Trudeau has given some indications of how he would govern, but it may be more enlightening to consider what he wouldn't do. *He can run his election campaign solely on what he wouldn't do*.


and that is what scares me about him..traditionally, the lawyers from Quebec have always ended up in a scandal or two..they can't help it..the province is corrupted with mafia and influence peddling, buying votes and other things (like CRA inside job to give a mafia boss a 400K REFUND when he was in prison and owed more than a million in back taxes...
...scares me of what would happen to this nation IF he ever becomes PM

We all know about the Chretien "Adscam/Gomery investigation into Chretiens personal dealings as well as "Bags o Cash Mulroney/Baloney that cost Canadian taxpayers HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS ..actually billions , wasted (EH101 helicopter deal by Baloney then subsequent cancellation by Chreten cost Canadian Taxpayers close to a Billion..making it as an expensive bad politics decision as the Ontario gas plant scandal. 



> He wouldn't criminalize the recreational use of marijuana. He wouldn't saddle young people with a permanent criminal record because they happened to be stopped in the wrong place........by the wrong cop........and hauled to court before the wrong crown prosecutor, while someone else has their joint taken away and are sent on their merry way.
> 
> He wouldn't criminalize prostitution and force prostitutes into plying their trade in desolate industrial parks and other hidden away places.


LoL..both of these are recreational activities. Harper doesn't like somebody else doing the scr*wing...he wants to do that to the taxpayers himself..or at least he and his senators.



> He wouldn't continually try to push through laws to suit his ideology, that don't meet Constitutional challenges and are continually rebuked by the Supreme Court, including his own appointees.
> He wouldn't deny the existence of global warming.


Can a leopard change his spots?...I quote Preston Mannning...R-E-F-O=R=MMMMMMM!


> There is and will be more...but considering what he wouldn't do...is probably why Trudeau is so popular with Canadians.


Only in Quebec because he was born there..he doesn't have any credibility (at least so far) with the rest of Canada..and he has this "foot-in-mouth-disease" that surfaces
from time to time.



> I think Canadians are fed up with the negativity of the Harper government. The *majority government showed their true Reformer colors and Canadians don't like what they see.*


refer to my reply ^ What are the alternatives? Mulcair and the NDP? or Trudeau, green, riding on his daddy's inheritance and coat tails and supported by the Quebec mafia?



> On almost every issue, the Harper government is on the opposite side of popular opinion.
> As demonstrated by his recent little speech on morals, Harper believes he knows best.
> _The rallies come days after Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended the bill, saying that activities related to the sex trade are outlawed because they are harmful to women and society in general.
> *"They are not harmful because they are illegal,"* Harper said Monday. *"They are illegal because they are harmful."*_


as Chreten once told us.."A proof is not a proof unless its a proof"
Put all those quotations into questionable partisan quotations and file under IRRELEVANT TO THE STATUS QUO. 




> What the heck does that even mean..........??


this...


> The new prostitution-related offences are intended to reduce demand for sexual services, s*hield sex workers from exploitation and safeguard children and communities*


The Harper govt has taken a page from the puritanical ideology. The SoC gave sex workers (I like the new politically correct word for PROSTITUTES) freedom to ply their trade without
being arrested by the cops each time and hauled off to jail. Reform party of Canada (which became the new PC party of Canada to gain inroads into eastern Canada) does not like that one bit!
It goes against their social ideology...so some bright minds came up with the idea..if we can't harrass the prostitutes, we will harrass their customers (the "johns" as they are called)....there!..that will teach them!!!... put a stop to this shameful human activity once and for all. Salem witch hunts 2014 but reverse gender..there is ALWAYS A SOLUTION
to any "problem"


----------



## carverman

Eclectic12 said:


> ... and yet according to Canadian Encyclopedia in the second link has the gas stations selling in litres a full fifteen months ahead of Clark's defeat.


It's been 34 years since I lived in Mississauga driving a gas guzzling big Chev V8, but I do remember that there was some lag between the conversion to litres legislation
and the time period that the gas retailers had to convert their pumps (replace them all with new pumps) to sell by the litre.

What I do remember is that gas was being sold by the gallon at the gas station I frequented then Clark tried to put a tax on it and then the controversy started in the H of C with Trudeau (opposition) and that brought down Clark's proposal because he had a minority PC gov't at the time.

Trudeau, who had lost to Clark on the election wanted to get back in to implement some of his "unfinished business"..
Sorry if some of my thoughts are not chronologically correct, it's been a L-O-N-G time.





> It all hinges on whether the change was made in 1979 or in early 1980.


I can only go by what I can recall.NOW....in 1979 I was living in Mississauga, working at the Globe and Mail downtown, driving a gas guzzler and paying for gas at a gas station
that I used to fill up before getting on the 401/427 and Gardner to get to work. 

The gas stations could not convert to new pumps overnight because of high demand for the litre dispensing/total sale calculation which had to be verified after
installation to be correct and not "short change" customers over large refills. This caused some lag until all the gas stations were able to switch to litres.
Depending on the area and major gas companies that leased out their gas stations, conversion did not happen over night.


----------



## carverman

Eclectic12 said:


> I guess that means he knows to limit his restrictions to new Liberal MPs, right? :biggrin:
> 
> 
> Cheers


Lol! +1 ^


----------



## gibor365

bgc_fan said:


> I assume that you would agree with that representation for the federal level as well:
> Con 39.6% - 122 seats instead of 166
> NDP 30.6% - 94 seats instead of 103
> Lib 18.9% - 58 seats instead of 34
> PQ 6.0% - 18 seats instead of 0
> Grn 3.9% - 12 seats instead of 1
> 
> Or is it only when your party of choice loses that you bring this up?


Yes, I would completely agree with it regardless of elections outcome... All votes should be count! 
btw, with popular vote system, picture would be rather different as much more smaller parties candidates would be elected...


----------



## sags

I hope Trudeau boots out any Liberal candidate who plans on running under the Liberal banner........if they don't adopt the platform.

Those who don't feel comfortable with the Liberal party policies..........shouldn't run as Liberals.

They always have the option of running as independents, or for a different party.

People voting for a candidate running as a Liberal, should have confidence they support Liberal policies.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> People voting for a
> 
> 
> 
> candidate running as a Liberal, should have confidence they support Liberal policies
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

:sleeping: ...er....what???....:sleeping:..yes,..I like generalized motherhood statements....:highly_amused:

Marijuana, anti-abortion......now what about those poor underprivileged "johns" that Harper has just struck down with his "no s*x please..we are Canadians and since we can't add it to
our HST taxable list..<Jerry Seinfeld "soup Nazi" tone>,,NO S*x FOR YOU!!!!!


> They are not harmful because they are illegal," Harper said Monday. "They are illegal because they are harmful."


So maybe it's time for True-dough to take up the cause of the under privileged, the ones that are willing to pay but can't anymore, for a service that should be free anyway.


----------



## bgc_fan

gibor said:


> Yes, I would completely agree with it regardless of elections outcome... All votes should be count!
> btw, with popular vote system, picture would be rather different as much more smaller parties candidates would be elected...


The thing is the system is based on voting for candidates in individual ridings and not necessary overall party. There is actually a good reason for this. For example, if we didn't have the riding system and looked at overall vote percentage, who would bother campaigning in the small ridings and all the vote getting efforts would be concentrated in the large population areas, I.e. Urban areas / Ontario and Quebec. 

There is always the option of doing instant run-offs, i.e. You rank the candidates in preferences so that if no one has 50% of the votes in a riding, you take the top two and look at who voted for the eliminated candidates and add the choice of 2 to the top 2, and then those you picked them 3rd and so on until 50% is counted for the winner. You would end up with 2 sets of popular votes: original and adjusted, but it may not change much. Worse, it would perpetuate the Liberals because they generally are the centrist party, i.e. It's unlikely an NDP supporter would pick a Conservative candidate as the 2nd choice and vice-versa.


----------



## kcowan

This tread reminds me of the day that we woke up and found Bob Rae had won the Ontario government election. A Conservative friend of mine called from Texas where he had moved to ask what we were going to do? I said "This too shall pass. A politician can only change so much while trying to govern. And it did!"


----------



## Nemo2

kcowan said:


> "This too shall pass.


Much like Mount St. Helens? :wink:


----------



## bgc_fan

kcowan said:


> This tread reminds me of the day that we woke up and found Bob Rae had won the Ontario government election. A Conservative friend of mine called from Texas where he had moved to ask what we were going to do? I said "This too shall pass. A politician can only change so much while trying to govern. And it did!"


I'd say that a better example would be Mike Harris. We are dealing with some of his decisions today: 407 lease, and city amalgamation. The latter being problematic with governing the GTA due to the differences between the requirements of suburbs and urban residents. Also, it would appear that there did not end up having any cost savings.


----------



## gibor365

bgc_fan said:


> The thing is the system is based on voting for candidates in individual ridings and not necessary overall party. There is actually a good reason for this. For example, if we didn't have the riding system and looked at overall vote percentage, who would bother campaigning in the small ridings and all the vote getting efforts would be concentrated in the large population areas, I.e. Urban areas / Ontario and Quebec.
> 
> .


It's not a reason at all! I live for 14 years in Mississaua and I never heard about any political campaign and I don't care about those campaigns.... There are Internet, newspapers, TV, radio and so on where every voter can can impression about all parties.


----------



## bgc_fan

gibor said:


> It's not a reason at all! I live for 14 years in Mississaua and I never heard about any political campaign and I don't care about those campaigns.... There are Internet, newspapers, TV, radio and so on where every voter can can impression about all parties.


The point isn't about being informed, the point is having a say. Why would parties bother trying to turn and make promises a small isolated community in the Northern reaches if the effort isn't worth the minimal gain in overall percentage? OTOH with the riding system, convincing 100 people in that community would be more effective then persuading 1000 people in a large urban area.


----------



## gibor365

First of all they would, because with popular vote system will be much more parties and 50-60 votes can decide a lot.... Another thing All Northern communities can lobby (or create) one specific party and get some seats in Parlament... thus big parties would like them in coalition and this will be beneficial to such small party...
P.S. I just can tell from personal experience, I lived for long time in Israel , where elections are by popular vote and found it much more fair than in Canada....


----------



## bgc_fan

I don't know how homogeneous Israel and if there are significant regional differences. With the regional differences and disparities in population sizes, things may not work out that effectively. For the sake of argument, let's say that we went with 1 MP per 100k population. Based on roughly a 50-60% turnout, that means you require approx 60k votes for a party to gain a seat. In isolated communities spread out over a wide geographic are, you would pretty much to have all the population to vote that way, whereas Toronto with a population of 2.8 M, has a higher potential for votes in more concentrated area. So if it came to a decision on funding for TTC transit projects vs upgrading local Northern community centres, I'm sure you can guess where the money would be going, assuming costs were comparable.


----------



## bgc_fan

Just a note, there's nothing in the current system that prevents regional parties. The Bloc Quebecois and the Reform are examples of concentrated regional voting which you are suggesting.


----------



## Nemo2

Nemo2 said:


> Teachers, overpaid and underworked, and who behave as if they're chained to sewing machines in a sweatshop........manning the barricades and spouting the rhetoric of the underprivileged while oblivious to the fact that they are treated/paid like the elite.


And then.....


> Something ails Ontario’s teachers. Male and female educators, in Catholic and public school boards alike, are falling ill in record numbers. This troubling, pernicious illness tends to strike hardest on Fridays and Mondays, particularly when the sun is shining.
> 
> On one sunny Friday last month, almost one in five teachers called in sick in suburban Toronto’s sprawling Peel district, leaving officials scrambling to fill the void.





> • Calgary schoolteachers can be awarded up to 90 calendar sick days per year. Given how prevalent sick-day perks are in the public sector, it shouldn’t be a surprise that predominantly government towns have the highest overall rates of worker absenteeism in the country—in B.C.’s capital, Victoria, 11 days are lost to sickness in a year, while Gatineau, Que., across the river from Ottawa and home to many federal offices, the average is 12 days. (By comparison, in Guelph, Ont., Calgary and Toronto, the average worker books off around seven days.)
> 
> Now many Canadian cities are waking up to the financial shock of these lavish promises. A new audit of Calgary Transit found that in 2011, bus drivers called in sick an average of 15 times per year. That also meant other drivers had to work extra hours, leaving the city with a $9-million bill for overtime. In Toronto, the city’s sick-leave liability totals $490 million. The liability for firefighters alone in Winnipeg—where, as in many municipalities, firefighters cash out banked sick leave on retirement—is $27 million.
> 
> But it is in the federal government where the sick-day culture has become most deeply entrenched, and where the damage appears greatest. At the federal level, where 19,000 civil servants phone in sick every day, the sick-leave liability has ballooned to $5 billion. The average federal civil servant now claims 18.2 sick days per year, roughly trebling the private sector average of 6.7 days, giving federal government workers the highest rates of absenteeism in the country.


----------



## gibor365

bgc_fan said:


> Just a note, there's nothing in the current system that prevents regional parties. The Bloc Quebecois and the Reform are examples of concentrated regional voting which you are suggesting.


Yes, but except PQ no such party has a chance... Just look at Greens (perfect example of nation wide party), they should have 16 seats and not 1 !!!

Regarding Israel...it very similar to Canada... huge % of 1st generation immigrants from all over the world.... several big cities in every country: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver vs Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem... first nations vs Israeli arabs, Northern territories here vs Southern Israel and so on...


----------



## sags

18 days a year............Pffft.........that ain't nothin.....

I heard tell of some high level management types...........working from 12 to 1............with an hour off for lunch.

It's pretty common knowledge.......the higher you go........the less you do.


----------



## bgc_fan

Generally speaking the current system does disadvantage parties that have no geographic base, so yes the Green party will have limited impact, while the Bloc can potentially have a greater, but still limited impact. 
While Israel may have some diversity for demographic make up, I doubt you can compare the differences between the Northern territories in Canada with Southern Israel when it comes to sparse population. Considering that 80% of Canadian population is essentially located within 150 miles of the US, the majority of the country is essentially uninhabited. Going with pure majority rules, it would be difficult to advance many priorities outside of the major urban areas.


----------



## Nemo2

sags said:


> I heard tell of some high level management types...........working from 12 to 1............with an hour off for lunch.
> 
> It's pretty common knowledge.......the higher you go........the less you do.


Yup....common knowledge:
http://fortune.com/2012/10/16/how-hard-do-executives-really-work-today/



> The normal workweek these executives described doesn’t seem too grueling. “In most places the average executive office week runs between forty-five and forty-eight hours,” Whyte wrote. “Most executives arrive at the office between 8:00 and 9:00 A.M. and leave about 5:30 or 6:00 P.M.”
> 
> * The problem was that this was only just past the “halfway mark,” Whyte noted, for a serious executive. “On the average he will work four nights out of five.* One night he will be booked for business entertaining — more, probably if he’s a president. Another night he will probably spend at the office, or in a lengthy conference somewhere else. On two other nights he goes home, not to a sanctuary so much as to a branch office.


http://www.businessinsider.com/top-ceo-schedules-2013-4#ixzz34l43YAJy



> It's not news that many CEOs wake up extremely early. The pressure of the job makes it one of the only ways to keep up and still get in a minimum of exercise, family, or personal time.
> The Guardian spoke to some top CEOs, who revealed that the definition of work-life balance for CEOs is pretty far off from what most of us would consider reasonable.
> 
> *The reward for making it to the top seems to be more, not less work.*
> 
> It's not news that many CEOs wake up extremely early. The pressure of the job makes it one of the only ways to keep up and still get in a minimum of exercise, family, or personal time.
> The Guardian spoke to some top CEOs, who revealed that the definition of work-life balance for CEOs is pretty far off from what most of us would consider reasonable.
> 
> The reward for making it to the top seems to be more, not less work.
> 
> Below are some typical schedules when they're at home and things are as close to normal as they get. But the life of a CEO is also full of travel and corporate crises, which are likely to stretch many days even further.
> 
> AOL CEO Tim Armstrong wakes up around 5 a.m., is out of the house and working from his car by 7 a.m., and works until 7 p.m. He used to start sending emails immediately after waking up, but now restrains himself until 7 a.m.
> 
> Weekends are family time, but he's back at it again after 7 p.m. on Sundays.
> 
> Helena Morrissey, CEO of Newton Investment, gets up "at 5 in the morning, sometimes earlier," and immediately starts sending emails until her kids get up. She has family dinner scheduled at 7:30 p.m., but works again after that, sometimes for as much as two hours, prepping for the next morning's meetings.
> 
> Vodafone CEO Vittorio Colao is up at 6 a.m., exercises for 40 minutes, then works nearly continuously until 10:45 p.m., pausing for family dinner.


----------



## sags

Compare how an auto worker working at the assembly plant for mandatory 10 hours shifts spends their day.

Or a cop or nurse on a 12 hour swing shift, continental work week schedule (weekends and holidays included).


----------



## gibor365

bgc_fan said:


> I doubt you can compare the differences between the Northern territories in Canada with Southern Israel when it comes to sparse population. Considering that 80% of Canadian population is essentially located within 150 miles of the US, the majority of the country is essentially uninhabited. Going with pure majority rules, it would be difficult to advance many priorities outside of the major urban areas.


Don't doubt.... Southern Israel (dessert Negev) it's about 2/3 of Israel territory and ljust 5-10% population lives there ...couple of small (and pretty poor) towns, several kibbutzim and Eilat ....and I don't agree that "would be difficult to advance many priorities outside of the major urban areas."... you have to understand that with popular vote system, there will be much more parties...in Israel about 12-15 parties getting elected into Knesset, and often just several voters will decide if specific party get seat or not... also there are "remaining " rule, meaning that if party got 5 seats and some remaining votes, this party can transfer remaining votes to another party....


----------



## bgc_fan

I'm just thinking about how Hudak fumbled the LRT in Ottawa and ended up losing all the seats (well, not counting Nepean), as opposed to gaining a couple if we went with proportional voting. The consequences of a first-past the post would seem to be more magnified in that case and provide more importance on local issues. 
Personally, I'd say something a mix similar to the German system would be preferable: half the number of ridings so you still vote directly for the candidate for half the seats in parliament, with the other half made up by popular vote percentage and filled in by candidates on the party list.


----------



## Eclectic12

carverman said:


> It's been 34 years since ...
> I can only go by what I can recall.NOW....


 ... and I can recall the opposite ... but since it's been so long with such a short time span for the key timing, I'm looking for confirmations that don't depend on memory.




carverman said:


> ... Depending on the area and major gas companies that leased out their gas stations, conversion did not happen over night.


With the Metric commission working on it since 1971, there was a lot of time to figure out the schedule and adjust.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

sags said:


> I hope Trudeau boots out any Liberal candidate who plans on running under the Liberal banner........if they don't adopt the platform.
> 
> Those who don't feel comfortable with the Liberal party policies..........shouldn't run as Liberals.
> 
> They always have the option of running as independents, or for a different party.


Except that traditionally, this is one of a couple of areas that the Liberals have identified as being a free vote where the member is allowed to vote based on their conscience instead of the party line.

So it is shift away from what his father (and other liberals leaders) did.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

bgc_fan said:


> I'm just thinking about how Hudak fumbled the LRT in Ottawa and ended up losing all the seats (well, not counting Nepean), as opposed to gaining a couple if we went with proportional voting...


Part of how at best, he & his strategic team were out of touch ... or at worst, incompetent.
All of which did not inspire confidence.


Cheers


----------



## carverman

Eclectic12 said:


> Part of how at best, he & his strategic team were out of touch ... or at worst, incompetent.
> All of which did not inspire confidence.
> 
> 
> Cheers


agreed.


----------



## carverman

Eclectic12 said:


> ... and I can recall the opposite ... but since it's been so long with such a short time span for the key timing, I'm looking for confirmations that don't depend on memory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the Metric commission working on it since 1971, there was a lot of time to figure out the schedule and adjust.
> 
> 
> Cheers


Whatever!!....you weren't there.....I was and bought gas. 

I really don't care about your arguments against my memory. 

Lets leave it at that ok?

Your constant nitpicking is starting to get to me.


----------



## bgc_fan

Eclectic12 said:


> Part of how at best, he & his strategic team were out of touch ... or at worst, incompetent.
> All of which did not inspire confidence.


Being caught by a 10 year old girl's question was pretty bad. Then being contradicted by all the local candidates, forcing him to back-pedal didn't help. You'd think that he would have been briefed on that issue and that the Phase 2 funding was planned for after his planned return to surplus, instead of saying that he has no money.


----------



## Eclectic12

carverman said:


> Whatever!!....you weren't there.....I was and bought gas.


Actually, while probably didn't hit the same station at the same time, I was anywhere from Niagara Falls, Hamilton, Missisauga, Oshawa and other parts.



carverman said:


> ... I really don't care about your arguments against my memory.
> Lets leave it at that ok? ...


As you wish ...


Cheers


----------



## gibor365

bgc_fan said:


> I'd say something a mix similar to the German system would be preferable: half the number of ridings so you still vote directly for the candidate for half the seats in parliament, with the other half made up by popular vote percentage and filled in by candidates on the party list.


Whatever, mix system or 100% popular vote system ...btw, huge number of countries using only popular vote system 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
and if you look at this list...Australia, Argentina, New Zeland .... very similar to Canada's demographics , immigrant countries with huge part of territory that very sparsely populated...
The major advantage of such system that EVERY VOTE WILL BE COUNTED ... because currently practically half of the votes went directly to the garbage.... like in our riding 50% WHO didn't vote to Libs


----------



## bgc_fan

Australia is a mixture as only the Senate is elected that way, while the other house has instant run-off. New Zealand would be more similar to the mix I suggested. Since the first past the post will tend towards majorities, you can see how the parties are not inclined to change it. The article also uses Israel as an example as a highly fragmented system and how it is a problem that they try to address.


----------



## carverman

Eclectic12 said:


> Actually, while probably didn't hit the same station at the same time, I was anywhere from Niagara Falls, Hamilton, Missisauga, Oshawa and other parts.
> 
> 
> 
> As you wish ...
> 
> 
> Cheers


Putting you on my IGNORE LIST!


----------



## gibor365

bgc_fan said:


> The article also uses Israel as an example as a highly fragmented system and how it is a problem that they try to address.


That's right...this is why we were raising the electoral threshold... in any case , I'd prefer 14 parties than 2.5 
P.S. there is a saying in Israel : "2 Jews - 3 opinions"


----------



## andrewf

I like Single Transferable Vote (STV). This is the system that BC almost adopted, and that countries like Ireland use. It is a good compromise of proportional representation and local representation. It still encourages larger parties to prevent too much fragmentation, while ensuring that the representatives are still picked by the people and do not come from party lists.


----------



## bgc_fan

Aside from the long knives out for Hudak, I thought this article about the increase of declined ballots would be of interest:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/declined-ballots-jump-ten-fold-in-ontario-election

Only a 0.64% of the counted votes, but then there was an increase in spoiled, and unmarked ballots. Some unmarked ballots could have been declined votes that were miscategorized. 
For the record, it's not an option at the federal level.


----------



## Toronto.gal

This had been a fun thread! 

Remember what Ms. Wynne, Mr. Souza & Co. said to voters? Just vote for 'safe hands and not risky tactics.' So I guess the safe hands will be able to hit the $12.5 billion deficit target by year-end, by simply cracking down on the sales of illegal cigarettes.


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> This had been a fun thread!
> 
> Remember what Ms. Wynne, Mr. Souza & Co. said to voters? Just vote for 'safe hands and not risky tactics.' So I guess the safe hands will be able to hit the $12.5 billion deficit target by year-end, by simply cracking down on the sales of illegal cigarettes.


LOL! Easy to say but that isn't going to be easy. You would have to put most of the ones selling them on reserves in jail..not going to happen..it's a big source of income for the natives. 



> The government is not talking about shutting down smoke shops on First Nations lands that sell cigarettes at a greatly reduced cost. “I’m not suggesting that we’re going to go onto the reserve itself,” Sousa said.


http://www.torontosun.com/2014/11/17/ontario-short-509m-in-revenue

He wasn't discounting raising taxes..but what more can be taxed that hasn't been already? They made a promise to eliminate the deficit in 3 years during the election and now they found out there is a half a billion revenue shortfall? 
Guess what, they are raising taxes...
http://www.kpmg.com/ca/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/tnf/pages/tnfc1440.pdf


----------



## Nemo2

carverman said:


> Guess what, they are raising taxes...
> http://www.kpmg.com/ca/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/tnf/pages/tnfc1440.pdf


"Tax the rich! Bring back Madame Defarge and _Le Rasoir National_!"


----------



## sags

I have read the Ontario government will implement a number of things to balance the budget.

1) Raise the rates the brewers monopoly pay for distribution, warehouse and retailing through established Brewers Retail stores, to the level of cost to the other breweries.

2) Implement greater emphasis on collecting taxes due from illegal "black market" activities, including illegal cigarettes and liquor and construction.

3) Block foreign online gambling sites in Canada and legalize online gambling for Ontario licenced websites. This is already underway.

4) Sell some non critical and non profitable crown assets, including possibly opening up more Crown land for sale to cottagers.

5) Establish strategic partnerships with business to attract new jobs and grow the economy.

6) Develop Ontario's natural resources.

7) Cap public sector costs.

8) Collect Ontario's fair share from Ottawa.

Lots of good things planned.............Ontario created 35,000 jobs........the most in the country........Ontario is moving forward.


----------



## HaroldCrump

All of the above strategies are mindless, ineffective, wishy-washy excuses.

#4, #5 and #6 is just rhetoric.

#7 is hilarious. I am ROTFLMAO

#8 - good luck with that. Souza is delusional. He does not understand (or refuses to admit) how equalization works.

But hey, "a pension in every pot" is a worthy goal.


----------



## fraser

Politics.

Here in Alberta our new Premier is warming up to tell us that all those commitments made during the last election (...the ones that have not already been broken that is), during, and after his recent leadership campaign will be broken. 

After all, why ruin a good election promise by delivering on it. In Alberta it is pretty much par for the Government, once re-elected, to grossly under deliver, fail, or just ignore commitments made to the electors. Same (broken) promises for the past 12 years.

Our politicians are the same as yours!


----------



## Toronto.gal

sags said:


> I have read the Ontario government *will* implement a number of things to balance the budget.


Sure, the safe Lieberal spending hands *will* [operative word] balance the budget by 2017/2018, so easy peasy. I like your optimism sags. 

Over 1000 posts here, but I don't recall any fights.


----------



## Toronto.gal

It only [secretly] cost $468 million to buy off teachers' union? :calm:

'Co-operative campaigning' no doubt.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...-number-in-seeking-prime-ministers-attention/


----------



## HaroldCrump

There is no "buying off", T.G - the unions _are_ the government of Ontario.
They own the province.
They can take whatever they want from the public coffers, whenever they want, without any explanation or accountability.
Just keep telling yourself that we are "paying for services".


----------



## sags

True........Wynne ended the standoff with 468 million...but also true the government saved 2 Billion by eliminating banked sick days. (instead of 2.5 Billion.)

Wynne has now proposed a 500 million dollar cut to the education budget..........and the unions have taken the government to court.

Wynne has publicly stated she owes the unions nothing......as the only other choice union members had besides voting for her......was Hudak as Premier of Ontario.

It isn't exactly a "love in" between the government and unions.

Oddly enough, the Sun media reported a PC MPP lamenting the lack of "unfairness" to the teachers.

Wynne can't win for trying...........


----------



## HaroldCrump

HaroldCrump said:


> It's possible...in 2018.
> The LPO will rinse and repeat...a new leader will be appointed, who will apologize profusely on TV for all the corruption, lies, deceit, and sleaze.
> High profile supporters will say _meh, it's water under the bridge_ circa 2014 Hazel McCallion


The saga of graft and cronyism continues...

*Hazel McCallion touted as GTA’s transportation czar*










Hazel McCallion is the perfect fit to lead the Metrolinx Agency.
Her family's ties with the construction & development mafia are well know.

Metrolinx is an excellent cover...it is pretty much a *slush fund *for the LPO, reporting directly to the office of the Premier.
There is no accountability, no oversight, no audit.
The LPO has been preventing the A/G from auditing the accounts since the previous 2012 audit.

The cost of the Metrolinx boondoggle currently stands at $75B, with another $50B being proposed for the "Big Move" plan.
Add in a few B$ more for the UPE, another $1B for the Presto agency, and soon we are talking some serious money...


----------



## the-royal-mail

It would be cheaper to simply buy everybody a car every 10 years. 

I know, then they won't be able to line the pockets of their development mafia.

This is blatant corruption. $Billions just to jam people in public transit trains and buses so they can put up more towers? C'mon. Stop burning money!


----------



## andrewf

Really? I'd like to see 5 million cars on the 401--everyone would _love _that.


----------



## carverman

the-royal-mail said:


> It would be cheaper to simply buy everybody a car every 10 years.
> 
> I know, then they won't be able to line the pockets of their development mafia.
> 
> This is blatant corruption. $Billions just to jam people in public transit trains and buses so they can put up more towers? C'mon. Stop burning money!


The function of gov'ts is to redistribute the wealth and in the process waste money. 

The GTA has quite a bit of aging infrastructure, they really don't have any choice but to spend billions and billions more in the future,
to accommodate all the of people's needs the GTA..... at the expense of those living in the rest of Ontario. .


----------



## BoringInvestor

the-royal-mail said:


> It would be cheaper to simply buy everybody a car every 10 years.
> 
> I know, then they won't be able to line the pockets of their development mafia.
> 
> This is blatant corruption. $Billions just to jam people in public transit trains and buses so they can put up more towers? C'mon. Stop burning money!


How should the province manage growth and increased demand for transportation?


----------



## BoringInvestor

carverman said:


> The function of gov'ts is to redistribute the wealth and in the process waste money.
> 
> The GTA has quite a bit of aging infrastructure, they really don't have any choice but to spend billions and billions more in the future,
> to accommodate all the of people's needs the GTA..... at the expense of those living in the rest of Ontario. .


The GTA subsidizes the rest of Ontario. 
Isn't it worthwhile to invest in the region to support current and future growth?


----------



## the-royal-mail

For years, the taxpayers of Canada have subsidized public transit in the GTA. This is wrong. The user should pay.


----------



## GuzzlinGuinness

I really can't wait to lose more of my take home pay to yet another gov't deduction.. aka the new Ontario Pension Plan. 

What a joke. Let me invest my own money, I don't need you to do it for me.


----------



## HaroldCrump

The Ontario Registered Pension Plan would have been fine, given the following two conditions:

- That it were a true defined benefit pension plan - you know the kind that the Ontario public sector has for itself.

The ironical bit is that a new investment board, and a new department will be set up to manage this pension plan - those bureaucrats will have the regular Ontario public sector pension plan, not this hybrid plan for the private sector riff-raffs

- The funding for this plan should have come by reducing the funding & top ups of Ontario public sector pension plans, instead of taxing businesses even more.

This so-called pension plan is nothing more than yet another slush fund for the LPO to finance its boondoggles, scams, and cronyism.


----------



## BoringInvestor

the-royal-mail said:


> For years, the taxpayers of Canada have subsidized public transit in the GTA. This is wrong. The user should pay.


Strongly disagree. Public transportation systems around the world are directly subsidized by government. The GTA (and indeed Canada's) receive some of the lowest operating subsidies among or peers.

We need to increase public money spent on public transportation options - both capital and operational dollars.


----------



## andrewf

the-royal-mail said:


> For years, the taxpayers of Canada have subsidized public transit in the GTA. This is wrong. The user should pay.


Like the users of roads should pay tolls, pedestrians pay for sidewalks, etc.? I don't disagree in principle, but it's easy to say "no one else should get free cake but me"!


----------



## sags

There have been scant details on the new Ontario Pension Plan.............and it's introduction is slated to coincide with lowering of Employment Insurance contributions, which has infuriated the Conservatives,......and will be implemented after the next federal election.

Should Trudeau and the Liberals win.........expansion of the CPP could be open for discussion.

From what has been divulged, and it could change upon review, members of a DB pension plan will not be eligible, including the public service.

Many employers currently offer some form of "retirement" compensation...........through bonuses or RRSP allowances. They would be allowed to alter their current arrangements to offset costs to the Ontario Pension Plan...........which would offer a better retirement plan...........albeit far from ideal.

To me...........it would have been far simpler just to expand the CPP on a voluntary basis. Allow employees to contribute more........without requiring employers to contribute.

Even a person who has no interest or aptitude in investing or saving...........could raise their retirement benefits by contributing more from their paycheck.

For some reason, Harper is against any expansion of the CPP......and judging from some comments he made.......thinks people should fend for themselves.

Great for him to say.............as he and his cohorts enjoy a fat public service pension.


----------



## HaroldCrump

BoringInvestor said:


> We need to increase public money spent on public transportation options - both capital and operational dollars.


So you are advocating for more subsidies.
That's fine...however, those monies should come from reduced spending in other areas, not from new/increased taxes.

Unfortunately, the present administration has taken the latter route (new/increased taxes).
There is absolutely no willingness to reduce public sector compensation spending, which is the largest contributor to the fiscal profligacy.

Not surprising, given the vote banking dynamics in the province.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> To me...........it would have been far simpler just to expand the CPP on a voluntary basis. Allow employees to contribute more........without requiring employers to contribute.
> Even a person who has no interest or aptitude in investing or saving...........could raise their retirement benefits by contributing more from their paycheck.


I agree with a moderate CPP expansion.
I don't agree with the voluntary expansion i.e. allowing people to increase their contributions voluntary.
To make the CPP increase effective, it should follow the current model i.e. equal employer/employee split.

The increases should also be phased in i.e. no windfall increases for current retirees, or those retiring in the very near future.
The increase in benefit should be phased in accordance with the contribution increase.

However, where I perhaps differ from most of the "increase CPP" crowd is that the increased contributions should be offset by lower income & corporate taxes.
The primary beneficiaries of an increased CPP will be unpensioned private sector workers (who are the vast majority...something like 65% of total working Canadians).
One way to enable the income tax cuts can be for various levels of govt. to reduce their public sector compensation costs to create better balance & fairness.


----------



## sags

Cutting Employment Insurance contributions might be a good place to start..........considering how few people actually qualify for benefits anymore.

The fund has been a cash cow for the government, and should be turned over to an independent board to invest the money.............such as the case with the CPPIB.


----------



## BoringInvestor

HaroldCrump said:


> So you are advocating for more subsidies.
> That's fine...however, those monies should come from reduced spending in other areas, not from new/increased taxes.


I'm in favour of new taxes for transit first, and a targeted review of government expenditures after.
I give no credence to any politician who promises to fund transit after the savings are found. It's a preposterous suggestion given the timelines.


----------



## HaroldCrump

BoringInvestor said:


> I'm in favour of new taxes for transit first, and a targeted review of government expenditures after.
> I give no credence to any politician who promises to fund transit after the savings are found. It's a preposterous suggestion given the timelines.


By that logic - always spend first, look for savings later.
Of course, later = never.

What is preposterous is expecting tax & spend administrations like the current LPO to "review" govt. expenditures and find any savings.
Chances are that the result of the review will be that unionized public sector workers are highly underpaid, and need double-digit raises & pension top ups.


----------



## BoringInvestor

HaroldCrump said:


> By that logic - always spend first, look for savings later.
> Of course, later = never.
> 
> What is preposterous is expecting tax & spend administrations like the current LPO to "review" govt. expenditures and find any savings.
> Chances are that the result of the review will be that unionized public sector workers are highly underpaid, and need double-digit raises & pension top ups.


Searches for savings can, and should, be an ongoing process.
The time to invest in our infrastructure and transit is now.


----------

