Conference kaosws::canada

    Personally I see this as no change at all. The NDP victory was a result
    of substantial protest voting, the majority of those that voted NDP in
    1990 voted against the status quo not for the NDP. Same thing here,
    protest vote, there's no loyalty in it and it's a no win situation for
    the PC's if they keep their promises the people who will be hurt will
    turn on them and if they don't their supporters will. My prediction in
    next election will be another protest vote against Harris who will be
    so hated within 2 years that he'll make Muldoon look more loved than
    the pope.
    
    Reform will not stay out of provincial politics much longer and they
    will be a decided factor in the next election. Something fundemental is
    going to happen on the left as well, the tradional "labour/left" isn't
    there anymore, the NDP, burned by labour in this election will start to
    turn away from them and focus more on other social justice issues.
    Labour will make up the core of the new provincial reform (or reform
    lookalike). 
    
    Wierd times

    
     I personally don't think this was as much a protest vote as
     as a vote reflecting todays' trend in politics.
    
     Governments like the NDP are totally out of date and
     disappearing from the face of Canada.
    
     People are finally realizing that there is a limit to how much
     tax we can pay, and a limit to how much services the government
     can provide. The tax/services curve has risen dramatically
    over the past few years with no end in sight.
    
     I'm afraid the NDP government in Ontario only compounded the problem
     by catering to almost every left wing group by tinkering with
     well proven policies in place.
    
     They began their term with a definite goal of fulfilling their agenda
     at any cost, and only seemed to pay lip service to economic costs
     related to their legislation being introduced.
     Let's not forget that during the first part of their term there
     was a wholesale exodus of firms south of the border due not
     simply to market access, but employment constraints and rising
     costs of doing business in Ontario.
    
     The provincial total deficit has balloned unbridled during this
     time and definitely needs to be reigned in.
    
     The costs for all these escalating social programs is
     incredibly out of proportion to what other provinces are paying.
    
     The NDP party was a total disaster for this province and having
     the current PC party in power is in itself a blessing.
     
    

    
    Mike Harris said all the right things to all the right people in a
    victory-at-all-costs-mad-dash to the finish line, and I don't believe
    a word of it.  Didn't believe Lyn McLeod, either.  Whatever else you
    want to say about Rae, at least he conducted himself with some measure
    of dignity this time around.
    
    Six of one versus half-a-dozen of the other.
    
    At least - when the slime begins to ooze from Queens Park (again) - I 
    can console myself with: "Well, *I* didn't vote for him."
    
    jc
    

    Norm,
    
    You would be a little more credable if you at least admitted the
    recession had some effect. Instead you quote isolated "facts" from the
    PC hymn book.
    
     You show alot of comassion for a duck, to bad when it comes to people
    you couldn't give a ......
    
    							Derek.

    
    re-.1
    
    The fact that taxes have gone up continually is an isolated "fact"?
    
    Give me a break.  That "total lack of compassion" stuff is complete
    crap.  How about compassion for those that work, and not collect.  For those
    that try to get businesses going and create something.  For people's
    views without automatically tagging them racist, mean, etc. because their
    views on government differ.   
    
    Save me the NDP hymn book.
    
    Marshall
    
    

    
    Don't spend your 30% tax break yet.
    

    Don't bury your speedometer yet.

    TROOA::MCRAM
    
     I have been part of a startup company that failed during the
    recession. Funny, no government action caused the failure. How
    can that be ? I mean the NDP were in power, they must have caused it.
    What are your credentials to cry and moan about the poor startup
    company ?
    
     As for compasion from Norm, you have never had the chance to talk to
    him about welfare have you ? If you had, you would understand that he
    indeed did show more concern for that duck than he does for people on
    welfare.
    
    								Derek.

    
    My compassion is being targetted here, I see!!
    
    I have just as much compassion for humans as I have for helpless
    animals, and I'm sure I can safely say this about most people.
    
    Derek, I really hoped we wouldn't start accusing people
    directly of misinterpretaions, but I guess I'm to be dragged into
    this...
    
    As I have stated to as many folks that are willing to listen, there
    is a lot of abuse in our present day welfare state here in Ontario.
    
    I know personally of at least 3 cases where there are able bodies
    people on the receiving end and whom have absolutely no motivation to
    get off welfare and look for a job.
    
    Providing these people with the most generous payments in Canada
    certainly does not help. The lack of incentive appears to be the
    prevalent problem here.....
    
    I will provide you with my flagship example:
    
    I know of a family currently living in a 900.00 / month townhome
    in a not shabby part of Kanata and have currently 3 children. One is a
     newborn.
    This family is and has been on welfare forever as far as my
    knowledge .. There is also a large dog in the family.
    
    I know for fact the two adults are collectively receiving the full
    family benefit, free health care , taxi coupons, and of course the
    rent is fully subsidized.
    Forgot to mention, 45.00/month for the dog.
    
    The 2 adulta are fully capable of work and the male in the household
    as far as I can see,  is well versed in computers.
    
     What is going on here, why do these people have the luxury of actually
    having a 3rd child, of course recieving even more benefits now, when
    the average family out there struggling under the enormous tax load
     in Ontario wouldn't even dare.
    
    After witnessing this, one wonders, why am I paying so much tax,
    for this!!!!!!
    Beleive me , you become disillusioned.
    
    I have seen and heard of other similar cases, and even discussed
    all this with a friends' friend who works in the Social Services
    sector. She even pointed out more ridiculous cases.
    
    Granted, there are valid cases out there, I'm not denying this.
    It seems having a very generous, no questions asked system is what the
    propblem is......
    
    Mike Harris is one of the few politicians that seems to understand this
    real well, and plans to introduce disincentives to this welfare
    grabfare.
    
     You'll probably respond with, "where are the jobs for all these
    people", excuse me, but where do all the landed immigrants seem to find
    jobs.
     The jobs are out there, and will be increasingly so, as of June 21.
     
    
    
    Workfaringly Yours,
    Norm
    

    I rest my case.

    
    Did Mike happen to tell you how much Workfare will cost YOU?
    (This, while he's cutting taxes by 30%)
    
    Seems like a big, potentially expensive question mark to me.
    
    Mike's promises are like a big jam doughnut with cream on the top.
    
    jc
    

    
    re. 8 
    
    You need credentials now to Cry and Moan?  Oh dear, this government red 
    tape is worse than I thought.  This is gonna take a lot of the fun out
    here.  
    
    How about I just Sob and Sigh a lot.  
    
     
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    TROOA::MCRAM
    
    >>You need credentials now to Cry and Moan?
    
     No, but it would add alot of impact to what you say. The same goes
    for facts that reflect reality, not just an agenda.
    
     As an example::
    
     Welfare payments skyrocketed while the NDP were in power. 
    (ignore that international recession/depression it was not a factor,
    the only thing that caused this was the NDP)
    
    							Derek.

�    Mike's promises are like a big jam doughnut with cream on the top.

	With statements like that, this discussion might get
	hot enough to boil a monkeys bum.

	Bruce

    <--- That's a strange expression, Bruce.

    
     I agree the 30% drop in income taxes is a little optimistic,
    but the general attitude which will be prevailing in
     the new Legislature is what I'm optimistic about.
    
     These new people are intent about cutting back, in a serious way,
    all the accumulated fluffy services which have accumulated over
     the years and become far removed from their original charter.
    
    
     The people of Ontario wholeheartidly appear to have wanted this 
     type of party in power, and for good reason.
    
    So there!!!
    

    I think even welfare's greatest supporters would agree that the system
    is broken, particularily in the lack of a real bridge into the
    workforce. Until someone does something about the fact that any money
    made through work directly reduces benefits by an equal or greater
    amount there will continue to be abuses. What's needed is to reduce benefits
    on a sliding scale as more money is made so that people can work their
    way off welfare. Workfare doesn't fix this, in fact it makes it worse
    since now you must help build sidewalks to nowhere (anybody else
    remember these, there used to be quite a few of them along highways and
    unpopulated rural roads in some area of Ontario, they were built as
    government funded make work projects in the depression) there's no time
    to do, or look for "real" work.
    
    I've heard babysitting mentioned frequnetly as a workfare activity,
    there's an idea who's time has clearly ce, NOT. Given how hard it is to
    get quality care from people who are in the profession by choice just
    imagine how kids will get treated by a workfare care/abuse giver. 

    
    Jam doughnut.
    
    Big.
    
    On top, there's cream.
    
    I want what's best for Ontario, and if Mike can provide it, more
    power to him.  But I think he just spouted all the stuff people
    wanted to hear.
    
    Welfare...who wants to think that people are getting a free ride?
    But YOUR anecdotal evidence doesn't match MY anecdotal evidence of
    people in Parkdale and Jane/Finch and Regent Park who aren't living
    anywhere near as high on the hog as some politicians would have you
    believe.
    
    Cut off the freeloaders, fine.  What percentage of the total do you
    think that represents?  I have right in front of me a chart that I 
    cut out of the paper a while back.  It charts Employment in Toronto
    along with Welfare Cases.  Guess what?  As employment drops, welfare
    cases increase.  As employment rises, welfare cases drop.  It's not
    rocket science; most welfare recipients would rather work.
    
    Mike (if he lives up to his promises) is gonna spend a whack of cash
    tracking relatively few freeloaders, and an even bigger whack of cash
    coming up with make-work projects (both for welfare recipients, and
    the civil servants that will be required to oversee this `workfare'
    program).  Sounds to me like it won't save us anything.
    
    Photo radar...who wants it?  Well, it's a tax on speeding, and a 
    voluntary one at that.  Mike's gonna make up his lost tax revenue
    with user fees, and he can't afford to part with this kind of income.  
    *IF* he does, he'll find some other source for it.  Smoke-and-mirrors.
    
    Employment Equity...who wants to be bumped to the back of the line?
    But we all read the article in today's paper.  Visible minorities are
    better educated than the rest of us, but they are more likely to be
    unemployed or employed below their capabilities.
    
    So...who needs employment equity?  There's no racism here.
    
    Mike shot for the lowest common denominator and hit the mark.  
    *Reality* is an animal much harder to hit.
    
    Time will tell, we shall see, blah blah blah...
    
    jc
    

    Mike Harris is like a stream of bat's piss.

    >>Mike Harris is like a stream of bat's piss.
    
    Er, umm, what Glenn means is that, er, Mike Harris is like a golden ray
    of sunshine where all around is darkness...I think.
    
    Wilde

    
    Mike Harris is like a dose of clap!
    
    
    
    Before he arrives is pleasure, but after is a pain in the dong!!
    
    (...it was one of Glenn's...)
    

    What I meant was.....
    
    {sweat}
    
    What, I meant to say was...
    
    {gulp}
    
    What I meant was...
    
    Ooh
    
    
    8^pPPpPPppPPPpPPppPPpPPpPPppPPPppPPppPpPpPpPPPppPpPppppPpPpPpPp !!!!

	This is silly

     The following is a list of townhouse prices from the Ottawa Citizen.
    I hope we can agree that a family of 5 with a dog needs a townhouse.
    The average is $911.97. The example welfare rip-off is $12 less than
    the average. Considering what some of the lower priced ones must look
    like, I have no problem with them living in an "average" house.
    
    							Derek.
    
    895  780   999   750   895   810  799  875   800   1600  860   1055 
    803  900   900   950   810   1040 810  1050  811   1195  999   813
    1075 850   875   1050  836   885  1050 950   975   832   1150  930
    875  885   838   872   900   875  861  808   775   1500  775   825
    800  810   1000  980   795   840  820  1300  870   825   875   850
    1250 874   850   795   970   853  765  838   875   850   855   850
    850  825   850   883   795   1100

    I may have lost the line of this conversation with all the
    interjections, but....
    
    are you saying that someone who spends less-than-average on housing should
    live in a cheaper townhouse than someone on welfare?

    
    Newt Gingrich and his american conservative mentality would suggest the
    following:
    
    - send the dog to the humane society
    - put the kids in orphanages
    - kick the parents out onto the street.
    
    

    FSCORE::PATTERSON
    >>are you saying that someone who spends less-than-average on housing
    >>should live in a cheaper townhouse than someone on welfare?
    
     Not sure exactly what you are getting at. The facts state that someone
    who spends less than average on housing is spending less than **this
    particular welfare recipiant** But that would not be my point.
    
     I am saying that quoting a price without comparison to local market
    conditions is meaningless. The numbers show they are not getting a
    palace, they are getting an average townhouse. Knowing this, it takes
    alot of the impact out of the complaint that they are in a $900/mth
    townhouse. If the average was $500, it would be outrageous, if the
    average was $1300 then it would be disgaceful. I feel the numbers point
    out that the system worked, and the welfare people were not put in a
    ghetto.
    
    							Derek.
    

re. -1

If this welfare family decides to have a total of 5 kids (2 more), is it the 
goverments duty to move this family to an even bigger house?

Mike.

    
    No, the eldest two kids should be taken away and put to work in a
    garment factory.
    
    Look, there's no question that there are abuses of the system. 
    Everybody "knows" this.  But does anybody "know" what percentage
    of the system the abuses represent?  Does anybody "know" how much
    it would cost to track down the abusers?
    
    I once knew a woman who was abusing welfare here in Toronto.  As a
    single woman with no children, she was getting $430/month.  The rent
    for her room was $300/month, which left her $130/month for...well...
    you do the math.
    
    After a couple of months of this, she couldn't afford it any more and
    had to go find a job.
    
    Can anybody actually document the level of abuse, or is it something
    we all just "know"?
    
    jc
    

    re. .28
    
    Derek,
    
     I think you're missing the point here in a big way.
    I'm not debating the relative cost of townhome rentals
    for welfare vs. non-welfare families.
    It's the princiC��ple.
    What gives these people the right to live off the hog and
    "freeload", when other families are struggling under the
    present day humungous tax load.
    
    This is my point.
    I'm a very fair person, but when I see or hear about able bodied
    adults sitting around waiting for government cheques, 
     I feel ripped off.
    
    So , let's get this straight, whe're not debating the
    "dollars and cents", of rentals , but the fact that thees
    people are abusing the system and should be off it.
    
    I don't have figures about the number of cases like this,
    but all I need to see or hear about is a few.
    
     I'm all for welfare to the truly needy, people that cannot
    for one reason or another, work at a full time job.
    
    
    Let's not get into this rathole too far, there are other
    aspects of the PC platform we can debate, you know.
    
    
    

 Norm,

>>I don't have figures about the number of cases like this,
>>but all I need to see or hear about is a few.

 This type of attitude is the problem in my view. People take a few well picked
data points to make a case against all welfare recipiants.

 Can you explain why Canada has less violent crime than the US ? I would say,
and I would not be alone, that our social safety net is part of the reason.
When I see governments tearing it apart for short term political gain, I
feel ripped off. By the time the results are seen, it will be too late, and
Mike the Knife will be collecting his big fat pension paid for by you and me.

 You can't see "what gives these people the right to live off the hog and
 "freeload"". Well they are the abusers. How would you like it if they reduced
all roads in Ontario to dirt roads because the paved ones allowed for some
people to speed ? You would say (I presume) that the guilty should be punished
not everyone. I see welfare fraud as the same thing. Sadly, when you see anybody
other than a handicapped person on welfare, you see fraud. I saw a show once on
the homless in the US. They had a lady on who's husband died, without sufficent
life insurance, and bingo she was homeless. Life is like that. I myself just
about got wiped out in the last recession. Maybe that's why I care about the
social programs, I **know** that anybody could end up needing them, including
me.

							Derek
    

Derek,

I'm also glad to have the social programs and know that if something ever
happens and UIC runs out then I'll be able to get social assistance.

If I ever did end up on social assistance then I do know one thing though, it
will not make me stop from looking for a job.  If there weren't working people
in this world paying the taxes then there wouldn't be any social assistance.

Bottom line is yes there is a need for social assistance but able bodied and
able minded persons have a social responsibility to try to do everything they
can to get off social assistance and get to work.

I personally thing it's irresponsible for someone on welfare who has no
intention of looking for work to keep having children.  I know it's everyone's
right to have children and there's nothing we should do to stop them.  IMHO If
you're on welfare and can't afford to bring up children then you shouldn't have
any.

Getting a bit off the initial thread here...

/Mario

> able bodied <> fraud 

Agreed. But, if an able bodied (non fraudulent recipient) can't find a job,
what's the harm in them working "for the people". I don't know what the
Premier-elect has in mind, but cleaned/swept streets, more volunteers in 
understaffed social programs,etc... can't hurt.

Upon thinking about this, I don't see "workfare" as right-wing at all.  You
could actually call it leftist if you want.  Think about it...wasn't that
Communist thing about jobs for everybody?  And as many soviets used to say
"We're all equal...some just more equal than others".


Mike.  

    
    You'll notice a pattern with this government:
    
    1. A few bad apples in the Airborne, nuke the whole regiment.
    
    2. Some criminals with guns commit atrocities during robberies etc.,
       penalize all legal gun owners with harsh legislation.
    
    3. Welfare is abused, punish them all.
    
    And so on. It's getting very predictable. Open the jails and turn down
    the welfare benefits, better stay in at night folks.
    
    Pat R.

    
    Two separate levels of government were just mentioned.
    
    So, are you blaming our PM for everything, or were you just making
    a generality of governments.
    
    This is the first time that I've heard anybody say that our laid back
    PM is doing too much governing.
    
    Mike.

    If you can work, and refuse, you should be shot.
    If you own a home larger than 2500 sq/ft you should be shot.
    If there are more than two cars for your household your household
    should be shot.
    If you water your grass you should be shot.
    If you vote you should be shot.
    well i'm out of time but i'm sure there is more i could think of.
    
    chris
    

    <---- You could _use_ a shot. what'll ya have?

    Tallisker neat with a side car of spring water, thanks.                
        
    

    
    Is that Al Palladini wacky or what?
    

    
    
    	I'll pick what.

    Well they have had a little time to show their stripes. So far the
    "common sense" revolution has eliminated photo radar (55% of the people
    in Ontario agree with it), and have approved "exploding bullets"
    (hollow tipped) for the police. You know, the ones that expand inside a
    human body to ensure they do not exit out the other side and harm an
    innocent by-stander. (They also will kill the human body alot better)
    
     I suppose it is all part of a plan. Once the people figure out where
    the money lost from photo radar is going to be made up, the government
    will need the protection provided police wielding guns with hollow
    tipped bullets.
    
     I can hardly wait to see what they do once they have time to think
    before they act.
    
    							Derek.

    
    Soon-to-be-former Transportation Minister Al Palladini wants to know
    why the car dealership he owns can't continue to sell cars to the
    provincial government.
    
    Helloooooooo?!  McFlyyyyyy?!
    

    
     I , and millions of other Ontarians, wiil agree that this new
    government is "right" for the times. They have begun implementing
    their austerity program with a vengeance, and will be slowly
    unravelling the excesses of the misguided Rae government, over time.
    
    Unfortunately, there will always be skeptics surfacing that can't help
    but be negative about something new, but time will prove them wrong.
    
    The Tories have already done away with "photo radar", a pure and simple
    cash grab, and will instead have police forces concentrate on
    "bad and reckless drivers", along with speeders.
    
     
     

    
    Looks good to me so far...no robots as police, (Robocop syndrome),
    
    and it is really quite amazing what a hollow point bullet can
    
    do to the tires of a speeding car.
    
    After all, I expect that the coroner's inquest into the death
    of 5 year old Josh Baillie (he was killed as an innocent bystander
    during a police chase) will have as one of it's recommendations that
    police chases be much more closely controlled.
    
    Also proposed is rolling back the bicycle helmet law (Great!) among
    other freedom for the people measures.
    
    Norm is right, and Harris is right for the times, IMO.
    

    re. No more photo radar...
    
    Does that mean I legally take those "This highway monitored by
    photoradar" signs from the highway?
    
    Mike.

    POLAR::ROBINSONP
    
     Next it will be that pesky seatbelt law, and after that, who knows ?
    Maybe they'll gut the envronmental protection laws put on the books by
    the dreaded NDP. I mean they already have stated that employment
    bigtotry is good (opposite of emplyment equity which is according to
    them bad) so why shouldn't polluters expect the same protection (or
    lack of prosecution) that speeders, and racists get ? Are polluters
    second class citizens just because they make the world un-livable ?
    
    							Derek.

    Norm:
    
>>Unfortunately, there will always be skeptics surfacing that can't help
>>but be negative about something new, but time will prove them wrong.

Unfortunatly employment discrimiation is nothing new, and time will not change
a thing. If time was all that was needed, it would have been gone long ago.
    
    							Derek.
    

    employment bigotry??????????????
    
    what's that supposed to mean?
    
    
    Or did you mean freedom for an employer to hire who he/she wants and
    not be forced by quotas and a stupid law to hire the wrong person for
    the job.

    
    .46:
    
    If you want one, you better move fast.  They've already started
    taking them down.
    

    
    .49:
    
    On June 13th Statistics Canada released a report that blows your
    position right out of the water.  You may want to wander down to
    your local library and peruse a copy.
    

    
    Re: Seat belts
    
    The first thing that can go is the 2 point demerit for not wearing
    it, then next, the "seat belt traps" paid at time and a half (remember
    that a first class constable makes close to $60 K) and they
    commonly have 3 or more officers staffing these.
    
    Then some people are surprised when a battered spouse calls 911
    three times and no cop shows up. Just her husband with a stolen
    shotgun. Boom. Another victim of left wing politics.
    
    Clear cut to me.

    FSCORE::HOGAN
    
     You would appear to have little to no understanding of what EE is
    about. Just so you don't go too far down a dead end, quotas are not
    part of EE. If you feel EE is not needed, you have not been keeping
    up on current affairs. If you think EE is an excuse to hire unqualified
    people, I understand why you don't like it. Since that is not what it
    is about, maybe you would consider re-thinking your position. Or
    perhaps you prefer the current arrangement where visable minorities and
    women are generally under paid and under employed.
    
    							Derek.
    
    
    							Derek.

POLAR::ROBINSONP
    
>>Another victim of left wing politics.

 Yeah that Bill Davis, now there is a left wing nutcase for you. Perhaps you
were unaware that the NDP had nothing to do with the seatbelt laws. But hey,
don't let details like lives saved, injuries avoided slant your view. Your
perfectly within your rights to slam your head against the dash/window, or
if your really lucky you could be thrown half way out of your car, and be cut
right in two. (like you never took drivers ed ???)

Please have a note in your wallet saying you don't want to burden the taxpayers
of Ontario with the exspense of keeping you alive, since you demand the right
to be reckless.

							Derek.
    

Anytime a law says that employment levels for a company must reflect
the mix of a community (ie, women, people of disability, people of
colour, and religion -those are the 4 main groups), you are bound to
find companies that aren't complying.  There's many reasons why a
company might not satisfy these requirements, and many people were
scared that EE sets itself up for quotas. My "socialist" Human resource
prof said that quotas are a perfectly natural enforcer of EE. (He has a
PHD in something or other, so who am I to argue). You should have seen
him when I said that companies would just hire contractors instead, if they
really wanted to elude the EE police.

And so you don't think I'm a simpleton, I also know (fully) the
difference between EE and Pay Equity. (I assume you know also)


Here's a question concerning Hollow tipped bullets: The gov't approved them f
or what level of police in this province, and how many police forces 
(in this province, and elsewhere) are already using them.

Photoradar was a license for the rich to speed.  You could go as fast as you
wanted, and would get no demerit points.  If you had the cash, then you could
speed.

Mr. KAOFS::D_STREET, I think I know who you are....you're the ...




Anti-Rush Limbaugh!!!!!!!! 

(think about that one a bit, and get back to me)



1 hour til my vacation :-)

Mike.

    re .55 
    
     It was by pure coincidence that I used the same title as you
     I didn't see it til just now.
     
    Mike.                             

    
    re -.1
    
    Could it be Lush Rimbaugh, 
    
    or Flush Rimbaugh?
    
    
    Flash Rimbaugh?

    POLAR::ROBINSONP
    
     I'd look into that sleep apnea if I were you. Uncontrolled yawning is
    one of teh early signs.
    
    							Derek.

    FSCORE::HOGAN
    
    RE:Yawn....
    
     Enjoy the vacation, and try to catch up on your sleep.
    
    
    						Derek.

    imagine that...a political party that is giving the appearance
    of living up to it's election campain promises.
    
    In my opinion some of the PC promises are unattainable within thier
    term but as long as they take definite steps toward those goals we
    are heading in the right direction.
    
    Re decisions so far.
    
    1. photo radar was a cash grab and had nothing to do with safety
       it is pretty much a fundamental right to be able to challenge
       your accuser. Photo radar does not allow for this. Also the
       police were using photo radar as an alternative to patrolling
       highways..as if speeding tickets were thier only objectives.
    
    2. ellimination of the waste abvisory board. While the government
       should be involved in this process it should be the municipalities
       responsibility to procure thier on dump sites and pay for the 
       environmental assesment.
    
    
    
    Brian V
    

    Well I saw Mike Harris on tv yesterday, and he confirmed what I
    suspected was the real "problem" with photo radar. He started by
    admitting that the speed of traffic was indeed slowed by photo radar.
    (apparently studies indicate slower speed accidents cause less harm,
    but who needs facts) Then he nailed the issue on the head as far as I
    can see. He said the probelm was that there were no demerit points
    handed out by photo radar. As I always suspected the issue was that
    insurance companies could not increase rates based on photo radar.
    
     But why concentrate on one issue, from the weekend paper.....
    
    	Construction of 1,300 townhouses and apartments in Ottawa-Carleton,
    	worth tens of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs, has been
    	stopped by a provincial moratorium on the building of non-profit
    	housing.
    	It has left developers, architects, trade people, city managers,
    	and volunteer community groups dangling. Housing agancies,
    	community groups and co-operatives are unable to proceed with
    	projects, but they remain legally bound to land deals and contracts
    	with consultants and builders.
    
     The PC plan is to provide "shelter allowances" for low income people
    to live in regular apartments. Too bad there are no "regular"
    apartments available.
    
     Anyone living in Ottawa knows what a problem the vacancy rate is. It 
    does not surprise me that the new PC government is attacking the poor,
    they traditionally have little or no money to give to political
    parties.
    
    Unlike the insurance lobby that fought so hard to insure that speeding
    tickets are accompanied by an insurance rate increase.
    
    
    							Derek.

    The issue of speed kills is widely debated.  Here in the US, the
    latest studies show that the drive 55 campaign actually did very little
    to reduce accidents ... while traffic fatalities were reduced, there
    are any number of other factors that contributed to this ... like
    seatbelts ... safety inspections in a number of states ... ABS ...
    air bags ... improved car crumple zone design ...  As a reuslt, the
    federal gov't mandated speed limits are being dropped.
    
    The lack of demerit points associated with Ontario photo radar is
    definitely a problem, and while I have little sympathy for the
    insurance companies, if it takes prohibitive insurance premiums to
    get poor drivers off the road, then so be it ... if it has the
    side effect of reducing the insurance costs for safe drivers then
    that's a plus.
    
    As to the building moratorium ... this is a fact of life that any
    company that contracts to government must face ... history in most
    countries are littered with cancelled contracts and other examples
    of governments backing out of committments.  True that doesn't make
    it right, but it is something that MUST be considered.
    
    I have some sympathy when it comes to the low income housing
    problems, especially in places like Ottawa where vacancy rates are
    so low, or other places where the housing costs are so high.  The
    problem though is that there has to be some happy medium ...  The
    life of many in low income housing is cozy enough to provide no
    inducement to get out of the trap.  So in practice, there would
    never be enough low income housing.
    Clearly, this is an area that should be revisited by the gov't.
    
    This non-social approach, coupled with user pay, has big social
    downsides, as anyone who visits parts of the US will have noticed.
    The gap between rich and poor is dramatically higher here in the
    US ... where in Canada, apart from a few filthy rich, that gap is
    much smaller.  The result is ghettos, areas of squalor, neighbourhoods
    where you daren't drive because of drug dealers etc.
    
    There are very few parts of Ottawa for example where you would be
    very uncomfortable walking in the day ... There are a few areas in
    Colorado Springs where I feel uncomfortable driving in the relative
    safety of my car, let alone walking.
    
    But the world is now on a swing to the so called conservative right.
    In Canada, in England, in the USA ... the social impacts will be
    quite damaging ... but people have now had their fill of ovespending
    government and peple not contributing to society because the social
    system made it easier not to.  One day, the pendulum will swing back
    ...  I hope that not too much damage will have been done, and I also
    hope that the social thinkers will not be pushed so far that the
    world will then swing to an over social system the other way with
    greater voracity than the current swing to the right.
    
    That adage "Moderation in all things" should be applied to all things.
    
    Stuart

   > That adage "Moderation in all things" should be applied to all things.
    
   > Stuart
    
    
    

    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :-)
    
    Thanks Stephen!  I was moderately amused.  I think you should be
    congratulated for a modicum of success in turning my face a bright
    shade of pale.
    
    Stuart (moderately hot here in Colorado!)
    

    re: .62
    
    My but you are a suspicious fellow.  What an incredible leap you have
    made to conclude that photo radar was banned in the interest of
    insurance companies!  I think you will find that the insurance industry
    is an ardent support of photo radar.
    
    The real issue with no demerit points is that it is only a deterrent to
    the poor!  The rich can drive as fast as they want and simply pay for
    the tickets they receive, and no matter how many they get their driving
    priviledge is not affected.  Bob Rae used photo radar as a substitute
    for police patrols, making our highways into speedways for the rich
    with little or no risk if you had the money.  Effectively it was one
    law for the rich and another for the poor - hardly what you'd expect
    from a government that was supposed to be the champion of the
    underpriviledged.
    
    

    re: .62  
    
    >> building of "non-profit" housing.
    
    That kind of says it all.  The far right wing could never support
    anything that wasn't permitting their "rich friends" to miss a 
    chance to get even richer off the backs of the poor.
    
    Besides, the people designated for that low cost housing won't need 
    it anymore as they will be living in tents on the roadside as they
    make their way across the province cleaning up the garbage of the 
    >>FILTHY<< rich.  I've yet to figure out what's going to happen
    to the people who are paid to do it now.  I guess they could always
    go collect welfare and then they'd get their old jobs back.
    
    
    Robin

    
    I'm not quite sure if any of you have ever seen or set foot in these
    non-profit subsidized rental buildings, but I will describe one.
    
    I had the opportunity to visit a person in one of these recently-built
    appt. buildings in the downtown Ottawa area. My first thought was,
    gee, I wish I lived here. The place is somewhat luxurious, even has a
    air-conditioned lobby and stairwells, and does not appear to be
    shabbily built at all. As a matter of fact, this particular building is
    on prime real estate and is directly across luxury condo units in a 
    similar-looking building.
     I don't know about you, but I left that building thinking , now
    I understand why a lot of people are jumping on this welfare bandwagon.
    You wouldn't even have to live in a dive in the downtown area, this
    place is great and subsidized.
    
     I'm sorry, but I'm real tired of seeing my tax dollars spent this
    way, when I have friends that work and can't even live anywhere near
    the downtown area due to high rents.
    
    The Region and the Ont. Govnmt. just completed another , much larger
    building similar to the one I described, but in the Market area
    of Ottawa. I happened to park in the parking lot below and could not
    believe how luxurionus this place was. Then I found out it
    was non-profit housing subsidized by different levels of govmnt.
    
    What are these people striving to accomplish here. Of course, 
    no welfare recipient would ever want to get off it, if they
    receive this many perks.
     You'll actually have the reverse situation of many people
    lining up for welfare , as it stands today.
    
    Oh, BTW, the person I was visiting, had an option of upgrading to a
    fully subsidized "townhouse" , anytime she wished, because
    she had a child.
    
    
    Why bother working anymore!!!!!!!!!!!
    

    
    .68:
    
    Why, indeed.
    
    Why don't you try it, Norm, and let us know just how luxurious it is?
    
    Does public housing have to be a slum to be acceptable to you?  Here in
    Toronto we have several different housing projects of varying degrees
    of success.  On the upside we have the mixed-income projects down on
    the Esplanade and at Baldwin & Henry Streets.  On the downside, we have
    the ghettos at Alexandra Park, Regent Park, Flemingdon Park, Jane-Finch,
    King & Jameson, and Moss Park. 
    
    Da facts is, that if you want to keep public housing from turning into
    a high-crime ghetto, you have to build good-quality, mixed income
    projects.  Anything else is a waste of money and a recipe for trouble.
    
    jc
    

     From the paper today I see that the head of the LCBO has started the 
    move towards privatized liquor sales. His objective is to "vastly
    improve" how Ontarians buy liquor. He actually has the gall to say
    that we should learn from Alberta where privatization has increased
    prices and hurt service. From what I have heard the Alberta experience
    shows:
    
    	- higher prices
    	- less selection
    	- more sales to under aged people
    	- loss of revenue
    
     Public health people are not impressed. The list of things they say
    increased is staggering. Everything from alcohol abuse to teen
    pregnancies. I hope they do learn from Alberta, and not go ahead with
    what is a feel good, populace plan, that will further erode the quality
    of life we have here in Ontario. I for one do not gauge my quality of
    life on how easy it is to buy booze. If the new PC government does, one
    has to wonder what kind of rubbies got elected.
    
    							Derek.

    
    Derek,
    
     Thank you for that unbiased report on the repurcussions of
    privatizing liquor sales.
    
     I've also read a report that there are fewer welfare cases in
    Alberta today, probably to privatization of Liquor Outlets,
    or is it because they've all left for the welfare mecca of Ontario.
    
     Don't you think for a second that if a youth wants liquor,
    they will get it regardless of whether its' sold in a privately
    run outlet or an LCBO outlet.
    
     Ontario has become one of the last remaining jurisdictions in 
    North America, or the world for that matter, that still tightly
    controls liquor sales and insists on being matronly with liquor.
    
     Isn't it ironical that the NDP government continued to have this
    cartel/monopoly continue to exist, and at the same time introduce
    a completely new vice, " legalized gambling"........
    
    

    Norm,
    
     You know perfectly well that Alberta bussed it's welfare types to BC,
    not Ontario. The prohibitive bus fare saved Ontario the expense. :)
    And just so you know, I know people who have moved from Ontario to BC
    to get the better benifits.
    
     I don't make this stuff up Norm, unlike your anicdotal evidence of
    luxurious living for welfare types. I myself have never seen a place
    I would like to live in that currently has a welfare type in it. Is
    your anicdotal evidence any better than mine ?
    
     Try reading the paper, today's Citizen, and you will see, in BLACK AND
    WHITE that the leader of the LCBO states that in Alberta the prices
    went up and service suffered. 
    
    								Derek.

    
    
    > Try reading the paper, today's Citizen, and you will see, in BLACK
    > AND WHITE that the leader of the LCBO states that in Alberta the prices
    > went up and service suffered.
        
      I haven't read the article, but I will agree with you that it is
     in the colors black and white.
      I thought you would have read the article in the colour "rose",
    but I guess you had removed your " rose-coloured glasses" temporarily.
    
     " The leader of the LCBO states that in Alberta the prices went up and
        the service suffered"
    
     Hmmmm.....
    
      I've got to stop laughing at this statement, its' affecting my
    work....
    
     Of course he's going to say that, his stinkin' job is on the line!!
     Maybe he should also have mentioned the recent flooding in Southern
     Alberta is due to privatizing liquor sales......
    
     You'd think that he would be happy with his soon to be received
    fat severance package.........
    
                                                                         

    Norm, Norm, Norm....
    
     The article starts with the line:
    
     "Ontario's liquor boss says the government should consider privatizing
    liquor stores while offering Sunday shopping, better product variety
    and price cuts".
    
     Sure sounds like he wants it. But again, don't let little details get
    in the way of the "common sense" revolution.
    
    
    							Derek.

    Geez, Derek, what I heard on a radio news report was that the head of
    LCBO says the gov't should look into privatization, but NOT repeat the
    mistakes made in Alberta....  Sounds reasonable to me....

    
    Oh the sky is falling, we are all doomed!
    
    Don't you guys have *anything* positive to say?  This notes file used
    to be kind of *fun*.  Now it it seems like an NDP whining session.
    Even Bob Rae has the grace to accept that things (like the majority 
    opinion) have changed.
    
    Live from Al's Pine Tree Lincoln Mercury,
    
    Marshall
    
    (Today with every Lincoln get a small town LCBO and a subsidized Condo!) 
    
    
    
    
    
     
    
    

    Gary,
    
     Did you, as well as Norm, misread this part of my note ??
    
    >>He actually has the gall to say that we should learn from Alberta where
    >>privatization has increased prices and hurt service.
    
     As in "we should learn from Alberta where privatization has increased
    prices and hurt service."
    
     
     As an NDP supporter I have had to listen to the "if we raise the
    minimum wage the economy will collapse" and its like for years. Now
    the shoe is on the other foot, and all of a sudden  it's shut up the
    election is over. So if I read it correctly, Conservatives and Liberals
    can complain, but the NDP can't.
    
    
     Sorry if I subscribe to the "good for the goose, good for the gander"
    approach, but it makes one come across as alot less hypocritical. Face
    it, the PC's are in the kitchen, I hope they can take the heat.
    
    
    							Derek.

    Let's face it, no matter who is in power, the government is always
    wrong!
    
    There are lots of things that I don't understand about the preachings
    of both sides of these arguments ...
    
    Privatization ... Why ?  If the gov't owned business actually makes a
    profit, why the panic to privatize.  Who's to say that a private
    organization would run it any more profitably?  And who's to say that
    the company operating the privatized business would pay as much in
    taxes as the profit from the gov't owned business.  Add the fact that
    a privatized ocmpany would probably downsize and reduce wages, and
    hence add more people to the UI and welfare rolls ... and reduce the
    income tax from the remaining employees.
    
    What part of the picture am I missing here ??????
    
    
    Why is it that the taxpayer must provide for welfare recipients ? Don't
    put the cart before the horse in this argument ... ie Assume there was
    no welfare ... then create welfare cases ... who should support them
    and then how MUCH should they be supported.
    
    There is a movement here in the USA to put welfare into the hands of
    the churches ... on the grounds that they are the people who promote
    help thy neighbour.  The hitch with this is like the underfunded food
    banks ... private charity can only go so far.
    
    Some places, it actually pays people to add children to their welfare
    family ... PARDON ????  There is something wrong with this picture.
    
    Welfare needs reform ... in Canada where it seems a little too generous
    and here in the US where it seems too mean.  But politics today is 
    reactionary ... reactionary right and reactionary left.  It seems that
    the middle of the road is for people who are "Wimps who cannot make up
    their mind to be reactionary left or right".  Wrong!  The middle of the
    road is a valid political and social stance that is very much out of
    favour today.
    
    In years gone by, my politics were decidedly conservative (no not PC
    and not Tory ... there are differences) but it is curious to be
    conservative in outlook, and yet down here be considered a "Bleeding
    Heart Liberal".  In the political arena today, there is black and
    white.  You're right or wrong ... right or left ...  The middle ground
    doesn't exist ... and this is to the detriment of us all.
    
    Stuart

    Stuart,
    
     Will you please stop being so damn reasonable. :)
    
    						
    
    						Derek.

    TROOA::MCRAM
    
    >>Don't you guys have *anything* positive to say?
    
     As it turns out, the PC's are *NOT* going to get rid of the commission
    that is looking into reducing the number of school boards in Ontario by
    40-50%. Living in the Ottawa region, with all it's various school boards,
    I could not agree more with this action by the government. (regardless of
    who they are)
    
    								Derek.

    This mornings news said that while the PC's said that they think that
    liquor sales should be more convenient and approve of the extended
    hours now available at the brewers they do not intend to persue corner
    store sale of liquor as the government has more urgent matters to take
    care of.  (nice sentence structure eh ?)
    
    Re subsidized housing...10 years ago a friend of mine has in gear to
    income housing....nice place 3 bedroom townhouse with a finished
    basement. Washer, dryer, fridge, stove and dishwasher included. At the
    time I was paying more for rent in 1/3 of a house. 
    
    Welfare in this province has been broken for a long time and it needs
    to be fixed...Ontario still pays more in welfare than the national
    average. Welfare should allow you to just get by..and encourage you to
    do something to try to improve your lot. (People on disabilities should 
    not be considered as being on welfare)
    
    Derek ... you seem well informed although lately your perception is
    OTL. How can you possibly support a party that learned in its first year
    in power that its main policies dont work. Bob made some definite
    strides toward correcting the problem during his subsequent years but
    he still didn't have the balls to axe the 30,000 civil servants he
    hired in that first year.
    
    Hopefully Mike will do that.
    
    Mike's living up to his promises so far...that more than you can say
    for the previous party.
    
    
    Brian V
    

    >                      -< Hard to argue with a moderate. >-
    
    >     Will you please stop being so damn reasonable. :)
    
    No ... I won't stop ... I will not be railroaded because I am a
    moderate!  A moderate's views are as important as any one elses!
    The politically left and right have forgotten that ... and this
    is the very point I'm trying to make!
    
    Somebody with moderate views doesn't matter!
    
    So I'm going to stand up and wave the flag for all the m-o-r people
    in the world who are thoroughly cheesed off with the left and right
    who both think their ways are the only ways.
    
    I wouldn't link Harris to Mulroney yet ...  He hasn't made it his
    life's goal to get Quebec into the constitution at all costs yet.
    :-)
    
    Stuart

    KAOFS::B_VANVALKENB
    
     Thanks for the good news update on LCBO. And I would say they are
    right, this province has alot more to worry about than a corperation
    that kicks $630m **into** the provincial coffers.
    
     As for the NDP and layoffs. My B-I-L is a teacher at Algonquin College
    here in Ottawa. You should have heard him scream about the Rae-Days. I
    wonder how he feels now, I won't ask, because it could cause a heart
    attack. The NDP tried to walk a fine line. Don't kill the earning
    capacity of x% of the work force, deminish the earning capacity of all
    the work force. People did not appreciate the effort, and it was one of
    the reasons the NDP did not survive. I hope the public servents that
    voted for the PC's to "get" the NDP, are the ones who get laid off. I
    mean, that's what they voted for isn't it ?
    
    								Derek.

    KAOFS::B_VANVALKENB
    
     I forgot to mention. We haven't got the "cupboards are bare" speech
    that every new government uses to explain why they can't live up to
    this or that promise. Just like the NDP did in the last election.
    
    
    							Derek.

    
    Re: 630 million LCBO,
    
    They forgot to say that the underground liquor business is estimated
    at $800 million.
    
    There is already a private sector competition!!

    OK Derek, I'll try again:
    
    I think I heard the same words about the privitization of alcohol sales in
    Alberta that you did, but I interpreted it positively while you appear
    to perceive it negatively.  My perception was that we should not repeat
    the mistakes made in Alberta, nor proceed with privitization despite
    the results in Alberta.
    
    I was in Michigan last week and purchased a bottle of Bacardi's Amber
    Rum for $9.95 US (~$14.00 CDN).  The same product costs over $20.00
    (close to $30.00) in Ontario.  Why?

     re .86
    
     I think we can all relate to much cheaper booze prices in the
    U.S. The main reason for the astronomical mark-up in liquor prices
    in Canada is taxes,taxes,taxes. The govnmt. insists on siphoning
    more taxes on the liquor bottle than it is worth, hence the
    huge mark-ups.
    
    Privatization will only really be succesfull in lowering prices if the 
    governemt relinquishes control of liquor imports and leaves
    it to market forces to decide on prices.
    
     So, this seems to be a two-step process.
    Privatize," get out of the liquor retail industry".
    Secondly, get out of the wholesale distribution of the liquor
    and stop reaping the huge taxes now in place.
    
      Derek does have a point of it being a " cash cow", an appealing one
     at that. 
    Sadly, its' one of those cash grabs that hurt us all. The "cash
    cow" portion we're all paying for with after tax dollars.
    
    But the bottom line is that we would be doing the right thing by
    ending this LCBO monopoly now, and take the hit.
    
     The government should definitely not be in the liquor business.

    If the government wants to "do the right thing" & correct an NDP mistake,
    while foregoing a cash cow, it should get out of the casino business.  
    
    I think the idea of privatizing liquor sales has more to do with 
    ideological grandstanding than anything else.  Why should creating some 
    semblance of a "free market" in booze be a priority? What problem will it 
    solve?
    
    -Stephen

    Norm,
    
     Where do you think they will make up the revenue shortfall ? As Gary
    is so fond of saying "there is only one consumer". Or in this case
    taxpayer. Any talk of lower prices is a shell game, you can pay them at
    the counter, or they **will** find another way to get the money. In
    retrospect, I am not surprised they walked away from this one. How can
    they even hope to reduce personal income tax while jettisoning cash
    cows ? Photo radar was a cash calf compared to LCBO. I mentioned that
    the PC's are doing 2 dimensional analisys of the issues, any one who
    thinks that reducing the taxes, or getting rid of the LCBO is going to
    reduce their tax load is doing the same thing. The Fram commercial
    comes to mind.
    
    							Derek.

    Stephen is right in asking ...
    
    >				...  Why should creating some
    >semblance of a "free market" in booze be a priority? What problem
    >will it solve?
    
    
    As I have already mentioned, it has the potential of creating more
    cash problems than it solves.
    
    Norm stated that the government should not be in the liquor business
    ...  Why shouldn't they be in any business they please, as long as
    it makes money ?  The only difference is who the shareholders are.
    
    Granted there is a lot of neat double and triple taxation going on
    but then that happens anyway ... even in the privatized world.
    
    The prices of alcohol products have far more to do with taxes, duties and
    profiteering than anything else.  What will the market bear ?  Clearly,
    the market will bear a remarkably inflated price!  Gee ... I thought
    this was part of the free market economy ... charging what the market
    will bear ... not necessarily what the product is worth!
    
    
    The Tory (not conservative) ideal of privatization is a zealous act of
    politics, just as nationalization to the left.
    
    
    Before you go and privatize or nationalize, the viability and impact
    should be considered prior to doing something purely on ideology.
    
    Stuart

    Why shouldn't the government be involved in any business they like....
    
    quite simple.
    
    The government has a few basic functions
    
    To represent Canada in international affairs
    To ensure the general well being of the country...this involves
    	ensuring access to medical services and education
    	ensuring the poor and disabled have enough to survive
    	ensure the countries infastructure meets the needs
    	ensure that the countries law match the current morals of the
    		general public.
    	ensure the safety of it's citizens within its boundaries
    
    Any thing else that the government gets involved in should have the
    following questions asked of it.
    
    	can the private sector supply this service ?
    	can the private sector be made to supply this service in all areas
    		of Canada ?
    
    If the answer to both is yes then the government may regulate but
    should not be in the business itself.
    
    To prove this point to yourself..just ask how many businesses you know
    that run at a loss for an extended period of time and stay in business.
    
    Quite simply the government is not directly accountable enough to run
    a business..it's to easy for one party to blame the debt on the
    previous party and then take 5 years of restructuring to do absolutely
    nothing. 
    
    
    IMO 
    
    
    Brian V
    

    Re: .81
    
    >>Mike's living up to his promises so far...that more than you can
    >>say for the previous party.
    
    
    That's exactly why they got turfed, they didn't follow through on 
    their promises and actually ended up being (in my opinion) more
    conservative than either of the two previous parties that ran the
    government.  People just don't want conservative governments but with
    our one party system (capitalism) that's all you get.  A bunch of 
    lily livered liars that follow the likes of Conrad Black and the 
    rest of the legal thieves that say it will be this way or I'll go
    elsewhere.
    
    Harris got in on one promise, "I'll reduce the average taxpayers
    taxes by $170/month", and nothing else.  This is the one I'm betting
    he won't keep.  I can't believe the people of this province are
    actually stupid enough to believe this.  If he does follow through
    where will the lost revenue come from, he didn't ever elaborate on
    this.
    
    If Rae, Harris or any other leader really cared about anyone besides
    him/herself ie. the people, then they would provide a fairer system
    for the actual producers of our society instead of rewarding the
    leaches.  A real leader who cared about society would end the greed
    and implement a fair social system regardless of what the capitalists
    said.  If this leader had any balls he would bring in his platform 
    and follow it up with things like:
    
    Asset export taxes  = 90% of the value of the asset being exported.
    
    Idle asset taxes  =  50% of the idle asset (ie. closed factories) 
    
    
    We don't have to be bullied by those that have the money.
    
    
    Just my thoughts,
    
    
    Robin
    

    Brian,
    
    Any government service could be provided by the private sector ...
    In the US, they are puching welfare back on community agencies like
    churches ...  That's private sector.
    
    The major difference between public and private sector must be who
    the defacto shareholders are ... in the private sector, there are
    few or many shareholders and profiteers for individual companies.
    For a publicly owned corporation, every one of us is a shareholder.
    
    Now don't say that privately owned corporations are necessarily more
    efficient ...  One of the largest vehicle manufacturers (actually in
    the vehicle business, it is bigger than GM!) in the world
    is a public corporation ... Regie Nationale des Usines Renault.
    
    The lack of accountability IS a major probelm with public corporations
    ... but I can think of a few private corporations who have a miserable
    lack of accountability, but survived in a booming market, but had to
    lay off nearly half its labour force in today's tough markets.  They
    could not account with any accuracy which products actually made money
    and which didn't ... let alone how much!  And then they didn't know
    which parts of management were responsible ...
    
    No a public corporation is not really any different from a large
    private corporation ...  Provide accountability and it doesn't matter.
    
    So, rather than tax the daylights out of us, if a public corporation
    can pay its way, make money to replace taxes and not gouge the public
    with prices which are in line with the market, then there is nothing
    wrong with public owned corporations.
    
    There are public corporations that, on the other hand lose money hand
    over fist, year after year ... Those should be looked at and either
    a) made accountable, b) closed, c) offered to the private sector.
    
    There are public corporations that lose money hand over fist, year
    after year ... look at a lot of the US airlines ... they use the losses
    as tax write offs ... so that the tax payer still ends up subsidizing
    inefficient businesses ...
    
    Granted ... we normally expect a government to look after governmental
    functions ... but if by running a business they can reduce the overall
    tax burden, through in essence profit sharing ... why not ?
    
    It could be said that your function is to help Digital make money and
    support your family.  If by purchasing a business on the side, you
    can cut your dependence on your income from Digital ... why not ?
    
    Really the argument for and against public ownership comes down to
    ideology.  And the problem is that to support that ideology, there are
    governments willing to acquire business "whatever the cost".
    
    Providing a business is purchased fairly and run according to sound
    business principals it doesn't matter who the ownership is.
    
    Stuart
    
    
    

    Robin,
    
    	True big business is not paying it's fair share in this province;
    but with the economy the way it is we need to look at how much tax
    businesses are paying elsewhere. We can not afford to drive more
    business out of this province.
    
    	I voted PC and I dont believe Mike can cut taxes as deeply as he
    says and still balance the budget in 5 years. His policies though are
    basically reform (which I like) and what were the alternatives. The
    Liberals promised the same old government with a little more cost
    restaints, but what killed them is their leader. She appeared to me to 
    be rather mean spirited and played with the truth. The NDP have a
    proven track record (the worst in provincial history) and Bob's
    promises this election was, I promise nothing.
    
    	As to the business you eluded to if it's turnaround doesn't hold
    then I'm sure it will either be bought out or fade away. The capitalist
    system is at time hard to watch but the more you/goverment tries to
    help it the the deeper the swings become.
    
    
    Stuart,
    
    	in France the unions rule...I'm surpised that they can make
    anything in some of these heavily unionized Europian countries and
    still find anyone that can afford to buy it. I would be interested to
    know how Renault is taxed compared to any other local auto makers or
    imports.
    
    	And yes your right is does come down to a question of theology.
    When the government gets involved in a business it has an unfair
    advantage and it uses this advantage to drive out its competition. It
    then uses your tax dollars to pay for its mismanagement. Look at Canada
    post. How many times have they increased their rates since they have
    been ordered to become selfsufficient...and how are they doing...I
    think better but its because of the increased involvement of the
    private sector (post office services available in almost every variety
    store). To my understanding they are still excercising unfair control
    though because they fixed a minimum rate for other courier services.
    	Ontario hydro another example. If they have a profit it stays
    inside ontario hydro and is used to buy more land, but if they have a
    loss you and I pick up the tab.
    	Petro Can, what a farse, how many gas companies did they buy out in
    Canada. Isn't it bad enough that gas is taxed as heavily as it
    is...when petro can was started and additional 3 cent/litre tax was added
    and it goes directly to petro can. (from all gas sales from all
    companies). And what do they use all this cash for ??? Getting
    involved with private companies to try to persuade them to develope oil
    deposits which the private sector has already determined cant be done
    profitably.
    
    
    	Just as an aside Bob had planned to have the government take over
    home care services....Mike killed that and is now working to try and
    get the exsisting providers to work more closely together and more
    efficiently.
    
    	Another fine example of what government's should do.
    
    
    Brian V
    	

    
    
    This just in from the Ottawa Citizen.
    
     The privatization of Ontario liquor stores is a "priority" for
    Consumer Minister Norm Sterling, who says the ball will get rolling
    within the next nine months.
    
     They will set up a 6 month independant commission "to look into how to
    best privatize the Liquor Control Board". Really independant, as long
    as it recomends what the government wants, privatization. 
    

    
    
     Naysayers.
    
     Face it, socialism as it stands today is doomed. It was a nice,
    but albeit, costly experiment.
     Have a look at how far socialism has gone in Europe, and
     what the end result is. Look in to the Scandinavian countries
     in particular....
    
     Robin keeps talking about greed. I think a lot of greed is
    demonstrated in the hoarding of all these social services by folks that
    don't really need them.
     The attitude of "its' there for the taking" has become a little
     too prevalent and abuse is rampant. 
    
     Why do I feel like I'm continuously repeating myself here?
    
     Derek keeps piping in with snippets from the papers, got to hand it
     to those rose-colored glasses. What we're seeing here is the
     hardcopy version of the infamous media "sound bites".
    
     Basically, the LCBO is making a profit, but this is when it is
    profitable to sell most businesses, according to my capitalist
    doctrine.
     It is quoted that approx. 1 Billion dollars in proceeds can be 
     extracted from selling off outlets, distribution points, etc.etc...
     Isn't that money that should in fact be in our coffers and not
     invested in a business that brings in relatively low profits.
    
     Again, the real profits on liquor are the duties and taxes imposed,
    and if my understanding is correct, will remain in place regardless
     of privatization. 
    
    
      Sigh......
    
    

    
    This week's `NOW Magazine' (a Toronto weekly news-and-entertainment
    publication) has an excellent article by Wayne Roberts on the issue
    of Welfare/Workfare.  Good reading for people on BOTH sides of the 
    debate, I would say.
    

    
    Anyone know if they're going to get rid of rent control in this
    province? I really hope so.  Anybody out there aware that with rent
    control, your landlord can slap you with retroactive rent increases
    once you give your two months notice ?
    
    Mike.

    
    .98:
    
    Only if he notified you of his intention to seek a higher rent.
    Once you, as a tenant, receive such a notice, you should assume
    he *will* get the increase and start putting away some extra money
    to cover the retroactive increase once the judgement has been 
    rendered by Rent Control.
    

    From what I can see, the Scandinavian countries are doing quite well,
    especially Norway who have probably the healthiest citizens on the
    planet.

    re: .96
    
    >>  The attitude of "its' there for the taking" has become a little
    >>  too prevalent and abuse is rampant.
    
    Norm,  
    
    You were referring to business when you made that statement, weren't
    you?
    
    Prime examples:
    
    My annual subscription to the Ottawa Citizen came due last November
    and I was informed that the price was increased to $180 from $144
    the year before.  That works out to a 24% increase at a time when 
    the government was telling us that the annual inflation rate was
    was around 2%.  I cancelled my subscription in protest but what
    has that done, certainly not concerned Southam enough to lower prices,
    as most people just keep on paying the extortion demanded.  Sure they
    moan and complain but very few people do anything about it like I did.
    
    It's the same thing in reverse when it comes to me demanding a raise.
    If I don't like it, leave.  I've had one 2% raise in over 4 years 
    and that was almost 3 years ago.  Guses where that puts me in relation 
    to inflation, about 15% behind (low inflation <3% has only been around 
    for about a year). If you take into effect all the reduced benefits, 
    like dental care, drug plan, and the elimination of the 4 hour minimum 
    callout for standby calls, I'd have to estimate I'm probably 25-30% 
    behind.  All this while you and I both work in a  division that is 
    making about 35-40% profit as percentage of revenue and they tell me 
    they can't afford to even keep me in line with inflation just because 
    the other divisions can't pull their own weight.  I guess this is
    an OK form of socialism (ie. sharing the wealth), eh Norm?
    
    
    Robin
    
    Robin

    re. -1
    
     My sentiments exactly.
     I'm in the exact same situation, and agree with you.
    
     Although inflation has been creeping upwards, salaries do not appear
     to be following closely , if at all.
    
     A lot of downsizing has been going on, I guess we're fortunate to
     still have jobs, so it seems to be a case of short term pain for
     long term gain.
    
     This is a North American phenomena though, and not local to the
     Ontario economy. Although having the previous govnmt' in power
     did not help whatsoever.
      
      I still fundamentally disagree with placing all the rising
     social costs on the backs of the working middle-class.
    
     Have you read the July 19 article in the Ottawa Citizen on
     Welfare in the National Capital Region. It sounds a lot like
     all one needs to do is show up at a district office and
     with a little pleading , get issued a cheque instantly,
     and regular monthly payments afterwards.
     Please read the article, and pay close attention to where the
     district rep. went on one of her field trips.
     She even mentioned that she is on anti-depressants and
     has a perpetual smile on her face all day.
     Do we really want someone like this doling out cheques.
    
     "Oh sure, how much do you need"
    
    
    
     There is a positive slant to the article, that all these district
     offices should be prepared for the upcoming cutbacks.
     Guess they'll have to start performing their jobs correctly from now
    on.
    
     Can you say " Work to Rule""
    
    
    Love It,
    Norm
    

    re Ottawa Citizen price increase.
    
    Take a look at the price of raw newsprint, and then you'll think a 24%
    rise for a paper is a really good deal.

    Mike just completed his mini budget...I only caught parts of it while
    at a customer site...could someone please post a few details.
    
    From what I heard it sounds as if Mike is prepared to take it on the
    chin. (public reaction)
    
    
    
    Brian V
    

    re .104
    
    >> Mike just completed his mini budget...I only caught parts of it while
    >> at a customer site..
    
    
    I haven't heard any of it,  but there better be tax cuts for your
    average middle class voter seeing as how it was his number 1 promise.
    If there isn't then I think the people of Ontario stage a general 
    strike until he resigns.
    
    
    Robin 

    
    I just pulled out my little pocket guide to Harris' election promises.
    
    It says "Preserve health care, law enforcment, and classroom spending."
    
    I must have missed the part about cutting off seniors' prescription
    drug payments and closing hospitals.
    

    I have to admit that Mike is walking a fine line right now on 
    promises regarding classroom spending as well as health.
    
    So far not enough detail about the implementation of the cuts have
    been made to say for sure if he's broken his promises
    			....but it sure looks like it.
    
    Harris also said that he was going to cut spending by even more than
    was originally said.
    
    Taken on a whole I still like this new government.
    
    	Keep swinging the axe Mike !!!
    
    
    Brian V
    
    

    
    I'm with Brian on this...so far he hasn't done anything really
    stupid. (my wife's a teacher who went back to work in Sept.)
    
    /PR

    
    .108
        
    >I'm with Brian on this...so far he hasn't done anything really
    >stupid.
    
    Is *this* how cynical we've become, that our leaders can be considered
    successful when they don't do anything really stupid?
    
    :^)
    

    
    You could take a look to the Feds, or across the border at
    La belle province...
    
    Cynically yours.../PR

>    
>    Is *this* how cynical we've become, that our leaders can be considered
>    successful when they don't do anything really stupid?
>    

I don't think that it is so much cynical as a reflection of reality.  Down
here in the US, it appears that before they are elected politicians are
placed on pedestals, so after a year, if they haven't done anything stupid in
their current job, their life, their past life or their likely reincarnated
life, they get to remain on that pedestal ... but as soon as they fall, they
become the scum of the earth ... look at how people hate Clinton ...  By
Canadian or British standards, he hasn't done anything really stupid or
dumb, but the public are really down on him.

Stuart

    so far Harris's actions have been in line with his elections promises.
    In his favour is the fact that every major promise was bound to offend
    a large portion (not majority) of Ontarians.
    
    Any time you take something away from people you are bound to get 
    a lot of resistance. But IMO we've got to cut expenses and those cuts
    have to come from somewhere.
    
    Harris will reduce the number of members
    Reduce welfare payouts (Ontario is the highest in Canada)
    Attempt to reform medicare
    Put a hold on photo id card
    Can jobs Ontario program
    
    The only thing that the PC's have done that reduces income was to put
    a stop to photo radar. Something IMO which was against the personal
    right of the individual anyway.
    

    
    So I guess this is my long way of saying that I like Mike Harris and
    the PC's because of what they have done. I also like them because of
    what they have not done...so far.
    
    
    Brian V
    	

	re .112

>    The only thing that the PC's have done that reduces income was to put
>    a stop to photo radar. Something IMO which was against the personal
>    right of the individual anyway.

	Am I missing something here, or are you saying you believe you have
	a personal right to break the law?

	Tony

    Photo radar was/is designed to be a LARGE money maker.  It was couched
    in terms of public safety, but it's primary benefit was the number of
    tickets you could issue in a given time period.
    
    It became rather hillarious during the test period as most radio
    stations broadcast the photo radar van locations (thanks to the many
    cellular phone people on the road).  So, while alot of people slowed
    down initially fearing the unknown, the average speed crept back up to
    and maybe even beyond the pre-photo radar days (most of the regular
    cruisers disappeared on Hwy 401).   You knew where the photo radar vans
    hung out, slowed down until you were past them and then continued on
    your merry way at your regular speed.
    
    We can all argue about "breaking the law", but perhaps we need to
    revisit the actual speed limits and adjust them to the "real" speed
    limits (seems to me this is what's happening in the US as the 55mph
    limits are repealed).  If you don't believe that the "real" speed
    limits are above the posted limits, then try actually driving 100 kph
    on Hwy 401 between Toronto and London.  You'll pass virtually no one. 
    115-120 kph is the most common speed travelled and quite frankly it is
    much safer to move at the same speed as the bulk of the traffic.  Of
    course then we have the left lane bandits to deal with ....  ;^)
    
    
    Amazing how we could drive 70 mph safely and legally and until the oil
    crisis of the 1970s moved limits down to 60 mph in the name of energy
    conservation.  Governments are of course loath to raise the limits
    upward (too much revenue to be gained ticketing us...), but I can
    assure you that driving 70 mph was a MUCH bigger challenge in a sixties
    or seventies vintage automobile than it is today.  As well the quality
    of the highways have improved in many places.  Volume of traffic has of
    course also increased making the average speed on the 401 in Toronto at
    rush hour about 10kph! 
    
      8-)

    No breaking the law is not my right.
    
    But having the right to challenge my accuser is !!!!
    
    With photo radar the person recieves a picture and a fine in the mail.
    You have no way of knowing/remembering what the circumstances were that
    day. Were you speeding ??? Were you there ??? When was the machine 
    calibrated last ??? Was the radar triggered by another vehicle ???
    
    Remember that it's the vehicle owner, NOT the driver that gets the 
    ticket...Got any kids at home ? Ever lends your car to friends ?
    
    And then there's the fact that the OPP pulled all of their patrols
    from areas covered by photo radar. As if ticketing speeders was their
    entire job.
    
    The police are funded by us to serve and protect. Not to spend their
    time creating revenue.
    
    
    
    Brian V
    

    
    RE last few:
    
    Not to mention the fact that there were no demerit points, allowing
    the rich to go as fast as they wanted, a license to speed.
    
    /PR

    
    Interesting little blurb in the Star this morning:
    
    Two weeks after downsizing the Ontario Social Assistance Review Board
    by firing four people, Mike Harris has filled three of those positions
    with defeated Tory candidates.  In making the $68,000-a-year patronage
    appointments, he bypassed the hiring system set up in 1985 (designed to
    determine the qualifications of appointees), and has refused to run the 
    new hires past the legislative committee that reviews appointments to 
    agencies, boards, and commissions.
    
    Double whammy...plum jobs for party faithful, as well as ensuring that
    people denied welfare have no avenue of appeal.
    

    He had better not pull any more  stunts like that or he'll get more
    than just eggs pelted at him.

    Social Services Minister David Tsubouchi has hired a professional
    communications consultant at $1,200.00 per day.  This is $1,200/day
    of taxpayers money just to keep him from making a public fool of
    himself.  Harris supports this expenditure.

    Meanwhile, Tory caucus chairman Margaret Marland is upset that CITY-TV
    and Global news cameras caught her comparing fabric samples during a
    a recent sitting of parliament.  She wants to ban CITY and Global from
    covering the Legislature.  Nice precedent, that.  Ban media outlets that
    cast the gov't in a bad light.

    In other news, preparations to anchor semi-permanent crowd-control
    barriers outside of Queen's Park continue apace.

    And, while Mike Harris claims to know what it is like to live on a diet
    of beans and bologna, his parents beg to differ.

    More news as it becomes available.
    

    
    Social Services ministry payouts to neighbourhood community centres has 
    been cut by $6.3-million, meaning that staff who co-ordintate volunteer
    services will be laid off.  Penny-wise, pound-foolish.  I thought that
    conservative policy was to *encourage* private charity.
    
    Meanwhile, welfare cuts have increased the demand for homeless shelters
    as winter approaches, and at the same time, Harris is cutting funding
    to these shelters.  Municipal governments, of course, have to pick up the
    slack (still think that the provincial income tax cut will be anything
    more than a smoke-and-mirrors trick?), and we can expect an increase in
    the number of exposure deaths this winter (over previous years).
    
    In other news...Harris has hired former Tory campaign worker Jamie Watt
    to fill a two-month consultancy contract at $14,000.  Watt was convicted 
    of a $19,000 fraud on 14 Oakville residents in 1985.
    
    Oh...I almost forgot...London MPP Diane Cunningham has threatened to
    cut funding to a London battered women's clinic if the staff speaks
    publicly against Tory policies.
    
    So far I think this is shaping up to be the worst thing to happen to
    Ontario in my lifetime.  I hope I'm wrong.
    

    
    Re: -1
    
    Jamie Watt resigned the contract.  They changed their minds.