turningrite

What are the seat projections at this point? Axiomatically, Quebec elections turn on the basis of the outcomes in Francophone ridings. The Lib vote relies heavily on Anglo and immigrant voters and is usually concentrated in the Montreal area and especially the Island of Montreal and therefore is often an inefficient gauge of seat distribution. The overall numbers suggest that the CAQ and PQ are running a lot of close contests in Francophone ridings. Is this the case?

Okay. I was referring the LP site, where the description of that party's immigration platform seems remarkably similar to Bernier's platform as outlined during the CPC leadership contest. I haven't gone to the PPC website at this point but will do so soon. I was waiting for the party to be officially formed as I will likely contribute to it once it can issue tax receipts.

In my view, the pro-niqab folks simply can't provide a consistent rational justification to sustain their perspective. When you critique one aspect of their position, such as the supposed sanctity of "freedom of choice", they shift over to the rationale that it's dangerous for these women to refuse to wear the niqab or burqa. The notion that these women participate in such practices by "choice" is antithetical to the argument that they're definitionally oppressed and are therefore vulnerable. And what any of this has to do with keeping Islamic extremism out of Canada is unfathomable to me, particularly given that extremist acts tend to be perpetrated by radicalized males.

It's not even that they're rejected by other countries with warmer climates, it's that it's easier and takes less time to get into Canada, which is often seen as a kind of 'stepping stone' or consolation prize. I recall speaking to a former co-worker who had come to Canada along with her family members from a country in the developing world. She was absolutely clear about the fact that their first choice was the U.S. but Canada was seen as an acceptable temporary alternative. Getting into the U.S., however, remained their dream and having Canadian work experience and children educated here sure wouldn't hurt their chances of achieving it, she bluntly told me.

Huh? Bernier created the Libertarian Party's website before the his party merged with the LP? I believe Bernier's party doesn't formally exist at this point but perhaps the LP copied and pasted the platform outlined on his website, which I believed was set up for purpose of the CPC leadership race. There seems to be a 'chicken and egg' conundrum in play here, so I'm confused.

On the first point, I absolutely agree with you. I believe that sponsored immigrants, including sponsored seniors, should be required to obtain health insurance covering the entire period of their sponsorship with the associated costs being guaranteed by their sponsors. The Supreme Court have Canada has ruled that the financial obligations of sponsorship in relation to coverage for other social program costs are legitimate and enforceable. On the second point, I'm somewhat confused. All ordinary immigrants, sponsored or otherwise, are definitionally permanent residents. So, are you implying that a new category, perhaps designated as something like 'conditional residents' be created? I think the issue could more easily be addressed simply by changing sponsorship obligations to cover the need to maintain paid private insurance coverage throughout the sponsorship period. Such an obligation should also apply to employers who bring temporary workers into the country, if this is not already the case.

Sadly, you're probably correct. But will it work? Wynne's luck with this approach ran out in the recent Ontario election. She got one majority government and then, poof, it was gone. (Okay, McGuinty played the game too, but not with the apparent enthusiasm of his successor.) The problem with hidden taxes like carbon taxes is that they're utterly regressive and increase living costs for lower and middle income taxpaying workers and retirees, whose incomes simply can't keep up with the new taxes. And it's not clear that these taxes are necessary or entirely effective. Ontario reduced its carbon emissions dramatically mainly by eliminating coal generated electricity and encouraging conservation. It didn't need the expensive bells and whistles added to its electricity costs by inefficient boutique green energy schemes. Regressive taxation entails insidiously negative impacts. The rich are fine,as always, and the subsidy class gets tax credits and rebates, but ordinary lower and middle income taxpayers are continuously squeezed. Trudeau says he's looking out for the "middle class," which presumably in Lib speak means people earning a lot more than Canada's individual and household median income levels.

So, my guess is that you're not an Ontarian either. It just keeps getting better and better. Do you live in Canada?

Was anybody really surprised by today's news that Ontario's deficit is now pegged at $15 billion? The number is eye-popping, to say the least. Okay, the accounting rules have been changed to reflect the system favored and promoted by Ontario's auditor general, but even if Wynne's deficit figure had been adjusted to the higher level it would have stood at $11 billion and change, leaving a whopping discrepancy of more than $3 billion dollars. Given this mess, I think we now need to rethink the way government functions here in Ontario. With an abysmal health care system, a declining education system and a counter-productive social services system eating up the lion's share of tax and deficit dollars, can the current regime be maintained? My recommendation is major surgery. Otherwise, Ontario will be consigned to the dustbin of being a failed jurisdiction. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-deficit-at-15-billion-this-year-pcs-say-not-67-billion/

You're entitled to your opinion but I think the opinions of those actually affected here, Toronto residents and ratepayers, are far more relevant. By the way, do you live in Ontario and if so where?

Such behavior was certainly practiced by a small faction. But the more important reality was the divergence on two separate issues, the first being the reduction in council size, which was favored by a relatively small majority and the second being the use of the notwithstanding clause, which was favored by a large majority. One can have divergent opinions on these two issues and still be credited for being consistent.

It's absolutely relevant. Obviously you're not a Torontonian and have no skin in this game. It's not your tax dollars that are at stake here. You've been exposed as a poseur on this so you should focus on your own neck of the woods. By the way, how many constituents does each local councillor serve in your town or city and how many constituents does your Ontario MPP serve? Just wondering.

Scary stuff. I interpret Ms. Gould's position to mean that the government will do everything it can to try to ensure that voices it doesn't want heard during the election won't be 'platformed' - a favorite non-democratic practice of progressives. I believe that any party that sits at a certain level in polling at the time the election is called, say 8 to 10 percent, should be permitted to participate in televised debates and as time goes on I'm sure we'll see that the government will do anything it can to try to deny Bernier and his new party a voice - and the CPC, out of self-interest, will probably go along with this. We already know what the Trudeau government means by the term "democratic institutions" as we saw this agenda play out on electoral reform, where Trudeau made it clear that "fringe" views (i.e. views contrary to his own and/or potentially harmful to LPC interests) must be kept out of Canada's political arena, thus essentially cementing the monopoly now held by the traditional three-party cartel that dominates federal politics. Views held by others, even if/when reflective of majority opinion, simply aren't welcome. That's "progressive" democracy folks.

You're point is well taken. There's another perspective as well, which is that the Canadian Medical Association estimates that the health care costs of seniors average $12K annually. Thus, assuming the health of those who arrive as immigrant seniors to be roughly similar to that of other Canadian seniors, it's estimated that the total health care program cost for this immigration category is roughly $4B per year, half of that borne by already burdened Ontario taxpayers. As for MH's "tiny" numbers assertion, assuming that the average immigrant senior lives for 16 to 20 years following their arrival in this country, at a entry rate of 20,000 a year the total population of this group will be 320,000 to 400,000, which is hardly a tiny number.

I think you're trying to ignore the actual point Hates politicians is making, which is that politicians often apply different standards to the legitimacy of their own entitlements than they do to the claims of many others. I think this is an entirely legitimate critique. 'Hp' is obviously not proposing a practical or practicable solution. I'm not sure what you mean by your final sentence: What "numbers" are you referencing? And who, exactly is being played? As I am not a veteran, I have no stake in this matter so don't understand how I can be played one way or another. But any reasonably objective observer can understand the moral/ethical basis of claims for ongoing support made by those injured in the service of this country. It's not rocket science. There is clear delineation between 'right and wrong' on this and successive federal governments have tilted in the latter direction.

1.) Of course, I was addressing Betsy's oddly and belatedly exuberant confidence. 2.) I don't agree with you here. As a Torontonian I've had the opportunity to discuss the matter with a lot of people, including friends, acquaintances and neighbours. My observation is that opinions on the size of council are split. But there's much more negativity, and unity, on the way in which this matter was addressed by Ford. Polling reflects similar results, with a majority of Torontonians favoring the reduction in council seats while a majority of about two-thirds opposed Ford's notwithstanding clause tactics. 3.) Are you a Torontonian? If not, why would you care as municipal ratepayers pay the freight for the costs of running city hall? I read an article in today's Toronto Star indicating that the move is unlikely to save any money and in fact could well increase expenses if Harris's amalgamation fiasco is an appropriate point of comparison. 4.) Yes, let's see what happens. But don't fool yourself here. Most Torontonians - roughly two-thirds, according to polling, opposed use of the notwithstanding clause to override a judicial decision - were quite satisfied to let the issue make its way through the legal system. It's the Ford camp that was not. In a classic example of 'heads I win, tails you lose' logic, the agitated Ford government, cheered on by its agitated backers, gave the appeals court an ultimatum, demanding the original decision be stayed or the government would invoke the notwithstanding clause to get its own way. How's that for flipping the middle finger at the courts and the rule of law! And you've clearly been on the side of the agitated on this topic.

I think Hates Politicians' intends to convey a figurative rather than literal position. Perhaps we should simply defund parliament and tell politicians to survive solely on their own savings and resources. Oh, and we'd take the funding away capriciously and then ask them to beg to explain why it should be reinstated and put layers of mindless bureaucracy in their way to render their pursuit of remedy as frustrating as possible. Maybe then these politicians would have some understanding of the insecurity faced by many who are forced for reasons entirely beyond their control to rely for their survival on the resources of the state. Who, exactly, could or would be more deserving of public support than wounded and/or ill war vets? Really, who?

Why, then, are and were Ford and his supporters so obstreperously agitated about judicial overreach if they truly believe/d the law would ultimately vindicate their position on Bill 5? Lawyers often disagree with one another as do judges. It's actually a feature of our legal system. Ultimately, the legality of Bill 5 may well be decided by the Supreme Court. There are non-Charter arguments, rooted in long-established British parliamentary conventions and practices, that could serve to overturn Bill 5. Will that happen? Who knows, but at this point I think it too soon to pop champagne corks at Queen's Park. The whole fiasco has impinged the credibility of Ford and many of his ministers, including Caroline Mulroney. That Ford was willing to expend so much political capital - both personally as well as on the part of his government - on this rather picayune ego-driven crusade suggests that he lacks both seriousness and rational perspective.

Do you mean the Ford loyalists who expected to benefit from Ford's move? The biggest single advantage a candidate running for municipal office enjoys is incumbency. So, look for a council with few if any new voices and the same old retreads grinding the same old axes, which I suspect is what we'll see. Oh, and on another issue, hopefully you've read some of the text of the appeal ruling which stayed the previous ruling that struck down Bill 5, particularly where the appeal ruling acknowledges that Bill 5 actually does interfere in an election that was already underway, apparently contrary to your view. The appeal panel ruled that the Charter argument made in the initial decision likely doesn't apply and apparently the panel didn't have jurisdiction to rule on whether Bill 5 otherwise might be in violation of applicable legal standards. Won't it be a hoot if the Supreme Court eventually overturns Bill 5 and we in Toronto have to endure another expensive election two or three years down the road?

In addition to this, once people are permanent residents in Canada they can legally live wherever they wish. The government can't tell people where to live, thus, most immigrants move into Canada's handful of larger cities.

You seem to be obsessed by this issue. I don't care if they wear buckets over their heads as long as they're paying their own way. My main concern about self-othering cultural practices is that I wonder how many of these people are also self-excluding from the normal economy and thereby living on public subsidies? If they're self-sufficient, they can do whatever they wish provided they follow necessary rules, like showing their faces when everybody else is required to do so. But if some of these women are working, where are they doing this? Where I live it's commonplace to see Muslim women wearing facial coverings but I've never come across one serving in any role that entails interaction with the public.

1.) In my estimation, the system is broken beyond repair. I've talked to several other people, including some suffering serious illness like myself and others with more mundane problems, and I haven't heard many "good news" stories, particularly among those in the former category. One of my friends, who's in his 80s, severely (in more than one place) broke his dominant arm when falling on ice a couple years ago and got a cast and sling after waiting at the hospital for about 12 hours and then was sent home and told home care would show up at his apartment to check up on him. Well, no home care worker showed up. After not being able to reach him by telephone, some of us were finally able to get into his apartment to find out that he'd fallen and was unable to get off the floor, where he'd remained for a couple days, and couldn't even feed himself or adequately perform other daily activities. Apparently, nobody at the hospital assessed whether he had supports available to assist him upon his return home. After finding him, his friends took turns helping him out until he could connect with home care and arrange for necessary services. In another case, an acquaintance close to my own age explained in mock horror and with a sense of disbelief the circumstances of emergency surgery he'd recently undergone, where almost all the intake and pre-op testing, assessment and transmission of medical advice was conducted in the hospital's public waiting area as there was insufficient space available to do so in the ER area. The surgery itself was the only thing that was done privately in a specified medical area of the hospital. Anybody who thinks such circumstances are rare in Ontario is burying their head in the sand. 2.) Why is my view "wrong"? This seems a bizarrely judgmental assessment on your part. I strongly suspect that 90% of patients do not have a good experience when dealing with the health care system, and particularly the hospital system. But you need not rely only on my opinion. And article in the G&M earlier the year points to the capacity problems facing Ontario's health case system (link below). The author outlines some of the system's serious shortcomings, noting that "The health-care system is now so thinly stretched that even the demands of routine medical care are beyond our capability." Another piece, published in the Toronto Sun earlier this year (link below), points to polling indicating increasing dissatisfaction with health care services and a growing inclination to agree that private health care should be allowed to address this. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/now-more-than-ever-we-need-to-solve-ontarios-health-care-crisis-of-capacity/article37490512/ https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/bonokoski-canadians-want-options-to-a-failing-healthcare-system 3.) As I've indicated, my views reflect my own experiences but also I believe reflect the experiences and views of many others. It's not emotional to believe you've been scammed by paying taxes for years based on an understanding that necessary health care will be available to you when you needed it only to be told that you're "uninsured" when you really need to access these services. Wasn't that the essential problem Canada's health care system was supposed to solve when it was first instituted? The system is completely broken. Get rid of it and replace it with a model based on premiums, contributory eligibility and private sector options.

The bigger risk going forward is that Ford will actually serve the interests of his corporate buddies - i.e. the most powerful interest group in this country. Getting rid of a few city councillors is just a symbolic nod to salve the expectations of his supporters. It will save very little, if any, money. Let's see if Ford starts to address the big budget items and dilemmas. If I were him, I'd start by reining in the entire subsidy system, including both individual and corporate transfers, incrementally phasing out all social housing except that for the seriously disabled, contracting out public services, imposing meaningful health care premiums for everybody except seniors who have at least 25 years of residency in Canada as well as children and young people 21 years of age and younger. Further, school funding should be linked to performance standards. And in return, he should cut provincial income tax rates in half and move to reduce Ontario's HST by 3 points incrementally over a 3 year period. By doing the things I've mentioned, he'd truly be signalling a shift toward serving taxpayer interests. But I won't hold my breath waiting.

I looked at it. It tells me nothing new. Presumably the city will now update its site to reflect the new Fordian rules.

I believe you're incorrect. However, if there is a conflict, provincial statute resolves it, as any self-respecting Fordista would clearly understand to be the case. Whether or not there is a difference between the terms "nomination" and "certification", the Friday, July 27, 2018 deadline was well understood in the broader community including in media coverage, as per the item on the Global News site linked below. https://globalnews.ca/news/4353720/toronto-election-nomination-filing-deadline/