scribblet

That is simply hyperbole. Transfers are increasing every year as health care for Ontario alone will be almost a 60% increase from the previous gov't. Ontario's share of federal health dollars will increase from $11.9 billion this year to $12.3 billion next year.

Of course not all claimants are denied, but the changes in rules and the hiring of David Marshall whose mission is ' reduce and ultimately retire' the board’s $12 billion unfunded liability is resulting in the denial of legitimate claims. They are using pre-existing conditions as a reason to deny an injury taking a very narrow view of the policy. If an accident results in a work injury causing the employee medical problems that were not apparent or causing problems prior to said accident, then why automatically deny the claim. I know someone whose minor high school back injury which never bothered him before, resulted in denial of an accident claim which resulted in a major back injury. He can no longer work on construction but has been denied compensation. They are sifting through medical records looking for something to hold against the claimant, much like sleazy travel insurance companies are doing. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/05/07/proposed_wsib_changes_will_hurt_workers_advocates_say.html

I don’t have a problem with Workers Comp verifying the veracity of claims. However, (Ontario) WSIB has jumped the shark in denying claims along with changing their rules which could be illegal. They check medical records and now deny claims based on an existing conditions, no matter that the injury and subsequent conditions wouldn’t have existed if the accident hadn’t happened. They also take into consideration psychological conditions then use that against the claimant. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/06/16/workplace_safety_insurance_board_steps_up_spying_on_clients_documents_show.html WSIB has a permanent doctor on board whose job it is to deny claims, along with a CEO who gets 400K a year to do this and reduce claims. I knew about this from a couple of people who are going through the process of having their claims denied right now and I did hear about it on a talk show. They are going too far in denying benefits to injured workers. This refers to David Marshall whose job it is to deny claims and bring down the rates http://www.cpcml.ca/OPF2014/Articles/OP03235.HTM More info here http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/05/07/proposed_wsib_changes_will_hurt_workers_advocates_say.html

I'll repeat this from a previous post http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-despite-legality-of-prostitution-in-germany-a-902533.html When Germany legalized prostitution just over a decade ago, politicians hoped that it would create better conditions and more autonomy for sex workers. It hasn't worked out that way, though. Exploitation and human trafficking remain significant problems. By SPIEGEL Staff and this one - Swedes say they got it right http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/dec/11/prostitution-sweden-model-reform-men-pay-sex

I thought Hudak was pretty much up front about what he was going to do which is why they are attacking him but their attacks are dishonest in that they completely misrepresent what he has said he will do. I agree he should not have given specific numbers and it is his election to lose, although one would have to wonder how anyone one could possibly vote for the Liberals thus enabling Wynne to continue with the corruption and mismanagement. Re Working Canadians: This is the first I've heard about them too so obviously they don't have the voice or money big unions do. I did find them on F/B and their website, will have to listen for their ads, or maybe they are just on line ?

Hudak isn't going to 'fire' or lay off a 100,000 people, most of them will be be attrition, retirement and some taken over by outsourcing but the attack ads and the other parties keep telling people he's going to fire 100,000. If that were true I wouldn't vote for him either, also he's only taking this back to 2009 levels as the Liberals increased the civil service by a lot more than 100.000.

No, it means they are believing the attack ads and are afraid of Tim Hudak. Admittedly I don't like some of his platform but in reality it's not as scarey as being stuck with another round of corruption and sleaze. Sleaze here: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/08/mcguinty-government-changed-green-energy-rules-to-benefit-liberal-linked-firms-court-filing-charges/

During the 2012 Alberta elections the unions circumvented the spending caps by framing their 'robo calls' as a poll. Friends from Alberta told me that these ads had a huge impact on the election so it would appear that big labour/unions et al are drowning out other democratic voices who don't have the money for such huge campaigns. In other words the well heeled are over riding and drowning out the concerns of the average citizen.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a Liberal minority again but how could the NDP support them after refusing to support the budget so causing an election. Maybe they will work out some compromises Maybe Elections Ontario will try again to do something about third party caps. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/08/curb-union-spending-ontario-chief-electoral-officer-considers-third-party-campaign-caps/

Really - and you know that - how ?

I've noticed that that, and then some !! The problem is a lot of people believe them.

I'm saying there should be limits on spending, how they spend it is their problem.

Not sure that it should be prohibited completely - free speech and all that - but the spending should be limited. When we have police and fire associations using millions of dollars to secure the election of politicians who in return will repay them hundred fold - well - we have a problem. (should be factual too )

Okay thanks...

Tapatalk is now free but they are having problems, you can only read. How do you get the mobile version of this site, do you need an ap ?

Just wondering if tapatalk is or will be supported on here, it's handy for reading forums on a tablet. cheers

Darned and here I thought 'Bush did it'

I guess nothing happened with this, in particular the anti collusion part, also note the teachers' federation spent more than the NDP, In fact, it exceeded the combined advertising spending of 19 of Ontario’s 21 registered political parties. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/04/11/ontario_should_limit_third_party_election_spending_editorial.html Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa has asked the province to set up an independent body to find ways of reigning in third-party advertising. Reforms would ideally include spending limits, contribution caps, tighter reporting requirements and some anti-collusion provisions.

I don't have a problem with terminally people wanting to die as long as there are strong safeguard. I do worry about abuses and how it could put vulnerable people at higher risk. You know, let's get rid of Grandma cos we can't wait to get her money.

It's my understanding that this legislation is based on the Nordic model, and works well for them. I guess some people here view sex as a legitimate commodity for commerce, but there's an interesting piece here from Der Spiegel http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-despite-legality-of-prostitution-in-germany-a-902533.html When Germany legalized prostitution just over a decade ago, politicians hoped that it would create better conditions and more autonomy for sex workers. It hasn't worked out that way, though. Exploitation and human trafficking remain significant problems. By SPIEGEL Staff

I'm pretty sure third party ads are limited federally they should be provincially too, it allows supporters or fronts for a party to get around the campaign caps.

I have to agree with this. At one time I wasn't sure about the 'gag law', but now I'm in favour of limiting third party spending during a campaign in order to level the playing field. I'm inclined to believe there should be some thing to legislate against lying in these ads also. I wonder what Liberal promises were given to the the OPPA for their ads... so far Wynne has refused to answer that question.

and you know that - how ?

Flaherty is one of the best financial ministers we've had. It was the opposition when a minority gov't who demanded they spend more and more http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/18/john-ivison-jim-flaherty-leaves-his-successor-a-budget-thats-the-envy-of-the-g7/ Whoever gets the job, they should raise a glass of Jameson’s to Whitby, Ont.’s most famous descendant of the ferocious O’Flaherty’s of Galway. The new finance minister will inherit a budget on the brink of balance; the lowest business tax rates in the G7; a securities regulation regime that finally looks like it may consolidate; and a number of innovative and popular savings initiatives like the Tax Free Savings Account. Mr. Flaherty put a distinctive mark on the way the tax system treats disabled people, and those that care for them — a personal cause driven by his own experience as the father of a son with developmental challenges. But it was his role in the global financial crisis that was perhaps his finest hour

E.C. never did select the polling officers, and neither did the riding association, so get over it, there's no scam. The incumbent party and opposition have always sent in lists of names to the returning office. The incumbent party gets to select the DROs and the opposition the Poll clerks- up to a certain date. The returning office assigns them to polls and training. After the set date for that, the returning office can take other names and fill vacant positions. E.C. can forward applications received, but that's all, they never had any say in hiring poll staff. The only change to the process is that of selecting poll supervisors which were normally picked by the returning office based on experience, they are usually repeaters. I suspect that the R.O. will still try to pick the best qualified as you cannot train a supervisor in one election, they must be experienced. It doesn't give the governing party an edge or challenge democracy in any way, there never was a 'democratic process' per se in the first place, it's just a perk more or less. Supervisors are always experienced and only care about enforcing the rules and regulations, I doubt that any party would want incompetent supervisors because that wouldn't benefit anyone. I do disagree with this process because of the time frame and challenges associated with selecting and training staff in such a short time frame. In fact, they should change the selection of all polling staff to be totally the responsibility of the returning office as the time frame for selection and training is just way too short. Other than that, I don't have a big problem.