Wild Bill

It would be inconsistent to expect that a politician would make such a change solely for the benefit of business, small or otherwise. It is an obvious large benefit to McGuinty! First off, he will no longer need nearly as large a collection/administration department. The feds will collect the whole schmozzle and just send him a cheque. So he will be able to downsize staff, at least as much as is allowed in the public sector. What's more, there are many things that right now are exempt from provincial sales tax. NO MORE! It is considered too complicated to exempt some items from a part of the Harmonized Sales Tax. We will be paying HST on everything that formerly was exempt from just the GST or just the PST. Both the Feds and Ontario will grab some more money. THAT'S WHY HE'S DOING IT! HE NEEDS THE MONEY! It's true that it will be simpler for most business to pay to one tax collector. Except for very small one-man outfits like myself. Until now the limit for having to pay GST was $35,000. Below that in sales you don't have to bother. Now you will immediately have to add the GST portion to the taxes on any invoice. So the little guy will become more expensive. Anyhow, I predict that this will prove to be a political mistake. It doesn't matter that it's more efficient and benefits business. Businesses themselves don't vote and there are far fewer votes from business owners than others. Most citizens will immediately notice a new tax grab, similar to when Mulroney brought in the GST. The GST made sense in a lot of ways as well but it was the most hated new tax ever introduced in Canada and was largely responsible for creating a huge underground economy. If these were flush times Dalton likely would get away with it but that's not the case. People in Ontario are hurting. Even a little bit of extra pain from their provincial government is likely to be deeply resented. I'm truly not sure if Dalton and his people understand that. They have been very blase about much public reaction during their stay in office, seemingly unaware of how great a benefit they have enjoyed from having such an inept opposition. They probably think there will be a small bit of grumbling that will die out long before the next election, which after all is two years away. They may be right. It should be interesting to watch and see.

I disagree! If they bullied an immature mind to an excessive degree they would have been guilty of creating a monster. You seem to be constantly dodging this point. I would think that the responsibity for creating the problem is as obvious as training a dog to be excessively vicious. Frankly, if you cannot accept this point I have to wonder if perhaps you don't want to, for some reason as yet undisclosed.

No, I'm questioning whether you have looked at ALL the factors! Hardly the same as calling you a liar. You seem to be saying that if I disagree with your pet idea I must be attacking you. I guess that's better than what you've accused Madmax of being, i.e. smug, arrogant, etc. You do seem to like ad hominem responses. I do hope this is only your internet personality and you are more tolerant in face to face situations. Federally at least, the NDP has never won anything near the number of popular votes as either the Liberals or the Conservatives. To my mind, there's no fixed pie where if they won 10% of the popular vote they are entitled to formulating 10% of the legislation passed by Parliament. They are still a minority view. To allow them their own way is to value a minority more than a considerably larger majority. Hardly a way to foment more unity. Whenever you've posted about any form of PR I've been struck by how you always seem to talk in terms of overall numbers. You seem to feel that any riding level aspects as to representing the majority of the voters in that riding as irrelevant, if not downright worthless. You are entitled to take such a view but not to expect that it should be taken as a fact of the universe for all other people. Many folks LIKE how our present system lets us send a reasonably local representative to Parliament! We frankly distrust the idea of having someone appointed for us under some mathematical formula and worse yet, from a list chosen by parties themselves. This is perhaps the real reason PR was voted down in Ontario last election. Not because the population didn't understand it or it was poorly explained. Most of us understood it perfectly. We simply didn't LIKE it! Trying to portray us as all ignorant and only in need of the champions of PR to educate us is frankly patronizing and elitist, as well as dead wrong. Anyhow, I understand your passion for your ideal but if you're going to keep being grumpy then I for one will just 'ignore' you and not play with you anymore. This may not matter to you but hey, what do I care? If I want to be abused I'll pay for it!

Not always, but to say that it's NEVER a rogue is equally unrealistic! That's just being partisan. Occam's Razor says that it's likely that most times it IS a rogue! Political machines attract cocky, arrogant personalities. Since parties often need unpaid volunteers they must take what they can get. Weeding them out can be a full-time job. Again, I think the Ontario PC's likely put their screening efforts into keeping out Blue Tories of a Mike Harris persuasion and didn't pay attention if the worker was still just an a**hole.

I can believe it was a "rogue element". It's exactly the sort of thing some young, arrogant Turk would try! The same ones that wouldn't listen to experienced voices during an election campaign and would come up with something as stupid as bringing up extending funding for religious schools. Smart-asses like the Liberal Warren Kinsella, only not as smart. That's often the curse of the young. Lots of intelligence, lots of experience with new technologies and gadgets but little or no extended, hands-on experience of what works in the real world or what could bring negative consequences as a delayed reaction. It almost seems as if the Ontario PC's are staffed by adolescents! Probably there was a purge of experience after Mike Harris' term, maybe based on ideology by the Red Tories. Well, the results speak for themselves! I guess we'll soon see if this party will get it's act together or not.

Any troops in actual combat areas? I'm surprised you haven't mentioned anything about that part, either way.

Ok, I was wrong. There was ONE built! Were there TWO? How much did consumption increase over those decades compared to the increased supply of that one refinery? How many refineries were built by PetroCanada to force down the wholesale price of gasoline to the gas stations, allowing room to discount the price to us poor citizens, who had been told all the money spent to form PetroCanada was a good deal for us 'cuz it would give us a break at the pumps and give us more reasons to vote Liberal! I think you're picking at my model and ignoring my point.

You've got something against buying Canadian, or did you just not know?

Well, a post on Facebook! How can I argue with that? As for most of the party believing such a thing about women, I'm struck by how you can say that with such authority. You never were part of Reform, never even having a local candidate, or so you claim. Yet I was perhaps their first membership card in Ontario, served a few terms as a Riding Director, met personally hundreds of fellow members but never once met anyone who believed as you say! I'm forced to conclude that you could not possibly be so illogical as to believe what you wrote. You must be simply trolling, hoping to yank my chain and get a good laugh.

How does that matter, jdobbin? They buy the company for its assets and turf its management for now being redundant. End of story! Too bad Maurice Strong wasn't still there to receive a pink slip! I am very proud of the fact that in my entire life I have only purchased $2 worth of gas from PetroCanada. It was in the early 80's when I was running on fumes in a rural area and the only gas station within reach was a PC. That $2 was enough to get my Rabbit convertible to another brand of station. I've always been bothered by the fact that PetroCanada never sold a drop of Canadian gas! They bought it all from Libya and Venezuela. Plus I was offended by the manner the company was put together in the first place. One of the few times I've been able to vote with my feet!

Perhaps you're not seeing the entire picture. If you yourself haven't been bullied you may not have the perspective. I don't know your history so I can't say. However, I don't think anyone is saying that murder is an appropriate response but you have to remember that we are talking about children, not mature minds. It sounds to me like often an individual or group can bully a child until he BECOMES a monster, and then react in horror when he goes postal in fighting back! From what I remember and what is often chronicled, schoolyard bullying is rarely just a case of two 8 year olds having a quick tussle and then becoming friends. That may have been true long ago but today it is just a storybook account. Bullies usually attack those who are much smaller and totally outclassed, without any hope of successfully fighting back. Making an attempt does not at least command some respect but rather more pain and derision. Do you have any idea what goes through a child's mind when he is bullied in such a manner? Or what he starts to think when he discovers that the 'system' will not protect him or worse yet, will just tell him to "buck up!" and stand up to that lout who has 50 pounds and 18" of height on him? Keep poking an animal in a cage with a stick and eventually you will have a crazy animal. That being said, once a victim like Todd breaks I doubt if he can ever be rehabilitated enough to be allowed freedom. It doesn't matter who is responsible. The damage has been done. There can be no guarantee that at some point a Todd Smith may run into another who will bully him, perhaps a neighbour, another patron in a bar, or an ogre of a boss. What has been broken once is often for ever weak and likely to snap again. It many not be fair to keep him locked up but what else can be done to ensure he's not a danger to the community? It's just a shame we couldn't lock up some of his tormentors with him!

Quite right, Molly. I was the 'new kid' at a country school and was repeatedly bullied. I found it incomprehensible how so many teachers and other adults blew it off as just "kids stuff". I knew that I had done nothing to deserve it. The message was clear. Teachers not only won't protect you, they didn't even consider it worth doing! Becoming an adult gives you a better perspective but to this day I cannot abide some of those who had bullied me so long ago. To use a crude expression "I wouldn't walk across the street to urinate on them if they were on fire!" It made me fiercely defensive for my own children when they began school and unable to watch other kids being bullied in the school yard. Teachers supposedly on playground supervision seemed oblivious. I finally got one of them to stop and incident only by threatening to call the police myself. My experiences were mild compared to what unfortunates like Todd Smith endured but I can understand how such experiences can shape a young mind. I was blessed with some innate intelligence that kept me from any extreme over-reaction but that was merely the luck of my draw. Others like Todd obviously weren't so lucky.

Are you serious? Did you pull that out of your butt? Can you back up that claim with a cite or a link? I never heard such a thing. What's more, with Deb Gray in the Reform Party if anyone let alone Harper had said such a foolish thing he would have instantly become a soprano! It's becoming obvious that you were never a Reform supporter. At least not one who actually read the literature and/or attended meetings. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

In the cases I mentioned, the smallest party did not just contribute input to some consensus. They got their own way! Even if I accept your math, which I don't as it makes unsubstantiated assumptions, what happens if we apply your formula to the NDP? It still boils down to the party with the least votes getting to enact legislation that is unsupported by the majority of citizens. If you truly believe that is democracy then I guess we talk different languages! Letting the NDP enact a few laws out of some feeling of "inclusiveness" seems outright crazy and unfair to me. I seriously doubt if you would support an NDP government returning the favour someday.

Because to me they smell the least! I see no point in casting my vote for a fringe party that could never achieve power in my lifetime, if ever. As for the NDP, the best I could say is that many of them have good hearts. They just don't seem to me to have good brains! The typical NDP person to me would be Marilyn Churley, an extremely nice lady but the last one I'd call to build a bridge that wouldn't fall down the first time it was used. It would be a pretty bridge, I'm sure but the NDP has never attracted the engineering and scientific crowd in any significant numbers. I've always found NDP arguments to be totally emotional and not logical. Many things that they champion actually seem hurtful, if not immoral to me. Not by intent, of course. Just for not having the consequences well thought out. As I've said many times, I make my living as a techie. By philosophy, I'm a Utilitarian! I won't accept blue sky dreams and I won't accept BS. I understand that in the real world you usually have to choose from a bad bunch. So for me at this time it's Conservatives, but only by default.

Agreed, this was a very expensive lesson for Ontarioans to learn. Still, I happen to think that very expensive lessons are good for people in the long run. For too many of us, it's the only thing that makes us learn!

Over my lifetime I have seen a number of occasions where the NDP propped up the Liberals in a minority government, especially here in Ontario. Every time it seemed that the price was the enacting of NDP pet Bills to ensure the Liberal Party got to govern. How does this reflect the wishes of the electorate? Essentially, these were coalition governments and the party who received the LEAST number of votes got its way on a number of very significant issues! How would STV or PR address this?

Perhaps you live in a part of Canada without Sunoco gas stations, Randy. They're quite common here in Ontario.

PT, who's arguing about whether or not Canadians want a registry? I'm arguing about what we GOT for a registry! Do I have to shout? THEY'RE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS! It was smoke and mirrors! It cost a fortune and does diddley-squat! So what if they are spending 11 billion on a war you don't like. That's a totally separate issue. Two wrongs don't make a right. Besides, I happen to approve of that war. What would be fair? Only you get your own way? Or should we split on 5.5 Billion? We had a licensing system that was good enough and reasonable in cost. What we needed was more police and judges that would make more than "slap on the wrist" sentences for illegal use of a gun. We got NOTHING effective! Just a billion dollar Liberal photo-op! I never felt safer, neither for myself or my wife and daughters. I just felt ripped off and bamboozled! It is this sort of BS that means it will be a LONG time before I could vote Liberal! You may approve of them but all I've seen for years is carnival con men catering to the ignorant, like Jimmy Baker and Tammy Fae. If something doesn't work then it's useless. It's false comfort to cling to it.

Alta4ever, if the citizenry had a higher level of common sense would you need to? For that matter, if voters had more common sense we'd lose a lot of present day politicians. Nobody would vote for them!

But that's not why so many of us want to scrap THIS gun registry! We simply didn't want to spend 1 BILLION dollars on a registry that doesn't work! We already had long gun registration. You needed a Firearms Certificate and a hunter's safety course. So what are you complaining about? Sounds to me like you bought the Liberal BS hook, line and sinker! Every time they were criticized for wasting an incredible amount of money on a program they had introduced as 'only going to cost a few million' they defended themselves by shouting that those criticizing them wanted a free-for-all of unregistered guns! But that's true of just about every Liberal program. "It doesn't have to work. It's enough to say we've got one!" PT, they spent all that money yet never added 1 DAY to any mandatory sentence for USING a gun illegally! How on earth can anybody with half a brain cell be expected to believe that their gun registry was a good idea that would make us more safe? Or that was their goal?

Now we're back to the OP! Petro-Can always inferred this sense of 'righteousness', in that they spent unrevealed billions of our tax dollars to establish an oil company so that they could force prices down for us poor peons at the pump. If you're correct that a lack of refinery capacity is deliberate (and that makes a lot of sense!) then again we must ask, why didn't Petro-Can spend their profits on some new refineries to expand the supply of refined gasoline and bring down the price? The only explanation that makes sense is that the Liberals never intended for Petro-Can to lower prices.

Tommy I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer, The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here." The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die, I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I: O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away"; But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play, The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play, O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play. I went into a theatre as sober as could be, They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me; They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls, But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls! For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside"; But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide, The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide, O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide. Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap; An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit. Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?" But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll, The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll, O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll. We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too, But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you; An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints, Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints; While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind", But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind, There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind, O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind. You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all: We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational. Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace. For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!" But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot; An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees! -- Rudyard Kipling Thank you and your mates, Army guy! THIS citizens knows he owes you all a LOT of beer!

Well, there are at least two other factors I can think of that your premise doesn't address. First, it was government "green" laws that put the price of a new refinery into orbit. Second, the official line for forming Petro-Can was to have a lever on those "evil capitalist oil companies'. So why didn't Petro-Can build some new refineries? Guess government doesn't work either.

Well, not quite, my good doctor! They took the photo-op but failed to deliver! http://www.albinaguarnieri.com/press/April_27_2007.html In 1999 the Commons passed Albina Guarnieri's (Liberal MP) Bill to give judges the OPTION of consecutive sentences! However, the Liberal dominated Senate failed to pass it before the general election 16 MONTHS later! So it died. Ms Guarnieri re-introduced her bill in April of 2007 but I found nothing to indicate that it ever passed or was enacted. Perhaps it was but I ran out of patience scrolling through google pages. Just more smoke and mirrors, I'm afraid. What else is new?