Election '07 on Ontario

[M.Dancer]

Would Tory introduce negative tax billing programme?

It was such a success when he did it for Rogers.....

[Mad_Michael]

Don't forget that it was the Harris and the Conservatives that put Ontario where it is today.

Yeah - and we are still coping with all the damage Harris caused. Could take many years more work.

Harris without a doubt was the worst Premier in Ontario history - certainly the least educated one who decided policy on the basis of his 'gut' or ideology. What a freakin' mess he left here.

Btw, every single healthcare spending cut Harris introduced in his first term (massive spending cuts) was reversed in his 2nd term. Where's the logic in that? That is the action of one who had to backtrack due to ill-conceived plan to cut in the first place.

How about those union labour relations? Harris thought that public confrontation was good public policy.

Can you say property taxes? Can you say downloading? Can you say off-loading? We are still trying to sort out this mess ten years later in Toronto. Harris forced the amalgamation of Toronto (to save money) and every study suggested it would be a nightmare and increase costs. Harris said the studies were all wrong and he knew it would be more efficient and reduce costs. It turned out to be a nightmare and increased costs. Harris was wrong on almost every issue.

Oh yeah, did you read the Ipperwash report? Harris is specifically identified as one of the belligerent causes of the killing of Dudley George.

[Mad_Michael]

Would Tory introduce negative tax billing programme?

It was such a success when he did it for Rogers.....

Don't know. You'll have to ask him yourself - or read the Ontario PC party literature.

Btw, Rogers corporation 'turned around' under Tory. The shareholders apparently liked him.

[M.Dancer]

Would Tory introduce negative tax billing programme?

It was such a success when he did it for Rogers.....

Don't know. You'll have to ask him yourself - or read the Ontario PC party literature.

Btw, Rogers corporation 'turned around' under Tory. The shareholders apparently liked him.

Whether he had anything to do with it is debatable. Themarket was quite bullish during that perios and almost every hi tech company was at a loss to explain why their shares were valued so high.....

.....in fact, they couldn't explain and as such between mid 99 to 02 the sharevalues dropped from $50. to around $10. per......

[Mad_Michael]

.....in fact, they couldn't explain and as such between mid 99 to 02 the sharevalues dropped from $50. to around $10. per......

Between 1999 and 2002 there was a rather substantial stock market crash. There was something about some 'high-tech bubble' going on back then. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the drop in Roger's stock value at that time.

[Argus]

Don't forget that it was the Harris and the Conservatives that put Ontario where it is today.

Yeah - and we are still coping with all the damage Harris caused. Could take many years more work.

Harris without a doubt was the worst Premier in Ontario history - certainly the least educated one who decided policy on the basis of his 'gut' or ideology. What a freakin' mess he left here.

Btw, every single healthcare spending cut Harris introduced in his first term (massive spending cuts) was reversed in his 2nd term. Where's the logic in that? That is the action of one who had to backtrack due to ill-conceived plan to cut in the first place.

Of course you entirely ignore the fact the originator of most of the health and education cuts was the federal Liberal government, which cut down its deficit largely on the backs of slashing transfer payments made to the provinces for health, education and welfare. As a result ALL provinces had to slash health and education costs.

How about those union labour relations? Harris thought that public confrontation was good public policy.

In fact, the major unions, particularly the public service unions, anounced that it was their intention to bring down Harris' government on election night, and it was their obstructionist and confrontational policies and determination to use their labour power to fight against Harris' social and economic policies which triggered most of the unrest. Since McGuinty got in there has been relative peace - which came at the cost of paying virtually every additional cent put into health and education into raising salaries for the union people who were oh-so-concerned about the well-being of the people. We're spending billions more for our health care now, but it still takes ten hours to get a broken bone set - by a nurse and doctor who now make more money. Whoop-de-whoop.

Oh yeah, did you read the Ipperwash report? Harris is specifically identified as one of the belligerent causes of the killing of Dudley George.

Didn't you and all the others virtually accuse him of pulling the trigger? The entire point of the Ipperwash inquiry was to prove that Mike Harris and his party forced the OPP into precipitous action which resulted in George's death. Instead it found they had no improper communications and did not interfere at all.

[Mad_Michael]

Of course you entirely ignore the fact the originator of most of the health and education cuts was the federal Liberal government, which cut down its deficit largely on the backs of slashing transfer payments made to the provinces for health, education and welfare. As a result ALL provinces had to slash health and education costs.

I'm ignoring nothing.

My point is that Harris ordered massive cuts in Ontario healthcare spending in his first term and restored those same cuts in his second term.

That is the action of a government shooting from the hip without properly considering their actions first.

This critique of Harris' government stands entirely independent of any cuts in Federal transfers. Indeed, Harris was claiming sufficient Provincial surpluses to pay for his tax cut at this time, so obviously, any cuts in Federal transfers were not the cause.

How about those union labour relations? Harris thought that public confrontation was good public policy.

In fact, the major unions, particularly the public service unions, anounced that it was their intention to bring down Harris' government on election night, and it was their obstructionist and confrontational policies and determination to use their labour power to fight against Harris' social and economic policies which triggered most of the unrest. Since McGuinty got in there has been relative peace - which came at the cost of paying virtually every additional cent put into health and education into raising salaries for the union people who were oh-so-concerned about the well-being of the people. We're spending billions more for our health care now, but it still takes ten hours to get a broken bone set - by a nurse and doctor who now make more money. Whoop-de-whoop.

And Mike Harris' public confrontations achieved what? (besides enraging the unions and causing a public nuisance).

I don't dispute that there are many valid public policy complaints with public sector unions. My point is that Mike Harris' confrontational approach was non-effective, indeed, counterproductive in any effort to address any real problem. Whatever public sector union problems we had, Harris made them worse.

Oh yeah, did you read the Ipperwash report? Harris is specifically identified as one of the belligerent causes of the killing of Dudley George.

Didn't you and all the others virtually accuse him of pulling the trigger? The entire point of the Ipperwash inquiry was to prove that Mike Harris and his party forced the OPP into precipitous action which resulted in George's death. Instead it found they had no improper communications and did not interfere at all.

The Ipperwash Final Report specifically points the finger at Mike Harris personally as one of the principal 'causes' of the tragedy. Not the only cause, just a significant one.

And those are just some of the reasons that Mike Harris shall go down in the history books as Ontario's worst ever Premier. He certainly wins the "most hated" title rather easily.

[Guest chilipeppers]

Didn't you and all the others virtually accuse him of pulling the trigger? The entire point of the Ipperwash inquiry was to prove that Mike Harris and his party forced the OPP into precipitous action which resulted in George's death. Instead it found they had no improper communications and did not interfere at all.

You are correct, it did prove that.

[geoffrey]

A few speeches by Tory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0SSaRDn2gA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7durvD9eAQk

I'm impressed. One law regardless of race? Yikes. You wouldn't think that would be a controversial topic in Canada, but it may be the one the election comes down to.

[Mad_Michael]

A few speeches by Tory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0SSaRDn2gA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7durvD9eAQk

I'm impressed. One law regardless of race? Yikes. You wouldn't think that would be a controversial topic in Canada, but it may be the one the election comes down to.

Yes, this could be a hot one for Dalton since it was his government that did try to introduce Sharia Law on a trial basis (and had to back down in the face of immediate protest from the public).

Though, to be honest, it really is hard to make a hard principled stand here given that Canada already permits two different types of law applied (Quebec has a Napoleonic Code-based legal system). And an alternative (optional) legal system is also recognised for Natives already. And indeed, taxpayers in Ontario are already FORCED to pay for a separate Catholic School system.

In other words, the Muslims and Jews have a very strong case in demanding all kinds of special religious considerations at Canadian taxpayer expense. I don't like this one bit, but that is just the way it is.

An eternal curse upon ex-Premier Bill Davis for foisting the monstrosity of Public funded Catholic education!

[scribblet]

Dalton McGuinty has to be held accountable for his actions and lies over the last four years, in particular the huge health care tax. Having said that I expect the Liberals will be re-elected, but it should be a pretty good campaign and if the Tories get it right they have a lot of ammunition.

[Argus]

Of course you entirely ignore the fact the originator of most of the health and education cuts was the federal Liberal government, which cut down its deficit largely on the backs of slashing transfer payments made to the provinces for health, education and welfare. As a result ALL provinces had to slash health and education costs.

I'm ignoring nothing.

You say, then go on to ignore it again!

My point is that Harris ordered massive cuts in Ontario healthcare spending in his first term and restored those same cuts in his second term.

So what? He ordered cuts to balance the budget and in response to massive Liberal cuts, and five years later the economy had improved somewhat, and he put more money into health care? Maybe you should ask why the Liberals slashed funding to health care, and then enjoyed many years of massive surpluses, so massive they played accounting games to hide how much money they had - and yet did not restore money to health care until near the end, when the right united and began to seem like more of a threat.

This critique of Harris' government stands entirely independent of any cuts in Federal transfers.

It certainly does since you entirely ignore any cuts by the Liberals

In fact, the major unions, particularly the public service unions, anounced that it was their intention to bring down Harris' government on election night, and it was their obstructionist and confrontational policies and determination to use their labour power to fight against Harris' social and economic policies which triggered most of the unrest.

And Mike Harris' public confrontations achieved what? (besides enraging the unions and causing a public nuisance).

Again, you're willfully blind. The public sector union leaders announced they would fight Harris with every tool at their disposal ON ELECTION NIGHT. They would fight him not only with regards to contracts for their members, but with regard to political issues that were really none of their business. The public sector unions were essentially the "owners" of the NDP, and used their power to oppose the conservatives politically. There was nothing Harris could have done to get peace from them other than surrender and implement left wing policies as designed by the NDP.

Oh yeah, did you read the Ipperwash report? Harris is specifically identified as one of the belligerent causes of the killing of Dudley George.

Didn't you and all the others virtually accuse him of pulling the trigger? The entire point of the Ipperwash inquiry was to prove that Mike Harris and his party forced the OPP into precipitous action which resulted in George's death. Instead it found they had no improper communications and did not interfere at all.

The Ipperwash Final Report specifically points the finger at Mike Harris personally as one of the principal 'causes' of the tragedy. Not the only cause, just a significant one.

The Ipperwash report was written by a toady of the Liberals, and even so it found no evidence that Harris did anything wrong. The judge had the temerity to say Harris shouldn't have called in the police and called for law and order, but instead should have been more patient. But that's merely a private, personal opinion. Unelected judge have no business trying to tell elected leaders what policy decisions they should be making with regard to civil unrest. That the judge would have preferred the government sit back and sweet talk these criminals is beside the point. The government of the day makes a call based on its own views of issues. The personal opinions of unelected judges are no more important than the personal opinions of waitresses and computer technicians - nor any more educated for that matter.

And those are just some of the reasons that Mike Harris shall go down in the history books as Ontario's worst ever Premier. He certainly wins the "most hated" title rather easily.

That is because people of your political persuasion hate rather freely.

[Argus]

Dalton McGuinty has to be held accountable for his actions and lies over the last four years, in particular the huge health care tax. Having said that I expect the Liberals will be re-elected, but it should be a pretty good campaign and if the Tories get it right they have a lot of ammunition.

Calling it a "health care premium" is actually another lie, as the money didn't go to health care. It went into general revenue.

As someone pointed out a while back here, 100% of the increased funding to health care in Ontario is accounted for by the increased federal funding for health care coming to them from Ottawa.

And even that went mostly to improved salaries for health care workers, leading to no significant improvements in health care under McGuinty's reign.

[Mad_Michael]

Of course you entirely ignore the fact the originator of most of the health and education cuts was the federal Liberal government, which cut down its deficit largely on the backs of slashing transfer payments made to the provinces for health, education and welfare. As a result ALL provinces had to slash health and education costs.

I'm ignoring nothing.

You say, then go on to ignore it again!

Yes. Any Federal cuts are irrelevant to the critique of Harris as a 'shoot from the hip' flip-flopper who enacted policies and then had to backtrack those same policies because they were ill-considered in the first place.

My point is that Harris ordered massive cuts in Ontario healthcare spending in his first term and restored those same cuts in his second term.

So what? He ordered cuts to balance the budget and in response to massive Liberal cuts, and five years later the economy had improved somewhat, and he put more money into health care? Maybe you should ask why the Liberals slashed funding to health care, and then enjoyed many years of massive surpluses, so massive they played accounting games to hide how much money they had - and yet did not restore money to health care until near the end, when the right united and began to seem like more of a threat.

This is rich.

Harris balanced what budget? Please cite.

This discussion is about Harris's political games. Not the Federal Government's political games.

This critique of Harris' government stands entirely independent of any cuts in Federal transfers.

It certainly does since you entirely ignore any cuts by the Liberals

Yes. My point is not about cutting spending. I'm a strong fiscal conservative and I like budget cutters. My critique is against Harris being a wishy-washy conservative - and an ill-educated rube deciding public policy by the seat of his pants - and then being forced to reverse himself because he never really thought through what he was doing in the first place.

If Harris had of done a better job of cutting, he wouldn't have had to backtrack. Ergo, Harris was lame.

In fact, the major unions, particularly the public service unions, anounced that it was their intention to bring down Harris' government on election night, and it was their obstructionist and confrontational policies and determination to use their labour power to fight against Harris' social and economic policies which triggered most of the unrest.

Yes, it certainly takes two to tango. Mike Harris and Union leaders are made for each other.

But the bottom line was that Harris did a bloody piss-poor job of handling these labour relations. The Unions were pissed at Harris for darn good reason - he baited them. Like I said, it takes two to tango and Harris was dancing lead.

And Mike Harris' public confrontations achieved what? (besides enraging the unions and causing a public nuisance).

Again, you're willfully blind. The public sector union leaders announced they would fight Harris with every tool at their disposal ON ELECTION NIGHT. They would fight him not only with regards to contracts for their members, but with regard to political issues that were really none of their business. The public sector unions were essentially the "owners" of the NDP, and used their power to oppose the conservatives politically. There was nothing Harris could have done to get peace from them other than surrender and implement left wing policies as designed by the NDP.

Right. Harris announced that he is an ideological warrior ready to do battle. His ideological opponents (the unions) announced that they will meet him in said battle.

So, Harris pours rhetorical gasoline upon the issue. That is poor leadership from a publically elected figure.

Unions are private entities and as such, they answer to their membership, not the voting public. They can be rude and ideological if their membership approves of it - none of my (or your) business.

But Mike Harris' rude belligerence is public business and that is a different matter. Thus, in this battle of obnoxious ideological warriors, Harris was in the wrong since he was supposed to represent the public interest - which is public peace and efficiency, not necessarily union-bashing for sport. Harris proved that he didn't understand the difference between the two.

The Ipperwash Final Report specifically points the finger at Mike Harris personally as one of the principal 'causes' of the tragedy. Not the only cause, just a significant one.

The Ipperwash report was written by a toady of the Liberals, and even so it found no evidence that Harris did anything wrong. The judge had the temerity to say Harris shouldn't have called in the police and called for law and order, but instead should have been more patient. But that's merely a private, personal opinion. Unelected judge have no business trying to tell elected leaders what policy decisions they should be making with regard to civil unrest. That the judge would have preferred the government sit back and sweet talk these criminals is beside the point. The government of the day makes a call based on its own views of issues. The personal opinions of unelected judges are no more important than the personal opinions of waitresses and computer technicians - nor any more educated for that matter.

Harris calling for anything as Premier is not "a private personal opinion".

Harris helped foster (with a big assist from the mass media) the belligerant environment that predisposed the police to perceive that particular native unrest as violent (which it categorically wasn't). The only violence in that native action was the murder of Dudley George by the OPP in a raid that was 'encouraged' by Harris who sought to score political points by being perceived as 'tough' on natives.

And those are just some of the reasons that Mike Harris shall go down in the history books as Ontario's worst ever Premier. He certainly wins the "most hated" title rather easily.

That is because people of your political persuasion hate rather freely.

My political persuasion? I was a card-carrying member of the PC party for a couple of decades.

So what the f*ck do you know about my political persuasion?

[madmax]

My political persuasion? I was a card-carrying member of the PC party for a couple of decades.

So what the f*ck do you know about my political persuasion?

You hide it well, if people read all your posts.

Dalton the Dweeb.

Anti Socialist

Praise for Tory

Dislike for Harris

Dislike for Harper

Dislike for Dion

Dislike for Layton

Business orientation. Anti Confrontation. Belief in the rule of law. Equality, are a few common factors in your posts.

Your political persausion is one that many Canadians could hold and share throughout there lifetime.

I don't think it's mine though.

Just like my mad is different from your MAD.

madmax.

[geoffrey]

Yes, this could be a hot one for Dalton since it was his government that did try to introduce Sharia Law on a trial basis (and had to back down in the face of immediate protest from the public).

I think Tory was referring more to cracking down on the Indians that are breaking the law. I'm sure that's as hot a sell as it was when I lived in Ontario.

[madmax]

I think Tory was referring more to cracking down on the Indians that are breaking the law. I'm sure that's as hot a sell as it was when I lived in Ontario.

Tory has come across with such insinuations to crack down. Regardless, the prisons are disproportionally filled with Indians for all kinds of infractions.

What cracking down on Indians means to Tory supporters, is to crack down on those Indians who challenge land titles.

IIRC Fantino was very outspoken about how to handle the situation. Right up until he got appointed to handled it.

The cracking down aspect appears in the media like a hot sell, but when protests of 20,000 people turn out to be under 500 in a hot zone, after media blitzes and tonnes of publicity, I think that it isn't as hot a sell as you may infer.

There are a number of disputes in Ontario, but with regards to Caledonia, it is the Conservative rep federally who has been MIA. I do believe that Progressive Conservative Toby Barrett has been active along with John Tory, but to what degree and what effectiveness, is unknown.

McGuinty totally blew this one. I have heard that the developer of the property was a Liberal Supporter who had a sweetheart deal with the government prior to development should it go wrong, since the land did have a claim on it. I have also heard that this guy Ken Hewitt was another Liberal shill trying to get the public wound up to support the handsome payout to the developer, who managed to get something like $26million or more, and having done very little. Soon after the developer was taken care of, I believe this Liberal Ken Hewitt disappeared, only to resurface later as a potential federal liberal Candidate. In the meantime, McGuinty must have thought his work was done, after purchasing the land back. The people of Caledonia, were left hanging for over a year, while people without negotiating skills where left to deal with he situation. High Profile Names such as Jane Stewart, but with little substance behind them.

So heading into the election, I believe McGuinty is counting on the Federal Government offer to six nations to bail him out of his inability to act while the people of Caledonia paid the price. The majority of long time residents of Caledonia have lived next to the reserve for a very long time as neighbours, and have never had to deal with such polarizing animosity until now. Most of these problems they blame on the government. The new comers to Caledonia, tend to hold the blame against the Indians, for lowering their property values. Ironically, the recent reports tend to suggest that property values are rising in Caledonia regardless of the occupation of the douglas creek estates.

McGuinty didn't take the position of six nations seriously at the start. Like many times in the past, (considering the number of titles in dispute), nothing ever came of a disputed claim, or a development might get stalled indefinitely, and a conflict never arise. There was no doubt that DCE was going to be a flashpoint before the shovels hit the dirt. Why it is alleged that McGuinty promised this developer a free ride is unknown to me.

[Mad_Michael]

Yes, this could be a hot one for Dalton since it was his government that did try to introduce Sharia Law on a trial basis (and had to back down in the face of immediate protest from the public).

I think Tory was referring more to cracking down on the Indians that are breaking the law. I'm sure that's as hot a sell as it was when I lived in Ontario.

I definitely wouldn't bet on this.

The public is too well informed about the rampant anti-native racism in our police forces and mass media to permit wholesale attacks against one of the poorest sections of the population. Poor-bashing is not a good vote getter unless you are selling 'hard-right' politics - which don't sell well in Ontario.

[Mad_Michael]

My political persuasion? I was a card-carrying member of the PC party for a couple of decades.

So what the f*ck do you know about my political persuasion?

You hide it well, if people read all your posts.

Dalton the Dweeb.

Anti Socialist

Praise for Tory

Dislike for Harris

Dislike for Harper

Dislike for Dion

Dislike for Layton

Business orientation. Anti Confrontation. Belief in the rule of law. Equality, are a few common factors in your posts.

Your political persausion is one that many Canadians could hold and share throughout there lifetime.

I don't think it's mine though.

Just like my mad is different from your MAD.

madmax.

1. I've never stated any dislike of Jack Layton. Being a Toronto boy, I have grudging respect for Jack Layton since he has worked hard to improve Toronto and he is a principled proponent of gay rights. I'm not much of a fan of the NDP though (since as you correctly noted, I'm very anti-socialist).

2. My concern for "equality" is ONLY in respect of the rule of law. From a philosophic perspective, my principal value is "liberty" (hence my opposition to all forms of authoritarianism).

3. You missed my praise for Paul Martin's fiscal discipline and my dissing of Bill Davis's introduction of public funding for Catholic education. I've also praised Bob Rae too for his transformation into a 'red tory' as he has shifted to the Liberal Party. And I also praised Joe Clark as a noble (or tragic) man of principle.

And yes, in conventional terms, that makes me what used to be called a "progressive conservative" - fiscal conservative and social liberal. But most of all, I consider that private corporations are as great a threat to my liberty as any government or any union - which is why I am not a supporter of any 'traditional' conservativism.

And as a final note, you do appear to prove my point against Argus - he doesn't know anything about my 'political pursuasion'.

[madmax]

1. I've never stated any dislike of Jack Layton. Being a Toronto boy, I have grudging respect for Jack Layton since he has worked hard to improve Toronto and he is a principled proponent of gay rights. I'm not much of a fan of the NDP though (since as you correctly noted, I'm very anti-socialist).

50% right isn't bad.

2. My concern for "equality" is ONLY in respect of the rule of law. From a philosophic perspective, my principal value is "liberty" (hence my opposition to all forms of authoritarianism).

3. You missed my praise for Paul Martin's fiscal discipline and my dissing of Bill Davis's introduction of public funding for Catholic education. I've also praised Bob Rae too for his transformation into a 'red tory' as he has shifted to the Liberal Party. And I also praised Joe Clark as a noble (or tragic) man of principle.

Yes, I did. Luckily I wasn't writing your bio.

And yes, in conventional terms, that makes me what used to be called a "progressive conservative" - fiscal conservative and social liberal. But most of all, I consider that private corporations are as great a threat to my liberty as any government or any union - which is why I am not a supporter of any 'traditional' conservativism.

And as a final note, you do appear to prove my point against Argus - he doesn't know anything about my 'political pursuasion'.

That was the intent.

later max

[Higgly]

I saw a post back on page one from someone who thinks John Tory has a great resume. The guy has little political experience. He ran for mayor of Toronto and during the campaign publicly stated that he was only in it for the short term and would move on after "setting things right." A real career politician. Reminds me of Belinda Stronach. He got a lot of votes in the upper income ridings in the Yonge/St Clair-Lawrence belt because he wanted to hire millions of dollars worth of more police. If there is one thing the rich love, it is more cops. Little did he utter about the fact that the areas of the city with the highest crime rate have the smallest police stations. One of the biggest cop shops in the city is at Yonge and Eglinton, the part of the city with the lowest crime rate. St. James Town folk have been begging for a police kiosk for years.

John Tory is just another ideologue like Mike Harris.

[Mad_Michael]

I saw a post back on page one from someone who thinks John Tory has a great resume.

Really?

I just re-read the 1st page of this thread. No one says that "John Tory has a great resume".

Did you just make that up as a rhetorical point in order to launch your bash-John Tory post?

Quick hint: If the first sentence of your post can be easly proven to be pure bullcrap - what is the probability that every word in your post is equally bullcrap?

St. James Town folk have been begging for a police kiosk for years.

I trust this one comes from the same authoritive 'source' you used in your first sentence?

Are you familiar with actual Toronto Police statistics? More cops in your neighborhood equals more crime. Toronto cops have a bad history of 'cutting deals' with drug dealers and defending turf for them.

Want to fight against drug dealing on the streets of Toronto - start at Police HQ and look for the cops that are promoted and decorated - they are most likely to be the 'bad apples'.

Remember, the RCMP had to be brought in to investigate drug-dealing cops in Toronto - because the Toronto Police Force was preventing any kind of investigation for years.

[scribblet]

I'm not sure how much difference there is between Tory and McGuinty, Tory is promising a whole lot of promises just as McGuinty did.

However, I don't have a lot of faith in McGuinty because of his numerous lies, and he most recent lie when he tries to blame the feds. for not having strong enough "gun control" laws. The blame is with the Ontario gov't as the province controls the police, courts and parole boards. In reality is McGuinty's (the province) ineffectivness in prosecuting and incarcerating the criminals. Instead he'd rather blame law-abiding gun owners and the feds.

[Higgly]

However, I don't have a lot of faith in McGuinty because of his numerous lies..

Yeah, the first time he had to change his mind was because he based his projections on the budget brought down by Lyin' Jim Flaherty who projected a budget surplus when in fact the province was seriously in the hole.

Is there any way Lyin' Jim can be prosecuted for fraud like those Enron guys? Well probably not because he just keeps doing it .

[Mad_Michael]

However, I don't have a lot of faith in McGuinty because of his numerous lies..

Yeah, the first time he had to change his mind was because he based his projections on the budget brought down by Lyin' Jim Flaherty who projected a budget surplus when in fact the province was seriously in the hole.

Is there any way Lyin' Jim can be prosecuted for fraud like those Enron guys? Well probably not because he just keeps doing it .

I'm all for putting former Ontario Provincial Treasurers on trial for their fiscal lies. Apart from Rae's administration, every Provincial Government in Ontario in the last dozen years has publicly lied about the true fiscal position of the Province.

I'd like to see every government financial statement signed off by a non-government private auditor.