Editorial: What taxes does Ontario Premier Wynne want?

QMI Agency - Premier Kathleen Wynne seems to have forgotten something in her rush to impose new taxes and tolls on Ontarians to pay for the Liberals' $50-billion, 25-year Big Move transit scheme.

What she's forgotten is the voters.

Voters who must have the final say on this issue, the majority of whom, polls show, aren't in favour of what Wynne's proposing.

But there's a simple solution.

Wynne needs to end her tiresome dance of the seven veils before friendly crowds of elites, hinting at which taxes and tolls she's thinking of imposing, and start coming clean with the public.

Especially so, since she has no electoral mandate to implement any new taxes or tolls, given that she was chosen as premier by Liberal partisans, not democratically confirmed in a general election.

The honest thing for Wynne to do would be to tell the public now what taxes and tolls she's prepared to implement to fund the Big Move and then to run on them in the next election.

So far, the only people the public is hearing from on that issue are special interest groups like the Toronto Region Board of Trade and unelected bureaucrats at City Hall.

In June, unelected bureaucrats at Metrolinx, the province's regional transportation agency, will chime in, again, on which new taxes and tolls they favour.

Clearly, this is all part of a co-ordinated plan by like-minded elites to wear down the public into thinking they have no choice but to meekly accept higher taxes and tolls to pay for transit.

It's time to end this charade.

On Wednesday, Wynne suggested at a friendly forum held by CivicAction, that she might move ahead with imposing new road tolls and taxes to pay for the Big Move, without the support of the affected municipal governments.

The fact she would say this just two days after the Ontario Auditor General said her government misled the public on the real costs of its political decision to cancel the Mississauga gas plant two weeks before the last provincial election, doesn't surprise us.

After all, arrogance is nothing new for Liberals.

But it's all the more reason for Wynne to come clean with the public now about what she's planning.

Hudak Has a Plan For a Better Ontario

TORONTO – Ontario can do a lot better with a plan to get us on the right track and the leadership to put it into action, PC Leader Tim Hudak said tonight to a sold-out crowd.

“In order to do better for our job creators, our loved ones and future generations, we need to address the jobs crisis and debt crisis we face today – and we cannot solve one without solving the other,” Hudak said.

Hudak outlined his comprehensive plan of action to grow the economy. Key elements of Hudak’s plan include:

Reducing Ontario’s 300,000 regulations by at least a third

Lowering the cost of doing business including tax reductions and affordable energy rates

Making our labour laws competitive so companies have the confidence to hire, and

Building new subways and highways to get people home and goods to market faster

“We’ll get people moving again and we’ll grow the economy, but we can’t build a strong Ontario on a foundation of debt,” Hudak said.
Hudak’s plan to end government’s reckless overspending includes making government pensions affordable, reducing the size and cost of government, and opening up contracts to competitive bidding to get the best quality at the best price for the taxpayer.

Hudak described this as a moment of truth for our province: “It is a time of challenge but also a time of promise. A time of crisis, but a time of hope. We have hope because we have a choice.”

“If you believe Ontario is on the right track, the good news is you have two parties to choose from. But if you believe Ontario can and will do better, there is only one choice: our Ontario PC team,” Hudak concluded.

“Let’s stop waiting for better and let’s make better happen.”

Watch the video and download the speech here.

Toronto Star editorial: Ontario should limit ‘third party’ election spending

April 11, 2013 - Elections Ontario head Greg Essensa makes a good case for reigning in third party interest group advertising during provincial campaigns.

A gaping loophole in Ontario’s election finance rules allows so-called “third party” interest groups to dodge campaign spending limits. They’re increasingly using this lack of oversight to outspend bona fide political parties and sway the results of a vote. And that isn’t healthy for democracy.

By way of a remedy, 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.

The need for such change is pressing and so obvious that it should be delivered with a minimum of bureaucratic dithering and delay.

In his annual report earlier this week, Essensa noted that third-party organizations — mainly unions and related groups — spent more than $6 million on advertising in the 2011 provincial election. That’s more than triple the $1.8 million such organizations shelled out for the 2007 vote.

The biggest-spending third party, the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, lavished $2.6 million on its effort to defeat the Progressive Conservatives. To put this in some context, even the New Democratic Party didn’t spend that much. In fact, it exceeded the combined advertising spending of 19 of Ontario’s 21 registered political parties.

In short, third party organizations now rival mainstream registered political parties in advertising clout. Fairness demands that they come under more scrutiny and regulation.

“The current rules for third parties are inconsistent with how other political entities are treated,” wrote Essensa. “Candidates, constituency associations and political parties are all subject to annual and campaign reporting requirements, as well as campaign period spending limits and annual and campaign contribution limits.”

These regulations are meant to provide some semblance of a level playing field in the political arena. They limit the degree to which money can be used to influence the electorate. But this intended fairness is distorted as long as third parties are exempt from similar restrictions.

Unions and others with a case to put before the public mustn’t be silenced at election time. They have a right to express their views, and to spend money in order to do so. But this right must be framed by limits in keeping with how other political players are treated.

Essensa notes that Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick and the federal government have all adopted controls over third-party advertising. And, in a rare display of agreement, the parties at Queen’s Park have signaled their openness to reform.

Being on the receiving end of a sizable interest group onslaught, the Tories have long pressed for action. But NDP Leader Andrea Horwath also favours a look at third-party spending limits as part of a wider examination of election finance rules, and Premier Kathleen Wynne has said she is willing to consider Essensa’s recommendations.

Given all that, there’s no acceptable excuse to maintain the status quo. Queen’s Park needs to turn off the lights and declare the party over when it comes to unfettered third-party election spending.

New Report on Liberal Policy Failure: "Environmental and Economic Consequences of Ontario's Green Energy Act"

April 11, 2013 - The Ontario Green Energy and Green Economy Act was passed in May 2009 with the purpose of addressing environmental concerns and promoting economic growth in Ontario. Its centerpiece is a schedule of subsidized electricity purchase contracts called Feed-in-Tariffs (FITs) that provide long-term guarantees of above-market rates for power gen-erated by wind turbine farms, solar panel installations, bio-energy plants and small hydroelectric generators. Development of these power sources was motivated in part by a stated goal of closing the Lambton and Nanticoke coal-fired power plants.

This report investigates the effect of the GEA on economic competitiveness in Ontario. It focuses on three questions: (1) Will the GEA materially improve environmental quality in Ontario? (2) Is it a cost-effective plan for accomplishing its goals? (3) Are the economic effects on households and leading economic sectors likely to be positive? The answer to each question is unambiguously negative.

It is unlikely the Green Energy Act will yield any environmental improvements other than those that would have happened anyway under policy and technology trends established since the 1970s. Indeed, it is plausible that adding more wind power to the grid will end up increasing overall air emissions from the power generation sector.

Click here to download the Fraser Institute report.

Letter to Education Minister Liz Sandals from MPP Lisa MacLeod

April 2nd, 2013 (text here)

Dear Minister,

On Sunday, I was surprised to learn that you announced a “new” deal with the Ontario Secondary Schools Teachers Federation (OSSTF) after you and Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne supported an imposed collective agreement and voted for it in the legislature just last fall.

You will remember last spring a memo from the Ministry of Education to all Directors of Education on March 29, 2012 stated, “(This year’s budget allocation) provides no funding for any salary increases resulting from individual employee movement on the grid.” By July of 2012 your government was touting the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA) deal to be a “roadmap” for school boards when negotiating new collective agreements for teachers. Given salary grid movement was not frozen, the deal cost taxpayers $450 million after it was replicated with all teachers’ unions. At the time the government suggested unpaid days off, non-banked sick days and other curbed benefits would save $150 million. By your own math the legislated deal has already left a $300-million hole in the government’s fiscal plan.

Now we learn you are prepared to give concessions on unpaid days, maternity benefits, sick days and retirement gratuities. If, for example, you enhance retirement gratuities from 10 cents on the dollar to 25 cents on the dollar, Ontario parents and taxpayers could be on the hook for an additional $63 Million when extended to all of Ontario’s 140,000 teachers. I need not remind you that teachers federations have a so-called “me too” clause built into their contracts, and therefore what you offer one union you are forced to extend to members of all the other unions. By tinkering with the existing collective agreement, your government could end up costing Ontarians hundreds of millions of dollars more at a time when our students have suffered through a labour dispute for the majority of this school year.

This is especially disappointing given Ms. Wynne had assured both parents and MPP’s that she would not re-open contracts and that “there was no new money” for wage increases or enhanced benefits. Not only did she re-open contracts, but I was also concerned to read that you are now discussing opening up and using the Education Ministry budget envelop and not the Education Ministry “wage” envelop as in previous months. This subtle, yet substantial reference indicates you have mislead the public and have altered an existing collective agreement that will now be funded in part outside the normal wage envelop from the whole education budget. In order to pay for your new commitments on maternity benefits, sick days, unpaid leave and retirement gratuities it is abundantly clear that you will be taking money from existing programing intended for students to pay for an increase in benefits to teachers unions. All of this at a time when many school boards are teaching students in portables, having difficulty fully implementing full day learning and struggling to fund textbooks.

As Minister, I ask you, do you not think it reckless to reallocate funding away from those programs used to educate our children and put it toward increased salaries and benefits, particularly after a fractious school year? Is it fair to Ontario’s students who have been used as pawns in a labour dispute to give up more in the future–their future– from their education? Are you even aware that Ontario’s debt and deficit as it stands now seriously compromises our public education system–makes full day learning unsustainable– unless tough but necessary decisions are made? Do you agree that your short term arrangements to pacify an electoral partner could have long term affects for our students?

It is now less than eight months since these collective agreements have been in place and your government has already reopened contracts, signalling to every other public sector union that if they are unhappy with the province’s fiscal parameters during or after negotiations they can count on your government to give into their demands. In that vein, I ask why was it necessary to negotiate a separate deal with OSSTF when the invocation of Bill 115 imposed agreements on all teachers unions? Similarly, while this agreement with OSSTF will cost indeed new money, is the government seriously considering even more money to appease ETFO in negotiations that are now underway?

Ontario students and their parents deserve better. Ontario taxpayers deserve to know the answers.

Kindest regards,

Lisa MacLeod, MPP

Nepean-Carleton
Ontario PC Education Critic