Wynne’s incompetent and corrupt Liberals “cooking books” year before election

ONPC Leader in fighting spirit on day of Liberal budget.

The polite way of saying the Ontario Liberals are corrupt or ethically challenged is to repeat what ONPC (Progressive Conservative) Leader Patrick Brown said this week in the Ontario Legislature just before Ontario Liberal Finance Minister Charles Sousa presented the Liberal budget — that as the government’s chef, he was “cooking the books.”

Well, in my opinion, it is past time for being polite. The Ontario Liberals have been corrupt for quite some time. They are ruled by ideology at all cost, in this case, a green philosophy that only benefits environmental activists and those with 20 year contracts in the Feed-in-Tariff — FIT program.

In fact, the Liberals will say anything or do anything to get elected or re-elected. A particularly favourable approach for Liberals to win Ontario elections (and federally as well, I might add) is to scare voters into voting Liberal. Ah, those scary Conservatives. Blah, blah, blah. Which, unfortunately, worked federally in 2015 and in Ontario in 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2014!!

For example, back during the Ontario election in 2003, then opposition Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty made a very public “written” pledge that, if elected with a majority government, his Liberals would not raise taxes.

Except that pledge was an outright lie. Just a couple of months after receiving a majority mandate, McGuinty announced that his government would be implementing an Ontario Health Care Premium — a premium, it turned out, that would never go towards health care but would be deposited directly into Ontario’s general revenues. And, while some would argue that health care funding comes out of general revenues, so do a lot of other government expenditures.

Fast forward to 2017. Not only do we have an Ontario Liberal Finance Minister saying the province has balanced the budget by using non-accessible public pension funds, but we have Premier Kathleen Wynne telling us their Cap and Trade isn’t a tax either. We also have businesses moving outside of Ontario or shutting down altogether because of huge hydro delivery charges that have to pay for the Cap and Trade folly.

What incompetence! As Lorrie Goldstein wrote in the Toronto Sun earlier this month: “The reality is Wynne, who ran on running an open and transparent government in 2014, has chosen the least open and transparent method of carbon pricing — cap and trade.

Anyway, by making the claim that they have balanced the budget in 2017,  make no mistake about it, the Ontario Liberals have officially started the 2018 election campaign. As a result, the fight for the soul of Ontario is on — 24/7.  The key questions are:

  • Will Ontario be run into the ground by the Liberals or their NDP cousins (e.g., 300,000 manufacturing jobs have already been lost)? or
  • Will Ontario voters have the courage to vote for the Ontario PCs under Brown to turn the economy around and make the province a “have” province again?

The crux of the matter is for Conservatives of all types, as well as fed up Liberals, to get the truth out by whatever means they can — and that truth is that the Liberal Party of Ontario is not only incompetent but corrupt as well and must not be rewarded with another mandate to further misgovern.

Vote ONPC to stop wind turbines that are not “green”

The belief that wind turbines are “green” and reduce CO2 emissions is an Ontario Liberal myth! In fact, some would say that claim is an outright lie.

For proof, take a good look at the above image. Given that three six-foot tall men are standing on the rebar it becomes obvious just how huge that turbine foundation actually is. In fact, the base is reported to require some 45,000 kg of reinforcing rebar and 480,000 litres of concrete to fill and cover it — 20% of the volume of an Olympic sized swimming pool. And that is before you even add the turbine itself!

Think about that and multiply that hole by hundreds of such spaces and what they would do to a rural and farm environment. Of course, the Ontario Liberals don’t worry about such things because turbines are primarily placed in Ontario Progressive Conservative (ONPC) ridings.

During the 2011 provincial election, for instance, the Ontario Liberals, then under Dalton McGuinty, moved two partially built gas plants, one in Oakville and one in Mississauga, out into ONPC territory, because Liberal voters didn’t want them. That gas plant move ended up costing nearly a billion taxpayers dollars.

Similarly, also in 2011, the McGuinty Liberals cancelled a 60 turbine project that was to be off shore near the Scarborough bluffs, which is at the Eastern end of Greater Toronto. But, live in a PC riding, and the Ontario Liberals really don’t care what you think.

The worse part, as we now find out, is that wind turbines are not “green” as they do absolutely nothing for the environment, nor do they reduce emissions. Worse yet, add in the Ontario Liberal Cap and Trade tax and they make hydro unaffordable.

For example, the Toronto Sun identifies one manufacturer who got a recent monthly statement showing they were charged $13,060 for the hydro they used. Plus, on that same bill, they were charged a “Global Adjustment Fee” in the amount of $107,698.00. Can you imagine that? As the Sun states: “A ‘global adjustment fee’ is the term the Ontario government and energy companies use to describe the amount they tack on to businesses’ bills to cover the extremely generous and above-market rates the government has agreed to pay green energy companies in the province.

Meaning, all but the $13,060 is Liberal spin to cover Liberal “green” energy overspending. In other words, the $107,698.00 is a business tax that is going to kill jobs and destroy the Ontario economy.

Well, there is a solution and that solution is to elect a majority PC government in Ontario on June 7th, 2018.

The crux of the matter is, I believe, that under a Premier Patrick Brown, the Ontario economy will be turned around. As it says on the PC website, a PC government would reinvigorate the Ontario economy by cancelling the job killing Cap and Trade costs under the so-called “global adjustment fund”, as well as non-green wind turbine subsidies.

Oil & gas makes full employment & self-sufficiency possible for First Nations!

Credit Bloomberg. Click for FP.

A December 7th, 2016 CBC article by John Paul Tasker caught my attention this morning on Twitter (H/T @PipelineAction). It had the title “Environmentalists have impoverished First Nations.”

Yet, when I read the article, I found that where First Nations embraced the development of such natural resources as oil and gas (never mind forestry, fishing and mining), the reverse was actually the case — which has not always been so.

  • First, there were the anti-fur campaigns in the 1970s which eventually destroyed the Native way of life, not only for those who were hunters and trappers, but furriers and retailers as well.
  • Then, there was the anti-seal campaigns both off the coast of Newfoundland and throughout Europe.
  • Now, there is the 2014 pro-whaling fiasco by the anti-whaling Greenpeace. Known for stopping the whale hunt world-wide, Greenpeace recently supported the killing of a whale by the Clyde River Inuit in Nunavut even though whales are endangered in the Arctic. Given the destruction of the fur and seal trades of the past, I believe this latest turn of face is pure political theatre to try to turn public opinion in Greenpeace’s favour. The problem is that if whales are endangered in the Arctic, pretty soon there won’t be any left to hunt, traditional native values and way of life notwithstanding.

Anyway, the good news is that times are changing because there are forward-looking First Nations Chiefs who know that there can be a balance between care of the environment and providing jobs and wealth.

For example:

  • As I linked at the start of this post, Chief Jim Boucher of the Fort McKay First Nations in Alberta, recently spoke at an Assembly of First Nations Gathering in Gatineau, Quebec and is quoted as saying that: “His community … has an unemployment rate of zero, an average annual income of $120,000, and financial holdings in excess of $2 billion, thanks to its willingness to do business with Canada’s oil and gas companies.” Not only that, but as a result of this windfall, that band is self-governed, receiving only 4% of its revenue from the Government of Canada.
  • A similar good news story was recently heard from First Nation Chief Joe Dion of Frog Lake, Alberta. A quote from a BBC article, also dated December 2016, states that: “[Dion] heads up Frog Lake Energy Resources Corporation, which is wholly owned by the First Nation and manages the on-reserve oil and gas drilling facilities” which has been able to use oil production dividends to build homes, community and senior centres, as well as help fund education programmes.

Thankfully, then, history will not repeating itself if enough First Nations leaders realize that oil and gas and everything connected to those industries, if done right, can benefit their communities.

At the same time, however, caution and awareness is needed because there are still a lot of environmental activist groups that would have First Nations living in poverty, as illogical as that seems. For a full description of who wants to stop anyone from receiving any benefits from oil and gas resource and pipeline development, I would recommend reading a very detailed Vivian Krause October, 2016 article in the Financial Post.

Anyway, let’s look forward with confidence.

The crux of the matter is that First Nation leaders and their communities in both Canada and the U.S. can benefit financially and purposefully from oil and gas extraction and pipeline infrastructure on their traditional lands — with business development and full employment and all the positive outcomes resulting from those activities.


Conservatives need to stop appeasing liberal political correctness

Click for source.

Lorrie Goldstein’s article “Conservatives wrong to appease Liberals” in today’s Toronto Sun is bang on. Why? Because, as Goldstein says, appeasing political correctness simply doesn’t work.

Be it in the UK with Brexit, the U.S. with the election of Donald Trump, or here in Canada with the election of Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, the very people who condemn conservatives for being politically incorrect are the very people who would never vote for them.

For example, in Canada during the 2015 federal election, the Liberals, the NDP and the liberal media complained ad nauseam that the “nasty” Harper Conservatives had to change their “tone” — both in the House of Commons and elsewhere.

The problem was, the nasty tone was not coming from Conservatives. The phenomenon is called projection in psychology. The Urban Dictionary describes the condition as: An unconscious self-defence mechanism characterised by a person unconsciously attributing their own issues onto someone or something else …. ”

I mean, you can see it in the U.S. since Donald Trump won the U.S. election. Protesters will stand in front of a silent conservative and scream that they are Nazis and fascists for daring to support Trump. I particularly remember the professor at the Berkeley riots screaming hateful epithets at a police officer who didn’t say a thing. On that topic, check out this Google page where there are 12,000,000 related hits on academics saying exactly what they criticize others for saying.

In Canada, during the Harper years, the Liberals and their media friends constantly cried wolf with never-ending “gotchas,” all the while claiming that PM Stephen Harper was cold, brittle and sarcastic. Unfortunately, during the 2015 federal election, too many Canadians believed the Trudeau Liberal “sunny ways” mantra and lies that they would be more transparent and accountable.

Anyway, fast forward to 2017.  Senator Lynn Beyak dared to say that she hoped that some Aboriginal students experienced some good while in the residential school system. The problem was that Beyak was hammered, not only by the liberal left for daring to suggest such a thing, but MP Rona Ambrose, the Interim Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). In fact, Ambrose removed Beyak from the Senate Aboriginal People’s Committee rather than support her right to free speech.

Talk about an overreaction to political correctness. But, it doesn’t end there unfortunately. Today’s Toronto Star recommends that Beyak “do the right thing” and resign from the Senate altogether.

Unbelievable! Our country is being overrun with liberal progressive “thought police.”

Well, enough already!!!! Goldstein is correct. The crux of the matter is that when Conservative politicians like Ambrose try to appease Liberals by being politically correct, conservative voters might just decide to stay away from the ballot box in 2019.

End note: If Senator Beyak reads this article, I want her to know that many conservatives like myself do not want her to resign because she has done nothing wrong. She simply stated an opinion, an opinion that in no way takes away from the horrors some Aboriginal students experienced in the residential school system. However, interestingly, it is obvious that some of the comments on Twitter under the hashtag #lynnbeyak, are examples of the very projection and fascist bullying I talked about in this post.

Liberal media narrative pushing alternate reality on western society

An example of a conservative commentator trashed by the liberal media.

Like a lot of people who like to think for themselves, I am sick and tired of the 24/7 narrative coming from the liberal mainstream media and like-minded politicians that anyone who holds traditional conservative views is hateful in every respect, or in the case of Sean Hannity above, bad for America.

Yes, that is biased and narrow-minded thinking but what is especially problematic about it is that it is pushing an alternate reality onto Western society. I mean, when I turn on the CBC (which isn’t often) it is like the journalists and commentators are living in a different country than I am. Which is probably why I watch a lot of Fox News these days. At least there, for the most part, you get a balanced presentation. I mean, they always have both Republican and Democratic pundits on to debate the issues.

Anyway, this week the American media published an old quote from U.S. Vice- President Mike Pence — that he didn’t have lunch with women other than his wife . You would have thought he was some kind of monster given the hysterical response. The assumption was that he had to be anti-woman. Nonsense. All of it. From what I have read, Pence is surrounded by competent women.

Then, there is Brexit across the pond. In the UK, the “leavers” are called every negative name that can be said publicly on the BBC. It is as though the 52% who voted for Brexit are from another planet. Never mind that those 52% were simply tired of having no borders or their laws overridden by Brussels.

Similarly in the US, nearly half the country voted for Donald Trump and yet, those pockets of Democratic blue feel because they represented the popular vote, they should run the country regardless of Electoral College rules and the U.S.Constitution. In fact, Democratic outrage is off the charts. Yet, just imagine if the vote had been the reverse and Hillary Clinton had won the College vote and Trump the popular vote. Who do you think would be president right now? Right. Clinton.

Years ago, I experienced this kind of social and media bias first hand. I had helped an Ontario PC (Progressive Conservative) candidate win the 1995 provincial election. He was a member of the Mike Harris Conservative caucus. I accompanied him, his wife and their family to the swearing-in ceremony two weeks after the vote. What greeted us were thousands of protesters and a bomb scare — and the Conservatives hadn’t even done anything yet. Nevertheless, for the entire four years of Harris’ first mandate, the protests and the media were hysterical about everything in spite of the fact that Ontario boomed — with 100,000 people able to get off welfare and nearly one million good paying full time jobs being created.

Speaking of protests, in the U.S. when you watch the tape of the Berkeley fiasco, it is the professor who is screaming profanities. Same at Middlebury College where even a professor was injured. Sure, I don’t agree with much of what Milo Yiannopoulos or Charles Murray say, but so what? They should be able to talk freely and students and faculty should be able to debate why they disagree with them. Causing and allowing mayhem, on the other hand, is simply teaching young adults that temper tantrums work.

Which brings me to Canada and its liberal media snowflakes. For ten years we read and heard that the Stephen Harper Conservatives were bad and Harper was a dictator. Why? Because one of his staffers had the gall to pay $90,000 back to the public treasury to help a Senator that the media didn’t like because he had been one of them and, in their opinion, didn’t know his place.  As with Mike Harris twenty years ago, there was little mention in the media about how much the Conservative Government was accomplishing.

Yet, now that we have the Justin Trudeau Liberals in power, as with Obama in the U.S. when he was in power, the media fawning never stops.  There are scandals every single day and the media reports on them. However, given the image to the left, the venom they saved for Harper just isn’t there for Trudeau.

The crux of the matter is that the media and liberal narrative that anything we say that disagrees with a liberal worldview should be considered “hate speech” or “bad” for our country is a view that we have to fight 24/7. How? By debating ideas with family, neighbours and friends or by volunteering for a conservative oriented politician.

Americans need to know Canada’s health care system is not free

Image of digital OHIP card when old card replaced in 1995.

Given that the Republican and President Trump’s Obamacare repeal and replace health care bill just died in the Congress, I want to remind Americans that a health care system like we have in Canada is neither a single payer system, nor is it free.

Let me explain. Health care in Canada is governed by the five principles of the federal Canada Health Act (CHA): (1) that it is Publicly Administered, (2) that it is Comprehensive, (3) that it is Universally available to everyone, (4), that it is Portable throughout the country, and (5) it is Accessible.

While technically, all ten provinces and three territories must adhere to those principles, officials tend to interpret those principles in different ways.

In Quebec, for example, private clinics are allowed to operate. In Ontario, we have a private hernia hospital in Toronto called Shouldice but other than that, private clinics where patients pay out of their own pocket, are not allowed. In BC, a private clinic is taking the government to court arguing that by making patients wait weeks or months for medically necessary services and not allowing them to purchase private services, the government is contributing to the patient’s decline.

The difference in Ontario is that while most community-based labs and clinics are for-profit, Ontario citizens simply provide their OHIP (pronounced O-hip) health card (as shown in the above image) and the for-profit bills the government directly for payment.

So, where does the money actually come from? Using the Province of Ontario, where I live, as an example, funds come from three sources;

  1. Middle & Large business health tax revenue;
  2. Block Grants from the federal government; and
  3. Individual Health Care Premiums.

In the case of Ontario Health Care Premiums, which are deducted from a person’s pay cheque or paid annually on their income tax, payments can vary from $300.00 to $900.00 depending on income level. Individuals who earn less than $20,000 or are receiving disability or social assistance benefits are not expected to contribute.

Those three sources of revenue cover emergency or catastrophic services at a doctor’s office or hospital, including surgery, specialized procedures like angiograms, angioplasty, x-rays, MRI’s, CAT scans, nutrition advice, meals and blood work. Also covered, in hospital, are dental surgery (following an accident or having teeth extracted), prescription medications and physiotherapy.

However, out of hospital, only those who are on disability, social benefits or are 65 or older, get some of their prescription medications covered. As well, most dental and para-medical services such as physiotherapy, massage therapy, chiropractor and naturopath are not covered and individuals must pay personally or via supplementary insurance coverage, either through an employer, pension plan or privately. However, in certain situations, like cancer treatment, there is an Ontario program for catastrophic prescription coverage, such as Trillium.

Anyway, given the purpose for this post was to show Americans how much each Canadian actually pays, let’s figure out what a retiree couple averaging a $50,000 a year household income (through a combination of self-funded retirement funds, employer pensions, Canada Pension Plan payments and Old Age Security) would pay.

  • They will pay $1,200.00 (600.00 each) on their income tax forms for their “health care premium;” and
  • They will pay approximately $350.00 per month for a supplemental major medical package if they include dental coverage.

Which is $5,400.00 CAD a year.

The crux of the matter is that, while Canadians do not have to worry about deductibles or paying at the time they access health care services, their health care coverage is definitely not the “single payer system” far too many American officials say it is, nor is it “free.”

Something for Americans to think about.

Disagree with Financial Post writers who recommend taking CPP at Age 70

I agree with the “Retire Happy” website which suggests Canadian retirees should start their CPP pensions sooner rather than later. However, that is not the position in a recent Financial Post column by Lisa Bjornson and Fred Vettese of Morneau Shepell’s Retirement Solutions. Essentially, they recommend deferring a CPP pension benefit to age 70.

As a retiree, I disagree for at least two reasons:

  1. The retiree’s health — The first reason I disagree is that when a person applies for their CPP benefit should be based on their state of health because a retiree’s health is usually better between age 60 and 69 than between 70 and 80.
  2. The retiree’s source of retirement funding —  The second reason I disagree is based on how a retiree is funding his or her own retirement. In their column, Bjornson and Vettese are assuming a self-funded retirement using RRSP savings as opposed to an employee defined pension benefit (such as that received by teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters, government workers, auto workers, etc.)

Assuming a self-financed retirement, Bjornson and Vettese suggest that a retiree can receive $72,000 more for a CPP pension started at age 70 rather than age 60 or 65. Sounds good so far. However, if a person waits until age 70, when health problems usually start in earnest, what was the point of waiting for a few dollars more? What puzzles me, however, is that Bjornson and Vettese seem to think that waiting until age 70 means a significantly higher CPP pension.

They estimate, for example, that a person qualifying for a maximum CPP pension (which is $1,092.50 right now) would, allowing for cost of living increases, go up to $2,056.00 a month in ten years. Clearly, that estimated amount is unrealistic. I know of people who have been collecting a maximum CPP pension over ten years and it has only increased between $100.00 and $200.00.

Anyway, at the time I retired I got the opposite advice from what Bjornson and Vettese are giving because of what is known as the age 65 CPP reduction or CPP bridge, for those receiving a defined pension benefit from a former employer.

Specifically, if someone is able to retire at age 60 with a defined pension benefit, he or she can receive their entire employer pension and their entire CPP benefit for 60 months. However, at age 65, the amount (or a similar amount) of their CPP is deducted from their employer’s pension. Using the Bjornson and Vaterre example, $713.00 a month over 60 months amounts to $42,780.00.

It really is a bonus and while it is not $72,000, it is still good deal of money at a time when most retirees are still healthy. For example, if your employee pension is $3,000.00 a month before taxes, and your CPP is $713.00 a month, your retirement income from age 60 to 69 is $3,713.00 a month.

Then, in the month following your 65th birthday, that income is reduced to approximately $2,287.00 (the exact amount of the CPP or a similar amount) plus the ongoing $713.00 a month from CPP for a total retirement income of $3,000.00 a month. Of course, at age 65, retirees also qualify for the Old Age Pension (OAS), currently $578.53 a month (slightly more than the $570.52 stated in the link), can partially make up the difference.

Of course, if someone retires at age 65 with a defined pension and their CPP, they won’t notice anything unusual because the the CPP reduction has already been accounted for and they can have the OAS is they qualify for that benefit.

The crux of the matter is that I disagree strongly with Bjornson and Vettese because I believe retirees should start their CPP pensions at the earliest date possible — when they are the healthiest.

Beware Trudeau sneaky vote re Motion 103 on Islamophobia

Apparently Canada’s governing Liberals are going to try to hide their vote on Motion-103, the Islamophobia motion that tries to shut down any debate or criticism about Islam.

Why? Because M-103 is coming back to the House of Commons for debate this week, just before the Liberal federal budget is tabled. Meaning, that any news coverage on the final vote of M-103 will be swamped by budget coverage.

How do I know this? I got an email this morning from CPC Leadership Candidate Pierre Lemieux and I paraphrase three questions from his letter: (1) Do you have a valid concern about Islam, (2) Do you disagree with Sharia Law, and (3) Are you uneasy about radical Islamic terrorism? I would answer yes to at least Questions 2 and 3.

Yet, as Lemieux goes on to write: “The Liberals voted down all amendments to that Motion and now M-103 is coming back to the House….Once the debate ends tomorrow, it [the Liberals] will move to an immediate voice vote. If Conservatives do not “stand five” MPs to force a formal recorded vote, then we will never know who voted for or against M-103.

Well, Canada, you voted for these Liberals. It is not hard to see that this M-103 is simply the preamble to something bigger and more dangerous. And, no, that concern is not paranoia or Islamophobia. For example, the President of Turkey recently told Turks living in the EU to expand their families, so that in time, they would be the majority.

And, as a majority in Europe or elsewhere, what would that mean? There is an Arab folk tale about the camel and the master.  At the start, the master is sleeping in the tent and the camel is outside. By the end of the story, the camel is in the tent and the master outside.  And, we all know what that metaphor implies.

The crux of the matter is that Liberal MPs should not pass this Motion because ultimately it, and any decisions related to it, makes Islam more important and relevant than the Judeo-Christian values and system of law upon which this great country was founded.