Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Comment to Deanna's Article(Extra garbage pickup to cost Calgarians)
The idea to pay $ 2.30 extra for any bag that does not fit in a black cart is very beneficial to the environment. This will limit the amount of trash created by people, but the black cart is 240 liters which is really big. However, people may start to litter more and throw their trash out in other places. This can be stopped by more pressure towards the laws and regulations. In additions, landfills contain millions of garbage bags and to find open land for garbage is difficult. I agree with Deanna as our society will be more cleaner and global warming will decrease. Furthermore, we must start to reduce, reuse and recycle as that will preserve our natural resources. We can use the recycled objects again and again and that will reduce the garbage going to land fill sites. I also agree with Nancy because the government is being more considerate about this issue and this helps the society a lot. By paying money, it shows people the seriousness of this issue, and cause them to be more Eco friendly like use the same plastic bag as they go shopping. The economy will be cleaner and safer as they dispose there garbage properly. I agree with Nancy as it makes the job of sanitation workers easier and faster as they just have to dump it in rather than picking up other bags on the ground. I think all countries should follow this policy as it will make the planet healthier.
Comment to Siv's Article(Womαn Fined for Fαce-Covering Veil
This is a serious issue, and this reminds people that discrimination is not over. I agree with Siv as this lady should have the right to wear a niqab as well as everyone. This depicts freedom of expression which should be respected in Canada. This women is expressing her beliefs and religious views upon her country and should be accepted. By fining this couple, this shows that the government officials do not view others perspectives in a multicultural way and these assumptions should be changed throughout the world. In addition, by wearing a niqab it allows them to show people their identity. However, they can be checked by a female officer but should not be fined or penalized for not taking it out in the public. It is like saying Hindus should not wear sarams and sarees in the temple which is a religious clothing. Moreover, the basic rights of people is being affected and action should be taken upon. I think the government officials should be more serious on how they react to these situations. I agree with Srijoni, as it is astonishing because this issue is being debated in Quebec. This clothing is made up of normal material as other clothes but just covers there face so WHY IS THIS A PROBLEM? Canada is becoming more and more multicultural so this will become more common and people will have to adapt and get used to it. Furthermore, we must eliminate segregation and allowing people to wear there religious clothing is the way to go.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
HST won't hurt much, report says
Laurie Monsebraaten Social Justice Reporter
Ontario's controversial harmonized sales tax is "virtually revenue neutral" and not the cash grab critics say it is, argues a new report to be released Monday.
The report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says low- and modest-income families will come out slightly ahead under the Liberals' HST package, which includes increased property and sales tax credits and income tax cuts, while households with incomes above $100,000 will come out just slightly behind.
"No group is significantly worse off or better off as a result of the province's HST plan," said Ernie Lightman, a University of Toronto economist and professor of social work who co-authored Not a Tax Grab After All: A Second Look at Ontario's HST.
Even the researchers admit they were "surprised" to find a vast majority of Ontarians will either be slightly better off or unaffected by the tax changes.
"Assertions that this is a tax grab have no foundation in reality," Lightman said.
Critics have argued the new 13 per cent HST – which blends Ontario's 8 per cent provincial sales tax with the federal 5 per cent GST, and takes effect July 1 – is a way for the province to add $3.5 billion to its coffers. And the higher tax will apply to far more transactions.
The NDP, both provincially and federally, have roundly condemned the new tax.
"It's basically kicking people when they are already down in terms of their financial situation," Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said last week.
"Ontarians have loudly and clearly rejected the idea of shifting the tax burden onto the backs of consumers while giving the corporate sector a huge tax giveaway," she added.
Both Horwath and B.C.'s NDP leader, Carole James, emphasized the overwhelming majority of taxpayers in both provinces oppose the tax, which will increase levies on hundreds of goods and services, including home heating fuel, gas, taxi fares, haircuts and legal fees.
But the Star's David Olive has reported that economists who have carefully studied the long-term impact of the HST calculate that our cost of living will rise only marginally, by some 0.4 per cent.
Meanwhile, the HST is expected to create close to 600,000 new jobs over 10 years.
That would raise annual incomes by 8.8 per cent over that period as the cost of doing business in Ontario and B.C. drops by $6.9 billion. That should unleash private-sector spending on job creation and capital investment by a whopping $47 billion.
The HST will also make private-sector employers in Ontario and B.C. more cost-competitive with the more than 160 nations that already use a harmonized value-added tax.
Monday's new report from the centre, a left-leaning institute dedicated to progressive policy research, says the Liberals' HST tax package – which includes $1.1 billion in sales and property tax credits and $2.3 billion in new personal income tax cuts – will actually add just $133 million annually to the province's tax base, or one-quarter of one per cent.
That works out to a loss of just $37 a year when averaged over all Ontario households.
But the hits will be harder for some than for others:
People who don't normally file taxes, including low-income households and aboriginal people, will be significantly worse off. That's because they won't have access to new tax credits and income tax cuts without filing a tax return.
Seniors are apparently the only group who will not benefit from the tax changes – largely because they already receive property tax breaks, notes study co-author Andy Mitchell, a senior research associate at the U of T's faculty of social work. The cost? Single seniors will pay an extra $15 a year on average; senior couples $150 more each year.
Households with incomes above $100,000 will be worse off by $389 annually. But, the study argues, this amounts to just 0.2 per cent of these higher family incomes.
Families with incomes between $30,000 and $90,000 should be better off or worse off by no more than about $50 to $75 annually, which, given the assumptions and limitations of the data, "amounts to a wash," the report says.
Those with incomes below Statistics Canada's Low Income Cut Off after tax – or $27,210 for a single mother with two children in Toronto – will be ahead by $136 annually.
Households with incomes below $20,000 will be better off by an average of $92 annually.
The centre embarked on the study last fall out of concern that sales taxes hit low-income families harder because the poor spend a greater proportion of their income on taxable goods and services.
"Our biggest concern is to ensure Ontario's poor aren't hurt by the introduction of a new sales tax," said Mitchell. "After looking at the numbers we find the interests of the poor are relatively well protected."
The Liberals have come under fire from both the Tories and NDP for imposing the new tax on hundreds of goods and services which were not previously subject to the PST.
Tory MPPs Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound) and Randy Hillier (Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington) staged a raucous 44-hour sit-in on the floor of the Legislature earlier this month over lack of hearings on the new tax.
Mitchell said the report is not intended to refute either opposition party position.
"Debate is fine, but let's make it an informed debate," he said.
"My hope would be that (this report) forces the debate away from the knee-jerk, uninformed charges we've been having towards a discussion of what is really at stake, which is a shift from income tax to consumption tax and from business to consumers."
Ontario's controversial harmonized sales tax is "virtually revenue neutral" and not the cash grab critics say it is, argues a new report to be released Monday.
The report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says low- and modest-income families will come out slightly ahead under the Liberals' HST package, which includes increased property and sales tax credits and income tax cuts, while households with incomes above $100,000 will come out just slightly behind.
"No group is significantly worse off or better off as a result of the province's HST plan," said Ernie Lightman, a University of Toronto economist and professor of social work who co-authored Not a Tax Grab After All: A Second Look at Ontario's HST.
Even the researchers admit they were "surprised" to find a vast majority of Ontarians will either be slightly better off or unaffected by the tax changes.
"Assertions that this is a tax grab have no foundation in reality," Lightman said.
Critics have argued the new 13 per cent HST – which blends Ontario's 8 per cent provincial sales tax with the federal 5 per cent GST, and takes effect July 1 – is a way for the province to add $3.5 billion to its coffers. And the higher tax will apply to far more transactions.
The NDP, both provincially and federally, have roundly condemned the new tax.
"It's basically kicking people when they are already down in terms of their financial situation," Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said last week.
"Ontarians have loudly and clearly rejected the idea of shifting the tax burden onto the backs of consumers while giving the corporate sector a huge tax giveaway," she added.
Both Horwath and B.C.'s NDP leader, Carole James, emphasized the overwhelming majority of taxpayers in both provinces oppose the tax, which will increase levies on hundreds of goods and services, including home heating fuel, gas, taxi fares, haircuts and legal fees.
But the Star's David Olive has reported that economists who have carefully studied the long-term impact of the HST calculate that our cost of living will rise only marginally, by some 0.4 per cent.
Meanwhile, the HST is expected to create close to 600,000 new jobs over 10 years.
That would raise annual incomes by 8.8 per cent over that period as the cost of doing business in Ontario and B.C. drops by $6.9 billion. That should unleash private-sector spending on job creation and capital investment by a whopping $47 billion.
The HST will also make private-sector employers in Ontario and B.C. more cost-competitive with the more than 160 nations that already use a harmonized value-added tax.
Monday's new report from the centre, a left-leaning institute dedicated to progressive policy research, says the Liberals' HST tax package – which includes $1.1 billion in sales and property tax credits and $2.3 billion in new personal income tax cuts – will actually add just $133 million annually to the province's tax base, or one-quarter of one per cent.
That works out to a loss of just $37 a year when averaged over all Ontario households.
But the hits will be harder for some than for others:
People who don't normally file taxes, including low-income households and aboriginal people, will be significantly worse off. That's because they won't have access to new tax credits and income tax cuts without filing a tax return.
Seniors are apparently the only group who will not benefit from the tax changes – largely because they already receive property tax breaks, notes study co-author Andy Mitchell, a senior research associate at the U of T's faculty of social work. The cost? Single seniors will pay an extra $15 a year on average; senior couples $150 more each year.
Households with incomes above $100,000 will be worse off by $389 annually. But, the study argues, this amounts to just 0.2 per cent of these higher family incomes.
Families with incomes between $30,000 and $90,000 should be better off or worse off by no more than about $50 to $75 annually, which, given the assumptions and limitations of the data, "amounts to a wash," the report says.
Those with incomes below Statistics Canada's Low Income Cut Off after tax – or $27,210 for a single mother with two children in Toronto – will be ahead by $136 annually.
Households with incomes below $20,000 will be better off by an average of $92 annually.
The centre embarked on the study last fall out of concern that sales taxes hit low-income families harder because the poor spend a greater proportion of their income on taxable goods and services.
"Our biggest concern is to ensure Ontario's poor aren't hurt by the introduction of a new sales tax," said Mitchell. "After looking at the numbers we find the interests of the poor are relatively well protected."
The Liberals have come under fire from both the Tories and NDP for imposing the new tax on hundreds of goods and services which were not previously subject to the PST.
Tory MPPs Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound) and Randy Hillier (Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington) staged a raucous 44-hour sit-in on the floor of the Legislature earlier this month over lack of hearings on the new tax.
Mitchell said the report is not intended to refute either opposition party position.
"Debate is fine, but let's make it an informed debate," he said.
"My hope would be that (this report) forces the debate away from the knee-jerk, uninformed charges we've been having towards a discussion of what is really at stake, which is a shift from income tax to consumption tax and from business to consumers."
Friday, May 28, 2010
Dalton McGuinty quashes any hopes of another referendum on electoral reform
Electoral reform may suddenly be fashionable across the pond, but Premier Dalton McGuinty insists it is passé in Ontario.
With Britain now a-twitter over talk of a referendum on changing the voting system in the wake of last Thursday’s election, McGuinty quashed the possibility of any similar move here.
“We had our go at that,” the premier said, referring to the 2007 Ontario referendum on adopting a mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) way of electing MPPs instead of the traditional first-past-the-post system.
Ontarians voted 63.1 per cent to keep the existing system with only 36.9 per cent supporting a radical revamp.
“We had a citizens’ assembly, they came forward with a specific proposal, they considered a number of models, they heard from experts, they met on weekends,” said McGuinty, who had touted electoral reform in his 2003 campaign.
“That was put to Ontarians and they rejected it,” he said Tuesday.
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, whose party is the only one at Queen’s Park that backs proportional representation, said the 2007 outcome should not be the last word on the matter.
“It did lose in the referendum, but I would say that the information provided to the people of the province was not as robust as it could have been in terms of giving them the options and giving them a clear understanding of what proportional representation means,” said Horwath.
“We hope that the McGuinty government will change its opinion on that score and that the people of this province will take some time to consider what that means,” she said.
“It doesn’t mean unstable government; it means that your legislature actually reflects the will of the votes that are cast.”
But Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak said it’s a non-starter.
“I just do not like the idea of people taking a seat in the assembly who do not represent voters directly,” said Hudak, adding “an essential strength in our system is a direct connection of MPPs with the people who send them to Queen’s Park.”
“Voters clearly cast their ballots against any kind of proportional representation system. Quite frankly, they don’t want to see two tiers of MPPs – those that are directly elected in their constituencies and those that are appointed by political party insiders.”
Under the MMP scheme, which apparently confused Ontarians, there would have been a two-part ballot in which voters would directly elect MPPs in 90 larger ridings instead of the existing 107 constituencies.
On the second part of the ballot, they would have picked the political party of their choice, which would determine 39 “at large” MPPs selected from lists submitted by the parties.
Because those “list” seats would have been awarded in proportion to share of the popular vote, smaller parties like the Greens would have been represented in the Legislature for the first time.
With Britain now a-twitter over talk of a referendum on changing the voting system in the wake of last Thursday’s election, McGuinty quashed the possibility of any similar move here.
“We had our go at that,” the premier said, referring to the 2007 Ontario referendum on adopting a mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) way of electing MPPs instead of the traditional first-past-the-post system.
Ontarians voted 63.1 per cent to keep the existing system with only 36.9 per cent supporting a radical revamp.
“We had a citizens’ assembly, they came forward with a specific proposal, they considered a number of models, they heard from experts, they met on weekends,” said McGuinty, who had touted electoral reform in his 2003 campaign.
“That was put to Ontarians and they rejected it,” he said Tuesday.
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, whose party is the only one at Queen’s Park that backs proportional representation, said the 2007 outcome should not be the last word on the matter.
“It did lose in the referendum, but I would say that the information provided to the people of the province was not as robust as it could have been in terms of giving them the options and giving them a clear understanding of what proportional representation means,” said Horwath.
“We hope that the McGuinty government will change its opinion on that score and that the people of this province will take some time to consider what that means,” she said.
“It doesn’t mean unstable government; it means that your legislature actually reflects the will of the votes that are cast.”
But Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak said it’s a non-starter.
“I just do not like the idea of people taking a seat in the assembly who do not represent voters directly,” said Hudak, adding “an essential strength in our system is a direct connection of MPPs with the people who send them to Queen’s Park.”
“Voters clearly cast their ballots against any kind of proportional representation system. Quite frankly, they don’t want to see two tiers of MPPs – those that are directly elected in their constituencies and those that are appointed by political party insiders.”
Under the MMP scheme, which apparently confused Ontarians, there would have been a two-part ballot in which voters would directly elect MPPs in 90 larger ridings instead of the existing 107 constituencies.
On the second part of the ballot, they would have picked the political party of their choice, which would determine 39 “at large” MPPs selected from lists submitted by the parties.
Because those “list” seats would have been awarded in proportion to share of the popular vote, smaller parties like the Greens would have been represented in the Legislature for the first time.
Ottawa police deny they have suspects in firebombing
OTTAWA—Police say the investigation into the firebombing of a downtown Ottawa bank is continuing, but they deny reports that they already have suspects.
A police spokesman says if there were suspects, they would be in custody.
The Royal Bank branch was hit in an early morning firebombing Tuesday that was videotaped and posted on the Internet.
There were no injuries, but the bank was seriously damaged.
The RCMP says its Integrated National Security Enforcement Team is working with Ottawa police on the investigation.
Meanwhile, an Ottawa group says anarchists are being scapegoated for the bombing.
Common Cause, which bills itself as part of an Ontario anarchist organization, says there is no evidence that the incident was carried out by anarchists.
“We have no idea what the politics of those who did this are,” the group said in a news release. “We also can’t rule out the possibility that this act was carried out by agents-provocateur.”
A police spokesman says if there were suspects, they would be in custody.
The Royal Bank branch was hit in an early morning firebombing Tuesday that was videotaped and posted on the Internet.
There were no injuries, but the bank was seriously damaged.
The RCMP says its Integrated National Security Enforcement Team is working with Ottawa police on the investigation.
Meanwhile, an Ottawa group says anarchists are being scapegoated for the bombing.
Common Cause, which bills itself as part of an Ontario anarchist organization, says there is no evidence that the incident was carried out by anarchists.
“We have no idea what the politics of those who did this are,” the group said in a news release. “We also can’t rule out the possibility that this act was carried out by agents-provocateur.”
Conservatives push back against Helena Guergis
Former cabinet minister Helena Guergis has served notice she intends to fight her party's decision to remove her as its candidate in the riding of Simcoe-Grey County.
Bruce Campion-Smith
Les Whittington Ottawa Bureau
OTTAWA – Federal Conservatives say Helena Guergis distorted the truth during a television interview about her fall from grace when she spoke of being in the dark about the allegations she is facing and of her husband’s business dealings from her office.
The day after Guergis appeared on television to talk about her Apr. 9 ouster from cabinet and caucus, Conservative government staff circulated talking points that took issue with her version of events.
Guergis told CBC News Monday that she pleaded with Harper to tell her about the allegations she was facing.
“And I just kept saying, ‘What have I done?” the former minister of state for the status of women recalled asking the Prime Minister.
In fact, Guergis was told the specific allegations by the party lawyer, according to government officials who circulated the talking points, noting that she issued a statement soon after denying “all of the allegations.”
“Ms. Guergis wasn’t telling the truth about not knowing the allegations,” the talking points said.
As well, Conservatives took issue with Guergis’ claim that her husband – former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer – never used her Parliament Hill office or e-mail accounts for his own business.
“He didn’t use my office for anything work-related,” she said in the interview.
Yet Environment Minister Jim Prentice has confirmed that his aide met with Jaffer in Guergis’ Ottawa office in April, 2009 to discuss business on behalf of another undisclosed company.
And documents provided to a parliamentary committee show that Jaffer repeatedly sent emails related to his own work from an account linked to Guergis’ office.
“We have documented use of her office for his private dealings. . . . we have documented use of her email for his private dealings,” the Conservatives say in their talking points.
NDP MP Pat Martin cited “glaring contradictions” that he said undermined her credibility.
“The fact is, we know there was at least one business-related meeting in her parliamentary office (by Jaffer),” Martin said.
Liberal MP Siobhan Coady, a member of the parliamentary committee examining the Guergis-Jaffer affair, said she was taken aback by Guergis’ statements.
“We do have evidence that her husband did use her office and email for business purposes,” Coady said in an interview. “So I was a bit confused when she said that she wasn’t aware that he was doing it.”
But opposition MPs noted that, in the CBC interview, Guergis said she was told that the allegations that led to her demotion in early April were “criminal” in nature. Seizing on this, they renewed demands that Harper spell out what information he had in hand when he pushed Guergis out and called in the RCMP.
For the past month, the Prime Minister has declined to specify what allegations led to his decision.
“Now we’re in the ridiculous situation where nobody knows what these serious allegations are, not even Helena Guergis. Every Canadian thinks that is crazy,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said during a stop in Mississauga Tuesday.
The mere fact she had become a political liability was reason enough for Harper to dump her, said Kory Teneycke, the prime minister’s former director of communications.
“At the end of the day, if you don’t have the confidence of the prime minister or your colleagues, you are gone. It doesn’t have to be more complicated than that,” he said.
Guergis is challenging a decision by Conservative party executives to remove her as their candidate in the Ontario riding of Simcoe-Grey.
Yet while the television interview is seen by some as Guergis’ attempt to make a comeback, there’s little sympathy within the party, especially after she called the Conservatives “undemocratic.”
Bruce Campion-Smith
Les Whittington Ottawa Bureau
OTTAWA – Federal Conservatives say Helena Guergis distorted the truth during a television interview about her fall from grace when she spoke of being in the dark about the allegations she is facing and of her husband’s business dealings from her office.
The day after Guergis appeared on television to talk about her Apr. 9 ouster from cabinet and caucus, Conservative government staff circulated talking points that took issue with her version of events.
Guergis told CBC News Monday that she pleaded with Harper to tell her about the allegations she was facing.
“And I just kept saying, ‘What have I done?” the former minister of state for the status of women recalled asking the Prime Minister.
In fact, Guergis was told the specific allegations by the party lawyer, according to government officials who circulated the talking points, noting that she issued a statement soon after denying “all of the allegations.”
“Ms. Guergis wasn’t telling the truth about not knowing the allegations,” the talking points said.
As well, Conservatives took issue with Guergis’ claim that her husband – former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer – never used her Parliament Hill office or e-mail accounts for his own business.
“He didn’t use my office for anything work-related,” she said in the interview.
Yet Environment Minister Jim Prentice has confirmed that his aide met with Jaffer in Guergis’ Ottawa office in April, 2009 to discuss business on behalf of another undisclosed company.
And documents provided to a parliamentary committee show that Jaffer repeatedly sent emails related to his own work from an account linked to Guergis’ office.
“We have documented use of her office for his private dealings. . . . we have documented use of her email for his private dealings,” the Conservatives say in their talking points.
NDP MP Pat Martin cited “glaring contradictions” that he said undermined her credibility.
“The fact is, we know there was at least one business-related meeting in her parliamentary office (by Jaffer),” Martin said.
Liberal MP Siobhan Coady, a member of the parliamentary committee examining the Guergis-Jaffer affair, said she was taken aback by Guergis’ statements.
“We do have evidence that her husband did use her office and email for business purposes,” Coady said in an interview. “So I was a bit confused when she said that she wasn’t aware that he was doing it.”
But opposition MPs noted that, in the CBC interview, Guergis said she was told that the allegations that led to her demotion in early April were “criminal” in nature. Seizing on this, they renewed demands that Harper spell out what information he had in hand when he pushed Guergis out and called in the RCMP.
For the past month, the Prime Minister has declined to specify what allegations led to his decision.
“Now we’re in the ridiculous situation where nobody knows what these serious allegations are, not even Helena Guergis. Every Canadian thinks that is crazy,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said during a stop in Mississauga Tuesday.
The mere fact she had become a political liability was reason enough for Harper to dump her, said Kory Teneycke, the prime minister’s former director of communications.
“At the end of the day, if you don’t have the confidence of the prime minister or your colleagues, you are gone. It doesn’t have to be more complicated than that,” he said.
Guergis is challenging a decision by Conservative party executives to remove her as their candidate in the Ontario riding of Simcoe-Grey.
Yet while the television interview is seen by some as Guergis’ attempt to make a comeback, there’s little sympathy within the party, especially after she called the Conservatives “undemocratic.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
