Category: Provincial Politics

Alan Carter, the Global Television bureau chief at Queen’s Park, has never been one of our favourite reporters. He tends to be something of a wiseass. He redeemed himself the other day though by doing a fairly stand-up job of a year-end interview with Ontario’s Premier. While the Premier did seem a little apprehensive, it was a better half-hour than was expected from either.

Carter tucked his smarminess in his pocket and the Premier gave fairly straightforward and brief answers. The most fun was watching her try to walk around her faux pas in telling the media about her last meeting in December 2013 with the Prime Minister of Canada. Saying that Mr. Harper had smirked when she was trying to get some answers on fixing the Canada Pension Plan was bad politics and rude. And she wonders why she has been unable to get another meeting since?

She has a good point that it is not about their personalities. As the premier of Canada’s largest province, she should have a better working relationship with the Prime Minister. And she will certainly button up about his facial expressions if she ever gets another chance for a meeting.

In one way, she and the Prime Minister are very much alike. Alan Carter brought up the time earlier in the year when he was having a problem getting an interview and he ambushed her when out for a run. He found out where she would be running and joined her to do the interview while both were running. She considered it a breech of the rules—hers, not his—but went along with it because he was obviously a novice runner. Only the Prime Minister’s Office has actually enforced rules on the news media and gotten away with it. Premiers who want good coverage are expected to allow for some give and take.

One subject that was not well answered had to do with the Pan Am Games in 2015. While neither the president nor the chair of the Games organizers would be expected to see the detail of expense claims from such a large and complex organization, the premier replaced the president of the games at the beginning of the year. There were just too many complaints about improper expenses. Having organized many, albeit smaller, events around the world, there is always a tendency in political jobs to be casual about expenses. We always found that it was the chair that set the standards and kept the petty stuff from becoming issues.

Other than that, there were the usual platitudes in the interview about conditions for a growing economy, concern for the downturn of the tar sands economy, the need for healthcare savings, investment needs … and have a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

-30-

Copyright 2015 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

Bloggers sometimes think of their readers. Google Analytics allows us to analyze readership of our sites on a daily and even hourly basis. It does not tell us if you are naughty or nice but it does tell us where you are from and how long you spend on site. It also allows us to come to conclusions on what interests you and what turns you off.

This blogger also has another barometer in the wife. She thinks bitumen is a snore. She cares about the environment but she simply cannot handle tar sands bitumen day after day. At the same time, she likes our poetry but Google Analytics assures us that poetry is a turn-off for serious readers. We struggle on.

What we were going to write about today was the remarkable feat of provincial affairs writer Martin Regg Cohn in the Toronto Star the other day. It was a prodigious accomplishment—120 column inches of condemnation of the Beer Store. We bow to the master. This is also a serious challenge to Rosie DiManno’s crown as the as the most profuse user of words in the Toronto Star.

One tip we would pass on to Martin is something we have learned from Google Analytics: our readership has more than tripled since we put an average limit of 450 words on any one posting. Maybe we do not explain ourselves all the time but we get better readership.

Mind you, Martin’s tour de force could have been easily boiled down to just a couple hundred words. He found that the Beer barons of Ontario have long known how to use good public and government relations to hold on to their outrageous, outdated monopoly.

There is also the outdated and corrupt election funding in Ontario that allows the Beer barons to give hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to Conservative and Liberal politicians. In Ontario there is better control of municipal political donations than provincial. And there is no complaint from the New Democrats as the brewery unions are big supporters of that party.

But with all his words, Martin Regg Cohn left out the God-awful customer experience in so many of those smelly Beer Store outlets. He writes these diatribes as though he has never had to take a load of empties back to the Beer Store.

-30-

Copyright 2014 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

For years we have been listening to right-wing politicians, bankers and other busybodies complaining about debt. It seems to be their constant mantra that debt is bad, tax cuts are good, small government is better and environmental controls are bad business. While the ignorant try to sell these silly ideas, any smart business person can tell you that debt is just another useful tool in the economic tool kit.

Debt is also a critical tool of government. How do you think your various levels of government get the money needed to build infrastructure such as water works, bridges, schools, highways and sewers. These systems all have life cycles and paying off the capital costs over some part of the time of use makes sense. The public gets the use of the facility earlier than it would if the governments saved their money until the full funding was available. Saving money until you have the cash for infrastructure would not only be poor strategy but would strangle economic growth.

There can also be too much debt. You always have to beware of what would be too much debt to be trying to manage. Ontario Hydro is a good example of bad debt management. The power utility went into debt to build nuclear reactors and between cost overruns, operational problems and a shorter than expected serviceable life for the plants, Hydro’s debt spiralled out of control. It has ended up in a serious problem because of the decision to build more nuclear plants while still paying for the first batch. For well over 100 years, Ontario politicians have been trying to figure out how to control Ontario Hydro’s debt. No party has ever produced a workable solution.

But that hardly means Ontario is drowning in debt. Our Auditor General was wringing her hands the other day and complaining about Ontario’s ‘heavy’ debt load. She is forecasting that by the 2017-18, the provincial debt will average $23,000 for every person in the province. That is no big deal when you consider the $36,455 average annual income and you can take many years to retire the debt—especially while the prime rate is at one per cent.

And there is no reason that the Ontario Treasurer should not be looking at new or increased revenue streams. Companies can come up with new ways of earning money, what is wrong with our politicians? Do we only elect stupid people? (Don’t answer that!)

-30-

Copyright 2014 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

Only a banker could dream up this one. Former TD Bank head Ed Clark insists on the Ontario government selling electricity distribution to private sector people who could then make a profit from other people who would have no choice but to buy their electricity from them. We have it on the authority of none other than the Ontario Minister of Energy that these people can charge whatever they want because nobody understands energy costs anyway.

And these entrepreneurs do not have to worry about the capital cost of the distribution system they buy. Any bank in Canada will loan them whatever it costs for such a sure thing. This is what is so wonderful about free enterprise.

And look at the benefits to our provincial government. It gets the voters off their backs about energy costs. They can now blame free enterprise. And the cherry on top of that dessert is the $2 billion to $3 billion the province gets to put into other projects. It is not as though it would be used to pay down hydro debt—which the voters already pay each month on their energy bills.

And you cannot look to the news media to help in this. Most of them believe that free enterprise is good—even if it is a monopoly—and that public ownership is bad. The media are under the impression that free enterprise is responsive and that public servants are not. That is because the news media never seem to have to deal with companies such as Bell Canada or Rogers.

Could you imagine having Bell Canada as your distributor of electricity? The company would let the system deteriorate while charging you more each month. And just try to get any money back when there is a few days outage because of the deteriorating systems.

This idea of selling the distribution systems is from the same banker who tells the government to not sell the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. This is an area that desperately needs some competition. If Ontario sold the LCBO, consumers might get a price break occasionally while the government would earn more in taxes. There is guaranteed to be no break for the consumers if the government sells the monopoly electricity distribution systems.

And after almost 100 years of being screwed by the Beer Store monopoly, Ontario citizens know better. Where is William Lyon Mackenzie when you really need him?

-30-

Copyright 2014 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

Before damning something, we should always be careful to say what we are talking about. The recent report of the Auditor General of Ontario has brought about a spate of discussions about public-private partnerships which seem to deal with many different relationships between the public and private sector. Having been party to the seminal report on the advantages of public-private partnerships almost 30 years ago: The Business Venture Project, we have reason to complain.

Partnership implies a collective responsibility and decision making that does not seem to apply to the current form of public-private partnerships. In fact today, any project involving government seems to end costing the government more money than it should if it were a true partnership. Two outstanding examples of this in Ontario are SkyDome in Toronto and the Express Toll Route 407 that started as a Toronto highway bypass.

SkyDome was budgeted at a highly optimistic $150 million when the Bill Davis Conservative government partnered with the City of Toronto and 29 private companies. The companies only needed to kick in $5 million each for advertising and Skybox rights. When SkyDome was finished in 1989, the David Peterson Liberal government had to swallow $420 million in cost overruns. It was also about this time that other companies realized what a sweetheart deal the original 29 companies received.

Yet it was the Bob Rae New Democrat government that sold SkyDome to a private consortium for a fire-sale price of only $151 million. By the time the Rogers people got their hands on it, the price was down to only $25 million.

You would have expected the Bob Rae government to be loathe to continue with public-private partnerships. Yet it went along with the Highway 407 Express Toll Route that was built during their brief tenure. It was the Mike Harris Conservative government that came up with the idea of leasing. They got $3.1 billion for a 99-year lease of the entire 108 kilometre highway, from Highway 403 in Burlington to Brock Road in Durham.. The Dalton McGuinty Liberal government realized that the consortium is obviously on to a good thing and while paying the consortium for collecting the tolls, the government will get the money from drivers using the eastern extension to Highway 115 that is now under construction.

As you can see, it hardly matters what team sweater your politicians are wearing. When it comes to the Ontario version of public-private partnerships, it will always be the taxpayers who will pay in the long run.

-30-

Copyright 2014 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

Some people age faster than others. There are people in their 80s who you would swear were 20 years younger. And then there are people such as Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli. Sure he is only in his early 70s but he should know better than to act as he did in front the news media the other day. If was definitely impolitic for him to say that the Ontario Auditor General was wrong.

To say that the auditor “did not understand” is not only a career ender but an immediate signal for Premier Wynne to remove him from cabinet. It is impossible to imagine anyone with any political savvy advising a cabinet minister to make such a comment.

The auditor general is an officer of the legislature and to challenge her veracity is a very serious charge. It is the same as asking for the auditor’s dismissal and you had better have all your ducks in line. You certainly do not make vague charges that she did not understand the pricing of electricity. At the news conference, nobody had any confidence that Chiarelli understood the pricing either.

Pricing of electricity in Ontario has been something of a political confidence racket for many years. The person who wins arguments about electricity pricing is usually the one who can keep the straightest face. And what it really costs to build generating capabilities and then to produce, transmit and distribute electricity to Ontario homes, offices, businesses and streetlights, as well as pay down debt, are figures based on confusion, compounded by creativity. And if you ever find a way to rationalize your charge for just being on stream, you will know more than most of us.

But it is the consumer who gets ripped off no matter what political party is in power. The New Democrats incompetently in power in the early 90s and then Mike Harris’ reign of terror led to Father McGuinty’s Ponzi scheme for wind and sun power. Ontario has been paying too little for electrical power for many years and the banking buzzards have now taken to roosting on the transmission lines and dropping excrement on us. (They want us to sell off local distribution systems so that the bankers’ friends can get some of the action.) We are not only paying the piper but we are paying for the horrendous blunders compounded by all political parties.

All the public can hope for is that Ms. Wynne fire that incompetent Minister Chiarelli and put someone in the hot seat who can force the various elements of the electricity system to make some sense of their costs and billings and then pass the savings—or explanations—on to the consumers.

-30-

Copyright 2014 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

You know it is a slow news day when the Toronto Star gives front page space to beating on Ontario’s awful Beer Store. It is one subject Babel-on-the-Bay and the Toronto Star certainly agree on. The point is that times have changed and the Beer Store has not. This smelly, maybe corrupt, badly merchandised and out-of-date monopoly has to be put out of its misery.

But the mercy killing is not to please this writer or the Toronto Star. It is just that it is the decent thing to do. And after all, when something starts to smell that bad, it deserves a quick but proper burial.

And it is the causes of the smell that need to be understood. First of all, there is the smell of corruption. We need to stop snickering about any possible financial payoffs to Ontario politicians. These are foreign companies that own the Beer Store operations and the act of giving money to our politicians to do your business is defined in the U.S. as a corrupt act. Any politicians who accept money from Brewers Retail or the Beer Store are being bribed. There is no other name for it.

Next, we need to recognize that the Beer Store operations encourage binge drinking. The stores encourage the purchase of larger cases of beer through their pricing practices. Customers will purchase the larger package rather than the smaller packs because of the price differential and the inconvenience of a return trip.

And if you want to return your empties, just get in line. Your shoes will soon stick to the floor because of the flood of beer, liquor and wine dregs that the returns spill. Maybe some day, we will realize recycling is a separate business from selling product.

If customers do not know what they want before they get to the Beer Store, there is no help for them in the store. There is unlikely to be anybody working in that store who has a clue as to the best beer to enhance a stew or to make a shandy. These people have no appreciation for the product they are selling, its merits, its fat and caloric content, or what is a good buy today.

Ontario citizens need to rise up and say “enough is enough.” We have allowed the stupidity of the Beer Store monopoly for almost 100 years. Just who do the politicians think it serves? Them? Or us?

-30-

Copyright 2014 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

It makes you wonder. When we first heard of the vast tailing ponds for Alberta’s bitumen production, we were concerned about what they were leaching into the rivers. We knew the ponds were loaded with a witches’ brew of toxins and heavy metals but we did not understand how much. Last time we were there you could inhale deeply of that wonderful air off the Rockies. North of Edmonton today, you need a gas mask.

Now Environment Canada tells us that those toxins are five times more plentiful than we had been lead to believe. And they cause cancer. The purpose of tailing ponds is to evaporate the water and leave the poisons to be buried. What they are really doing is dispersing the toxins into the air and letting the rest of the poisons leach into the northern Alberta eco-system. These tailing ponds are killing people for the almighty dollar.

The ponds are spreading rapidly across the province as more and more fresh water is being used to wash the sand out of the tar sands. And added to this is the heated water being pumped down many hundreds of metres to free the bitumen from the subterranean shale. Only a small percentage of the province’s bitumen resources can be reached with open pit mining.

What it means is that you get serious pollution at every stage of tar sands oil production. You kill with the extraction of the bitumen. You endanger people when you transport it by rail or pipeline. You get three times the pollution because of the residue of bitumen slag from processing the bitumen into synthetic crude oil. And you leave a further carbon deposit when you use the products of the synthetic crude for energy. And that is why environmentalists say “Leave tar sands in the ground.”

This writer is not as much of an environmentalist as someone with fond memories of Northern Alberta. It seems sick though for people to sit in their comfortable homes in Calgary and Edmonton enabling the rape and devastation of the northern half of the province for its resources. Maybe you think it is right to not want to pay your fair share of taxes but yours is the only province that does not have a sales tax. You can hide from reality if you wish but stop acting like spoiled children. And please tell your politicians they can stick their bitumen where the sun does not shine. Nobody needs oil that badly.

-30-

Copyright 2014 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]