we have a lib majority government, this is an example strategic voting NOT WORKING. They didn't advance anything progressive ; the only thing they did do is to destroy the chance of the NDP holding the balance of power.
Ontario Federation of Labour calls for adoption of "most progressive budget" in years
Sat, 2014-06-21 03:13
#152
Sat, 2014-06-21 03:14
#153
David Bush: [url=http://rankandfile.ca/2014/06/18/hudaks-gone-but-the-austerity-agenda-re...’s Gone But The Austerity Agenda Remains[/url]
The task for the left and labour is to fight the urge to demobilize what was fundamentally an anti-austerity movement. We must recognize that in terms of orientation, working class militants are fragmented into various camps: those that still remained with the NDP, those who strategically voted, and those who stayed home. The first camp still is the largest layer of union activists. Those in the GTA who are rightfully doom and gloom about the NDP must also look outside Toronto and recognize why large sections of the working class in northern and southwestern Ontario haven’t broken from the party.
The immediate task for union activists and other leftists will be figuring out ways to unite these fragments through organizing. The $14/hour minimum wage campaign, Stop Line 9 and the fight to Save Canada Post are just some campaigns that can push labour and the left away from complacency and petty squabbles and towards mobilization. Hudak was stopped but the austerity train is still full steam ahead.
However, here:
After the election, Wynne stated she was eager to get down to the business of governing, declaring that we live in uncertain times and we have to work with business to bring Ontario back. This means creating the “leanest government” and
“dealing with the reality of our situation.” It was quite clear that Liberals would be quite happy to continue to impose austerity under the guise of dealing with our debt.The Toronto Star editorial put it this way: ”inevitably, the Liberal government will face its own hard choices. That will almost certainly mean confrontations with public sector unions. Their leaders should not confuse voters’ rejection of Hudak’s deep cuts with complacency in the face of stubborn government deficits. Wynne has a mandate to govern and to balance the books – and that will mean asking some to take less.”
The labour movement has been put out of action because you can't on the one hand endorse the economic plan entailed in the budget as "the most progressive in years" and then work hard to elect them as the government, and then turn around and engage in effective work action without pissing of the public and the members who you just told to vote for the Liberals.
I have already heard this complaint by confused members asking why some unions are ramping up the rhetoric against the Wynne government, when they just asked them to vote for and canvas for her.
The public sector unions that endorsed the Liberals will fold. There is nothing else they can do.
Wynne has adopted a Tim Hudak's 2011 restraint program of no increases whatsoever, basically adopting a more severe restraint program than McGuinty pursued in 2011.
Sat, 2014-06-21 04:53
#154
Yeah. Not surprising that Diaz isn't above a little misleading "well poisoning" by misrepresenting Thomas on purchasing the LCBO. The Liberals already indicated that they might be... fuck it... let's get real, will be selling the LCBO, with an eye toward getting the public sector pension funds to buy in, and Thomas proposed that "in the event" that the Liberals go that route, the OPSEU pension would get the first crack at in the hopes of protecting the institution.
The OFL wears this government like a dirty shirt, endorsing the Liberal budget "as the most progressive in years", and by extension the Liberal government, and then by supporting its election to a majority.
Weak.
It was reinforced by words from a weak and exaggeration-prone OFL president.
It's Sid's and Jerry government. At least OPSEU members can be confident that Thomas is negotiating for them, as opposed to for the Liberals.
Sat, 2014-06-21 05:02
#155
Many unions bought into Liberal scare tactics and overestimated the threat that Tim Hudak represented. Once the budget gets passed in July, they will also have sealed in the Liberal agenda for all Ontario. That means, at best, three years of zero wage increases, cuts and privatization for the public sector and many provincially-funded agencies.It may also mean, contrary to Wynne’s promises, that there will be more waste due to Liberal mismanagement. We will also watch for the next scandal. My guess is, after 11 years in power, that the Liberal culture of entitlement is systemic.
Eduardo (Eddy) Almeida -- First Vice-President / Treasurer OPSEU
Sat, 2014-06-21 06:10
#156
Wynne's first budget for the new legislative assembly will likely be very progressive. However, I do expect the second and third budgets to move sharply to the right.
Sat, 2014-06-21 08:34
#157
This is how Hudak's party saw things during the campaign:
[url=http://www.northumberlandview.ca/index.php?module=news&type=user&func=di... ‘Smokey’ Thomas Says Tim Hudak Is A Breath Of Fresh Air And Kathleen Wynne Is Lying[/url]
Sat, 2014-06-21 12:51
#158
Wynne's first budget for the new legislative assembly will likely be very progressive. However, I do expect the second and third budgets to move sharply to the right.
You mean they are not going with the budget of May 1st, but with the one the Sid Ryan and Jamie Diaz were dreaming about?
Sat, 2014-06-21 14:23
#159
Wynne's first budget for the new legislative assembly will likely be very progressive. However, I do expect the second and third budgets to move sharply to the right.
Sounds about right.
And since the NDP cavalierly threw away their balance of power and ability to influence budgets, the only resistance will come from workers, women, students, anti-poverty activists... which is pretty much the way it always is anyway... people who have no stake in party labels. People who don't change their stripes according to pollsters and small-minded inner-circle advisors. People who have a stake in real life, not just election campaigns and winning "power".
These are very difficult concepts to grasp, for those who see change as coming only from the executive suite of government.
Sat, 2014-06-21 14:30
#160
But Unionist. The ONDP are a right-wing party, why would you want them to hold the balance of power? Now the Liberals can fully implement "the most progressive budget in years", without interference from the right.
Sid is ecstatic about his victory, and so should you be!
You and Sid got what you wanted. Not Hudak. Not "right-wing" privatization, but "progressive" privatization. And the the nice warm fuzzy Liberal privatization part of the budget begins immediatly.
Sat, 2014-06-21 14:54
#161
Here's another example of how the pro-Hudak forces tried to use Smokey during the campaign - to no avail, worse luck:
[url=http://opinion.financialpost.com/2014/05/15/terence-corcoran-desperate-k... Corcoran:[/url]
Warren Thomas, head of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, said the other day that 60,000 middle-management positions could easily be eliminated. Mr. Thomas later clarified his position, saying he didn’t mean to imply that the public service should be cut in absolute terms. His point is that 60,000 mid-management posts could be cut, but that their head counts should be moved to front-line service. The issue remains, however, that 60,000 is a good starting number. What if 30,000 were moved to the front lines and the other 30,000 were cut?
Sat, 2014-06-21 15:08
#162
Here's another example of how the pro-Hudak forces tried to use Smokey during the campaign - to no avail, worse luck:
[url=http://opinion.financialpost.com/2014/05/15/terence-corcoran-desperate-k... Corcoran:[/url]
Warren Thomas, head of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, said the other day that 60,000 middle-management positions could easily be eliminated. Mr. Thomas later clarified his position, saying he didn’t mean to imply that the public service should be cut in absolute terms. His point is that 60,000 mid-management posts could be cut, but that their head counts should be moved to front-line service. The issue remains, however, that 60,000 is a good starting number. What if 30,000 were moved to the front lines and the other 30,000 were cut?
In other words move upper management jobs to the front line = no cuts. Shock and Horror.
I love the OPSEU "helped elect the Conservative majority" argument. It's right up there with Horwath aided Hudak "win an Conservative majority" by calling the Liberals corrupt, which they are.
Epic Fail: OPSEU was almost the only union that campaigned "on the issues" that disappeared behind the wall of "strategic voting" nonesense being pumped by Jerry Diaz in support of his friends in the Liberal Party.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Shill much?
Sat, 2014-06-21 15:10
#163
Wynne's first budget for the new legislative assembly will likely be very progressive. However, I do expect the second and third budgets to move sharply to the right.
Sounds about right.
And since the NDP cavalierly threw away their balance of power and ability to influence budgets, the only resistance will come from workers, women, students, anti-poverty activists... which is pretty much the way it always is anyway... people who have no stake in party labels. People who don't change their stripes according to pollsters and small-minded inner-circle advisors. People who have a stake in real life, not just election campaigns and winning "power".
These are very difficult concepts to grasp, for those who see change as coming only from the executive suite of government.
What an absurd argument. Agrees first that the Liberals will be "progressive" in the first year of their term, and then turn right for the next three, then blames the ONDP for throwing away the balance of power which was only going to exist for one year, before and election call was mandatory.
You can wriggle and squirm in the straight-jacket you put yourself in when you supported the "most progressive buget and years", endorsed the Liberal party and helped elect a Liberal majority, because it was "strategic", but its still your "strategy". But that's just you. What you have done to the membership is bind them in the web your deceitful opportunist politics.
They are the ones who will have to face family and friends and neigbours who they advised to vote Liberal on the basis of your advice, and explain why it is that they have to strike against the "progressive" government you and they elected, and it will not happen. Speaking of people who change "their stripes according to pollsters" based on the opinions of a "small-minded inner-circle advisors", Sid has broken the labour movement's ability to resist the Liberal austerity agenda by endorsing it, even though it was there in black and white in the budget he endorsed with his rash statements, and ridiculous strategy.
The next few years are not about wage benefits, workers rights, extending social benefits to the needy or any of those things you tirelesly prattle on about, It is about protecting jobs and institutional survival.
What a bunch of clowns.
Sat, 2014-06-21 15:23
#164
infracaninophile
You can wriggle and squirm in the straight-jacket you put yourself in when you supported the "most progressive buget and years", endorsed the Liberal party and helped elect a Liberal majority, because it was "strategic", but its still your "strategy". But that's just you. What you have done to the membership is bind them in the web your deceitful opportunist politics.
Your are not making much sense here. I've been following the discussion for weeks and have never heard either Skinny Dipper or Unionist do anything like "endorsing the most progressive budget in years" or endorsing the Liberal party, as you assert. I have never perceived either as an "opportunist."
SInce you wax prolix, perhaps you could try to keep straight who said what.
Sat, 2014-06-21 15:52
#165
You can wriggle and squirm in the straight-jacket you put yourself in when you supported the "most progressive buget and years", endorsed the Liberal party and helped elect a Liberal majority, because it was "strategic", but its still your "strategy". But that's just you. What you have done to the membership is bind them in the web your deceitful opportunist politics.Your are not making much sense here. I've been following the discussion for weeks and have never heard either Skinny Dipper or Unionist do anything like "endorsing the most progressive budget in years" or endorsing the Liberal party, as you assert. I have never perceived either as an "opportunist."
SInce you wax prolix, perhaps you could try to keep straight who said what.
"Strategic voting" required direct endorsements of Liberal candidates, through donations and in-kind labour services. These are real things. Not just talk.
This is the government that labour organization pursuing this strategy helped elect through that means, after Sid Ryan endorsed the economic program of the Liberal party as "the most progressive budget in years", and urging the ONDP to pass that program without revision.
Supporting "strategic voting" as opposed to campaigning on principle, is the definition of opportunistic. OFL's "Stop Hudak" campaign is entirely opportunistic and partisan, whereas the OPSEU campaign against privatization, is a principled position on policy, regardless of political affiliation.
Unionist has consitently supported and defended the OFL position.
Fri, 2014-06-27 23:23
#166
I've been following the discussion for weeks and have never heard either Skinny Dipper or Unionist do anything like "endorsing the most progressive budget in years" or endorsing the Liberal party, as you assert. I have never perceived either as an "opportunist."
I appreciate your ability to read and interpret opinions accurately, infracaninophile. Some people interpret criticism of the ONDP's bankrupt tactics as being support for the Liberal party. It's a problem in our society. They see things in partisan terms only. Nuance is more important.
The Liberals have never for a moment ceased to be the party of the wealthy and powerful. It's a shame when the NDP feels that they need to roll over and lick the boots of Bay Street to win power. If that is the true nature of the NDP, then it's high time they disappeared from the scene. I happen to think there's hope for them. But it doesn't reside in cheering Andrea Horwath and her abject betrayal of the cause of working people and the poor. Quite the contrary.
Fri, 2014-06-27 23:41
#167
The only people who have "betrayed" working people are those who articulated and then defended the OFL position of endorsing voting for the Liberals "strategically", and in so doing helped Wynne get a majority, enabling her to implement the "Don Drummond" 100,000 job cuts plan, which they allegedly campaigned against.
At some point its hard to tell the distinction between dupes and stooges.
Thu, 2014-07-03 23:30
#168
I knew it was only a matter of time before you really started slinging mud, since the complexities of labour politics in Ontario refuse to fit into your simplistic pidgeon holes. I am sorry. But now that you have brought it up, I have just read what this "forum" is all about, and from what I can see we are supposed to "discuss work and economic issues from a pro-worker point of view."
I'm not engaging you on this level, A24. The ATU! This is laughable. Look up the distinction between progressive and reactionary. And then convince me that Sid Ryan gets his talking points from the Liberals. How very sad indeed.
I see repeated slander against well respected unionists, and their elected leadership. ATU 113 is one of Canada's oldest unions and Bob Kinnear a very respected union leader by all counts, and a member union of your precious Ontario Federation of Labour, who elect Syd Ryan. Are you really calling him a "reactionary", because he defends his workers from having their jobs outsourced through P3 contracts?
But this is on top of even more egregious slander where you essentially accuse any union activist who doesn't tow the line you and Syd Ryan are supporting of being "bribed and bought" for taking a position different than Syd Ryan, here:
Union leaders are constantly tempted to join forces with the financial elite. They are bribed and bought and severed from their base. So when, as in Ontario today, they actually dare to condemn the curse that is Horwath and take a non-partisan stand in favour of a few tiny measures that may slightly benefit the workers and the poor, they are to be applauded.
Let's be clear on your libel, if it is possible for you to be clear. Are you really claiming that Smokey Thomas of OPSEU and Bob Kinnear of ATU113, and the numerous other union leaders and union activist who are endorsing the NDP, working for the NDP, or standing for election on the NDP ticket have been "bribed and bought" by some arch conspiracy orchestrated by the "financial elite" emanating from Andrea Horwath's office?
Hardly what I would call a "pro-worker point of view".
More like rampant divise sectarianism.
But you have brought up an interesting point, nonetheless. Was I surprised that a division showed up between the opinions of leaders of the public sector workers whose jobs are to be outsourced, and the private sector unions, such as Unifor? Not at all. Just as I was not surprised when the the Teamsters lined up behind Rob Ford, when he was proposing "privatization" of garbage collection in Toronto, and outsourcing CUPE 416 jobs in the 2010 election: GFL is a Teamster outfit that miraculously ended up with the contract -- fancy that!
Who would benefit from outsourcing labour contracts on government infrastructure projects anyway? This tidbit dropped in the "most progressive budget in years" by Sousa is enlightening:
“It’s not every day that clear solutions are found to fund infrastructure projects. Public-private partnerships provide a win-win solution for solving our infrastructure deficit and provide immediate and sustainable economic growth.”Joseph Mancinelli, Labourers’ International Union of North America, Vice President and Regional Manager for Central & Eastern Canada, November 7, 2013.
There are obvious reasons that some "private sector" unions might be more inclined to endorse a Liberal budget stuffed full of "private-public partnership" proposals than their "public sector" counterparts, other than the fact that they are "in favour of a few tiny measures that may slightly benefit the workers and the poor", as you allege. 
"Kathleen and Joe -- P3s are Wynne-Wynne"
Knowing Syd, I would never accuse him of being "bribed and bought", because I know he comes by his opinions honestly, even when I disagree whereas you stoop to bald smears and unsupported allegations. On the other hand people like Joseph Mancinelli of LIUNA know precisely what side their bread is buttered on, and its the Liberal P3 side, which Mancinelli calls a "win-win solution".
More here:
CLF supplies labourers to GTA job sites for general cleanup work on a temporary or long-term basis. A construction union deal with a labour supply company — rather than directly with a builder — has been called “odd” and “contradicting” by industry insiders.
Now pay attention Mr. Unionist, the point here is not that this OFL member LIUNA local 183 has mafia contacts, but that it is signing contracts with temporary labour agencies that gouge money off the top of workers wages for profit, of the kind that end up enjoying the privilege of supplying labour to outsourced government infrastructure contracts used in P3 financing structures.
Those are Kathleen's friends.
Thu, 2014-08-28 16:29
#169
Ummm... wow. Just wow.
[url=http://www.opseu.org/blogs/even-majority-we-can-force-change]Smokey Thomas, on June 17, 2014:[/url]
Saving and spending are tough to do without borrowing. Herein is the threat to OPSEU members and public services. To get to this target, Wynne will turn to asset sales, private public partnerships, asset recycling and all the other programs that pass these days for privatization. This threat exists across all OPSEU Divisions, from the LCBO to the smallest community agency or non-profit.
Apparently, he said that a few days after Kathleen Wynne turned down his offer to purchase the LCBO!
Today's Globe (behind paywall unfortunately):
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/how-... Ontario premier rejected union leader's offer to buy LCBO[/url]
The leader of one of Ontario's largest public sector unions has been quietly pressing the government to turn over ownership of its liquor monopoly to his members' pension plan – an idea that earned him a smack-down from Premier Kathleen Wynne's office during June's provincial election.Warren (Smokey) Thomas, president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, is one of the Liberal administration's most vocal critics on the left, frequently accusing the government of having a secret plan to privatize public services. But Mr. Thomas, apparently, had also been seeking to have the highly lucrative LCBO sold to the OPSEU pension plan.
In a sarcastic letter dated June 6, a copy of which was later obtained by The Globe and Mail, Ms. Wynne's top aide told him to kiss that dream goodbye.
"If re-elected, Premier Kathleen Wynne will not be moving ahead with your proposal to sole-source sell the LCBO to OPSEU's pension plan and its private sector partner," Tom Teahen, Ms. Wynne's chief of staff, wrote to Mr. Thomas. "While I know this news will be a disappointment to you personally, no doubt your membership will appreciate Kathleen Wynne's commitment to keep public services public."
A government source said Mr. Thomas had been proposing the sale for more than a year, and it appeared OPSEU had put a lot of thought into how such an arrangement could work financially.
In an interview, Mr. Thomas confirmed that he had proposed to buy the LCBO, but only if the government was planning to sell it anyway.
"What I had repeatedly said...is 'You should never sell the LCBO. But if you're going to sell it, I'll damn well insert myself at the table to take care of our members,'" he said. "[Mr. Teahen] tried to turn that into something sinister because I was giving his boss a hard time."
Thu, 2014-08-28 18:52
#170
In an interview, Mr. Thomas confirmed that he had proposed to buy the LCBO, but only if the government was planning to sell it anyway.
"What I had repeatedly said...is 'You should never sell the LCBO. But if you're going to sell it, I'll damn well insert myself at the table to take care of our members,'" he said. "[Mr. Teahen] tried to turn that into something sinister because I was giving his boss a hard time."
[/quote]
Wow! Workers acting to maintain ownership of the means production.
How you, and the other supporters of the wholesale privatization of the public sector weave this into an example of Thomas personally purchasing the LCBO for his own personal profit, which is the upshot of this smear, when you overtly support the privatization of public assets so that capitalists can make money off the backs of workers is truly a marvel of double talk.
Thu, 2014-08-28 22:11
#171
Interesting that Smokey Thomas - while railing against the Liberals for planning privatization of the LCBO - kept totally secret his offer to Kathleen Wynne that: "Well, ya know, if you do win, and you do privatize the LCBO, can you please sell it to my union's pension fund?"
Now, Smokey was campaigning for the ONDP and against the "Stop Hudak" campaign of the Ontario Federation of Labour. He presumably wanted and expected the ONDP to win. Then why would he make this secret request to Wynne? Did he cc Horwath?
The truth doesn't require rocket science. Smokey knew, as does everyone, that once a public asset is privatized, and the NDP regains power, they [b]never[/b] seem to reverse that privatization. That's what we discussed in this thread, starting in April:
The Liberal Party of Ontario is bad news. We need the Ontario NDP to be elected here.
Yes, and you need them [b]FAST[/b]. Because if anything is sold off before they're elected, it can never become public again. Not sure why, but apparently that's a strict rule with other provincial NDPs that lobbied against privatization when in opposition but did nothing to reverse it once in power.
Cf. Manitoba Telephone System, Potash Corporation, etc.
So Smokey knew that if Wynne won and actually privatized the LCBO, his union's pension fund could safely buy it and keep it as private property - there was zero danger that a future NDP regime would retrieve it.
I and others challenged Horwath to promise to take back any property of the people of Ontario that another party's government might sell off. Of course, she did no such thing - not only because she had no such intention - but because it might give Bay Street some talking points about Horwath being a dangerous business-killing radical. Horwath's handlers, however, coined the catchphrase, "Business is not a 4-letter word."
Had Smokey made his offer public when it was made, it might have reflected an honest effort to have workers debate how best to secure public assets when they are under threat. His silence speaks volumes.
Thu, 2014-08-28 23:19
#172
Interesting that Smokey Thomas - while railing against the Liberals for planning privatization of the LCBO - kept totally secret his offer to Kathleen Wynne that: "Well, ya know, if you do win, and you do privatize the LCBO, can you please sell it to my union's pension fund?"
Interesting that in order to make this drive by smear hold water you have to make it sound as if Thomas proposed that "he" would purchase the LCBO, as if to make a personal profit, when its clear that the proposed deal, based on the assumption that the Liberals would be selling the LCBO anyway, would be carried out by the pension plan that OPSEU workers and a third party not connected to Thomas.
Not unlike unions proposing that factories to be closed by major corporations might be turned into worker run co-operatives to benefit the employees.
No where is it alleged that Thomas's proposal included himself as a financial beneficiary of the proposal.
Your sly innuendo is nothing but implied slander withoug merit, intellectual honesty or basic honour.
Meanwhile, in the name of protecting workers, you have consistently yourself supported forces whose explicit intention is deprive working people of decent unionized public sector jobs, at a fair wage by selling publicly run assets and the use of public money for private profit.
Fri, 2014-08-29 00:18
#173
I never really understood this statement by OPSEU on June 26, entitled "OPSEU stands firm on the anti-privatization of the LCBO". Especially this:
Thomas was responding to inflammatory comments made by the president of Unifor who said in a recent press release that OPSEU’s leadership was secretly supportive of privatizing the retail giant which contributes more than $2.4 billion annually to the provincial treasury in the form of dividends and taxes that help pay for health care, education and public services.
[my emphasis]
Now that Smokey has admitted making his unannounced approach to Kathleen Wynne shortly before the election, it suddenly becomes very clear.
ETA: Now I get it. Smokey was responding to this June 20 release by Jerry Dias:
Dias also expressed his concern that prior to the election Thomas had proposed to the Wynne Liberals that the government sell the LCBO to OPSEU's pension plan and its private sector partner. "Privatization of the LCBO would mean thousands of OPSEU members would be out of a job - and the people of Ontario would lose a valuable public asset. What in the world is going on when the head of OPSEU is secretly calling for privatization?" challenged Dias.[my emphasis]
Don't know how I missed this at the time.
So even though Dias got it exactly right, Smokey only fessed up today - when the media got hold of Wynne's rejection of his secret offer.
This really looks bad. Who else in OPSEU knew that Smokey had made this offer to Wynne??
Fri, 2014-08-29 05:28
#174
Of course Dias is the source of the smear, and his suppositions are entirely conjectural. He is clearly a sleazbag.
Point being that in case where the LCBO were to be sold, the prospects for the workers would be far better were they controlled by the pension fund than other private sector actors because the pension fund has a vested interest in keeping the employees employed, since they pay into it, and because they have more control over it.
That as opposed to licensing out operations to mom and pop grocery stores, or multinational liquor interests like the kind that own "The Beer Store", which would result in wiping out the entire workforce.
Dias, and yourself seem to be of the opinion that worker control over their own workplace results in more job losses than chopping up the business and outsourcing licenses to private business.
What looks bad is Dias and his internet cronies making stuff up, such as the Thomas only "fessed up" just now, when Thomas was talking about this during the election.
Fri, 2014-08-29 05:52
#175
Next time someone suggests creative solutions to capitalist downsizing and sell-offs by suggesting the conversion of mothballed production facilities into a workers co-operatives, like former CAW president Buzz Hargrove did, lets accuse them of selling out their members.
ROFL.
It's Dias who supported putting "thousands of OPSEU members... out of a job" through privatization by campaigning for the Liberals,
He just wants to deflect from that clear and evident fact by muddying the waters with innuendo under the principle that no one can denounce his sell out, when he is denoucing everyone else.
Sun, 2014-08-31 17:31
#176
Here is the letter, dated June 6, 2014, from Tom Teahen (Kathleen Wynne's Chief of Staff) to Smokey Thomas, rejecting what Teahen calls Smokey's proposal to "sole-source sell the LCBO to OPSEU's pension plan and its private sector partner". He cc'ed the OPSEU Executive Board.
I wonder if anyone has seen Smokey's original letter to Wynne? Will Smokey make it public?
Were his members aware of his proposal at the time?
Tue, 2014-11-18 02:48
#177
Thanks Sid. You are the best:
Wynne's Minister Without a Seat Recomends a fast sale of half of Hydro Ones 9 billion dollar assets. Not mentioned in the article is that money from the sale will likely be burned up by loss of half of the 1/2b dollars net brought in by Hydro one yearly, in 8 to 12 years, well beyond Sid Ryan's mandate at OFL, and certainly after Kathleen "Ms. Progressive" Wynne's political career is over:
Premier Kathleen Wynne’s cash-strapped government could “free up $2 billion to $3 billion” to fund transit by selling some Hydro One assets and modernizing the LCBO’s retail operations.
That’s according to TD Bank chair Ed Clark in his privatization panel’s interim report to Wynne, whose administration is saddled with a $12.5-billion deficit.
“We estimate that between $2 billion and $3 billion, depending on market conditions at the time, can be realized and invested in Ontario’s transit and transportation infrastructure,” Clark said Thursday in a 77-page report, entitled “Retain & Gain: Making Ontario’s Assets Work Better for Taxpayers and Consumers.”
I guess the education system will be up next, since Wynne has promised 3b a year in infrastructure investment.
Of course the Star doesn't even bother with having the decency to get any counter-commnt from the opposition parties.
Tue, 2014-11-18 22:26
#178
CUPE National President, Paul Moist Corrects Ryan's rash, false and damaging statement at the post election NDP convention in November 2014
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4