Liberals again? Screw you Ontario, I am moving to Alberta!

[Hedley]

It's true that anybody who blindly claims "Canada is the best in every way!" hasn't travelled much.

To the people who say, "It's not so bad here", I can't help but think of someone in prison who gets gang raped once a week, and someone telling him that he's lucky, in the next cell block people get gang raped every day.

It's truly disappointing that Canadians set the bar so low. Why don't they want better government?

As far as education goes, I will get crapped on, but I am a strong proponent of "vouchers". What is a "voucher", you say? Well, it's a teacher's union worst nightmare.

Vouchers enable parents to put their kids into any school they want to - and the schools are funded by the vouchers.

Vouchers enable parents to pull money out of the public monopolized unionized school system, which drives Buzz Hargrove nuts, because the union members then have to compete and produce a competitive service, which everyone knows they don't want to.

Public monopolies, like the government school system and the government health care system, produce at best a marginal product at a very high price. As usual, the taxpayer gets shafted.

For residents of Ontario, are you happy with the prices you pay for booze at the LCBO, another public monopoly? Do you think it's the best price in the world?

How about the post office? They do such a great job, there is an incredible multi-billion-dollar private sector industry of couriers ... ever heard of Fedex? UPS? DHL?

[niss]

Ya but privitization is not the answer, just look at Drive Test. These loosers hose you every way possible. I had my G2 exit a couple of months ago, apparantly one tail light didnt work. The lady didnt even get in the car, she told me we couldnt do the test and then charged me half of what the test costs. The test is supposed to cost $75, that covers your test, license fees, admin fees etc. They figured I should pay $32.50 for her to tell me I cant do my test. When it was gov't owned it was 25% as opposed to 50% the fee.

Privitization allowes coroporation to gouge whenever they see fit, and there is little we can do about it, atleast we have a leg to stand on when the gov't does something we dont like.

[Hedley]

atleast we have a leg to stand on when the gov't does something we dont like

I will mention that to . next time he starts discussing the merits of Transport Canada

But seriously, I agree with your point that a monopoly is almost never a good thing - either public or private sector.

Without competition, there is no incentive to provide a competitive good or service for a competitive price.

This isn't very complicated, really.

[Floats]

Ya but privitization is not the answer, just look at Drive Test. These loosers hose you every way possible. I had my G2 exit a couple of months ago, apparantly one tail light didnt work. The lady didnt even get in the car, she told me we couldnt do the test and then charged me half of what the test costs. The test is supposed to cost $75, that covers your test, license fees, admin fees etc. They figured I should pay $32.50 for her to tell me I cant do my test. When it was gov't owned it was 25% as opposed to 50% the fee.

Privitization allowes coroporation to gouge whenever they see fit, and there is little we can do about it, atleast we have a leg to stand on when the gov't does something we dont like.

This is your argument against Privatization? You wasted someones time by showing up with a car unfit for the road and you had to pay a cancelization fee?

[niss]

Ya but privitization is not the answer, just look at Drive Test. These loosers hose you every way possible. I had my G2 exit a couple of months ago, apparantly one tail light didnt work. The lady didnt even get in the car, she told me we couldnt do the test and then charged me half of what the test costs. The test is supposed to cost $75, that covers your test, license fees, admin fees etc. They figured I should pay $32.50 for her to tell me I cant do my test. When it was gov't owned it was 25% as opposed to 50% the fee.

Privitization allowes coroporation to gouge whenever they see fit, and there is little we can do about it, atleast we have a leg to stand on when the gov't does something we dont like.

This is your argument against Privatization? You wasted someones time by showing up with a car unfit for the road and you had to pay a cancelization fee?

I had no problem with a cancelization fee, I had a problem with a private corporation owning the monopoly and charging exhorberant rates. When it was publicly run the fee was 25%, since becoming privatized it doubled. I think this is a pretty good argument against privatization, as this is an example that rings true for many other privatized sectors, look at ontario hydro, etc.

[Johnny]

Hello fellow AvCanadians,

Thank you to all who voted for the PC party and John Tory (my father) in the recent provincial election. The campaign carried a lot of positive energy and was run with the highest goals of integrity, inclusiveness, and fairness with an eye towards solid and reliable growth for the social and economic future of Ontario.

I've read this discussion thread and I wanted to clear up a few things in an effort to make sure the right message is being sent out and properly interpreted.

flyinphil - The extension of public funding to religious schools (effectively transforming them into public schools themselves) is not typical of an ultra-conservative platform, quite the opposite. It is considered more of a socially progressive platform. The ultra-con solution would (again, typically) involve offering school "vouchers" against taxes for people to redeem at a school of their choice (religious, trade, athletic, vocational, etc).

niss - The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario is not the same as the Conservative Party of Canada. It is not a branch or affiliate of the federal party. They are two completely separate entities. The PC Party of Ontario believes strongly in the protection of all human rights, including the right of people of the same sex to marry and for a woman to undertake her own medical decisions. As for the solution for gridlock on highway 400 (and many others across the province), our proposal was to extend public transit infrastructure, reliability, and affordability to a level worthy of daily use by the public.

One anecdote frequently told on the campaign was how a simple decision by the liberal government could have helped... Many GO trains in southern Ontario are not running at capacity. Why? Because there are not enough parking spots at the GO terminal and the local riders therefore perceive the system to be unreliable. They claimed the environment and transit was central to their program, yet did next to nothing (a small handout to Ottawa for some buses and a few other similar things) over the past four years to help any of Ontario’s urban centres overcome the hurdles of population growth and expansion.

There were so many other similar examples of government mismanagement we were hoping to spotlight during the campaign.

Going forward, I think it is important to remember that, while some people are not comfortable with the idea of extending public funding to all religious schools, the system that is in place today is unfair on so many levels. Imagine trying to defend to parents who are working hard to provide a good life for their family that their child is entitled to a publicly funded religious education, but only if they belong to one particular religion.

Even for those who do not want to send their children to a non-Catholic religious school, the system in place sends out the wrong message on behalf of our government and Ontarians. Everybody’s tax dollars go towards supporting both school boards in the public education system.
The current faith-based school arrangement in Ontario (only Catholic schools receive public funding, from kindergarten through the completion of high school) has been described by the Supreme Court of Canada, the United Nations, and several other international human rights groups as discriminatory. When these groups first criticized the Ontario government in the late 1990s (Mike Harris was Premier, Dalton McGuinty was Leader of the Opposition), Mr. McGuinty was very quick to say he believed that this situation needed immediate attention and he went as far as promising some faith schools in Toronto to extend public funding to them. The liberal education minister at dissolution and dad’s opponent in Don Valley West, Kathleen Wynne, came out in support of funding non-Catholic religious schools when she was a school trustee on the Toronto District School Board (before being elected to legislature).

The PC party felt that a solution had to be proposed to the voters of Ontario that was honest, clear, and rectified the unfairness of our current system. There were two choices: extend public funding to all religious schools; or stop funding the current separate (Catholic) school boards. The latter choice involved diminishing the rights of a large group of Ontarians, many of whom were very satisfied with the level of education being provided in the Catholic schools. The choice dad (John Tory) and the party made, to extend funding to all faith-based schools, was designed to be inclusive and to ensure quality education for the over fifty thousand students who today are educated in private schools with no provincial monitoring whatsoever. The PC party proposal would have required that these schools teach the Ontario curriculum, hire ONLY certified & accredited Ontario teachers, and subject themselves to regular inspections (both the facility and the student body) by the Ministry of Education.

Several other provincial governments in Canada have succeeded in altering the previous (discriminatory) funding formula without experiencing the breakdown in social cohesion that the liberals were predicting. I’m not quite sure where they came up with this…

On an aviation-related note, I had previously posted that a John Tory PC government in Ontario would have reversed the changes to the flight training curriculum currently being discussed in other areas of the forum to reflect that aviation is a federal responsibility in Canada. He felt the provincial government should have exempted flight training from his recent program changes as these changes risk the closure of several flight schools and smaller airports across Ontario.

On a personal note, I’m very proud of my father and the honest, up-front campaign he ran. My wife, my siblings, and I had occasion to join mom and dad a few times on the campaign trail and it was the most incredible experience of my life to date.

Thank you again to all who supported John Tory and the PC Party of Ontario during the campaign and on Wednesday.

Fly safe…

John Tory, Jr.

[niss]

For someone with such a vested intrest in the PC party Im a little surprised that you didnt end it with a big "F%ck you Liberal Supporters!" like some other people here

I have little ill feelings to any condidate in the end I will be happy with somethings and angry with others that any politician does, I just vote for who I identify with most.

I think that the proposed voting system would have been a good choice though, it would be nice to stick with your party but vote for who you feel best represents you.

[sigmet77]

Good post Johnny.

[Rockie]

"The PC party felt that a solution had to be proposed to the voters of Ontario that was honest, clear, and rectified the unfairness of our current system. There were two choices: extend public funding to all religious schools; or stop funding the current separate (Catholic) school boards. The latter choice involved diminishing the rights of a large group of Ontarians, many of whom were very satisfied with the level of education being provided in the Catholic schools. The choice dad (John Tory) and the party made, to extend funding to all faith-based schools, was designed to be inclusive and to ensure quality education for the over fifty thousand students who today are educated in private schools with no provincial monitoring whatsoever. The PC party proposal would have required that these schools teach the Ontario curriculum, hire ONLY certified & accredited Ontario teachers, and subject themselves to regular inspections (both the facility and the student body) by the Ministry of Education."

John Tory Jr.

Without a doubt publicly funding a Separate Catholic school board and not other religious group is discriminatory. Taken further, funding all religious schools but not ethnic schools is also discriminatory. So would not funding gay schools, athiest schools, agnostic schools or native schools (wait, that's been done already). Get my point?

Extending a discriminatory practice even further is not the way to fix it. There is already a school board that everyone can attend, has accredited teachers and delivers the Ontario Curriculum. It's called the public school board and no one is denied an education.

[Johnny]

Without a doubt publicly funding a Separate Catholic school board and not other religious group is discriminatory. Taken further, funding all religious schools but not ethnic schools is also discriminatory. So would not funding gay schools, athiest schools, agnostic schools or native schools (wait, that's been done already). Get my point?

Extending a discriminatory practice even further is not the way to fix it. There is already a school board that everyone can attend, has accredited teachers and delivers the Ontario Curriculum. It's called the public school board and no one is denied an education.

Rockie,

While it is certainly true in the semantic sense of the word that such a funding extension would then create a distinction between religious and non-religious school funding, I think it can be fairly said that, with the exception of First Nation schools, other lifestyle-based education has not been made a part of the fabric of Ontario’s education system in the same way that the Catholic school board has been allowed to become, at the expense of the taxpayers.

I’m not asserting that our position was perfect or that it didn’t create any room for further discussion. I’m trying to explain that dad felt this was the best course of action to take in light of existing unfairness.

The other option, to remove all funding from the Catholic school board, while appealing to many on paper, is not so easily accomplished from a political or legal standpoint. For better or worse, Catholic funding is entrenched in the Constitution. To undo that funding then requires constitutional change – no easy process. The various governments and political parties in Ontario and Canada would be sensitive to altering a funding formula that will directly affect the families of over six hundred thousand students. It becomes quite complicated when the government (at any level) promises a group of people that they will have something forever, and then decides to take that very something away.

Please also try to remember that the proposed extension of funding was not going to be carried out in a way that would weaken or diminish the existing public school system. In fact, many who supported this program saw the manners in which it could improve the public system. I don’t want to get into the debate now as it is clear how Ontarians feel about the proposal – I’m responding to this thread in an attempt to make sure our message wasn’t lost and people have a sense for why this was done.

In any event, I’m hoping that the debate we helped to foster isn’t relegated to the annals moot electoral conjecture. I will be impressed if the re-elected Liberal government is able to translate the campaign-debate and rhetoric into action and legislation that rectifies the current, discriminatory situation in a positive and constructive manner.


John

[CD]

For better or worse, Catholic funding is entrenched in the Constitution. To undo that funding then requires constitutional change – no easy process.

Interesting...

In Ontario, funding for the Catholic separate school system was initially only guaranteed until grade nine under the British North America (BNA) Act. This funding was gradually extended until 1984 when the government of William Davis extended funding to include the last three (Grades 11-OAC) years of secondary school after having rejected that proposal fifteen years earlier. The historically Protestant system was eventually transformed into the present day public board, and school prayer was banned in the early 1980s.

A province-wide newspaper survey conducted between 1997 and 1999 in 45 dailies indicated that 79% of 7551 respondents in Ontario favoured a single public school system. But rumours that the Catholic Church had instructed its parishioners not to respond to the survey suggest that it may have produced inaccurate results. Regardless of whether the results were accurate or not, no widely supported movement to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 has developed.

In Ontario the only separate schools are Catholic (except for one elementary school in Penetanguishene, Ontario, the Burkevale Protestant Separate School, under the Penetanguishene Protestant Separate School Board, which has no other schools); other faith groups do not receive similar funding. This restriction has often been criticized as contrary to the spirit of official multiculturalism. The provincial policy has been ruled as discriminatory by the Supreme Court of Canada, and on November 5, 1999 the United Nations Human Rights Committee condemned Canada and Ontario for having violating the equality provisions (Article 26) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee restated its concerns on November 2, 2005, when it published its Concluding Observations regarding Canada's fifth periodic report under the Covenant. The Committee observed that Canada had failed to "adopt steps in order to eliminate discrimination on the basis of religion in the funding of schools in Ontario."

Private School Funding

[Rockie]

Thank you for responding Mr. Tory.

One last point that you may have read earlier on in this thread and then a suggestion. Your Father's suggestion was to put into public policy a program that would encourage segregation in the school system along religious lines. This is a step back that would only foster less understanding and tolerance among diverse groups in the name of non-descrimination.

I fully appreciate the political difficulty of merging the Catholic School Board into the existing Public Board. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, or that we should take the easier but ultimately more damaging route of diving deeper into the religious school funding quagmire. Plus history has proven that government is not capable of doing anything efficiently, and this would be no exception from a purely monetary point of view.

A suggestion to help sell a single publicly funded school system would be to have an independent company calculate the savings that would be realized and promise to return that to the tax payers in the form of rebates or something.

Publicly funded Catholic education is a right, but it is a discriminatory right and can be dealt with from that basis. After all, landowners in the States used to have the right to own slaves and they managed to abolish that.

[Johnny]

Thank you for responding Mr. Tory.

One last point that you may have read earlier on in this thread and then a suggestion. Your Father's suggestion was to put into public policy a program that would encourage segregation in the school system along religious lines. This is a step back that would only foster less understanding and tolerance among diverse groups in the name of non-descrimination.

My pleasure to respond. I want to reassure you that I'm not carrying on this conversation in the interest of swaying your opinion (even though it may come off that way)...

The policy, it was felt, would actually encourage later integration and tolerance as it would have allowed students from different faiths to, for example, compete in sports both against and with one another - everyone would be invited to the track meet, so to speak.

Please also realize that the schools and students we talk about funding exist today and are operating in a completely independent fashion from the public/accredited system. Most of these schools only teach students during their elementary years (because school accreditation matters at the secondary level for university acceptance) and their students then (typically) matriculate on to other secondary schools (accredited, be they private or public).

I agree that the rights and guarantees of the Constitution can be changed. However, the manner of change must be considered. We thought this was the most fair, inclusive and honest way to go about it.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. I hope you’ll understand this is a very difficult week for me – one of the hardest of my life. I’m sorry if I’m coming off as overly defensive and rambling.

J

PS: please don’t call me “Mr. Tory.” It ain’t me.

[Johnny]

A suggestion to help sell a single publicly funded school system would be to have an independent company calculate the savings that would be realized and promise to return that to the tax payers in the form of rebates or something.

Our intent with all of the efficiencies we were able to realize was to pass that value on to the taxpayer in the form of:

- Increased investment in government programs such as health care, transport, education, affordable housing, to name a few

- A reduction in the level of taxation, including immediate health tax relief for people earning under $30,000 per year - for some reason, they're the ones paying the health tax at the highest rate??

While government has previously shown itself to be inefficient in some areas (typically areas where the private sector has a much stronger record), that is not necessarily a reason for the government not to do something. For example, the private sector has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to operate more efficiently (from a striclty monetary standpoint) in the health care sector. Ontarians do not, and will not accept privately funded health care (for the record, dad was not proposing it – just an example). That doesn’t mean that the government should remove itself from the health care game merely in the name of efficiency.

[Rockie]

You must be young John. I'm not and actually like being called Mr. _____. You'll learn to like it too I'm sure.

Anyway, please don't take this personally because it is not meant to be. But thinking that this policy would one day foster integration and tolerance is unbelievably naive, or a deliberate attempt to spin this in a positive light in order to sell it to a party caucus who has to approve it. If the Conservatives had tried that line on the public they would have been laughed out of the room.

There have been examples of the political elite trying to do a snow job on the public and the public wasn't buying. Meech Lake was one. This was another. So was the MMR referendum but that's another story.

The public has spoken John, including a good number of Conservatives who could not vote Conservative simply because of how bad this idea was. Your Father and the party would be wise to listen.

[Rockie]

You must be young John. I'm not and actually like being called Mr. _____. You'll learn to like it too I'm sure.

Anyway, please don't take this personally because it is not meant to be. But thinking that this policy would one day foster integration and tolerance is unbelievably naive, or a deliberate attempt to spin this in a positive light in order to sell it to a party caucus who has to approve it. If the Conservatives had tried that line on the public they would have been laughed out of the room.

There have been examples of the political elite trying to do a snow job on the public and the public wasn't buying. Meech Lake was one. This was another. So was the MMR referendum but that's another story.

The public has spoken John, including a good number of Conservatives who could not vote Conservative simply because of how bad this idea was. Your Father and the party would be wise to listen.

[. ._]

I don't think it's necessary to PAY to have faith based schools under the same rules as the rest. Catholics have special standing under Federal law- that discussion is off the table for a few years. The rest don't. Pass a bill to make them teach the same minimum stuff as the rest, and make them pick up the tab for certified teachers.

When it comes to home schooling, no groups bigger than 6 unless there is more than that in the family.

No taxpayer cost. Same educational standards for everyone.

All in favour?

-istp

[ottawa,kan]

VOUCHERS. That's the answer to fairness. Let people choose where to send their kids to school and pay on the families behaf what you would pay the public schools. So if athiest gays want a science oriented school...great. And as istp points out...make sure everyone tests to the same standards. Homeschoolers here in extreme south saskatchawan get a total pass from the state on ANY curriculum standards. Obviously vouchers betray the idea of one super effiecient school system, but they do provide competition, which is the real key to effeciency anyway. How much money could a school save if it completly got rid of varsity athletics, for instance. Competition is the only thing that will improve the inner city schools in this country. Too much corruption for them ever to come around on there own.

[Dash-Ate]

[Johnny]

You must be young John. I'm not and actually like being called Mr. _____. You'll learn to like it too I'm sure.

Anyway, please don't take this personally because it is not meant to be. But thinking that this policy would one day foster integration and tolerance is unbelievably naive, or a deliberate attempt to spin this in a positive light in order to sell it to a party caucus who has to approve it. If the Conservatives had tried that line on the public they would have been laughed out of the room.

There have been examples of the political elite trying to do a snow job on the public and the public wasn't buying. Meech Lake was one. This was another. So was the MMR referendum but that's another story.

The public has spoken John, including a good number of Conservatives who could not vote Conservative simply because of how bad this idea was. Your Father and the party would be wise to listen.

Thank you for the great and constructive feedback. I assure you dad and the party are listening to their supporters and the people. Enjoy your weekend.

J

PS: I don't know if I'll ever come to enjoy the whole "Mr" thing... I know many 50+ year olds who don't like it either. I think it's a personal preference, not necessarily an age-defined phenomenon.

[flyinphil]

Johnny, I suppose my point was misunderstood. George Bush et al recieved tremendous support from the "Faith based" crowd during the last election. Since that time, the media has portrayed "faith based" in a very negative light.

Government is a negative to many.
Government + faith based is very negative
Government + faith based + the education system is an impossible sell.

Canada as you know is far more liberal than the US. To sell the very conservative "faith based" anything in Canada is a non starter. It positions the candidate way too far right and alienates the majority.

[Rockie]

Johnny, I suppose my point was misunderstood. George Bush et al recieved tremendous support from the "Faith based" crowd during the last election. Since that time, the media has portrayed "faith based" in a very negative light.

Government is a negative to many.
Government + faith based is very negative
Government + faith based + the education system is an impossible sell.

Canada as you know is far more liberal than the US. To sell the very conservative "faith based" anything in Canada is a non starter. It positions the candidate way too far right and alienates the majority.

That was well said.

I don't know if it's something solely attributable to the right side of the political spectrum though. But for sure, any talk of Government involvement in Faith makes the hair stand up on a lot of peoples necks. Throw education in there as well and it can be positively frightening. I've had close friends and neighbors come out of the blue and tell me I was (unfortunately) going to burn in hell because I didn't share the same faith they did. Do we really want to institutionalize that in public policy and education?

[Rockie]

Johnny, I suppose my point was misunderstood. George Bush et al recieved tremendous support from the "Faith based" crowd during the last election. Since that time, the media has portrayed "faith based" in a very negative light.

Government is a negative to many.
Government + faith based is very negative
Government + faith based + the education system is an impossible sell.

Canada as you know is far more liberal than the US. To sell the very conservative "faith based" anything in Canada is a non starter. It positions the candidate way too far right and alienates the majority.

That was well said.

I don't know if it's something solely attributable to the right side of the political spectrum though. But for sure, any talk of Government involvement in Faith makes the hair stand up on a lot of peoples necks. Throw education in there as well and it can be positively frightening. I've had close friends and neighbors come out of the blue and tell me I was (unfortunately) going to burn in hell because I didn't share the same faith they did. Do we really want to institutionalize that in public policy and education?

[Jeppesen]

The Conservatives are way to far right for my liking.

Our liberal government and citizens are pretty much what makes us different from the US.

and we just love to be different from them!!

[Johnny]

Johnny, I suppose my point was misunderstood. George Bush et al recieved tremendous support from the "Faith based" crowd during the last election. Since that time, the media has portrayed "faith based" in a very negative light.

Government is a negative to many.
Government + faith based is very negative
Government + faith based + the education system is an impossible sell.

Canada as you know is far more liberal than the US. To sell the very conservative "faith based" anything in Canada is a non starter. It positions the candidate way too far right and alienates the majority.

I think some of that type of perception played into this election. That, combined with general opposition to the plan, led to a lot of people becoming single-issue voters.