"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark", but relax, everything is fine in the Province of Ontario, isn't it?
Apparently not. Let's sample some of the grumbling.
A Conservative MPP wants Toronto to become Canada's 11th province.
Bill Murdoch, MPP for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound says (in 2010) rural Ontario is fighting a losing battle against what he calls "a Toronto
He wants residents who live in the Greater Toronto Area to remain part of Ontario, while Toronto becomes its own province.
Mayor David Miller said on his Twitter account that the "Province of Toronto...an idea whose time has come? MPP Murdoch makes an
Miller's spokesman Stuart Green told CBC News the mayor wants to open up a public discussion about the possibility of Toronto seceding from
Green said Toronto's fiscal deficit is something "that a provincial status may solve."
Green, on the Toronto side, is implying that too much money is going into the provincial treasury and not enough of it is coming back to the City of
Why ever could that be? Who's the villain in this piece? Sometimes great literature can help us get a perspective on our troubles. Let me quote
Taxmen have bigger taxmen upon their back to fleece'em
And bigger taxmen bigger still and must forever grease'em.
Here is an interesting quote from an article that appeared in The Globe and Mail
in december of 2012:
Citing the Drummond Report, the Chamber concludes that Ontario contributes $12.3-billion more to the federal government than it receives in
transfers, even though 600,000 Ontarians are out of work, little economic growth is expected over the foreseeable future, and the provincial debt is
The whole article is well worth reading. I mean it. Read it and weep.
It raises the question, "Is the Province of Ontario witholding moneys which should be going to the City of Toronto because it, the provincial
government, is itself being fleeced by the federal government?
It raises another age old question, "How do you drain a swamp (fix the transit system) when you are up to your neck in alligators (federal and
provincial tax collectors)?"
Let's look at a situation that encapsulates the sort of problem Toronto faces with respect to infrastructure, taxation and political patronage.
Toronto and its "partners" (lol) in the provincial and federal governments are revitalizing the Toronto Waterfront via the Toronto Waterfront
Revitalization Initiative (TWRI). Waterfront Toronto recently came under criticism for its spending choices in revitalizing Sugar Beach
Councillor outraged after Waterfront Toronto ‘secretly’ spends $946,000 on two large rocks and 36 pink umbrellas
The councillor, Denzel Minnan-Wong:
Mr. Minnan-Wong, who says he is often met “with a brick wall” when seeking information from Waterfront Toronto, held up the umbrellas and
rocks as examples of frivolous spending that angers taxpayers.
“You can have nice things but you don’t have to spend $12,000 on an umbrella,” said Mr. Minnan-Wong on a stroll through Sugar Beach Wednesday.
“A councillor who would vote for that would be strung up by their ankles.”
“They spend money secretly, and they have meetings secretly without telling taxpayers where their money is going and the result is this type of
waste, when money could be spent on far more needed and valuable projects,” said Mr. Minnan-Wong.
This highlights the dangers of "multi-tier" government oversight. Such situations degenerate into a family variety show where everyone gets to put on
their party piece no matter how atrocious.
This is gubmint at work.
(Patronage plum distribution.)
The design for a Toronto facility is outsourced to a Montreal architecture firm. (I'm not suggesting they didn't do a good job. They did an excellent
job.) An outlandishly extravagant amount of money ($500,000) was spent on purchasing and transporting granite rocks (I guess they were unavailable in
Ontario's portion of the Laurentian Shield.) to the park on the Toronto waterfront from QUEBEC
Might I dare suggest that neither of these two ideas would have occurred to a two tiered (City and Province) committee building a park on the
waterfront in Toronto?
Mayor Ford was as annoyed by this kind of spending as Mr. Minnan-Wong.
However, the park is beautiful and is expected to generate gobs of spin off investment and, "goody goody", tons of tax dollars resulting therefrom.
Hoorah for tax dollars! Now we can get serious about upgrading the transit system with all those tax dollars! . . . . Or can we? (I need a vid clip
here of Dave Letterman shifting his eyes warily from one side of the audience to the other.)
Who is going to get this tax money from this very worthy investment, (back patting all around) Sugar Beach? Who's the biggest taxman of all in this
Accordingly, the three governments have spent, to date, $1.26 billion and the study estimates that this direct investment on public lands
generated impacts as follows: $3.2 billion of Canadian economic output, 16,200 full time years of employment and $622 million of tax revenues to
government ($348 million to federal, $237 million to provincial, and $36 million to municipal).
The federal government, who is already sucking the province dry will get ten times the tax revenue out of a Toronto beach than Toronto will. The
provincial government, battling on two fronts, will get roughly seven times as much out of a Toronto beach in taxes as Toronto will.
That in a nutshell, for me at least, indicates that over the decades the taxpayers of Toronto have probably paid for subway and transit expansion
ten times over
and yet have had that money withheld from them . . . so that the province could make up for money withheld from them by the
federal government . . . so that body could satisfy the demands of its political patrons for rediculous plum contracts as payoffs and the demand from
its principal trading partner for American job saving purchases of such things as the F-35 (the lemon from Lockheed) and participation in criminal
activity abroad, like the mugging of Libya.
This Gordian Knot has to be cut by somebody. Tory? Not a chance. Ford? He should start gnawing at it.
edit on 27-8-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)