News   Feb 22, 2024
 262     0 
News   Feb 22, 2024
 334     0 
News   Feb 21, 2024
 1.1K     2 

Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

I will surprise some here, given that I am obviously passionate about the environment, and certainly concerned about climate change (and not a Doug Ford fan).....

I don't mind this decision.

I didn't like this program.

It was a very peculiar thought process that went into this, as w/previous home-owner targeted programs, they were really often hidden subsidies to producers of very particular goods.

(remember CFL bulbs and there adverse impact on the environment, as the early ones in particular had large concentrations of mercury, and most were improperly disposed of).

I would much rather the government stay agnostic on which supplier or product a homeowner (or business) chooses.

Raising prices provides the market cue that its worth your while, to invest your money in conservation in/on your property.

I think allowing individual choice often allows greater market innovation and more cost-effective solutions.

I would also add this amounted to a subsidy to homeowners, while broadly providing nothing to renters (recent changes varied this slightly), the program was not income contingent and so paid out, in some cases to people and businesses who could easily afford to make these investments on their own.

The government's proper role is to raise the standards in the building code, to mandate some retrofits over time; to modify standards for consumer goods (ie. setting an energy to lumen standard for light bulbs) and then to get out the way.

Such dollars would be better spent retrofitting government owned assets and then having the taxpayer reap the benefit of the operating savings.

I might be open to a very limited program targeting homeowners that can show financial hardship due to rising energy bills, who are low or lower-middle income.

But that idea sounds cumbersome even as I describe it, and I think we're better off leaving those decisions to the market, and focusing government on address inadequate incomes for low-income earners.
When we have a massive surplus in energy supply, using taxpayer funds to reduce demand never made sense to me. It’s as if the LCBO told us to drink less, or OLG said gamble less.
 
Last edited:
Don't they, already? (Though using the word "responsibly" in lieu of "less".)
One could infer that that's just PR.

And the new management (since Casino Woodbine & some others are no longer run by OLG) is even less interested in 'responsible gambling'. They call their program "play smart" -- which doesn't say anything about playing less or setting a limit; could just mean "don't forget to wear your lucky sweater" :rolleyes: And they send 4 or 5 mailers per week trying to get people in, for draws you have to be present for in order to win (old OLG draws weren't like that) and to claim all sorts of cheesy freebies like costume jewellery or 'velvety' throw blankets, like some 80s game show. I don't like the new regime.

(I don't like this thread merge, either. )
 
"When you have four or five oil companies, it's called a monopoly." -- the Premier of Ontario. :confused:
DgFgmdzV4AEDT4g.jpg


https://www.thestar.com/news/queens...o-pass-along-his-10-cent-a-litre-tax-cut.html

This f*cken idiot...
 
He meant cartel anyway, the goof.

They do collude on prices so he's not completely insane. Though a monopoly would likely have real prices for petrol ($2/L +) and not the practically subsidised prices we pay.
 
One could infer that that's just PR.

And the new management (since Casino Woodbine & some others are no longer run by OLG) is even less interested in 'responsible gambling'. They call their program "play smart" -- which doesn't say anything about playing less or setting a limit; could just mean "don't forget to wear your lucky sweater" :rolleyes: And they send 4 or 5 mailers per week trying to get people in, for draws you have to be present for in order to win (old OLG draws weren't like that) and to claim all sorts of cheesy freebies like costume jewellery or 'velvety' throw blankets, like some 80s game show. I don't like the new regime.

I've seen those new subway ads for Casino Woodbine. That smiling blonde at the slots with the big choppers looks frightening.
 
These things aren't really reported but I would assume the Ford family are Masons. ....

They are rotarians. Masonry has never been mentioned and they don’t wear the rings. Highly doubtful.

I have one of these (below) on the back of my car. One day a particularly 'square' (and Rotarian, it so happens) neighbour asked me (in utter sincerity): "Aren't you a little young to be a Mason?"

Screen Shot 2018-06-20 at 10.13.18 AM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-06-20 at 10.13.18 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-06-20 at 10.13.18 AM.png
    56.1 KB · Views: 635
Renata is back in court this morning for her DUI charge. It's her third, so she might get jail time.

betsy powell‏Verified account@powellbetsy 4m4 minutes ago
She’s a widow, her sole source of income is late Mayor’s municipal pension, Morris says. She has “gained tremendous insight into life challenges in totality,” he says. Ford renovated family home and is listing it for sale, he tells court
 
OMFG.

Wait. Aren't you a little young to be a deadhead then, too? ;)

It was some years back. The neighbour (younger than me) is now a Superior Court judge and I am mostly retired (but not from being a Deadhead - I still have a steely on the back of my car).
 
It was some years back. The neighbour (younger than me) is now a Superior Court judge and I am mostly retired (but not from being a Deadhead - I still have a steely on the back of my car).

I saw the Dead for the first time on the plaza of Place Ville Marie in 1966. (I was born and grew up in Montreal.) They were the opening act for Jefferson Airplane. The concert was part of some kind of promo event for the forthcoming Expo '67, I think.
 

Top