News   Apr 19, 2024
 5.4K     1 
News   Apr 19, 2024
 1.4K     4 
News   Apr 19, 2024
 2.3K     4 

Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

This suggests we're in a pretty significant recession. Real GDP per capita is down from 5-6 years ago. That's pretty brutal.

View attachment 540510

Strictly speaking, no; because we're not seeing overall economic contraction; but I entirely agree with your fundamental point.

I would add, that point, and the issue of the way a recession is defined and growth typically examined shows a profound failure not only in policy/politics, but also in metrics.

Bad KPI, bad data, bad outcome, self-reinforcing.

Looking at total growth, w/o looking at how many ways that growth needs to be, and is divided, misses virtually the entire point.

Real GDP Per Capita and Median Household income are far better metrics than simple GDP or Real GDP (aggregate total)
 
Last edited:
Um, yes, can someone tell me how much Doug Ford saved Ontario’s taxpayers now bill 124 is declared unconstitutional? 😏😏 (sarcasm)
Just read that it will cost the Government about 8.4 billion dollars, not including legal fees. Wynn got blamed for the 1.8 billion gas plant scandal, it is Ford who is blatantly engaging in shady dealings and cronyism and making bad decisions that haven’t even been made public yet.
 
Um, yes, can someone tell me how much Doug Ford saved Ontario’s taxpayers now bill 124 is declared unconstitutional? 😏😏 (sarcasm)
Just read that it will cost the Government about 8.4 billion dollars, not including legal fees. Wynn got blamed for the 1.8 billion gas plant scandal, it is Ford who is blatantly engaging in shady dealings and cronyism and making bad decisions that haven’t even been made public yet.
Any ide how that is being calculated? If it's excluding the legal costs, where is the actual cost? They might be trying to calculate the deferred contract settlements that will now be coming home to roost. It could be argued that, absent Bill 124, those negotiated cost would have existed anyway.
 
Any ide how that is being calculated? If it's excluding the legal costs, where is the actual cost? They might be trying to calculate the deferred contract settlements that will now be coming home to roost. It could be argued that, absent Bill 124, those negotiated cost would have existed anyway.
Not really sure how they calculated the amount, just read the article and Global TV reported it.
 
This one will probably fly under the radar...

Southbridge (for profit LTC provider) is the owner of one of the worst long term care homes: Orchard Villa in Pickering and is getting a greenlight on its license and expansion. Let's review their track record:
  • Prior to covid, it had the second worst compliance designation (issued by the province)
  • During the pandemic, 37 percent of residents died, some of dehydration and malnutrition
  • It was so bad, the armed forces went into this one and wrote a report of the terrible conditions (bare mattresses, garbage lying around,
  • Post pandemic, they applied for a 30 year license which was granted, and applied for an 15 story expansion of which the city of Pickering refused
  • The province then issued an MZO to proceed with expansion against the wishes of pickering residents and those with family members affected
A family member is now filing a judicial review in the hopes of ensuring it at least adheres to the new LTC standards set out by this government (Fixing long term care act) ... I cannot state how bad this LTC facility was without a wall of text; the Ontario health coalition posted a good summary of why they should not be doing business in Ontario (they are a good source to my bullet points above).

I get we need LTC spaces, but rewarding this poor behavior is just mind-boggling; using an MZO to do as the government pleases really flies in the face of residents and families affected.
 
This one will probably fly under the radar...

Southbridge (for profit LTC provider) is the owner of one of the worst long term care homes: Orchard Villa in Pickering and is getting a greenlight on its license and expansion. Let's review their track record:
  • Prior to covid, it had the second worst compliance designation (issued by the province)
  • During the pandemic, 37 percent of residents died, some of dehydration and malnutrition
  • It was so bad, the armed forces went into this one and wrote a report of the terrible conditions (bare mattresses, garbage lying around,
  • Post pandemic, they applied for a 30 year license which was granted, and applied for an 15 story expansion of which the city of Pickering refused
  • The province then issued an MZO to proceed with expansion against the wishes of pickering residents and those with family members affected
A family member is now filing a judicial review in the hopes of ensuring it at least adheres to the new LTC standards set out by this government (Fixing long term care act) ... I cannot state how bad this LTC facility was without a wall of text; the Ontario health coalition posted a good summary of why they should not be doing business in Ontario (they are a good source to my bullet points above).

I get we need LTC spaces, but rewarding this poor behavior is just mind-boggling; using an MZO to do as the government pleases really flies in the face of residents and families affected.
It is certainly NOT flying under the radar and the judicial review request has been widely reported. Let's hope it gets the right result. One thing I have NOT seen discussed is who owns the Orchard Villa company and which cabinet member is their chum.
 
Another useless law to clog up the legislative calendar:


'Banning' new road tolls on provincial highways.

Of course, this cannot only be reversed by a simple bill in the legislature by any future gov't...........but it would have required a bill to enact tolls in the first place............sigh.
 
Another useless law to clog up the legislative calendar:


'Banning' new road tolls on provincial highways.

Of course, this cannot only be reversed by a simple bill in the legislature by any future gov't...........but it would have required a bill to enact tolls in the first place............sigh.
Much like "automatic licence plate renewal". They can't stop themselves from spin. Call it what it is - your vehicle registration is now permanent, just like a trailer. The main reason there was massive confusion in the first place was the 'we're making it free' sucked all the oxygen out of the change process. Most people relied on the renewal notice they got in the mail, until suddenly they didn't. Couple that with no money changing hands and the average person could be forgiven for thinking that they no longer had to do anything.

I wouldn't get too excited though. Almost $1Bn in low hanging fruit will be hard for a future government to ignore.
 
Beyond being able to get money for doing so, which isn't a thing anymore, there is no reason that it shouldn't be an automatic renewal at this point.
Didn't it force people to show proof of insurance and pay parking tickets and such?

Am I the only one that was kinda okay with stickers and plate tax?
 
Beyond being able to get money for doing so, which isn't a thing anymore, there is no reason that it shouldn't be an automatic renewal at this point.
I suppose that's part of my point. If no action or process has to take place, how is it an 'automatic renewal'? There's no conditions to be met. It's permanent. Kinda like you birth certificate or SIN card.

Didn't it force people to show proof of insurance and pay parking tickets and such?

Am I the only one that was kinda okay with stickers and plate tax?
You had to show your 'pink slip' to the Service Ontario folks but towards the end they just looked at it and handed it back. There was a screening for fines owned. When they introduced the online renewal option, I have no clue what screening took place.

I was ok with it as well. My user fee for using an expensive public infrastructure; like transit fares.
 
I'm going to put this story here. While it doesn't really mention the Ford gov't; it concerns the very poor way in which the health and justice systems manage the care of those w/serious mental health issues, and the lousy outcomes that result.


In this particular case, the story revolves around a woman who had been a nurse in Cornwall for decades, and had led a law abiding life........but whose bi-polar disorder grew worse in recent years, and she could no longer be counted on to take the medication that had kept in check.

Subsequently, she's had regular brushes w/that law, and consumed police, correctional and crown resources along w/those of the mental health system; essentially, because she can and will behave when properly medicated, but each time she has become 'normal' she has chosen to exit care and stop taking her medication.

***

We want to be careful about the idea of compulsory administration of medication, or holding seemingly competent people against their will; but clearly, when evidence repeatedly shows that someone will become a risk to themselves and/or others if not medicated/cared for........we need a new approach.

As the above is a provincial matter, this seemed the most apt thread to post it in.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to put this story here. While it doesn't really mention the Ford gov't; it concerns the very poor way in which the health and justice systems manage the care of those w/serious mental health issues, and the lousy outcomes that result.


In this particular case, the story revolves around a woman who had been a nurse in Cornwall for decades, and had led a law abiding life........but whose bi-polar disorder grew worse in recent years, and she could no longer be counted on to take the medication that had kept in check.

Subsequently, she's had regular brushes w/that law, and consumed police, correctional and crown resources along w/those of the mental health system; essentially, because she can and will behave when properly medicated, but each time she has become 'normal' she has chosen to exit care and stop taking her medication.

***

We want to be careful about the idea of compulsory administration of medication, or holding seemingly competent people against their will; but clearly, when evidence repeatedly shows that someone will become a risk to themselves and/or others if not medicated/cared for........we need a new approach.

As the above is a provincial matter, this seemed the most apt thread to post it in.
In Ontario, there are 2 criteria for involuntary admission: Box A or B. Roughly speaking, A is danger to yourself and others, B is there is risk of mental or physical deterioration or serious physical impairment. However, as I understand, typically there is usually a time-limit to ensure there is appropriate review and if patient should still be held against their will. I wonder if her discharge had something to do with the length of time being held.

The (what I assume is) the final discharge note:
1708616062023.png

This alone seems to be in conflict with the criteria above.

Something is amiss and I'm going to ask around about this...
 
In Ontario, there are 2 criteria for involuntary admission: Box A or B. Roughly speaking, A is danger to yourself and others, B is there is risk of mental or physical deterioration or serious physical impairment. However, as I understand, typically there is usually a time-limit to ensure there is appropriate review and if patient should still be held against their will. I wonder if her discharge had something to do with the length of time being held.

The (what I assume is) the final discharge note:
View attachment 542477
This alone seems to be in conflict with the criteria above.

Something is amiss and I'm going to ask around about this...

They did try to extend her time in care, at one point, and she challenged them before Consent and Capacity Board and won.
 

Back
Top