Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

[Videodrome]

Doug Ford hating trees doesn't surprise me, He also hates books...

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Is there any information on how much this actually costs a year? Is it a significant savings?

Apparently not much, just a few million. Not the hill one should die on for sure.

AoD

 

[W. K. Lis]

Doug Ford not only hates books, but anything that produces books, such as trees.


It gets worse...

Ontario cancels program that aimed to plant 50 million trees

From link.

Ontario is cancelling a tree planting program, with those involved warning the move will lead to the loss of jobs and environmental benefits that forests provide.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry told Forests Ontario the day after the Progressive Conservative government delivered its budget this month that the 50 Million Tree Program was being eliminated.

Rob Keen, CEO of Forests Ontario, said since 2008 more than 27 million trees have been planted across Ontario through the program, which saved landowners up to 90 per cent of the costs of large-scale tree planting.

It was started as a carbon sequestration program, Keen said, but planting that many trees also helps clean the air and water, protect shorelines and reduce erosion.

About 40 per cent forest cover is needed to ensure forest sustainability, Keen said, and the average right now in southern Ontario is 26 per cent, with some areas as low as five per cent.

The program's annual budget was about $4.7 million, Keen said, and Forests Ontario was told it was being cancelled as a way to cut provincial costs.

"Premier (Doug) Ford wants to reduce the deficit and this was...something they thought was expendable," Keen said.

"We certainly recognize that with climate change coming it's going to be more important than ever to have healthy, contiguous, large forests to be able to mitigate climate change and certainly adapt to climate change."

The majority of the funding went to Forests Ontario's planting partners, such as conservation groups, stewardship groups and First Nations, who worked with landowners to get trees planted, Keen said.

The government also recently cut funding for conservation authorities' flood management programs in half.

The CEO of one of the main nurseries that grows seedlings for the program said the cancellation of the 50 Million Trees Program will lead to more erosion in flood zones, as well as poorer air and water quality, warmer lakes and streams without forest cover to shade them, and less wildlife habitat.

"It may be a way for the government to save some money, but it's very short-sighted and it's going to cost us a lot more in the future," said Ed Patchell.

Patchell said the loss of the program means about 30 to 40 per cent of Ferguson Tree Nursery's base income will disappear, and he will likely have to cut six to eight full-time and seasonal staff.

He predicted the cancellation would also lead to layoffs at organizations such as conservation authorities, which partner on the tree planting.

A spokeswoman for Natural Resources and Forestry Minister John Yakabuski said the government is committed to balancing the budget in a responsible manner.

Justine Lewkowicz said in a statement that the forestry industry, which depends on a sustainable supply of wood, is a responsible steward of the province's forests.

"On average, the forestry industry plants 68 million trees per year, creating jobs for foresters, nurseries, and tree planters," she wrote.

She did not say how many trees are harvested per year.

 

[W. K. Lis]

My comments are from
Joni Mitchell Lyrics


"Big Yellow Taxi"

They paved paradise​

Put up a parking lot​

With a pink hotel, a boutique​

And a swinging hot spot​

​

Don't it always seem to go​

That you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?​

They paved paradise​

Put up a parking lot​

​

They took all the trees​

And put them in a tree museum​

Then they charged the people​

A dollar and a half just to see 'em​

​

Don't it always seem to go​

That you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?​

They paved paradise​

Put up a parking lot​

​

Hey, farmer, farmer​

Put away that DDT now​

Give me spots on my apples​

But leave me the birds and the bees​

Please!​

​

Don't it always seem to go​

That you don't know what you've got 'til its gone?​

They paved paradise​

Put up a parking lot​

​

Late last night I heard the screen door slam​

And a big yellow taxi took away my old man​

​

Don't it always seem to go​

That you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?​

They paved paradise​

Put up a parking lot​

​

I said​

Don't it always seem to go​

That you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?​

They paved paradise​

Put up a parking lot​

​

They paved paradise​

Put up a parking lot​

They paved paradise​

Put up a parking lot​

​

 

[JGHali]

I also favour income-contingent fines as is done in several of the Scandinavian countries. A $150 ticket may really sting someone of moderate income, but be inconsequential to someone whose affluent.

In Sweden, beer less than 3.5% ABV can be purchased most anywhere. Anything more can only be obtained in a restaurant or bar or the Systembolaget stores. These comprise the state owned monopoly and are open weekdays with very limited hours Saturdays (and got super busy Friday afternoon from my limited experience).

This isn’t just about impaired driving. It’s all well and good to be against a private monopoly like the beer store, but expanding access to alcohol, throwing money at fucking house racing, while making deep cuts to public health and libraries is not about addressing other “priorities”. It’s about policies that harm people and enable substance abuse. You can already buy beer and wine in grocery stores - exactly why should so much time and money go to expanding this further?

As for speed limits, increasing them isn’t necessarily a bad idea, but there’s a world of difference between the 401 and a highway in the Nevada desert with a limit of 75. Nova Scotia has 110 on most 100-series highways and NB is similar. You can make the argument that most people do closer to 110 anyway, but the danger comes from variations in speed not the limit per se. It’s the people doing 130 or more in questionable conditions that are the problem.

 

[Northern Light]

In Sweden, beer less than 3.5% ABV can be purchased most anywhere. Anything more can only be obtained in a restaurant or bar or the Systembolaget stores. These comprise the state owned monopoly and are open weekdays with very limited hours Saturdays (and got super busy Friday afternoon from my limited experience).

This isn’t just about impaired driving. It’s all well and good to be against a private monopoly like the beer store, but expanding access to alcohol, throwing money at fucking house racing, while making deep cuts to public health and libraries is not about addressing other “priorities”. It’s about policies that harm people and enable substance abuse. You can already buy beer and wine in grocery stores - exactly why should so much time and money go to expanding this further?

As for speed limits, increasing them isn’t necessarily a bad idea, but there’s a world of difference between the 401 and a highway in the Nevada desert with a limit of 75. Nova Scotia has 110 on most 100-series highways and NB is similar. You can make the argument that most people do closer to 110 anyway, but the danger comes from variations in speed not the limit per se. It’s the people doing 130 or more in questionable conditions that are the problem.

That's nice for Sweden.

Most European nations have more liberalized access to wine/beer.

Expanding this does NOT require a financial investment by the government, it simply requires they get out of the way.

That Doug Ford may be mangling the above is different from discussing the principle.

Yes, abuse of alcohol is an issue. But that is the case now and was the case under prohibition too.

Appropriate measures to address this include responsible education about alcohol to youth and others.

Widely available, at no cost, addiction treatment services, with little/no wait list.

Mandating places that sell alcohol to sell de-alcoholized or low-alcohol alternatives.

I have no time for Mr. Ford, didn't vote for him, never even considered it. Nor do I endorse cuts to public health, or libraries or subsides of horse racing (or house racing!).

That is not in conflict with being generally supportive of greater customer convenience, and less supportive of customer unfriendly monopolies.

 

[W. K. Lis]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1121406385176997888

 

[Towered]

A real life Scrooge is running our province.

 

[DSC]

A real life Scrooge is running our province.

 

[adma]

Trees, endangered species; it's a wonder there've been no announcements of cuts to heritage yet (other than the Ontario Place kerfuffle)

 

[kEiThZ]

1) Of course legislators can address issues that are not important, however if they are insignificant they should not be deemed as important when budget cuts are going to affect far more lives and services

Once again, explain how they are related. I fail to see what connection the health and education budget cuts have to alcohol liberalization. Do you believe the cuts would not have happened if alcohol was not liberalized?

Explain your logic here to me. Because I don't see how these are connected, beyond that you don't think any other issue should be addressed if a government is making cuts.

2) You can make your own priority list, if raising the speed limit and having a drink in the park is high on your list, it might not be hailed a priority on mine and probably many others.

I asked you who gets to determine what is a priority from the government's perspective. You are still evading the question. Again, between my priorities and yours, how, in your opinion, should the government decide which one should take precedence?

Also, while I don't agree with this government and didn't vote for them, they clearly think they have a mandate to cut spending. With that in mind, one could argue they are indeed addressing the priorities the people of Ontario elected them to address.

While living in Europe, wine and beer were sold in grocery stores but liquor was sold in licenced outlets

I think your experience in Europe may be limited..... I've been in various European cities where alcohol was sold exactly like it was in California. In grocery stores.

In Sweden

Sweden isn't all of Europe. I've bought liquor in a grocery store mid-day and been to bars at 3am in that supposedly conservative bastion of Turkey, a country where they actually have dry counties/provinces. There's no reason really that the province shouldn't be a bit more liberal on the rules and delegate specific restrictions to communities as is the norm in most of the sane developed world.

. You can already buy beer and wine in grocery stores - exactly why should so much time and money go to expanding this further?

Because it's an easy win for government. Like I said, the Liberals can and should have done this. By the way, you still can't get beer in every grocery store. That list of grocery stores is still fairly restrictive.

Also, their dumbass ignorance of contractual terms aside, what exactly would this cost the government? Indeed, if they eliminated the LCBO tomorrow, and simply taxed alcohol to their LCBO markup equivalents, they'd actually take in more revenue. They wouldn't be paying to have an entire retail chain with its own logistics network, stores, etc. All of which Amazon, Walmart, and Loblaws are better at.

Expanding this does NOT require a financial investment by the government, it simply requires they get out of the way.

Exactly. Easy win. And actually reduces the enforcement burden.

That Doug Ford may be mangling the above is different from discussing the principle.

Exactly. I'd have been happy to get this from any government. And I wouldn't go out of my way to vote for a party over it. But, hey, it's an annoyance and I am glad they took a few days to pass a bill to remove that annoyance.

 

[Thinker]

These are all small annoyances that government after government has ignored or simply perpetuated. If Ford addresses some of these, he will have delivered more actual tangible policy for most of the public than most premiers. Sure, the rest of his government and the shortsighted policies will still suck. But at least, I will be less likely to get a ticket driving home at 120 kph and I will actually have a beer in a park without risking arrest.

Putting beer sales at corner stores at the cost of 1 billion dollar and canceling programs and budgets can't really be tangible policies for most people.(I hope this is clear enough) and raising speed limits on congested overcrowded highways make no sense either. But then the Conservatives haven't been well know for their common sense when it comes to providing care or empathy.

There you go again assuming, I don't know anything about liquor sales in Europe when I actually lived there for 20 yrs and still travel there on a regular basis. So in fact I do know a little something about their alcohol sales as my family was involved in the distribution business and believe me when I tell you it is heavily regulated by the government. Retail of liquor is licensed to licenced outlets whilst wine and beer are sold in large and small supermarkets.

So the good people of Ontario voted for a government with no costed platform, healthcare, education, forestry, ambulance, police budgets have been cut, yet Ford is hailed to be great because he relaxed alcohol sales and places to consume it.

When Ford announced he was going to "fix" the healthcare system, no one expected budget and service cuts and messing with the system without consultation of front line personnel. Do I get annoyed when Ford tries to cancel the current beer contract and is willing to pay the penalty, like he fired the hydro CEO at a cost of over 6 mil? You bet I do. Now please accept my opinion that so far Ford has created a mess and isn't saving this province anything. He is cutting and slashing, privatizing a non profit system which means eventually we will have to pay more in taxes and user fees. If you have another opinion that's fine, but before you proclaim them as tangible policies rethink the cost

 

[kEiThZ]

There you go again assuming, I don't know anything about liquor sales in Europe when I actually lived there for 20 yrs and still travel there on a regular basis. So in fact I do know a little something about their alcohol sales as my family was involved in the distribution business and believe me when I tell you it is heavily regulated by the government. Retail of liquor is licensed to licenced outlets whilst wine and beer are sold in large and small supermarkets.

Did anybody suggest unlicensed or unrestricted sales? Either your comprehension is terrible, or this is a strawman you've dreamt up.

What's amazing here is that your family benefits from a liberal alcohol sales regime in Europe and here you are arguing against the very same for Ontario. Amazing.

And by the way, those "licensed outlets" in Europe most certainly include online direct retailers and supermarkets. At least it was that way in my travels to Spain, France, Turkey, etc.

Putting beer sales at corner stores at the cost of 1 billion dollar

I think we can all agree that this is more incompetence than an intentional cost incurred when passing the policy.

When Ford announced he was going to "fix" the healthcare system, no one expected budget and service cuts and messing with the system

Really? Come on. Anyone who lived through the Harris years knows what that's code for.

canceling programs

You have yet to explain the link between program cuts and alcohol liberalization. This is the third or fourth time I am asking. How are they linked?

Be specific. In your mind does alcohol liberalization not happen if there are no cuts? Or do you believe that if the cuts were reversed that the alcohol sales regime becomes more strict?

You have also not answered the question of how government should weigh the importance of various issues against others. Why is your priority list more important than mine or that of my next door neighbours?

 

[Northern Light]

Putting beer sales at corner stores at the cost of 1 billion dollar and canceling programs and budgets can't really be tangible policies for most people.(I hope this is clear enough) and raising speed limits on congested overcrowded highways make no sense either. But then the Conservatives haven't been well know for their common sense when it comes to providing care or empathy.

There you go again assuming, I don't know anything about liquor sales in Europe when I actually lived there for 20 yrs and still travel there on a regular basis. So in fact I do know a little something about their alcohol sales as my family was involved in the distribution business and believe me when I tell you it is heavily regulated by the government. Retail of liquor is licensed to licenced outlets whilst wine and beer are sold in large and small supermarkets.

So the good people of Ontario voted for a government with no costed platform, healthcare, education, forestry, ambulance, police budgets have been cut, yet Ford is hailed to be great because he relaxed alcohol sales and places to consume it.

When Ford announced he was going to "fix" the healthcare system, no one expected budget and service cuts and messing with the system without consultation of front line personnel. Do I get annoyed when Ford tries to cancel the current beer contract and is willing to pay the penalty, like he fired the hydro CEO at a cost of over 6 mil? You bet I do. Now please accept my opinion that so far Ford has created a mess and isn't saving this province anything. He is cutting and slashing, privatizing a non profit system which means eventually we will have to pay more in taxes and user fees. If you have another opinion that's fine, but before you proclaim them as tangible policies rethink the cost

Sorry @Thinker , I happen to believe you are a very smart fellow, I've agreed w/many of your posts over the years. But I'm in agreement with @kEiThZ that you are conflating different things.

Neither he, nor I are endorsing Mr. Ford, or his policies on any number of issues. We are endorsing one principle he happens to espouse, we aren't even agreeing with his methods/costs on getting there.

We're saying the principle is correct; and that implemented properly there should be no material costs to the state.

 

[kEiThZ]

I have no time for Mr. Ford, didn't vote for him, never even considered it. Nor do I endorse cuts to public health, or libraries or subsides of horse racing (or house racing!).

That is not in conflict with being generally supportive of greater customer convenience, and less supportive of customer unfriendly monopolies.

People really seem to have a problem understanding this, in this forum. I didn't vote for this government. I don't agree with many of their cuts. But that does not mean I can't partially or wholly agree with some of their policies from time to time.

How that translates to "priorities" is beyond me.

Honestly, when people start acting as though your agreement with a certain principle or policy is automatically wholesale acceptance of a given political party's agenda, I start to think they don't care about policy and are mostly engaging in bad faith politics, which I don't much care for.