The Proletariat Congress

The Liberal majority government of Ontario, lead by McGuinty with Dwight Duncan as Minister of Finance have released the annual budget for the province, at a time when it is becoming apparent that the fall out from the credit crisis (sub prime and all that jazz) in the US is affecting us north of the border. We have been alerted to the fact that we may face a recession.

Even with that sword hanging over our heads, the government released a progressive budget that significantly strayed from the “advice” of heavily despised former Ontario Minister of Finance, Jim “the tax slasher” Flaherty and his audacious suggestion to “cut taxes” despite that doing so at the federal level proved to be a massive set back for the Canadian economy.

Flaherty and Harper have led a dual-pronged attack on the liberal province of Ontario because of the refusal to cut business taxes, claiming that it is a magical solution that will ’stimulate’ the ailing economy. Of course, anyone here knows that it’s a bunch of conservative tripe and that Flaherty is a remnant of the Harris ‘Common Sense Era’ that saw the destruction of key social services, including and not limited to education.

Refusing the “sagely advice” of the federal government (and it’s willingness to treat Ontario as a cancerous growth on the backside of Canada), Duncan released the budget with no tax cuts in it. Instead, to help our economy, he included money to invest in labour retraining, to help those get a new trade if they are unable to find work with their skills.

Other keys areas include ageing and crumbling infrastructure (also a key to the economy; smooth roads make it easier to truck in goods, for example), and the environment, something that we need for the future.

“This Budget is about making sure people have jobs and Ontario’s economy grows,” said Finance Minister Dwight Duncan.

“This Budget is about ensuring that all Ontarians have the opportunities and skills to succeed, so that they are working in jobs that will strengthen Ontario’s economy.”

“This Budget is investing in infrastructure such as roads and public transit, which creates jobs in the short term and strengthens our economy in the long term.”

The budget had its focus on education, as well as the economy. Education is one key part given that it is instrumental in developing a skilled, competent workforce that is highly competitive and can bring the economy back to its feet.

Here are some of the highlights from the provincial budget for 2008…

EDUCATION (including post secondary)

• $18.8 billion towards grants for school boards in 2008–09, a 20 per cent increase since 2003–04
• $9,821 in 2008–09 in average per-student funding, a 24 per cent increase since 2003–04
• More funding for literacy programs and for children with special education needs.
• $135 million over three years to provide dental services to low-income families
• $32 million over three years for the Student Nutrition Program, doubling its annual funding
• $1 billion over five years for a proposed new property tax grant of up to $500 a year for senior homeowners with low and moderate incomes.

ECONOMY

• $1.5 billion, three-year Skills to Jobs Action Plan that will provide new skills for new careers, expand postsecondary student aid and programs, and build places to learn, including:
  • $355 million over three years for a Second Career Strategy to help 20,000 unemployed workers get long-term training for new and better careers
  • $75 million over three years to increase the number of apprentices.
• $750 million in proposed tax measures over four years to encourage business growth, particularly in the manufacturing and resource sectors
• Proposing a 10-year Ontario income tax exemption for new corporations that commercialize intellectual property developed by qualifying Canadian universities, colleges or research institutes
• Modernizing regulation to reduce the paper burden for Ontario businesses.
• The five-year, $1.15 billion Next Generation of Jobs Fund will help secure new investment and jobs
• The government’s initiatives will help key sectors such as financial services, the entertainment and creative cluster, tourism, manufacturing, mining, forestry and agriculture stay competitive in a rapidly changing global marketplace.

There is more than one way to skin a cat (if you’ll pardon the expression), and our provincial government is showing us that we can help our economy that involves much more than tax cuts. You have to spend money to earn money.

Ontario Budget coverage

…and cracking down on smokers is harmless according to Ontario Premier McGuinty, who is pushing for another strict law regarding where people cannot smoke, the new target of choice being their cars if children are present.

Apparently people are now too stupid to make their own choice and we now need a nanny government to make it for us. Never mind that the same nanny government costs the province about 350 million in lost gaming revenues each year after the provincial ban came into effect in 2005. Revenue that could be used to aid the local economy, fund schools, healthcare and other much needed social programmes that benefit citizens.

Never mind the fact that this is a step towards a total nanny state in which we lose the right to be stupid, make stupid choices and do dangerous things that thrill us, even if some wet blanket is sitting on the side lines telling us, “I don’t think that’s a good idea.” Great, I’m glad you have an opinion because here’s mine: we’re adults, we’re perfectly capable of making our own, even if stupid, choices.

As a non-smoker, you’d think I’d be in the ranks of those who are calling for the stricter rules but I don’t agree with those rules one bit. I agree that there should be comfort zones; places where one can be where there is no smoking permitted; ie: logical places, like work places, healthcare facilities. Away from entrances. Compromise is important. Which is why one draws the line at outdoor areas, including patios…

What’s next, we’re going to start evicting people from their own homes for smoking cigarettes, which are perfectly legal according to all levels of government despite efforts to demonise the cancer sticks?

Perhaps it is just something that is only heard of in books, or maybe it has really happened…

According to the Canadian Press on June 17th 2005:

A Boston couple has been evicted for smoking in their apartment.

A condo complex in the city’s south-end threw the couple out for smoking heavily in their home. Their neighbour, Siobhan O’Connor, says their apartment smelled horrible.

The couple’s lease didn’t say anything about no smoking, but a Boston housing court upheld the eviction. The court says their pack-a-day habit violated a general ban on any health hazards.

It’s believed to be the first ruling of its kind. The couple plans to sue.

Even though the lease made no explicit statement regarding the use of cigarettes.

Evicted for not breaking the law. What kind of democracy is this? Is this even a real democracy or is this just another example of the seedy underbelly, the dark side of democracy we want to pretend only exists in countries where democracy is merely a sham? Why evict someone for not breaking any rules? Seems rather arbitrary.

Too bad someone didn’t tell the landlords who are evict happy and prefer to have “smoke free” buildings that people can smoke on the balconies or next to windows, thus emitting the smoke outward.

This is just another draconian move to suppress a corner of the market while preying on those who are easily addicted to nicotine.

Today it’s banning smoking in cars with children, tomorrow it’s banning junk food… and I for one still enjoy my french fries and chocolate bars. If smokers aren’t defended, then it’s fat people next, which means all “skinny” people who have a sugar jones will suffer. It’s a slippery slope and we don’t have to tolerate this infringement on our rights.

I hate cigarettes and cigarette smoke, but I hate the government even more, especially when the government tries to tell people what they can and cannot do. I know who I support. Do you?

With many ways of ‘improving’ the lives of Ontarians, the provincial Liberals have decided to pass a legislation that would appease the Tories and NDP, who want a law that protects children. A law that bans the smoking of cigarettes in vehicles where children passengers are under the tender age of 16. A meaningful and symbolic move, nothing more.

This legislation should it go on the books would be entirely unenforceable, especially in an era where the windows of vehicles are now tinted and people no longer dispose of cigarette butts in the cars’ ashtray, yet another thing of a not too distant past. And how so easy it is to dispose of the incriminating evidence. Smell alone means nothing. Cigarette smoke is notorious for clinging to fabric, the odour hanging in the air for long periods. Proving that the smoke is fresh is futile, as the driver or other of-age adult passengers could have been smoking before the young passenger got into the vehicle.

And the fine, if someone is actually caught, though it is unlikely, is a mere $200, and that is Canadian. If this is a crime, why is the amount so low? It’s more of a cash grab than a crime. It’s the government merely pretending it gives a damn, because at the end of the day the only thing politicians truly give a damn about is votes and as long as appearances are maintained, nothing else matters.

What’s more, if the police start pulling over people at random, there will be an incredible amount of public outrage at the blatant invasion of privacy by the nanny state in the pursuit of the elusive few who flout the law. After all, if someone isn’t speeding and they are following the basic laws of the street, there is no legal justification for pulling them over.

Even if a programme similar to RIDE is implemented, it’s easy to dispose of the incriminating evidence. Unlike alcohol, cigarettes do not intoxicate the user and hence, it’s legal to drive while smoking. Even if there are spot checks, smell alone is not grounds for charging someone because there is no way of proving when the smell got into the fabric of the car’s upholstery or into the person’s clothing.

And how will age be determined? A sight test will fail no doubt and not all people upon turning 16 years old immediately go out and get a license. There are no mandatory ID cards and not all people look their age at this point. Some people will look older, and some will look younger, much younger than they actually are.

What of court appeals? How will it go down? Will the officer take names of all the people in the car? There are too many problems with a piece of legislation like this. It provides too many ways for a person to get caught up on a law design to placate a few without thinking of the overall repercussions that will be incurred from the existence of a law such as this.

Ontario to ban smoking in cars with kids