So, after nearly 2 years of foot dragging, public hearings, and Bell obfuscation, we suddenly have more movement from the regulators then we can easily digest. First, a "decision" of sorts, on Usage Based Billing - the decision to decide nothing. At least they recognized that their interim approval was off-base, and reversed it.
A positive note was the proposed framework to decide if traffic management protocols are warranted and just. This might just affect the decision coming this week - the decision on Bell's current methods of UBB.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPod
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Another hit to Ontario's consumer
Now McGuinty says that, in addition to added cost for most retail items, he's not sure that he's going to go through with next year's planned raise to minimum wage. This year's increase from $8.75 to $9.50, scheduled for next Wed, will go ahead.
More news here.
More news here.
Fighting for Taxpayers: Saskatchewan Rejects Sales Tax Harmonization#links#links
Saskatchewan has already rejected the idea of HST - because of the cost to the consumer.
Fighting for Taxpayers: Saskatchewan Rejects Sales Tax Harmonization#links#links
Fighting for Taxpayers: Saskatchewan Rejects Sales Tax Harmonization#links#links
Ontario's new Harmonized Sales Tax.
Yesterday I sent the following email out to my ISP clients:
It was pointed out to me that I missed one local MPP:
Niagara West - Glanbrook Riding
Time Hudak
Unit M1
4961 King Street East
Beamsville, Ontario L0R 1B0
905-563-1755
In most cases, it's preferable to send paper, snail mail letters to MP's and MPPs. The old adage "if its not on paper, it's not real" applies. However, if you choose to email instead, their email addresses are:
Taking some time to consider this new tax, I've spotted a few things that people might not realize at first. First of all, in my business, I'll have to start charging the 8% 'extra' tax on most of our internet package rates. But beyond that, so will all *my* service providers. Currently we don't get charged PST for many of the services that we have to buy in order to stay in business. Unless those new PST charges become recoverable to us through tax returns, etc. we're looking at both an 8% increase direct to our customers, and an 8% increase in costs - which could mean additional costs to end users.
In other businesses - that means that your night out to dinner and a movie just went up 8% - the restaurants will now have to charge PST. Probably the movie theaters will, too.
Some businesses will, apparently, save big bucks on this deal - rumour is to the tune of 4.6 billion dollars. Their savings are in PST on supplies they need for their products, and in savings involved in *not* having to process PST returns, etc. Those businesses could asve the exact same amount if we left the PST the way it is, and allowed the big businesses to claim rebates on paid PST.
Alternately the province could go ahead with a harmonized tax, but apply it in the reverse of what they intend. Make the new tax apply only to items that the PST applies to now. They've said that they will maintain some items that are currently PST exempt as HST exempt. Why take a half measure - jump all the way in and leave *everything* that is currently PST exempt as HST exempt items. If their true goal, as stated, is to make the province a friendlier tax environment for business, maintaining the current exemptions would achieve that goal without burying the consumer in across the board new 8% taxes.
Early reports of the contents of today's Ontario Budget indicate that
the wonderful folks in Queen's Park have finally come up with a way
to tax internet service. So, I'm writing for two reasons. The first
is to notify our customers that if the budget measure to harmonize
the PST with the GST goes through, you'll be seeing an 8% increase
in your total bill, effective July 2010 (the effective date of
HST), as nearly everything that's currently subject to GST will
now also be subject to PST.
The second reason is to encourage our customers to write to their
local MPP and tell them how you feel about paying an extra 8% on
most items that are currently PST exempt. We'd really rather not
have to add the PST to our invoicing. If there's enough
public unrest, perhaps we can avoid the entire situation.
For reference, here's the mailing address of our local MPP's:
St. Catharines Riding:
Jim Bradley,
2-2 Secord Drive,
St. Catharines, ON L2N 1K8
905-935-0018
Welland Riding:
Peter Kormos,
103-60 King St., Canal View,
Welland ON M3H 2V7
905-732-6884
Niagara Riding:
Kim Craitor,
8-3930 Montrose Rd.
Niagara Falls ON L2H 3C9
905-357-0681
The argument in favour of HST is that it will allow businesses to
recover PST they pay on materials and equipment. Currently they
can't write those off on their taxes, like they can the GST.
But you don't need to add PST to everything that is currently
exempt in order to change the tax laws to allow Businesses to
claim PST rebates.
Thanks for your time,
It was pointed out to me that I missed one local MPP:
Niagara West - Glanbrook Riding
Time Hudak
Unit M1
4961 King Street East
Beamsville, Ontario L0R 1B0
905-563-1755
In most cases, it's preferable to send paper, snail mail letters to MP's and MPPs. The old adage "if its not on paper, it's not real" applies. However, if you choose to email instead, their email addresses are:
tim.hudakco@pc.ola.org
jbradley.mpp@liberal.ola.org
pkormos-qp@ndp.on.ca
kcraitor.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
Taking some time to consider this new tax, I've spotted a few things that people might not realize at first. First of all, in my business, I'll have to start charging the 8% 'extra' tax on most of our internet package rates. But beyond that, so will all *my* service providers. Currently we don't get charged PST for many of the services that we have to buy in order to stay in business. Unless those new PST charges become recoverable to us through tax returns, etc. we're looking at both an 8% increase direct to our customers, and an 8% increase in costs - which could mean additional costs to end users.
In other businesses - that means that your night out to dinner and a movie just went up 8% - the restaurants will now have to charge PST. Probably the movie theaters will, too.
Some businesses will, apparently, save big bucks on this deal - rumour is to the tune of 4.6 billion dollars. Their savings are in PST on supplies they need for their products, and in savings involved in *not* having to process PST returns, etc. Those businesses could asve the exact same amount if we left the PST the way it is, and allowed the big businesses to claim rebates on paid PST.
Alternately the province could go ahead with a harmonized tax, but apply it in the reverse of what they intend. Make the new tax apply only to items that the PST applies to now. They've said that they will maintain some items that are currently PST exempt as HST exempt. Why take a half measure - jump all the way in and leave *everything* that is currently PST exempt as HST exempt items. If their true goal, as stated, is to make the province a friendlier tax environment for business, maintaining the current exemptions would achieve that goal without burying the consumer in across the board new 8% taxes.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Canada's Parliamentary System
There is an excellent argument discussing our parliamentary system in regards to the current political upheaval on The Star's page.
God I love politics!
Stephen "Nixon" Harper has started the typical Conservative response to any threat: Shelling out piles of cash to air radio and television attack ads against anyone he perceives as a threat. Remember any other regime that used mind games and propaganda to control it's citizens? I can think of a few.
Here's a revelation: according to the ads, a coalition between parties, and asking the governor general to excercise her constitional rights to ask the leader of the opposition to form a new government without an election is "undemocratic." Doing so with the involvement of the BQ is "a matter of national unity," and, "a deal with the devil." The quotes are all from former PM Harper.
How interesting, then, is the letter presented below:
If Harper's plan in that letter to the GG had worked as he hoped there would have been no election. He was trying to get the GG to refuse to dissolve parliament, which then results in her inviting the Opposition to form a government.
Just like we have now.
In the case that we have, today, the correct procedural steps have been taken. You don't wait for an election call, form a coalition, have the election, then see who gets to form the government. That's not the process. You'd do something like that if you were going to formally merge the parties. This isnt a merger. It's an alliance, temporary until the next election.
The process is this:
Old government goes to the GG and asks her to dissolve parliament. She either agrees or asks the Leader of the Opposition to form a government. In *most* cases, she agrees. In *all* cases where the government is a majority, there's not even a point in asking the Opposition: They don't have the seats to form a stable working government.
An Election is called and executed.
If one party shows a clear majority of seats, they are asked by the GG to put together a Cabinet, to put forth someone as PM, and to form a government.If there is no clear majority, the incumbent party (the last government) is asked if they can form a stable, effective government. They can do so on certain grounds: If they have the most seats in the minority, and if they have the support of a majority of Parliament. This is important. The party that forms a government in a minority situation *has* to be sure that they can win a confidence vote. That means that they're going to need votes from one or more of the other parties.
This is the point at which a coalition like ours will probably be created, if it's going to happen at all. This is why it's not a shock that Layton was talking to the BQ about a possible coalition "before the Financial Update! We have it on tape!" That's meaningless, if he wasn't talking about a coalition on Election night, or even before, then he *wasn't doing his job.*
If a coalition can be agreed on *before* the incumbent PM can agree to form a government, and the coalition holds a majority of seats *they* will be asked to form a government.
Assuming, as per usual in Canada, that there is no Coalition announced, the former governing party will form a government. They still need votes from the opposition parties. If they don't get those votes, and fail to pass a confidence measure, like the Throne Speech, or a new budget, or an Economic Update, then the Prime Minister must ask the GG to dissolve Parliament. She can refuse, and ask the Opposition Leader if he can form a government.
At this precise moment we find ourselves between voting on the Throne Speech, a confidence measure that passed, and voting on the financial update, which Flaherty insisted on calling a confidence measure - and which the Opposition parties find, collectively, that they cannot support. They have announced that they will vote against it, and have openly announced that they have reached a coalition agreement, that they would like a chance to present to the GG. They've announced this publicly and early - it's a good move on their part, because the GG now knows that she has some options when the PM comes to request proroguing or dissolution. In light of the fact that parliament has sat for only 2 weeks, that there was an election only 5 weeks ago, that *no* major business has been resolved, and that the only reason to prorogue *now* is to dodge a defeat, she could very likely go with the coalition.
Another point that people are bringing up: "Why didn't they form the coalition, or merge the parties, before the election instead of splitting the votes?"
Here's why:
You don't vote for a coalition. You vote for a local MP. You also don't vote for PM. Stephen Harper was not elected PM, he was elected MP for the riding of Calgary Southwest. Period.
After you elect a bunch of MP's - a "parliament" that parliament goes to work doing things like selecting a PM and a Cabinet, and forming the Government and the Opposition.
Our votes have nothing to do with who becomes the PM, the Government, or the Opposition.
Our votes say "we want this person in Parliament, to look after our interests." That's it. Now, as part of looking after our interests, obviously we want him to win a spot in the Government. We, the voters, elected every single member of the coalition, on the understanding that we wanted them to do anything they could to form the government. Forming a coalition of 2 parties (without permanently merging) and arranging the support of a 3rd, for a clear majority of all confidence votes is a perfectly legitimate use of our votes. It does *not* mean that NDP voters might as well have voted Liberal, or vice versa. They haven't merged. People that voted NDP are getting what they voted for: NDP members in Government. Same with the Liberals. The BQ involvement is more like backup: They have agreed not to defeat the government formed by the 2 coalition parties, without becoming part of the Government themselves. After the current session of Parliament, or upon termination of their Coalition Agreement, they will remain separate parties.
Just for reference, here is a copy of the Coalition Accord set up by the Liberals and NDP
Here's a revelation: according to the ads, a coalition between parties, and asking the governor general to excercise her constitional rights to ask the leader of the opposition to form a new government without an election is "undemocratic." Doing so with the involvement of the BQ is "a matter of national unity," and, "a deal with the devil." The quotes are all from former PM Harper.
How interesting, then, is the letter presented below:
Which is it, Mr. Harper?September 9, 2004
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, C.C., C.M.M.,
C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A1
Excellency, As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that,
given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister
to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to
support some part of the government’s program.
We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together
constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe
that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as
constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and
consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely, Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois
Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the New Democratic Party
If Harper's plan in that letter to the GG had worked as he hoped there would have been no election. He was trying to get the GG to refuse to dissolve parliament, which then results in her inviting the Opposition to form a government.
Just like we have now.
In the case that we have, today, the correct procedural steps have been taken. You don't wait for an election call, form a coalition, have the election, then see who gets to form the government. That's not the process. You'd do something like that if you were going to formally merge the parties. This isnt a merger. It's an alliance, temporary until the next election.
The process is this:
Old government goes to the GG and asks her to dissolve parliament. She either agrees or asks the Leader of the Opposition to form a government. In *most* cases, she agrees. In *all* cases where the government is a majority, there's not even a point in asking the Opposition: They don't have the seats to form a stable working government.
An Election is called and executed.
If one party shows a clear majority of seats, they are asked by the GG to put together a Cabinet, to put forth someone as PM, and to form a government.If there is no clear majority, the incumbent party (the last government) is asked if they can form a stable, effective government. They can do so on certain grounds: If they have the most seats in the minority, and if they have the support of a majority of Parliament. This is important. The party that forms a government in a minority situation *has* to be sure that they can win a confidence vote. That means that they're going to need votes from one or more of the other parties.
This is the point at which a coalition like ours will probably be created, if it's going to happen at all. This is why it's not a shock that Layton was talking to the BQ about a possible coalition "before the Financial Update! We have it on tape!" That's meaningless, if he wasn't talking about a coalition on Election night, or even before, then he *wasn't doing his job.*
If a coalition can be agreed on *before* the incumbent PM can agree to form a government, and the coalition holds a majority of seats *they* will be asked to form a government.
Assuming, as per usual in Canada, that there is no Coalition announced, the former governing party will form a government. They still need votes from the opposition parties. If they don't get those votes, and fail to pass a confidence measure, like the Throne Speech, or a new budget, or an Economic Update, then the Prime Minister must ask the GG to dissolve Parliament. She can refuse, and ask the Opposition Leader if he can form a government.
At this precise moment we find ourselves between voting on the Throne Speech, a confidence measure that passed, and voting on the financial update, which Flaherty insisted on calling a confidence measure - and which the Opposition parties find, collectively, that they cannot support. They have announced that they will vote against it, and have openly announced that they have reached a coalition agreement, that they would like a chance to present to the GG. They've announced this publicly and early - it's a good move on their part, because the GG now knows that she has some options when the PM comes to request proroguing or dissolution. In light of the fact that parliament has sat for only 2 weeks, that there was an election only 5 weeks ago, that *no* major business has been resolved, and that the only reason to prorogue *now* is to dodge a defeat, she could very likely go with the coalition.
Another point that people are bringing up: "Why didn't they form the coalition, or merge the parties, before the election instead of splitting the votes?"
Here's why:
You don't vote for a coalition. You vote for a local MP. You also don't vote for PM. Stephen Harper was not elected PM, he was elected MP for the riding of Calgary Southwest. Period.
After you elect a bunch of MP's - a "parliament" that parliament goes to work doing things like selecting a PM and a Cabinet, and forming the Government and the Opposition.
Our votes have nothing to do with who becomes the PM, the Government, or the Opposition.
Our votes say "we want this person in Parliament, to look after our interests." That's it. Now, as part of looking after our interests, obviously we want him to win a spot in the Government. We, the voters, elected every single member of the coalition, on the understanding that we wanted them to do anything they could to form the government. Forming a coalition of 2 parties (without permanently merging) and arranging the support of a 3rd, for a clear majority of all confidence votes is a perfectly legitimate use of our votes. It does *not* mean that NDP voters might as well have voted Liberal, or vice versa. They haven't merged. People that voted NDP are getting what they voted for: NDP members in Government. Same with the Liberals. The BQ involvement is more like backup: They have agreed not to defeat the government formed by the 2 coalition parties, without becoming part of the Government themselves. After the current session of Parliament, or upon termination of their Coalition Agreement, they will remain separate parties.
Just for reference, here is a copy of the Coalition Accord set up by the Liberals and NDP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)