Ontario Turns Hard Left??

[Canadian Visitor]

Today was Ontario budget day.

The reigning Liberal government [[nominally the centrist party) came out with a deficit financed spending plan w/money for any number of worth causes.

The short list:

Free pre-school [[childcare) for 2.5 year olds to 4 year olds.

Removing all deductibles and co-pays for prescription drugs for seniors [[the province already covers seniors drugs subject to a $100 per year deductible and a co-pay of $6 per prescription) This would mean everyone up to age 24 and seniors would be covered by government.

A new plan to reimburse up to 80% of dental/drug costs for anyone working age who does not have benefits through work [[albeit up to a tiny limit of $400)

Vast numbers of new school-age daycare spaces

Along with substantial new fare subsidies for regional transit in the Toronto area, reducing GO transit [[commuter rail) fares inside City limits to $3.

Oh, and 11B for highspeed rail in the Toronto-Windsor corridor. [[likely enough to get to London)

Now the asterisk to all this is there is an election pending in June, and the current government is not particularly popular.

Which means its entirely unclear if these promises will see the light of day.

The upcoming election will be fascinating as it pits the centrist party up against a resurgent, populist Conservative party led by Doug Ford [[older brother of Toronto's late infamous Mayor) and a 'left wing' party in the NDP.

Is the 'left turn' real? TBD June 7th, 2018

[Richard]

That is pretty cool offering up all of that free stuff,your government must be rich.

It is kinda like a casino,the offer of a free room is tempting but the fine print says you have to spend $3000 in gambling while you are there.

[Canadian Visitor]

That is pretty cool offering up all of that free stuff,your government must be rich.

It is kinda like a casino,the offer of a free room is tempting but the fine print says you have to spend $3000 in gambling while you are there.

The fine print here is clear, there's a 6.5B deficit.

That's on about 150B of total spending.

But its also during good economic times.

As a someone whose a deficit hawk, I'm not ok w/this.

Particularly since Ontario has the 2nd lowest taxes in aggregate among all Canadian provinces.

Raising the sales tax even 1 point would generate 3.25B

Raising corporate taxes by 0.5% would raise another 650M

Merging our public and Catholic school boards would save save at least 1.5B [er year.

A path to balance is clearly there with a mix of fiscal prudence and courage.

I await the other party's detailed platforms, to see if anyone else has a more sensible package to offer.

[Bham1982]

Doug Ford is likely to win the Ontario Premiership, so these progressive dreams are highly unlikely to come to fruition.

I agree with all the proposals, BTW, except for the Toronto-Windsor HSR. That's an obvious boondoggle in the making.

[Bobl]

Looking forward to discussing this with our Canadian friends at our annual end of May cottage rental on Lake Huron.
I usually bring a case of Molson's to the bonfire on Friday night.
A few years back, we all found the path to world peace.
Last year, I asked for a path to their more affordable health care. They said I should have taken that job offer at Polysar, back in 1969.
We love Canada, eh?

[Király]

Merging our public and Catholic school boards would save save at least 1.5B [er year.

Out here in BC I forget that separate parochial public school boards are still a thing in some parts of Canada. You crazy Ontarians and Albertans. I mean really—what year is it?

[Richard]

Merging the Catholic school board with the public school board is kinda like Mother Theresa being roommates with Charles Manson.

[Wesley Mouch]

Merging the Catholic school board with the public school board is kinda like Mother Theresa being roommates with Charles Manson.

Yep. Has anyone else been following PM Trudeau's requirement that any organization applying to their summer jobs program must attest to complying with his view of abortion as a basic right?

Or if you want another, the denial of Trinity Western University's law school accreditation because they dare to hold the opinion that abortion is wrong? [[Note that Canada has no legal decision on abortion -- so this is basically the Liberal party projecting their opinion of Charter Rights.)

At least Pope Francis had the wisdom to decline to apologize for the Church's actions with respect to Residential Schools [[a bit of left over colonial redemption of pagan souls mixed with a sprinkling of the usual priestly sexual abuse). Trudeau stopped just short of condemning Francis for his failure to do what is required by today's political climate.

It really does seem to be the Catholic Church vs. Government of Canada these days. Charlie and Teresa would probably get along better.

[Király]

Merging the Catholic school board with the public school board is kinda like Mother Theresa being roommates with Charles Manson.

The Catholic school board *is* a public school board. The Catholic and non-Catholic public school boards are a "separate-but-equal" kind of arrangement. It's one of those strange but true things about Ontario. In Alberta where they also have this you could tick a Catholic or Non-Catholic box on your property taxes to direct to which board you wanted your tax money to go.

[Canadian Visitor]

You're wandering more than a little off topic.

Yep. Has anyone else been following PM Trudeau's requirement that any organization applying to their summer jobs program must attest to complying with his view of abortion as a basic right?

Not really accurate.

Church-based camps, social programs and the like will continue to be eligible irrespective of their 'mother church's' position on abortion. Rather, those religious entities who specifically fight against abortion rights, actively, will not be eligible for summer jobs w/i that agency or unit. In other words the gov't won't fund someone hiring a kid to distribute flyers against abortion.

A perfectly reasonable position. Entirely mis-stated by you.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3999518/t...womens-rights/

Or if you want another, the denial of Trinity Western University's law school accreditation because they dare to hold the opinion that abortion is wrong?

This is not a decision of the government of Canada in any way. In fact Trinity's program is accredited by the provincial government in British Columbia, the province where it is based.

What has happened is that 'being called to the bar' in Canada is a function of provincial law societies. Those societies are made up of existing lawyers, who vote their peers into governing positions and decide certain regulatory matters by ballot of the profession. Several of those law societies are refusing to accredit [[or call to the bar) grads from Trinity Western, generally by consensus of their professional ranks.

That has been the subject of on-going court battles.

The issue in those battles is almost never about a woman's right to choose. Its about the covenant that has to be signed by those attending Trinity Western to refrain from gay/lesbian sex.

That is seen as instructive that charter-protected rights to sexual orientation may be suppressed and inconsistent w/the oath one takes to be a lawyer.

You really must learn to represent the facts and not Fox News sounds bites. I had thought better of you.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle30674427/

[[Note that Canada has no legal decision on abortion -- so this is basically the Liberal party projecting their opinion of Charter Rights.)

Also not correct.

The Supreme Court of Canada struck down the Federal restrictions on abortion in 1988 in the Morgentaler decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Morgentaler

No government subsequently, including 3 Conservative administrations has ever re-introduced any law on the subject.

As such all abortion is legal as the sole discretion of the medical profession, subject to normal laws on informed consent.

That is the established law in Canada and has been for 30 years.

[Canadian Visitor]

Merging the Catholic school board with the public school board is kinda like Mother Theresa being roommates with Charles Manson.

You know Ontario's public schools are one of the top ranked systems on the planet right?

Of course not.

You know the Catholic system is government funded, and regulated, its teachers have to graduate the same programs as public school teachers and it must adhere to the same curriculum and physical discipline is not allowed.

The principal difference is that there is a once a week chapel service and Biblical material is acceptable in certain courses [[public speaking as an example).

They are otherwise near identical and largely create duplicate administrative structures.

They don't exist for a religious reason per se. They are an artifact of Canadian Confederation when all schools were Protestant or Catholic, w/the former largely being English and the latter being French.

Protection for both was enshrined to protect the right to minority language education.

Quebec abolished religious schools some years ago, as have most [[but not all) other provinces.

Linguistic Boards remain.

[Canadian Visitor]

I agree with all the proposals, BTW, except for the Toronto-Windsor HSR. That's an obvious boondoggle in the making.

As do I, my only quibble is the idea of debt-financing them, vs raising tax to pay for them.

On the HSR proposal, right now, the only portion of the route that MAY make economic sense is Toronto - Kitchener as this already heavy traffic back and forth, and the 401 is exceedingly busy and there are multiple trains trips each way right now.

Anything beyond that and the economics start heading south.

Up to London may make sense, maybe.........at a push; London-Windsor is unlikely to make sense in the next 2 decades.

Doug Ford is likely to win the Ontario Premiership, so these progressive dreams are highly unlikely to come to fruition.

That may well be the case.

Though, I don't think its in the bag.

In fact w/only 2 exceptions I can think of, every party in Ontario leading 3 months out in the last couple decades has lost.

But the current government is deeply unpopular.

Whether it goes left or right, or stays where it is; is frankly unclear to me at this point.

The most popular leader, by far is Andrea Horvath of the NDP.

But, her part is in the high 20's in most polls vs the Liberals at about 30, and the Conservatives around 40'ish.

Close enough not to call................YET.

[Richard]

You know Ontario's public schools are one of the top ranked systems on the planet right?

Of course not.

You know the Catholic system is government funded, and regulated, its teachers have to graduate the same programs as public school teachers and it must adhere to the same curriculum and physical discipline is not allowed.

The principal difference is that there is a once a week chapel service and Biblical material is acceptable in certain courses [[public speaking as an example).

They are otherwise near identical and largely create duplicate administrative structures.

They don't exist for a religious reason per se. They are an artifact of Canadian Confederation when all schools were Protestant or Catholic, w/the former largely being English and the latter being French.

Protection for both was enshrined to protect the right to minority language education.

Quebec abolished religious schools some years ago, as have most [[but not all) other provinces.

Linguistic Boards remain.

I was not questioning the ranking of the public school system,it maybe was a bit confusing because most Americans are not familiar with how the two different systems work and why.

To mention mingling of funds or of the two groups would really mean little to the adverage American without some systematic background.

Here it would be considered Catholic school as a religious based private school verses a public school where anything religious is currently frowned on or banned,hence my comment.

Thank you to those who took the time to explain it.

Unfortantly our public school board system is taxpayer funded but does not answer to the taxpayer or the city that they are located in,they have their own little rules,maybe they can also learn from Canadians public system because as recent events show they clearly have not had a handle on things for quite some time.

It is interesting that Quebec abolished religious schools,completely or government funded?

Some of the recent immigrants where I am at have formed their little private schools based on the religion of their culture,way back in the early 80s I think I was paying $80 per week to send my kids to catholic school,income based,but I am mid western Lutheran,my wife at the time was catholic but it was not required to be to attend.

[Canadian Visitor]

I was not questioning the ranking of the public school system,it maybe was a bit confusing because most Americans are not familiar with how the two different systems work and why.

To mention mingling of funds or of the two groups would really mean little to the adverage American without some systematic background.

Here it would be considered Catholic school as a religious based private school verses a public school where anything religious is currently frowned on or banned,hence my comment.

Thank you to those who took the time to explain it.

Unfortantly our public school board system is taxpayer funded but does not answer to the taxpayer or the city that they are located in,they have their own little rules,maybe they can also learn from Canadians public system because as recent events show they clearly have not had a handle on things for quite some time.

It is interesting that Quebec abolished religious schools,completely or government funded?

Some of the recent immigrants where I am at have formed their little private schools based on the religion of their culture,way back in the early 80s I think I was paying $80 per week to send my kids to catholic school,income based,but I am mid western Lutheran,my wife at the time was catholic but it was not required to be to attend.

Quebec still has private schools.

Though they are up to 50% government funded, and a fairly small part of the education system there.

To get government funds they must adhere to the public curriculum [[but may add to it)

The abolition was of public or government boards w/a religious designation.

That happened, in Quebec, in 1997.

It required a Constitutional amendment.

But an amendment that only affects one province, requires only the consent of that province and the Federal government [[via parliament).

Quebec's legislature passes the request, and the feds acceded w/the controversy.

[Richard]

^ similar to our version of seperation of church and state?

[Canadian Visitor]

^ similar to our version of seperation of church and state?

I don't know that it would be analogous.

Canada does not and has not had a State Church.

While we do have 'freedom of religion' in our Charter; we do not have a 'separation of' clause per se.

The move was more than anything an 'efficiency' as Quebec and other provinces that had/have this division have ended up with 4 [[or more) school boards [[x all the districts).

Public-English
Catholic-English
Public-French
Catholic-French

Newfoundland was worse it had multiple protestant boards before it went 100% secular public [[ie. baptist, methodist, presbyterian etc.)

Having said that, the move to efficiency is also part of a secularized Canada.

Far fewer weekly church goers here than in the U.S.

That move towards secular/agnostic views in the broader public has informed government moves to reduce waste/duplication in this area.

Increasingly, there is a move to abolish all school boards. The argument being that the Ministry[[s) of Education are the ones who dictate all the important stuff already, and the age of local trustees has passed.

2 or 3 provinces have now moved to abolish all school boards giving direct control to the provincial governments of the day.

[davewindsor]

Canada does not and has not had a State Church.

Technically speaking, that statement is incorrect. In Canada, Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of State in Canada and Head of the Church of England [[the Anglican Church)--a right bestowed upon English Monarchs since Henry VIII.

In 1953, the Canadian parliament changed the Royal Style and Titles Act to be, in English: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith,^[3] Elizabeth II [[12 December 1985), Royal Style and Titles Act, Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada, retrieved 23 September 2009


"Defender of the Faith" in the Royal Style and Titles Act of Canada would make her head of the Anglican Church in Canada. Thus, being Head of State in Canada and Head of the Anglican Church makes the Anglican Church a "State Church" in Canada, technically speaking.

[Pat001]

Answer to the question, "Ontario turns hard left?

Who cares? It's Canada.

[Canadian Visitor]

Answer to the question, "Ontario turns hard left?

Who cares? It's Canada.

Perhaps you missed this on the front page of the forum.

1. 
   SINCE 1997
   Where all things great and small regarding the
   Fabulous Detroit-Windsor International Metropolis are Discussed.
   Registration is free and required for posting.
   JOIN HERE
   

You'll notice the word Windsor, alongside Detroit. You may have missed that Windsor is in Canada.

That aside, as your immediate neighbour and principal trading partner, you might take an interest seeing as what we do, affects what happens to you [[and vice versa).

Or you could be myopic and insular as your post suggests.

[Király]

"Defender of the Faith" in the Royal Style and Titles Act of Canada would make her head of the Anglican Church in Canada. Thus, being Head of State in Canada and Head of the Anglican Church makes the Anglican Church a "State Church" in Canada, technically speaking.

I disagree with this analysis. The Church of England as the state church of Canada was abolished in 1854, 23 years before Confederation, while the Province of Canada was still a British colony. There has never been a state church in Canada since then. QEII may be the "Defender of the Faith" but she is not "Defender of Canada's faith", because there is no such thing.

The Royal Style and Titles Act in no way established the Church of England as Canada's state church.

[davewindsor]

I disagree with this analysis. The Church of England as the state church of Canada was abolished in 1854, 23 years before Confederation, while the Province of Canada was still a British colony. There has never been a state church in Canada since then. QEII may be the "Defender of the Faith" but she is not "Defender of Canada's faith", because there is no such thing.

The Royal Style and Titles Act in no way established the Church of England as Canada's state church.

On the Sovereign's role in the Church of England and "Defender of the Faith", it says,
"The Sovereign holds the title 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'. ...
There are many examples of the relationship between the established Church and the State.
Archbishops and bishops are appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, who considers the names selected by a Church Commission. They take an oath of allegiance to The Queen on appointment and may not resign without Royal authority.

The connection between Church and State is also symbolised by the fact that the 'Lords Spiritual' [[consisting of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and 24 diocesan bishops) sit in the House of Lords. Parish priests also take an oath of allegiance to The Queen."https://web.archive.org/web/20080307003413/http://www.royalinsight.gov.uk/output/Page4708.asp

What do you think "Defender of the faith" refers to in Canada's Royal Style and Titles Act, 1985? Why didn't the Canadian Parliament remove it if the sovereign isn't a ceremonial head of the Anglican faith? Read it again: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/st...85-c-r-12.html

Do you think "Defender of the faith" means something other than referring to the Anglican Christian Faith? What do you think the word "defender" means?

If there is no relationship between the Church of England and the Anglican Church of Canada, then why does Canada's Anglican primate attend the Lambeth Conferences convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury to vote on topics such as allowing women or gay priests?

If there is no connection between the two churches, why was it that until 1955 the Anglican Church of Canada was known as the "Church of England in the Dominion of Canada" or simply the "Church of England in Canada".

Again, as I said in my previous post, I'm talking about technicalities, not practicalities. Practically speaking, the sovereign is not running a "state church". The Anglican Church of Canada is self-governing, just like the Canadian Parliament is self-governing when Canadians vote for their head of government and the head of government of Canada votes bills into laws.

To put this another way. Speeding at 115km an hour on the 401 where the speed limit is 100km is illegal, but it is very rare that the police will enforce the speed limit at 115km if you see them at the side of the road. Now, if you go 130km or more, chances are you'll get a ticket if there's no one else on the highway.

Just because the sovereign doesn't enforce her legal right to rule, make laws, have people arrested, collect taxes, appoint her children as governors, etc., does not mean her right ceases to exist or the power is "spent". Just like a police officer could write you up a ticket for traveling at 104km an hour on the 401 and legally win in court. Just because they haven't enforced it in a long time doesn't mean the power ceases to exist or is "spent".

In sum, does the Queen have legal and religious authority in Canada? Legally speaking, yes. Those rights are on the books and written as law. She can "defend" the faith as a religious authority. Why? Because it's the law in Canada that says so. Does she exercise those rights? No, because it would most likely diminish the good will between the public and the Queen.

[Wesley Mouch]

You're wandering more than a little off topic.

I suppose so. Towards adding value to the discussion at least I hope. Or maybe I'm just deluding myself too.

And being a little off-topic, I hate to continue -- but I stand by my core points -- even if the details might not be 100% accurate.

Its clear to a religious person that the Gov't of Canada has taken a side on several religious battles recently. For another, see your Prime Ministers spoken disappointment on the Pope's unwillingness to apologize for their residential schools [[that were trying to spread the gospel, but were clearly tainted by abusive practices).

You seem not to notice the trend. Canada's religious communities do. And therein is the problem. The 'hard left' government truly believes it is defending basic human rights. And the religious community sees government intolerance of their rights.

Rights for some groups are being favoured over religious rights. I think that's a mistake for Canada. And their California [[Ontario) is certainly turning 'hard left', IMO

[Canadian Visitor]

I suppose so. Towards adding value to the discussion at least I hope. Or maybe I'm just deluding myself too.

And being a little off-topic, I hate to continue -- but I stand by my core points -- even if the details might not be 100% accurate.

Its clear to a religious person that the Gov't of Canada has taken a side on several religious battles recently. For another, see your Prime Ministers spoken disappointment on the Pope's unwillingness to apologize for their residential schools [[that were trying to spread the gospel, but were clearly tainted by abusive practices).

You seem not to notice the trend. Canada's religious communities do. And therein is the problem. The 'hard left' government truly believes it is defending basic human rights. And the religious community sees government intolerance of their rights.

Rights for some groups are being favoured over religious rights. I think that's a mistake for Canada. And their California [[Ontario) is certainly turning 'hard left', IMO

Perhaps you might wish to know, on the subject of 'residential schools' that every single Christian Denomination in Canada which ran such schools formally apologized for its role in so doing, a long time ago.

The United Church [[methodist/presbyterian to you) apologized in 1998.

The Anglican Church apologized in 1993.

The Presbyterian Church apologized in 1994.

The only denomination not to apologize is the Catholic Church who also operated more such schools than all the other denominations combined.

The Government of Canada also formally apologized. That apology was delivered by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2008.

The level of abuse involved in these schools, physical, sexual and psychological was extraordinary and shameful.

This involved taking children from their parents on-reserves, against their will and without their consent, and bringing them to schools far away, with no contact w/their former communities or parents, whereupon, many, if not a majority were additionally subject to physical abuse, beatings and molestation. Those who weren't were still left isolated from their families for months or longer.

For further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadi..._school_system

To not even have the courage and decency to issue an apology is appealing.

There is a consensus on this issue in Canada that transcends party, ideology and faith.

It is not picking on the Pope or Catholics to express disappointing in dishonorable inaction.

PS. the majority of Canadian Catholics agree w/the government on this, not the Pope.

[Wesley Mouch]

Trudeau's call for an apology sounds like grandstanding to me.

The wikipedia article says that Pope Benedict issued the followging:

His Holiness [i.e. the Pope] recalled that since the earliest days of her presence in Canada, the Church, particularly through her missionary personnel, has closely accompanied the Indigenous peoples.Given the sufferings that some Indigenous children experienced in the Canadian Residential School system, the Holy Father expressed his sorrow at the anguish caused by the deplorable conduct of some members of the Church and he offered his sympathy and prayerful solidarity. His Holiness emphasized that acts of abuse cannot be tolerated in society. He prayed that all those affected would experience healing, and he encouraged First Nations Peoples to continue to move forward with renewed hope.

Pretty clear to me. Unless you are obsessed with forcing the use of the word 'apology'. That's the only thing PM Trudeau seems to be lacking.

I'm only moderately informed on the Residential School issue. Its clear there were serious abuses. But I couldn't find anything that suggests the problems were as you suggest a 'majority' of students. But we would no doubt agree that even a few cases of sexual and physical abuse is too many. And there seem to have been a lot more than a few here.

Today we seem incapable of seeing good -- preferring to only see evil. And we seem eager to apply today's standards to the past. There was evil in Residential Schools. Just like the evil in Thomas Jefferson's slaveowning. But as Pope Francis might say here, 'who are we to judge'.

And I say this even after having watched 'The Keepers' on Netflix, which I recommend to all. Makes you want to judge the Church harshly.

The piling on of PM Trudeau here is gratuitous and divisive. We would all be better advised to seek reconciliation, and not revenge.

[Canadian Visitor]

I'm only moderately informed on the Residential School issue. Its clear there were serious abuses. But I couldn't find anything that suggests the problems were as you suggest a 'majority' of students. But we would no doubt agree that even a few cases of sexual and physical abuse is too many. And there seem to have been a lot more than a few here.

Perhaps you would do well to read up on the issue further before commenting.

The piling on of PM Trudeau here is gratuitous and divisive. We would all be better advised to seek reconciliation, and not revenge.

Perhaps you would care to know that Canada had a national Commission on Truth and Reconciliation with respect to its relationship to aboriginal peoples. The mandate was as you suggest about going forward w/healing, not laying criminal charges.

It reported in 2015.

Recommendation #58 is as follows:

ChurcApologies and Reconciliation

58.

We call upon the Pope to issue an apology to Survivors,

their families, and communities for the Roman Catholic

Church’s role in the spiritual, cultural, emotional,

physical, and sexual abuse of First Nations, Inuit, and

Métis children in Catholic-run residential schools. We
call for that apology to be similar to the 2010 apology

issued to Irish victims of abuse and to occur within one
year of the issuing of this Report and to be delivered by
the Pope in Canada

http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstit...n_English2.pdf

That's the voice of aboriginal Canadians, not a Liberal Prime Minister.