Shame on Milton Council

Back in 2008/2009 Milton went through a change in ward boundaries and with it a restructuring of council.  For the 2010 election, we went from four wards to eight, one town councillor per ward, two regional & town councillors to represent four wards each..

In time for the 2018 election, Milton is to get two more Regional seats.  How difficult would it be to divvy the wards for the regional councillors at two ward each?

In the 2009 report Dr Williams said “in consideration of present and future population trends, Insofar as possible, the ward structure should accommodate growth for at least 12 years” following the 2010 election.

He also said “It is also reasonable to assume that the appropriateness of Milton’s ward populations would be monitored over the next two or three elections.”

Dr Williams also said in 2009 that every municipality should review its electoral boundaries on a regular basis and not leave the exercise to the preferences of Council. Regular boundaries reviews are mandated in Canadian electoral law but are absent in Ontario’s municipal electoral law. Note, however, that the operative phrase in this context is “reviewed on a regular basis”, not “changed on a regular basis.

Well, here we are in 2016, ignoring what went before, Council voted to hire consultants to come back with a recommendation for another boundary change.  Councillors and the public provided input.  But Councillors Hamid, Cluett, Malboeuf, Duvall, Boughton and Mayor Krantz decided they didn’t like what they heard.

IN the 2016 report, option 4 (continue with 8 wards, 8 town councillors, and to include an expanded Regional councillor number to 4, each to represent 2 wards each), was deemed to be the least disruptive by a substantial margin; because the work load is far too much for too few; that it was the best way to ensure “fair” representation for “the entire Milton community”; and an important way to ensure that rural residents have a voice at town and regional council – and of those consulted, no respondents disliked this alternative.

Milton is the fastest growing town in Canada, and has been for several years now.  And will continue to grow until 2031 when the population is expected to reach, if not surpass, 230,000.  To reduce council at this time, with such continued growth, with the associated work load, will not serve the Town and its residents well. I was on council 2003 – 2010 and am well acquainted with the workload.

While I would never ever condone wasting even a cent of public money, lack of oversight could cost the tax payer far more than any savings made by cutting council size.  Not to mention those who will find the work load too much and will demand more staff support – but lack of oversight remains a big concern.

Duvall thinks a smaller council could accomplish things in a more timely fashion; that it would be like shining a flashlight versus a laser point.

Of the three levels of government local municipal governments have the most immediate response, they are the closest to the public. Given how quickly this council has decided to go against what their own consultant has recommended, maybe it’s too fast.  So, notwithstanding the rather mixed metaphor, I would suggest to Councillor Duvall that he save his flashlight for when the lights are out.

He also noted that the four-ward system could help alleviate ward confusion for voters. I haven’t noticed any confusion among voters but surely, this council can’t think that another change won’t result in MAKING things confusing, not to mention costly and time-consuming, especially when there was also the suggestion of another go at ward/council changes in another couple of elections.

Councillor Malboueff is always talking about costs – I’ve heard that there will be some staff support for councillors, hmm what’s the cost there?  and that all councillors will eventually become full time – now there’s a steep cost – but the point is – what about the ability to perform due diligence with the ongoing growth of more than 100,000 more people moving to Milton over the next 14 years?  I think that laser is needed – the laser being a more powerful tool than a flashlight anyway.

It’s not just the council meetings and related material – it’s also representation on local organizations, all the public meetings associated with development and growth, and so on.

To the councillor who suggested residents want to see fewer politicians around the table – What!!!  Never in my almost 30 years in Milton have I ever heard “there should be less people around the table”.  Unless it’s to remove one or two of them from the table.

To the six on council who want to put us through this process now, I say, let’s worry about Milton and the people who live here NOW as well as the future.  We can’t afford to be short-sighted.  A smaller council will not serve the needs of Milton. Dr Williams said in 2009 that the ward boundaries recommended in the 2009 report are designed to anticipate the future rather than perpetuate the past.  Was council listening?  Did they read the 2009 report?

Another point to consider is the enormity of the costs to be borne by those contemplating a run at municipal politics – our most basic democratic institution is at risk in Milton.

A councillor told me there was a rather muted response to the ward boundary process, as if to say: the few who commented didn’t matter.  It’s a very complex process, so those who responded deserve to be heard, it shouldn’t be a reason to discount ANY response.  Muted or not, there WAS feedback.  In fact, it was the same kind of feed back in 2008/2009 review process.

Councillor Best tried to make a motion to allow delegates to be heard at this evening’s council meeting but the rules of council demand that one of those who WON the vote, must be the ones to make the motion to reopen the issue, to allow anyone from the gallery to speak to it.

When I was first elected to council in 2003, I heard a United Church person speak about keeping an open mind.  He said a councillor should always be prepared to make a decision but at the same time keep one’s mind open to new information.   No one person has all the information, no one person can know everything all the time.  One councillor being absent, not one of the other five wanted to hear anything further on the matter.  Not one of them has an open mind.   Shame on them. Is democracy anything more than a nine-letter word to them?

Huffman said the root of the issue is “all about adding two councillors to regional council, not disrupting our local wards.”

Right on, Councillor Huffman.

The Financial Attack on Greece: Where Do We Go From Here?

(This article was sent to me for distribution.  I am doing so because the issues can be verified in so many other sources.  My point of view off the top: Germany refuses help to Greece, when they themselves in fact, were the beneficiaries of serious help after WWII.  Jan)

by MICHAEL HUDSON   www.counterpunch.org   July 8, 2015

The major financial problem tearing economies apart over the past century has stemmed more from official inter-governmental debt than with private-sector debt. That is why the global economy today faces a similar breakdown to the Depression years of 1929-31, when it became apparent that the volume of official inter-government debts could not be paid. The Versailles Treaty had imposed impossibly high reparations demands on Germany, and the United States imposed equally destructive requirements on the Allies to use their reparations receipts to pay back World War I arms debts to the U.S. Government.[1]

Legal procedures are well established to cope with corporate and personal bankruptcy. Courts write down personal and business debts either under “debtor in control” procedures or foreclosure, and creditors take a loss on loans that go bad. Personal bankruptcy permits individuals to make a fresh start with a Clean Slate.

It is much harder to write down debts owed to or guaranteed by governments. U.S. student loan debt cannot be written off, but remains a lingering burden to prevent graduates from earning enough take-home pay (after debt service and FICA Social Security tax withholding is taken out of their paychecks) to get married, start families and buy homes of their own. Only the banks get bailed out, now that they have become in effect the economy’s central planners.

Most of all, there is no legal framework for writing down debts owed to the IMF, the European Central Bank (ECB), or to European and American creditor governments. Since the 1960s entire nations have been subjected to austerity and economic shrinkage that makes it less and less possible to extricate themselves from debt. Governments are unforgiving, and the IMF and ECB act on behalf of banks and bondholders – and are ideologically captured by anti-labor, anti-government financial warriors.

The result is not the “free market economy” it pretends to be, nor is it the rule of economically rational law. A genuine market economy would recognize financial reality and write down debts in keeping with their ability to be paid. But inter-government debt overrides markets and refuses to acknowledge the need for a Clean Slate. Today’s guiding theory – backed by monetarist junk economics – is that debts of any size can be paid, simply by reducing labor’s wages and living standards, plus by selling off a nation’s public domain – its land, oil and gas reserves, minerals and water distribution, roads and transport systems, power plants and sewage systems, and public infrastructure of all forms.

Imposed by the monopoly of inter-governmental financial institutions – the IMF, ECB, U.S. Treasury, and so forth – creditor financial leverage has become the 21st century’s new mode of warfare. It is as devastating as military war in its effect on population: rising suicide rates, shorter lifespans, and emigration of the age-cohort that always have been the major casualties of war, young adults. Instead of being drafted into the army to fight foreign foes, they are driven from their homes to find work abroad. What used to be a rural exodus from the land to the cities from the 17th century onward is now a “debtor exodus” from countries whose governments owe unpayably high sums to creditor governments and to the banks and bondholders on whose behalf they impose their policy.

While pushing the world economy into a state of war internationally, high finance also is waging a class war against labor – and ultimately against governments and thus against democracy. The ECB’s policy has been brutal toward Greece this year: “If you do not re-elect a right-wing party or coalition, we will destroy your banking system. If you do not sell off your public domain to buyers we will make life even harder for you.”

No wonder Greece’s former Finance Minister Janis Varoufakis called the Troika’s negotiating position “financial terrorism.” Their idea of “negotiation” is surrender. They are unyielding. Official creditor institutions threaten to isolate, sanction and destroy entire economies, including their industry as well as labor. It transforms the 19th-century class war into a purely destructive meltdown.

That is the great difference between today and 1929-31. Then, the world’s leading governments finally recognized that debts could not be paid and suspended German reparations and Inter-Ally debts. Today, the unpayability of debts is used as leverage in class war.

The immediate political aim of this financial warfare in Greece is to replace its elected government (supported by a remarkable July 5 referendum vote of 61 to 39) with foreign creditor control by “technocrats,” that is, bank lobbyists, factotums and former Goldman Sachs managers. The long-term aim is to impose a war against labor – in the form of austerity – and against the power of governments to determine their own tax policy, financial policy and public regulatory policy.

Fortunately, there is an alternative. Here is what is needed. (I outlined my proposals in a presentation before the Brussels Parliament on July 3,[2] following an earlier advocacy at The Delphi Initiative in Greece, convened by Left Syriza the preceding week.[3])

A declaration reaffirming the rights of sovereign nations

Sovereign nations have a right to put their own growth ahead of foreign creditors. No nation should be obliged to impose chronic depression and unemployment or polarize the distribution of wealth and income in order to pay debts.

Every nation has the right to the basic criteria of nationhood: the right to issue its own money, to levy taxes, and to write its laws, including those governing relations between creditors and debtors, especially the terms of bankruptcy and debt forgiveness.

Economic logic dictates what was recognized by the end of the 1920s: When debts reach the level that they disturb basic economic balance and derange society, they should be annulled. Another way of saying this is that the volume of debt – and its carrying charges – must be brought within the reasonable ability to pay.

Rejecting the “hard money” (really a “hard creditor”) position of anti-German, anti-labor economists Bertil Ohlin and Jacques Rueff, Keynes argued that creditors had an obligation to explain to Germany just how they would enable it to pay its reparations.[4] At that time, Keynes meant specifically that France, Britain and other recipients of reparations should specify just what German exports they would agree to buy. But today, creditors define a nation’s ability to pay not in terms of how it can earn the money to pay down the debt, but rather what public domain assets it can sell off in what is essentially a national bankruptcy proceeding. Debtor countries are compelled to let their public infrastructure be sold off to rent-extractors to create a neofeudal tollbooth economy.

Under international law, no nation is legally obliged to do this. And under the moral definition of nationhood, they should not be forced to do so. Their right to resist this form of debt blackmail is what makes them sovereign, after all.

It is true that the principle of the European Union was that individual nations would cede their rights to a larger entity. The union itself was to exercise the rights of nationhood, democratically on the basis of a pan-European constituency.

But this is not what has happened. The EU has no common ability to tax and spend; those powers remain local. The one area where it does govern taxes is dysfunctional: EU ideologues insist on taxing consumers (via the Value Added Tax, VAT) and labor via pension set-asides.

More fatally, the eurozone has no ability – or at least, no willingness – to create money to fund deficit spending. What it calls a “central bank” is only designed to provide money to domestic banks and, even worse, to lobby for the interest of private bankers against the principle of public central bank money creation.

The EU does not even have a meaningful legal system empowered to fight fraud and financial crime, prosecute or clean up insider dealing and corrupt oligarchies. In the case of Greece, where the ECB at least insisted on the need to clean up such behavior, it was only to “free” more revenue for foreign investors from public agencies scheduled to be privatized to pay debts to the ECB and its crony institutions for the money they had paid private bondholders and banks in the face of economies shrinking from a combination of debt deflation and fiscal deflation.

Taken together, these defects mean that the Eurozone and EU were malstructured from the start. Control was placed so firmly in the hands of bankers and anti-labor ideologues that it may not be reformable – in which case a new start must be made.

In any event, here are the institutional reforms that are urgently needed. In view of the financial sector’s control of the main institutions, these reforms require entirely new institutions not governed by the pro-rentier logic that has deformed the eurozone. The most pressing needs are for the following institutions.

An international forum to adjudicate the ability (or inability) to pay debts

What is needed to put this basic principle into practice is creation of a new international forum to adjudicate how much debt can reasonably be paid – and how much should be annulled. In 1929 the Young Plan (which replaced the Dawes Plan to deal more rationally with German reparations) called for creation of such an institution – what became the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in 1931 to stop the economic destruction of Germany by bringing its reparations back within the ability to pay.

The BIS no longer can play such a role, because it has become the main meeting place for the world’s central banks, and as such has adopted the hardline “all debts must be paid” position that it originally was intended to oppose.

Likewise the IMF no longer can play this position. It is hopelessly politicized. Despite its technical staff ruling in 2010-11 that Greece’s foreign debts could not be paid and hence needed to be written off, its heads – first Dominique Strauss-Kahn and then Christine Lagarde – acted in blatant conflict of interest to support the French bankers demands for payment in full, and U.S. demands by President Obama and Wall Street lobbyist Tim Geithner to insist that there be no writedown at all. That was the price for French bank support for Strauss-Kahn’s intended bid for the French presidency, and more recently backing for Lagarde’s rise to power at IMF. Given the U.S. veto power by Wall Street and the insistence that right-wing anti-labor ideologues (usually French) be appointed head of the IMF, a new organization representing the kind of economic logic outlined by Keynes, Harold Moulton and others in the 1920s is necessary.

Creation of such an institution should be a leading plank of Euro-left politics.

A Law of Fraudulent Conveyance, applicable to governments

The private sector has long had laws that prevent money-lenders from lending a borrower more funds than the debtor can reasonably be expected to pay back in the normal course of business. If a lender advances, say, $10,000 as a mortgage loan against a house worth more (say, $100,000), and then insists that the debtor pay or lose his home, the courts may assume that the loan was made with this aim in mind, and annul the debt.

Likewise, if a company is raided by borrowers who load it down with high-interest junk bonds, and then seize its pension funds and sell off assets to pay their debts, the company under attack can sue under fraudulent conveyance rules. They did so in the 1980s.

This lend-to-foreclose ploy is the very game that the Troika have played with Greece. They lent its government money that the IMF economists explained quite clearly in 2010-11 (and reaffirmed this year just before the Greek referendum) could not be paid. But the ECB then swooped in and said: Sell off your infrastructure, sell your ports, your gas rights in the Aegean, and entire islands, to get the money to pay what the IMF and ECB have paid French, German and other bondholders on your behalf (while saving U.S. investment banks and hedge funds from losing their bets that Greek debts would indeed be paid).

Application of this principle requires an international court to rule on the point at which debt service becomes intrusive, and write down debts accordingly.

No such set of institutions exists today.

Creation of Treasuries as national central banks to monetize deficit spending

Central banks today only lend money to banks, for the purpose of loading economies down with debt. The irrational demand by bankers to prevent a public option from creating credit on its own computer keyboards (the same way that banks create loans and deposits) is designed simply to create a private monopoly to extract economic rent n the form of interest, fees, and finally to foreclose on defaulting creditors – all guaranteed by “taxpayers.”

The European Central Bank is not suited for this duty. First of all, it is based on the ideology that public money creation is inflationary. The reality is that central bank money creation has just financed the greatest inflation of modern history – asset price inflation of the real estate market by junk mortgages, inflation of stock prices by junk bond issues, and central bank Quantitative Easing to create the fastest and largest bond market rally in history. The post-1980 experience with central banks has removed any moral or economic logic in their behavior as lobbyists for commercial banks, defenders of their special privileges, deregulator of financial crime, and extremist right-wing blockers of a public option in banking to bring basic services in line with actual costs. In short, if commercial banking systems in nearly every country have become de-industrialized and perverse, their enablers have been the central banks.

The remedy is to replace these central banks with what preceded them: national Treasuries, whose proper function is to monetize government spending into the economy. The basic principle at work should be that any economy’s monetary and credit needs should be met by public spending and monetization, not by commercial banks creating interest-bearing credit to finance the transfer of assets (e.g., real estate mortgages, corporate buyouts and raids, arbitrage and casino-capitalist gambles).

Summary

Every nation has a right to defend itself against attack – financial attack just as overt military attack. That is an essential element in the principle of self-determination.

Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and other debtor countries have been under the same mode of attack that was waged by the IMF and its austerity doctrine that bankrupted Latin America from the 1970s onward. International law needs to be updated to recognize that finance has become the modern-day mode of warfare. Its objectives are the same: acquisition of land, raw materials and monopolies.

A byproduct of this warfare has been to make today’s financial network so dysfunctional that nations need a financial Clean Slate. The most successful one in modern times was Germany’s Economic Miracle – the post-World War II Allied Monetary Reform. All domestic German debts were annulled, except employer wage debts to their labor force, and basic working balances. Later, in 1953, its international debts were written down. The logic prompting both these acts needs to be re-applied today.

With specific regard to Greece, Syriza’s leaders have said that they want to save Europe. First of all, from the eurozone’s destructive economic irrationality in not having a real central bank. This defect was deliberately built into the eurozone, to enforce a monopoly of commercial banks and bondholders powerful enough to gain control of governments, overruling democratic politics and referendums.

Current eurozone rules – the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties – aim to block governments from running budget deficits in a way that spend money into the economy to revive employment. The new goal is only to rescue bondholders and banks from making bad loans and even fraudulent loans, bailing them out at public expense. Economies are obliged to turn to commercial banks for loans to obtain the money that any economy needs to grow. This principle needs to be rejected on grounds that it violates a basic sovereign right of governments and economic democracy.

Once an economy is fiscally crippled by (1) not having a central bank to finance government spending, and (2) by limiting government budget deficits to just 3% of GDP, the economy must shrink. A shrinking economy will mean fewer tax revenues, and hence deeper government budget deficits and rising government debt.

The ultimate killer is for the ECB, IMF and EC to demand that governments pay their debts by privatizing public infrastructure, natural resources, land and other assets in the public domain. To compound this demand, the Troika have blocked Greece from selling to the highest bidder, if that turns out to be Gazprom or another Russian company. Financial politics thus has become militarized as part of NATO’s New Cold War politics. Debtor economies are directed to sell to euro-kleptocrats – on terms financed by banks, so that interest charges on the deal absorb all the profits, leaving governments without much income tax.

Notes.

[1] This is the theme of my Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (1972, new ed., 2002).

[2] The video of the day can be found here: http://www.guengl.eu/news/article/press-conferences/peripheral-debts-causes-consequences-and-solutions.-2-july (I’m at about 37 minutes.)

[3] http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/26/the-delphi-declaration/

[4] I summarize this debate between Keynes and his antagonists in Trade, Development and Foreign Debt (new ed. ISLET 2009), chapter 16.

Michael Hudson’s book summarizing his economic theories, “The Bubble and Beyond,” is now available in a new edition with two bonus chapters on Amazon. His latest book is Finance Capitalism and Its Discontents.  He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published by AK Press. Hudson’s new book, Killing the Host, will be published this summer by CounterPunch Books. He can be reached via his website, mh@michael-hudson.com

 

Malignity and a favoured son

 

When one is maligned and people listen to the maligning and believe it, how does one, the maligned, defend oneself? It isn’t simply an issue of social media, where you can see the written words, it’s word of mouth from a “favoured son”– quieter, sneakier, meaner and can sound oh so sincere.

It can be the “favoured son” who is doing the maligning and because he IS the ‘favoured son” people want to believe he is telling the truth, so they don’t give the person who has been maligned the opportunity to defend.

Instead, the collective won’t respond to emails from the maligned, they will no longer meet the eyes of the maligned.  But, they are comfortable with their actions because they want to believe.  They don’t want to believe their “favoured son” has lied.

Why?  For the good of society, for the good of the community, why won’t someone speak up? Stop the malignity.

Eden Mills Arts Festival-2015

 

I don’t normally promote events outside Milton but I make an exception for this event just beyond the northwest corner of rural Milton.  For an interesting and beautiful experience, take the family for a drive May 23 and 24, 2015 11am-5pm.

It’s a must-see this spring: the fabulous arts festival in the historic village setting of Eden Mills, a gem of southern Ontario. In this village, home of the Eden Mills Writer’s Festival, come and experience a unique variety of visual arts: fine art, fiber art, jewellery, photography, and ceramics. The outdoor streetscape offers the visitors the chance to stroll down Main Street, to shop and converse with accomplished artists.

The café in the community hall will provide a wonderful, homemade lunch. Sit in the Artist’s Green, relax and enjoy the eclectic music and dance performances. The artists in the festival continually strive to create a greener consciousness parallel to the Eden Mills carbon-neutral initiative. Artists’ venues including studios, historic buildings Rivermead and the Mill, the community hall and tents are all indicated on the map in the brochure.

Well known visual artist, Jim Reed, exhibiting in Rivermead states, “Rivermead is a rehabilitated historic structure, among many in this village of serenity, which proudly displays a variety of paintings and sculpture.” The festival provides a “significant social element for the artists which is mutually supportive and inspirational through sharing.”

For a list of the artists with a description of their work and photos, a list of performances and times and brochures visit www.edenmillsartsfestival.com. Also see us on face book.
Festival Details
Saturday May 23 and Sunday May 24, 2015
11 am to 5 pm
Eden Mills Community Hall, 104 York Street and Main Street
Free Admission
Café Serving Lunch and Beverages
Artists Green entertainment and rest area
Media Contact Paul Christie
Email: mrchristiecookie@gmail.com
Phone: 519 843 3498

Selling public assets

While it’s a Conservative or Republican thing to do (selling off publicly-owned assets) Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals are determined to sell off a majority interest in Ontario Hydro.

Some people seem to think that private enterprise will do any job more cost effectively,  and they most likely will, but at what cost to the user, to us? Any savings will not be passed on to the users, to us.  It will be passed on to the shareholders, the stakeholders.

Private Enterprises’ function is to make a profit for those shareholders and stakeholders and that profit will come about in two ways:

  1. Cutting expenses – read “cutting employees” and cutting any other costs such as eliminating safeguards that are in place but not legislated;
  2. Increasing prices.  Private enterprises are not in the philanthropic business, they don’t exist to lose money.

Multinationals around the world are ready to snap up whatever resources or utilities governments are stupid enough, or desperate enough, to sell off because they know they can buy  those resources or utilities at bargain basement prices and it will be guaranteed income for them.

If we think our hydro prices are high now, just have a little patience, it will change.  Thank you, Ms Wynne and all those who voted for you.

 

CN Intermodal Facility

CN owns 1000 acres bounded by Tremaine to the west, Lower Baseline to the south and Britannia to the north.  CN has reopened the Milton Intermodel terminal proposal, years after they apparently abandoned the idea.

First of all, I have a problem that the mayor (could he have kept this from the councillors?) knew about this six months ago, before the last municipal election. And nobody said a word until now.

CN says it intends to develop only 400 of the 1000-acre parcel, and of that 400 only 100 will actually be used for the intermodal facility.  CN says the 400-acre piece will include berms with natural plantings, solar panels, LED and natural lighting, a bicycle trail, a thousand direct and indirect jobs, and – oh boy, it’s sounding like an extension of Disneyland, isn’t it?

The Disney bubble burst with the number of trucks Milton will see, hear and feel as they rumble by.

CN says this facility will take trucks off the freeway – sure, it will – off the freeway and dumped on Milton roads…

The presenter actually said 600, 800 or 900 trucks daily but we have to realize that the number is actually double that – if it’s 600 to 900 trucks in, it’s 600 to 900 trucks back out again.  So we could easily be talking about 1800 trucks traveling daily through the west end of urban Milton, past the proposed university, through heavy residential areas, along busy rural Milton roads – all day long, all week long, in fact , every single day of the year!  Let’s not even discuss any of those trucks negotiating that little traffic circle at Main and Tremaine.

Okay, keeping an open mind, let’s consider some of CN’s other claims about how great this will be for Milton:

  • 1000 direct and indirect jobs for Milton.  Sounds great.  We need jobs.  However, after a question from the audience, we learned that only 100 jobs would actually be at the Milton facility – 900 would be elsewhere.  1000 acres and only 100 jobs!  These lands are designated by the Town and Region as “Employment Lands”.  That can’t be a valid definition in anyone’s mind.
  • As for the berms (for noise mitigations), natural plantings, LED and solar panels, natural lighting – none of those things will enhance the lives of local residents.

So, back to the truck traffic: a CN executive vice president told me that their south Milton location is the best site because it will take such a vast number of trucks OFF the roads.  Think about that for a second.  For every “off” there has to be an “on”.  All those trucks coming OFF the freeway ON to Milton roads – and back again.

CN folk say that proximity to the highways is a major consideration.  Hmm.  I don`t see many of these trucks paying to use the 407, do you?  I think it’s safe to say the 407 is out of the question.  That their closest market would be along the 401, it would seem logical and natural to locate in Milton’s industrial lands north of the 401 – they’re flat and greenfield, though why greenfield is best for this kind of facility escapes me.

Speaking to the approval process: federal rules determine the success of this application, not municipal nor regional or provincial laws.  CN says it will abide by a federal environmental review process but given this government’s stand on environmental issues, an environmental review doesn’t give me any comfort.

I am contesting the Milton NDP federal nomination.  If I am successful on April 28th, and successful in the election this year, I will fight this application with everything at my command.  Meanwhile, I stand firmly against this proposal for the sake of our environment, for the sake of our residents, for what’s right.

O Canada

O Canada!

What’s happened to our home and native land?
No patriot, Harper his MPs at his command.

Science denied, environment be damned;
Block the data, answer no questions.

With glowing hearts corporations thrive
On low wages and worker oppression.

Far and wide, a growing gap –
More with less and less with more.

Oh, Mr Harper, we see thee fail
our citizens; shamed internationally!

O Canada, who will stand on guard for thee?
God alone can’t keep her glorious and free!

O Canada.  It’s up to you and me.
Who will stand with me?

Adapted by Jan Mowbray

2014 Election – Burlington

Well, we didn’t win the election – and in that regard, I must congratulate Eleanor McMahon.

With the Stop Hudak movement across the province, a great many votes were targeted to oppose a PC candidate, rather than to vote FOR anyone else.  Hudak and his  goal of getting rid of 100,000 jobs was a real threat at every level.

Now that the Liberals are in with a majority, my fear is that, after 11 years of seeing poverty grow under the Liberals, the fabric of the social safety nets will unravel even further.

For every dollar invested in poverty and affordable housing  infrastructure, $1.50 is returned.  I don’t see any real investments in affordable housing anywhere in the Liberal platform.  They say they will work with municipalities to provide options.  We cannot let municipalities take on the cost of providing affordable housing.

You can say it’s all the same tax payer but the more things that are included in property taxes, the more unaffordable owning one’s own home will become.  Burlington is home to more seniors than the rest of Halton.  A great number of those seniors are on fixed incomes and facing very serious economic challenges.  Property taxes therefor are a huge concern.  In order to pay their taxes, many will go without proper food or other essentials in order to meet the tax payment, in order to hang on to their homes.  Let’s be aware: anything that is being passed off/downloaded to the municipality will marginalize the already marginalized, even further.  Speak up.  Don’t let home ownership be something only the well-off can afford.

Having spoken with thousands of people across Burlington, I know first hand about the facts of poverty.  And the faces of poverty.  They could be your mother, father, sister or brother, aunt or uncle. Many of them are trapped in accommodation with bullying landlords, substandard living conditions – there are no options, no choices – years’  long waiting lists for what affordable housing there is.

My challenge to the Liberals: For every action, there is a reaction – don’t take an action that marginalizes any sector, especially those already marginalized.

I’m not going away, I will continue to fight for a decent living wage, fight for a Poverty Free Halton, fight for a more equitable Burlington.  My sincere thanks to all who voted for me, who showed their faith in me and the New Democratic Party in the June 11 election.

Inequality in our society

Our country is in a state of high inequality. Why?

To all those who would cut government spending or otherwise reduce government…the viability of our entire economy, depends heavily on a well-performing public sector.

“There are creative entrepreneurs all over the world. What makes a difference – whether they are able to bring their ideas to fruition and products to market – is the government.

“For one thing, the government sets the basic rules of the game. It enforces laws. More generally, it provides the soft and hard infrastructure that enables a society, and an economy, to function. If the government doesn’t provide roads, ports, education, or basic research – or see to it that someone else does, or at least provide the conditions under which someone else could – then ordinary business cannot flourish.” (Emphasis is mine.)

“Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, we are not using one of our most valuable assets – our people – in the most productive way.” From the book “The Price of Inequality”, by Joseph E Stiglitz.

With respect to the above we’ve seen what happens when cuts are made to education. Youth unemployment has never fully recovered from the slash and burn days of Mike Harris. And in all the years since, the Liberals have shown that they can’t be trusted with continuing to improve our education system, focusing on sick days instead of improving our classrooms.

Hudak’s Conservatives support service cuts to public schools; including cuts to maintenance staff, guidance counselors and librarians.
Tim Hudak’s plan to go back to a Mike Harris 1995 policy and fire education workers will put our kids 20 years behind.
Already,

• 35,000 elementary and secondary students are stuck on waiting lists for special education services.
• Schools across the province are losing qualified music teachers and librarians.
• Student activity fees have increased 200 % [twenty times] since 2001 and parents are expected to fundraise more and more to pay for school programs and supplies.
• For every one secondary school special education assistant, there are 66 students.
• In some areas there is one special education teacher for 52 students.

“When little money is invested in education, for lack for tax revenues, schools do not produce the bright graduates that companies need to prosper.”

We must ensure that the province’s schools are adequately funded to provide students with the programs and services they need.

Andrea Horwath: A Leader who Makes Sense, will…
• Stand up for adequately funded public schools.
• Ensure schools become community hubs, review the Accommodation Review Committee process, and ensure school closure is only a last resort.
• Conduct a complete review of the education funding formula.

Engaging Youth

“The greatest danger of leaving a generation of young workers behind is not that they will be unable to participate in today’s economy but that they will be left out of shaping tomorrow’s.” CCPA.

That is my mantra. My goal is to involve youth in the process in an ongoing, meaningful way.