Sunday, March 30, 2014

Enbridge 40% natural gas hike OK’d



QMI AGENCY

PETERBOROUGH, Ont. - As if the long, cold, snowy winter wasn't enough, now you are going to pay more for it.
The Ontario Energy Board has approved a 40% hike in natural gas rates for Enbridge Gas Distribution customers that will take effect Tuesday, boosting the average residential customer's annual bill by about $400 a year.
The hike is the result of Enbridge running out of its negotiated supply of gas for the winter and having to go to the open market for further supplies.
Enbridge Gas Distribution's gas supply charge will increase from 12.68 cents per cubic metre to 17.60.
The changes would result in an overall increase of about $33 a month over the next year, according to Enbridge.
See full story at:  Sun News - http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/03/20140328-213420.html

Okay, where is the outrage ... From politicians ... From the public?

Suppose a company other than from the gas and oil sector, or credit card and banking industries, asked consumers (nay, demanded) a 40% increase because it had miscalculated " its negotiated supply .... and [had] to go to the open market for further supplies," it would probably be laughed right out of business. But not a gas company. Indeed, it was given the blessing of one of those appointed bodies (Ontario Energy Board) that are paid big bucks [Chairman Rosemarie T. Leclair made $503,171.33 in 2013] to scrutinize such things on behalf of the public.

It is an outrage, and better not feel smug if you deal with another supplier--including oil--because with this decision the die has been cast. So tell Bob Chiarelli, Minister of Energy, to

STOP THE BULL!

Friday, March 28, 2014

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

When first we set out to deceive." ~ Shakespeare, but he could just as well have been talking about Dalton McGoony. He may have fled, but his stench lingers on.


Thursday, March 27, 2014

Observation: Gender does not necessarily equate competence...

The 'Peter Principle': In an organizational hierarchy, every employee will rise to his or her level of incompetence. 



London lawyer Kevin Egan and others are stunned by Madeleine Meilleur’s move to Ontario attorney general from corrections


By Randy Richmond, The London Free Press






The promotion of a cabinet minister who "created chaos" and "left corrections in a mess" has astonished inmates, advocates and opposition critics.
But some said they’re happy to say so long to Madeleine Meilleur if her replacement even tries to do a better job.
“I am gobsmacked. People have died on her watch,” London lawyer Kevin Egan said Wednesday in response to news Meilleur was promoted to attorney general from community safety and correctional services minister.
“If they (the Liberals) are taking her out of a portfolio where she has been an absolute failure and put her into a possibly even more important portfolio as attorney general, it’s obvious that they don’t have any bench strength,” Egan said.
A former inmate at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre (EMDC) also expressed shock at learning of the promotion.
“Oh wow,” said Michael Smith, assaulted by other inmates while serving a four-day sentence for mischief in 2012. “I’m quite a bit surprised because it wasn’t good down there at all.”
Part of a $325-million class- action suit launched by McKenzie Lake law firm against the province over conditions at EMDC, Smith wondered if the Liberals were trying to save face.
“They wanted her out of there but couldn’t fire her?” he said.
Meilleur, MPP for Ottawa-Vanier, took the cabinet post in October 2011. Her tenure was marked at several facilities by labour strife, inmate violence, and political controversy, nowhere more than at EMDC.
Despite attempts to improve conditions, EMDC was rocked in October by the brutal beating death of inmate Adam Kargus and this year, charges against three employees for failing to provide the necessaries of life. More...

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Ontario auto insurance premium reduction: Why the delay in the first place?...

In 2013, just after Dalton McGuinty skipped the premiership and the country to teach (hopefully not politics or ethics) in the U.S. of A., Andrea Horwath held a gun to Kathleen Wynne’s head, and insisted she reduce auto insurance premiums by 15%, or else…

Not surprisingly Wynne agreed, saying something to the effect that it was her idea all along, and then she and Charles Sousa (Minister of Finance) did a corporate turn-around by saying “Yes, but… Two years down the road … maybe.” Bottom line, we’re still waiting for the fabled 15%.

But, why the wait in the first place? Certainly, as Alan Shanoff of the Sun newspaper points out, the auto insurance industry can well afford it. ~ Auto insurers can easily afford a 15% reduction in premiums over 2 years, BY ALAN SHANOFF ,TORONTO SUN, FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2013, i.e.:

Is it realistic for the provincial government to require Ontario car insurers to reduce premiums for car insurance by 15% over the next two years?
Well, according to numbers released by the General Insurance Statistical Agency, the non-profit agency that tracks information on behalf of provincial insurance regulators, reductions are realistic and overdue.
According to the GISA statistics (you can read them on the tables available at www.gisa.ca/en/pubs/), Ontario car insurers paid out only 44¢ out of every dollar of premiums collected for accident benefits in 2012.
That’s their lowest payout ratio for accident benefits in the past 10 years.
The second lowest payout was in 2011, when insurers paid out 52¢ for every premium dollar collected.
This is the natural consequence of the Ontario Liberal government’s 2010 “reforms,” where most claims were shunted into a minor injuries category, with a cap of $3,500 for medical and rehabilitation benefits.
Ontario’s payout ratio for accident benefits is now lower than those of Alberta (73¢ paid out for every premium dollar received in 2011 and 2012) and the Atlantic provinces (54¢ and 57¢ paid out for every premium dollar received in 2011 and 2012).
Using dollars instead of ratios, in 2012 Ontario’s car insurers collected $3.78 billion in accident benefits premiums but paid out only $1.67 billion in claims and adjustment expenses.
That makes Ontario’s accident benefits coverage the most profitable (both dollar wise and percentage wise) for insurers in the regions of Canada that maintain 100% private insurance.
The numbers for overall insurer payments on all car insurance coverage paint the same picture for Ontario.
In 2012, Ontario car insurers paid 62¢ out of every dollar of premiums collected for all car insurance coverage.
They collected $10.4 billion in premiums but paid out $6.48 billion in claims and adjustment expenses. That’s the lowest payout ratio in 10 years.
Their payout ratio in 2011 was 65%.
In Alberta, the payout ratios for 2011 and 2012 were 70% and 77%. In Atlantic Canada, 64% in each of 2011 and 2012.
While none of these numbers includes insurers’ overhead costs, they similarly don’t show insurers’ investment earnings on the premiums they charge, and there can be little doubt that Ontario policyholders are paying too much for car insurance.
Of course, we already knew Ontario policyholders pay the highest premiums in the country and for the majority of accident victims, those classified into the minor injury classification, we have the worst accident benefits coverage.
According to Nick Gurevich, President of the Ontario Rehab Alliance, these numbers show insurers can easily afford to cut car insurance premiums by 15% and still obtain excellent results.
He says a 15% cut in premiums, assuming it ever actually happens, would cause the accident benefits payout ratio to increase from 44% to 52% and the total payout ratio would increase from 62% to 73%.
In each case, that would provide insurers with excellent results as compared to results in the past 10 years, and the results for Alberta and Atlantic Canada.
I’m not suggesting payout ratios in Ontario leading up to 2010 were sustainable or that some reforms were not required. Clearly changes were necessary.
But we seem to have gone overboard with the 2010 reforms and even with excellent results in the past two years, the insurance lobby continues to push the fraud button hard.
Yes, there is auto insurance fraud, too much of it, but we can’t use that as an excuse to punish legitimate accident victims — and the industry is now lobbying hard to change the current definition of catastrophic impairment.
The sought after changes would serve to lower the number of victims who qualify for enhanced catastrophic impairment medical and rehabilitation benefits, which would serve to further lower the insurers’ payout ratio for accident benefits.
As the numbers illustrate, there’s no need to take any action that would serve to lower the insurers’ payout ratio for accident benefits. A premium reduction is overdue.
*As an addendum to this, The NDP is presently charging that Insurance premiums continue to rise while Wynne and Sousa play footsie with the insurance companies. So, just who do they represent?
 

































Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Truer words were never spoken....




This applies to the Canadian provincial legislatures and parliament as well... When they're not prorogued to avoid being held accountable!

Monday, March 24, 2014

If I had a dollar for every time government said...

"We're going to do something about INSURANCE companies overcharging consumers," I'd be able to afford insurance.

McGuinty campaigned on it back in 2002. Result: Nothing. Then, Wynne made a big deal about putting it into her first budget: Result: Talk. So far insurance premiums haven`t dropped a cent--not mine, anyway.

Oh, and did I mention health travel insurance. When I first began to travel outside Canada on a regular basis, my A1 travel insurance was $700+ for four months. The next year I had turned 76, so it was higher on account of age: $1,200+. But get this: Last fall RBC (Royal Bank) Insurance quoted me $1,900+ for the exact same coverage!! That`s a 63% increase in one year.

Moreover, I have stopped reporting thefts, of which there have been at least half-a-dozen, because the insurance company merely increases the premiums or jacks-up the deductible.

It is little more than legalized extortion.

Having said that, here's one reason health is so expensive south of the border, and it wouldn't surprise me if the same thing applied in Canada. [Note: Please go outside if you are about to barf!]




Saturday, March 22, 2014

Having their cake and eating it too...

In addition to the corporate welfare bums, we have the corporate tax dodgers (similar to the draft dodgers of the 1960s, but these dodgers are rewarded with generous grants and refunds.)

Although the illustration below merely identifies a small sample of them, you can be assured there are many more. Moreover the picture is just as disheartening on the Canadian side of the fence. While there are no statistics available on how much Canadian Banks paid in income tax in recent years (at least none that I could find), the Canadian Labour Council has produced a report on falling corporate income taxes, i.e.

Due to ongoing corporate tax cuts, corporate income taxes make up a falling share of all government revenues. In fact, by the end of January [2012], corporations will have fully paid their share of taxes. ['Tax freedom day' for the rest of us was June 10th in 2013.]
The general federal corporate income tax rate stood at 28% in 2000. It was cut to 21% under the Liberals, and then cut in stages, from 21% to 15%, under the Conservatives. The most recent cut was from 16.5% to 15%, effective January 1, 2012. 
Each one percentage point cut to the corporate income tax rate costs the federal government [and Canadian taxpayers] about $2 billion in annual revenues. ~ Canadian Labour Congress. http://www.canadianlabour.ca/sites/default/files/what-did-corporate-tax-cuts-deliver-2012-01-12-en.pdf
Here are the U.S. figures: Read them and weep,





Thursday, March 20, 2014

Corporate welfare bums...

This term was first coined by David Lewis to describe those companies who feed at the public trough when they could well afford to eat on their own. Though, with regret, David Lewis has passed on, the term applies today as much as it ever has.

The question is, how much is it costing the Canadian taxpayers?

The answer is that no one knows for certain. The reason being that no one has ever compiled these figures in one place. Moreover, this applies equally to the whole government grant system.

Not so in the United States (no thanks to government, you can be assured.) An organization by the name of "Open The Books," a think-tank based in Illinois, has attempted to compile the numbers for the American hog trough, and it is utterly astonishing in both scope and scale. i.e.,

New Report: Fortune 100 Companies Have Received a Whopping $1.2 Trillion in Corporate Welfare Recently

Military contractors, oil companies and banks are the biggest 'welfare queens' around.

Most of us are aware that the government gives mountains of cash to powerful corporations in the form of tax breaks, grants, loans and subsidies--what some have called "corporate welfare." However, little has been revealed about exactly how much money Washington is forking over to mega businesses.
Until now.
A new venture called Open the Books, based in Illinois, was founded with a mission to bring transparency to how the federal budget is spent. And what they found is shocking: between 2000 and 2012, the top Fortune 100 companies received $1.2 trillion from the government. That doesn't include all the billions of dollars doled out to housing, auto and banking enterprises in 2008-2009, nor does it include ethanol subsidies to agribusiness or tax breaks for wind turbine makers. 
What Open the Book's forthcoming report does reveal is that the most valuable contracts between the government and private firms were for military procurement deals, including Lockheed Martin ($392 billion), General Dynamics ($170 billion), and United Technologies ($73 billion).

___________________________
See the full story at AlterNethttp://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/new-report-fortune-100-companies-have-received-whopping-12-trillion-corporatehttp://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/new-report-fortune-100-companies-have-received-whopping-12-trillion-corporate
Although these figures apply only to the United States, you can be sure the corporate welfare system is equally alive and thriving in Canada.
For example, we know that Cisco Systems received $220 million from Ontario in December of 2013, but recently committed (but not spent) $100 million in the Greater Toronto Area. Apart from the fact that this leaves taxpayers outside the GTA high and dry, it also begs the question: Will we ever see any benefit from the other $120 M?
Anyone care to make any bets?

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

This is how Harper repays our veterans...

"Ottawa has no special obligation to soldiers, federal lawyers say in court filing"

By Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press


OTTAWA - Federal lawyers say Ottawa has no special obligation to those who've fought wars on behalf of Canada and that it's unfair to bind the Harper government to promises made nearly a century ago by another prime minister.
The assertion is spelled out in black and white in a statement of defence filed by the Justice Department in a class-action lawsuit by Afghan veterans who claim a 2006 overhaul of benefits is discriminatory under the charter of rights.
The court papers, filed in January, were made public Tuesday, the same day Prime Minister Stephen Harper greeted the last wave of soldiers returning from the now-concluded mission in Afghanistan.
The Conservatives, who've built political capital on supporting the troops, are planning a day of commemoration for the mission, which lasted a dozen years, on May 9.
At the same time, federal lawyers argue that the lawsuit, if successful, would put disabled veterans ahead of all other Canadians in terms of their compensation and treatment by the federal government.
Ed. note: It is extremely interesting to note, however, that when he was sniffing around for votes, he was quite magnanimous in compensating the Oriental-Canadian voters for a decision made by John A. MacDonald (another Conservative prime minister) in the 1880s, i.e. the so-called 'head tax.'

Remember the $5-per-month increase Rogers added to its service?...

You'd think it would have satisfied the bottom line, wouldn't you?

However, corporations like Rogers are insatiable in their greed--so much so that they apparently don't care how or from whom they get their pound of flesh.

Take this morning's news story, for example:

Wi-Fi piggybackers rack up $800 on senior's Rogers bill


A senior citizen in Chilliwack, B.C. is angry about an $800 wireless internet access bill from Rogers — a bill she claims she's not responsible for.
Darlene Davis, 65, usually pays $60 a month for her Rogers internet, which she accesses with an unsecured Rocket hub Wi-Fi hotspot access point.
When she received a bill for more than $600 instead, she was stunned. Rogers customer service told her the charges stemmed from data used to download movies, stream TV shows and play online games.
But Davis says she doesn't even know how to do any of those things. 
"First of all, I don't even know how to download a movie. I haven't got a clue. Online gaming is something I've never even been interested in. So I kept trying to figure out and talk to people why I had this bill," she said. 
Without any answers, another month went by, and the bill continued to rise.
"I just turned 65 years old. If you ask me to pay $810, then how do I pay my rent and put groceries on my table?"
She appealed the charges with Rogers, but didn't get very far.
"They said they would put it under investigation and so they did, and when the investigation was complete they sent me what is a stock letter stating that it happened in my home, and that I was responsible for it," she said.
So much for customer service, or even the 'milk of human kindness'--not when the bottom line is concerned.
_______________________________
On a related note I see Flaherty has jumped ship, so one can't shove his nose in it. However, he and the Harper government in general are responsible for not reining in cell phone providers like Rogers. Mind you, Harper is seldom home long enough to see the problem.


Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Harper government's telecom ads raised ire but lacked policy: focus groups

By Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press


The following are excerpts from the above.

OTTAWA - The Harper government spent millions of dollars last fall on wireless competition ads that left annoyed consumers wondering what the Conservatives intended to do about the issue.

The $9-million radio, newspaper and television campaign raised the ire of the heavily regulated telecommunications industry, which called the ads an unprecedented government attack on a major industrial sector.

"Generally speaking, study participants in all cities alike were more receptive to the claim reminding Canadians that they pay some of the highest wireless fees in the world," said the "key findings."


"Although the ad is thought-provoking, the objective of more choice, lower prices and better service is not totally clear."
The reactions of focus-group respondents were more to the point.
"Makes me angry to know we've been paying so much for so long," one was quoted in the TNS Canada report.
"Not clear as to what exactly they would like us to support," said another.
"So I need to know what they are going to do about it," said one.
"This is more a point of view than a policy," another participant observed.

The bottom line is that nothing, absolutely nothing came of all the Harper government's brave talk.

My comment for the day...



In spite of being "very concerned" with cell phone rates, Flaherty did nothing about it in the 2014 budget, and now...

Here's what the major gougers did overnight:

Wireless carriers hike prices across Canada


says this morning's headlines.

"Canada’s big three wireless carriers have hiked the base prices for new plans by $5 in most markets over the past two months.
"Rogers, Telus and Bell Mobility now all charge $80 per month for new smartphone plans with a new contract, $5 more than what many of those same plans cost when they were introduced last year. The prices for other smartphone plans with more data cost upwards of $145." ~ Yahoo News.
So even if he were to do something about it now (after the proverbial horse has been stolen), the damage has already been done.

From a personal perspective, my Bell Canada internet bill has increased from $48 in 2012, to $62 on Jan. 01, 2014, and to $65 in Feb. 2014. That's a 32% increase in roughly two years, so if that doesn't fit the definition of gouging I don't know what would.

And if Flaherty doesn't fit the definition of 'gutless', I don't know who would!

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Today is International Women's Day...

International men's day ... How many know, a) there is one, and b) the date?

"Speaking on behalf of UNESCO, Director of Women and Culture of Peace, Ingeborg Breines, said of IMD, "This is an excellent idea and would give some gender balance." She added that UNESCO was looking forward to cooperating with the organizers."


What Flaherty's 2014 budget DIDN'T do for me and countless other seniors and singles.



There is always a populist element in every budget--both positive and negative. It is, after all, a political statement as well as an economic one, and Flaherty's budget is no different (particularly since there's an election coming up in 2015.) There was the usual 'sin tax' on cigarettes (the negative), and a plethora of child-tax benefits (the positive).

Now bearing in mind that I am a single person, a senior with no dependants, but paying 18% of my income in income tax. So, here's what the budget DIDN'T do for me--and countless other singles with no dependants. Remember, too, that this is in addition to the child benefits at the provincial level.

***

1.      Eligible dependent: If you’re a single parent raising kids, you can qualify for a $10,320 credit that becomes a tax savings of around $1,500. The credit is designed to give lone parents a tax break similar to what married couples get.

2.      Children’s arts credit: Got a budding da Vinci in your brood? Creativity pays! You’re eligible for a $500 per child credit for a variety of artistic, cultural, recreational and developmental activities. So now you can afford to buy little Sophie some paper and an easel, rather than have her do her own interpretation of the Sistine Chapel on your walls.

3.      Education tax credit: Full-time and part-time students are eligible for a basic credit, and since they usually don’t have big incomes, most of the credit ($5,000 minus the amount the student claimed on her tax return) can be transferred to parents. The rules apply to tuition, textbook and other education expenses (sadly, though, you cannot claim for all the beer your student consumed while at weekend “study sessions”).

4.      Transit pass credit: Tired of your kids borrowing the car and returning it with an empty gas tank and a few extra dents? Tell ’em to take the bus from now on! Monthly and yearly passes for your dependent children up to age 19 can be claimed. Passes for streetcars, subways, commuter trains and local ferries count too. (Just don’t try to claim ferry fare if you live in a land-locked city.)

5.      Universal Child Care Benefit: Here’s some more cash you may qualify for: $100 per month per child under the age of 6. The benefit is designed to help families “as they try to balance work and family life,” say the feds, “by supporting their child care choices through direct financial support.” You know what would really help us balance work and children? Less of each, and more cash. Hey, we can dream.

6.      First Time Home Buyers Tax Credit: Not everyone can be like The Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe (and besides, have you seen the price of shoes these days?). So here’s what to do if you need more space now that kids are here (or on the way): if this is your first home purchase, claim the $5,000 non-refundable tax credit.

7.      Children’s fitness credit: There’s only one Sidney Crosby, but who’s to say your little hockey whiz can’t be the next NHL superstar? Signing your under-16 kids up for organized physical activity such as hockey qualifies you for a credit of up to $500 in costs per child. The feds created this break to promote physical fitness and reduce future health care costs. Your bigger incentive? A cut of the next multi-million-dollar Sidney Crosby-like salary!

8.      Family caregiver tax credit: We’re keeping our fingers crossed that you never need to apply for this one. It provides a $2,000 non-refundable credit for parents who provide ongoing care for their minor child with a physical or mental illness. You’ll need to provide a letter from a medical doctor stating when the impairment began and how long it is expected to last.

9.      Child tax credit: For every child you have under age 18 (19 in Saskatchewan) the federal government allows a credit. It varies by year; in 2012, it was $2,191. Remember, though, that it’s a credit, not a straight deduction. Do the math and you’ll see that it translates into a tax savings of about $329 per kid – or about what you spend on tutors so Sandy can get through math at school without the help of his iPhone.

10.  Child care expenses: This deduction covers costs such as daycare, summer camps, sitters, after-school programs and boarding schools. It can even include the expense of advertising to find child care. You can claim for a child up to 16, as long as the person providing the care isn’t a blood relative (i.e. you can’t pay your spouse to look after your own children, even though he may want danger pay for spending the day cooped up with them in the 

11.  Canadian Child Tax Benefit: Yep, the feds actually pay us for reproducing. This tax-free monthly payment arrives in your bank account every month until your offspring turn 18. The basic benefit is $1,433 ($119.41 a month) but the size of the cheque you get depends on your income, what province you live in, and the number of kids you have. At that rate, not even Octomom would get rich.

12.  Adoption tax credit: If you incur out of pocket expenses while adopting a child, you’re eligible for a tax credit. Costs of up to $11,440 per child can be covered. If the child has special needs you can claim the full amount; otherwise, how much you save depends on how much you spend. Whatever the amount, the real benefit comes from giving someone a new family life – and that’s priceless.



Thursday, March 6, 2014

Harper's proposed electoral reform: Talk about putting the wolf in charge of the sheep...

"It took five years and dozens of spirited denials in the House of Commons before the Conservative party finally pleaded guilty in 2011 to significant overspending in the 2006 campaign — a plea deal that Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre celebrated as a victory.

"Poilievre also frequently rose in the House to defend the government in the ongoing investigation into fraudulent robocalls during the 2011 campaign.

"Poilievre, NOW MINISTER FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORM*, is questioning Mayrand again, dismissing his criticism and declaring him wrong about many of the provisions in the sweeping bill." ~ "Elections watchdog says proposed election law damages level playing field" by 
Joan Bryden and Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press.


Elections watchdog says proposed election law damages level playing field

Canada's chief electoral officer has provided fuel to opposition claims that new election rules being proposed by the Harper government are designed to tilt the field in the Conservative party's favour.
The massive rewrite of the Canada Elections Act will increase party spending and decrease voting among some groups, all the while failing to provide the investigative powers needed to get to the bottom of election fraud, Marc Mayrand told a House of Commons committee Thursday.

Other points raised by Mayrand were:

— By ending the practice of "vouching," the bill would disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters who are unable to provide identification with an address, mostly students, the elderly, natives and the poor.
— The bill would muzzle both Mayrand and the elections commissioner, who investigates violations and enforces the Canada Elections Act.
"I'm concerned that during an election we could not issue a press release alerting electors to certain practices that may happen that they should be aware of," said Mayrand, who pointed to events in the 2011 election as an example.
— The bill fails to give investigators the power to demand receipts from parties, who got $33 million in public rebates after the last election without providing documented evidence of expenses.
"It is striking when looking at provincial regimes that we remain the only jurisdiction in Canada where political parties are not required to produce supporting documentation for their reported expenses," Mayrand said.
— The bill creates some new offences and increases penalties, but fails to give elections investigators the powers they need to compel testimony or evidence.

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

'Cisco to open one of four global innovation centre in Toronto; invests $100M'...

screamed a recent headline. It looks pretty good, doesn't it? That is, until you read a headline from a while back (Dec. 13, 2013). It read:

'Tech giant Cisco getting millions from government to expand Ontario workforce'

This article by Maria Babbage, The Canadian Press, reported that "Ontario's Liberals are handing up to $220 million to Cisco Canada as part of a deal that could see the high-tech giant invest as much as $4 billion and create thousands of jobs in the province over the next decade.The news comes amid a rash of pending plant closures by companies that received provincial government subsidies.
[See full article at:  http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cisco-canada-invest-4-billion-ontario-create-1-203107284--finance.html.

It would appear, therefore, that Cisco is merely giving back half of what it has already received from the taxpayers of Ontario (most of whom live outside the GTA), and taking 100% of the credit.

That`s called a 'corporate flim-flam,'


Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Just received my January hydro bill ... Yikes!

You know, the one that Chiarelli said wouldn't increase more than the cost of a cup of Tim Horton's coffee. Well, would you believe ....

$396.38!

Granted this has been one of the coldest winters on record, but the point is that

  • I haven't been there since November
  • The thermostat is set at 15C (60F)
  • Other than the furnace, the only other appliances are the refrigerator and the hot water heater
  • The furnace is brand new, energy efficient
  • and the windows plastic insulated.
In other words, the energy use is the absolute minimum that can be expected. 

Bear in mind as well, that I am a handicapped senior who must retreat to where there is no snow or be house-bound for the duration of winter.

There is only one word for this sort of usurious cost, and that is

Disgusting!