eHealth Scandal Resignations: Punishment or Generosity?

Following in the footsteps of the Health Minister David Caplan, eHealth chairman Alan Hudson and chief executive officer Sarah Kramer, Deputy Minister of Health Ron Sanford has announced that he will be leaving in January.

The eHealth scandal that arose in October after the Auditor General's report revealed that Ontario taxpayers have received nothing in return for the $1 billion dollars investment. eHealth branch had 30-some employees, while relying on more than 300 consultants since 2000. The idea behind eHealth was to create electronic health records for Ontario, instead it has ended up having wasted millions on "underused computer systems and untendered contracts." These contracters were paid more than $2,000 a day, while billing out-of-pocket expenses such as their coffee, cookies, and limousine rides!

I understand how some of these resignations may seem as scapegoats for the entire scandal. As Sapsford was well-regarded by numerous civil servants to praised him on being one of the best deputy ministers. However, Mr. Sapsford who has held his position since 2005 should have overseen the progress that had been made over 5 years, rather than let the inefficieny continue and the wasted money of the taxpayers accumulate. The GlobeandMail quote Sapsford as stating "from my point of view, all the rules were in place and understood," however he had no idea about the controversial consulting contracts put in place by Hudson and Kramer.

I am less than sympathetic about the resignation of these positions by people who are ready to accept the praise and recognition of successful deeds, while claiming they had no idea about those gone bad. In fact, the luxury of resignation is one that these public figures do not deserve. Those under a cloud of suspicion rather than being allowed to resign, should be suspended without pay until a public inquiry is initiated. It is easy to quit, as many involved with eHealth have, leaving countless of unanswered questions. First and foremost being: "WHERE OUR MONEY?"

It makes me cringe to think about how many hospital beds or MRI machines, or whatever else our hospitals lack could have been bought with this large amount of money, or perhaps pay our doctors to keep them from leaving the country???

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/ontarios-troubled-health-ministry-loses-top-civil-servant/article1362361/

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/10/07/ehealth-auditor.html#socialcomments

The Domino Effect

As we've heard throughout the past couple of months, Ontario is suing tabacco companies for $50 billion to cover costs associated with treating citizens with smoking-related illnesses since 1955. British Colombia is also suing, and now PEI government has introduced a bill on Thursday that would allow the province to sue the tobacco companies.

Smoking-related illnesses are the result of death of around 13,000 people in the province. This costs the tax payers about $1.6 billion dollars annually. $1.1. billion is the number that Ontario collects from tabacco companies. The claims of the lawsuit include several claims such as alleging that companies have long know that cigarettes were addictive, and that it can cause diseases such as lung cancer, but did little to decrease the risk. As well as accusing companies of conspiring to mislead the public about the dangers.

This sounds just a tiny bit hypocritical, as tobacco is not illegal in the province, or the country. Is the government claiming that the tobacco companies lied to the people and the government in telling them that smoking would not at all affect your health? This is just like those McDonald lawsuits when overly obese people put the blame of not controling their eating habits on somebody else. I'm not defending smoking, or McDonalds here but the this sort paternalism is not good in the case as people have the freedom of choice in their decisions. You can either choose to smoke and risk the health complications, or you don't. The lawsuit cannot be justified in the sense that the government has known about the health effects of smoking much prior to 2009.

In the US, 50 states have come together to sue tobacco companies for the same purpose. How sad is it that many of these states still allow people to smoke indoors in public places, allowing for second hand smoke to occur. At least Canada has taken steps in reducing such harm. The Star reports that just two months ago, "a Los Angeles jury recommended that Philip Morris USA pay $13.8 million (U.S.) in punitive damages to the daughter of a longtime smoker who died of lung cancer."

If this lawsuit is successful, then we should also be able to sue alcohol companies, fast-food companies, cainos and basically anything that sells services or goods that are not hamrful to our health in the long run. Alcoholism in many cases leads to depression needing treatment and thus being unable to work - that also costs the public. Obese children and adults with health problems do as well. Yet, the banning of tobacco is still ruled out because supposedly, "education and progressive restrictions on smoking" are the smarter way to go. Smokers already are educated on the effects of smoking, they just choose to ignore it. Essentially, what I am attempting to get at is that a person should be able to make their own choices, even if they aren't very good ones, if the government will allow for it.

The responsibility should not solely rest on the shoulders of tobacco companies; although they have done some ugly things to promote "lights" and "slims" to ignorant customers and children. The reality is, both Ontario and the federal government have done all they can - from gory pictures on cigarette packaging to awareness campaigns. There is little left to be done.

So, I say either take the risk of an illegal market for cigarettes and ban it all together, or stop the hypocricy and suck it up Ontario.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/702554

http://news.sympatico.cbc.ca/Local/PEI/ContentPosting?newsitemid=pei-pei-tobacco-bill-584&feedname=CBC_LOCALNEWS&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True

Educated Consumerism

Ontario's schools starting in September, 2001 from grade 4 up to grade 12 will introduce courses on financial responsibility to teach students on how to manage their money. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced that the goal is to help Canadians "polish their financial management skills."

Education Minister Kathleen Wynee said that they are not only looking to add in a course concerning financial responsibility but to "build financial literacy into the existing curriculum." She did not of course, forget to mention the economic crisis and stated that we need to ensure a  "financially literate population."

At first, the assumption that first comes to mind (came to my mind) is that when our next global economic crisis comes around, now there will be good reason to further put the blame on citizens for not practicing "financial responsibility."  What will they fill the 9 years with? Probably, lessons on the "responsible use of credit" and explore the different types of investment opportunities available to you and understand how you can increase the value of your earnings.... Not that these are necessarily "bad" things to learn, but they should not be the only topics covered.

What they should be teaching students is to read the fineprint of credit card and cellphone contracts and to be able to identify and see through the ill intended marketing and and advertisements that we are exposed to on a daily basis.

I remember getting my first credit card here at Brock. As I was walking down Thistle hall after class, I swas stopped by a person flinging a clipboard at my face asking me if I had a few minutes. My incentive to apply for this creidt card was a Brock backpack that broke within that week and a 18.99% interest rate that has followed me to my fourth year of university.

How about we teach kids to spend the money that they HAVE? Isn't that responsible spending? It is generally up to the family and parents to teach their kids through disciplinary allowances - once that $10 bucks is gone for the week, you know you're not getting anymore.

Flaherty was quoted as saying that "the recent financial turmoil was fuelled by a lack of financial literacy." Was it really? Did those people who make less than $50,000 a year did not realize that they would not be able to pay off their $350,000 mortgage? Or was it the banks, the most financially literate institutions in civil society not realize this? Neither make sense. The idea was that it was acceptable to lend money those who could not afford to pay it back on the assumption that housing would never go down in value and any foreclores would end in profit for the bank regardless.

After slightly getting off topic there for a bit, I cannot say that I am against education of any kind. However, I hope it is the right kind of "financial literacy" that the students will be taught, one that teaches the ramifications of over consumption in our society rather than impose the values that have gotten us into this mess in the first place.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/investor-education/ontario-schools-to-teach-financial-literacy/article1348708/

Harmonized Chaos

So, what's the deal with the Harmonized Sales Tax?
It's anything but harmonized.

Basically, the proposal made by the  government is to combine the GST and PST to attract more business investment in Ontario, saving businesses huge with their claim rebates. It will be in effect on July 1, 2010 and is supposedly meant to create new jobs.

What do we get out of it?

We will be paying more for our Tim Horton coffees, taxi rides, gas, airfares and more. Exemptions include houses under $400,000 and household products that were not subject to PST such as books, children's clothing and shoes, diapers, etc. Government will also send out a one time "transitional period" (three) cheques totaling $1,000 to families earning less than $160,000 a year and those who are single and earn less than $80,000 will receive just $300. Oh, and we get a tax cut, the lowest rate falling from 6.05% to 5.05. Those, who work part time (like myself) and makes less than $20,000 a year will "save" less than $50 with the tax cut. While, I'll continue paying those extra dollars everytime I fill up my tank with gas.

In my opinion, this is just another government policy to uphold business interests and rob the pockets of people like you and I who are struggling to make ends meet. Another method of a "bail out" as business taxes are planned to be cut by $4.5 billion over three years starting July 2010. To make the province more attractive to business, there are plans on cutting corporate taxes from 14% to 10%. Another $1.89-billion will be added to the deficit to bribe us. Ontario will be running a deficiet of over $58 billion over the next seven years, and us consumers, as always, will be paying the price for the economic crisis caused by the capitalist 'free market' system and the brutal mistakes of governments.

I'm sure the businesses saving money with the HST will pass on these savings down to us consumers, like all business entities do. HA.


Feel like suing the government? Better get onto it, as lawyers' services will also cost more come July 1st!


You can find out more about the budget's main highlights in the links below.
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/9631--gst-and-pst-to-become-hst-as-ontario-budget-ups-your-taxes
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=3acd4a79-9152-4c18-bf71-8dc58326ab52&p=1

And if you're looking for a good laugh, don't forget to visit: http://taxharmonization.on.ca/

Ontario Cellphone Ban

Ontario has officially become the fourth province to enact the cellphone ban law following Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and Nova Scotia. The law came into effect October 26th, however first three months of the law will be a "warning period" before imposing the appropriate penalties. This includes hand-held devices to talk, text or email while behind the wheel, or to use portable video games or DVD players. Those caught using handheld devices can be fined up to $500, however there aren't any demerit points attached to the legislation. However, officials have warned that the three month period is a not a free-for-all as those involved in collisions involving cellphones will be held before the law according to the ban charges.


I think that this is a great step forward as statistics show that driver distraction is a factor in 20% of all road accidents and a U.S study found that texting increases the risk of a collison 23 times (something that I am guilty of doing!) However, I am also skeptical of how effective the bill will be. In my opinion, all those going out to buy earpieces will be just as dangerous on the road as those who hold their cellphone to their ear to talk - you're still paying less attention to the road. How do you enforce this law anyway? Do the cop cars hidden away in corners check for people on their phones now? And what about the countless excuses that I could think of right off the bat - "my mother called, had to pick up - it could have been an emergency!," "It's the interview call I've been waiting to get for months!," or... "I was calling 911, just witnessed an accident.." and send them off on a wild goose chase... because remember, calling 911 is an exception to this law. :)

Another downside of the ban that I can see is now when your cell phone rings, you need to cross two lanes to get to the right hand shoulder as quickly as possible, then park for 5 minutes on the shoulder, then get back quickly to the fast lane to make up for your lost time.

Will more or fewer people die in the new regime?


Unfortunately, you can't ban stupidity.

Job Cuts at Niagara Casinos

As a daughter of a casino worker, this concerns me and my family more than I imagined possible. 45 workers: 3 pit managers and 42 table games supervisors were let go last week from the Niagara Casinos as a way to deal with "a consistent overstaffing situation." These people came into work one morning, or night (as it usually happens at the casino that you work the most ridiculous shifts ever) to find that they no longer had a job. This included those workers who had been there since day one, who had worked for the Casinos for 12 years since the first casino's opening, fired - just like that.

President Art Frank gave his regrets, but also mentioned that management's commitment "must always be to the health of the business." It should be noted that both Casino Niagara and the Fallsview Casino are government owned by the province of Ontario. However, the provincial government has done little in terms of managing the casinos, they are managed by a private company, Niagara Casinos.

While the Niagara Casinos praise themselves on providing full-time employment to the residents of Niagara Falls, full-time employees have been declining in numbers. Just last year, there was a buy-out offer to those working full-time to resign and come back to work as contract workers. Working as contract worker last summer at Fallsview Casino, I got to know first hand the benefits of working under a contract - none. You receive no benefits, your contract is guaranteed no longer than 3 months time, in which they can let you go if you're not fit to their standards, and you get the worst shifts possible, working 7am-4pm the one day, then 9pm-4am the next. Adjusting to business needs, the everyday lives of people and their families are placed at the bottom of the list.

This brings up the issue of labour unions. The CAW has been trying to organize table-games workers for years now, with no success. They came close early this year, but was disappointed when they had to withdraw the application from the Ontario Labour Relations Board after "an issue with the number of employees the union thought were eligible compared to the number of employees casino management tallied up." The casinos claimed that there were about 1,000 more than the 2,700 workers that the CAW accounted for. The casinos also wanted to include the 270 supervisors to prevent the vote from happening.

The 280 security workers at the casinos are members of Local 278 at the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and voted for a strike in April due to wage increases. Unions may be an option for table-games workers at both casinos. Although staff cuts have been happening throughout other casinos, such as the Caeasars Windsor, at least the collective agreements determine who loses their job, and who keeps it. I don't know about you, but I know I would rather know my place and seniority in the workplace, rather than have my job taken away, with no legitimate reasoning the next time I go into work.

http://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2150769&auth=Corey%20Larocque
http://www.nupge.ca/node/2214
http://accessniagara.com/blog/2009/02/06/caw-won%E2%80%99t-give-up-on-casino-vote/