BLOGGER TEMPLATES AND TWITTER BACKGROUNDS

Friday, September 30, 2011

Commentary on the 2011 Ontario Leaders' Debate

On Tuesday night the leaders of Ontario’s three main parties debated each other to prove who has the best platform and who will make the best premier. However, there was no clear victor and it was somewhat of a lack-lustre performance in comparison to the federal leaders’ debate. This was an opportunity for NDP leader Andrea Horwath and Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak to really make Dalton McGuinty look bad, which I was predicting. Yet neither really attacked him until the end and even then there was no clear kill shot. McGuinty did quite well against his two opponents who had lots of ammunition but never really used it. I was hoping both McGuinty and Hudak would attack each other to the point of looking idiotic, leaving Ms. Horwath to stand alone shining. That didn’t happen as all played quite fair and spoke well. I was actually somewhat impressed with McGuinty (aside from his constant hand-talking). Maybe it’s because he’s so familiar to us after eight years and we can recognize his voice when he speaks, but he gave off a “premier” vibe (or maybe it was his “dad” vibe?). Either way he didn’t seem too phased by any comments made against him. The only annoyance was his constant hand-talking, I have never seen him wave his hands around so much while speaking. Was it nerves or passion?

Each candidate began with an opening statement before answering questions asked by Ontarians. McGuinty praised the Liberal Green Energy and Green Economy Act, and I’ll give the Liberals credit for it. He made great points about green energy and how the Liberals have been investing in renewable energy sources and creating green jobs. He was correct in discussing how Ontario just scraped by in the summer of 2003, referring to the August blackout, as the previous PC government left Ontario in an energy consumption crisis. The Liberal green energy path is a difficult path to take, especially with our polluting American neighbours, but it is something that must be done. McGuinty is well aware it costs money and will take time to figure it all out, “There’s no escaping it” he said. But Ontario is a leading green energy provider in North America now and will help lead Canada into the green energy future. The coal fired plants will be shut down by 2014 and replaced with renewable and clean sources. Hate on it all you want, but if we don’t do this now it will just get worse and be more difficult in the future. The era of cheap and dirty energy is over.

Moving on, Andrea Horwath discussed the forestry industry up north which needs help. She has heard from Ontarians who have lost jobs due to the closing of mills. She said we cannot close mills which process our natural resources and that shipping our resources outside of Ontario for processing is killing jobs. This is why the NDP plans to give tax credits to companies that are hiring Ontarians and providing more training for their employees – IN Ontario. It’s simple, reward the companies investing in Ontario. One of her favourite lines was “there will be no blank cheques to companies who ship jobs elsewhere,” the NDP will do things differently.

Horwath made a great point when she said, “It’s easy to put that down on paper, but unless you’re prepared to show them where the money is, they won’t believe it.” She went on to say how the NDP have set the costs and numbers in their plans and where they will be make the savings. You can’t make promises with no real plan. It’s like offering all these amazing things to win votes, but when it comes time to make them happen, you can’t. This was a clear point directed at the PC Changebook, which has received criticism for not having the numbers. Remember how Rob Ford promised Torontonians he wouldn’t raise taxes but would decrease the deficit? Well that doesn’t happen without cutting services.  

Next, I found that PC leader Tim Hudak’s main point was all about finding us jobs and making sure people get to do what they want to do. He tells the sad story of Ryan, a young man who just wants to be an electrician but there are no jobs for him. I am well aware of this dilemma as many of us fresh from post-secondary education are. However, I’m curious where Mr. Hudak will get me a job as an Environmental Policy major. I want to work in the environment sector (if not in government), and Rob Ford is killing many environment jobs in Toronto. Well I don’t think Hudak will help me get the job I want either as the PC have no commitments or real plans for protecting the environment. Also, where and how will he create these other jobs? Hudak calls out McGuinty for creating “phantom green jobs” but I have a feeling he’s promising us phantom jobs too.

Moving on, McGuinty discussed his home care for seniors plan so they can stay at home instead of at the hospital, and also receive house calls from doctors and nurses. The Liberals also have a tax credit so seniors can renovate their homes so they can remain there. This is a great idea, seniors need the help. But Horwath called him out for not doing this sooner after eight years in power.

Of course the e-health scandal would surface during the debate. Hudak brought it up claiming McGuinty lost us billions. He then went on to say he will reduce his Cabinet size and make them more “focussed.” He will also review Ontario government agencies and close down the ones we don’t need. Sounds familiar...cutting gravy perhaps?

Hudak ranted some more about all the taxes McGuinty has added, framing him as the “evil taxman.” This tactic is getting old though and he could have done more/done something different to really attack the Liberals. It seems Hudak’s main method is to say that he’s not McGuinty and the Liberals. McGuinty rebottled by saying that adopting the HST was not easy, but it was essential to grow a stronger Ontario economy. He also called Hudak out for planning to keep the HST on if the PC are elected, even though Hudak says he is against it. This makes perfect sense, why wouldn’t the PC make it a priority to take away the HST if they are so opposed to it?

Furthermore, Hudak called the time-of-use smart meters “tax machines.” He’s very passionate about seniors not having to do laundry at 3 am. Well, smart metres in essence are a good idea. They are advanced metres that identify consumption in more detail and communicate that information back to local utilities for monitoring and billing. They also determine the peak hours when there is high demand, which allows companies to set prices.

Then one of the more ridiculous lines came from McGuinty when he said smart metres help us practice better conservation. That’s like saying eating chocolate cake at different times during the day will help with your diet. Time-of-use metres allow people the choice to use energy at times when there is low demand so they receive a cheaper rate. This helps reduce the energy burden during peak hours, which helps us avoid blackouts. However, it does not necessarily mean people will conserve their energy. The only way to do that is by taxing energy consumption, which the HST on hydro and gas sort of is. That is one reason why David Suzuki is supporting the Liberals, because they’re the only party who will keep the HST on energy consumption (it’s sort of like a carbon tax). Hudak wants to get rid of the smart metres, and the HST on hydro and gas, but does not have an alternative plan for energy conservation. To me, that’s a #fail.

Horwath said she believes people want to do the right thing and conserve energy, but the smart metres did not help Ontarians conserve energy or reduce their bills. The NDP want to help people save money when they save energy and reduce their carbon footprints through tax credits and loans for retrofitting their houses. Give them the tools to go green and they will. Ontario is part of the Western Climate Initiative along with British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and seven American states, and the NDP would like to be part of a cap-and-trade program with them (for you economists out there, look up the Coase Theory). She said the NDP believe in the “carrot approach,” not the “stick approach” like McGuinty (where carrot means positive financial incentives such as tax breaks or awarding companies for good behaviour, and sticks meaning law and negative financial incentives such as taxing consumption).

Hudak continued to attack McGuinty’s green energy policies, but then went on to attack him about taxing businesses. What about the PC plans for energy and the environment? Way to change the topic Tim. Well, it’s because the PC have no plans for the environment.

The next part was a line I heard Hudak say in the beginning of the deabte, and one I’ve been upset about since I read it in the Changebook. Hudak stated he will treat “energy policy as economic policy,” not a “social program.” Ummm what? First, energy policy should not be treated as economic policy, it should be treated as environmental policy. This is probably the statement that angers me the most. Maybe it’s the Environmental Policy major in me, or just the good common sense, but you can’t take energy policy backwards to how it was under the PC government in the 1990s. Remember the 2003 blackout? Thank you Mike Harris. And think of the pollution that will be created by decreasing environmental regulations. Second, what is this about it being a social program? Was Hudak not complaining about the HST on hydro being too costly? Horwath called him and the PC out over the energy mess they made while in power in the 1990s by privatizing and deregulating energy (which causes the August 2003 blackout). Energy is something everyone needs, and the environment belongs to all of us. Maybe if these policies were more fair and equal and weren’t treated like economic policy, then the Liberals wouldn’t have had to do so much to fix the mess in the early 2000s.

However the Liberals are not saints either. The Liberal renewable energy plans are privately owned, such as the Samsung deal with Korea which is a private sector deal costing Ontario a good amount of money. Horwath said these deals should be made with Ontarians in the public’s interest. The NDP is committed to renewable energy, but in the public interest. There plan is to tie together environmental policy with energy policy and make it affordable and equal for everyone.

And of course, Hudak wants to end the “expensive energy experiment,” but what will he replace it with? Horwath then got in another quick jab about the 1990s PC government’s energy experiment which led to Ontario’s energy crisis in the early 2000s. Hudak promises us cheaper energy and to also close down the coal fired plants (which the Liberals and NDP say they will do as well), yet he also seems to be against green energy projects. Again, the PC fail to provide us with an alternative plan. And no, nuclear is not the answer. Nuclear plants cost billions and take years to build, plus there are many safety issues. Green renewable energy is the future and Ontario is on the right path.

Horwath made a good point about the NDP “bold idea” to take 50% of transit operating costs off of municipalities and freeze transit fares. This is a policy I support and I can’t believe the other parties do not have anything similar. The closest is the Liberal plan for two-way GO service, which is actually a plan I wish they instated while I was still commuting to school.

A funnier part of the debate was when both Hudak and Horwath called out McGuinty on cancelling a plan to build a power plant in Mississauga suddenly during the election campaign. Horwath joked “What’s changed is there’s an election on the horizon,” which makes sense. If the people in Mississauga are unhappy with the power plant, of course the Liberals will cancel it to win votes, regardless of the reasoning McGuinty gave. Hudak said “I think Ms. Horwath had a great line there” which was quite funny. This was the one part they both really ganged up on McGuinty.

Next, Horwath discussed freezing tuition fees, the only party to offer this plan. Ontario has the highest undergraduate student debt in Canada. Many students cannot attend full-time since they have to work to pay for tuition and living expenses. Students should not be burdened by debt and tuition should not be a financial barrier. McGuinty says he’ll take 30% (about $1000) off of tuition for families that make less than $160,000 annually, which is very good to hear. However, he won’t be doing anything to stop tuition fees from rising. Hudak is offering more OSAP assistance since middle class families (such as my own) do not qualify for much from OSAP, but are taxed so much that parents cannot afford to pay for their kids’ tuitions. Well that’s great Mr. Hudak, although I still have to pay it back and deal with rising tuition fees. It’s good in the sense that instead of taking out a student loan from the bank and dealing with the interest collection on it, I could just deal with OSAP instead (in an ideal world). But I’d prefer lower tuition fees all together, thanks.

By the end, Horwath made a wonderful comment. She said it shouldn’t be about hurdling accusations and insults at each other (referring to McGuinty and Hudak), but it should be about making Ontario a better place for everyone.

Finally, the healthcare issue. The negotiations to create the New Health Accord between the federal government and the provinces is coming up. McGuinty says we have the shortest wait times in the country and more families have doctors. He asked who do we want standing up for public healthcare at the meeting with Stephen Harper?  Which makes me afraid when I think about it being Hudak. Horwath says Ontarians are watching healthcare deteriorate. It’s hard to tell whether are hospitals are doing better or worse.

I’ve heard stories from friends about how the healthcare system failed them, sent them away thinking their injuries were not as serious as they actually were. I wish they had received the same care and time I received when I broke my toe. I saw an emergency room doctor and got x-rayed in about two hours last October, it was not a bad experience at all. This is how everyone should be treated in our healthcare system.

Hudak wants to invest 6.1 billion into our healthcare system and says healthcare will be their number one priority. But where will this money come from? McGuinty says the PC have not had their numbers checked by an economist. Hmmm, again, big promises and no real plans. Hudak also wants to build 40,000 long term care beds, but then also says he wants to invest in home care.

Horwath says tons of money has been poured into healthcare already, but nothing has changed. Maybe it’s not the amount of money, but how we use it. Hudak again said McGuinty wasted money on e-health and paying consultants instead of putting it into actual healthcare. Well, electronic health records are a good idea, it just was not implemented properly and money was lost. I don’t really trust McGuinty with money, he’s more of an idea type of person. He has good ideas, but can’t seem to get them going without wasting money. The NDP plan as Horwath described to fix our healthcare system is to cap CEO salaries and get rid of the bureaucracy, and help seniors remain at home to save beds in hospitals. That actually sounds like a good plan.

The question Hudak keeps asking us is “Can we afford four more years of Dalton McGuinty?” Well, I don’t know. He has wasted money, but I like his progressive ideas. He’s really not as “evil” as some make him out to be. My question is, can we risk four years of Hudak? In my opinion it is obviously no. However we’re witnessing how the Harper Government is running things after winning a majority in May, but not enough has happened to give a fair judgement. Then again, the other part of the “Conservative hat-trick” is Rob Ford, and his popularity has plummeted thanks to his crazy ideas. So let’s hope Hudak is no Ford. I don’t think Ontario can afford a Conservative “hat-trick,” it is better to have a balance. From the past it appears Ontario tends to balance out the federal government by electing the opposition. We shall see if McGuinty can hang on to even a minority government.

In the end, we can choose the same old suits, red or blue, or we can choose orange, the real change.

+ Lorelie

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

The Truth Behind "Sneaky Eco Fees"

*It's that time again, another election! The Ontario provincial election campaign beging tomorrow!

If you’ve seen the recent Progressive Conservative attack ads against Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals, then you’ve probably heard “sneaky eco tax” numerous times. Well, a few things need to be clarified about the “eco tax” that was introduced last year. First, it was never an actual tax. Second, the money collected through eco fees is retained by the retailers (the stores like Canadian Tire) – none of the proceeds go to the government. It was not a “sneaky tax grab” as the Tories are framing it, and there is much more to the issue. Below is a blog post I wrote during my internship at the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy last fall. Hopefully this will clear up any misunderstandings and help you understand that many important policy tools are framed as “sneaky tax grabs” just to make a certain party (or politician) look bad. I will admit the Liberals should have played a larger role in the plan with Stewardship Ontario, and much better promotion and information should have been provided for the public. However, we’ve been paying such “extra fees” on many products before 2010, including tires and electronics such as computers (where the fees went to finance Ontario’s Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment recycling program).

You don’t have to read through the whole boring post below (although I recommend reading the last paragraph lol), the main point I want to get across is that you shouldn’t believe everything in political attack ads, especially those from Tim Hudak’s campaign. Issues should not be framed so black and white, it should not just be framed as “I’ll lower your taxes and the other guy will raise them.” I’m a New Democrat, but I don’t totally dislike Dalton McGuinty. He’s not the evil “Tax Man” and the sneaky “eco fees” are not profiting him, they go to the retailers. Do your own research, ask questions, and vote for who you feel will be the best premier for you and other Ontarians.


The Truth Behind "Sneaky Eco Fees"

Most hazardous household wastes are thrown out with regular garbage and end up in a landfill or incinerator, where chemicals in the waste can contaminate Ontario’s environment. To avoid such hazardous waste problems the Waste Diversion Act was created on June 27th, 2002. As well, several municipalities have set up their own household hazardous waste collection programs paid for entirely by municipal taxpayers. Both promote the reduction, reuse and recycling of waste and are a means to provide for the development, implementation and operation of waste diversion programs.

Under the Waste Diversion Act (WDA) a non-crown arm’s length agency called Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) was created. Under the WDA the WDO is required to work co-operatively with an Industry Funding Organization (IFO) to develop a waste diversion plan for designated waste. Therefore, Stewardship Ontario was created as the IFO and in February 2008 the Minister of the Environment (MOE) approved Ontario’s Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste Program Plan (MHSW Plan). The Plan was developed by Stewardship Ontario in cooperation with WDO as a way of managing hazardous household waste materials such as paint, antifreeze and fertilizers.

Stewardship Ontario is responsible for managing and safely disposing of the hazardous waste. Its job is to work with retailers in Ontario to set up waste drop-off locations and take back products for recycling. For example, Orange Drop is run through Stewardship Ontario to help encourage the recycling of municipal household hazardous and special waste materials that require extra care when they’ve reached the end of their useful lives. Even more, under the plan thousands of products that fall into the nine hazardous material categories will have extra fees attached that stewards (the manufacturers) must pay to Stewardship Ontario.

As well, it is important to remember that Stewardship Ontario is an independent, industry based organization that develops and operates the MHSW program on behalf of the stewards (the manufacturers of the products) which provide the funding. However, the stewards are the manufacturers and it is unlikely they will pay for this out of their own pockets. So where does the funding come from and who should pay?

Previously, the public paid for the costs of managing the MHSW in Ontario through municipal property taxes. But under the stewardship model adopted in the MHSW program, the full cost of managing hazardous wastes are shifted from the taxpayer to the manufacturer of the product similar to the polluter pays principle. In theory this is a good idea, but problems arise when implementing such plans. A business’ main goal is profit-making, so of course they do not want to have to pay extra fees even though they are creating pollution and waste.

A fee is charged to stewards (the manufacturers and producers), not to consumers or retailers (this is also important to remember). The Environment Commissioner’s Report states that under the MHSW program, Stewardship Ontario charges the stewards a fee by unit for products introduced into the Ontario marketplace that require the management of hazardous or special waste when discarded. Making stewards pay for the recycling and safe disposal of wastes created by their products helps transfer the costs of managing these wastes from the taxpayer to the steward.

However, this is where the controversy started. Many manufacturers passed on the extra fees to retailers as a way of making back what they owed to Stewardship Ontario. Since the retailers were paying more for products, they marked-up the prices which meant passing the fees on to consumers. In addition, retailers such as Canadian Tire called the extra costs “eco fees,” and much of the eco fees were mismanaged.

We must note that the term “eco fee” was created by retailers and it is not a component of the MHSW Plan. The MHSW Plan gives the stewards the option to either absorb the stewardship fees charged by
Stewardship Ontario as a cost of doing business, or to “pass the fee along” by increasing the wholesale price of the products it sells to retailers. In addition, some retailers may choose to absorb the increase in wholesale prices where as others may add some or the entire price increase to the price tags of the actual products. This in turn internalizes an externality, which seems pragmatic but has its faults. A main issue was that when the program was implemented on July 1st 2010, some retailers chose to create a separate “eco fee” line on their cash register receipts, presumably to make a price increase visible to consumers.

Of course the “eco fee” led to confusion and negative media attention, and many consumers viewed it as a “recycling tax.” We all saw the public outcry over the idea of a green tax during the 2008 election, so this reaction was no surprise. Consumers saw this new eco fee as a tax grab by the government, unaware the revenue did not even go to the government but rather to Stewardship Ontario (which as stated before is a non-governmental, industry run organization).

It is evident that retailers should not be allowed to call it an “eco fee,” as this was never mandatory. Unless the program charged the fees at the point-of-sale, this term is misleading and allows the retailers too much flexibility in what they can charge consumers. Still, visible fees (such as the extra cost being included on receipts) could be a great public education tool to inform people that there is a program for how to safely manage and recycle the wastes.

It is obvious that the Ontario government failed to provide adequate leadership and guidance to Stewardship Ontario to ensure they communicated the plan properly with Ontarians. But this is just one of the problems with the plan.

Additionally, Stewardship Ontario is an industry based arm’s length agency which means it is regulated by government but controlled by industry. Therefore they did not create a steward fee where manufacturers with the least toxic products would pay less than their competitors, since their main concern is taking care of the industry. However, that type of competition would entice manufacturers to develop greener products in order to reduce their fees, which would be better for the environment and consumers. For example a company with a less toxic paint should pay lower fees than its competitor with a paint that is more toxic. A solution would be to bring in “differential fees” which would reward greener products with lower fees.

Furthermore, another concern was over which products were included. Issues regarding the inclusion of compost were made clear through public comments on the Environmental registry website. Many do not consider compost as hazardous and do not see the reasoning behind it being included with items such as pesticides and batteries. But there will always be complaints and grievances with any extra costs on such well-used products.

However, the cost is essentially unavoidable. We can pay for the cost of this disposal through a taxpayer-funded municipal recycling program, through the mark-up of product prices to fund a steward-managed program, or through reduced landfill space and a degraded environment caused by unsafe disposal. Another option brought up by the Ontario New Democratic Party was that the plan should be directly administered by the Ministry of the Environment, not the industry-run, arm's-length agency Stewardship Ontario. This would provide more government accountability and control, as well as real environmental support rather than just an industry run program.

Regardless, we should think of the eco fee as a way of taking responsibility for ensuring hazardous waste products are managed and disposed of safely. As well, it means less waste in landfills, less damage to our environment, and ensuring a cleaner and better future where we take responsibility whether as a consumer or producer.

Below are some great reviews by our Environment Commissioner, Gord Miller:

http://www.eco.on.ca/blog/2010/07/27/clearing-up-the-confusion-around-eco-fees/

http://www.eco.on.ca/blog/2010/07/27/%E2%80%9Ceco-fee%E2%80%9D-controversy-must-not-jeopardize-hazardous-waste-program/

Here's Stewardship Ontario's website which explains everything:
http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/consumers/what-we-do/mhswenvironmental-fees

Thanks for reading!

+ Lorelie