Ontario unions behind 94 per cent of third-party ad spending in past three elections posted:

Ontario unions have spent more than $15-million to campaign in the past three general elections, 94 per cent of all third-party advertising.

The advertising has been aimed mainly at the Progressive Conservative Party by two labour umbrella groups, Working Families and Project Ontario, which both have strong ties to other political parties.

Working Families employs a communications firm that has also held major contracts with the Ontario Liberal Party, while veteran NDP strategist Brian Topp was a leader of Project Ontario during the most recent election.

This is all completely legal in Ontario. While spending is capped for political parties at election time, third-party advertisers face no such restriction. And current rules do not prevent groups such as Working Families or Project Ontario from hiring strategists connected to political parties to work on their campaigns. It all raises the spectre of a system similar to U.S.-style SuperPACs: Groups that operate at arm’s length from politicians, but function as their proxies to attack opponents and circumvent the spending limits.

While third-party advertising has long been controversial in Ontario – the PCs tried to get Elections Ontario to rule that Working Families was a Liberal front in 2009 – a Globe and Mail tally of Elections Ontario data reveals the scale of the practice.

In the three election campaigns since 2007, when third-party advertisers first had to disclose their spending, Ontarians have seen $16.4-million worth of such advertising – $15.4-million of it financed by unions. Corporate spending accounted for $641,000, and other advocacy groups accounted for $409,000.

Greg Essensa, the province’s independent chief electoral officer, is speaking out on the system. He says current rules are so lax they could allow politicians to “circumvent contribution and spending limits” by co-ordinating their campaigns with those of third-party advertisers.

Premier Kathleen Wynne’s proposed campaign finance reform, Bill 201, contains the first measures in the province’s history to cap third-party advertising: Corporations, unions or individuals could spend no more than $100,000 during an election campaign period and $600,000 in the six months before.

Mr. Essensa told a legislative committee studying the bill last month that the legislation must get tougher.

“The public can plainly see that candidates and organizations that claim to be non-partisan are able to actively co-ordinate their advertising,” he said. “This sort of co-ordination is especially troubling when an organization relies on former political staff or partisan strategists to shape a third party’s advertising. The public sees this as an apparent conflict of interest, and I do, too.”

Under the current rules, he said, it would have to be proven that a political party had controlled a third-party’s campaign for it to be deemed collusion – a difficult task. Mr. Essensa said the legislation should ban people who have been political staffers, party officials or consultants to a political party from working on third-party advertising campaigns.

Working Families is, by far, the province’s biggest spender on third-party ads. Since 2007, the group poured more than $4.6-million into three general elections: a little over $1-million in each of the 2007 and 2011 campaigns, and $2.5-million in 2014.

The group is primarily financed by unions representing skilled trades and teachers’ associations. Its chair is Patrick Dillon, head of the Provincial Building Trades Council.

Working Families’ campaigns are run by Arrow Communications Group, a firm headed by veteran political strategist Marcel Wieder. Arrow made more than $4.3-million from Working Families over the past three elections.

Arrow was also paid $1.4-million to do work for the Ontario Liberals between 2006 and 2013. The money came from the taxpayer-funded caucus services budget.

Up to the 2007 campaign, Working Families also employed Pollara Strategic Insights, a company then headed by Don Guy, who was the Liberals’ campaign director at the time.

Working Families’ ads have been some of the province’s most memorable. One 2014 spot depicted the Tories then-leader Tim Hudak as a cartoon Pinocchio, his nose growing with every campaign promise. Another described the PC Party as “the old boys’ club” and showed an actor playing Mr. Hudak cutting backroom deals with shadowy Bay Street suits.

Mr. Wieder insists he keeps a firewall between his work for the Liberals and his campaigns for Working Families.

“I can assure you and your readers there is no direct connection between the two,” he said. “Do I have friends who worked on the [Liberal] campaign? Absolutely, I have friends. Did we talk about how the campaign was going? I’m sure it came up in conversation, as friends talk about how things are going and how family and things are. But was there any material transfer of knowledge, of tactics, of strategy? None.”

Mr. Dillon says his group chose Arrow and Pollara not for their Liberal ties but because they were the best firms for the job. He said Working Families also interviewed strategists affiliated with the PCs and the New Democrats when the group formed before the 2003 election.

“There’s not a whole lot of people in this business, tied into the political business, that are out there to choose from,” he said.

Project Ontario was started before the 2014 campaign and spent a little under $450,000 in the election. It was funded by the United Steelworkers, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation and Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, which represents Toronto Transit Commission employees.

The group’s filings with Elections Ontario list Mr. Topp, a long-time NDP staffer and one-time federal leadership candidate, as a contact person. Mr. Topp worked for Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath for a few months after the election.

Project Ontario’s campaign was primarily a series of anti-Conservative ads shown in Southwestern Ontario ridings where the NDP was battling the PCs. The NDP’s strategy in the last election focused on making gains in the southwest.

Mark Rowlinson, a United Steelworkers’ staffer, said Project Ontario’s anti-Tory ads were mainly aimed at voters wavering between the PCs and the NDP. But he insisted the group did not co-ordinate with the NDP.

“The people involved in that project had no contact with the party – with the NDP, or with any other,” he said.

In an e-mail, Mr. Topp confirmed he was an officer of Project Ontario, but said he “played no role” in the NDP’s campaign.

The individual unions that spend the most on election ads over the years in the province have been the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association, which paid out more than $4.5-million in the course of the past three elections, and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO), which spent $4.3-million. Some of this money was for the unions’ own campaigns, and some was contributed to Working Families.

The unions and the Tories say the attack ads had the intended effect.

ETFO president Sam Hammond contends his association’s involvement in elections encouraged the Liberals to adopt such measures as caps on class sizes and full-day kindergarten.

“If you look back at the relationship we had with the government for two or three election cycles, there were a lot of positive things that came out of us being politically active,” he said. “It does have a benefit to our members.”

Mr. Hudak estimates he faced about $20-million worth of attack ads during his two elections as PC leader, between third-party campaigns and the two rival parties.

“Almost $20-million in negative ads will give people a certain impression that may not be accurate. You do that to Mother Teresa and they’ll start suspecting her as well,” he said in an interview.

But the people behind the third-party advertising contend that imposing limits would stifle freedom of expression.

Mr. Dillon said politicians are able to ensure there are no improper ties between themselves and the third-party groups.

“People operate – whether they’re lawyers or doctors or politicians – with a certain amount of integrity,” he said. “A little self-control, in my view, is all that’s needed.”

And he said Bill 201’s provision to restrict third-party advertising for six months before an election campaign would be unconstitutional and could be challenged in court.

He is not alone on that point. Campaign finance expert Robert MacDermid points to the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision on federal third-party advertising restrictions during election campaigns: Although the court upheld the restrictions, Mr. MacDermid says it was not an easy decision and the bench might rule differently if spending limits were stretched outside the campaign period.

“A close reading of the Supreme Court … decision indicates that the justices agonized over restrictions as long as a federal election campaign. It is hard to imagine their reading of the Charter would permit a six-month-long restriction,” he told the committee that is reviewing the campaign finance bill last month.

Mr. Essensa said concerns about freedom of expression could be addressed by differentiating in the law between advocacy groups campaigning for general causes – better environmental protections, for instance – and attack ads targeting candidates or parties.

“If there is an issue-advocacy group that is advocating for an issue...there shouldn’t be restrictions on that,” he said. “But where there needs to be restrictions is on advertising that depicts a party leader, depicts a candidate, depicts a party and is trying to influence the electorate the next time they appear at the ballot box.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rticle31326097/

PK loving SUBBAN posted:

Does that $16.4m 3rd party ads number (over 3 elections!) seems weirdly low to anyone else?

Like, if I'm a Toronto 1% billionaire this looks like an opportunity to me.

PT6A posted:

True, but as long as they exist for one unhealthy thing, they should exist for all of them. Why should I have to spend more money because I like booze instead of supersized Big Mac meals?

jm20 posted:

Raising all the taxes. Comment are a cross section of PT6A's thoughts.

peter banana posted:

No need to find out who murdered those Aboriginal women, I guess. They're only half of a micro interest!

The Toronto Star posted:

Tim Hudak quitting provincial politics to lead Ontario Real Estate Association

Progressive Conservative Hudak, who has had 21 years at Queen’s Park, said his last day as the MPP for Niagara West-Glanbrook will be Sept. 16

After 21 years at Queen’s Park and a stint as leader of the Progressive Conservatives, Tim Hudak is quitting provincial politics to become chief executive officer of the Ontario Real Estate Association.

Hudak, who served as a cabinet minister in the administrations of former premiers Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, said his last day as the MPP for Niagara West-Glanbrook will be Sept. 16.

“When a really good opportunity comes along, you grab it,” said Hudak, who was ousted as PC leader by MPPs unhappy with the party’s campaign in the 2014 election that saw Premier Kathleen Wynne vault to a majority.

Hudak had promised to cut 100,000 public sector jobs, a controversial vow that cost his party one-third of its seats and led to recriminations in the Tory caucus over an approach viewed as too confrontational.

Despite the setback, Hudak stayed involved as an MPP, pushing several private members’ bills, including one to ease government restrictions on boutique distilleries.

PC Leader Patrick Brown thanked Hudak for his years of service.

“First elected in 1995 at age 27, Tim has been a stalwart in the Ontario PC Party and the Niagara Region community,” Brown said in a statement.

“All of us will miss his advice and experience around the caucus table.”

PT6A posted:

I think forcing a greater cross section of people to pay sin taxes

quote:

As hearings get underway on the proposed Energy East pipeline, documents obtained by the CBC's French-language service, Radio-Canada, show the Canadian military has expressed grave concerns about the possibility of an oil spill.

Memos released under Access to Information show officials at the Canadian Forces garrison in Petawawa, Ont., have been demanding answers from TransCanada Corp., the company behind the project, about a section of pipeline that passes through the base. The pipeline, which is already in place, is designed to transport natural gas, but would be switched to carrying crude oil if Energy East goes ahead.

In a series of emails dating back to 2014, Donald Megrath, the hazardous material officer for Petawawa, lays out his concerns about a potential pipeline breach on the nearby Petawawa River.

"A crude oil spill … is a significant environmental event," he writes in one note.

"What is their emergency response plan to cover, control and respond to this?"

Another email from January 2015 raises concerns about the possibility of "an epic, life, environmental and social altering spill."

The documents detail some of the correspondence between the military and TransCanada. The company wrote a letter in April 2014 to answer a series of specific questions posed by defence officials about what sort of emergency planning TransCanada had carried out to respond to a spill along the pipeline, especially near water sources.

In the letter, the company assures the military its pipeline can be shut down "within minutes" in the event of a breach. In further correspondence, the company clarifies just how close its pipeline would come to other military installations, revealing it would pass within 600 metres of the Canadian Forces base in North Bay, Ont., and just 200 metres from the base in Suffield, Alta.

PT6A posted:

Arguably sin taxes on sugar are better than those on tobacco and alcohol because sugar doesn't cause near the same level of physical dependence, so people are able to make a more rational choice about whether or not to consume it.

PK loving SUBBAN posted:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cfb-petawawa-energy-east-pipeline-1.3712472

Canadian military voices concerns over Energy East pipeline


I had sort of given up and assumed this pipeline was a given, especially after the Keystone XL and west coast pipelines seem to be coming off the table.

But now I'm starting to wonder if maybe Energy East won't happen either.

OSI bean dip posted:

I've said in this thread in the past that putting a tax on soda, candy, and other junk food to subsidize the cost of healthier options like produce and certain dairy products would go a long way.

However, this will probably be for general revenue reasons which is not what should happen.

Fluffy Chainsaw posted:

A better way to lower the cost of produce and dairy would be to blow apart supply management for once and for all.

OSI bean dip posted:

That's nonsense. Supply management goes a long way in ensuring that we don't end up with poo poo food policies.

Fluffy Chainsaw posted:

A better way to lower the cost of produce and dairy would be to blow apart supply management for once and for all.

PT6A posted:

Arguably sin taxes on sugar are better than those on tobacco and alcohol because sugar doesn't cause near the same level of physical dependence, so people are able to make a more rational choice about whether or not to consume it.

quote:

Canada’s system of supply managed eggs, chicken and dairy costs the poorest households almost five times more than wealthy families when its effects are adjusted proportional to income, according to a new study.

On average, supply management costs each household $444 a year, “$585 for households with children and $378 for households without,” the study titled Milked and Feathered: The Regressive Welfare Effects of Canada’s Supply Management Regime, states. The less you make, the more that eats into disposable income and the deeper the effects of this “implicit tax” created by government policy are felt.

Supply management is a system of production quotas and set prices by farmers supplemented with high trade barriers to protect the Canadian dairy and poultry industries from global competition.

Families at the highest end of the income spectrum spend about 8% of their annual expenditures on food, compared to 16 at the lowest end, the study to be printed in the March 2015 issue of Canadian Public Policy states. That’s why supply management is about five times more costly for those household budgets.

“Higher dairy and poultry prices would therefore impose a proportionally larger penalty on households that spend more of their incomes on food,” it states.

Families with kids spend, on average, over $1,200 a year on supply-managed groceries; those without about $774. According to the authors that means, “Canada’s supply-managed system imposes an implicit tax on the poorest households with children that ranges from $466 to $592 per year.”


That means, if you calculate the extra cost supply management tacks on relative to annual income, low-income families pay an “implicit tax” of 2.4% each year
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...ld-income-study

Fluffy Chainsaw posted:

Supply Management is disproportionately harmful to low-income families.

cowofwar posted:

Sugar has a way greater cost to public health and society than tobacco or alcohol. The obesity epidemic started with massive subsidization of sugar under Nixon and until it's no longer cheaper to replace everything in food with sugar then it will stick around and cost us massive amounts on all the consequences of metabolic syndrome.

The Dark One posted:

If you're going to tax sugary drinks, then you had better include all the 400 calorie cappuccinos and smoothies, too.

Kenny Logins posted:

Since we're floating totally unrealistic moon scenarios, I want additional sin tax on only cheap domestic beer, just enough to bring it up to the price point of craft beer. Also, to sin tax cheap spirits until they're the same as the spirits I happen to like.

EvilJoven posted:

the past couple of weeks I started to really track my food intake closely down to the last handful of raisins and grab while throwing up my breakfast together.

It's amazing both just how much you can eat if you're not putting poo poo in your body as well as how much garbage is in certain foods especially ones that are marketed as a healthy alternative.

RBC posted:

you could say that about any food. article is for morons

DariusLikewise posted:

Funkdreamer posted:

You haven't explained why eliminating supply management would produce better health outcomes than keeping supply management and expanding subsidies for low-income Canadians.

Supply management doesn't even cover fruit & vegetable markets.

quote:

Ontario farmers may have a radically different system for selling process vegetables next year, but producers and industry watchers don’t understand why the change is necessary.

News leaked in July that the Farm Products Marketing Commission, a regulatory agency established by the Ontario government, was considering removing the marketing authority of the Ontario Processing Vegetable Growers.

The OPVG, a marketing board, negotiates prices, terms and conditions with processing companies on behalf of growers. The commission proposed replacing the marketing board with a free market system for selling process vegetables such as tomatoes, green peas, cucumbers and carrots.

http://www.producer.com/2016/08/ont-vegetable-growers-may-lose-marketing-board/

OSI bean dip posted:

I've said in this thread in the past that putting a tax on soda, candy, and other junk food to subsidize the cost of healthier options like produce and certain dairy products would go a long way.

However, this will probably be for general revenue reasons which is not what should happen.

Fluffy Chainsaw posted:

Actually...

Funkdreamer posted:

You haven't explained why eliminating supply management would produce better health outcomes than keeping supply management and expanding subsidies for low-income Canadians.

Supply management doesn't even cover fruit & vegetable markets.

Funkdreamer posted:

You haven't answered my question as to why eliminating supply management would be better than expanding subsidies.

PT6A posted:

I avoid carb-heavy side dishes (like having three slices of bread with butter with dinner, which is what my Dad does), or side dishes in general.

Trapick posted:

What about eliminating supply management (to lower cost) and having strict health standards for milk/dairy (assuming they're not strict enough already, which I think they are)? Supply management is good for the wallets of some existing dairy farmers, that's it.

Fried Watermelon posted:

Work in more vegetables and less meat into your diet you will become healthier and will spend less

Jordan7hm posted:

Even if the money from the tax is earmarked for healthcare it's just shifting money. All taxes are general revenue and it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. Once the money is in the pot, it's in the pot, and even if you tie it directly to spending that just means spending that would happen otherwise doesn't happen. There are better ways to fund healthcare initiatives than sin taxes.

Like more brackets and higher income taxes. Implementing more progressive taxation (and the elimination of regressive taxes like sales taxes) is good. Implementing more regressive taxation is bad.