When the Manitoba Schools Question was answered a valid point was realized in that Canada is a bi-lingual country and parents should have a choice on weather they want their child educated in English or French. There is no dispute here. English and French languages are important facets of Canadian culture. The answer to the question goes astray when it begins to negatively effect the education of other no-francophone Canadians. Civil liberties of English Winnipeggers in some areas of the city seem to have been forgotten in a ridiculous excuse for trying to include more French.
South St.Vital and other areas of Winnipeg are suffering from this dilemma where predominantly English speaking youth are being displaced at the expense of their parents. What this means is good, hard working, tax paying parents are being forced to send their kids out of the community for schooling. This is not a new problem. Manitoba schools, and more specifically Winnipeg schools have always been under funded. However, this is a newer problem that has been disturbingly developing over the past decade. High school students living in the area south of the Perimeter, River Park South, Dakota Crossing and Norman Park are at times being sent half way to downtown Winnipeg for high school. When I say sent to, I do not mean by publicly funded school bus services. The term ‘Sent’ in this case refers to the students traveling this distance to and from school everyday at the expense of either themselves or their parents. That is only part of the problem. Francophone students are being shipped in from across the city on publicly funded school buses to receive their education. This is outrageous dilemma in which an inequality is actually costing the local residents in an attempt to appease others.
Why are they being shipped in?
There is nowhere else to go. Sounds plain and simple, but is it really?
This problem is multi faceted. The aforementioned issue with high school students is a glaring problem that is obvious and needs to be fixed. The problem actually sits deeper than at this level. The problem is not that there are too few schools in these communities; the problem is that the brand new schools that exist, have recently been built, and are being built are not being built for the population living there. These expanding communities are suffering because the funding that is put into schools, weather primary or secondary are not reflective of population. In River Park South around 2000 Ecole L’Esperance was completed. This relatively small, but modern school was supposed to serve as a high school for the surrounding areas of River Park South and Dakota Crossing. This school was converted into a Francophone primary and Jr. High school. The location of this school at the intersection of John Forsyth and Dakota is on prime land with a vast field and a retention pond – quite a beautiful sight. This school which was supposed to be a desperately needed English school was unacceptably and underhandedly swept into the grasp of the un-proportionally represented minority of francophones.
Another reason is the population in which the province and the schools are supposed to serve. There are 2 French-Emersion schools in close proximity to the area; one primary and one secondary. One of those schools is the next newest school in the area. These schools do not have enough students to fill their classrooms, let alone the population to justify building another new school. So I again beg the question again; why are kids being shipped in from elsewhere to fill local schools?
Building a single new school would not be so outrageous if the disturbing trend did not continue. Just this summer yet another brand new, modern high school was built in the area. In fact, it is literally down the street from Ecole L’Esperance. If anything, the problem is worse today than it was in 2000. The communities of Dakota Crossing and River Park South have grown significantly. The bulging English high schools that are supposed to serve the sprawling communities are the same ones as before. This new school that was recently finished is to be a Francophone school. How absurd is that? Once again, residents of the communities will be forced to pay the additional costs of not only sending their children farther away, and the cost associated with bringing in students to the brand new school in which their child can not attend that is literally down the street from their home. This increasingly ridiculous scenario does not stop here.
New plans for the expanding communities are not solving the issue. The fact of the matter is that the new comers and residents of the expanding communities are a striking majority of Anglophones. The plans for the community expansion see another placement of French schools. Out of the 2 new proposed schools, 1 is slated to be Francophone. Here is a question I am posing to our MLA:
Why are residents of Dakota Crossing, River Park South, Norman Park and people living south of the Perimeter forced to pay high and increasing school taxes, and burdened with the responsibility of sending their children outside the area, because the fact of the matter is that they are not able to utilize essential services down the street from their homes, in order to satisfy the needs of residents of other constituencies who are French speaking?
The Manitoba Schools Question was supposed to be about equality, but it has turned into a matter of creating inequality at the expense of not only the tax payers abroad, but more specifically the hard working, tax paying citizens of and especially the children and youth of South Winnipeg who have been alienated in their own community.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Hydro Therapy
Innovation is not a term one thinks of when thinking of Manitoba. Innovation is an increasingly attractive theme within governance which Manitoba should use. Innovative thinking is what this province needs in order to begin to improve. The consequences of using old practices as opposed to innovative thinking are disastrous, especially in a time where Manitoba has already fallen behind and continues to do so. Manitoba is without a doubt a have-not province, but why is that? Manitoba is a province that has plentiful resources and a unique economy. The problem is that Manitoba’s economy is hallmarked by a grossly over intrusive state. In particular, consider Manitoba Hydro. Hydro is a completely state owned entity. This crown corporation has a virtual monopoly on the supply of electricity, energy sales and energy production in Manitoba.
Here is a place where we could begin to use innovative thinking. Manitoba could use a form of innovation and deregulate the market to allow room for private sector growth. Manitoba is backward in the sense that the state seems to think that they have to supply jobs, where the fact of the matter is that the government should only be in markets to stimulate economic growth and development. Governments should be involved in the economy insofar as it should be a guide, not the sole major player. Deregulation would allow companies (other than the Crown owned Manitoba Hydro) to try to sell electricity in Manitoba.
That is not saying Manitoba should privatize Hydro, but allow competition. Allowing other organizations to sell electricity in Manitoba would benefit Manitobans, and the province of Manitoba. It could force electricity prices down due to mass competition. I am not saying I don’t appreciate the low rates offered by Manitoba Hydro, but with market deregulation prices could drop, and quality of service could increase. As a crown corporation, isn’t their responsibility to improve service? Manitoba Hydro would not be at a loss. Manitoba could then redirect energy, or expand operations to increase the export of electricity to places like California or even Ontario, where the federal government has recently proposed funding for a transmission line to connect Manitoba and Toronto. By exporting more electricity at a higher price than having to supply local electricity at a lower price, Manitoba Hydro would benefit. By allowing this competition for local electricity, Manitoba would enrich its economy, giving a stimulus for growth allowing private companies to take root, and as a consequence would leave room for further innovation in different areas. All it takes is some creative thinking (which Manitoba is apparently incapable of – looking at the slogan), the willingness to change, the adoption of innovative practices and the will to succeed.
What evidence is there to support this idea?
MTS.
MTS is a shining example of how innovative thinking can benefit Manitoba. Once again, I am not saying we should privatize Hydro completely as was eventually done with MTS, but deregulate. MTS deregulated the market before being privatized. Manitoba should apply this principle to Hydro. Deregulating the telecommunications market allowed competition. For the first time, large private corporations began to set up telecom operations in Manitoba. The first Bell Canada payphones were established in Manitoba. Consequently, due to the deregulation of the market, and the readying for MTS to be privatized, phone prices dropped and stock prices rose (stocks were gradually released for public tender in 2 phases, the first of which the government was the majority holder). The quality of service to citizens rose as another result. Furthermore, the massive investment the private sector made in MTS allowed it to become the innovative company it is today. That is to say under a highly regulated monopolistic environment, the direct investment of public funds would not be acceptable to conduct research and development which led to the ability to provide services in not just land line telecommunications, but cellular, internet and even television. The first step needs to be taken by the province of Manitoba to deregulate the energies markets in order for further development to take place.
Therefore, as seen by the experiences of MTS, the increased competition that would foster a richer economy, higher profitability, a rise in the quality of service provided, and the increased export of energy without affecting local consumers, Manitoba should consider using a degree of innovation and experiment with the deregulation of the market in which Manitoba Hydro holds an unjustified monopoly.
Here is a place where we could begin to use innovative thinking. Manitoba could use a form of innovation and deregulate the market to allow room for private sector growth. Manitoba is backward in the sense that the state seems to think that they have to supply jobs, where the fact of the matter is that the government should only be in markets to stimulate economic growth and development. Governments should be involved in the economy insofar as it should be a guide, not the sole major player. Deregulation would allow companies (other than the Crown owned Manitoba Hydro) to try to sell electricity in Manitoba.
That is not saying Manitoba should privatize Hydro, but allow competition. Allowing other organizations to sell electricity in Manitoba would benefit Manitobans, and the province of Manitoba. It could force electricity prices down due to mass competition. I am not saying I don’t appreciate the low rates offered by Manitoba Hydro, but with market deregulation prices could drop, and quality of service could increase. As a crown corporation, isn’t their responsibility to improve service? Manitoba Hydro would not be at a loss. Manitoba could then redirect energy, or expand operations to increase the export of electricity to places like California or even Ontario, where the federal government has recently proposed funding for a transmission line to connect Manitoba and Toronto. By exporting more electricity at a higher price than having to supply local electricity at a lower price, Manitoba Hydro would benefit. By allowing this competition for local electricity, Manitoba would enrich its economy, giving a stimulus for growth allowing private companies to take root, and as a consequence would leave room for further innovation in different areas. All it takes is some creative thinking (which Manitoba is apparently incapable of – looking at the slogan), the willingness to change, the adoption of innovative practices and the will to succeed.
What evidence is there to support this idea?
MTS.
MTS is a shining example of how innovative thinking can benefit Manitoba. Once again, I am not saying we should privatize Hydro completely as was eventually done with MTS, but deregulate. MTS deregulated the market before being privatized. Manitoba should apply this principle to Hydro. Deregulating the telecommunications market allowed competition. For the first time, large private corporations began to set up telecom operations in Manitoba. The first Bell Canada payphones were established in Manitoba. Consequently, due to the deregulation of the market, and the readying for MTS to be privatized, phone prices dropped and stock prices rose (stocks were gradually released for public tender in 2 phases, the first of which the government was the majority holder). The quality of service to citizens rose as another result. Furthermore, the massive investment the private sector made in MTS allowed it to become the innovative company it is today. That is to say under a highly regulated monopolistic environment, the direct investment of public funds would not be acceptable to conduct research and development which led to the ability to provide services in not just land line telecommunications, but cellular, internet and even television. The first step needs to be taken by the province of Manitoba to deregulate the energies markets in order for further development to take place.
Therefore, as seen by the experiences of MTS, the increased competition that would foster a richer economy, higher profitability, a rise in the quality of service provided, and the increased export of energy without affecting local consumers, Manitoba should consider using a degree of innovation and experiment with the deregulation of the market in which Manitoba Hydro holds an unjustified monopoly.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Saskatchewan Looks Better Everyday
After the election closed last week I jokingly said “Saskatchewan looks better today than ever before.” Upon closer reflection, this is not as much of a joke as it was last week. Before actually looking at the situation and comparing Manitoba and Saskatchewan, we could at least say “At least I don’t live in Regina!” when things weren’t looking so good. Now, it simply isn’t the case. Saskatchewan looks better every day, except for the days the Roughriders play.
Saskatchewan is doing things right. Why can’t Manitoba? The slogans say it all. As Manitoba blundered in spending millions on contracting the creation of a provincial slogan to a New York firm, Saskatchewan laughed. Spirited Energy… That’s all they could come up with? Are you kidding me? Alberta looks at us and says “we have the energy, keep the spirit.” North Dakota looks at it and asks “why did they steal the bison off of our license plates?”
Innovative by Nature… now that’s a slogan! It is better in every way and shows a desire to improve.
Improvement is exactly what Saskatchewan is doing right, and exactly the opposite of what has been happening in Manitoba. In today’s Winnipeg Free Press, Geoff Kirbson wrote that Manitoba has LOST 100 payroll positions in the first three months of this year, while at the same time neighbouring Saskatchewan CREATED 4000 jobs, according to Statistics Canada. The same article stated that out of the 285700 jobs created in Canada last year only 1000 were in Manitoba – which is less than ½ of 1%. Lets look at a possible reasons Manitoba has fallen behind.
#1 – The Payroll Tax
No (or few) large corporations will set up in Manitoba, let alone Winnipeg with this massive tax. Corporations are losing 2 fold. Employees are taxed on their income. Companies are taxed on their salary spending. Why does the province of Manitoba feel the need to be so unfriendly to businesses by taxing them not only on any income, but on expenses? Let’s face it; the large companies/corporations will be paying the large salaries professionals desire and with this tax, barely any large companies would set up in Manitoba, thereby eliminating those positions from Manitoba. Saskatchewan is right next door: only a couple hours away, and they don’t have a Pay Roll Tax. Where do you think an intelligent decision maker for a business would choose to set up – Manitoba where they are being charged an unreasonable tax, or Saskatchewan who offers a similar environment, with a friendlier, business minded government? The numbers speak for themselves. 100 jobs LOST vs. 4000 jobs CREATED.
The Free Press article also points towards other disturbing trends. Manitoba ranked 17 out of 28 for average incomes in cities. The average Manitoba income for a Winnipeg family is $68900. Winnipeg also ranked 18th in average income for single parent income at slightly over $30000. Winnipeg housing and property is known across the country to be very reasonable and affordable, however that's because it has to be. Given the poor salaries, and lack of willingness of large companies to locate in Manitoba, houses have to be cheaper. Moreover how is Manitoba supposed to retain its young graduates, professionals and skilled trades with such weak prospects of obtaining a successful career and large salaries?
In readings this posting, ask yourself why a government of a have-not province would introduce and maintain a pay roll tax, which discourages investment and growth. Ask yourself why people don’t make as much money in Winnipeg. Is it because we have an inherently weak economy, or is it because we have a weak economy partly die to a government that is not committed to fostering growth, investment, creating jobs and not working to attract big businesses so that Manitobans may prosper?
Saskatchewan is doing things right. Why can’t Manitoba? The slogans say it all. As Manitoba blundered in spending millions on contracting the creation of a provincial slogan to a New York firm, Saskatchewan laughed. Spirited Energy… That’s all they could come up with? Are you kidding me? Alberta looks at us and says “we have the energy, keep the spirit.” North Dakota looks at it and asks “why did they steal the bison off of our license plates?”
Innovative by Nature… now that’s a slogan! It is better in every way and shows a desire to improve.
Improvement is exactly what Saskatchewan is doing right, and exactly the opposite of what has been happening in Manitoba. In today’s Winnipeg Free Press, Geoff Kirbson wrote that Manitoba has LOST 100 payroll positions in the first three months of this year, while at the same time neighbouring Saskatchewan CREATED 4000 jobs, according to Statistics Canada. The same article stated that out of the 285700 jobs created in Canada last year only 1000 were in Manitoba – which is less than ½ of 1%. Lets look at a possible reasons Manitoba has fallen behind.
#1 – The Payroll Tax
No (or few) large corporations will set up in Manitoba, let alone Winnipeg with this massive tax. Corporations are losing 2 fold. Employees are taxed on their income. Companies are taxed on their salary spending. Why does the province of Manitoba feel the need to be so unfriendly to businesses by taxing them not only on any income, but on expenses? Let’s face it; the large companies/corporations will be paying the large salaries professionals desire and with this tax, barely any large companies would set up in Manitoba, thereby eliminating those positions from Manitoba. Saskatchewan is right next door: only a couple hours away, and they don’t have a Pay Roll Tax. Where do you think an intelligent decision maker for a business would choose to set up – Manitoba where they are being charged an unreasonable tax, or Saskatchewan who offers a similar environment, with a friendlier, business minded government? The numbers speak for themselves. 100 jobs LOST vs. 4000 jobs CREATED.
The Free Press article also points towards other disturbing trends. Manitoba ranked 17 out of 28 for average incomes in cities. The average Manitoba income for a Winnipeg family is $68900. Winnipeg also ranked 18th in average income for single parent income at slightly over $30000. Winnipeg housing and property is known across the country to be very reasonable and affordable, however that's because it has to be. Given the poor salaries, and lack of willingness of large companies to locate in Manitoba, houses have to be cheaper. Moreover how is Manitoba supposed to retain its young graduates, professionals and skilled trades with such weak prospects of obtaining a successful career and large salaries?
In readings this posting, ask yourself why a government of a have-not province would introduce and maintain a pay roll tax, which discourages investment and growth. Ask yourself why people don’t make as much money in Winnipeg. Is it because we have an inherently weak economy, or is it because we have a weak economy partly die to a government that is not committed to fostering growth, investment, creating jobs and not working to attract big businesses so that Manitobans may prosper?
Friday, May 25, 2007
Winnipeg Predators?
I’m not talking about the street thugs, gangsters and criminals that are roaming the streets of Winnipeg just waiting to steal your car, but the Nashville Predators franchise sale.
Was the ‘Bring back the Jets’ announcement a campaign blunder or a statement with vision? The speech that “crystallized the campaign” in the words of a colleague, should have been sounded off of more minds than just the inner policy circle, but that very statement could be the words that make Hugh McFadyen our next Premier. It shows a willingness to take a risk to gain the votes of Manitobans as a perk of success under a PC government. This was probably an inappropriate comment for that time and stage in the election and probably something that should have been announced after winning, but at this point, it makes no difference.
Bringing the NHL back to Winnipeg might not as far fetched as it may seem. I wouldn’t call it a “reckless promise” but an inquiry into the possibility of Winnipeg being the host of a world class hockey team again. As we all see now, the Nashville Predators are for sale. Granted, the team will probably go to a large market area, but it is an indicator that it may still be possible to land a team in Winnipeg in the next 4 years. It is an indicator that as support for hockey in the US falls; the NHL will eventually have to look north of the border. Winnipeg is the next likely city north of the border for an NHL franchise.
If it is to occur (a team taking root in Winnipeg), what will the result be? How will Hugh McFadyen’s campaign speech be remembered? Will he be seen as a visionary, as he rightfully should be?
By making the speech it had alienated some party members and most importantly - voters, but is it truly a look at the big picture in that he had the foresight to market himself in a manner which reflects an heir of optimism. Now that the election is lost, if it is to occur, McFadyen will be portrayed with an angelic white glow. The fact that this man was daring enough to announce publicly such an ambitious concept bodes well for him in years to come, especially if a team is placed in Winnipeg. If a team actually comes to Winnipeg, Hugh McFadyen will be seen as the man who made it happen, the man with the vision, and the man who supports progress and a better Manitoba.
Over the next 4 years of NDP government, we get to say “I told you so” as the province declines even further, but if an NHL team arrives in Winnipeg within the next decade, Hugh McFadyen will be the one who can legitimately say “I told you so.”
Was the ‘Bring back the Jets’ announcement a campaign blunder or a statement with vision? The speech that “crystallized the campaign” in the words of a colleague, should have been sounded off of more minds than just the inner policy circle, but that very statement could be the words that make Hugh McFadyen our next Premier. It shows a willingness to take a risk to gain the votes of Manitobans as a perk of success under a PC government. This was probably an inappropriate comment for that time and stage in the election and probably something that should have been announced after winning, but at this point, it makes no difference.
Bringing the NHL back to Winnipeg might not as far fetched as it may seem. I wouldn’t call it a “reckless promise” but an inquiry into the possibility of Winnipeg being the host of a world class hockey team again. As we all see now, the Nashville Predators are for sale. Granted, the team will probably go to a large market area, but it is an indicator that it may still be possible to land a team in Winnipeg in the next 4 years. It is an indicator that as support for hockey in the US falls; the NHL will eventually have to look north of the border. Winnipeg is the next likely city north of the border for an NHL franchise.
If it is to occur (a team taking root in Winnipeg), what will the result be? How will Hugh McFadyen’s campaign speech be remembered? Will he be seen as a visionary, as he rightfully should be?
By making the speech it had alienated some party members and most importantly - voters, but is it truly a look at the big picture in that he had the foresight to market himself in a manner which reflects an heir of optimism. Now that the election is lost, if it is to occur, McFadyen will be portrayed with an angelic white glow. The fact that this man was daring enough to announce publicly such an ambitious concept bodes well for him in years to come, especially if a team is placed in Winnipeg. If a team actually comes to Winnipeg, Hugh McFadyen will be seen as the man who made it happen, the man with the vision, and the man who supports progress and a better Manitoba.
Over the next 4 years of NDP government, we get to say “I told you so” as the province declines even further, but if an NHL team arrives in Winnipeg within the next decade, Hugh McFadyen will be the one who can legitimately say “I told you so.”
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
What's Your Excuse?
To begin, I first have to acknowledge the inspiration a certain Proud and Unapologetic Winnipegger has been. During the past election, this individual ran a rock solid campaign which endeavored to defeat an incumbent minister. Unfortunately for Seine River, and for Manitoba, this individual did not win the election. He was a class act all the way until the end, conceding the election to the incumbent Minister of Health. His ability to run as a real contender until the final act of conceding commands respect, and he should rightfully be praised for a valiant effort. This loss is more like a set back, and with 4 more long, grueling years of NDP government, gives ample time to prepare for the 2011 election. We need an individual like this now, and especially in the years to come to attempt to repair the damage caused by not just 8 years, but by 12 years of NDP negligence.
Speaking on the election which closed yesterday, I am pleased and (incredibly) disappointed with the citizenry as a whole. Pleased in a sense that the voter turnout crept up slightly to 58%. Although voter turnout was slightly higher than 2003, and higher than the dismal turnout in the past mayoral election, it is nothing to brag about. 2003 marked one of the lowest voter turnout rates in provincial election history. A whopping 56% of voters went to the polls 4 years ago. Compare that with yesterday’s 58%. You’re telling me that ONLY 58% of people in this great western democracy of Canada, more specifically in this once great province of Manitoba do not exercise their rightful franchise? That is completely unacceptable.
There is only two, count them: 2 things, people have to do to live in this country. The first civic obligation is pay taxes. No amount of complaining will ever eliminate the need to pay a tax. Low taxes in Manitoba today (especially with the NDP victory on Tuesday) are as likely as Gary Doer admitting fault in the Crocus scandal. In fact, re-electing the NDP will increase the likelihood of paying higher taxes, for a longer period of time. Although some provinces enjoy greater prosperity and do not pay provincial tax, Manitoba is far from the same boat. Obviously the majority of Manitobans don’t believe paying less tax is important, as is evident by the re-election the NDP. The second civic obligation Manitobans should (should have to) do in order to live here is vote. Voting takes a maximum of 20 to 25 minutes out of the day, once every 4 years. Is it really too much effort for Manitobans to go to the polls and cast their ballot? Make an informed decision. For everyone’s sake, get out there, inform yourself and make a decision. Manitobans clearly do not realize exactly how important it is for every person to vote. For example – Bonnie Mitchelson in River East has won the election by 63 votes. Voting is such a simple task that must be done, that there is NO EXCUSE for Manitobans not to take part.
Let’s recapitulate.
2 civic obligations individuals must do to live in Canada:
1 - Pay tax
2 - Vote
Reality:
1 - Pay too much tax with little to no benefit of doing so and make it less viable for future governments to lower tax rates
2 - 58% of the population voted on May 22 in the provincial election
Maybe people need more encouragement to vote. After all, voter turnout in Afghanistan for the legislative assembly was just over 50%. Sound familiar Manitoba? Here is the difference: Some Afghans have an excuse – They could be killed. What’s your excuse?
What could possibly motivate Manitobans to get out to their respective polls and vote? I thought the answer was 8 years of NDP government. By winning the election, the NDP have consequently and inadvertently given Manitobans an even better reason to get out to the polls in 2011: 12 years of NDP Government!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)