Letter to the editor published in the Cornwall FreeNews, the Cornwall Seaway News (page 13), the Cornwall Standard Freeholder, and the Chesterville Record.

The old saying is "any free advertising is good advertising". The Harper Conservatives exploit that by getting air time over a useless rebate in EI premiums. In fact, they get double messaging by falsely claiming job creation benefits.

For one, a rebate of pennies in EI premiums to small businesses does not create jobs. A business creates a job when their is growth in production and when customers want their products. A small business does not give a moment of consideration to the cost of EI premiums. 

Secondly, the business will merely pocket the savings in EI premiums. It is a nice reduction in the cost of employment, a small bonus to the business owner, but it does not entice the owner to hire another person.

Thirdly, it is a political trick. The government should simply reduce EI premiums across the board. Instead, Harper targets small businesses exclusively and arranges a periodic rebate to remind the business owner that she is receiving a gift from the government with her own tax money. It is all an expensive vote buying scheme, heavy in administrative cost, and completely irrelevant. 


Tom Manley
Berwick ON.

Letter to the editor pucblished in the Cornwall FreeNews, the Standard-Freeholder, and the Chesterville Record. 

I recently picked up an income tax guide at our local post office, published by our MP Guy Lauzon. Most tax measures in the guide are OK, some implemented by the previous Liberal government and others adopted by the current Conservative government.

Otherwise, the document is a disgusting partisan rag paid by our tax dollars. If Guy Lauzon paid for this from Conservative Party funds, then fine, but the document does not say that.

It would be appropriate for the Department of Finance or the Canada Revenue Agency to publish a non-partisan tax guide for circulation in post offices and other public locations. But this thing says "Conservative" in almost every paragraph.

It makes me wonder if opposition MPs can publish a tax guide for their constituents who have access to the same tax measures.

Take Page 11 where it says, "By supporting the job creators, our Conservative Government is staying focused on jobs and the economy."

That would be a fine, although debatable, statement in an election campaign, but it has no place in public document from the government of Canada.

It is akin to the Government of Canada using the Conservative logo on symbolic cheques for news events, which was common practice a few years ago until a public outcry pushed the government to shelve that practice.

Conservative MPs need to stop using public funds for partisan purposes.

Tom Manley
Berwick

Letter to the editor in the Chesterville Record.
Appeared March 16th 2014.

I read with great disappointment the report of Maxime Bernier's speech in Avonmore (on March 3rd 2014) on behalf of the Government of Canada. While I second his praise of the freedom, the initiative, the risk taking, and the wealth creation by entrepreneurs, his rhetoric is extremely unbecoming for a minister of government. 

Bernier suggests that entrepreneurs have enemies in the public service ("politicians and bureaucrats") and suffer from "hostility from many quarters of society". Nothing could be further from the truth. A government is supposed to be a government of all Canadians, with a message of unity and cooperation. Instead, the Harper government pits Canadians against each other, in a partisan effort to cater to their target voter, to promote selfishness, and to stoke the fires of resentment against others.  

Businesses have partners in public service to provide infrastructure to get our product to market, enable fair agreements for international trade, police our communities against crime, and ensure the safety of our products and our purchases, among many other critical roles. We depend on a professional, competent, and motivated public service. The Harper government commits a disservice by belittling the public service as foul bureaucrats. Worse yet, Harper and Bernier are the government, the employer of our public service. It is very bad business for an employer to denigrate its employees in public. The same goes for the government's treatment of its employees. 

Where is the hostility against entrepreneurs? All quarters of society express appreciation for entrepreneurs, job creation, rural vitality, community leadership, wealth creation, and especially their generosity in supporting community endeavours. This hostility is only in the partisan rhetoric of Harper's speech writers. They would do better bringing Canadians together instead of pitting us against each other. 

Tom Manley

Dear friends. 

Thank you so very much for supporting Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Cornwall and district through the 2014 Bowl for Kids Sake fundraiser. It was a huge success, with 1000 bowlers raising $70,761 or about 35% of their annual operating budget as the agency continues to serve 440 children. 

Especially, thank you for supporting my fundraising efforts. With your support, I delivered $1190 to BBBS - well above my target of $1000 and well above my result last year, making me the 2nd top individual fundraiser. Isabelle also did well, ranking 4th top individual fundraiser, and our team ranked second overall with $1735. 

I look forward to participating with your support again next year.

Tom Manley

Rugged Outdoor Woman

During her physical examination, a doctor asked a retired woman about her 
physical activity level. The woman said she spent 3 days a week, every week 
in the outdoors.

"Well, yesterday afternoon was typical. I took a five hour walk about 7 
miles through some pretty rough terrain. I waded along the edge of a lake. I 
pushed my way through 2 miles of brambles. I got sand in my shoes and my 
eyes. I barely avoided stepping on a snake. I climbed several rocky hills. I 
went to the bathroom behind some big trees. I ran away from an irate mother 
bear and then ran away from one angry bull Elk. The mental stress of it all 
left me shattered. At the end of it all, I drank a scotch and three glasses 
of wine.

Amazed by the story, the doctor said, "You must be one hell of a rugged

outdoor woman!"

"No," the woman replied, "I'm just a really, really shitty golfer!"

A letter to the editor - Cornwall Free News, on Dec 29th 2013

So the Harper Conservatives want to protect women by being harder on johns and pimps. Since when did making something illegal protect people? Murder is already illegal but it still happens. Drunk driving was illegal for a long time before we actually did something serious about it.

The Harper Conservatives merely want to feel good about illegalizing something they don’t like – prostitution in this case. The Supreme Court decided that such laws contravene a higher law of the land – the charter of rights and freedoms. So Harper uses the thin veil of political spin by calling his values by another name – protecting the victims. Human trafficking and assault are already illegal, but Harper plays to his base by focusing on johns and pimps.

Like so many “tough on crime” intentions of the Conservatives, it is all about feeling good by turning a value statement into law, and not about actually doing anything of substance.

Tom Manley – Berwick Ontario

Posted in the Cornwall Standard Freeholder on Wednesday, December 16th, 2009.

Re: Letter on Dec 9th - “HST a real job killer”.

The letter from Brian Lynch on Dec 9th demonstrates that the NDP rhetoric and socialist ideology is so predictable, contradictory, and plainly false.

We all want jobs for Ontarians. While they want jobs, the NDP takes great liberty in slamming the employers who create the jobs – the “big bad” corporations. If anyone was concerned about the HST’s impact on job creation, it would be those same businesses, small and large, and their representative organization – the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. Businesses and the OCC have called for sales tax harmonization for years in the interest of efficiency. Small businesses have complained for years about government paperwork of all kinds. The HST eliminates the huge paper burden of the PST by combining it with the GST. Farm businesses in particular can be pleased to get rid of the bureaucracy surrounding PST exemption requirements.

It is reasonable to present an opinion. But it is poor political ethics to falsely attribute that opinion to another authority, such as Mr Lynch’s false reference to the OCC. In an open letter on Oct 21st 2009, specifically addressed to the Leader of the Ontario NDP, the OCC stated: “It has been reported in several media that our report (Made in Ontario) concluded sales tax reform will lead to the loss of some 40,000 jobs in the province. Let the record show that this narrow interpretation of the report is categorically not true.” In their report, the OCC considered the global economic situation and predicted that the rate of increase in employment over the next 25 years would slow down compared to today, irrespective of tax reform. They recommended tax reform as a stimulus for capital investment and job creation.

I will use my own case to support the OCC position. I just created a new position in my business and hired a young university graduate – the kind of highly skilled job creation that our region needs. In building the budget and weighing the risk for this new investment, I considered my annual PST savings of almost $10,000 in cash, plus the labour savings in PST reporting.

Tom Manley

Berwick Ontario

---------------------

Open Letter to Opposition Leaders and Media From the Ontario Chamber of Commerce

MARKETWIRE

Wed Oct 21 2009, 2:32pm ET
Dateline: TORONTO, ONTARIO
TORONTO, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - Oct. 21, 2009) - Ontario Chamber of Commerce

/T/

Mr. Tim Hudak, MPP
Leader of the Official Opposition
Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario
Room 416, Main Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A8

Ms. Andrea Horwarth, MP
Leader of New Democratic Party of Ontario
Room 112, Main Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A5

/T/

Dear Mr. Hudak and Ms. Horwath:

As you are well aware, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce has been a strong proponent of a harmonized sales tax - as an integral part of a larger, comprehensive tax reform strategy - for a number of years.

Since 2004, our chamber network of 160 local chambers of commerce and boards of trade, representing some 60,000 businesses of all sizes from all areas of the economy, have strongly endorsed this comprehensive tax reform.

In late 2007, the OCC commissioned an in-depth study on how a harmonized sales tax would affect governments, business and consumers. This report also analyzed three potential policy options available to government as it contemplated a move to merge the federal and provincial sales taxes.

In January 2009, the OCC released Made in Ontario, The Case for Sales Tax Harmonization. The report clearly concluded that Ontario's households, businesses and government will all experience a win-win-win from a harmonized sales tax.

Unfortunately, sales tax reform is not an easy issue to communicate or quickly understand, as its complexities lead to both subtle and nuanced changes to the economy as well as to dramatic improvements overall. As such, it is important to understand and communicate the issue of sales tax reform comprehensively, rather than examine its constituent parts individually. Indeed, the effects of a harmonized sales tax are greater than the sum of its parts.

It is likely due to the complexities of this issue that our report, Made In Ontario, The Case for Sales Tax Harmonization, has been consistently misunderstood and erroneously quoted in recent weeks. Specifically, it has been reported in several media that our report concluded sales tax reform will lead to the loss of some 40,000 jobs in the province.

Let the record show that this narrow interpretation of the report is categorically not true.

In the context of employment growth, the report examined the increase in employment over the next 25 years, relative to the status quo. The analysis clearly showed that employment will continue to grow, albeit at a slightly lower rate than the status quo, depending on which of the report's options the government adopted. In fact, the report explicitly states that the level of employment does not decline as a result of sales tax reform.

It is important to note that none of our report's scenarios were wholly adopted by the provincial government; therefore our report's analysis on employment does not fully quantify the positive effects that increased Foreign Direct Investment, combined with other personal and corporate tax reductions, will have on employment growth.

To quote our report, "Business in Ontario benefits from tax reform through a reduction in the cost of capital. This stimulates an increase in investment. The increase in capital boosts productivity and improves the competitive position of business in the province." (P. 36)

Our report also states that productivity improvements are welcome, as "in an environment of looming labour shortages the benefits of this outcome should not be discounted." (P. 34)

The above is of particular importance when one considers the demographics of Ontario's current and future labour force. It is a fact that Ontario is facing a growing skilled labour shortage as a result of an aging and retiring workforce combined with a declining birthrate. The Conference Board of Canada reports that Ontario faces a shortage of more than 360,000 skilled employees by 2025 and a shortage of more than 560,000 skilled employees by 2030. This is consistent with the OCC's own research on this subject.

Therefore, with our economy facing a shortage of over half a million skilled workers over the next generation, sales tax reform will help to address that employment gap through increased productivity.

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to set the record straight and to provide the appropriate context for our employment projections contained in our sales tax report. As noted, sales tax reform is a complex subject, one that could easily be misinterpreted or misunderstood. If you have the occasion to quote our report in the future, then we ask that you help us to convey the accurate meaning and context of our employment figures and other data in your references.

Should you have any questions, we would be pleased to meet with you or your staff at a time of your convenience. You may direct your staff to contact Stuart Johnston, Vice President Policy and Government Relations at (416) 482-5222 ext 232, or stuartjohnston@occ.on.ca.

Yours sincerely,

Len Crispino, President & CEO

/T/

Cc: The Hon. Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario

The Hon. John Wilkinson, Minister of Revenue

The Hon. Dwight Duncan, Minister of Finance

Mr. Norm Miller, MPP

Mr. Michael Prue, MPP

Media

Smart Taxation Alliance

OCC members

/T/

-30-

Published in the Cornwall Standard Freeholder and the Chesterville Record on Wednesday, Dec 17th, 2008.

The recent debate over the coalition government in waiting has three distinct issues that cannot be confused with each other.

For one, the debate for and against the coalition is largely split along lines of partisan politics. It is only fair that Conservative sympathizers would condemn the coalition and vice-versa for Liberal and NDP supporters. But let us not confuse partisan opinion with the considerations of legitimacy and mandate.

We elect local members of parliament. But we do not elect a government. Just last year, the editorial in this newspaper argued against proportional representation and in favour of directly electing our local representative. You cannot now reverse that position and claim that the vote for a member of parliament is a proxy vote for the prime minister. We do not use the electoral college method of electing a US president. Each citizen must integrate his/her choice of a member, a party, a platform, and a leader into one vote. The motivations of all the voters are as varied as the issues.

The fundamental principal of democracy is majority rule. The MPs form a government with the majority support of the House of Commons. When a party wins an absolute majority of seats in the House, then forming a government is easy. But a minority government can ONLY operate with the support of another party to form a majority on votes of confidence. We saw Pearson, Trudeau, Clark, Martin, and Harper govern with enough support from other parties to govern for some time. Call this support, coalition, alliance, or whatever. We are accustomed to it and it works. It is legal and moral.

When support in the House falls below a majority, then the government falls. The governor general then has two options, call an election, or form an alternative government with majority support in the House. Those are the rules of our democracy. They are non-partisan, fair, and honourable. When Harper commits to using all legal means to retain power, then it is equally moral for other Parties to use all legal means to obtain power. One of those legal means includes the formation of a coalition that would place an alternate government in power. Harper signed a letter in 2004 with Layton and Duceppe, informing the GG that they could form an alternative government without the need for an election. Harper knew that this was legal and honourable as much as the Dion-Layton coalition is legal and honourable.

The third consideration is the electoral mandate. When a citizen votes, it is clear that the vote is a mandate for the MP to form a government by all legal means. Why else would we vote? That is the only reason. By casting our vote, we also know that the MP can only accomplish this by participating in a majority alliance in the House, either a single Party with a majority of seats, or a coalition of parties with majority support. Yes, the voters supporting the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc gave them a clear mandate to form, support, or influence a coalition government.

The absence of a collation during an election is irrelevant. We are a representative democracy. We send an MP do what he/she can to represent us, to exert power, and then come back after the term to be held accountable. When the Reform Party changed its name and mandate to the Alliance, we did not ask their MPs to resign before the next election. When the Alliance and PC Parties merged, we did not ask their MPs to resign. When a prime minister or a party leader resigns, we do not expect their MPs to resign and call another election. That is all because we do not vote for a prime minister or a party, we vote for an MP. It is as simple as that!

The only immoral act committed in Ottawa in the last two weeks was by Stephen Harper. He turned his personal fight for power into an unnecessary and despicable crisis of national unity.

Tom Manley

Cornwall Standard Freeholder, Tuesday, October 21st 2008.

In this recent federal election, the real losers are the Canadian electors. How can a government presume to have a strong mandate with only 38% support across the country?

The culprit in this failure of democracy is the voting system that we call First-Past-The-Post (FPTP). It was designed over two centuries ago when voters had a clear choice between two parties. But today, Canada celebrates great social and political diversity. We see five major political parties on the federal scene. For that reason, no new democracy in the world has implemented FPTP in the last 100 years.

As the vote spreads over several parties in each riding, FPTP usually fails to provide 50% support to a clear winner and makes the leading loser a winner with a false mandate. FPTP causes vote splitting in the crowded political spectrum, forces parties into mergers of political convenience as the Reform, Alliance and Progressive Conservative did a few years ago. Jean Chrétien and the Liberals enjoyed three majorities partly because the right wing vote was split. Currently, Stephen Harper won two elections while the progressive vote is split.

Because a candidate only needs one more vote than any another candidate, FPTP encourages parties to drive wedges among the electorate. The response by voters to this distortion of democracy is strategic voting and vote swapping, As a result, too many voters hold their nose and vote against the worst choice instead of voting for their favourite choice.

All Canadian political parties, both federal and provincial, use a preferential ranking method, either by multiple run-off votes or a single ranked preferential ballot to select their leaders and their candidates with a final winner achieving at least 50% majority support. If preferential ranking is good enough for all our political parties, then it is good enough for the rest of us. We would not want multiple run-off elections as it would be too expensive to return to the polls multiple times.

Let's implement preferential ranking on our ballot, otherwise called the single transferable vote (STV). We would directly elect our representative while maintaining the current single-member ridings and the current method of selecting the government from the party winning the most ridings. STV will allow voters to select their preferred candidate/party as first choice while indicating subsequent ranked choices in the event their candidate is last. The ballots of the last candidate are re-counted to distribute them to the voter's next choice and so on until a candidate receives over 50% support.

STV will eliminate vote splitting and the need to merge parties, let the vote merge on the ballot, avoid strategic voting and vote swapping, and select a truly representative candidate with over 50% support in each riding.

Tom Manley

Cornwall Standard Freeholder, Tuesday, September 30th 2008

It is a disgrace to Canada and to the democratic process to see politicians use an election to create divisions in our society based on envy, jealousy, and suspicion.

In the news last week, Stephen Harper pitted ordinary Canadians against successful artists, whereas virtually all Canadian artists come from ordinary families, started in their living room, and needed help to develop. Harper also regularly pits working Canadians against some ill-defined enemy although some 94 per cent of Canadians currently have work.

For years, Conservatives have pitted landowners against environmentalists (which includes practically everyone), whereas landowners are in fact dedicated stewards of our landscape and resources.

Jack Layton pits kitchen tables against boardroom tables, whereas a successful economy is a partnership between employees and employers in creating jobs and building businesses. New Democrats will vilify the big bad corporations in one moment and then beg them to stay in Canada and create jobs in the next moment.

In politics, there is the acceptable notion of campaigning on wedge issues. There is no problem in asking people to choose between option A and option B on a difficult question. But instead, Harper and Layton choose wedge groups to divide our society, asking people to identify themselves with one group and vilify some other group. It is a typical Bush republican tactic, when your ideas do not receive broad support, to create a fictional enemy and stir up resentment.

I long for real leaders such as St- Laurent, Pearson, Trudeau, and Dion who seek inclusion over exclusion, who present a vision for a better future, who unite us across our differences to achieve a common goal, and who show respect for all instead of disdain for many.

Tom Manley