Refinancing Our Future?

You can understand Dalton McGuinty, and various other Liberals, if you remember advice by W.L. Mackenzie King, circa 1940, or so. We have the quotation, thanks to Ralph Allen, once with the Winnipeg Free Press.  To his caucus, King said, “The purpose of the Liberal Party is to get power by any means, and to keep power, by any means.” Might plans for retirement into especial affluence be an additional, but covert, aim for after we dump them, as we should already have done?

By an unexpected show of insight, Frances Lankin , and some associates, have shown that all of us would benefit from more and better support to receivers of  O.D.S.P. and welfare cheques. The plan is much better than most, because its aims go beyond mere money. The intention is to  enable and allow  those recipients to earn more before “clawback” could   compel reduction in their monthly allotments. Even worse for them is the spectre of removal from the list those who have been eligible for social assistance. During the weeks or months to get reinstatement, these unfortunate souls might have absolutely no income. This is a cruel response to an effort to become atleast somewhat productive.

The aim of Lankin’s group seems to include access to training that might help many people to become partly or entirely self-supporting. But, these ideas are not new. Within the past year, a more comprehensive program was set out by “The Canadian Libertarian Socialist Party”. Their intention was and is to extend Lankin’s plan to benefit the “working poor”, of whom we seem to have an endless supply. Some of the platform of the CLSD Party has         appeared on pages of “Your Ward News”.

The Lankin group are much more prominent than “Your Ward News” and the CLSD Party, combined. But both of these hope that the combined recommendations will be adopted by at least one of our three levels of government. The only serious opposition might be from people whose livelihoods come from administering social assistance. Some of them might become surplus to civic needs. And activists might have less to activate about.

In 1930, Dresden and Cologne were two of the world’s most intriguing of architectural     treasures. They ranked with the Kremlin, Beijing, Athens and Florence. They were bombed to rubble to avenge destruction elsewhere by Germany’s Luftwaffe. No strategic or tactical benefit accrued to the Allies, from this purely vindictive action.

Now Germany and the world stand deprived of those monuments to the development of       human culture and ingenuity. In Canada, we stand in danger of equally depriving ourselves, but by less violent means, and of our more elementary achievement. We needed to act quickly, and we were not to be served by the slavery of centuries of serfdom.                                         

Toronto wisely saves Old City Hall, Osgoode Hall, and Casa Loma. Toronto also should      assure preservation of visible signs of our advances up from our days of pioneering, and early stages of industrialization. Residential areas are part of that development, and also must be retained for our descendents to consider and respect, as foundation of our society. Land in some of those areas is of value low enough to tempt developers to overwhelm them with the blandness of construction for convenience. But,  mostly for immense and immediate profits. Quality and taste mean nothing to promoters of replacements of Cabbagetown,  Riverdale,  Parkdale, and the Beaches.

QUESTION: Who pays, and in what way, for support of destruction of the roots of Toronto? Writers? Councillors? Bureaucrats? People hoping for jobs in land development? Keep your eyes open!

By Mr. David Nesbitt

Advertisement