Mad_Michael

Ontario has an election in November 2007. Dalton is doing his best to buy re-election like all politicans do.

Short answer, yes. It is a characteristic of the Westminster model.

I don't like it as it smells like a cheap publicity stunt. I'd much rather see some real money or effort put into serving our wounded veterans - or dealing with the families of wounded veterans (who may suffer loss of pay). Soldier's familes on military bases going to food banks makes me cringe for my country.

I'd be more worried about the National Post - they are your neighbours who live down the street. They appear to troll the planet looking for stories they can spin for the purposes of creating outrage. Fox News North is what they are becoming. Besides which, the UN is a thousand miles away and has no authority in Canada.

The existence of worst human rights violations in other nations does not absolve Canada from engaging in low level violations. The UN is well with its mandate to address the issue as they see fit. This is the words of a National Post reporter. No such body in the UN has any legal right to compel action on any issue in Canada. As it stands, the UN may only recommend what they feel is important. Canada may ignore it as it sees fit. These UN recommendations carry as much weight as a blue ribbon citizen's commission. That is to say, nada. The National Post of course does not mention this in the article since it doesn't fit the 'narrative' of the story that the National Post obviously prefers. Indeed, the National Post appears to continue its longstanding attempt to become 'Fox News North'.

Sorry, Ghandi nailed this one very well. An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind. P.S. Violent offenders do not act rationally. Expecting them to do so is a fallacy.

I fear people who equate the existence of the NDP with terrorism.

Indeed. An oath to uphold the laws of the land, I can't see anyone legitimately objecting to that. But the OP speaks of something entirely different than that. It speaks of some "oath of loyalty to Canadian values" and that is an entirely different matter - one that is quite rightly objected to as despotic and obnoxious.

Refreshing to see such an acknowledgement. That being said, after Quebec, the Atlantic provinces suck up more subsidies from Ottawa than anywhere else (per capita basis). Quebec is the number one federal tax subsidy sucker in the country. Newfoundland is number two. NS and NB fight it out for the number three spot. Taxpayers in Ontario and Alberta have the honour and privilege of paying for these tax subsidies. Solution: Ween yourselves off this subsidy addiction. A subsidised economy will never prosper.

Banking is a service that is a key part of our monetary system. As long as we wish to keep our own currency we should ensure that banks operating in Canada are Canadian owned. Canadian monetary policy has absolutely nothing to do with the nationality of the ownership of our banks. I couldn't care less if every bank in Canada was own by Swahilis. All that matters is that Canadians receive satisfactory service from said banks.

You've pretty much proven that the Spadina/York U subway extension originates with the Province of Ontario, not Toronto, as I have stated. I repeat, this subway extension is not compatible with Toronto's Official Plan, does not produce any reduction in greenhouse gases, does not reduce congestion on the TTC and does not add any capacity to the TTC. Also, because this subway extension is not projected to produce enough ridership to pay for itself for at least 15-20, this means Toronto taxpayers are on the hook to pay for the operating subsidies for decades to come. Btw, the largest and most substantive study of expanding the subway in Toronto rated three possible lines. The Spadina/YorkU line was rated the weakest of the three proposed lines, with the projection of several decades before this line could possibly earn enough fares to cover its own operating expenses. In case you are curious, the Sheppard line was consider the 2nd weakest proposal for the same reasons. Fact is, this new subway line is going to be built to serve cow fields and suburban housing subdivisions (a group of people for whom public transit is the least prefered option). This is no where near the density needed to pay the operating expense of running the subway system. Needless to say, the one proposed subway line (Keele/CNE/Pape) that was recommended based upon its contribution to increased capacity, decreased congestion in the core (where it is most congested) and the ability of ridership fares to cover operating expenses immediately upon opening the line. Also, this is the ONLY subway addition that would have a contribution to reducing greenhouse gases in the GTA. This is the only subway extension that is compatible with the goals of Toronto's official plan. Needless to say, this line is very unlikely to ever be built since it doesn't interest the 905 zone to whom our Federal and Provincial governments depend upon for voting support.

Please identify your source for your assertion that Toronto or the TTC asked for this Spadina/YorkU subway extension. It is not supported by Toronto's official plan. Indeed, this Spadina/YorkU subway extension is not even mentioned in Toronto's official plan for transit. However, it is to be noted that there are some political ridings in the neighbourhood of the Spadina/YorkU extension that are of strong interest to the Federal Conservatives and also the Ontario Liberals - who are both likely to go to an election within the next 12 months. So, please tell me more about how Toronto chose this Spadina subway extension and how the Feds are entirely not involved in choosing such projects.

It's not just the subway that's at capacity either. Apparently the gardiner expressway (an elevated highway, for non torontonians) was not designed with this many cars in mind. According to the journal I read, the sheer weight of the vehicles on it is damaging the support structure. Let the 905 belt pay for their commute. The Gardiner Expressway/QEW serves the purpose of subsidizing property values in the outer suburbs at the expense of the city. The city has the honour of paying for the pleasure. The Gardiner ought to be bulldozed entirely. When it comes to highways, demand will match maximum capacity no matter what.

There is no problem with Canadian banks than cannot be solved by opening up the Canadian market to foreign banks. Every problem I've ever seen identified with Canadian banks, has as its root, the lack of actual competition amongst Canadian banks. It is a government mandated oligopoly which in economic terms for the consumer, is the absolute worst of both worlds.

This option is totally off the table. The idea was floated some 15 years ago for a high-speed rail link between Windsor and Quebec City. Unfortunately, permanent political instability in Quebec was identified as the key stumbling block to private sector interest/investment in this project. Thus, unless it is 100% funded and operated by the Federal Government, it ain't going to happen.

That's a good idea. The actual TTC wishlist for capital network expansions included this (amongst a half-dozen other projects). All of these projects are now canceled in order to fun Harper/McGuinty's election boondoggle subway line. It is important to note that this (almost useless) subway extension will do NOTHING to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the GTA, nor will it increase the TTC's actual capacity, nor will it do anything to reduce the massive level of TTC congestion that is presently due to overcrowding. This is critically important given that the TTC main subway line is already running at maximum capacity. Toronto is growing very steadily, adding some 50,000 people per year. We need a solution to this capacity issue and the Spadina/YorkU extension does absolutely nothing for this.

Interesting how the original statement claimed ALL subsidies/expenditures in natural sciences, engineering, social sciences and humanities. Now we see it is only the "R&D" portion of those subjects that you previously claimed as "all". A carefully cherry-picked statistic is mis-represented as the whole of the pie in order to convey a false impression of the issue for politically partisan purposes. No surprise there.

But hey! That monument of Casa Loma is the ONLY reason anyone bothers to remember the old fart. And it is a nice building in the city - though totally wasted as a nothing place for little more than tourists and wedding photos.

So, the money isn't really going to help Toronto at all! (As if there is a difference between Mississauga and Toronto.)Harper may be surprised to learn that his polling numbers won't move much. Please. Mississauga is 30 miles away from where they are planning to build this subway. The proposed Spadina/YorkU line extension cuts through some cow fields in Vaughan Townshipn (which is York Region) - a long way from Mississauga (which is Peel Region). And from any analysis of electoral politics, 905 and Toronto are rather different. The differences are reducing over time (905 is becoming more like 416 in vote habits), but as it stands, the 905 belt reacts slightly differently than Toronto does.

He lost his entire fortune in the Crash of 1929. You suggesting that the Crash of 1929 was a socialist conspiracy?

That election goodie that Harper & McGuinty announced yesterday was targeted to the 905 belt voters, not Toronto voters. It is actually a slap in the face to Toronto voters (who will be on the hook to pay for 30 years of subsidies to the new subway line what is projected to be a money loser for the next 25 years). There is nothing for Toronto in a 905 belt extension of the subway to serve York U. This will not add to the TTC's capacity, this will not address overcrowding issues or capacity issues on the TTC, this will not contribute to any Kyoto-style reduction in greenhouse gases in Toronto. It is just a typical political 'goodie' for voters. It is not good transit planning and the TTC didn't ask for this subway line.

Your from Toronto right? End of sentence. 10% of Canada's population and one-third of Ontario's. Pretty much the same size as Alberta and larger than the whole block of the Atlantic Provinces combined. Toronto counts as a substantially large electoral block that has a relatively predictable voting pattern based on a half-dozen key political issues. That's all I'm saying here - nothing more, nothing less. On the basis of Toronto's federal voting record going back for 40+ years, any mention of anti-immigrant or anti-gay is electoral suicide - in Toronto. This is 10% of the seats in Parliament. That is a simple fact, like or not. You've obviously been out of the 905 belt for a long time - with the exception of a few isolated 'white' enclaves, the 905 belt is as immigrant-driven as Toronto is. And yes, as I have already noted, Toronto and Ontario both have long histories of support of the Progressive Conservative party (the old Big Blue Machine, for example). Fiscal conservatism sells in Ontario and can sell in Toronto too. But social conservatism is toxic in Toronto and a hard sell in Ontario generally. That's an electoral fact. The Reform Party destroyed the old PC party and took the party off to the right on the social conservative side and that is where Ontario has drawn a line. Harper, if you will recall, only succeeded in a minority and only by promising to step back on every social conservative policy issue (which had doomed a succession of previous conservative campaigns).

You cannot use the fact that other regulations exist as a justification for any new regulation you can dream up. True - the existence of regulations does not provide justification for more regulation. However, if you flip that one around, you will see my point. That YOU cannot assert that no regulation of banks are warranted when the banks are entirely dependent upon the regulation of the Bank Act to give them their monopoly. Clearly, banks can and are regulated. Indeed, when it comes to the regulation of their Charter, banks desperately desire such regulation. As far as I'm concerned here, the problem is caused by a lack of competition - which is a direct product of the Bank Act. Banks can either recieve regulations to make them behave according to political whim, or they can take their chances on the free market (and open up the bank market to foreigners). Banks don't like either choice. Too bad. So, competition and the free market applies to the bank's customers, but not the banks themselves eh? Nice game you got there - protected by the Bank Act. The banks are protected from competition by government statute. Bank customers are voters. What the voters give, the voters can take away. No it would not. 1. As recent studies have shown, a majority of similar sized banks in other nations (western nations) do not charge these fees. 2. Bank service transactions enacted through electronic kiosks cost the bank a fraction of the cost of a bank service transaction enacted through a teller inside a branch. The banks have introduced electronic teller machines and closed/reduced branches for a strong cost-driven reason here. By charging large fees on electronic transactions that cost very little, the banks cross-subsidise the live services in person in the branch, that although they cost substantially more money, are offered 'no charge'. On this basis, Canadian consumers and Canadian voters are well within their rights and their interests in demanding satisfaction from the Chartered Banks.

I don't buy it. Banks love regulations that protect their turf and their profits. But any other regulations are unacceptable? That is absurd. Either the banks are regulated, or they are not. Fact is, banks cherish their Charter status. I have no sympathy for them if they are forced to pay a price for this. That's how the market works.

Relative comment. To the NDP, yes, to the Conservatives, not really. They are neck and neck in Ontario according to all recent polls. That's kind of sad, poor Dion. Neck and neck in Ontario? Polls can say anything apparently. I wouldn't put much stock in it. Conservative polling in Ontario rises/falls all the time - but it just isn't there on Election day. It will take many years (decades) for the Conservative Party to live down that Reform Party label here in Ontario. A party that supports anti-immigrant, anti-gay views is The Enemy in Ontario. End of sentence. Harper can downplay this feature of the contemporary Conservative party, but he can't eliminate it. Alternatively, I suspect that it might perhaps be a crossover from Provincial politics - Ontario is due for a Provincial election in November of this year and the jockeying is already started and the Ontario Liberal party is likely to go down to defeat (many stumbles lately), with John Tory's Progressive Conservative Party presently rising in the polls and very likely to take office in November. Btw, Ontario has a long history of splitting representation and voting federally for the opposite party that holds Queen's Park. The Ontario Liberals are likely to go down in November. That suggests that Ontario is very likely to vote Liberal in the next federal election (more liberal than the last election). That's the historical pattern here. To bring Ontario back to the Federal Conservatives requires re-establishment of the 'progressive' element that was banished when the Reform Party took over. Until then, the Federal Conservatives just seem like "Bush-lite" from an Ontario perspective.