madmax

I don't think it will hurt them either. It being early, there is no election in sight, and people don't seem to care. I think it is stupid that they even bothered. However, there is an add right now mentioning Harper that puts him in a positive light. Gas/Ethanol add.

James Bond Style Parody Chase. Simplistic until the rolling down the hill. Watching them roll around together was hillarious.

He was run out of TO. He is Fantino for Fantino. I didn't know there are Police Chiefs for Crime and Disorder. He picked a battle with a well respected person, and he is looking petty and foolish for doing so. Don't blame others for the guys own actions.

I only heard about the ring! This was a fabrication? Can you direct me to this info? Have I only heard half the story?

The Liberals have been masters of gutter tactics, and I can't recall another party being as bad, or appearing as bad since Kim Campbells campaign. While there has been a little slinging in the last election the CPC did some cheesy adds that became accepted by the viewer, for what they said, and the NDP adds that had a negative element were actually pretty funny or clever. The Liberals tatics last election created negative feedback that failed to form an opinion, or remove credibility from the CPC. I have no idea why the Conservative Party has chosen this avenue. Maybe they have spent too much time listening to that Liberal know it all "beer and popcorn" spin doctor.

Flaherty defends position held by NDP. To bad so sad for those whom bought into CPC election promise.

I expect better from you.

I really don't know how effective this hatchet job on the Liberals is going to be. While the Liberals love to cry foul on such smear tactics, they have participated in their fair share. I find when the other parties use smear tactics they have a greater potential for blowback. The NDP may benefit from these adds more then the Conservatives. I didn't find the adds amusing I found them pretty lame.

Obviously competition makes banks drop ATM fees. And Banks choose whether to compete with ATM fees. But Banks in Canada don't want competition, they want to protect their oligopoly and profits. But it is well understood that ATMs save banks money. So while some people believe that banks should have more competition, setting up in Walmart, or allowing foreign banks to give consumers more choice. There are others here with a protectionist vision that believe banks are "special". Yet The United States Banking system has not gone belly up. From FOX NEWS reporting on Alan Greenspan. So either you have competition in banks on many fronts, and they may choose to relieve customers of ATM fees, or you can continue to protect Canadian Banks here and give them a licence to print money. or you can legislate that they give back some of the money to consumers that they are saving in teller fees. Seems the banks want their cake and to eat it too.

Flaherty brought the subject up. The NDP quickly jump on the bandwagon and grab the reins. Other countries allow for banking competition. Why shouldn't we have CHOICE in banking. Other countries are not going bankrupt because of banking competition, even if these banks remove ATM fees. I read alot of scare mongerers here.

So why did Flaherty bring up the subject of having no User Fees for ATMs?

looked at this Toronto Dominion transcript. file http://www.td.com/investor/2006/scotia_boyle_transcript.pdf. So a TD owned BANK operating in the US can offer no charges on ATM fees and REBATE people for using some elses atm in the United States.

The Savings and Loans regulations, are different from Banking Regulations in the US.

If they go bankrupt, they are bad money managers and shouldn't be running a bank. I don't believe addressing ATM fees is going to determine whether a bank is going to have an economic crises. Infact, some here have suggested that poor people using the ATMs actually cause the banks to lose money. Do you disagree with this? That said, with competition, there would be more banks, and the loss of one inefficient bank would make little difference. Why is it that other companies in Canada shouldn't be protected the same way. A HUGE segment of the manufacturing sector, left Ontario in the early 90s with free trade. Hundreds of thousands of people became jobless, and it took 3-7 years for the service sector to pick up the slack, and specific manufacturing to recover or return. This caused a huge economic crise in Ontario. Freeing the Banks to the markets shouldn't be a problem Do you not believe in the Global economy and free trade?

As I have said before: people have choices. Nobody is forced to use an ATM that is not run by their bank. Therefore, any move to regulate those fees is completely unjustified. Then wouldn't I (and even the poor money managers mentioned earlier), want to have Banking Competition like exists the US? Where these fees are being dropped. Compared to the Social protectionist modell? If Flaherty is determining that Competition is causing the Banks in the US to drop their fees, and he is very much a Free Trader, wouldn't it make sense for him to open up the market and allow these fees to be dictated by the market?

A healthy profit is whatever is necessary to ensure the banks can deal with unexpected crises. CIBC had to shell out 2.5 billion to settle for its wrongdoings with Enron -> CIBC was easily able to handle that loss and still remain a healthy company. A less profitable CIBC would have likely had to be bailed out by the taxpayers after taking such a huge hit. You don't bank with the CIBC do you? I do, and shouldn't. I have thought very much of leaving CIBC because of their fraudulent activities. Why should I allow a bank to gouge me on service fees, and then commit fraud, and cover the cost of their illicit activities with my money? I do understand your definition a healthy profit. This argument could be made for any Canadian Company. Except that other industries do not have regulations that give them unfair advantages, just the opposite. What's the big deal about whether a bank is Canadian or Foreign owned, compared to Foresty, Manufacturing, etc.

No he is the finance minister, not in the military. Just kidding..... uninformed. Well, you have two solutions. The segment here, that believe in opening the banking system, might see this happen if the idea of market forces exists in banking competition. from Canada.com Or for those whom believe in the protected market for Canadian Banks, the only hope for reduction in ATM fees, is in government dictating to the banks, through regulation and not affecting the banks in a manner that might adversely affect their "healthy profits" or more importantly, endanger the banking system.

A stable banking industry is a must. What is a healthy profit?

Flaherty is an "Anti-Business" zealot? He is the originator of the comment that the NDP jumped upon. Flaherty is the instigator in the income trust reversal? Are you suggesting he resign?

Gov has no businsess protecting people..... but.... It's ok for government to protect banks.

Am I following this thread properly? A guy is to resign because he "read" a joke on his computer?

Can you pay your mortgage in cash? You can be poor, have a fixed income, and your mortgaged paid off. You could have been an excellent money manager, and for some reason, your toast later in life. You can be poor, on a fixed income, and only have a Rent to pay, as owning a house has never factored into your economic situation. Banks don't need to hold these peoples money either. Like you said, it is a drain on the bank, and a greater drain on the fixed incomes and poor people. As for the analogy of the person with a high Mortgage, little cash flow, and high service charges. Maybe Flaherty has the answers for them, that would be his constituency.

So when I go to the bank and they manage my money properly, they are reducing their profits? Why do I not believe that the Government can tell people how to manage their money in a banking institution and that this will lead to a reduced Bank Profit?

I knew I should have read further. Thanks Chuck U Farlie. Maybe I should pull my money out of the bank too

Then their money needs to be removed from a Banking institution. If they cost the banks money even with the fees, the Banks will benefit from their non use of services. And if the money is out of the banks "ka ching ka ching" each time a low wage earner needs cash, then everyone will benefit. There is no point in having cash in the bank if you have to pay the fee and others don't. Poor people on fixed incomes should remove their money from the banks.