Keepitsimple

If the media ever accurately reported how Martin balanced the budget, your hero would be a little tarnished. There were two major components that I can remember: 1) He kept Employment Insurance Payments artificially high and tightened up the eligibility to collect. In doing so, he then changed the process to direct the EI surplus into general revenues where they were used to help balance the budget. 2) He slashed the transfer payments to provinces for Healthcare and Education and it's taken the Provinces the better part of 10 years to recover.

Today's article by Don Martin of the Post combines the comments of three senior Liberals under the heading "Liberals paint leader as slacker on the Green file". Link: http://www.canada.com/components/print.asp...18-f9b47cded36b So what we have is a Prime Minister who allegedly is a denyer and a hypocrit...but is taking concrete action on the environment. And that compares to the previous government who declared themselves to care deeply about the environment and totally committed to Kyoto....but did nothing. So after reading the remarks of these senior Liberals, who really has embarrassed Canada on the world stage?

I read that he chose 6% because he wanted to go one better than the US. Pretty dumb in any event because the US didn't sign on.

Dion's comparison of his "proposed" tax cuts to not cutting the GST is mis-leading. The Conservatives promised to cut the GST by another percentage point by 2011.....so there's another 3 or 4 years to address that promise.....you won't be seeing that cut for some time.

I normally don't defend newspapers of any ilk.....but the Post did mention that nothing was binding....seems just like a factual reporting of the facts to me:

Not true. Cities can suggest a number of projects. Then the province and the feds can pick and choose which projects to fund. Obviously, they'll fund the projects that will deliver the most votes for them in the most critical areas, regardless of the worthiness of usefulness of these projects. Perhaps you can support why you think it's "not true". As I have stated before (details and link in my previous post), all the expenditures were part of the Ontario Government's "Move Ontario" program - for which I don't think Dalton's getting enough credit. Cities and Municipalities worked with the Provincial Liberals to come up with this overall plan. Ottawa has no input to the plan....but they can choose which initiatives to co-fund.....and that's quite reasonable. My main point is that Ottawa doesn't dream up these projects on their own to gain votes - they are already on the City/Provincial drawing board. It's all quite logical...if a City cannot fund an initiative on it's own, then they have to go to the Province to seek some assistance....then the province makes a plan and creates a priority list. Then, as is usually the case, the Province goes to Ottawa to see if they can get some co-funding. In the Conservatives last budget, they had put aside an amount (not sure how much) to fund transit/infrastructure initiatives - now, with the exception of the Eco-Trust intiatives (next budget) they are drawing from those funds for these projects. Everyone except the Conservatives are saying that there will be an election. If there is no election in the short term, would you have a different opinion of these expenditures?

All I said was that the city of Toronto, the Municipality of York and the Province of Ontario ponied up money for this about a year ago. Who knows why it was not in Toronto's "official" plan. Maybe they thought that Ottawa would never cough up the money. This thread started off accusing Ottawa of just throwing money at the GTA to buy votes. What I'm informing people is that this is a strategic investment that fits glove-in-hand with the province's "Move Ontario" initiative. You seem to have a beef. If so, it should be directed at Mayor Miller. If Toronto's "official plan" doesn't have the subway extension - then you should ask Miller why he set aside the funding.

Arguably, the only thing of substance that Stephane Dion has on his record is The Clarity Act. What many people are not aware of is that Stephen Harper hounded the Liberals for years to create something like the Clarity Act. In fact - he was arguing for it before the first referendum in 1995. He felt it was unconscionable that the Liberals could allow the 1995 Quebec referendum without having "the rules" in place. Chretien ignored him and we almost lost the country. As leader of the Reform Party, Harper introduced The Quebec Contingency Act - Bill c-341 in 1996....with a Liberal majority, it never got past First Reading. It wasn't until 2000 that the Liberals woke up. You can use your own judgement as to how much credit Dion should get for addressing something that was ignored for so long. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-341 What's interesting about Dion right now is that several media pundits - James Travers of The Star being the most obvious - have retreated to what may be Dion's last bastion of "competence" - that he is a man of great intelligence and "great integrity". Having intelligence should not be confused with having wisdom. Wisdom requires the mixing of intelligence with good judgement. It appears that Dion is wanting in that regard. With regards to "great integrity"....we'll see. Dion has until now, never been in the spotlight and never really been under the unrelenting pressure of leadership. A person's integrity can never truly be tested until they are put in positions that require them to be firm in their convictions and principles......so I think the jury is still out.

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. I live in the GTA. The Ontario government set aside their funding in their last budget. The City of Toronto and the Region of York also did the same. This was all very public and is part of a much larger "Move Ontario" initiative. At that time, there was no guarantee that Ottawa would chip in. I guess it was their way of putting pressure on Ottawa. Here's a couple of links with the details: OTTAWA–The final piece of the puzzle is in place to build the first-ever subway line beyond the border of Toronto into York Region, with a stop at York University, the Star has learned. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Premier Dalton McGuinty will announce next week that the federal government will pump $697 million into the plan to extend the Spadina subway from Downsview station. The province and the municipalities of Toronto and York have already committed money. Link: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/187860 Here's a link to an Ontario Government site that has information on their "Move Ontario" plan, funding for which was included in their last budget. In addition to the subway, you'll find several other projects that were initiated by Ontario and municipalities that are now being co-funded by Ottawa. Link: http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GONE/2006/...2%8C%A9=_e.html ...Snip Ontario's Investment in York Region Transit: - Up to $50 million for the first phase of York Region's Viva rapid transit initiative in four heavily travelled corridors: Yonge Street, Highway 7, Vaughan North-South, and Markham North-South providing better connections to the TTC and Markham, Richmond Hill, Vaughan and Newmarket on new faster, modern and comfortable buses - $670 million under Move Ontario to Toronto and York Region, enabling them to extend the Spadina Subway to the Vaughan Corporate Centre at Highway 7 - Over $9.3 million in a one-time funding that York can use to support 2006 municipal bus orders - part of the $114 million to municipalities announced in the 2006 Ontario Budget - Nearly $9.3 million in provincial gas tax funding in the second year of the program, up from $5.6 million last year - $7.1 million under the 2005 Ontario Transit Vehicle Program to provide funding to help expand, renew and refurbish their transit fleet - $6.6 million in transit expansion funding to support several short-term improvements for inter-regional transit initiatives: expansion buses, software upgrades, and a new bus bay. In addition, the McGuinty government has: - Introduced legislation to create the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority that will make commuting easier for people in the GTA and Hamilton - Invested $1 billion in GO capital expansion, including new GO stations to improve access to GO services (funding partnership with other levels of government) - Provided municipalities with $232 million in gas tax funding for 2005/06 to improve service and expand ridership - Introduced an integrated fare card system that will enable commuters to travel on public transit from Durham to Hamilton using a single fare card when implemented - Opened Ontario's first-ever High Occupancy Vehicle lanes on 400 series highways - Opened bus bypass shoulders to allow buses to move freely during times of congestion - Provided funding to replace, refurbish and expand municipal bus fleets. Link: http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GONE/2006/...2%8C%A9=_e.html

Sure it wins some votes - but remember, all these "projects" are actually initiated by the cities and their province - then they go to Ottawa to ask for co-funding. They are not Ottawa's idea so if people don't like the choice of projects, they can yell at the province. With the exception of the Eco-Trust initiatives, the Federal money for the GTA projects was included in the last budget. Harper and the Conservatives are respecting the Constitution - the Provinces are responsible for the cities. Having said that, Ottawa is respnsible for many of the "levers" that affect our economy - mostly through the budgeting process (taxation) and the Bank of Canada. As such, there is recognition that large cities are the engines of the economy - so from that point of view, Ottawa has a vested interest in helping the cities to succeed. But.....if the only thing that Ottawa did was give money to the provinces, there would be no guarantee that the money would be properly spent. That's why the co-funding approach works. We won't know if the timing was tied to an election until we know if there will be an election. Personally, I think Harper is creating an environment that will make it difficult for the opposition to vote against the upcoming budget and in general, with the Liberals plummeting in the polls, he should be able to effectively govern for sometime. So I wouldn't count on an election soon - it doesn't make any sense until such time as the Conservatives are guaranteed a majority.

This is the old formula that Ottawa and the Provinces just constantly renegged on. Politicians are always there for the announcement of the project. They become scarce when it comes time to fulfill their promises with actual dollars. Toronto has been actually funding 65-75% of the capital cost of the TTC for some twenty years now (under the formula you describe above). Promises aren't worth squat when the ones giving the promises reneg so often. No. This Spadina example is EXACTLY the worst thing. It is not what Toronto wants or needs for optimal public transit service in Toronto. This subway extension doesn't even make top-ten of any seriously minded Toronto transit wishlist. And this is precisely the problem with this kind of arrangement. The Feds only want big ticket projects that they can brag about - they don't care if the project is worthwhile, efficient or effective. Spending billions on a useless subway that that is expected to achieve 10-15% usage during prime time is a massive waste of money. The amount of tax subsidy that this subway will suck up over the next 20-30 years makes the original investment look like small change! And the Feds won't be paying a penny of the running costs of their white elephants. Indeed, Toronto transit is already in serous trouble paying for the Sheppard line (it is projected for 15-20% prime time usage) which isn't ever going to be able to pay for its own operation. Indeed, having some dude from Alberta, working in Ottawa, telling Toronto what subway line to build in Toronto is absurd and a recipe for the mess we've got. I think the Subway was a good example. The City and Province came up with the idea a long time ago and asked that Ottawa contribute. As I said, Ottawa has to respect the Province's juristiction and are not in the position to know what's best for every Province/City. In so doing, the Province and it's cities will decide where the money is best spent. That's what happened with Spadina. If you think the Province made a bad decision, you can always complain at the voting booth.

I think you'll find that Harper and the Conservatives will respect the Constitution - the Provinces are responsible for the cities. Having said that, Ottawa is respnsible for many of the "levers" that affect our economy - mostly through the budgeting process (taxation) and the Bank of Canada. As such, there is recognition that large cities are the engines of the economy - so from that point of view, Ottawa has a vested interest in helping the cities to succeed. But.....if the only thing that Ottawa did was give money to the provinces, there would be no guarantee that the money would be properly spent. As a result, I think you'll find that the Conservatives will do a lot of "co-funding". I agree with the cities that there should be consistent funding for transit infrastructure. I see it working as follows: 1) Ottawa commits to a consistent block of funds that will be made available to the provinces every year - say $2 billion for example . 2) Funding is guaranteed for 10 years. 3) Projects are funded on a co-payment basis. As a rule, City projects would be paid one-third by the city, one-third by the province, and one-third by Ottawa. This approach is very much in line with how the Conservatives are currently dealing with the Spadina subway expansion for Toronto. It respects the Provinces' juristiction and ensures that all parties have a vested interest.

I'm fairly certain that the media would not have been so critical of Dion's leadership if the Conservatives, aided by the attack/information ads, had not forced the issue. Harper has done a masterful job at defining Dion - and in a more truthful fashion than Chretien and Martin did in continually demonizing Harper for the past three years - far, far right wing....take away your rights, destroy Canada....soldiers in the city....stack the courts with right wing judges....bush clone....war monger......against immigration, blah, blah, blah, over and over. If the Conservatives don't stick it to the Liberals, the Liberals have proven that they will go to any lengths to stay in power - so how low would they go to regain power? Kill the beast while you have a chance.

Right on, JBG. Not enough people pay attention to those facts. The Europeans were on the cusp of undergoing a natural decline in GHG's because of all those East Bloc factories being shut down with the fall of Communism and the disappearance of State support. We got conned into accepting targets that were inappropriate for our situation. Someone else had posted that the Europeans had hard-nosed negotiators at the bargaining table. Canada sent environmentalists to support bureacrats and in the end, the Liberals agreed to 6% below 1990 for the simple reason that the US was asked to have a target of 5%. Chretien wanted to outdo the Americans - who wisely decided not to agree. While we now agree that the Liberals did next to nothing to reduce GHG, they don't get enough criticsm for "negotiating" such a bad deal to begin with.

Can anybody make sense of this? "Speechless" is the only thing that came to mind. Link: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2007...pf-3698485.html March 5, 2007 Fugitive killer won't be deported By TOM GODFREY, SUN MEDIA A Bangladeshi fugitive convicted of killing his country's prime minister in a bloody coup won't be deported from Canada because he faces a death sentence in his native land, an immigration board has ruled. Noor Chowdhury, 57, filed a refugee claim to stay in Canada in 1997 but was deemed inadmissible due to convictions in absentia for murder and conspiracy to commit murder, according to an Immigration and Refugee Board. Identified in the board's decision as "C," the former lieutenant-colonel in the Bangladeshi military and 18 others were convicted of taking part in an August 1975 coup in which PM Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and 15 members of his family were murdered. 'NOT FORESEEABLE' "C participated in a coup ... walking into the victim's home and killing him," the board said in a secret ruling made available last week. The board noted he faces certain death if he's deported to Bangladesh. "Removal to Bangladesh was not foreseeable as long as the death sentence remained in effect," the board said. In 1999, a court sentenced 15 people to death for their roles in the massacre. Chowdhury and two others allegedly involved in the coup fled to Canada after years on the run. The two have since obtained citizenship -- one lives in Ottawa, the other in Montreal.

It sounds so caring - let's raise the minimum wage and help those attain some dignity. As with any broad policy, political knuckleheads like Jack Layton and The Star should first ask the question.....who would really be helped by raising the minimum wage to $10? The answer can be found in the following statistics, excerpted from an article by Christina Bilizzard: Figures from StatsCan make some interesting points. According to 2005 data, 50% of minimum wage earners are aged 15-19 and 17% are 20-24. Not surprisingly, 65% of minimum wage earners live with their parents. Only 6.5% are their family's major income earner. So.....is that really what we want to do - give all the kids a raise? I don't think so. Link: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...694567-sun.html

It sounds so caring - let's raise the minimum wage and help those less fortunate attain some dignity. As with any broad policy, political knuckleheads like Jack Layton and The Star should first ask the question.....who would really be helped by raising the minimum wage to $10? The answer can be found in the following statistics, excerpted from an article by Christina Bilizzard: Figures from StatsCan make some interesting points. According to 2005 data, 50% of minimum wage earners are aged 15-19 and 17% are 20-24. Not surprisingly, 65% of minimum wage earners live with their parents. Only 6.5% are their family's major income earner. So.....is that really what we want to do - give all the kids a raise? I don't think so. I'm sure we'll find a better way to target those who really need help. Link: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...694567-sun.html

Chantal is a separatist and she can't help but spew anti-federalist (which in Quebec means anti-Liberal) propaganda. She likes the fact that Harper is willing to bend over and cater to Quebec and the separatists. I don't need to read her book to know what it says. So what was your point in bringing it up? Separatists like Harper, so Dion sucks? If you read all of what I wrote, you'd understand that much of what Quebec wants is very similar to other provinces. Alberta, BC, and Newfoundland have all been pushed to consider separation because of the Liberal's approach to dealing with the provinces. Ontario's none too happy either. That was the point of bringing it up. You should read Harper's biography by William Johnson - you'll understand that Harper's vision of Canada is not bending over to the provinces - it's having strong provinces in a strong, united Canada. I highly recommend the book - Harper refused to be interviewed for it, so it's a pretty unbiased piece of work by a guy who has worked mostly for the Globe and Mail.

Further to Geoffrey's reply, the Liberals have another big problem - probably the biggest of them all. Chantal Hebert has come out with a book called "French Kiss - Stephen Harper's Blind Date with Quebec". She was on with Peter Mansbridge last night discussing the book. I only caught a few minutes of it but one point she made was "Quebec has no appetite for the Liberal vision of Canada". She's referring to the heavy handed Centrist government where Liberals continued to keep their fingers in many areas of Provincial juristiction, to the frustration of several provinces. This "Liberal vision" is despised in both Quebec and Alberta but increasingly so in Ontario and BC as well. Newfoundland/Labrador is not that far behind. All of these except Ontario have been starting to discuss the viability of separation to some degree or another. Canadian Unity needs the Conservative vision of respect for Provincial juristiction and giving them the freedom to experiment with the delivery of Healthcare, Education and if they so choose, Daycare, among others. Canada has a tremendous advantage in having 10 provinces with mature and effective governments. As each province tries new approaches, others can learn - we can jointly develop "best practices". Not everything that works in BC will work in Nova Scotia - there is no "one size fits all" as the Liberals try to do. Gilles Duceppe called this paternal approach "Father Knows Best". Liberals are clinging to a system that enabled them to bribe provinces and voters with our tax money but that system has collapsed under the weight of Gomery and the separatist aspirations of the provinces mentioned above. It will take several years, a new vision and strong leadership to turn the party around - none of which are appearing on the horizon.

That comment is a microcosm of what's wrong with the Liberals. They have lost their way.The leadership campaign had Ignatieff on the extreme right Bob Rae on the extreme left. Neither one satisfied the delegates to the tune of 50% and that's why Dion won. Chretien, love him or hate him, had tremendous "party" leadership skills. He knew that you had to make it look like you cared about the Left (Environment, Poverty, Social Programs) but in reality, he just wandered down the middle of the road, read the polls, and made some adjustments on the fly, unopposed by a divided Right. That's why political commentators say he "campaigned from the Left but governed from the Right". Dion is demonstrating that he does not have the leadership skills to bring together the Left and Right in the Liberal party to create a coherant centrist message. I believe his recent decision on the sunset provisions was made so that he could continue to fight the losing proposition of the last election - that the Conservatives are a party that will take away your rights and Liberals are the protector of the Charter. That would just be part of the old "scary, scary" stuff and it just won't wash like it once did. Bad decision. When you try to satisfy the various political stripes within your own party, you need exceptional leadership skills to develop and communicate effective policy - and to sell those policies to your own members. In reality, you can't be everything to everybody, especially when you've got somebody as clever as Harper who will corner you into saying what you stand for or failing that - making it clear that you don't have a stand. Some people view that as devisive but many people are starting to see that it's not such a bad thing - hiding behind generalities like the Liberals have done for years is now harder to do...ending Poverty by 2000, fixing Healthcare for a generation, signing Kyoto and pretending to be a world-leader, champions of the immigrant - it goes on and on. Grand plans, much talk, very little action. Perhaps I'm wong about Stephan Dion - maybe he'll somehow pull everyone together. I can't really see it though.....he has to fight off some massive egos in Ignatiff and Rae as well as the back-room powers that are certain to be furious at losing their entitlements. Buckle down Stephane, there's lots of work to do.

Instantaneous run-off. The voter would rank the candidates in order of preference. The person with the lowest votes would be crossed off the list. The people who voted for this candidate, their second choice would now count. Continue until there is one person left, and they would have over 50%. This is similar to how parties choose leaders, I believe. The best part is, you could have as many parties as you like and it wouldn't matter, because you don't have to worry about "splitting the left" or "splitting the right". Instantaneous Run-off. Gee, I've seen a number of iterations of voting systems but as simple as it is, I've not seen it presented in that form - must have missed it along the way. Off the top, I can't see anything wrong with it at all - makes good sense. Before we had computers, it may have been a little complicated and prone to error but now - it would be a breeze to tabulate. It seems to embody what Canadians in general like to do - find a way to comprimise. If someone can offer valid criticism, I'd love to hear it.

An Angus Reid poll was released today. A sampling of over 3000. Period covers Feb. 20-27. Link shows the various breakdowns. National summary is: Conservatives: 40% Liberals: 26% NDP: 15% Bloc: 10% Green: 8% Other: 1% Link: http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/uploads...s%20Release.pdf

I don't see what the real point is. Harper originally complained that Chretien was using the plane for personal reasons and not paying for it. Now Harper is using it for personal and he is paying for it. He was likely given an estimate for the cost when he was hounding Chretien and of course, it was a "worst case " scenario. But the crux of his original argument was that if you use the plane for personal business, you should pay something for it.....and he has. Talk about nit-picking.

FLQ were setting off bombs in street side postal boxes. That can be deemed terrorism. It led to Trudeau instituting the War Measures Act. Meant you could be (and were) rounded up and put in jail w/o any due cause. Pretty much all of that FLQ bombing has been debunked after the investigations happened, remember, the RCMP infiltrators were found to be planning and doing all of those acts, which lead to the formation of CSIS? And yes, Trudeau's war measure act application did mean that. and is a good reason why we must stand against anything that erodes our individual liberties. The Air India attack was not a terrorist attack against Canada. I was living in Montreal at the time of the FLQ bombings - no they weren't debunked. They were pretty small in nature - but they did happen. Of more concern was the kidnapping and murder of Pierre Laporte by the FLQ. They also kidnapped James Cross but fortunately, they found where he was before he could be murdered as well. In fact, after holding him for several weeks - they discovered the hideout and it was only three blocks from where I lived. Do not try revisionist history with the FLQ - they were serious times.

Well....I'm a Conservative who won't be quiet. I'm not comfortable with this whole thread of Ernst Zundel. It should not have been raised.....the rebuttals are right - there is no evidence that the Liberals knew anything about what his future would bring. Nobody voted for him anyway - and the Liberals did try to get him booted out of the country. Conservatives have enough left-leaning "hidden agenda" stories and ranting mis-information to work with - we don't have to make things up. Just yesterday, the relatives of the Air India casualties pleaded for the sunset provisions to be extended. Nobody in the Liberal Party would meet with them to hear their emotional pleas. Michael Ignatieff referred to them as a "sideshow". Needless to say, the relatives were not impressed. Can you imagine the headlines if the roles were reversed and the Deputy Leader of the Conservatives had referred to an emotional plea as a "Sideshow". Of course it wasn't the Conservatives - it was the Liberals....so I'm sure it was taken out of context....after all, Conservatives are heartless and mean-spirited. Liberals care, and they care deeply.