fellowtraveller

Doesn't all this spending stimulate the economy? I'm sure we are all foursquare behind that....

On the contrary, I was involved as a contractor for several years in the contracting out of certain government services. They were called performance contracts, you can Google that term before embarassing yourself further. In short, we did not get paid unless there were audited, verifiable savings. We made an embarassing amount of money in the first few years. Many, many Fortune 500 contractors contract out non-core services, in recognition that they save their investment and energy for things they do best. In Canada, most of the banks for example no longer manage their own real estate, or own much commercial real estate for their own operations. This is in spite of seeing financing of real estate as a core business. I understand that the government of Manitobe would consider every conceivable human endeavour as being the responsibility of govt, but that does not make it economic or efficient in any way. If I have time later, I'll explain in simple terms how govts/civil service try to screw up their own contracting out undertakings. It is quite deliberate and the motives for screwing themselves quite easily understood.

The exact same mnessage is delivered by posters and bags in private stores. I have never been advised by a clerk in either private or public stoires about the dangers of drinking and driving.

I would not use Winnipeg or Manitoba as an example of anything regarding contracting out. As for alcohol, I've already explained how the province can retain control and profits without the liability of thousands of employees and hundreds of outlets. The Alerbta experince has been that there are many more stores offering many more products to consumers since privatization of liquor sales. There is absolutely zero reason for civil serrvants to be involved in retail sales. Try to remove those ideological blinders and look at the facts.

You forgot at least a couple more" 5. Having a single regual;tory regime allows for much easier raising of capital and consistent regulation of same. 6. National regulation closes the door on scammers who flit from province to province when they get in trouble in one, reincoproate elsewhere and away they go again

Your answers make no sense. I have been on the other end of contracting out of services, as a provider. It was made quite clear to us by the bureaucrats (all of whom not ironically kept their jobs and ended up 'supervising' us) that they had not interest whatsoever in saving any money. Many. many municipalities contract out waste removal because it is cheaper. Why is Toronto different? What it actually takes is political courage. Gargabe has no glamour and nobody cares until it stops getting picked up. There is absolutely zero reason for the govt retailing alcohol. None. Alberta, for instance, has retained control of taxation and wholesaling of booze, kept plenty of the money, and greatly reduced taxpayers liability. And- they have greatly improved service in the industry, there are many more stores in many more places. They have added greatly to Albertas bottom line and the province still controls the product. All this other nonsense is just union rubbish. There is no reason for cashiers and shelfstockers to make money and benefits far beyond what other unskilled workers earn.

It is a problem, one recognized by several federal govts.. Think about it.

It begs the question: why on earth are waste disposal workers and liquor store cashiers government employees at all? What value is added by this? I'd also wonder why -with so many Ontarians out of work and suffering- the govt doesn't hire replacement workers while the strikers exercise their right to withdraw their services? It 's a win-win-win situation- unemployed people get work, citizens get the services they have paid for, and strikers get to make their point for a long time on the picket line.

I'm all for it, it is long overdue. Quebec, of course, will turn it into a constitutional crisis whereby Harper is trampling on their God given rights. The OP will have made up his mind by then and will support whatever Harper does not.

We are all special snowflakes here?

Is that the leftovers from the approximately $20 billion being spent by the AB govt?

I see. Do you think the Albertans who elect Conservative governments in AB represent the mainstream?

Ignatieff is starting to look a lot like Dion. He just got punked.

Like I said, we'll keep supporting whatever excellent fiscal choices your provincial govt makes, and we'll do it with cold hard cash. You may be surprised to hear that the extent to which Alberta supports the country financially is pretty much never talked about here: by the papers, by the politicians, by people day to day. So I don't know what you mean by mean spirited. The transfer of wealth, a significant amount for a long time, is just our gift to you. We love you. I know it's hard to accept charity, but it's the system you've chosen.

Yes, Albertans and Canadians have suffered greatly the last decade. All that dinosaur fueled and directed prosperity is horrible.

Same answer: not bad. Could be better, but right now we are in the middle of a huge infrastruture program that began last year. Don't worry though, the money comes solely from AB tax coffers. We managed to balance budgets at $12/barrel, we'll cut back when its $50 to make ends meet. We'll still send all we can to our fellow Canadians, in spite of your mean spiritedness and sense of aggrieved entitlement..

Layton is an even more advanced poltical creature than Harper or Ignatieff: Layton voted against a budget he had not yet seen. He is like Kreskin with a mustache.

Have we now seen the two schizophrenic planks of Igantieffs election platform, what he insists on from Harper: to simultaneously spend lots right now while keeping the deficit down? I also like his approach to promoting the economic and political prosperity of Canada: continually bluffing at having an election.

Harper also has the option of telling Ignatieff to go pound sand up his you-know-what, and let the chips fall where they may. Igantieff is totally bluffing, and not very well either..

There are clear and easily understood reasons for that.... St Albert has a tax base badly skewed toward residential-only, and as a resul;t has very high taxes compared to Edmonton. They do provide good services, but residents pay heavily for them. Sherwood Park has low taxes, the lowest in the region, but also has the massive advantage of having all those refineries on the western edge of Strathcona county - it is an advantage they guard zealously.

Not bad. Money in the bank. No Debt A future A hardworking population that feels little sense of entitlement Thanks for asking

Do you never tire of this BS? It did not make anywhere near there. The reporters at the time went easy, because that is how they used to roll. Not any more, the press has chosen the low road on their own initiative.

Baloney, as usual. I recall several editorials written by editors at the time in praise of themselves and our system, and how that made us superior to the intense, relentless muckraking of journalists in the US. Nobody was picking on your Godfather.

Thank you for your valuable contribution, comrade.

Yeah, and I'd be on the dole in Scotland if......... I acknowledge that unions were once advocates for social change. Now they are clearly and unequivocally advocates for their members. Period. It serves their purposes to pretend and promote something else, something noble and uplifting, it makes the actual process less venal in their minds. That bit of deception actually dishonours those who did make real sacrifices. Good luck with those daydreams.