# too much anger to succeed?



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

"Alarmed by the positive poll readings Martin garnered recently from his encounters with pre-voting-age Canadians who appear to enjoy the Prime Minister's company, Harper's handlers arranged a photo-op of their own at a Wallaceburg, Ont., rehab centre for children.<br>
But the Tory leader was miscast for the assignment. He watched silently, not knowing what to say to these kids. Until, that is, one of the finger-painting toddlers leaned toward his tailored suit.<br>
"Don't touch me," Harper said."

i think this article really sums many people's feelings toward mr harper. if the reform par...i mean the allian...uhh..."conservative" party wants to succeed in canada they've got to change everything about themselves, starting from the top. i don't envision this happening any time soon, but i won't be surprised if this is the beginning of the end for the conservative-reform alliance. 

full story here. 

thanks for reading,

miguel


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Since the link you provided is subscriber only, I opened it and paste it here so all can read it:

Too much anger to succeed
After 23 years in politics, Stephen Harper still has a penchant for marginalizing moderates within his Conservative caucus, ridiculing the patriotism of Liberal voters and working out his anger issues in public
DAVID OLIVE

Look at that face, that hateful face.
-Sam Rayburn, Democratic speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, watching a televised address by Richard Nixon
Richard Nixon somehow made it to the top of the greasy pole. It's helpful to take that view of history in trying to imagine Stephen Harper as the man who can lead a united right to the New Jerusalem.
As dysfunctional in his own way as the dethroned Stockwell Day, Harper has twice squandered the chance effortlessly gained by the sponsorship scandal to form a government. He is, Tory insiders began saying last week, girding for a third try this fall, hoping the potency of the Grewal tapes matches that of the Gomery revelations.
It, too, will likely fail.
In a nation that favours public figures who project a sunny optimism, Harper traffics more heavily in bile than any major political party leader since John Diefenbaker.
Harper regards Liberals of every description as "corrupt," and their precarious government, in all its grand and sundry aspects, "morally reprehensible." Those who fail to align with Harper's worldview he labels monsters, harlots and underworld figures.
Danny Williams, premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, learned his hard lesson last month. Williams might have anticipated a little gratitude for joining with his fellow (Tory) Atlantic Canada premiers in taking the risky step of endorsing the Harper Tories on the eve of the last election. Instead, Williams was treated to a sputum eruption.
Harper was outraged last month that Williams was pressuring Tory MPs on the Rock not to defeat the Martin government, in order to preserve the recent hard-won pact between St. John's and Ottawa on resource-revenue sharing.
"What's the next thing?" Harper exploded. "We're going to have a bunch of Mafia people working for the government because it might give Danny Williams money a week earlier?"
Who are these organized crime figures on the public payroll? Carolyn Bennett? Ken Dryden? Right-to-lifer Roger Gallaway?
A few weeks back, Harper had a message for the five million Canadians who voted Liberal last June. Their patriotism is suspect. Anyone casting a ballot for the Liberals, the Tory leader said in his Calgary redoubt, is "quite frankly imperilling the future of the country."
It's a rule in politics that few voters take kindly to being told they were duped. Some can't quite accept that the country, typically among the U.N.'s top five best places in which to live, has been governed these past dozen years entirely by refugees from the sewers.
Yet Harper presses on; he is smarter than the untutored masses. Polls be damned, he just knew this spring that Canadians were in immediate need of a second election in less than a year.
Harper also knows better than his own caucus, which last Wednesday heaped scorn on Gurmant Grewal, surreptitious recorder of conversations with high-level Grits, who has been excoriated by caucus colleagues — according to Canadian Press reports — for conducting himself dishonestly and robbing his party of the ethical high ground.
Oblivious to the mood in the room, Harper emerged from that session to defend Grewal's behaviour as his "legal right" — rather missing the point, as sometime Tory sympathizer John Ibbitson noted in The Globe and Mail, that the Grewal tapes "make the Tories look every bit as sleazy, dishonest, unethical, conniving, mendacious and just plain rotten as the Liberals."
But Harper, who appears at times to be channelling the New Testament, deals in absolutes.
Harper is no less certain of Grewal's good faith, in advance of probes into his conduct by the RCMP and Parliament's ethics commissioner, than he is of Grit perfidy despite the incomplete status of Justice Gomery's work.
"Gurmant had no intention of being bought," Harper declared last Wednesday — an assertion not supported by any portion of Grewal's tapes that that Tories have so far seen fit to release.
How much more dignified it would be for a leader of the Official Opposition to let lessers handle the scut work of character assassination — and there's no shortage of volunteers. Let Tory MP Jason Kenney accuse Martin of perjuring himself at the Gomery inquiry, for instance, and NDP backbencher Pat Martin describe the Liberals, in Commons debate last month, as "institutionally psychopathic."
But Harper insists on working out his anger issues in public, whether it's kicking chairs backstage at Tory events or shoving photographers out of camera range. Or labelling NDP Leader Jack Layton a slut for backing a slightly amended budget that increases spending by less than 1 per cent.
As they say, the fish rots from the head. Within a few days, John Reynolds, Tory campaign manager and prominent B.C. MP, was saying all Liberals "are whores. I don't like to call them that, because there are probably some whores who are nice people."
In the last election Harper let stand a Tory press release that called Paul Martin a supporter of child pornography.
No surprise, then, that Harper has not rebuked Saskatoon Tory MP Maurice Vellacott's description of turncoat Belinda Stronach. ("Some people prostitute themselves for different costs or different prices. She sold out for a cabinet position.")
`In a nation that favours public figures who project a sunny optimism, Harper traffics more heavily in bile than any major political party leader since John Diefenbaker.'
Harper is not in tune with his caucus, having marginalized moderates like Stronach and Peter MacKay, who went public with his own misgivings about an early election the same day, May 4, as his then-girlfriend did. Not one but three erstwhile contenders for the Alliance or Conservative leadership — Keith Martin, Scott Brison and Stronach — have been driven into the Grit fold.
"Join your own team, Stephen!" exhorts full-time Tory apologist Don Martin.
But after 23 years in politics, Harper is not a work in progress.
Harper still is in thrall to the armchair ideologues at the University of Calgary with whom he first fell in as a student there, a group currently headed by Tory chief strategist Tom Flanagan.
From the comfort of that ivory tower, history professor David Bercuson recently despaired of Central Canadian Tories who lacked the "blood lust" for an early election; while his colleague Barry Cooper dismissed Harper's supposed policy shift to the centre.
"I don't think he's changed his views," Cooper told Maclean's. "It's really a matter of packaging so you can be acceptable to people in Ontario who have a problem with Westerners."
Harper has flitted among five political parties (he was a Trudeau Liberal in his teens), and has flip-flopped on so many unpopular stands — from the Kyoto accord to the Iraq war — that the Grits and Tories are now scarcely distinguishable on policy. Harper is authentic, however, in his contempt for a centralized federalism that actually has worked pretty well for 138 years. After his electoral setback last summer, Harper wallowed in regional victimhood.
"The philosophy of the Liberal party is get the rest, screw the West," he complained last July.
"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country," Harper wrote in December 2000. In a little-noticed addendum to his widely criticized 2002 observation that Atlantic Canada tolerates "a culture of defeat," Harper also observed that "in parts of the Prairies" there is evidence of "the kind of can't-do attitude (that) is a problem in this country."
Just three years after counselling Ralph Klein in 2001 to mount a staged withdrawal from Confederation, Harper was still so obsessed with loosening the ties that bind the nation that he mused that Canada might benefit from emulating the chronically disputatious factions of the Belgian federation and the strife-torn Basque and Catalan regions of Spain.
That Harper's more recent project to topple Martin allied him with a Commons rump that advocates an extreme form of regional autonomy is hardly out of character — either for Harper or the Tories, who with disastrous results cohabitated with Quebec nationalists in the 1980s.
Correspondent Clifford Krauss of The New York Times last month recorded the unwitting irony of Paul Martin's timing in celebrating the narrow survival of his government on May 19 with a renewed vow to "set the standard by which other nations judge themselves."
As it happens, though, only the Prime Minister was attempting that night to address both a scandal and other matters of import, in his speech about the Gomery inquiry and his plans for job creation, aboriginal justice and advances in child care, urban renewal and the environment, among other issues.
Harper spoke that night only of scandal, and of his impatience to inflict more wounds on the Grits.
Martin was speaking to the nation, Harper to his strategists.
Accordingly, the latest polls find Tory support at 27 per cent nationally, below the party's 29.6 per cent showing in the last election — itself the Tories' worst performance since R.B. Bennett's drubbing in the Depression year of 1935.
Alarmed by the positive poll readings Martin garnered recently from his encounters with pre-voting-age Canadians who appear to enjoy the Prime Minister's company, Harper's handlers arranged a photo-op of their own at a Wallaceburg, Ont., rehab centre for children.
But the Tory leader was miscast for the assignment. He watched silently, not knowing what to say to these kids. Until, that is, one of the finger-painting toddlers leaned toward his tailored suit.
"Don't touch me," Harper said.
Okay. So what are you doing here?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Thanks for reposting, SINC, and thanks Miguel for posting it in the first place.

I believe that Harper's biggest obstacle to winning is not so much policy as public relations. The way the numbers fall, you cannot win without strong support east of the prairies. And Harper preaches to his western choir. 

With the BQ nabbing 40-50 seats out of Quebec--which they've consistently done for the past 4 elections--it's only theoretically possible to win without support from Ontario. The secret to Chretien's success is that he consistently won all of Ontario and every non-BQ seat in Quebec, giving him roughly 120-130 seats out of 155 he needed for a majority. 

There is a perception in Ontario that Harper is angry, vengeful and petty. His rabid, snarling bulldog-like stance towards the Liberals makes him seem just a wee bit unbalanced. He has done nothing to address this perception--in fact, he barely seems aware of it. 

Technically, he can win without Ontario, but then he needs to win every non-Ontario and non-BQ seat in Canada. Alienating the Atlantic provinces doesn't help that.

It boggles my mind that Harper does not seem to have a political strategist on staff who can crunch the numbers for him and show him why he needs to move beyond his comfortable western powerbase and gather votes out east. Or make him see that the perception of him as a raving lunatic is not simply Liberal brainwashing--it's a very real perception that he needs to work to change. Screaming about Liberal corruption doesn't help him.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

miguelsanchez said:


> i think this article really sums many people's feelings toward mr harper. if the reform par...i mean the allian...uhh..."conservative" party wants to succeed in canada they've got to change everything about themselves, starting from the top. i don't envision this happening any time soon, but i won't be surprised if this is the beginning of the end for the conservative-reform alliance.


The Conservatives are one party and will be around for a very long time. 

Harper is a very good leader. It's weird for me to see people criticize him for not being like a traditional politician. Look at what charismatic type politicians have brought us. The type of people with that personality are born and bred to lie and mislead. That's why they do so well in photo ops. 

It's a relief to me to see a politician that is like an average Canadian. He lives in a regular house in a regular neigbourhood and uses our regular health care system. He is a lot like all of us. Can we say the same of Martin?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> He lives in a regular house in a regular neigbourhood and uses our regular health care system.


Sure, no limos for Mr. Harper? Where does he stay when he's in Ottawa? Who pays for that?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Sonal said:


> With the BQ nabbing 40-50 seats out of Quebec--which they've consistently done for the past 4 elections--it's only theoretically possible to win without support from Ontario.


There has been an interesting development in Quebec with Bernard Landry quitting the PQ. 
With that vacancy many see Duceppe as the only leader popular in Quebec that could pull-off a separation vote. That would mean leaving the BQ to get into provincial politics.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Vandave, you illustrate my point. 

Opinion on Harper's capabilities is divided. In his Western powerbase, he's seen as a good guy. In Ontario, he's seen as an angry and a loose cannon. However, to win, Harper needs more support in Ontario, and to gain support in Ontario, he needs to address this perception. The strategies that work for him to gain support in the West work against him in Ontario. The rancor he shows that plays well with his sympathetic powerbase simply make him look unreasonably obsessed here. 

Like it or not, working with public perception is part of winning elections, and Harper is not doing a good job of it in the places where he needs to win more seats. 

Based solely on anecdotal evidence, a lot of people in Ontario vote Liberal simply to keep Harper out. That says a lot for how poorly he is perceived here. 

Simply saying he's a good guy in one breath and then so vigourously attacking the Liberals in the next does not make him seem reasonable and well-balanced. And I think the CPC would stand a much better chance of winning if they can come across as reasonable and thoughtful. 

He may be a great leader and the best thing for Canada, but he just can't sell it east of the prairies.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> There has been an interesting development in Quebec with Bernard Landry quitting the PQ.
> With that vacancy many see Duceppe as the only leader popular in Quebec that could pull-off a separation vote. That would mean leaving the BQ to get into provincial politics.


ArtistSeries, I must admit that my knowledge of politics in Quebec is fuzzy at best--I'm very curious about how the mood for separatist movement changes the vote. If Duceppe goes provincial, then what happens to BQ seats federally? My guess is that if no strong leader replaces him, they would start losing seats.

That would change the game considerably.

Mind you, I don't see Harper selling well among Quebec either, so while the game may change, it's more likely to be in the Liberal's favour. Thoughts?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

> he mused that Canada might benefit from emulating the chronically disputatious factions of the Belgian federation


...and that was when I stopped taking Harper seriously. Perhaps there are positive lessons to be learned from Belgium, but there's no way the whole country can be held up as some shining example of a working bilingual republic. And that seemed to be what Harper was doing. 

As for Duceppe leading the Bloc, I doubt it would affect their fortunes very much, since the Bloc and PQ are essentially the federal and provincial wings of the same party and to the extent that one has a strong leader, the other benefits. As long as people feel like casting anti-Federal protest votes, the Bloc will keep cleaning up, no matter who the leader is.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Sure, no limos for Mr. Harper? Where does he stay when he's in Ottawa? Who pays for that?


We pay for it. I have never had a problem with these positions receiving the odd perk, since they are elected officials that are doing a job that benefits our society. What I strongly object to are all the people sitting in patronage appointments living off the taxpayer dollar (e.g. the Senate and GG).


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

iMatt said:


> ...and that was when I stopped taking Harper seriously. Perhaps there are positive lessons to be learned from Belgium, but there's no way the whole country can be held up as some shining example of a working bilingual republic. And that seemed to be what Harper was doing.
> 
> As for Duceppe leading the Bloc, I doubt it would affect their fortunes very much, since the Bloc and PQ are essentially the federal and provincial wings of the same party and to the extent that one has a strong leader, the other benefits. As long as people feel like casting anti-Federal protest votes, the Bloc will keep cleaning up, no matter who the leader is.


Well something has to be done in the near future and the Liberal Party policy is just more of the same. Personally, I am tired of having to constantly appease Quebec. We need to come to a better agreement of federalism, or Quebec should go their own way. Either way, the issue of federalism needs to be resolved sooner than later.

At least Harper is thinking about the issue and looking at what other countries have done.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Sonal said:


> He may be a great leader and the best thing for Canada, but he just can't sell it east of the prairies.


And that's my point. I don't want a salesman running our country.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> And that's my point. I don't want a salesman running our country.


Fair enough. 

My point is simply that unless he learns to sell it east of the prairies, he's not going to be running the country.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Harper has made a series of tactical errors. He is young (for a leader) and if he survives the next few years (i.e. if the Conservatives eek out a minority government at the next election and he doesn't screw up - both significant "ifs") he could learn to mellow his attitudes. But, for now, his best tactic is to leave the rhetoric to others and to focus on positive messages. My feeling, though, is that Harper is a liability for the Conservatives and that their fortunes would be much higher without him as leader. I also think Martin has become a liability for the Liberals.

In essence, we need new leadership all around and a renewal of our political system. Doubt we'll get either.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

My sense is that Canadians 

do NOT want social engineering

DO want to see progressive social programs implemented

do NOT want tax cuts

DO want their taxes managed better with more oversight

DO want to stay the course on current fiscal policy

Do want regional inequities worked out.

Are looking for some better democratic institutions.

I don't think there is a single Federal party that has a combination of credibility, policy history AND EXPERIENCE/TRACK RECORD to reassure Canadians they could tackle that agenda without disturbing what is already satisfactory.

They ALL need major work done and to show that they can work together where there is common ground.

I've only seen some glimmer of that between the NDP and Libs and the latter have a lot of housecleaning to do.

After the last few months I suspect there is very little confidence in politicians of any stripe....perhaps for different reasons amongst the constituencies.

Minority as far as the horizon in my mind tho the Libs making all the right moves and perhaps losing Martin perhaps have the shortest route to a majority if they did it all right.

Quebec is a huge stumbling Bloc.......


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Now MY sense is that Canadians: 

do NOT want social engineering (Sorry, many do ie: tough smoking laws)

DO want to see progressive social programs implemented (Not if it is same sex marriage)

do NOT want tax cuts (Dead wrong. Taxes are choking most.)

DO want their taxes managed better with more oversight (Agreed)

DO want to stay the course on current fiscal policy (No. Scandal and criminal activity by Liberals is not condoned)

Do want regional inequities worked out. (Some would like to see Quebec just go. Enough pandering to them.)

Other than that, you were pretty close to the mark MacDoc


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Sonal said:


> ArtistSeries, I must admit that my knowledge of politics in Quebec is fuzzy at best--I'm very curious about how the mood for separatist movement changes the vote. If Duceppe goes provincial, then what happens to BQ seats federally? My guess is that if no strong leader replaces him, they would start losing seats.
> 
> That would change the game considerably.
> 
> Mind you, I don't see Harper selling well among Quebec either, so while the game may change, it's more likely to be in the Liberal's favour. Thoughts?


The best analysis came from Don Macpherson, he sums it up this way:
"The leadership of the PQ now is where the sovereignty movement needs him (Duceppe) most, and he will not be able to resist a draft to leave Ottawa any more than Jean Charest could. 

Now there is uncertainty about the Bloc's leadership and its future, which will affect the situation in Ottawa and the strategic thinking of all the federal parties.

The Bloc might not be so eager now to force an early election. Initially, Paul Martin may benefit the most from Landry's announcement.

This is not good news for Landry's direct adversary, Charest. Like two drowning men clinging to each other, the unpopularity of each helped keep the other's leadership afloat. Now Landry has sunk beneath the waves, and the already increasing chances that Charest will sink too, have increased.

Already, the Liberal's chances of re-election behind Charest were strickly theoretical, even against Landry.

With Charest facing a new, more popular PQ leader, the Liberals now literally have only a payer for a miracle." 
Montreal Gazette Sunday June 5th


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> (Some would like to see Quebec just go. Enough pandering to them.)


In Quebec, the mood is that we are not getting our fair share and that we put more into Canada than we get out. 
There is a feeling that we are pandering to the West...

How things feel so similar, no?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> My sense is that Canadians
> 
> do NOT want social engineering
> 
> DO want to see progressive social programs implemented


Funny that you would put those two back to back. What are "progressive social programs" if not social engineering? IMO, these programs are social engineering by definition.

You are defining social engineering as being something you don't agree with. 



MacDoc said:


> do NOT want tax cuts


Most people think taxes are high and would like to see tax cuts. However, the average Canadian also does not want to lose their social programs. So, if you want to make people happy, you have to do more with less. In my opinion, our social programs are plagued by inefficient bureaucracy. We need to focus on making our system more efficient.



MacDoc said:


> DO want their taxes managed better with more oversight


Definately. Pump up the Auditor General's budget. The NDP, Bloc and Conservatives should push a spending amendment through Parliament. The only party that would probably object to this idea would be the Liberals since it could only expose more of the corruption and waste in Ottawa.




MacDoc said:


> Do want regional inequities worked out.
> 
> Are looking for some better democratic institutions.


Its too bad that only party speaks to these issues.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> In Quebec, the mood is that we are not getting our fair share and that we put more into Canada than we get out.
> There is a feeling that we are pandering to the West...
> 
> How things feel so similar, no?


I am at a loss to understand the origin of such sentiments. Quebec has been a have not province forever. Billions are pumped in each year in transfer payments. A disproportionate amount of our government bureaucracy is based in Quebec to dole out more jobs. Quebec businesses (e.g. Bombardier) are subsidized by Ottawa to keep inefficient companies going. 

Pandering to the west? That makes me laugh. In what way? The west has always sent more money east than what comes back. The west has always been under-represented federally in Parliament and the Senate. The issues out west are always placed on the backburner (e.g. softwood lumber, mad cow). Chretien summarized Ottawa's approach the best...."I don't do politics with Westerners".


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave, I don't know where that sentiments comes either - I'm at a lost to explain it.
The usual feelings are that if Quebec separated, there would be so much more money that would stay in the province. 

Your feeling that the West gives more than it receives is echoed here; where the facts lie, I have no idea to be honest.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Vandave, I don't know where that sentiments comes either - I'm at a lost to explain it.
> The usual feelings are that if Quebec separated, there would be so much more money that would stay in the province.
> 
> Your feeling that the West gives more than it receives is echoed here; where the facts lie, I have no idea to be honest.


The facts are out there and what I said in my previous post is the truth.

I think Quebecors always vote for what gives them the most from Ottawa. Right now, I think they feel that the threat of separtism keeps the money flowing in. I doubt Quebec would ever separate. They will back out at the last minute because the fat from Ottawa is too tasty to give up.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Funny that you would put those two back to back. What are "progressive social programs" if not social engineering? IMO, these programs are social engineering by definition


Not funny at all - the implication of my statement is "significant changes in social programs" are not high on Canadians lists - better implementation yes, major change no.

Yes they ARE social engineering and yes they ARE in place.

•••

As I said, no one party is fully capable at this point in time of serving this agenda.

••

Martin appointed the auditor general, made changes to the oversight in crown corporatations by appointing comptrollers and called teh Gomery Commission.

ALL are steps in the right direction.

Is it fixed - no.

A large view in Ontario is that the Cons have are not trusted to maintain what IS right and that the Libs need to be forced to deal with the issues by answering to minority politics.

The more obstructionist the PC appear to a budget which is overall well constructed - the more they reinforce the idea that they are not ready to govern.

The NDP amendment was reasonable within the nature of the deal which would expect a quid pro quo andthey're approval in polls show it. Liberal willingness to flex also shows up as a positive.

The Con attempt to obstruct and disrupt on the other hand has put them at an historic low despite Liberal corruption issues.

Show governance, wait for Gomery, then call an election.

Hindering that agenda loses votes......big time. That's not a guess....it's abundantly clear......to those not undertaling wishful thinking about NeoCon glories.

Champagne on the plane..........et al.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> The facts are out there and what I said in my previous post is the truth.
> 
> 
> Pandering to the west? That makes me laugh. In what way? The west has always sent more money east than what comes back.


Truth? Truth? according to you? please show me some reports or studies. Give me concrete evidence of "The Truth". The first person I suspect is the one who says they know the truth. You would have been more believable if you had said something along the lines of... "it is my belief" or "I think that the facts indicate".

As for the other stuff...

Give it a rest. Where do you think that money goes? In terms of transfer/equalization payments it likely goes to Saskatchewan, Manitoba, The Territories, Newfoundland, PEI, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Ontario, BC, Alberta and Quebec are the largest provinces in terms of population and economies. Last year 24-26 Billion dollars went from Ontario into transfer/equalization payments. 

The whole point of these transfers is to provide an equitable level of services for ALL Canadians. The simple fact of that matter is that your squabbling over transfer payments just shows your disdain for the Canadian ideal of equality.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I think the only truth is that all regions in Canada feel like they're being neglected while some other region is pandered to. 

But hey, I live in the center of the universe--by reputation, I'm not supposed be sympathetic to the problems faced by the rest of Canada.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Truth? Truth? according to you? please show me some reports or studies. Give me concrete evidence of "The Truth". The first person I suspect is the one who says they know the truth. You would have been more believable if you had said something along the lines of... "it is my belief" or "I think that the facts indicate".
> 
> As for the other stuff...
> 
> ...


No, not according to me, according to everything I have ever heard, Quebec is a "have not" province and has been for quite some time. I'll look up a good reference tonight to make you happy. That's why I said the facts are out there. I didn't claim to have a reference.

Quit reading things in my posts that are not stated. I never said I disagreed with transfer payments. My post was a response to somebody who said Quebecors feel they put more into our country than they get back. I simply provided a response as to why I believed this not to be the case.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

A lot continues to be made of the Conservatives' disconnect with central Canada - principally Ontario and Quebec, and how to solve it.

But I think that instead of trying to gain power by trying to resolve traditional Canadian regional and provincial differences, they should attempt to resolve the urban/rural gap instead.

After the last election, the Conservatives were shut out of most of Canada's big cities - Halifax, Saint John, Moncton, Fredricton, Quebec City, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, London, Kingston, Kitchener, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Victoria and Vancouver. Outside of Alta. and Sask. (where, incidentally, their worst showings were in the cities), they managed only one in Ottawa, one in Oshawa, two in Winnipeg, and St. John's. 

Just think, Canada's four largest cities - Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Ottawa, with a combined population of more than 10 million (a third of the country), returned just one Conservative MP. Take Calgary and Edmonton out of the top 10 city list (replaced by Kitchener and St. Catharines/Niagara Falls) and a combined population of more than 13 million returned four Conservative MPs.

Their showing in mid-sized cities (50,000 to 150,000) is only marginally better because those ridings have a high proportion of rural voters.

There is no doubt that some of the regional differences or issues (ie. social conservatism) are also reflected in the urban/rural split, but there is much more room for consensus building. As badly as the provinces were (are) treated under our political structure, cities are much worse off. They deliver the services taxpayers most rely on, are the most responsive level of government and the one most in touch with taxpayers, but cities are creatures of the provinces, have access to the least resources and all too often struggle to provide the bare necessities. 

The Conservatives should be reaching out to the cities, but their urban policies are, at best, a Liberal-lite approach. They need to break out of the box and think different, so to speak, because if they can build an urban/rural coalition, they'll automatically have broken the regional barriers.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Quit reading things in my posts that are not stated. I never said I disagreed with transfer payments.


Personally I do not think I am reading anything into your posts given the nature and tone of your comments. If this makes you angry then stop posting rhetoric. 

*Pandering to the west? That makes me laugh. In what way? The west has always sent more money east than what comes back. The west has always been under-represented federally in Parliament and the Senate. The issues out west are always placed on the backburner (e.g. softwood lumber, mad cow). * 

You see I would consider that anything west of Ontario is "The West", which means that transfer payments do go to the west (Manitoba, Saskatchewan as well as the NWT and Yukon). So you have issues with sending transfer payments to farmers in Manitoba?

Funny that your two issues (Softwood Lumber and Cattle) are being directly impacted and influenced by your neo-con neighbours to the south. So much for sharing conservative values across the border eh?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Brainstrained said:


> The Conservatives should be reaching out to the cities, but their urban policies are, at best, a Liberal-lite approach. They need to break out of the box and think different, so to speak, because if they can build an urban/rural coalition, they'll automatically have broken the regional barriers.


Unfortunately that can't happen until the conservatives drop their opposition social justice issues such as poverty, same sex marriage, etc... When they do this however the will lose their socially conservative rural base. They are pretty much stuck in a rut, and there is nothing that Harper can or will do it about other than cry foul over Liberal corruption. The conservative party is held hostage by these ideologues while Joe/Jain Canadian wants an acceptable alternative to the status quo.

Since they don't have any track record to speak of, the business community will not support them. They cannot bring any policy on the budget forward to distinguish themselves from the Liberals as the Liberals are already very conservative when it comes to balancing the budget.

The conservatives had a chance and blew it. No point in crying over spilt milk, their base needs to boot their current leadership out and once again rebuild their party.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Agreed but the new votes out of Conservative riding associations show that like south of the border the Christian (so called) right is taking over. This is what is going to kill the Conservative party in Canada. We don't have a 40% Born Again population and most don't want a theocracy. 
It is funny to see folks from Alberta say Canadains don't want same sex marriage like they are all of Canada. Guess what? More Canadians want same sex marriage than oppose it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Truth? Truth? according to you? please show me some reports or studies. Give me concrete evidence of "The Truth". The first person I suspect is the one who says they know the truth. You would have been more believable if you had said something along the lines of... "it is my belief" or "I think that the facts indicate".
> 
> Ontario, BC, Alberta and Quebec are the largest provinces in terms of population and economies. Last year 24-26 Billion dollars went from Ontario into transfer/equalization payments.


Here you go:

http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget04/bp/bpa6e.htm

Quebec has been a have not province all through the 1990's. I'll see what I can find for the years between 1957 and 1990. Each year, Quebec got around $4 to $5 billion, which was about half of the equalization total.

As far as Ontario contributing 24 to 26 billion, I have no idea where you got that from. The entire equalization budget isn't that large. Based on the above link, Ontario only marginally contributed to transfer payments. Alberta contributed about $3200 per capita, while Ontario contributed $500. Based on a population of about 2.5 million in Alberta and 12 million in Ontario, Alberta contributed the most of any province.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Here you go:
> 
> http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget04/bp/bpa6e.htm
> 
> ...


Here's the link....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20050516.w2ont0516%2FBNStory%2FNational%2F&ord=1118113979627&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true 

I just googled that. The number was 23 Billion... my mistake.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Here's the link....
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20050516.w2ont0516%2FBNStory%2FNational%2F&ord=1118113979627&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true
> 
> I just googled that. The number was 23 Billion... my mistake.


Who knows what he is talking about when he says 23 billion. The link I provided was from the Finance Department and the total amount for the fiscal year was $9.6 billion. As I said above, Ontario contributes less than half so the true number should be closer to $4 billion per year. McGuinty must be talking about about a four or five year budget. Alberta contributed the most.

Have a read of the following article:

The Cost of Confederation

30-Year Sapping of Alberta - $165 billion calculated as excess payments — economist

This extremely important article was written by Allen Panzeri of the Edmonton Journal, and appeared in the Wednesday, July 20, 1994 edition of the Edmonton Journal on page A5. 

Alberta contributed $165 billion more to Ottawa than it received over the past 30 years, says a University of Calgary economist.

That nearly matches the extra benefit Quebec has received from Ottawa from 1961 until 1991, said Bob Mansell, who has studied and charted transfer payments to and from Ottawa.

The sum, although huge, reflects the political reality of Canada: Alberta lacks effective representation at the federal level to protect its interests, he said Tuesday.

Over that period, Alberta has been the only net contributor — though its per capital income is less than in Ontario and British Columbia.

The provincial government has often raised fears of another National Energy Program. Mansell, who estimates that program accounts for $70 billion of the $165 billion in excess contributions, said those fears could be justified.

"Where does the federal government go if it needs more money? To Central Canada? No, because of the population base. So they'll go to Alberta.

"There's a real danger unless this is corrected."

A number of factors account for the remaining $95 billion in excess contributions, say Mansell and Liberal MLA Mike Percy:

This province has a relatively low unemployment rate, meaning it doesn't get a big transfer in unemployment insurance. 
Federal offices and purchases of goods and services are low here compared with Ontario and Quebec. 
Federal expenditures are handed out as political favors, meaning they'll more often go to the heavily-populated areas than to the West. 
Transfer payments to the so-called "have" provinces — Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario — are lower than to the "have-not" provinces and some of these payments are also capped at a certain limit. 
Alberta's main industries — agriculture and energy — are capital intensive and thus subject to the federal capital tax. 
The province has a richer personal tax base that's fuelled by the youngest and best-educated workforce in Canada. Per capital, Alberta also has the highest participation in the workforce. 
Mansell dismissed figures cited in a recent Canadian Tax Journal article showing Alberta contributed $32.9 billion more than it received between 1977 and 1992. They're only rough figures from Statistics Canada that don't include the necessary adjustments, such as the cost to Alberta of the National energy Program.

But factoring in those adjustments doesn't make the picture any better, he said.

"What it means is that the situation is far worse than it seems from Alberta's point of view. It has been by far the largest net contributor on a per capita basis."

According to Mansell's figures, in 1992 Alberta contributed $4.1 billion more than it received, while Ontario contributed $3.6 billion more than it received.

While it isn't unfair that Alberta should be a net contributor, since it has a strong economy, the province should ask why it isn't being treated fair relative to other provinces, Mansell said.

"When we boom, we should pay in and when we bust, we should take out.

"In the case of Alberta, it's been a one-way street. It should be an insurance policy, but it isn't. Why should Alberta be the biggest net contributor when it isn't the highest income province?"

Those sentiments were echoed by Percy, who raised the Canadian Tax Journal figures to demonstrate the system is "not as sensitive to the unique features of Alberta as it should be."

For example, when oil prices dropped in the 1980s, Alberta should have received more than it contributed.

"If you look at it as an insurance policy, it would be nice to think you can draw down on it, " Percy said.

The MLA said he wasn't raising the figures in an effort to bash Eastern Canada, but to show they indicate the system could be fairer.

Premier Ralph Klein said the system is as fair as it can be and it's no surprise Alberta contributes more than it receives.

"It just shows we're willing to do our fair share for Confederation," he said Tuesday. "I just hope we're not punished unfairly for being generous and prudent."

Mansell said that for Alberta, the transfer-payment system is nearly at the breaking point. If it weren't giving $4 billion a year more to the federal government than it should, the province wouldn't have a deficit.

"The point comes where they're taking so much away from me to give to you, or vice-versa, that the net contributor is going to revolt."


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

_TORONTO - Ontario's Liberal premier, Dalton McGuinty, says he's not getting anywhere in his attempts to get more federal money from Ottawa, something the Ontario leader says could cost the federal Liberals if there's a spring election. 


INDEPTH: Liberal Party


Dalton McGuinty 
For some time, McGuinty has been claiming that Ontario gives the federal government $23 billion more than it gets back every year. 

Now the looming election is clearly giving McGuinty an advantage he hasn't had before. 

The Liberals are down in the polls and need to hold on to every one of the 74 seats they have in Ontario if they hope to win a snap election. 

On Wednesday, McGuinty said he was at an impasse in his efforts to close the gap and that he might turn it into an election issue in the country's most populous province. 

"We will continue to campaign [for increased transfer payments] during a federal election, before a federal election, or after a federal election," he said. 

David Docherty, chair of the political science department at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont., says this means the federal Liberals may have to fight a two-front war in Ontario. 

Prime Minister Paul Martin, says Docherty, will have to fend off allegations of corruption arising from the Gomery Inquiry as well as complaints from the McGuinty government. 

"If the federal Liberals are fighting Dalton McGuinty and the Conservatives in some ridings, and Dalton McGuinty and the NDP in some other ridings, that just makes the whole campaign a lot harder," said Docherty. 

The federal Liberals appear frustrated with their provincial counterpart's campaign. 

Senior staff from the two sides met just last week and federal Labour Minister Joe Fontana says progress is being made. 

"He [McGuinty] may think it's an impasse [but] the fact is there is dialogue going on. And there's no doubt the prime minister has indicated he's prepared to meet with the premier." 

Next week, federal Liberals will begin a campaign to minimize the losses they could face in Ontario. Minister of National Revenue John McCallum will make a speech on Thursday, arguing that Canada is more than just a balance sheet. 
_

Note... that no one is disputing that number. The best John McCallum could come up with is that "Canada is more than just a balance sheet"

McCallum is of course right in his description.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Vandave what are you talking about. 

The numbers in the article you quote are *PER CAPITA* 
Ontario's economony is enormously larger than Alberta's so yes the more in that out by Ontario is in the $20 billion per annum range and Toronto alone is just about half of that.

Alberta may be slighly higher per capita but Ontario has far and away much higher costs of immigrant integration costs just to name one aspect. - Alberta is extremely low in that regard.

BOTH provinces contribute to the transfer process in a large manner but Ontario's is very much industrial based rather than resource based and right now that industrial base is threatened by an aged infrastructure.

Ontario needs a break to repair that.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Found that 23 billion number elsewhere. It's part of a statement from Dalton McGuinty speaking about equalization reform, but the quote is about money Ontario contributes overall--not just due to equalization.

"McGuinty said Thursday there's still a gap of $23 billion between what the federal government collects in taxes in Ontario and what the province gets back in the form of transfers and payments"

Same article, later::
"Ontarians accept our traditional role and responsibility to help fund good quality public services from coast to coast to coast, but . . . at this point in our history, $23 billion is too much" (direct McGuinty quote)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20050602/ca_pr_on_na/mcguinty_gap

Also, there's a wee bit of history 30 years before that 1994 article was written. 1964 was the last year Alberta stopped receiving equalization payments.

A more historical view:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/equalization.html

Couple of relevant quotes:
"In 1964, changes were made so that the resources a province had were added to the equation. As a result, Alberta's oil and gas bumped up the province's revenues enough that it no longer qualified for payments. Before 1964, Alberta collected equalization for seven years, giving the province's oil and gas industries a chance to grow."

And my favourite:
"Ontario remains the only province never to have received equalization payments."

I'm sure Alberta feels very screwed over seeing 40 years of money go away. I don't have the information to analyze this in much depth, but it seems there an argument to demonstrate the Alberta's wealth in the oil and gas industry are due to money gained through equalization.

There's an expression--under capitalism, man exploits man. Under socialism, it's the other way around.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Vandave what are you talking about.
> 
> The numbers in the article you quote are *PER CAPITA*
> Ontario's economony is enormously larger than Alberta's so yes the more in that out by Ontario is in the $20 billion per annum range and Toronto alone is just about half of that.
> ...


Look at Table A6.1. It shows the total amount of transfer payments in 04/05 ($9.661 billion). Based on simple math, I showed that Alberta contributed more than Ontario. Unless, I am way off on my population guesstimates, what I said was correct.

Alberta isn't slightly higher per capita. It is immensely higher. $3,250 per head, versus $500 for Ontario.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Sonal said:


> I'm sure Alberta feels very screwed over seeing 40 years of money go away. I don't have the information to analyze this in much depth, but it seems there an argument to demonstrate the Alberta's wealth in the oil and gas industry are due to money gained through equalization.
> 
> There's an expression--under capitalism, man exploits man. Under socialism, it's the other way around.


I doubt there is any link between equalization and Alberta's oil and gas wealth. Their wealth is due to the presence of oil and gas in the ground. You can obtain capital from anywhere (e.g. the capital market) to exploit this resource. Ottawa isn't the only source.

By your rationale, the Maritime economies should have been booming through the 90's, along with all the native reservations that are given piles of money each year as well.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I doubt there is any link between equalization and Alberta's oil and gas wealth.


Well, let's summarize viewpoints:
- You don't think there's a link
- The article I linked to seemed in indicate that equalization allowed Alberta's oils and gas wealth to grow
- I don't know enough about the grow of oil and gas in Alberta 40 years ago to argue this one way or the other--but am curious.

And you know, I'm looking at table A.6 and I'm not seeing how you arrived at those numbers--maybe it's the severe lack of caffeine in my blood. I'm not trying to accuse you, but can you help me understand?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I have no idea where your numbers are derived from that table.



> According to national accounts, Ontario's net contribution to the federation was $22.1-billion in 2002. Alberta contributed $8-billion and British Columbia contributed $1.8-billion. In per-capita terms, Alberta led with $2,560 per resident flowing to other provinces.


 http://www.mikecolle.com/billion_articles_021005.htm

It's not a simple subject as this shows

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/...eva-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=3&comm_id=13


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Back to the fabulous Stephen Harper ...

I was just reading a little more about the Grewal issue this morning. I think Harper's reaction to this actually shows us that he's not the guy he claims to be.

Harper's whole push during the last few months was that he and his party were somehow immune to corruption and would be a breath of fresh air in Ottawa. I think his rabid insistence on felling the government any way possible put the lie to this, including teaming up with the Bloc, with only the hope of a unworkable minority that could have been the best case outcome of it.

But he still claimed he wasn't an opportunist or just another degenerate power whore, like he accused Stronach of being, and anyone else who disagreed with him. But when the Grewal thing first appeared, he ignored the fact that this guy's methods of entrapment were unseemly at best and jumped right in and supported it, because of the chance of some dirt sticking to the Libs.

Now it's coming to light from forensic audio specialists that Grewal used a doctored tape and submitted this false evidence to the media, with Harper's approval. Even though it has been shown that he lied in saying he was approached by Dosanjh, when actually he was the one to solicit the meeting, Harper is still standing by him, now that he's under investigation, instead of demanding his resignation. Today Grewal's on "stress leave", but still a member in good standing of the Conservatives. There are suggestions that Grewal may actually be up on criminal charges if this investigation goes far enough, and if it can be shown that Harper knew the tapes were doctored, maybe he will be too.

As I've said before on this board, I don't believe that the Liberal's are angels, this just goes to show that Harper is absolutely no different. Just another degenerate power whore, willing to do whatever it takes. His hypocrisy in trying to convince Canadians that his only interest was for the good of the country is now fully on display. It also shows that his judgement is very easily trampled by his blind ambition.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

GA, I keep thinking that with the way this sponsorship scandal has gone done, Jack Layton is looking better and better. This could be the best thing that ever happened to the NDP.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Yeah Sonal, I agree. Layton seems to be the only one to play his cards right and correctly interpret the public's mood as this has gone on. If things were to remain as they are today, when the election comes around, I would predict a much smaller Lib minority, and a smaller Con caucus, and a stronger NDP holding the solid balance of power. 

Of course, things won't remain as they are today, I think that's one thing we can count on.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

and now there's this . it seems this guy can do no right. what was he thinking?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Grewal is, IMHO, non too smart and a pretty shady character. This makes it even more amazing that Harper would back the guy, but obviously his hunger to pin something on the Libs, trumped any common sense he may have had. Harper must have been fully aware of Grewal's background, and if he wasn't, that also says a lot about his judgement. 

Here's some of the dirt on Grewal from a Toronto Star article.

Grewal was involved in a very similar taping scandal when he attempted to get a nomination for the BC Liberals in 1995. He claimed that he was offered a senior government position by Gordon Campbell in exchange for stepping aside. Grewal claimed to have a tape of an interview with a BC Liberal official.

There was another weird incident where Grewal, upon receiving and angry phone call from a BC Liberal official, held up the receiver to another phone and dialled 911. The resulting 911 tape was then used to charge the BC Liberal official with verbal abuse and resulted in his resigning from his post.

Grewal was also linked to the former dictator of Liberia, Samuel Doe, where he lived before coming to Canada in 1991, after Doe was ousted in a bloody coup. He refuses to talk about his connections to the dictator.

Why would Harper stand behind this guy, other than the crazy hope that any resulting dirt would bring down the Libs? Now it looks like the dirt is landing on him.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It's all so bloody sad.

What a bunch of jerks, Cons and Libs alike.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I agree SINC.

That's why we need to reform our democratic institutions, now, more than ever, starting with electoral reform. We need a system in place where the power mongers will be forced to listen to the majority of the electorate, not the other way around.

What we see now is crooks, whose only real ideology is pursuit of power, figuring out the best way of gaming the system to their advantage. Our system ensures that those in the various parties who are the most skilled at this gaming, will always rise to the top.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Amen GA, amen.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Sonal said:


> Well, let's summarize viewpoints:
> - You don't think there's a link
> - The article I linked to seemed in indicate that equalization allowed Alberta's oils and gas wealth to grow
> - I don't know enough about the grow of oil and gas in Alberta 40 years ago to argue this one way or the other--but am curious.
> ...


I doubt the CBC reporter knows very much about economics so I don't take the opinion very seriously.

The government generally does not invest in resource extraction. This is done by the private sector. The government assists now and then with things such as road construction and utilities. As far as oil and gas exploration and exploitation, I don't see that the government plays a big role. The real factors are the price of the resouce, the amount available and the regulatory environment. If money is to be made from the resource, the private sector will invest.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Sonal said:


> And you know, I'm looking at table A.6 and I'm not seeing how you arrived at those numbers--maybe it's the severe lack of caffeine in my blood. I'm not trying to accuse you, but can you help me understand?


Look at the graph called "The Equalization Formula 2004 / 2005. That shows which provinces are paying in and which are taking out. The "Standard is about $6100. You can see that Alberta calculates out at about $9250. So, Alberta kicks in about $3150 per head, while Ontario is about $500 per head. When you factor in the populations of each province, Alberta and Ontario are making about equal contributions.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sorry that's a crock - Ontario's total contribution every year for the past several years is $20 billion plus more out than we receive - Alberta is nowhere near that. - higher a bit per capita maybe but not even close in absolute dollar totals.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Grewal is, IMHO, non too smart and a pretty shady character. This makes it even more amazing that Harper would back the guy, but obviously his hunger to pin something on the Libs, trumped any common sense he may have had. Harper must have been fully aware of Grewal's background, and if he wasn't, that also says a lot about his judgement.
> 
> Why would Harper stand behind this guy, other than the crazy hope that any resulting dirt would bring down the Libs? Now it looks like the dirt is landing on him.


I agree with most of what you have said. I think Grewal is very shady as well. I had a bad feeling at the start of this that he was lying. I imagine he thought it wouldn't have gone this far. I also predict he will be charged by the RCMP over this affair. 

I don't understand why Harper would back Grewal. He should have stepped back from the whole thing and reserved judgement until the RCMP were done their investigation.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Sorry that's a crock - Ontario's total contribution every year for the past several years is $20 billion plus more out than we receive - Alberta is nowhere near that. - higher a bit per capita maybe but not even close in absolute dollar totals.


I am going to type this slowly so that you understand....

As Sonal already pointed out, McGuinty is talking about all sorts of taxes, not just equalization payments. My posts have all been in reference to EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS. My reference is taken from the Finance Ministry itself. How is that a crock?

When you can pick and chose what to include, its easy to make up whatever numbers you like. I have no idea what McGuinty is refering to when he says $20 billion. It's meaningless without saying what it includes and excludes.

Anyways we are getting away from the main point I was trying to make.... Quebec is a net imported of cash from the rest of Canada. Da_Jonesy thought I just made all this up, so I provided a proper link. 

So now, we are all in agreement, including ArtistSeries... Quebec takes more in than it puts out. 

Don't read into my responses that I disagree with transfer payments. I was simply trying to lay the facts out on the table.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Let me go slowly - that.......is......a......crock. Those are NOT McGuinty's number it's the TD Bank numbers.



> A study this month by TD economists found that in 2002, Ontario sent $21.1 billion more to Ottawa than it got back. Alberta contributed $7.8 billion and B.C. coughed up $1.6 billion.
> 
> On a per-capita basis, Albertans contributed $2,500 each to the federation and Ontarians $1,700.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I doubt the CBC reporter knows very much about economics so I don't take the opinion very seriously.


Well lets see you produce your Bachelors Degree in Economics. What are your credentials then?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I don't understand why Harper would back Grewal. He should have stepped back from the whole thing and reserved judgement until the RCMP were done their investigation.


Don't you think that this is a little hypocritical? It's OK for you to pull the trigger on Martin and Liberals before Gomery is finished, but Steven should reserve judgement until the RCMP is done their investigation.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Well lets see you produce your Bachelors Degree in Economics. What are your credentials then?


I just completed a Graduate Diploma in Business Administration from the graduate school of business at SFU. The program covers the first year courses of an MBA program.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Don't you think that this is a little hypocritical? It's OK for you to pull the trigger on Martin and Liberals before Gomery is finished, but Steven should reserve judgement until the RCMP is done their investigation.


I am not the one pulling the trigger. It is the party that I support.

No, it is not hypocritical at all. The Gomery commission is only an inquiry and is not meant to lay blame on anybody. It is designed to make recommendations to prevent a similar situation from happening again. 

The RCMP investigation is a criminal investigation. There is a very big difference between the two.

The public does not need to hear all of the testimony to see what has been going on.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

More info on Grewel's Liberian connection and other info, from the Vancouver Province reporter who first wrote about it.


> Grewal cheerfully offered to send me his resume and with a decent show of hesitation (perhaps a millisecond), I accepted. The newsroom fax machine spat it out moments later. There in black and white, under the heading “Community Involvement,” Grewal wrote: "Recommended to and then helped the president of Liberia (Doe) to launch Green Revolution in the country."
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


And a blog, dedicated to detailing the whole Gurmant Grewal car wreck. Buckets of Grewal

The more I hear about this guy the more incredible it gets.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Tempest in a teacup - the BUDGETs the thing.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I just completed a Graduate Diploma in Business Administration from the graduate school of business at SFU. The program covers the first year courses of an MBA program.



Congratulations  

I still wouldn't call that a degree in economics, but it is closer than I.

Mine is a BA in Politics and Urban and Environmental Studies.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I am not the one pulling the trigger. It is the party that I support.
> 
> No, it is not hypocritical at all. The Gomery commission is only an inquiry and is not meant to lay blame on anybody. It is designed to make recommendations to prevent a similar situation from happening again.
> 
> ...


OK... you totally confused me here.

My point was... 

Harper says "give Grehwal a chance while we investigate"
Martin says "give Liberals a chance while we investigate"

I don't see a difference.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Congratulations
> 
> I still wouldn't call that a degree in economics, but it is closer than I.
> 
> Mine is a BA in Politics and Urban and Environmental Studies.


Thanks. No it isn't a degree in economics, nor would an MBA or a commerce degree (unless it was a specialty in economics). 

My undergrad is Geological Engineering (Environmental and Geotechnical). I practice as an environmental engineer.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Re: Harper - We the public have created the likes of Harper, Duceppe and Martin. I wish they'd all go away, but they won't. All I can do is pick the least pricky prick.

Re: Equalization - Meh, it seems to be setup fairly. NEP was a pillaging of Alberta though. I have no problems paying more so people in have-not provinces can have the same benefits I do. 

Re: Grehwal - Are people surprised? Oh no! Politicians do one thing and then say the other! Or say one thing... and in the next sentance say something the contradicts what they just said!  Politicians may have different coloured suits, but the machinery underneath is the same.

Re: MacDoc - He's MacNutt Liberal version 

Re: Governmental reform - Ahem. Let's just get the pain from this over sooner rather than later.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> OK... you totally confused me here.
> 
> My point was...
> 
> ...


But Harper has taken a position and that was to defend Grehwal. I said he shouldn't have taken a position until more of the facts were in.

I think there is a difference. One is a criminal investigation, while the other is a public investigation. The RCMP will make their judgement really quickly. Gomery isn't making a judgement and his report isn't going to be out for some time.


----------

