Belinda Stronach appointed to Cabinet

Actually, I have listened to her. A lot. Since you told me to go ahead though...Jamey Heath has immaculate fashion sense.

So you should be happy for her.

So have the Conservatives.

Sure they can. The debt is being paid down, there's no deficit. The corporrations are still getting a tax break. That is fiscal conservatism.

All political parties have been proven to be corrupt, liars and thieves. It is not a specific trait to any particular party. Its just a matter of supporting for the party that will cause you the least amount of personal damage...either morally or monetarily. That would all depend on where you lie philosophically.

You have no clue what you're "saying". About anything. You want the harper in because you think he represents "Western Canada" (which one?) which isn't exactly a secret, given that he came right out and said it before the last election, which is exactly why we won't be voting for him. Well, one of many reasons.

Along with people like you who have no clue what they're talking about, which seems to be a trend around "conservative" (around what?) reform-alliance boosters and the party/parties themselves.

It would be "wasting" just as with all of the time the harper and its harping minions have wasted over lunch money around the Quebec Liberal Party over an advertising campaign that a commission is looking after.

Listening to the "conservatives" holding up some witness in the Gomery commission, in the House of Commons, only to end up with egg on their faces due to contradictory testimony from the same witness (what's next for them, the Micheal Jackson trial?) then switching to another witness, ending up with egg on their faces due to contradictory testimony and they've wasted more of our time and money harping on about a commission that the news media is quite capable of covering wherever any markets exist that care, than the whole advertising campaign was ever worth.

And that was another majority command of the Canadian people -- to get back to work and stop wasting our time and money until Gomery's report is tabled and even then, turn it over to the news media, release it publicly and keep working on anything but election campaigns before an election has even been called.

They've had parliament tied up with none of their business for over a year, shut up, get to work, stop wasting our time and money, it's what commission are for, stop slandering people due to parliamentary priviledge -- say it outside the House and get your arses sued into oblivion if you all feel so strongly about it.

The majority of Canadians are in this:

Windsor-Québec City Corridor, 2001

Ontario Section
10,706,513 93% of Ontario's population

Québec Section
6,327,354 87% of Québec's population

Total Population
17,033,867 57% of Canada's population

Source: Statistics Canada 2001 Census

Note the 6.3 million people in the other section who are interested in the Gomery business, it involves their province and their provincial government, and aside from Montreal, they lined up with the "conservative"-reform-allliance in the Bloc. And vice versa.

So now the harper represents the interests of Quebec separtism all of a sudden? Who cares over political gain that would not have been political gain but losses for the "conservatives" for forcing an election that the majority of Canadians didn't want (next month), over a budget that the majority of Canadians wanted passed, while waiting for Justice Gomery & company to get all of the testimony, sort if out and make a report.

Ontario has 103 of 308 seats (votes) in the House of Commons -- which is hardly a majority. But another thing I've found around alleged "conservatives" is that they can't do basic math -- particularly the party.

And how many of those 103 districts/seats are "conservative" in this alleged singularity of "Ontario"? One less since the only MP they had in south Ontario had to leave the "conservative" reform-alliance party to be able to vote the way her electorate (and Ontario and the majority of Canada -- which is not Ontario, if you passed grade 3 math, which is questionable given that you can't subtract 1 from 9+3 provinces and territories, Ontario minus the other 9 provinces and 3 territories and even said you went back and corrected it and still came up with 9+3=13 -- simply stating a fact, you have provoked all of Ontario with your ridiculous remarks and it's where I live and I don't allow ignorant people without a clue to bash the U.S., Ontario, Québec, "southern" Ontario, "southwest" Ontario, Toronto, Montreal, B.C., ... Alberta if it's coming from outside Canada, the Atlantic Canadas or the territories or anywhere else -- based on ignorance, let alone grade 3 math skills).

The majority cannot be in whatever you think Ontario is. It accidentally, without knowing who/what a Stephen Harper even was, without knowing what the "reform" or "alliance" were (they never got much coverage here due to irrelevance, other than when they made fools of themselves, which was always when trying to campaign around here, pretending that they knew where they were), voted in more "conservative" MP's, in a protest vote against its provincial Liberals with a big fat red capital L, than any other province in the country; other than the one that spawned them.

And by the way, the above generates over 63% of the GDP of the Canadas, pays 70% of all federal revenues on average and Alberta has paid out a billion dollars less in taxes, the only ones that matter, never to be seen again (its share of the federal debt if it's lucky), than the City of Toronto alone has paid out, never to be seen again, since the oh so reliable newz media in Alberta started a gripe-fest about how much it had to pay out in taxes starting back in 2000.

Nothing here has ever bothered to compare to Alberta, there's no need to. It's got less than 12% of the GDP of the Canadas and doesn't even have its own law enforcement. Your superior race crap isn't going to cut it around me. I know all of the facts and Alberta is owned by the U.S. and is only good for the supply it needs while it keeps out the crap it doesn't. And all you do is isolate yourselves more and more with the holier than thou speeches that only announce ignorance.

Can you count? How many "conservative" MP's who are figuring out what Harper is and want no part of it, are there from Ontario? Hmm? How many "liberals" and where are they all from along with the independent who used to be a member of the (ya, change the name of the party, and think we're stupid enough to buy it) "Alliance Party of Calgary" I mean north Alberta, I mean most of Alberta aside from Edmonton, Cadman is from where?

"The west" and further west than Alberta is which makes it "better west". More is always better. Metro Vanouver has never voted in a reform-alliance MP either and that is where Cadman is from and he calls himself a "conservative" and if the reform-alliance hadn't kicked him out of the party for not being "conservative enough" (not religious enough, not closed-minded/intolerant so ignorant enough to be discriminatory enouogh to be a "real conservative"; Stampede Town style), well he's the one who tied up the vote.

You do know that there was a vote? In the House of Commons and that they're supposed to be representing the interests of the majority of Canadians, their provinces and their constituents there? Well, there was a vote and it wasn't on talk-radio or whatever you get your "newz" and unknown polls from.

The only poll that mattered on C-78 was called "standing up and being counted" (and named) in the House of Commons, yea then nay.

Had the independent (kicked out of the reform-alliance) conservative Cadman not been an independent, had he not listened to what his electorate/employers wanted, two thirds of them (um, that's 75%, which is a "majority"), then he may have voted nay and there would have been no tie and the government would have crashed against the wishes of the majority of the CANADIAN PEOPLE in scientific polls.

There would have been an election next month that the majority of the CANADIAN PEOPLE did not want next month.

There would have been an election that the majority of Canadians didn't want before the Gomery report was tabled along with 30 days to digest it due to all of the contradictory testimony, that has put so much egg on the faces of the "conservative" reform-alliance.

But even it it were true that no one polled anyone in Alberta, so what? Montreal out-populates Alberta. And which polls? You, as with all alleged "conservatives" (I'm a real one with a capitalist C), are long on unfounded hearsay and parroting "conservative" reform-alliance marketing hype, which could be called lies, and are scoring zero on facts.

No pollster, in any national poll contacted a single person in Alberta? What "Alberta polls" aren't "they" (and who are they, is there something wrong with the usual in Alberta, the Calgary Sun and such?) documenting, I mean "showing"? Showing? Is it some feature presentation on the teevee, in the local town newz?

Were Alberta's ample cows included in the vote? How many said, "Mooo"? It'd be a typical "scientific" poll around the "conservative" reform-alliance. You do know what a scientific poll is don't you? No? A representative sampling of demographic groups? Have you ever been involved in a poll? Or do you just make them up, or think that people calling into local radio and whatever local teevee shows blabbering away amounts to "scientific polling"?

Take your contempt of your delusions of "Ontario" and shove them up your cow's ... nose. Elections are over by the time they hit "Toronto"? Toronto is in the Eastern Standard [or Daylight] Time Zone.

It's where the majority of Canadians live. Were you watching the last general election? Were you jumping for joy when the results from the Atlantic Canadas (oh sorry, you don't get to see those unless you cheat, until 2 hours after I do -- which could also hinder your perception of time) started coming out?

It was quite a kick in the teeth to the newly found PC-reform-alliance. Out of the 32 seats in the Atlantic Canadas, how many ended up "conservative" reform-alliance, how many NDP, how many "liberal"?

Then with all of that work in Quebec, not a single seat again. There used to be a PC seat there. But it was lost due to the merger with the reform-alliance. That's 75 seats/votes gone and the western Canadas only has 92; more than it deserves, 42 more compared to Ontario, or Ontario is short 42 seats.

And how many "liberal" seats in Quebec again? How many yeas on C-78 from Quebec again?

And how many nays from "Ontario"? How many yeas from Alberta and B.C., Saskatchwan and Manitoba?

But if you really think hard, you know that proclaiming yourself to be a "conservative" and bashing "Ontario" without a clue what you're talking about, is the best way to get "Ontario" to vote "conservative".

You should try out for campaign manager of the Ontarios. They'd be sure to pick up more seats if you could only drive the stupidity of Ontarians through their heads more, along with your distain or hatred. It's a sure bet.

Ummm....what Ranger said. Don't assume that Saskatchewan is really as Conservative as it looks though, Ranger. We would have had Lorne Nystrom in my riding, but the Liberal scare tactics split the vote and we ended up with wonder boy Andrew Scheer instead.

I met the "man" once. I have never been less impressed with a politician as I was with Andrew Scheer.

Someone please change topic to:

Belinda Stronach Bought Cabinet Position

Cause that's what she did.

Or:

PAUL MARTIN SOLD A CABINET POSITION

because thats what he did. Either way, they both deserve each other. Shallow and desparate. You pick who fits where

Hmmm...this thread could be called "Conservatives change the subject instead of replying to intelligent posts."

No not really, but we (conservatives) do see things in the proper light unlike some who make excuses for the lame.

Actually Badboy and I do make responses to our intelligent posts. The others, well, let's just say that intelligence is subjective, and badboy and I are good subjects.

Besides, the two posts badboy and I made are very relevant to the thread, whereas your thread really has nothing to do with it.

You know, DM, I'm getting a real case of deja vu reading your posts, they kinda remind me of someone else............

I'm thinking Rev B, it's funny they aren't in the same place at the same time.

Hrmmmm

Gee, I dunno, they sound alike, same words, ame quotes, but I would not want to say for sure. Couldn't be two like that could there? Anway, like I said, you and I post reponses, and we get crap back, simply because they have no answer to logic. Even when the truth would help them they have to lie, it is so ingrained. I mean look at Martin and Layton? Would you buy a used car from either, let alone trust either with a country?

Or how about "Martin forces Belinda to vote with Liberal party" because that's also what he did, cabinet positions must vote with the party.

But I think its good that she's been given the duty to apply the recomendations from the Gomery commision, she can be trusted (at least more so than most in the Liberal party) to do it mercilessly.

Yeah, trusting Belinda more than the rest of the LIberals really disses the Liberals, doesn't it. I think by the time she gets around to this, she will have the Liberal spin down pat, and somehow the Adscam will all be the conservatives fault.

Ah, but the reason she can be trusted more then the rest of them is that we KNOW she had nothing to do with Adscam in the first place, she wasn't in the party, and therfore she is an individual that is blameless and should be more able to exectue Gomery's recommendations impartially, since there is no personal blame on her, anyone else in the Liberal party might carry some of the blame for the scandal and thus could not be as impartial as somebody who wasn't there and couldn't have been invovled.

And as far as I know, the Liberals have never even hinted that Adscam was the fault of the Conservative Party, I've no idea why you are making that statement.

Testimony of Chuck Guite implicated the Tory government in the scandal, in that they laid down the foundation for the corruption...

That is why. There are posters here who blame everthing bad on the conservatives. Foundations are not much good without the house on it, and boy, did the Liberals ever build a house. Maybe they could have broken the foundation?

No we don't blame the conservatives at all, you have not been elected in years, and you won't be again...so what could be your fault??

This is interesting:

Update on the Gomery inquiry shows Adsam cost us $355 million dollars.

Sponsorship loss now $355 million, probe finds
CTV.ca News Staff

The total amount of money lost in the sponsorship scandal now appears to be $355 million -- $100 million more than was originally thought.

"If you didn't like the sponsorship program to begin with, you've now got about a hundred million more reasons to not like it," CTV's Jed Kahane said Tuesday.

The new figure of $355 million is from the forensic accounting firm, Kroll Lindquist Avey, which was hired by the Gomery commission to examine sponsorship spending between 1994 and 2004.

"They have in the past looked for money from such people as Saddam Hussein, the Marcos family, Manuel Noriega -- that sort of thing," Kahane told CTV Newsnet from Montreal.

"They're used to looking far and wide for money."

The sponsorship inquiry -- headed up by judge John

Gomery -- was ordered last year, after a report by federal Auditor General Sheila Fraser found spending irregularities in the now-defunct sponsorship program between 1997 and 2003.

She had pegged the amount paid to ad agencies in commissions and fees at approximately $100 million. In its report, Kroll Lindquist Avey said the amount is actually closer to $150 million.

The additional money was included, the firm said, because it was spent on special programs similar in nature to sponsorship activities.

Kahane, who is watching the proceedings of the Gomery commission in Montreal, said the total figure is "a lot more money than we thought."

"Up until now, for the past couple of years, we've been talking about $250 million. Kroll and Lindquist says it was $355 million, so a jump of almost 50 per cent."

Kahane also noted that Kroll and Lindquist have produced a lengthy report that shows, in their opinion, how much money was spent and who profited from it.

"For example, the ad firms at the centre of the scandal made $51 million in profits for themselves during the years of the sponsorship program," Kahane reported.

Other highlights from the private auditors' report include:

The total amount of registered and unregistered donations to the federal Liberal party discussed so far at the inquiry totals $768,000.
If the unsubstantiated contributions Groupaction Marketing president Jean Brault says he funnelled to the Liberal party are added, the report notes, "this amount rises to $2.5 million."
Groupaction Marketing, the Quebec ad agency that allegedly funded the federal Liberals under the table for years, issued $406,000 in cheques made out to Brault, his wife or associates.
The ongoing search for bank statements from former prime minister Jean Chretien associate Jacques Corriveau, whose graphic design firm was allegedly paid $430,000 by Brault.
May plead guilty

In other news from the sponsorship inquiry, Paul Coffin, the first person charged in the scandal, has asked that the date of his plea on fraud charges be moved up a week.

Coffin's fraud trial was supposed to begin on June 6. Now he'll enter his plea on May 31, leading to speculation he may plead guilty.

The Crown Prosecutor, Francois Drolet, wouldn't confirm that, but said "the date has not been set for nothing."

In his testimony before the commission in late April, Coffin said the Department of Public Works approved and even encouraged his agency to falsify paperwork and inflate bills for several sponsorship deals, including a 1999 contract to promote the Clarity Act.

Coffin testified his company made nearly $86,500 in commissions from the campaign to promote Jean Chretien's new sovereignty referendum ground rules, even though the work was done by another Liberal-friendly ad agency, Group BCP.

Between 1996 and 2002, Coffin's firm posted $6 million in revenues, of which about $5 million came from government contracts.

Despite the millions in sponsorship contracts received by his company, Coffin insisted he was never pressured to give money to the Liberal party.

The president of Coffin Communication, who is in his 60s, is one of three people facing criminal or civil charges in connection with the sponsorship scandal.

He was arrested in September 2003 on charges relating to 18 federally sponsored events -- ranging from automobile races to festivals -- which took place between 1997 and 2002.

He is scheduled to face trial on June 6.

Also on Tuesday, Alfonso Gagliano has been rebuffed in his bid to help oust Justice John Gomery from the sponsorship inquiry.

A lawyer for the ex-public works minister couldn't persuade a Federal Court judge that Gagliano should be allowed to help remove Gomery.

No wonder Paul did not want an election. Is the house of cards starting to tumble?

A question I ask over and over again, because there are posters on this forum who do just that, blame the conservatives for everything.

"The gun registry overrun was the conservatives fault because the conservatives did not provide an alternative to the gun registry".

That was one of my favorite ones, there are others.

Ummm, Blue Boy? How come you conservative types keep getting confused between money spent on programs and money lost on corruption? I'd really like to get to the bottom of this sponsorship thing too, but if you keep confusing money legimately spent on programs you didn't like with money that disappearred due to corruption, you hurt the credibility of everybody who wants to ask questions.

Now the target is "sponsorship like programs?" F**k, we could sink every government; civic, provincial and federal; since 1867 on that one.

Wow , the gun registry is a black hole and needs to be stopped. If this is what you call " money spent on programs" you need to see a doctor NOW.

Not even close to what was being discussed, Blue Boy II. Nice try though.

Lets see, gun registry initial cost $2million, actual to date cost, $2billion. Gee, sounds legitimate to me

Get real, both overspent programs coming in well over budgets and actual stealing, the bottom line is it is all taxpayers money. And this coming from a man who preaches fiscal responsibility? Hoo boy, what a joke. Both issues are wrong, its just that there are so many things to go after with this government that its hard to keep them all straight.

Still not what I was talking about. Not what you were talking about either. You keep trying to say that programs are stealing, just because you don't agree with those programs. It gives you credibility at all.

Holy cow, I'm too slow for this site. Or you guys are too fast. I think there are ten pages ahead of me Ooops, probably 11 by now.

Not to nitpick, it's only because it's public, not a pm or email between you and I, but Federal Reserve Banks (FRBs) are branches of the U.S. Federal Reserve and they provide financial services (see --) for districts. The one you found covers New York (state), Northern New Jersey, Fairfield County in Connecticut, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

The Federal Reserve sets monetary policy and then distributes Federal Reserve Notes (USD) to Federal Reserve Banks (and others; it's a bit more complicated than Canada's system but it's necessary given the usage of the USD), charging them interest, which they cover by selling bonds and other financial services; almost as though they're commercial financial institutions.

None of them distribute Candian currency, nothing that they lend (seem to sell but currency and other things based on it, stocks, bonds, t-bills, certificates (securities), coupons, etc., can't be destroyed, only traded, unless they're Enron stocks or the like) because it's illegal. The Bank of Canada (BOC) is the sole note-issuing authority (and even copyright holder for anyone who wants to complain about "design" ) for Canadian Bank Notes and it sets the interest rate (Bank Rate) for them, not the Fed or any FRB or commercial U.S. financial institution. Canadian currency is not legal tender in the U.S.; only in Canada.

You can't "buy" currency, let alone off a central bank (unless you're a financial institution, then you can borrow it at the rate the central bank is charging; or FRB as the case may be) so even if an American wants to "buy" Canadian currency, in reality they have to trade something for it and probably U.S. Federal Reserve Notes. Then the interest is due (whatever the Fed happens to be charging on currency) and has to be paid by whatever exchanges the Fed's note (eventually, a financial institution making the transaction, anywhere in the world, which is why it's good to have others using/trading your currency; it makes money -- like oil being priced in USD forces everything to trade USD for oil, a financial transaction, paying the Fed interest) for the Canadian Bank Note, which has to be borrowed from the Bank of Canada at whatever interest rate it's charging.

Then, if you're an American with notes from the Bank of Canada and trade the Canadian Bank Notes for a case of beer in Canada, a financial transaction has been made and the interest on the Canadian currency is due (when whatever selling the beer deposits it into a commercial financial institution, it becomes part of the bank/financial instituton's deposit, which they have to pay the Bank of Canada interest on: and everyone passes the costs on to the consumers as usual but it's quite necessary).

It's one way they control inflation; by making it more (or less) attractive to trade the curency for anything outside our own economy, or even to trade it for a house or new elecronics/machinery/whatever in our economy if the BOC raises the Bank Rate, passing the costs on to every financial institution, causing them to raise their lending rates.

And inflation isn't just the Consumer Price Index, which is only one measure of it, and can be deflation, but it's always called inflation and the BOC's target range for inflation (overall economic growth by their mesures, which you can find on their web site) is 1% at the low end (cut the Bank Rate to increase spending/production), 3% at the high end (raise the Bank Rate to decrease spending/production) to get inflation back in the target range of 1-3%, with 2% inflation being "the best". Not too high, not too low, right in the middle of the target range -- from one policy session to the next.

There's really no way to know what the Canadian dollar is worth (it's worth exactly $1.00; in Canada, always just as a US dollar is worth exactly $1.00 in the US, always ), without working on both ends; like what it costs to trade 1 CAD for 1 USD from here and vice versa and it'll never match up due to interest rate differentials (at the least) between central banks.

--

The above has links to tell you what you'd have to pay in Canadian currency for other currencies along with historical information. Exchange rates are expressed in Canadian dollars, which still means nothing without the interest rate differential if it's taken alone.

If you select USD you'll get what you'd have to pay in CAD to exchange into USD, which is like a conversation between the BOC and the Fed; but electronically. Dec 30, 1994, for example, you would have had to pay (if you were a financial institution in the U.S. trading USD for CAD, via the Bank of Canada and the Fed or one of its banks. Federal Reserve Banks, that aren't commercial banks but sort of act like it):

1.4018

Over 40 cents more, so does that mean that the Canadian dollar was worth 0.5982 cents U.S. at the close of 1994? Yes and no. It depends which end you're on.

It was:

1.2661

as of 20 May 2005 (at closing), the latest available, nothing is (was when I looked) available yet from the BOC for today's (now yesterday's, I got interrupted wih real life things) close and they skip weekends.

US$0.7339 is what the Canadian dollar was worth at Friday's close?

US$0.7889 is what I recall off the top of my head. But from which end according to what interest rate?

1.2661 CAD it's what you would have had to pay the Bank of Canada and the U.S. Federal Reserve to exchange/trade 1 CAD for 1 USD (or anything based on CAD/USD), due to the interest rate differential: if you were a Federal Reserve Bank in the U.S. More at a commercial institution.

Nothing ever "adds up" exchanging/trading currency. Aside from currency speculators and everything else that trades and affects economies, central banks have different interest rates, which are passed onto commercial financial institutions, because they have to pay their central banks the interest on their deposit, eventually in the U.S., and they have to cover their costs (commercial institutions) and turn a profit.

After much study I found that the Beer Store (owned and operated by the breweries) in Ontario had the best deal on U.S. currency trading around.

But then I told everyone and now their rates suck. USD for Canadian beer; no bank would match the exchange rate, let alone trade USD for beer. And I did get my change in Canadian currency -- and lots more of it than I would have got back from any bank around. What they were doing with the U.S. currency to be offering the best exchange rates around, at the consumer/commercial level, no one would ever tell me. It probably had something to do with beer.

You're showing trends and as long as they come from the same place it's all that matters but it's not what the Canadian dollar was worth; other than at that FRB, and if you were an FRB, then that's what you would have had to pay to get a Canadian dollar turned into an American dollar. But you can see the difference vice versa at the Bank of Canada's site. We're paying more to buy American whatever, anything based on the USD than anything in the U.S. is paying for anything based on the CAD. Email the Bank of Canada to find out why. Or see if the manager of your local bank branch knows.

And ... the Bank of Canada (and Fed) is based on the Bank of England. A private corporation that has nothing to do with the feds. They can't tell the BOC what to do anymore than Congress can tell the Fed what to do. And all of them (the Group of Seven/G7 for starters) have more control over financial markets than any elected feds do.

Greenspan doesn't go ask Congress or the Exec Branch (which would be quite inappropriate without involving the Congress) if it's okay to give a speech and release the Fed's summary of the U.S. economy and future trends (that tend to come true), changes to interest rates, how much currency is in circulation or anything else. The U.S. government (treasury) has to borrow off the Federal Reserve to cover debts, and has to pay interest to the Fed.

So do we. American currency (in whatever forms) is what's stuck in just about every treasury on the planet to cover debts and surpluses. So when the Canadian dollar goes up, in relation to the USD, it effectively lowers the interest rate that we have to pay, not the Fed, it's not a commercial bank, but the NY financiers that underwrite Canada's national (public; not to be confused with credit card debts, mortages or anything else from commercial financial institutions) debt. We pay less for American currency and the interest rate is "lower" because the value of the Canadian dollar is higher in relation to what our debt is covered by; American currency.

Which is good, because it frees up revenues for other things, while still paying the "the same" (in CAD) on public debts. But it also raises the costs of all exports from the Canadas, which are called imports on the U.S. end. And possibly decreases cross-border shopping (from the U.S. to whatever they go to across the border) and possibly international tourism.

But the UN World Health Organization slapping a public world-wide travel advisory on Toronto in 2003 did more economic damage, followed by a 5 and 6 day blackout, thousands of cancelled business trips, dozens of cancelled conventions, and tourism too, than any raise in the value of the Canadian dollar could have done.

Lots of things happen that affect economies other than what worthless politicians do.

As I said and did in the last post, you have to get economic reports and business news, just here let alone in the U.S. (then all over the world due to the U.S. economy), to find out what is causing a currency or economy if it's long-term, to rise or fall against another: and currency trading/exchange rates aren't always the best measure and are never a measure alone.

You have found a recession. And it didn't start in 1997 and you're looking at it from the U.S. end, not our end, and based solely on currency.

RESPONDING TO THE NAFTA CHALLENGE: ONTARIO AS A NORTH AMERICAN REGION STATE
AND TORONTO AS A GLOBAL CITY-REGION
Paper Prepared for
Global City-Regions Conference
UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research
Los Angeles, October 21-23, 1999
PDF --

Ontario (south as usual) turned itself upside down and re-invented itself in the time period you're talking about, it was running a $60 billion deficit from the first (and hopefully only) time the NDP got control of Ontario, was on public notice from the World Bank that if it didn't get its ecnomic house in order it would be slapped with a Third World credit rating/interest rate, and the NDP discovered what pays for "the working man" and unions along with other insanity, running up $10 billion deficits every year for five years, in a recession.

But the recession was still going when Mike Harris took over in 1995 with the Common Sense Revolution, and paid the deficit off the only way Toronto let alone Ontario can -- with no help from this "federation", ever, no breaks in the tax raping and plundering by the "federation", so by selling off/privatizing everything that could be privatized, cutting everything that could be cut, slashing and burning the rest.

And he didn't cut taxes "too early", Chretien hated his guts. Harris was very "un-Canadian", not that there was any choice, and what if it worked and caught on? There was and still is a phase II to the Common Sense Revolution that nothing in the world could believe was happening, let alone at the sub-national government level, not that "Canada" noticed, Ontario was out of commission during the years you happened across and Chretien is to blame for a lot of it, but the NDP ... it's a factor for the harper. Talking the talk doesn't amount to being able to walk the walk.

After turning the province upside-down, and leading the G7 in economic growth, as planned, expanding the tax base to end up from a $60+ billion deficit in 1995 to an accidental surplus (and small; nothing like "conservative" Alberta's massive over-taxation; $375 million at the end of fiscal 2000-01 and with over 11 million people, not the $7,800 million surplus the Alberta "conservatives" ran up on less than 3 million Albertans in over-taxation in the same year; then bitched to "the feds" to build some rapid transit system in Edmonton while Toronto was on year 16 of trying to install a new subway line with property taxes, while the Ontario and confederated feds downloaded their own expenses onto Toronto city hall and still do), then shrugged off the ongoing U.S./Canada/world recession (which is how Ontario ended up leading the G7 in economic growth) ... it was time to put the extra revenues back into rebuilding after disemboweling Ontario but Chretien hated Harris (and the feeling was mutual) and took all the extra revenues from Ontario and it's still sitting around waiting to rebuild while this "federation" plunders it of tens of billions of tax dollars a year.

C-78 won't fix it but it's better than the kick in the teeth Manning, Day, Harper have been inadvertently promising us forever out of ignorance and the fact that most of their support is rural: which is a problem because the majority of Canadians live in cities. And cities generate most of the revenues.

If only the harper got in then... what? He doesn't even know. He's committed to the same spending in C-78, now that he knows it's what the majority of Canadians want and economic analysts don't see too much of a problem with the spending as long as the economy keeps chugging along, there will be a whopping federal over-taxation "surplus" (real Conservatives with capitalist C's call "surpluses" over-taxation; pass it around -- to Klein) in the next five years. If not, well the harper has committed to the same spending -- and tax cuts too. And free lollipops for everyone and along with sounding like the NDP, that is just plain freaking economists out -- while he also tries to bitch about "liberal deficits" and I have no use for any of them but if anyone is Mr. Dithers it's the harper. I've never seen such ridiculous songs and dances in my life, other than from the NDP.

No cooincidence and you just blew your entire argument. It's the only time that politics started to affect the dollar, and moderately, not from 85 to 62 cents. Recall your original claim that the dollar was at 62 cents U.S. 8 months ago and only started to rise due to the "possibility of another government" (which one, with a handle such as bluealberta? ) taking over.

But how do you explain that testimony that would seem to conclude the harper taking over as PM ended up DROPPING the dollar?

Shouldn't the dollar have gone UP over this wonderful revelation by investors? "Finally that corrupt bunch of 'liberals' are on the way out ... so let's SELL Canadian investments to show how happy we are about it!"

Everything negative that has led to the potential of the "liberals" getting kicked out and the "conservatives" taking over has DROPPED the value of the Canadian dollar.

When Stronach left the "conservatives" the dollar went UP not down.

When Parrish (already known to be voting FOR C-78 not against it with the "conservatives" and Bloc) ended up in the hospital the morning of the vote and the Canadian dollar DROPPED.

When the news came out that she was released and was able to vote the dollar went UP.

That's a vote of non-confidence by international investors against the "conservatives" not for them.

Ranger,

Your posts are just way too long to read and respond to. The exchange rates I quoted are international exchange rates, and the source had all currencies on it. It has nothing to do with where it is, the exchange rates are what they are. This site was the one I found that went back to 1994, which was necessary to the point I was making about the dollar dropping during the Chretien years. If you don't want to believe the source, fine.

I have been consistent: Fiscally irresponsible programs, with cost overruns, budgets out of whack, and corruption are both draining billions of dollars out of the economy. There is no way you or anyone else can justify the difference in the budget for the gun registry and the current cost. The difference is staggering, yet you and others seem to think it is okay. I would sure like to do some work for you, quote you a couple of hundred, charge you a couple of hundred thousand, and you would pay. If you say no, then why are you supporting the cost of the registry.

They aren't that long, Blueboy. His posts, I mean. While I don't agree agree with his slamming of the NDP (a party which I believe he knows very little about) he does make sense when it comes to the finances.

Maybe, but my post was about the historical exchange rates, nothing more. Conciseness is nice.

So if somebody puts up a concise post, you just change it to whining about corruption and if somebody puts up a detailed post you say that it's too long to read?

You really do have to meet Andrew Scheer.