News   Nov 01, 2024
 2.1K     14 
News   Nov 01, 2024
 2.5K     3 
News   Nov 01, 2024
 741     0 

Globe Editorial: Another flip-flop from Harper

Then Ontario has to become more pro-active and use the same tactics as Quebec. That is the only solution. The Conservatives/Reform/Alliance Party made headway on being an Alberta grievance party. Maybe Ontario should do the same things.

I agree. Whether a populist driven movement like that used in the west would work in Ontario, Im not sure. Regardless, Ontario needs to do something to make its voice heard in the political arena.

Sadly, I think it will take a Conservative majority, functioning with the political propoghanda savy of the Bush regime and the neo-conservative policies of the Harris regime, before any kind of movement takes place in the province. And even then, that will only be after a few years of Ontario really getting the piss kicked out of her in the name of 'federalism'.
 
Separated at birth
stinson.jpg

vellacott-m-060507.jpg
 
Harper's treatment of Ontario right now is a ticking time bomb for him. You don't get anywhere with gratuitously undermining 40% of the electorate. I don't think Ontario-bashing was ever this blatant under Mulroney.

I'm amazed, however, by the capacity of people in different places to ascribe different meanings to the same term. In Ontario, "fiscal imbalance" means too much money being drained out. In Quebec, it means not enough Ontario (and Alberta) money coming in! Really makes you wonder how an independent Quebec would get on, not being able to raid the central purse to keep its government solvent.

This issue is a natural one for the Liberals. With the 95% certainty that their new leader will be from the province (and Toronto at that), they can really position themselves as the party of Ontario. If they can then get back to Chretien-era levels of success in ON (100+ seats), which is entirely possible, they won't need a whole lot else to cobble together a majority. Couple dozen urban seats in other provinces, and their traditional ridings elsewhere would do it.
 
Article on the matter, from the Star:

Is PM reneging on Ontario deal?
Election promise to honour $7B McGuinty-Martin agreement seems to be disintegrating
May 11, 2006. 05:23 AM
IAN URQUHART
QUEEN'S PARK COLUMNIST

Get ready for another front to open up in the war between the Queen's Park Liberals and the Ottawa Conservatives.

A year ago, Premier Dalton McGuinty and then-prime minister Paul Martin signed a deal that was supposed to bring an additional $7 billion in federal funding to Ontario.

In January, during the federal election campaign, Stephen Harper wrote a letter to McGuinty pledging to uphold the deal if he became prime minister.

"We will be fully funding this agreement," Harper said in the letter, a copy of which has been obtained by the Star.

Harper helpfully attached to the letter a spreadsheet setting out the details of the funding agreement, adding up to $7 billion over six years.

Now it appears the Harper government is reneging.

Ontario was counting on the money to help convert coal-fired power plants to natural gas, to expand public transit, to augment funding for universities and community colleges, and to bring the province up to the same level as the rest of the country in federal spending on immigration settlement and job training programs.

In a letter last week to Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty repeats Harper's assurances that the Conservative government "is committed to delivering on the financial commitments" in the McGuinty-Martin deal.

But the rest of Flaherty's letter is densely ambiguous and suggests some of the funding is contingent on "discussions with all provinces and territories on restoring fiscal balance in Canada." (Harper's January letter contained no such qualification.)

The spreadsheet attached to Flaherty's letter does not remotely resemble Harper's. Flaherty's firm numbers add up to just $4 billion. The remainder (almost $3 billion) is consigned to a column ambiguously entitled, "further amounts allocated," with a footnote that says "pending the outcome of discussions." As well, the $4 billion includes almost $1 billion in tax credits from Flaherty's budget last week.

This is not what McGuinty and Martin agreed to, say provincial finance officials. The agreement a year ago called for increases in either federal transfers to the provincial treasury or direct federal spending in Ontario, they say.

"The deeper I dig the more concerned I become," Duncan said this week when asked about Flaherty's letter.

In an interview yesterday, Flaherty dismissed Duncan's concerns. "Every nickel (of the McGuinty-Martin deal) will go to the province of Ontario," said Flaherty. "Anyone who makes a suggestion to the contrary is wrong.

"The province has nothing to complain about."

Flaherty, himself a former provincial finance minister, noted that his officials met Duncan's officials this week to explain the details of his letter. "They (Duncan's officials) were satisfied (with the explanations)," said Flaherty.

But provincial finance officials put a different spin on that meeting yesterday. They said the two sides basically "agreed to disagree."

Duncan is expected to make this clear with a letter to Flaherty later this week.

This dispute could escalate and drive another wedge between the two governments, already feuding over Harper's apparent slighting of McGuinty.

Meanwhile, McGuinty is reaching out to other premiers in a bid to prevent Ottawa from enriching the federal equalization program. In this fiscal year, Ontarians will pay $4.9 billion into the $11.5 billion equalization pool. Ottawa disperses that money to eight "have-not" provinces. Only Ontario and Alberta, as "have" provinces, do not receive equalization payments.

McGuinty fears that Harper will redress the fiscal imbalance by improving equalization. McGuinty said this would be "unfair to Ontarians."

That's a message he has delivered this week to B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell, Quebec's Jean Charest, Newfoundland's Danny Williams, Manitoba's Gary Doer, Saskatchewan's Lorne Calvert and Alberta's Ralph Klein.

With files from Rob Benzie

AoD
 
Well, there goes Harper's dream of a majority. Forming a majority in Ontario after losing 30 seats here will be tough.
 
Forming a majority in Ontario after losing 30 seats here will be tough.
Let Dalton and Tory worry about forming a majority in Canada. Harper needs to concentrate on getting a majority in Canada, and if Ontario doesn't support him, then he'll have to go to Quebec and elsewhere. Yes, it will be tough, but not all of Ontario will go Liberal or Dippers.

I have a question...a far as I know, the Federal liberals have done very little for Toronto or Ontario. Why does the province's electorate keep voting for them? Is it lack of a preferred alternative?
 
More or less. Due to the vagaries of our electoral system, I voted Liberal when I would rather vote Green. I vote Liberal because I find the Conservatives more distasteful yet. Their policies are short-sighted, and I do not see them as great stewards of the economy in terms of "smart" taxation and investing in future economic growth.
 
I might vote Green myself next time around, especially if the Liberals don't present anyone/thing that appeals and if the Conservatives push too much socon. Wouldn't it be funny if Green won 10 or so ridings this way? Their MPs would be shocked, and have to quit their day jobs overnight.
 
Re: Globe Editorial: More flip-flops from Harper.

Yet another flip-flop.

The Conservatives will not be killing the gun registry after all their promises to do so. They will pass it off to the RCMP and will allow for long guns.

Every gun should be registered in my opinion. Just like every car has to be.
 
Re: Globe Editorial: More flip-flops from Harper.

Conservative to Green. You're kinda all over the place.
True. Honestly I'm sort of lost in the political spectrum. I can't stand government waste, single party dynasties and corruption so I can't vote Liberal; I can't support high taxes so I can't vote NDP; and, I don't like social conservative policies so I'm uncertain of voting Conservative.
 
Re: Globe Editorial: More flip-flops from Harper.

Though you did, and parrot their party line here, and do both proudly. How interesting.
 
Re: Globe Editorial: More flip-flops from Harper.

If anything I've repeated and supported the ideas of liberalism (free market, low taxes, less role for the state), not conservatism.
 
Re: Globe Editorial: More flip-flops from Harper.

You're mincing words.
 

Back
Top