[blixa442]

If the Liberals have the best platform to dealing with cities then we ought to ask them why they haven’t implemented it in the 13 years they have been in power. When it comes to Toronto this party has done absolutely nothing.

 

[cdl42]

Yeah, but they say lots of nice things. That counts for something, doesn't it?

 

[EnviroTO]

If the Liberals have the best platform to dealing with cities then we ought to ask them why they haven’t implemented it in the 13 years they have been in power. When it comes to Toronto this party has done absolutely nothing.

No, in 11 years Chretien did nothing for cities, and in 2 years they have done a lot (Harbourfront under construction, airport bridge cancelled, gas tax money in Toronto's hands, new infrastructure funding for cities). It is important do differentiate Chretien's government to Martin's government just as it is important to differentiate Mulroney's government from Harper's government. Chretien did nothing good for all those years and it is well known that towards the end of his career he hunted for a legacy because he realized he didn't have one.

 

[blixa442]

Oh, I'm pretty sure Martin was very much part of those ten long Chretien years.

 

[ganjavih]

Chretien had the luxury of majority governments while Martin always had Layton breathing down his neck.

 

[EnviroTO]

Chretien had the luxury of majority governments while Martin always had Layton breathing down his neck.

Yes but Martin campaigned on a city agenda and said during the election he would cancel the bridge if that was what the city wanted... and he delivered. Martin has never been the man making promises on the campaign trail until last election so he isn't the one that can be truly held responsible for it. His party must accept some of the blame and he is part of the party... but you can't say Martin didn't deliver because he did. As finance minister he fixed the finances and as PM he delivered on the promises he made.

 

[allabootmatt]

Well, the piece of good news is that if the Tories are serious about fixing "fiscal imbalance," Ontario could see a LOT more cash coming its way, or rather, not being taken--and given that the consensus at Queen's Park is strongly pro-urban at the moment, that could only be good for the New Deal campaign.

 

[afransen TO]

I think many people overstate the capability of finance minister to set the agenda. For the most part, the agenda was set by the Chretien crew. I think the only area where the Martin set held a great deal of influence was fiscal policy (and pushing for reduced deficits, increased debt reduction, and possibly bank mergers, the last of which was likely stymied by Chretien).

 

[cacruden]

So, lets see if we can resolve this one:

When things go wrong -- it is the Chretien crew that is at fault, and Martin was only a desk clerk in the Finance Department

But the elimination (when things go right) -- Martin is free to take full credit for it.

So what is it: Desk Clerk or CFO?

 

[afransen TO]

Fine then, Chretien was a vassal to Paul "the Puppetmaster" Martin.

 

[rbtaylor]

Well, the piece of good news is that if the Tories are serious about fixing "fiscal imbalance," Ontario could see a LOT more cash coming its way, or rather, not being taken

To most provinces the "fiscal imbalance" comes from not enough money being taken from Ontario and Alberta and being given to them.

Who's fiscal imbalance are they going to fix? The one that Ontario complains about or the one that Quebec complains about?

 

[bizorky]

I think many people overstate the capability of finance minister to set the agenda. For the most part, the agenda was set by the Chretien crew.

To add to this, we have to remember that the "urban" agenda is supposed to be the purview of the provincial government and not the feds. Federal government activity in city issues has always tended towards the one-off project in terms of its orientation. The same goes fo education; just recall the complaining from certain premiers when the feds introduced the millenium scholarship funding.

To most provinces the "fiscal imbalance" comes from not enough money being taken from Ontario and Alberta and being given to them.

That, I am afraid, is exactly what they mean in Quebec, where the issue of federal funding approaches the delusional. There is a long held belief among many in Quebec that it pays more into confederation than it gets back. Hence the argument from seperatists that their new country would have billions more in cash if they could only get away from that nasty cash-sucking Canada. This idea has even made it to school text books (sans my copious editorializing).

 

[blixa442]

Overheard on CTV Newsnet:

David Emerson: Well, it's basically third period and we're down 3-1, maybe it's time to pull the goalie.

Reporter: Is Paul Martin the goalie?

 

[allabootmatt]

Given the current Tory crowd's roots in Alberta, I suspect the imablance to which they refer has to do with redistributing money from rich provinces to poor ones.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Given the current Tory crowd's roots in Alberta, I suspect the imablance to which they refer has to do with redistributing money from rich provinces to poor ones.

ie: Increase the amount of autonomy that provinces have in regards to finances so that Alberta can greatly reduce the amount of money that it contributes to equalization payments. Which is also good for Ontario I suppose, but again, it has that 'feeding the rich on the backs of the poor' feeling that many parts of their platform do.