Ottawa balks at cities' demands

By JENNIFER LEWINGTON
From Monday's Globe and Mail

UPDATED AT 1:35 AM EDT Monday, Sep 20, 2004

Advertisement

The federal government is balking at the latest demands by Canada's big-city mayors for a $10-billion slice of gas tax revenues over the next five years — a deal worth twice what Ottawa has promised, setting the stage for tough talks in the months ahead.

“They are under no illusion what our campaign commitment is, and I'm under no illusion they would like more,” John Godfrey, the federal minister responsible for cities and infrastructure, said yesterday.

“They are being hopeful on their part, I am being realistic on mine.”

The minister was commenting on a summit of 10 big-city mayors meeting in Toronto, where they spelled out how the federal government should deliver its promise to share gas tax revenues.

The mayors' plan calls on Ottawa to set aside 2.5 cents a litre of the fuel gas tax next year — half of what they had previously pressed for — but to ramp up quickly to 5 cents a litre by 2007, instead of Ottawa's pledge to reach that level by 2009.

The net effect of the mayors' proposal would be to funnel $10-billion into city coffers over the next five years for spending — double the $5-billion promised by Prime Minister Paul Martin's government for that period.

With the federal-provincial deal on health care completed, the so-called “New Deal” on cities is the next high-profile political priority for the Martin government. Federal officials said they believe the big-city mayors are trying to talk up their demands now, just as the issue heats up.

During the election, Mr. Martin promised to transfer between $4-billion and $5-billion from gas taxes over the next 5 years. Several big-city mayors praised the promise, with Calgary's Dave Bronconnier calling it a “home run for cities.”

But at the weekend meeting, Mr. Bronconnier stressed the need for early action by Ottawa. “We are falling further and further behind. Now we need the federal government to step on the gas and start funding Canadian cities,” he said.



© 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

This will certainly show Martin for the dick he really is if he just outright says no.

He should give money to Thunder Bay. Out of the 75,000 eligable voters here, 40,000 voted liberal. We could really use a bit of money, too. If we fixed the highways up here, more trucks would go through northern ontaio, which means more business in the area, to serve the truckers.

But liberals only care about the big cities.

At least they're talking. Does anyone seriously think a Conservative government would've done a thing for cities???

Damn straight SD.

Has the NDP EVER had Federal Power? :( (as far as I know, they haven't)

This country is way too passive in its voting. Not to say that the voting system is any good.
We should adopt Australia's system, they have a mandatory voting system that actually works (impressive).

Damn straight SD.

Has the NDP EVER had Federal Power? :( (as far as I know, they haven't)

This country is way too passive in its voting. Not to say that the voting system is any good.
We should adopt Australia's system, they have a mandatory voting system that actually works (impressive).

No, the NDP has never had a federal power. They probably wont until after 2010, when the country gets a bit more liberal-ized. Remember, the liberal party is stil Right wing (but just barely) if the dems win in the states, they'll have the liberal government! Although, i'd like to see NDP win, especially in Ontario. Howard Hamptons riding is Kenora, and he is working hard to get more recognition for the northern part of the province.

At least they're talking. Does anyone seriously think a Conservative government would've done a thing for cities???
Yes, the Conservatives would have given 100% of $0.03 gas tax to cities. The Liberals, on the other hand, will give 0% of $0.07. Clearly, the three cents in hand from the Conservatives is infinitely more than the $0.07 to be thought about one day from the Liberals.

Yes, the Conservatives would have given 100% of $0.03 gas tax to cities. The Liberals, on the other hand, will give 0% of $0.07. Clearly, the three cents in hand from the Conservatives is infinitely more than the $0.07 to be thought about one day from the Liberals.

1) The Liberals have pledged $5 billion, cities want $10 billion...time is also a factor. Things are definitely not going smoothly, but I don't know how you can try to say the Liberals are offering nothing.

2) The Conservatives had absolutely no plan for cities and the gas tax issue wasn't even close to being on the agenda. How can you defend them so vigourously?

Not true - $0.03 actual cents for all communities, unlike the Liberals Monopoly money, also for all communities.

Not true - $0.03 actual cents for all communities, unlike the Liberals Monopoly money, also for all communities.

Wow! Three whole cents! Cool! We could buy... a penny candy for the mayor! w00t! :lol:

Not true - $0.03 actual cents for all communities, unlike the Liberals Monopoly money, also for all communities.

The Conservatives had no plan for cities...how can you dance around the issue? It's a fact.

You're assuming the Liberals will never hand over the gas tax money and assuming that the Conservatives would have. I don't know how you could possibly so incredibly biased and unreasonable.

Not true - $0.03 actual cents for all communities, unlike the Liberals Monopoly money, also for all communities.

And by actual cents, you mean an election promise from a party that lost the credibility war even though it was never elected to power?

Yes, the Conservatives would have given 100% of $0.03 gas tax to cities. The Liberals, on the other hand, will give 0% of $0.07. Clearly, the three cents in hand from the Conservatives is infinitely more than the $0.07 to be thought about one day from the Liberals.

Where is the Conservatives going to find that money if they actually embarked on their agressive tax cutting agenda & military spending plan? & Watching Stephen Harper say that he would have come up with the same healthcare deal as Paul Martin. Good-bye balanced budgets.

Why must the Toronto board by the victim of Are Be's constant political masterbation?

Threads about national issues should be in the Canada board.

BTW...I find no reasonable evidence to be fanatically devoted to any one Canadian political party over another.






KGB

Where is the Conservatives going to find that money if they actually embarked on their agressive tax cutting agenda & military spending plan? & Watching Stephen Harper say that he would have come up with the same healthcare deal as Paul Martin. Good-bye balanced budgets.

The fact that their budget was less balanced than the NDPs really makes you want to ask: why is this party Conservative?

No, the NDP has never had a federal power. They probably wont until after 2010, when the country gets a bit more liberal-ized. Remember, the liberal party is stil Right wing (but just barely) if the dems win in the states, they'll have the liberal government! Although, i'd like to see NDP win, especially in Ontario. Howard Hamptons riding is Kenora, and he is working hard to get more recognition for the northern part of the province.

Good for Hampton. I felt bad for going along with the strategic voting last provincial election - first and last time I ever do that. I think that everybody needs to be warned against strategic voting. Things have been really unfair against the NDP lately, and Toronto once one of their best battlegrounds has been betraying them lately.
Hopefully Miller's influence will return the lost ground in Toronto to the NDP again, and perhaps gain some new ground.

With the state of the liberal party because of McG, there is no chance in hell Liberals will be re-elected. The next election will be against Conservatives and NDP. Hopefull, NDP will win, and they probably will. We know what the conservatives can do.

And are they really a conservative party? They've changed their name, what, 15 times now? :lol:

1) The Liberals have pledged $5 billion, cities want $10 billion...time is also a factor. Things are definitely not going smoothly, but I don't know how you can try to say the Liberals are offering nothing.

2) The Conservatives had absolutely no plan for cities and the gas tax issue wasn't even close to being on the agenda. How can you defend them so vigourously?

SD is entirely right in saying that the Conservatives had no platform on cities.

I can't figure you out AreBe, the conservatives are the last party in the country interms of an urban agenda.

AreBe said: "Yes, the Conservatives would have given 100% of $0.03 gas tax to cities. The Liberals, on the other hand, will give 0% of $0.07."

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. How do you know? They are not in power! They could have done dick (which they probably would have done, because they wanted SLASH the budget even more. Federal budget slashes that you, AreBe have condemned in many other posts as having damaged health care in Ontario). The conservatives are not elected as the government, so it makes ZERO difference to post conjectures about what they would have done.

Try some logic now and then.

The fed liberals are opposed to giving all the gas tax money right away. They are aiming to give gas tax cash over time They are probably opposed to giving it over on the basis of transit ridership alone (which they should since it addresses infrastructure, economy and environment at the same time). They probably still want to give it over on the basis of population (not a good idea if it neglects transit and infrastructure needs of the big cities). This way they can appease rural Canada.

Big cities, that's where the future is.

Remember, the Liberals are going to give equal money to cities, and to hamlets, and each an every riding, and treat them all equally, that is to say, equally give them all nothing.

I think I was alluding to that in my second to last sentence. And no, I don't think it is a good idea.

Remember, the Liberals are going to give equal money to cities, and to hamlets, and each an every riding, and treat them all equally, that is to say, equally give them all nothing.

Again, could you outline the Conservative plan for cities?

Yes: 100% of $0.03 for every hamlet and community in the country. The plan for cities is identical to the Liberals: money for every metropolis and every hamlet. The Conservative plan delivers infinitely more money - by any measure -than the %0 of $0.5 from the Liberals.

100% of $0.03 for every hamlet and community in the country.

Source? Link us, you know full well we're not going to take your word for it. :bash:

Source? Link us, you know full well we're not going to take your word for it. :bash:

Even if there is one, for the Nth time, it doesn't mean anything.

Who honestly believes that other parties would have completely fulfilled promises, particularily a certain party that called cities a small lobby group! :mad2: :wallbash:

I don't understand how people could be excited at this.

Every few months, they announce break throughs but nothing ever happens.

Remember: the Federal Liberals are to blame. Of course immigrants are a benefit to the city! We need help form the feds to deal with the cost of teaching immigrants English as a second language, help with health care cots, and help with the costs associated in absorbing more and more people (and the obvious strains on various infrastructure and support networks).


It's time to blame the federal Liberals for their failure to assist cities. It's time for the Liberals to stop thinking about the possibilities of helping cites, which, after all, attract the immigrants, and the cities are the country's economy engine, and time for the Liberals to renounce anti - Toronto thinking, and get on with the job of helping the visible minorities of Toronto.

Check this out from the Globe




Martin's cities agenda belongs in major cities


UPDATED AT 1:18 PM EDT Friday, Aug 20, 2004

Advertisement

Prime Minister Paul Martin has spoken of a "new deal for cities" as one of his top five priorities. In his last term he named John Godfrey as his parliamentary secretary for cities. Mr. Godfrey told the big-city mayors in January, "I can assure you that the cities will rank high on the government's agenda." Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's budget in March addressed one of the cities' requests by promising a rebate on their GST payments, a move the budget estimated was worth a total of $7-billion over the next decade.
[b]
However, when Mr. Martin won the June election, he made Mr. Godfrey his minister of state for infrastructure and communities, suggesting a dilution of the concentration on cities. He announced in May that he would give five cents a litre of the federal fuel tax to the municipalities -- $2-billion a year -- but the fine print noted that the sharing would not start until next year and that the government would raise the cut to five cents only "as soon as we can within the next five years." There was a similar softness in the promise of $1.5-billion over five years in new money for social housing. Mr. Godfrey has indicated that, with the fuel tax at least, the money would be divided among all of Canada's municipalities on the basis of population.

This is not a cities agenda. This is an everybody agenda. This is a failure to choose, a failure to decide, and a failure to recognize the most compelling reason for a "new deal for cities": that Canada's major cities, the engines that drive the country's economy, are under intense financial pressure and need dedicated relief if they are to continue to attract investment and keep themselves in good repair. Toronto Mayor David Miller said as much at the January meeting to which he invited the mayors of nine other hub cities, those of prime economic significance to their regions: Montreal, Halifax, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Ottawa, Quebec City and Calgary (the one no-show). "Cities finance this country. As our large urban centres go, so goes the country."

This week's Statistics Canada report on immigration, Immigrants in Canada's Census Metropolitan Areas, indicates what a magnet the major cities are for the new blood flowing into this country. The proportion who make their way to three cities, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, is 73 per cent, up from 58 per cent in 1981. Even as this influx puts a strain on resources, the new arrivals -- most of them between 18 and 49, on average better educated than those born in Canada -- provide new ideas and new energy for the economic engines.

If the federal government is serious about a cities agenda, and not just looking for a new way to divvy up federal pork among every municipality in the country, it will concentrate on helping the major cities to absorb the new arrivals, to supply the necessary housing for all who need it, to repair the infrastructure, to build world-class complexes, to fund the arts, to do what is needed to attract investment and to reinvigorate Canada's main points of intersection with the world. If the triage works, it will repay dividends; the success of the major urban centres will in turn feed and invigorate the economies of all the smaller cities and towns.

Certainly it would take political courage to concentrate on the big cities rather than promise money to "the places where we live" and "biggest cities to smallest towns" and "cities and communities," as Mr. Martin so loosely did in an April speech. For political reasons, he would prefer that there be 308 great Canadian cities, one for each riding; but there aren't. There are perhaps eight or nine. He and Mr. Godfrey have to make the decision to direct the available money for infrastructure, mass transit, housing and urban renewal to a few pressure points rather than every dot on the map, and speed up the timetable.

It's a tough decision, but that's what governing is all about: making tough decisions. Let Mr. Martin's "new deal for cities" actually mean something.



© 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

See? THE FEDERAL MARTIN LIBERALS PLAN FOR CITIES: TO GIVE MONEY to "the places where we live" and "biggest cities to smallest towns" and "cities and communities,"!
Do you Guys have the guts to be critical of the Liberals rape of Toronto? Or are you encouraging them by voting for them, hopeful that they will continue to pillage Toronto to reward correct voting in white Francophone communities elsewhere?


Further, do you deny that the Conservatives have a long established history of delivering on their promises? Do you not recall that people who opposed Harris voted for him, because he did what he said?

from http://www.conservative.ca/english/issues2.asp


Lower Taxes
The Conservative Party will fight for tax relief. We will work for lower and fairer taxes for hardworking Canadians and their families.

Support for our Canadian Forces
The Conservative Party will fight for our armed forces. We will ensure our armed forces are properly funded and equipped to do the difficult and dangerous work we ask of them.

Safe Communities
The Conservative Party will fight to reduce crime and violence. We will scrap the long-gun registry and redirect the money to law enforcement.

Canadians on Fixed Incomes
The Conservative Party will fight for low-income Canadians. We will increase support for Canadians on fixed incomes, including seniors, who face rising costs of living.

Investing in Infrastructure
The Conservative Party will fight for infrastructure investments. We will redirect federal gas taxes into roads and other critical infrastructure.

Access to Higher Education
The Conservative Party will fight for students. We will modernize the student loan program to help students overcome the financial barriers to education and training.

Canada’s Place in the World
The Conservative Party will fight for Canada’s national interest. We will stand with our allies and international bodies against terrorism and for the basic values of freedom and democracy.

Auditor General
The Conservative Party will fight for accountable spending. We will give the Auditor General an expanded role to root out waste and mismanagement, and we will act on her recommendations.

Immigrant Credentials
The Conservative party will fight for immigrants. We will work to ensure speedier recognition of foreign credentials and prior work experience.

Cleaner Environment
The Conservative Party will fight for a clean environment. We will propose workable solutions to make Canada a world leader in clean air, clean water and clean land.

Protecting Children
The Conservative Party will fight for our children. We will replace the Liberal’s “public good” defense for child pornography with a zero tolerance policy.

Canada – US Relations
The Conservative Party will fight for our primary producers in trade disputes. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with the US when we can so that we can sit eyeball to eyeball when we must.

Further, do you deny that the Conservatives have a long established history of delivering on their promises? Do you not recall that people who opposed Harris voted for him, because he did what he said?[/b]

from http://www.conservative.ca/english/issues2.asp

One thing on that. HE DIDN'T

Consequently why the PC was voted out. I can't believe that after the indipendent auditor's report on the deficit which was basically HIDDEN from the public, for obvious reasons, some people still cling on this 'he did what he said he would do' crap. AY!

THE FEDERAL MARTIN LIBERALS PLAN FOR CITIES: TO GIVE MONEY to "the places where we live" and "biggest cities to smallest towns" and "cities and communities,"!
Do you Guys have the guts to be critical of the Liberals rape of Toronto? Or are you encouraging them by voting for them, hopeful that they will continue to pillage Toronto to reward correct voting in white Francophone communities elsewhere?

Yes: 100% of $0.03 for every hamlet and community in the country. The plan for cities is identical to the Liberals: money for every metropolis and every hamlet. The Conservative plan delivers infinitely more money - by any measure -than the %0 of $0.5 from the Liberals.


AreBe,

You seem like a smart guy, but I simply cannot understand how you can so blindly follow one political party regardless of their stance. Contrary to what you believe, many of the people who voted Liberal didn't do so because they don't know what they're doing - they did so because the Conservatives were simply not a better option (I voted for the NDP this time around).

What you mentioned isn't a plan for cities - it's a vague promise made under questioning that wasn't anywhere near a priority on their campaign. In fact, I heard a number of anti-urban comments from the Conservative camp.


Lower Taxes
The Conservative Party will fight for tax relief. We will work for lower and fairer taxes for hardworking Canadians and their families.

Support for our Canadian Forces
The Conservative Party will fight for our armed forces. We will ensure our armed forces are properly funded and equipped to do the difficult and dangerous work we ask of them.

Safe Communities
The Conservative Party will fight to reduce crime and violence. We will scrap the long-gun registry and redirect the money to law enforcement.

Canadians on Fixed Incomes
The Conservative Party will fight for low-income Canadians. We will increase support for Canadians on fixed incomes, including seniors, who face rising costs of living.

Investing in Infrastructure
The Conservative Party will fight for infrastructure investments. We will redirect federal gas taxes into roads and other critical infrastructure.

Access to Higher Education
The Conservative Party will fight for students. We will modernize the student loan program to help students overcome the financial barriers to education and training.

Canada’s Place in the World
The Conservative Party will fight for Canada’s national interest. We will stand with our allies and international bodies against terrorism and for the basic values of freedom and democracy.

Auditor General
The Conservative Party will fight for accountable spending. We will give the Auditor General an expanded role to root out waste and mismanagement, and we will act on her recommendations.

Immigrant Credentials
The Conservative party will fight for immigrants. We will work to ensure speedier recognition of foreign credentials and prior work experience.

Cleaner Environment
The Conservative Party will fight for a clean environment. We will propose workable solutions to make Canada a world leader in clean air, clean water and clean land.

Protecting Children
The Conservative Party will fight for our children. We will replace the Liberal’s “public good” defense for child pornography with a zero tolerance policy.

Canada – US Relations
The Conservative Party will fight for our primary producers in trade disputes. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with the US when we can so that we can sit eyeball to eyeball when we must.


I see absolutely nothing resembling a plan for cities here!



If we had elected a Conservative government, pretty much all the progress made in gaining a new deal would've been lost. Things are going slowly, but at least the Liberals recognize there is a problem and will publicly talk of wanting to fix it - the Conservatives aren't even close to being there yet (on a side note...you do realize the new "Conservative" party isn't much like the old PC party but really the Canadian Alliance with a new name...right?).

Provinicially, gas tax money from the Liberals is supposed to start coming in October...so we'll see. And McGuinty has made some very encouraging remarks - keep in mind, they've only been in office for about a year now...so they have 4 more years to keep their promise.

Contrary to your propaganda, the Ontario PC party did break promises - Im sure Im not the only one who remembers Harris pledging no cuts to healthcare and then pretty much reneging on that one right away. And what of the cuts to education...disrepect for teachers...Snoblen's little talk on having to create a "crisis" in the school system...it's not a short list.

I may favour the ideology of one party over another, but Im not going to blindly follow them or make up fables about their intentions simply to defend them - that's insane (no offense). If they're the party you're partial to, that's fine...but don't try to make up things about their agenda just to put them in a good light, or paint the rest of us as mindless zombies who don't vote for them just because we don't know what we're doing.

What was the Liberals plan? As the Globe pointed out:
Certainly it would take political courage to concentrate on the big cities rather than promise money to "the places where we live" and "biggest cities to smallest towns" and "cities and communities," as Mr. Martin so loosely did in an April speech. For political reasons, he would prefer that there be 308 great Canadian cities, one for each riding; but there aren't. There are perhaps eight or nine. He and Mr. Godfrey have to make the decision to direct the available money for infrastructure, mass transit, housing and urban renewal to a few pressure points rather than every dot on the map, and speed up the timetable.

What was the Liberals plan? As the Globe pointed out:
Certainly it would take political courage to concentrate on the big cities rather than promise money to "the places where we live" and "biggest cities to smallest towns" and "cities and communities," as Mr. Martin so loosely did in an April speech. For political reasons, he would prefer that there be 308 great Canadian cities, one for each riding; but there aren't. There are perhaps eight or nine. He and Mr. Godfrey have to make the decision to direct the available money for infrastructure, mass transit, housing and urban renewal to a few pressure points rather than every dot on the map, and speed up the timetable.


You're tiptoeing around the issue. As I said, the New Deal proposed may not be perfect and it isn't finalized either...but progress has been made on the issue.


Again, are you going to keep trying to claim that the Conservatives have some sort of magnificent agenda for cities?

You're tiptoeing around the issue. As I said, the New Deal proposed may not be perfect and it isn't finalized either...but progress has been made on the issue.


Again, are you going to keep trying to claim that the Conservatives have some sort of magnificent agenda for cities?

He will, it's his schtick.

... are you going to keep trying to claim that the Conservatives have some sort of magnificent agenda for cities?
Yes ... 100% of $0.03 for Infrastructure
"
Investing in Infrastructure
The Conservative Party will fight for infrastructure investments. We will redirect federal gas taxes into roads and other critical infrastructure."
Wheras the Liberals will deliver 0% of 0.05 in the same plan.

Yes ... 100% of $0.03 for Infrastructure
"
Investing in Infrastructure
The Conservative Party will fight for infrastructure investments. We will redirect federal gas taxes into roads and other critical infrastructure."
Wheras the Liberals will deliver 0% of 0.05 in the same plan.

ARGH!!!!! Are you trying to do this to me:

:badnews:

Look, Conservatives and promises = no. They said that cities are a small lobby. And you STILL!!!!! want to believe them. I think I have more faith in the Action Party. :bash:

Yes ... 100% of $0.03 for Infrastructure
"
Investing in Infrastructure
The Conservative Party will fight for infrastructure investments. We will redirect federal gas taxes into roads and other critical infrastructure."
Wheras the Liberals will deliver 0% of 0.05 in the same plan.


That isn't cities...and you know it.

Now, explain the logic of criticizing the Liberals when the party you trump has no plan whatsoever...

Well, AreBe, be it $0.03 or $0.05 for every "community" including cities, it will be an investment. All that is left to you to prove is that it will never happen. You keep stating that 0% of $0.05 (commonly referred to as "nothing") will be invested by the federal government. Well, even if they invest $0.01 then you will be wrong. And they can do that type of investment any time. Is it perfect? No. Is it an investment? Yes.

As for the Conservatives and their promises. Well, they are not the government. They were not elected. Additionally, the federal conservative alliance party would leave provinces to decide on what cities could or could not do with the money. This was something told to me by the Conservative candidate running in the riding I live in. The provincial geovernments could invest this money in pretty much anything they wanted to because cities are the responsibility of the provincial government, and not the federal government. For example, Charest's goverment has made noises about disliking direct federal funding in cities. This is not an investment issue; it is a political issue.

The federal government has opted to use the word "community" so as to be seen spreading the money evenly. Sadly, this is like cutting the legs off of tall people to make everyone of even height. I don't like that aspect of the proposed scheme because infrastructure is concentrated in cities. Funding will come for cities. I think the federal government wants to direct it towards infrastructure and distribute it in what they think is a fair manner. I think there is disagreement about what is fair and what amount is adequate.

As for the provincial conservatives under Harris. May I refer you to the "who does what" fiasco that short-changed all Ontario cities, legislation that even Bob Runciman called a "dog's breakfast." Short-changing the cities is a promise that the Harris government certainly did keep.

... Because the Conservatives DO have a plan...Investing in Infrastructure
The Conservative Party will fight for infrastructure investments. We will redirect federal gas taxes into roads and other critical infrastructure."
Whereas the Liberal plan is to" promise money to "the places where we live" and "biggest cities to smallest towns" and "cities and communities," as Mr. Martin so loosely did in an April speech. For political reasons, he would prefer that there be 308 great Canadian cities, one for each riding;.."
And, we know Liberals wown't deliver.

Call me a fool, but I personnally reviewed all of the party's platform last election and saw nothing on a deal for cities in the Conservitive literature.

There were some provisions in the Liberal Red Book but nothing to write home about.

The only party that did have significant provisions for cities was the NDP.

... Because the Conservatives DO have a plan...Investing in Infrastructure
The Conservative Party will fight for infrastructure investments. We will redirect federal gas taxes into roads and other critical infrastructure."
Whereas the Liberal plan is to" promise money to "the places where we live" and "biggest cities to smallest towns" and "cities and communities," as Mr. Martin so loosely did in an April speech. For political reasons, he would prefer that there be 308 great Canadian cities, one for each riding;.."
And, we know Liberals wown't deliver.

LOL

You're arguing that the Liberals are just loosely promising money for cities and then highlighting "infrastructure investment" as a new deal for cities in the Conservative platform? How can you possibly make such a leap? Infrastucture could be anything. In fact, you could argue it's anti-urban - the only thing they actually mention is roads.

You're taking a vague sentence and trying to argue it's a New Deal for cities...please explain your logic.

Next you're going to try and argue Harris was a boon for cities too!

LOL

You're arguing that the Liberals are just loosely promising money for cities and then highlighting "infrastructure investment" as a new deal for cities in the Conservative platform? How can you possibly make such a leap? Infrastucture could be anything. In fact, you could argue it's anti-urban - the only thing they actually mention is roads.

You're taking a vague sentence and trying to argue it's a New Deal for cities...please explain your logic.

Next you're going to try and argue Harris was a boon for cities too!

I was expecting someone to pick up on this sooner.

Historically, the PC agendy tends to go down the road of infrastructure = Highways. Perhaps power and water lines as well, but mostly roads and highways is their idea of infrastructure. You'd be lucky if they would even give GO Transit anything (only because they actually own it), nevermind the TTC or other GTA Transit Providers, the PCs have a reputation for consistently doing harm to public services, and Public Transit is way up there on their privitazation agendy, I'm sure. I found it shocking that they actually bought back GO Transit from the... what was that group called? GTSB? I forget. In anycase, it's a safe bet that it was all just for show, because their budget proves that they couldn't afford it - not without privatizing the LCBO among other stunts, which was proven to be in the works after Eves was defeated.

...

The only party that did have significant provisions for cities was the NDP.
AND THAT'S A FACT!
The Liberals and the Conservatives both had darn well near identical proposals: help the cities, as the cities are in ridings, and we'll help every riding.....
The federal government has opted to use the word "community" so as to be seen spreading the money evenly. Sadly, this is like cutting the legs off of tall people to make everyone of even height. I don't like that aspect of the proposed scheme because infrastructure is concentrated in cities. Funding will come for cities. I think the federal government wants to direct it towards infrastructure and distribute it in what they think is a fair manner. I think there is disagreement about what is fair and what amount is adequate.

....
There is no appreciable difference between the glorious Liberal plan to help cities and the fiendish Conservative plan to help every community.

The Liberals will carry through with their plan with the same haste that they have shown in helping Toronto's waterfront -- that is to say, the Liberals will not fulfill their promise.
I submit that the long record of broken promises when it comes to helping Toronto, combined with the FACT that it is these very same glorious and fault free Liberals who take BILLIONS OF DOLLARS out of the GTA every year is ample evidence that all we'll be getting form the Liberals is 0% of $0.05.
Harbourfont? Transit? When's the last time the feds did something for Toronto? The Liberals even failed to mention Toronto in post SARS advertising- but Quebec got play !!!!! How can anyone think the Liberals will help us???
100% of $0.03 from the Conservatives is infinitely more than 0% of 0.05 from the Liberals

AND THAT'S A FACT!
The Liberals and the Conservatives both had darn well near identical proposals: help the cities, as the cities are in ridings, and we'll help every riding.
There is no appreciable difference between the glorious Liberal plan to help cities and the fiendish Conservative plan to help every community.

The Liberals will carry through with their plan with the same haste that they have shown in helping Toronto's waterfront -- that is to say, the Liberals will not fulfill their promise.
I submit that the long record of broken promises when it comes to helping Toronto, combined with the FACT that it is these very same glorious and fault free Liberals who take BILLIONS OF DOLLARS out of the GTA every year is ample evidence that all we'll be getting form the Liberals is 0% of $0.05.
Harbourfont? Transit? When's the last time the feds did something for Toronto? The Liberals even failed to mention Toronto in post SARS advertising- but Quebec got play !!!!! How can anyone think the Liberals will help us???
100% of $0.03 from the Conservatives is infinitely more than 0% of 0.05 from the Liberals



AreBe, are you reading anything Im writing?!!?

You have yet to post any evidence whatsoever that the Conservatives had any plan for cities. And no, your one line on gas tax for infrastructure doesn't qualify...if anything it just weakens your argument.

Secondly, I've never said the Liberals are fault free...but their position on cities is years ahead of the Conservatives. I think you misinterpreted Homer; while the Liberal plan may not stack up well to the NDP plan, it's still far ahead of the Conservative plan - which doesn't exist.

Right... the Liberal plan for 308 ridings is clearly superior to the identical Conservative one.

Right... the Liberal plan for 308 ridings is clearly superior to the identical Conservative one.
SD, I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see the federal Liberals helping Toronto. They may even want to be seen not helping it.

By the way, I will see what I can do to simply affix the Toronto Broad of Trade's "Enough is not Enough" campaing to a policy proposal cover sheet, and have it submitted for the upcoming Conservative policy convention (in about 6 months time.) - no harm can come from trying.

Right... the Liberal plan for 308 ridings is clearly superior to the identical Conservative one.


You have provided no evidence whatsoever that they're identical...nor have you provided any evidence that the Conservatives have any plan for cities.


SD, I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see the federal Liberals helping Toronto. They may even want to be seen not helping it.


Change is often slow...the real crusade for cities has been going on for about 2 or 3 years now...the Liberals have gone from ignoring the problem to recognizing it and offering a plan. There is cause for optimism. With the NDP needed to push things though, I don't think they'd let them slack off.

The Conservatives don't even recognize there is a problem.

By the way, I will see what I can do to simply affix the Toronto Broad of Trade's "Enough is not Enough" campaing to a policy proposal cover sheet, and have it submitted for the upcoming Conservative policy convention (in about 6 months time.) - no harm can come from trying.


Sounds good. But I thought you said the Conservatives already had a great plan for cities...

.. And lets make it an even better one!

Are Be, you said:

"...the Liberal plan for 308 ridings is clearly superior to the identical Conservative one."


Let's see, you are saying that the Liberal plan resembles the Conservative plan, but you don't support the Liberals, and do support the Conservatives because their plan which is identical to the Liberal plan, is a better plan. Uh huh.

Oh, and by the way, Paul Martin isn't a billionaire.

This is becoming a lost cause or mockery, or both.

Fact of the matter is that currently all the action is happening at the provincial and municipal levels. In the mean time, the feds can go play politics with other countries, unless they want to give the provinces more money to shower attention on us with.

Are Be, you said:

"...the Liberal plan for 308 ridings is clearly superior to the identical Conservative one."


Let's see, you are saying that the Liberal plan resembles the Conservative plan, but you don't support the Liberals, and do support the Conservatives because their plan which is identical to the Liberal plan, is a better plan. Uh huh.


That's right! The horrible Conservative plan is identical to the glorious Liberal one! The point is that people were attacking the Conservatives for having what amounts to the same pan as the Liberals. Nuts, eh?
Homer J Simpson is quite correct: the NDP has the best plan for cities.

TRZ - good thinking-- the Feds have all the taxing power, but all the action is at the provincial and municipal level. That needs to be addressed.

It's true that the NDP had the best plan, but who is to say that they would have got all of the sections of their platform into practice while in office.

The topic of funding Toronto (and infact, all of Canada's cities) properly is a touchy one. One of the reason it's such a hot potato is the way many non-Torontonians react to Toronto getting money. Any politician who tries to help Toronto ultimately gets voted out or losses popularity because of it.

Instead of blaming politicians who will always do what is popular, blame ignorant people who believe that what is good for Toronto is bad for them. This just isn't true, by damaging Toronto, they make their own futures as Canadians less bright.

We need to get rid of the riding system in this country's voting method. 1-vote, 1-voice, not this disproportionate representation garbage. That way it becomes politically wise to look after Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, among others.

canada, canadian search engine, free email, canada news

Fair play for cities

The Gazette

Sunday, September 26, 2004

The only level of government in Canada with surplus money to give away, the federal level, is now actively engaged in doing just that. Last week the governing Liberals signed a health-care funding accord with the provinces. Next up on the agenda, sometime this fall, is one of Prime Minister Paul Martin's oldest political promises, to give cities a "new deal."

This idea of a new fiscal deal for cities is long overdue. After Martin, as finance minister in the mid-1990s, cut federal transfer payments to the provinces, the provinces in turn downloaded a whole series of financial responsibilities to the municipal sector, but without giving municipalities the fiscal capacity to cope. So it is only fair, really, to see Martin take the lead in fixing this problem.

(HEY! We all know that this was the work of Harris, not fault free Martin! )

His campaign promise to funnel up to $2 billion annually to cities for infrastructure renewal through a municipal share of the federal gasoline tax is a good starting point. Equally welcome was the campaign promise of Jean Charest's provincial Liberals, a year earlier, to give Quebec municipalities a share of the provincial sales tax.

But for all the talk, there has been no money yet.

John Godfrey, federal minister of infrastructure and communities, will convene talks on gas-tax sharing this fall. With this on the horizon, the mayors of Canada's 10 largest cities met last weekend in Toronto to iron out a negotiating position. To nobody's surprise, they asked for more money, more quickly than Martin's watery promise of $2 billion in the gas tax annually by 2010.

The amount will be settled after the usual haggling. But there's a principle here which should be clear: Although cities are under provincial jurisdiction, cities should have the final say on how to spend whatever money flows their way. Legally, federal money will have to flow through the provinces. But big cities desperately need protection from sticky-fingered premiers who will be tempted to divert the new cash away from metropolitan transit and other urgent needs, to every little town in every provincial swing riding capable of keeping the incumbents in power.

(Same is true of the fault free Martin Liberals)

That is why we'd like to see the municipal sector have a seat at the table at Godfrey's federal-provincial talks. It probably won't happen, however. British Columbia's Gordon Campbell, a former Vancouver mayor, once favoured the idea, but other premiers, including our own, would likely never stand for it. That's wrong.

We fear the worst here. Metropolitan areas, the engines of wealth creation and culture, have needs that small towns just don't have - for mass transit, in particular. There's a compelling argument here for what we might call asymmetrical spending.

However, the fact that Godfrey's portfolio is now about "communities" and not "cities" suggests that Martin's bold promise is mutating into fuzzy generalities, and that the money will be spread too thinly to help the big cities. If that happens, the whole cities agenda will be a monumental failure in public policy.
(AH! THAT LIBERAL PLAN! Much better than the identical Conservative one! The only differences are that the Liberals lied about handing over $0.05, conversely, the Conservatives would have handed over an actual $0.03)

Big cities are desperate for infrastructure renewal, and should be given priority at least in the early years of any new fiscal deal for cities. In the longer run, a formula based less on emergency needs and more on population share might prove suitable. And small towns with critical environmental shortcoming - say, those still flushing raw sewage into rivers - could also be queue-jumped.

The worst thing that could happen would be for provincial governments to play fast and loose with any new gas-tax money - for example, by passing on federal money for transit but then cutting their own levels of support for capital projects. Quebec City Mayor Jean-Paul L'Allier was right to say, after last weekend's meeting, that there's a risk the cash-strapped Charest government could do just that.

Quebec's urban-affairs minister Jean-Marc Fournier ought, then, to guarantee a "status quo-plus" arrangement, whereby new federal money will not be offset by provincial cuts or downloading.

Better yet, the provincial Liberals could keep their own campaign pledge to give municipalities a share of the Quebec sales tax. In tandem with Martin's new deal for cities, that could really make a difference for Montreal.
© The Gazette (Montreal) 2004




Copyright © 2004 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest Global Communications Corp. All rights reserved.
Optimized for browser versions 4.0 and higher.

We need to get rid of the riding system in this country's voting method. 1-vote, 1-voice, not this disproportionate representation garbage. That way it becomes politically wise to look after Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, among others.
Um.. not a bad idea..
But here's a simpler one-- no need for any changes to legislation at all-- have 416 and 905 work together! MP's and MPP's will go out of their way to thrust cash into the GTA and to be seen to be thrusting cash into the GTA! The political clout of a united GTA is on par with some provinces.

Um.. not a bad idea..
have 416 and 905 work together! MP's and MPP's will go out of their way to thrust cash into the GTA and to be seen to be thrusting cash into the GTA!
:bash: :bash: :bash: which part of different parties not cooperating and never will cooperate do you not understand? The Blue Belt always votes PC, inside the blue belt is generally Lib/NDP.

That's right! The horrible Conservative plan is identical to the glorious Liberal one! The point is that people were attacking the Conservatives for having what amounts to the same pan as the Liberals. Nuts, eh?
Homer J Simpson is quite correct: the NDP has the best plan for cities.

TRZ - good thinking-- the Feds have all the taxing power, but all the action is at the provincial and municipal level. That needs to be addressed.

But they aren't identical!

This has already been proven.

It's like debating with a broken tape player...

again...explain how funding for "infrastructure" automatically means funding for cities...especially when help for cities wasn't even on the Conservative agenda.

SD,

What Are Be is saying is that it does exist because it was the identical unstated Conservative plan that is very similar to the Liberal plan, but was better than the the equal Liberal plan that is no good even though it looks like the non-existant better Conservative plan that is so good that it is far superior to the identical exisiting Liberal plan that is not good when compared to the rigorous Conservative plan that looks just like the no good Liberal plan. Got that?

All from the Confabulation Party of Canada

However, the fact that Godfrey's portfolio is now about "communities" and not "cities" suggests that Martin's bold promise is mutating into fuzzy generalities, and that the money will be spread too thinly to help the big cities. If that happens, the whole cities agenda will be a monumental failure in public policy.
(AH! THAT LIBERAL PLAN! Much better than the identical Conservative one! The only differences are that the Liberals lied about handing over $0.05, conversely, the Conservatives would have handed over an actual $0.03)

See?

See?
You so missed the question/point on that it isn't funny, and you should be shot for hurting other people's brains.

The points being,
1. of course, that the Liberal plan is much better than the identical Conservative one, and
2. That infrastructure spending is not the same as spending on cities. After all, how can the city give workers a massive pay raise by transferring federal money into the workers' pockets if that money instead is tied to capital investments in public transit?

This is pointless. Are Be is completely brainwashed.

This is pointless. Are Be is completely brainwashed.

Not like he had a brain in the first place :lol:

Oh, stop it!
You all know the NDP has the best plan for cities, and you additionally all know that the Liberals are the ones who soaks Toronto to the tune of $7 for so billion a year (and even more for the GTA!) So, let's face it, the Martin Liberal haven't been doing Toronto in favours, and it's unlikely that they will.

Next month there will be a first ministers conference on how to pick Ontario's and Alberta's pockets. A Liberal leader of Ontario and a Liberal prime minister-- interesting who will be the villain now that there aren't any Conservatives to blame, eh?

In any event, I think we all agree that Toronto is getting shafted. We need the GTA to work together, then we will have power!

Are Be,

The point was that you can't call one plan better than the other when you claim they are the same. If anything, the Martin Liberals are starting to resemble the Conservatives in terms of their attitude towards the provinces. Do cities in this country get shafted? Yes, but that's where the wealth is concentrated (but not equally distributed).

The points being,
1. of course, that the Liberal plan is much better than the identical Conservative one, and
2. That infrastructure spending is not the same as spending on cities. After all, how can the city give workers a massive pay raise by transferring federal money into the workers' pockets if that money instead is tied to capital investments in public transit?

No, you missed the point. Your beaten-to-death-with-a-rabid-coyote-Point 1 is not being payed attention to by anyone but you. Point 2 is exactly what makes no sense, which we ask you clarify, or rather which we have pointed out you misunderstand, and then you keep posting it. Look:


This has already been proven.

It's like debating with a broken tape player...

again...explain how funding for "infrastructure" automatically means funding for cities...especially when help for cities wasn't even on the Conservative agenda.

"Infrastructure" to the conservatives means mainly highways and roads. Rails, subways, pedestrian ways, bikepaths, even power lines since they want to privatize that industry, does not fall under infrastructure's definition for the conservative way of thinking.

I agree with you that public transit should be at the same priority level at the provincial and federal level as David Miller has rightfully put it at the top of his list of issues needing immediate attention. Conservatives are not the people to go to for sympathy though. They'd probably just tell the city off and privatize the TTC instead, claiming it is too expensive.

Look:

in·fra·struc·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nfr-strkchr)
n.
An underlying base or foundation especially for an organization or system.
The basic facilities, services, and installations needed for the functioning of a community or society, such as transportation and communications systems, water and power lines, and public institutions including schools, post offices, and prisons.

Transportation is a small part of Infrastructure, and Public Transit is a small part of Transportation. Do you seriously expect that the conservatives are thinking about public transit or similar services when they say "Infrastructure"? If so, why?

Is there a difference between mod and interpreter?

:bash:

Oh, stop it!
You all know the NDP has the best plan for cities, and you additionally all know that the Liberals are the ones who soaks Toronto to the tune of $7 for so billion a year (and even more for the GTA!) So, let's face it, the Martin Liberal haven't been doing Toronto in favours, and it's unlikely that they will.

For the good of the nation, and avoiding lost rights and freedoms, I am glad that Martin is in power instead of Harper.

Why are you suddenly supporting the NDP now? I thought you were hardcore blue? Are you schitzoid? :weird:

Are Be,

The point was that you can't call one plan better than the other when you claim they are the same. If anything, the Martin Liberals are starting to resemble the Conservatives in terms of their attitude towards the provinces. Do cities in this country get shafted? Yes, but that's where the wealth is concentrated (but not equally distributed).


The other point was that the plans aren't the same.

How are the identical plans not the same?


We fear the worst here. Metropolitan areas, the engines of wealth creation and culture, have needs that small towns just don't have - for mass transit, in particular. There's a compelling argument here for what we might call asymmetrical spending.

However, the fact that Godfrey's portfolio is now about "communities" and not "cities" suggests that Martin's bold promise is mutating into fuzzy generalities, and that the money will be spread too thinly to help the big cities. If that happens, the whole cities agenda will be a monumental failure in public policy.
(AH! THAT LIBERAL PLAN! Much better than the identical Conservative one! The only differences are that the Liberals lied about handing over $0.05, conversely, the Conservatives would have handed over an actual $0.03)


Why are you guys such big fans of the Martin Liberals? Are you happy about the 2 or so billion taken out of the GTA every MONTH!!??!?!? Man, there was darn well near blood on the streets when Harris took out a measly billion, but if Martin takes out 8 or so times that, well, then, I guess that's ok.

With all the crap about platforms, I figured that somebody might as well post them.


This is the NDP platform, Fiberal and Conservative are to come shortly


http://www.ndp.ca/ftp/platform/en/muni.php
Building our municipalities with a real deal

Canada is an increasingly urban nation. Only Australia has a higher percentage of its citizens living in cities. And increasingly, our cities are our economic engines. From Windsor to Whitehorse, from Bathurst to Burnaby, Canada’s communities desperately need a real deal.

In the 21st century, we can’t disconnect problems. Child poverty is related to the lack of affordable housing. Less time with our families is related to urban sprawl and the increased, smog-causing commuting that results. Private water supplies at higher cost to the consumer and toll highways are related to chronic underinvestment in infrastructure.

Jack Layton and Canada’s NDP say it’s time to recognize that Canada’s rural communities, towns and cities are all key to meeting these challenges, helping our businesses prosper and improving the quality of life of our citizens. With a federal government clearly committed to stable, predictable long-term funding, we can work with provinces, territories and municipalities to deliver a real deal.

Jack Layton and Canada’s NDP will build our communities by:

Sharing half the federal gas tax with municipalities for sustainable transportation: public transit, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure in our cities and freight rail and road investment in rural communities. This transfer should not depend on matching funds from provinces, many of which are fighting deficits directly linked to Paul Martin’s choices while finance minister.
Re-starting a 10-year national housing program to build 200,000 affordable and co-op housing units (including homes for seniors, people with disabilities and students), renovate 100,000 existing units, and provide rent supplements to 40,000 low-income tenants, many of whom are single mothers who pay a large percentage of their income in rent. This program would also help Canada’s forest communities by stimulating Canadian demand for lumber.
Including in the housing program tax incentives for developers to renovate and restore buildings in downtown cores, creating new housing stock and rebuilding our city centres and downtowns as an alternative to more urban sprawl.

Using the large profits generated by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to underwrite low-interest mortgages for affordable housing and requiring the CMHC to change its mandate to make it easier for community-based housing organizations to get funding.

Implementing a permanent national infrastructure program so that accountable local governments can own and deliver clean drinking water, waste water reduction, sewage treatment and solid waste reduction strategies to their communities – and create jobs.

Providing incentives to fund public transit passes for employees by giving tax-exempt status to employer-provided transit benefits.

Ensuring all municipalities, not just cities, receive a full refund for the GST they pay as well as a portion of the federal gasoline tax targeted for green transportation infrastructure. It is unfair to force cash-strapped municipalities to pay money received from property taxes to a federal government that has a surplus and for gas taxes to be hoarded by Ottawa.
Paul Martin and the Liberals have:

Abolished the national housing program, which, over its 20-year life, built housing in which 2.2 million Canadians live and, after raising the gas tax supposedly to pay off the deficit, refused to share any of it with municipalities long after the deficit was gone.

Refused to provide funding for urban transit and for rural transportation infrastructure, even as he collected billions per year in gas taxes as finance minister.

I only posted the section on municipalities because the rest was not pertanent to this thread, visite the site (http://ndp.ca/platform/) to see the rest.

Hehehe, this posting of an article reminds me of AreBe!

I couldn't even find the Platform section of the site, just some stupid index that said nothing about municipalities. Maybe somebody else could find it, here is the link below:

http://www.conservative.ca/english/index.asp

I found the Platform for the Liberals but nothing about cities.

http://www.liberal.ca/platform_e_1.aspx

I think what you posted is a load of shit- we all know that the Liberals, in no way, as you indicated,



Abolished the national housing program, which, over its 20-year life, built housing in which 2.2 million Canadians live and, after raising the gas tax supposedly to pay off the deficit, refused to share any of it with municipalities long after the deficit was gone.

Refused to provide funding for urban transit and for rural transportation infrastructure, even as he collected billions per year in gas taxes as finance minister.
WHAT BS! We're supposed to accept this blasphemy simply on the grounds of it being factual???!?!?
How do you know we're not HAPPY getting screwed? Ever consider that getting screwed is our PREFERENCE?!?! C'mon! What's wrong with taking money away form Toronto so that some Quebecois can have a festival with some big Canadian flag over the stage? What's wrong with having crap transit in Toronto in exchange for having in Maple Leaf embedded in the ice of hockey rinks through Quebec? Some people just don't get it!

(Well done, Homer J Simpson.)

I couldn't even find the Platform section of the site, just some stupid index that said nothing about municipalities. Maybe somebody else could find it, here is the link below:

http://www.conservative.ca/english/index.asp

I found the Platform for the Liberals but nothing about cities.

http://www.liberal.ca/platform_e_1.aspx

Here are proper Liberal links:


http://www.liberal.ca/platform_e_3.aspx

http://www.liberal.ca/platform_e_4.aspx

http://www.liberal.ca/cities/index_en.html

http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?site=news&news=543

As anyone with a pulse can see...this is a far more comprehensive plan than that of Conservatives...the main reason being they don't have a plan!

How are the identical plans not the same?



Why are you guys such big fans of the Martin Liberals? Are you happy about the 2 or so billion taken out of the GTA every MONTH!!??!?!? Man, there was darn well near blood on the streets when Harris took out a measly billion, but if Martin takes out 8 or so times that, well, then, I guess that's ok.


How are they identical? I can't imagine how you ever got through law school.

You're the one claiming the plans are the same...so show me evidence. Quoting yourself is not evidence, nor is posting lines from the Conservative platform that have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

EDIT:

You make it sound as if this is the first government in history to take more out of cities than are invested into them. This has always been the case, even with your precious, anti-urban Conservative governments. The fact is, this is probably the first ruling party in power to even acknowledge there is a problem. Something the Conservatives have yet to do.

Well, it was announced during the campaign, and the web pages are different now, but, the plans were identical, but the Conservatives were offering $0.03, not $0.05 the Liberals were. The difference not so much being $0.02 between them, but that there would actually be money with the conservatives, and none from the Liberals.

Regarding law school, I did a heck of a lot of reading and studding precedents- and I read the Globe as well.
Here's a article I think is very informative.

Aid spread too thin is no aid

By JOHN HONDERICH
Tuesday, September 28, 2004 Page - A21 (736 words) Pay Per View

It is a tension as old as the country itself: Rural v. Urban. Town v. City. It's coming into play once again as Paul Martin's government begins to flesh out its new deal for cities.

Excuse me -- make that new deal for cities and communities. What began as a bold exercise to address the economic vitality of Canada's major cities has now morphed into an all-encompassing program to fix up every town, city and village in the land.

It's happened before. In the face of a cities-only initiative, a revolt stirs among the governing party's rural and small-town MPs. Our problems are different but just as severe, they argue. Any new funds should be spread across as many ridings as possible.

Despite the fact that Mr. Martin has long been celebrated as championing a new deal for cities -- only last year he rhapsodized about Canada's cities as "engines of our nation's growth . . . our signature to the world" -- such small-town arguments have again won a sympathetic hearing.

The issue at hand is how to allocate some of the federal gas tax to Canada's cities and communities, a key plank of the federal Liberals' election platform and one promise Mr. Martin seems determined to keep. How this latest battle is resolved should go a long way in determining his resolve to aid the country's largest urban centres.

As has happened before, the smaller communities have lined up on one side, and Canada's largest (so-called "hub") cities, represented by their mayors, on the other. Mr. Martin and his urban lieutenant John Godfrey, Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities, are caught in the middle.

As often happens in these matters, the devil is in the detail. Because the field of municipal affairs falls within provincial jurisdiction, Ottawa is obliged to allocate any funds to the provinces; they, in turn, will pass them on to municipalities.

Both Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Martin have long argued they want part of the $2.2-billion from this initiative to bolster the country's environmental sustainability. Achieving the goals of the Kyoto Accord has also been held up as a federal priority. This might lead one to conclude that any allocation formula should include a component related to public transit, to getting commuters out of their cars and into buses or trains.

The problem is that any such formula skews the allocations in favour of those provinces (B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec) containing Canada's largest cities. Not surprisingly, these cities are also home to the most sophisticated, and expensive, rapid-transit systems, with the most riders.

So it wasn't a great surprise when the hub-city mayors, representing Canada's 10 largest cities, came out for a formula that included a 25-per-cent component for public-transit ridership. They pointed out this formula would help transit in cities representing 65 per cent of Canada's total population, and argued that gas-tax transfers shouldn't be used as equalization payments to help redistribute income throughout the country (we already have a program to do that).

Not lost on anyone, however, was the inevitable result that the remaining 35-per-cent includes most of the have-not provinces, rural areas and Atlantic Canada. They all do relatively better on a formula based on population. In this instance, a one-percentage-point difference is worth $22-million.

So naturally, they are lining up behind a formula that would see 1 per cent of revenues go to each of the 13 provinces and territories, and the remainder distributed on the basis of population. This system also has the advantage of allowing more goodies to be spread out among those small-town and rural ridings.

To date, Mr. Godfrey and apparently Mr. Martin have been firmly on the side of a population-based formula. Any support for the notion that Canada's largest cities have unique transit problems is fast followed by an insistence that all of Canada's communities are linked and their needs universally great.

In this country, it seems, we stand tall when it comes to giving special aid for depleted cod stocks, beleaguered meat producers or ravaged softwood-lumber suppliers -- but not big cities.

At this point, that doesn't seem likely to change.

John Honderich is special ambassador to Toronto Mayor David Miller.

© Copyright 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Well, it was announced during the campaign, and the web pages are different now, but, the plans were identical, but the Conservatives were offering $0.03, not $0.05 the Liberals were. The difference not so much being $0.02 between them, but that there would actually be money with the conservatives, and none from the Liberals.



I know you think this is true, but that doesn't mean it really is true.

Well, it was announced during the campaign, and the web pages are different now, but, the plans were identical, but the Conservatives were offering $0.03, not $0.05 the Liberals were. The difference not so much being $0.02 between them, but that there would actually be money with the conservatives, and none from the Liberals.

Regarding law school, I did a heck of a lot of reading and studding precedents- and I read the Globe as well.
Here's a article I think is very informative.

Aid spread too thin is no aid

By JOHN HONDERICH
Tuesday, September 28, 2004 Page - A21 (736 words) Pay Per View

It is a tension as old as the country itself: Rural v. Urban. Town v. City. It's coming into play once again as Paul Martin's government begins to flesh out its new deal for cities.

Excuse me -- make that new deal for cities and communities. What began as a bold exercise to address the economic vitality of Canada's major cities has now morphed into an all-encompassing program to fix up every town, city and village in the land.

It's happened before. In the face of a cities-only initiative, a revolt stirs among the governing party's rural and small-town MPs. Our problems are different but just as severe, they argue. Any new funds should be spread across as many ridings as possible.

Despite the fact that Mr. Martin has long been celebrated as championing a new deal for cities -- only last year he rhapsodized about Canada's cities as "engines of our nation's growth . . . our signature to the world" -- such small-town arguments have again won a sympathetic hearing.

The issue at hand is how to allocate some of the federal gas tax to Canada's cities and communities, a key plank of the federal Liberals' election platform and one promise Mr. Martin seems determined to keep. How this latest battle is resolved should go a long way in determining his resolve to aid the country's largest urban centres.

As has happened before, the smaller communities have lined up on one side, and Canada's largest (so-called "hub") cities, represented by their mayors, on the other. Mr. Martin and his urban lieutenant John Godfrey, Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities, are caught in the middle.

As often happens in these matters, the devil is in the detail. Because the field of municipal affairs falls within provincial jurisdiction, Ottawa is obliged to allocate any funds to the provinces; they, in turn, will pass them on to municipalities.

Both Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Martin have long argued they want part of the $2.2-billion from this initiative to bolster the country's environmental sustainability. Achieving the goals of the Kyoto Accord has also been held up as a federal priority. This might lead one to conclude that any allocation formula should include a component related to public transit, to getting commuters out of their cars and into buses or trains.

The problem is that any such formula skews the allocations in favour of those provinces (B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec) containing Canada's largest cities. Not surprisingly, these cities are also home to the most sophisticated, and expensive, rapid-transit systems, with the most riders.

So it wasn't a great surprise when the hub-city mayors, representing Canada's 10 largest cities, came out for a formula that included a 25-per-cent component for public-transit ridership. They pointed out this formula would help transit in cities representing 65 per cent of Canada's total population, and argued that gas-tax transfers shouldn't be used as equalization payments to help redistribute income throughout the country (we already have a program to do that).

Not lost on anyone, however, was the inevitable result that the remaining 35-per-cent includes most of the have-not provinces, rural areas and Atlantic Canada. They all do relatively better on a formula based on population. In this instance, a one-percentage-point difference is worth $22-million.

So naturally, they are lining up behind a formula that would see 1 per cent of revenues go to each of the 13 provinces and territories, and the remainder distributed on the basis of population. This system also has the advantage of allowing more goodies to be spread out among those small-town and rural ridings.

To date, Mr. Godfrey and apparently Mr. Martin have been firmly on the side of a population-based formula. Any support for the notion that Canada's largest cities have unique transit problems is fast followed by an insistence that all of Canada's communities are linked and their needs universally great.

In this country, it seems, we stand tall when it comes to giving special aid for depleted cod stocks, beleaguered meat producers or ravaged softwood-lumber suppliers -- but not big cities.

At this point, that doesn't seem likely to change.

John Honderich is special ambassador to Toronto Mayor David Miller.

© Copyright 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.


Well, no offense, but your reasoning skills don't seem to have gotten much of a workout.

The fact is, the Conservatives have no plan and you're unable to prove otherwise. It's not even on their site. The Liberals have it in quite a few places...and not just a gas tax proposal, but a full plan.

Here are proper Liberal links:


http://www.liberal.ca/platform_e_3.aspx

http://www.liberal.ca/platform_e_4.aspx

http://www.liberal.ca/cities/index_en.html

http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?site=news&news=543

As anyone with a pulse can see...this is a far more comprehensive plan than that of Conservatives...the main reason being they don't have a plan!

Thanks SD, I was working and didn't have the time to properly research the platform.

(no problem AreBe :))

The fact is, the Conservatives have no plan and you're unable to prove otherwise. It's not even on their site. The Liberals have it in quite a few places...and not just a gas tax proposal, but a full plan.

And the Liberal plan, as it stands, is not much of a plan...


....Excuse me -- make that new deal for cities and communities. What began as a bold exercise to address the economic vitality of Canada's major cities has now morphed into an all-encompassing program to fix up every town, city and village in the land. ....
To date, Mr. Godfrey and apparently Mr. Martin have been firmly on the side of a population-based formula. Any support for the notion that Canada's largest cities have unique transit problems is fast followed by an insistence that all of Canada's communities are linked and their needs universally great.

In this country, it seems, we stand tall when it comes to giving special aid for depleted cod stocks, beleaguered meat producers or ravaged softwood-lumber suppliers -- but not big cities.


At this point, that doesn't seem likely to change.

JOHN HONDERICH- (I think he used to publish the Star, and a Liberal backer.)

And the Liberal plan, as it stands, is not much of a plan...


JOHN HONDERICH- (I think he used to publish the Star, and a Liberal backer.)


I never said the Liberal plan was perfect...but it's a very big step in the right direction. And some of it has already been commited to. You'd have a hard time convincing the Conservatives that their even is a problem!

Check out the Liberals and thier bold city plan: :lol: !!! :rofl:

Cities: Martin failed significantly to fulfill his earlier promises of a "new deal for cities" by delivering a package that is spread out over all communities, regardless of how small, rather than a package designed to help large cities, where the need is greatest. Also, Martin should have started to pass along part of the federal gasoline tax much faster than planned now. Cities should get 2.5 cents per litre of fuel starting next year, and 5 cents a litre in 2007 — not five years from now as currently planned.
Oct. 6, 2004. 01:00 AM
Martin outlines realistic agenda


In his first Speech from the Throne as prime minister last February, Paul Martin outlined what he called "an ambitious agenda for an ambitious country." Trying to put a fresh face on a tired Liberal government, Martin promised billions of extra dollars for health care, cities, the environment. And he offered new initiatives on education, defence and child care.

Within a few weeks, though , Martin called a federal election, and little of his "ambitious agenda" became reality. Now, after voters across Canada reduced the Liberals to a minority government in the June 28 election, Martin is no longer promising bold actions, big plans, grand visions.

Instead, Martin's second Throne Speech in barely eight months, read yesterday by Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson at the opening of the 38th Parliament of Canada, contains a more modest agenda that, ultimately, may go a long way to improving the lives of ordinary Canadians.

For Martin, and indeed for the entire nation, the reality of a minority Parliament is that the government cannot attempt bold strokes that would dramatically alter the country's direction, or its policies.

A chastened Martin seems to have heard the message from voters, who want a solid government that acts to improve their lot, not with disruptive initiatives, but through incremental steps, with measurable results.

Yesterday, Martin promised to do just that on health care, cities, housing, child care, aboriginals, the environment, the North, and foreign policy. There were no surprises, nothing that deviated from the Liberals' election promises, nothing with huge new price tags.

Key among Martin's priorities were:

Health Care: Here, the speech is more a retrospective on last month's 10-year deal with the premiers than a forward-looking action plan. It is a reflection of the fact that the Liberals have acted on their most important election promise. The challenge remaining is to ensure the provinces deliver the results they committed to as their part of the $41 billion deal.

Cities: Martin failed significantly to fulfill his earlier promises of a "new deal for cities" by delivering a package that is spread out over all communities, regardless of how small, rather than a package designed to help large cities, where the need is greatest. Also, Martin should have started to pass along part of the federal gasoline tax much faster than planned now. Cities should get 2.5 cents per litre of fuel starting next year, and 5 cents a litre in 2007 — not five years from now as currently planned.

Child Care: The speech repeated his campaign promise to spend $5 billion over five years to create 250,000 new child-care spaces. And the renewed pledge to create a national system of early learning and child care came with a pragmatic nod to the provinces, emphasizing "real choices" for parents and "flexibility" for provinces to address their own needs.

Environment: He touched on all the right notes on conservation, clean energy alternatives, and a new deal with the U.S. on improving air and water quality, including protection of the Great Lakes. But on the most pressing environmental issue, climate change, the government merely reiterated its intention to respect its commitment to the Kyoto Accord.

Aboriginals: Citing fetal alcohol syndrome and teen suicide as "the intolerable consequences of the yawning gaps that separate so many aboriginal people from other Canadians," the government reiterated its commitment to address the urgent problems of native peoples.

Together, these initiatives fall short of the aggressive agenda for change that backbench Liberals, opposition parties, and many Canadians might have preferred. At the same time, the speech ducked mention of hot-button issues, such as missile defence or gay marriage, that could distract his government as it negotiates the early days of minority Parliament.

Instead, the Throne Speech sets out a realistic agenda for this parliamentary session. Now, it is up to the opposition parties to go beyond their normal grandstanding and work with the government to improve coming legislation, to give swift passage to reasonable initiatives, and not to block any and all government measures just for the sake of partisan politics.


› Be Thankful! Subscribe now and Save 50%!
FAQs| Site Map| Privacy Policy| Webmaster| Subscribe| My Subscription
Home| GTA| Business| Waymoresports| A&E| Life
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.

CNEWS
Wed, October 6, 2004

No meat or spuds for T.O.
FEDS' FUEL TAX MONEY DELAYED
By ROB GRANATSTEIN, CITY HALL BUREAU

TORONTO HOPED for some meat and potatoes details about cities in the throne, speech but instead were delivered a plate of "thin gruel." Toronto Mayor David Miller wanted the federal government to hand over 5 cents of the federal fuel tax within three years, but will have to wait five years for the full amount.

"We want to see some urgency so these immense challenges cities face can be overcome," Miller said.

Those challenges -- fixing the city's crumbling water system, roads, and public transit -- will not be met by a fuel tax (both gas and diesel fuel) that takes five years, Miller has said.

Toronto pumps $11 billion in tax revenues that helps out the rest of the country. Miller wants that money left here.

Toronto's budget chief, David Soknacki, said the "content-free" speech doesn't say when the fuel tax would be delivered, the amount, or how it will be allocated.

"We were hoping to have some of the tools to help us address immigration, transit, private transportation and child care," he said. "Instead we were left with some pretty thin gruel."

There isn't much to help the city this year, he added.

But with a new deal for cities on the agenda, and talk about affordable housing and immigration in the throne speech, Soknacki and Miller are hopeful and waiting for the federal budget early next year.

Oshawa Mayor John Gray said he is happy to see that ensuring the automotive sector's success is specifically mentioned.

"Implementing an automotive strategy is absolutely critical for the Canadian economy and to the health of communities like Oshawa, Oakville and Windsor," Gray said.

"We need to make sure we preserve the job base here," he said. "When they get eroded and moved to the southern U.S. where there's huge incentives, those are jobs and prosperity that permanently leave the Canadian economy."

I'd like to see Thundere Bay get some money. But no, it all goes to /toronto. We are inferior. The government doesn't dcare about us..

*plots takeover of Ottawa*

I'd like to see Thundere Bay get some money. But no, it all goes to /toronto. We are inferior. The government doesn't dcare about us..

*plots takeover of Ottawa*
WHAT A LOAD OF BUNK! That's like saying that the Liberal plan is better than the Conservative one!


Paul Martin's government begins to flesh out its new deal for cities.

....Excuse me -- make that new deal for cities and communities. What began as a bold exercise to address the economic vitality of Canada's major cities has now morphed into an all-encompassing program to fix up every town, city and village in the land. ....
To date, Mr. Godfrey and apparently Mr. Martin have been firmly on the side of a population-based formula. Any support for the notion that Canada's largest cities have unique transit problems is fast followed by an insistence that all of Canada's communities are linked and their needs universally great.

In this country, it seems, we stand tall when it comes to giving special aid for depleted cod stocks, beleaguered meat producers or ravaged softwood-lumber suppliers -- but not big cities.


At this point, that doesn't seem likely to change.

© Copyright 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Consider also:
, Martin called a federal election, and little of his "ambitious agenda" became reality. Now, after voters across Canada reduced the Liberals to a minority government in the June 28 election, Martin is no longer promising bold actions, big plans, grand visions.

Instead, Martin's second Throne Speech in barely eight months, read yesterday by Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson at the opening of the 38th Parliament of Canada, contains a more modest agenda ...
....

Cities: Martin failed significantly to fulfill his earlier promises of a "new deal for cities" by delivering a package that is spread out over all communities, regardless of how small, rather than a package designed to help large cities, where the need is greatest. Also, Martin should have started to pass along part of the federal gasoline tax much faster than planned now. Cities should get 2.5 cents per litre of fuel starting next year, and 5 cents a litre in 2007 — not five years from now as currently planned.

....

Together, these initiatives fall short of the aggressive agenda for change that backbench Liberals, opposition parties, and many Canadians might have preferred. At the same time, the speech ducked mention of hot-button issues, such as missile defence or gay marriage, that could distract his government as it negotiates the early days of minority Parliament.


Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved.

Further consider:


TORONTO HOPED for some meat and potatoes details about cities in the throne, speech but instead were delivered a plate of "thin gruel." Toronto Mayor David Miller wanted the federal government to hand over 5 cents of the federal fuel tax within three years, but will have to wait five years for the full amount.

"We want to see some urgency so these immense challenges cities face can be overcome," Miller said.

....

Toronto pumps $11 billion in tax revenues that helps out the rest of the country. Miller wants that money left here.
(Thanks, Paul Martin... Thanks a lot! )
....

"We were hoping to have some of the tools to help us address immigration, transit, private transportation and child care," he said. "Instead we were left with some pretty thin gruel."

CNEWS

WHAT A LOAD OF BUNK!

They promised to fix our highways. Years ago. Oh, wait, i think that was the conservatives, actually. We could use a new highway. Or federal recognition.

They promised to fix our highways. Years ago. Oh, wait, i think that was the conservatives, actually. We could use a new highway. Or federal recognition.


:hahaha:

AreBe's brainwashing seems to grow worse by the day :)

He doesn't have a brain to wash. We've said that already.

They promised to fix our highways. Years ago. Oh, wait, i think that was the conservatives, actually. We could use a new highway. Or federal recognition.

Good point!
Federal recognition would help.
AS KING DAVID SAID:


"We want to see some urgency so these immense challenges cities face can be overcome," Miller said....

"We were hoping to have some of the tools to help us address immigration, transit, private transportation and child care," he said. "Instead we were left with some pretty thin gruel."

The Liberal plan for Toronto:
Toronto pumps $11 billion in tax revenues that helps out the rest of the country. Miller wants that money left here.