Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

From powerhouse to poor cousin

KAREN HOWLETT AND HEATHER SCOFFIELD

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 9:23 PM EDT 30/04/08

Canada's once-mighty economic engine, Ontario could slip to have-not status within two years, a report predicts ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Ontario is in a time of transition with manufacturing readjusting to the new global reality of cheaper labour offshore and the subsequent loss of jobs.
    South of the border, they are discussing such worries. Here, we taunt the victim and isolate them.
    Ontario deserves support and attention from our Canadians gov't. Encouragement to restabilize from the demoralizing loss of jobs and the shift in the global fiscal economy. Respect whilst doing it.
  2. Citizen Kane from Oshawa, Canada writes: I have been living in Ontario since 1988. I have been working and paying taxes since I was 17, that would be 1992. All I can say it's about time the other provinces supported Ontario, like it's been doing for decades, without getting any credits for it.
  3. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: Wlikie, your posts border on hilarity. The "transition time" you talk about has been discussed for over 3 decades. It has had the attention of government, all stripes of government, over that entire time. You make it sound as if it is a recent phenomenon. First it was competition from the Japanese. Then it was free trade with the US and Mexico and the impending doom associated with that. Now it is cheaper "offshore" (read Asian) manufacturing. In reading the article, and its predecessor yesterday, it is clear that the "have not" status of Ontario is purely based on a re-definition of equalization that takes resource revenues (read Alberta revenues)into account. Ontario's economy is no worse off, nor better off for that matter, than it was 10 years ago. It still produces cars. It still innovates. It still has a wonderful agriculture sector. And it still enjoys very strong employment levels. As for you Citizen Kane, I can say that my first engineering business and my family home, both of which I lost in 1983, largely courtesy of the National Energy Program that allowed Ontarians to have cheap gasoline, was more than enough "support for Ontario" to last me a lifetime. Oh and congratulations on paying taxes since 1992. Myself, I calculate that I have paid just over $4 million in taxes since 1970. Please send me a kewpie doll and a hero medal.
  4. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Ontario will continue to be a wealthy province giving $21 billion per year to help the 'have not' provinces, which now includes Ontario. go figure.

    This is the logic of the current equalization formula. Something needs to change so that Ontario doesn't suffer undeserved humiliation because of its generosity to the rest of Canada.

    But don't expect anything from Jim Flaherty; he sees this unfair situation as an opportunity to dictate Ontario's fiscal policies--which have nothing to do with its economic troubles. You can't legislate away a low U.S. dollar, $120/barrel oil, and a shrinking U.S. market for Ontario manufactured products, but that doesn't stop the ideologues from piling on. For Ontario to get help, there would need to be an adult government in Ottawa.
  5. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: A government whose economic strategy relies on boosting a few thousand jobs in the auto sector, which spends blindly without requiring value for money, and which fails to manage its own programs, is headed for disaster. Ontario has frittered away its opportunities in service of the squeaky wheel. Only the TV bite and large visible sector stakeholders count here. Little wonder it is floundering now, but at last we will have an opportunity to see a little innovation, political weather permitting.
  6. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Ontario floundering? Small communities that have lost manufacturing jobs are greatly affected as there is nothing, quickly to replace the jobs.
    Ontario should keep the money that we're giving to 'equilization' for our own priorities during tough times.
  7. Robert Mackidd from Winnipeg, Canada writes:
    As a westerner I believe that federal policy was always developed around Quebec and Ontario. Its hard to argue because the simple fact is that is where the votes are.

    I have no great problem with the east getting their fair share, but I do believe its high time that the federal governmnet create the circumstances where all regions of the country get a sustainable share of the economic rewards.

    For example, I could never understand why the federal government located the majority of the western federal offices in Edmonton. A better economic balance would have been either Regina, Saskatoon or Winnipeg.
  8. John Doucette from Manotick, Canada writes: Its not just Ontario! The entire nation is regressing towards poverty and true colonial status. That's what the Conlib and Libcon Parties have managed to do to us. When the oil runs out, and all the money has flown, Alberta and NFLD will be right up there with Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. God bless our Canadian colony and its shortsighted leaders.
  9. M Liggins from Perth, Canada writes: Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: For Ontario to get help, there would need to be an adult government in Ottawa.

    Totally agreed Nick, but one modifier to be added:
    For Ontario to get help, there would need to be an adult government in Ottawa, AND an adult, thinking government in Ontario.

    While the economic dislocation currently in play has developed over some time, unfortunately our intellectually challenged premier seems to be at a loss as to what to do other than the usual posturing and dealing with non issues that have become the hallmark of this government.

    The combination of idiots at both ends of the highway does not bode well for all Ontarians
  10. Nancy Cole from Timmins, writes: Ontario is a manufacturing sector. Ontario is not an oil producer so high oil prices, high Canadian dollar cheap foreign goods = bad times for Ontario. We need to lower our transfer payments to the other so called have not provinces and then Ontario would be able to get through these bad economic times. Perhaps the federal government could stop subsidizing big oil companies that post these huge profits and help Ontario’s struggling manufacturing sector. Perhaps Mr. Harper should stop and think if he wants to win a majority he should help Ontario out of this economic mess instead of pointing fingers as to who is responsible for it. The federal and provincial government normally work together to solve economic problems but instead Mr. Flarety x finance minister for Ontario responsible for a 5.6 billion dollar deficit tells Ontario that he knows how to fix Ontario’s problems. Well Mr. Flarety thanks to you we are still digging out of your reign as Ontario’s finance minister. So please stop pointing fingers and come to the table and adjust Ontario’s transfer payments to reflect the economic downturn. Your little gst cut did nothing to help Ontario.
  11. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: If he is serious about treating Ontarians with respect, Harper would replace his minister of finance. Flaherty has been the voice of too much negativity and is now a lightning rod of divisiveness.
    Difficult times in Ontario need to be treated with respect and concern. Flaherty has proven himself incapable of either.
  12. Lowen Wrainger from Canada writes: So why have most of the immigrants been coming to southern Ontario and why are we still encouraging immigration when workers here are being laid off in droves? Oh yea, I forgot, the layoffs are in the decently paid sector .... prelude for re-structuring to min-wage jobs all round.
  13. Pierre-Yves P from Toronto, Canada writes: I find it worrying to see some Ontarians looking at the assisted province status as the only way out of current difficulties. I have seen first hand in Quebec the economic, social and mental devastation this kind of passive attitude can produce on a whole society over the long run, and believe me you do not want to go there: being on the receiving end of equalization payments because of poor economic and fiscal policies is no more glorious or enjoyable than being on welfare because you cannot take care of your own life.
  14. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: >> Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Flaherty has been the voice of too much negativity and is now a lightning rod of divisiveness.

    McGuinty, too, has been divisive and confrontational.
  15. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Ontarians are questioning why we are sending $20 billion dollars to the rest of Canada.
    McGuinty was re-elected, recently, as Premier of Ontarian.
    Flaherty's bunch of deficit funding thugs were turfed out of power, in Ontario.
  16. Rick C from Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada:

    Spare the drivel. When oil hit $11.98/bbl in '98-99 there was no support or attention from the Federal gov't. Nor was there encouragement to restabilize from the demoralizing loss of jobs.

    Nope the ROC just said tough luck oil prices are low; deal with it.

    Well Ontario is no different. Our dollar is high and the US is going through a recession. Deal with it.
  17. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Rick C from Canada: Where are you from, Rick C?
  18. Rick C from Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Rick C from Canada: Where are you from, Rick C? Calgary
  19. J Hare from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Couple of thoughts. 1) Ontario contains 40% of pop (apoximatly), so any downturn in Ontario has larger impact on GDP and federal tax revenues then others provinces. This will seriously affect the feds budget perdictions / solvency, as noted this week by various reports. 2) I have yet to be convinced that NAFTA and free trade produce a net bennifit to workers in Canada. The figures seem to go both ways but then you start questioning the sources and nothing seems to add up. As I said still not convinced of the benifit to workers (rather then those who own / opperate the companies). 3) I have also yet to hear how the "new" economy is going to produce jobs or tradeable products in the quanities large enough to be socialy sustainable. Idea trading / stock trading / ebuisness is great but how does this produce comodities of value or ad value to existing comodities? If we have nothing to sell how does one make money? 4) I think we can all agree that the National energy policy was a bad idea (both in design and implimentation). I'm not going to say, just get over it, but I will say keeping this bone of contention alive does few any good. At the same time, the current situation of being forced to price our oil identically between domestic and forign markets does not seem like a good idea either. 5) Finally, I think that what needs to be noted is the language that has grown up around this debate has clouded the issue. The Povince of Ontario (who has the largest number of Canadians) has helped subsidise the settlement of the rest of the country in a number of ways (paid for the railroad, a lot of the telecomunications infistructure etc.) and also provided the largest market for the good produced by these regions all of which encouraged regional growth. What is being claimed now is Ontario is unable to currently support these other regions and may need support. Is this entirely unreasonable? James Hare
  20. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Tough times in Ontario.

    The CDN dollar on par with the US and Ontario can't compete.
    Federal political power centred in the West.

    The alienation of Ontario.

    The centre of the universe inexorably moving west.

    Ontario is a special province.

    Special Olympics.
  21. Rick C from Canada writes: Hare from Saskatoon, Canada writes: "At the same time, the current situation of being forced to price our oil identically between domestic and forign markets does not seem like a good idea either." Why? It makes perfect sense for oil to sold at market price. Canadians don't get a discount on cars made in Ontario, we don't get a discount on Canadian lumber nor anything made in Canada. Oil is no different; simply a commodity.
  22. Mike........ Just Mike from Toronto, Canada writes: Hey Michael Sharp thanks for you stupid comment. Listen up you simpleton...Do you know that Ontario supported your beautiful yet broke province when it was needed...Guess what? We didn't taunt your people because as Canadians we care about each other. You are a effing idiot. You make me ashamed to be Canadian. Go to the Malahat and throw yourself off a nice cliff idiot.
  23. J Hare from Saskatoon, Canada writes: To Rick C, Currently, certian comodities are priced so they do not refect cost of the comodity. For instance. Gasoline varries across Canada, cheaper in some places yet not in others but this does not seem to be linked to suply and demand principles. This means that the imupt costs of the fuel is not reflected in the cost of the comodity. Another example, a barrel of oil is produced in Fort McMurray. Its value is the price of producing the oil but not yet transporting it. This means that the cost of a barrel, should in theroy be less then when its is transported to market. Instead they cost the west pays for fuel is the same as the east and everyone else North America wide yet does not reflect that true cost in any given market which I thought was the underpinning of capitalism (supply of a comodity in any given area versus the demand in any given area) instead of what is occuring now due to NAFTA. Please correct me if I am wrong in this. To throw another wrinkle into all of this these are provincial resources, ie owned by the state right? So NAFTA prevents the provincial gov. and suppliers in Alberta from selling Albertans their own fuel inexpensively right? It is usually access to a cheaper comodity that allows a regional economy to out-perfrom compeditiors and grow rapidly. I would have thought Westerners would have been demanding this? James Hare
  24. Karl Lauten from Canada writes: Ontario is still, by far, the wealthiest province in Canada having accrued fortunes by politically maintianing it's special power position for the past 140 years. Don't panic! you will still be rich tomorrow just not able to be quite as smug about it as other regions develop more than just mines, oil wells and lumber mills.
  25. Greg Dawson from Canada writes: As good Canadians I feel it is important that we find a way to compromise. Ontario deserves support. Ontario should suck it up and deal with it. Hey, I pay taxes. Blame Japan, no Mexico no Asia. [Insert reminder about National Energy Program here] . Blame Jim Flaherty. Blame McGuinty. Blame Flaherty AND McGuinty. Failed economic strategies are the problem. Ontario should just keep equilization money. Why are so many federal government offices in Edmonton? The sky is falling and our nation is regressing towards poverty. GST didn't help Ontario. Being a have not province will suck the will to live out of Ontarians. Where are you from? Canada. Well thought out comment that no one will read. Politically incorrect comment about Special Olympics. Oil is like any other commodity. Oil is not like any other commodity. Don't panic.
  26. J Hare from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Love your comment Greg Dawson. Wonderful. Brought a smile to my face.

    James Hare
  27. Michael Manning from Mississauga, Canada writes: James Hare - your comments on the cost of oil and gasoline miss out a few things. The primary reason for variation in the cost of gasoline across the country is the variance in provincial gasoline taxes. The secondary reason is the cost of transportation from refineries. The tertiary reason is the local market conditions. Locational monopolies occur when there is only one gas station in a town/neighbourhood or on the stretch of road that leads to a freeway or an aeroport's rental car return. Likewise an abundance of gas stations leads to near perfect competition and price wars. The price of a barrel of oil, like any commodity, is based on it's location at the moment of legal transfer, i.e., either the buyer or the seller will be responsible for it's shipment, depending upon the terms of the contract. At $100/bbl, transportation costs shrink in terms of percentage of value but they still are included in the cost. Government intervention in the trade of commodities is always best avoided. It distorts rational economic behaviour and never for the better. The rationale is always about "fairness" but really is a matter of transferring wealth from one person to another. Wealth redistribution is most efficiently handled through tax policy. The NEP was bad policy that failed to deliver its intended benefits and resulted in a lot of pain for a lot of people to boot. It is a classic example of why, no matter how hard you try, you cannot interfere with microeconomics without serious negative impacts. Ontario's economy has diversified well over the last couple of decades. It is not as nearly reliant on manufacturing in general and the auto industry in particular as it once was. There should be NO government interference in the market. Financial support during retraining for those that lose their jobs, yes, corporate welfare no.
  28. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Mike........ Just Mike from Toronto...

    I love you man.

    The shoe's on the other foot now, eh sport?
    Not liking it so much are you, sport?

    I love you man.
  29. J Hare from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Michael Manning from Mississauga.

    Good post. I would agree with you that intervention by gov. to manage supply demand economincs is prone to failure and market disruption. The point I was trying to raise was most major economies were built on the consumption of a natural resource for a lower price then their compeditor and this would provide a base for increasing other types of economic output the easyist to point to being food supply but could include other comodities. I guess I question the logic of restricting these natural locational advantages though national trade agreements. Are these not simply another form of micromanaging supply demand comodity prices by imposing maco economic priciples?

    James Hare
  30. Rick C from Canada writes: J Hare from Saskatoon, Canada writes: "Another example, a barrel of oil is produced in Fort McMurray. Its value is the price of producing the oil but not yet transporting it. This means that the cost of a barrel, should in theroy be less then when its is transported to market. Instead they cost the west pays for fuel is the same as the east and everyone else North America wide yet does not reflect that true cost in any given market..." J Hare; the oil (bitumen) from Ft. Mac is purchased by refineries to be be refined into gasoline, heating oil etc. The price of a bbl of bitumen from Ft. Mac is less than West Texas Intermediate grade oil and the refined products that go to market. Canadians out east get their fuel from Irving refineries out east; not the west. The cost of gas does tend to reflect the true cost in any given market. Large urban centers where it is more efficient to transport fuel to tend to have lower gas prices than small, remote towns. The further you are from the refinery the higher the price of gas tends to be. Albertans on average enjoy the lowest gas prices in the country. "Please correct me if I am wrong in this. To throw another wrinkle into all of this these are provincial resources, ie owned by the state right? So NAFTA prevents the provincial gov. and suppliers in Alberta from selling Albertans their own fuel inexpensively right?" Natural resources are under provincial jurisdiction that is correct. NAFTA does prevent special pricing to both Albertans and Canadians. It essentially prevents another NEP. Last time I checked the people of Ontario weren't getting Honda Civics made in their province any cheaper than people in Alberta.
  31. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Ontario has never taunted the West.
    That's true.

    The opposite of love is not hate.

    It is indifference.

    Ontario has always taken the West for granted. Indifferent to their existence. Ontario, the self-proclaimed centre of the universe.
    The Western colonies were cute and made Canada such a BIG country and everybody knew Canada was really Ontario.

    Ontario really has no clue how reviled Trudeau was out here.
    How reviled the federal Liberals are out here.

    So when we see Onatrio continue to support the reviled Liberals and reap the rewards of that allegiance, you're bloody right we'll taunt you.

    Reap what you sow.
    Best served cold.
  32. Kan Tankerous from Tronna, Canada writes: Sheesh Michael Sharp, for someone who constantly bellyaches that nobody care what Ontario says or does you sure do obsess and fetishize over it an awful lo. Your slip is showing.
  33. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland giving money to Ontario will be so delicious we'll hardly be able to stand it.

    Yummy.
  34. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Ontario isn't feeling healing of the fiscal imbalance improvements that Harper campaigned on.
  35. Mike........ Just Mike from Toronto, Canada writes: Wow Sharp. Such insite. Thanks for coming out sparky. Not to repeat myself but you are aware that Ontario helped out B.C. when it was needed...Never did we gloat or anything of the sort...You also realize that if Ontario sinks the rest of the country does as well right? It's all good. Love and respect right? Grow up buddy. It's pretty disgusting that you are looking forward to seeing your fellow Canadian suffer. What a patriot you are sir.
  36. Fake Name from Canada writes: Mike ... Just Mike: I don't think you quite understand. See, to Sharp, people east of Manitoba aren't "fellow Canadians". They're vermin.
  37. Rick C from Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: "Ontario isn't feeling healing of the fiscal imbalance improvements that Harper campaigned on." Sorry Catherine but the concensus is that Alberta and Ontario benefitted the most from the re-worked equalization formula based on the O'Brien report. Ontario's current economic woes have nothing to do with the Federal gov't. There is little they nor McGuinty can do to affect the underlying fundamentals of a high Canadian dollar and the economic debacle in the US.
  38. Jasper the Black Lab from Vancouver and Elsewhere, Canada writes:
    Newfoundland heading to "have" status, Ontario likely to be temporarily "have not" (as was B.C. a few years ago).

    I see this as the Equalization Program working largely as it should.
  39. Mike........ Just Mike from Toronto, Canada writes: Fake Name. Agreed. It's rather pathetic to read the nonsensicle ramblings of some jerk who get's off on others hard times. If you where to ask me...I consider people from St-John's Newfoundland to Victoria nay Tofino to be Canadians. I take no pleasure when fellow Canadians suffer. Sharp is a pathetic individual what a joke this guy is.
  40. Kan Tankerous from Tronna, Canada writes: Michael Sharp is a latent Ontarian, it's obvious, and his horizons are narrower than the Humpback Road.
  41. jack Bauer from Canada writes: If SARS and the power outage were the Conservatives fault than surely this mess is Dalton's fault. Come now Liberals if you can't admit this then there is no sense in discussing it any further......Flaherty is looking pretty smart right now, and Premier Doo little has done little to help his own cause !!!Looks good on the Hall of Fame Liar he is!!!
  42. Is Dion from France or from Canada writes: The defeatist attitude coming from some Ontarians is astounding. Those of you that are proudly boasting that "It's about time the rest of Canada took care of us" should be looking into the mirror and asking yourselves why. Is it really beneficial to you to take that position? Should you not be asking what can you pressure your government to do that would help alleviate the situation? Or questioning them on what they have done to contribute to the current problem? Yes, manufacturing has taken a major hit, and yes there is a global downturn. However, of all provinces in Canada, Ontario should be the one that is able to weather the storm. I hope you all can sleep well after making your bed.
  43. Dennis Rice from St. John's, Canada writes: It's extraordinary how quickly you Ontarians are catching onto the nature of the equalization system, now that you're poised to take advantage of it.

    For years, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been contributing to federal coffers through taxes and oil revenues, some of which was returned to us, but none of that was considered by the provinces "supporting" us. Now that you need it, it's time to keep your money to take care of yourselves? Forgive me if I think that's a pile of crap.
  44. Tim Cares from Canada writes: It's all about screwing Ontario. If we qualify, they will change the rules, just like they did in the 1970s.
    Stop equalization payments, they just discourage economic development.
  45. Tim Cares from Canada writes: Hey but keep buying crap from China, you'll save a few bucks on that shirt you like. Or that washing machine from Mexico.

    Might end up costing you more in EI premiums but don't think that far in advance.
  46. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: One thing is certain. "Government" is not going to fix this problem. Get corporate taxes as low as possible and step out of the way. Industry needs to muddle through on its own. Obselete industries need to be shaken out and allowed to disappear. Manufacturing jobs of the assembly line variety will continue to flow to third world countries, as they should. Only private investment in high capital, high tech ventures will turn things around. And that takes time. Government's only responsibility, whether federal or provincial, is investing in infrastructure, and ensuring our education institutions are up to the task of producing the needed research and knowledge professionals. (That means no more "Research Chairs" for sociologists and women's studies professors.)
  47. Tim Cares from Canada writes: Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:...

    Don't worry Michael, boom towns tend to eventually bust.
  48. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Ontario gave us the Leafs.

    Rock on, Ontario.
  49. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Mike........ Just Mike from Toronto.

    Let's be clear, sunshine.

    I hate the LPC.
    They nearly broke up this country you claim to love all of.

    Here's the kicker.

    Ontario loves the LPC.
    That's because the LPC favour Ontario.

    Ontario is just reaping what they have sown.
    They'll ne better once they think CPC.

    Like lower their corporate taxes instead of looking for corporate welfare.
    Corporate welfare is an LPC idea.
    Lowering corporate taxes is a CPC idea.

    Ontario loves the LPC who nearly broke up this country and they want corporate welfare.

    They have nothing but my contempt.
  50. J Hare from Saskatoon, Canada writes: High tech industries are great but they themselves are not secure from being outsources themselves to other countries as has been demonstrated by India producing computer chips or computer programing. National boundries and trading zones only work when people in both trading zones earn comparable wages and have comparable standards of living. Otherwise any productivity advantages will quickly be overcome by lower wage costs. Saying the government has no place or little place in regulating trade I feel misses the entire point of government. If I were an investor why would I choose to invest in Canada over other locations? If we assume imput costs are the same (building, hireing, training, etc.) then all that is left is running costs. Guess who is less expensive? I'll not try and debate the merrits of hands off government or hands on government with regards to economy as that debate would take to long and would veer quickly off topic. Also I would not comment on the nature of universites this again would take to much time.

    James Hare
  51. aging oldtool from Canada writes: Mike Sharp from Victoria I noticed a slight positive blip on the TSE shortly after you announced that truckload of contempt you've drivin to Queens Park.

    By the way, some are saying that since you live in Victoria you ought to be fully familiar with corporate welfare. Invest in a fish farm and watch how quickly both the province and feds rush to your defence while combating those pesky wild fish stocks hat just won't go away.
  52. Broken Record from Victoria, B.C., Canada writes: Canada is a country which will fail because of the dog-in-the-manger regionalism so evident in these postings. This simple-minded mentality is reinforced by a Constitution that was obsolete before it was even signed as it was based on the rural Canada of the BNA act and which Trudeau didn't bother updating as he was more concerned with boosting his personal prestige than whether the Constution would work or not. A friend of mine once remarked that Victoria would be the most perfect place on earth if it weren't for its inhabitants (I agree!) and with the small-minded attitudes of most Canadians, as epitomised by so many of these posts, the same might be said of the whole country. As long as provinces and regions are constitutionally obliged to be pitted against each other and forced to go cap in hand to Ottawa and other provinces and regions, because the Constitution says it must be so, Canada has a very small future.
  53. M Poland from Calgary, Canada writes: I think that Ontarians are quite able to work hard, innovate and create to help get their province off its knees, and avoid receiving any degrading equalization payments. The feds will help [e.g. change the formula again] If it takes a while for Ontario's political class to realize that their policies do not help, well maybe they really should listen to Mr. Flaherty [he makes sense to me] If Ontario needs a hand-up, or a [temporary] hand-out, well Alberta stands ready as ever to assist any Canadian region in need. We have only to think of Ontario's example these past 50 years, and our own these past 45, to guide us into an uncertain future.
  54. Kan Tankerous from Tronna, Canada writes: Michael Sharp's slip is really showing.
  55. michael morris from Prescott, Canada writes: As long as Canadians elect small minded politicians, Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien, Clark, Martin, Harper, Mcsguinty, Harris, any NDP government, what do you expect? Good, honest, intelligent people do not want to have anything to do with the provincial/federal politics of me/my party first. Started with Trudeau and went down hill from there. Last descent PM was Mike Pearson.
  56. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Ontario relies heavily on the manufacturing sector and the US economny. Both are struggling in North America right now and Ontario is being hit the hardest of all Candian provinces.

    Ontario will bounce back. We have the skills, the infrastructure and ability to become the engine for Canada again.

    Even if McGuinty is our premier....sorry people, I had to get a partisan shot in there...I can't help myself!!
  57. Fuzzy Bare from Ontario (Not Toronto), Canada writes: Ontario's biggest problem, is the people elect governments that love to tax and spend. Free spending governments, such as McGuinty, Rae and Peterson have contributed to the decline in Ontario. Mike Harris, warts and all, got Ontario back on a solid financial footing, after the high spending Peterson and Rae governments. For Ontario to recover from McGuinty, we need a Common Sense government that encourages business to thrive and create prosperity for Ontario. With the Canadian dollar near par, the auto industry no longer enjoys low cost production, that was due to a cheap Canadian Dollar and high profits created by the currency exchange. The double whammy for the auto industry, is manufacturing gas guzzling Big(?) Three vehicles, that have fallen out of favour with rising oil prices. With the high corporate taxes, Ontario has become an expensive place to do business, in comparison with other provinces and states who encourage business to locate with a lower business tax. Ontario's high tax policy encourages business to locate elsewhere. Finance Minister Flaherty warned Ontario, that the province was in danger of becoming a have-not province and gave good advice to Ontario in recommending lower provincial corporate taxes. The advice fell on McGuinty's deaf ears. Suggesting a tax cut to a spendthrift premier, like McGuinty, would be comparable to telling a skid row alcoholic not to drink. One lives to spend and the other lives to drink.
  58. Kan Tankerous from Tronna, Canada writes: Fuzzy Bare, you forgot to mention the crumbling municipalities and infrastructure in the Harris-Flim-Flaherty "warts and all" legacy. There is a stink about Conservatives that Ontarians just can't get past their noses. Time to look inward because Ontarians tried your brand and it's stench still lingers.
  59. bob saunders from Belleville, Canada writes: Nancy Cole from Timmins, writes: So please stop pointing fingers and come to the table and adjust Ontario’s transfer payments to reflect the economic downturn. Your little gst cut did nothing to help Ontario-------------------- I beg to differ the GST cuts and lower personal income tax introduced by this government is saving me several thousand per year. Ontario receives per capita within a dollar or two the same amount of federal transfer payments as every other province. This has nothing to do with equalization. Speaking of Equalization the Federal government collects the money from individual across the country, then doles it out to provinces. The province of Ontario pays nothing. And by the way Nancy your whole post does nothing but blame and point the finger. As for the rest of Canada gloating - this will happen when you tell the other provinces that you pay their way- a falsehood. What goes around comes around. Ontario has been whining about paying more than their fair share, so instead of truly giving with a generous heart and a there go I but for the grace of God Attitude, Ontario instead Whines. Having lived and paid taxes in 4 provinces, 3 of which are tradionally have provinces, Ontarians are oblivious to how well they have it, other than dirty water and air Ontario is a great place, but the whining is unbearable.
  60. mike sty - from Canada writes: After decades of propping up the rest of the country, Ontario will be eligible to receive $400-million in federal equalization transfers in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011, and $1.3-billion the following year,
    ------------------------

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzz Ontario's paying in over 20 billion, so we get a 400 million and a 1.3 billion rebate, big deal. We're still net contributors of over 18 Billion.

    ------------------

    Michael(not)Sharp
    Corporate welfare is an LPC idea.
    Lowering corporate taxes is a CPC idea.
    -------------------

    Still living under that raw sewage discharge pipe eh?
    Easy to tell by all the crap you're spewing.
  61. bob saunders from Belleville, ON, Canada writes: mike sty - from Canada writes: After decades of propping up the rest of the country, Ontario will be eligible to receive $400-million in federal equalization transfers in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011, and $1.3-billion the following year,------------------------ Comments like these are why the rest of Canada gloats when times are tough in Ontario. Mike it would do you some good to go to the STATS Canada site and look at the numbers of what transfer payments Ontario gets from the Feds, and how it has increased under this government, then look a little further and check out the percentage of Federal grants, Federal business development loans and the dollars amounts that Ontarians receive you arrogant PR--K.
  62. Rick C from Canada writes: mike sty - from Canada writes: "zzzzzzzzzzzzzz Ontario's paying in over 20 billion, so we get a 400 million and a 1.3 billion rebate, big deal. We're still net contributors of over 18 Billion." Congratulation Mike...you proved you completely lack understanding of the equalization program. Currently Ontario contributes over $20 billion to what they receive back in terms of transfers. If/when Ontario becomes a 'have not' Province it would go from contributing $20 billion to the program to receiving $1.3 billion from the program. A $21.3 billion swing. It doesn't mean Ontario would still be a net contributor of $18.7 billion it means Ontario would be a net recipient of $1.3 billion.
  63. SN Dream from Canada writes: Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Mike........ Just Mike from Toronto.

    Let's be clear, sunshine.

    I hate the LPC.
    They nearly broke up this country you claim to love all of.

    Here's the kicker.

    Ontario loves the LPC.
    That's because the LPC favour Ontario.

    Ontario is just reaping what they have sown.
    They'll ne better once they think CPC.

    Like lower their corporate taxes instead of looking for corporate welfare.
    Corporate welfare is an LPC idea.
    Lowering corporate taxes is a CPC idea.

    Ontario loves the LPC who nearly broke up this country and they want corporate welfare.

    They have nothing but my contempt.
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    How did the Liberal nearly broke up this country? And what exact does "Nation within a Nation" mean, it doesn't make sense at all!!!

    The Liberal party are the one that restore the financial health of this country. The conservative party are the one who accumulated most of the debt.

    Liberal cut income tax which promote saving and investment, the conservative cut sales tax which promote consumption.
  64. Fuzzy Bare from Ontario (Not Toronto), Canada writes: SN Dream... You are dreaming in Technicolour. The most prolific spendthrift government in Canadian History was the Trudeau regime. From 1974 to 1984, the National Debt doubled. Ten years of borrowed money to bring in new programs that we are still paying for.


    The Lieberals cutting income Tax? You are talking about the people who hit low income working people with a hidden tax, by having EI contributions DOUBLE the amount required to pay for the EI prigram. This was a hidden tax aimed at low income working Canadians. The huge EI surplus was used was used as a political weapon by Finance Minister Martin to reduce the"deficit" and not for the purpose intended, providing income for unemployed Canadian workers.

    The "nation within a nation" must have been something you dreamed up, it is like you, it doesn't make sense. The motion was"The Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada, but not an independent nation"

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top