[isittimetomoveyet]

I agree that the Chretien Liberals didn't do much for the GTA.

Hey now... and who exactly do we have to thank for Downsview being turned into a world class, 21st century urban park!? Jean Chretien man!

Have you seen how beautiful the park is now that is it complete!?

 

[jaycola]

Federal politics in Canada has been historically anti-urban

This fact is bound to change.
Canada is becoming an ever more urban country and nowhere is this more evident than in Ontario.
8 of the 16 largest CMAs (read cities)in Canada are in Ontario.
The GTA alone added 430,000 residents between 2001 and 2006, Ontario added 550,000.
Ontario is going to get an additional 21 seats in Parliament, most of these will be in Urban areas.
This will further increase the importance of Ontario's urban centres (as well as the disdain for us in Quebec and the west) and urban issues to federal politicians.

I love how the Feds try to ignore Net growth in Ontario extolling population growth in the west and ignoring it in ontario. See the attached, Ontario, with the largest net growth is mentioned as an afterthought.The only fact that they mention is that Ontario is losing population to other provinces.

The provinces and territories: A demography affected by Alberta's powerful draw
The population of Alberta increased at the rate of 29.5 per 1,000 in the year up to July 1, 2006 — the fastest in the country and almost three times the national average.

During this period, Alberta posted a record high net interprovincial migration of 57,100 persons, which is 22,700 more than in the previous year. This migration accounted for 58.2% of Alberta's population growth. Moreover, the Alberta natural growth remains the highest amongst Canadian provinces.

Alberta's powerful draw inevitably affected the demography of other Canadian regions. Of the 13 provinces and territories, 10 showed a negative net interprovincial migration. British Columbia (+3,800) and Nunavut (+100) were the only other regions to record interprovincial gains.

However, international migration reduced the effects of the Alberta draw for several Canadian regions. Last year, net international migration was the biggest driver of demographic growth for 8 of the 10 provinces.

British Columbia also posted a population growth rate (12.3 per 1,000) higher than the national average and reached just over 4,310,500. This was notably the result of gains in international migration, which accounted for 72.1% of its total growth.

Manitoba's population increased (3.1 per 1,000), mainly because of a record high 8,900 immigrants, while Saskatchewan's population fell for the 9th time in 10 years.

Ontario's growth rate of 10.2 per 1,000 was just over the national average, thanks to a strong net international migration that offset growing losses to other provinces.

Quebec's population grew at a slower pace (7.1 per 1,000) to 7,651,500. While immigration stayed high, albeit slightly lower than last year, the number of births in the province was on the rise and reached a peak not observed since 1996/1997.

In the Atlantic region, Prince Edward Island was the only jurisdiction with a positive growth rate. Newfoundland and Labrador, which lost population for the 14th year in a row, was the first Canadian jurisdiction to experience more deaths than births over the course of one year.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/060927/dq060927a-eng.htm

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't think it's fair to compare Harris to Chretien as if they were in the same position. Rapid transit is not traditionally an area of federal jurisdiction. And Harris did what he did out of inertia coming out the NDP era. I agree that the Chretien Liberals didn't do much for the GTA, but I think the comparison you used is misleading.

If that's the argument then why the hate on Harper? The way I see it, he's doing more for transit in the GTA then Chretien did (and possibly Martin) and he's doing it while he has no real incentive or 'inertia' to do so. Why is it okay for Chretien to do nothing about transit in the GTA because "rapid transit is not traditionally an area of federal jurisdiction" but if Harper does something limited (and that investment is starting to equal Harris' Shepherd contribution when corrected for inflation) it's considered terrible and inadequate.

I would also dispute that Harris funded the shepherd subway because of 'inertia coming out of the NDP era'. That inertia didn't stop him from canning Eglinton West. He could have canned Shepherd if he was in a less generous mood without any serious electoral consequences.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Keithz:

The way I see it, he's doing more for transit in the GTA then Chretien did (and possibly Martin) and he's doing it while he has no real incentive or 'inertia' to do so.

Like you've said - the burbs in GTA (especially with the failure of the Quebec strategy) is now considered to be key electoral battleground - and there was always hopes that the 905 can deliver for the Tories. Certainly Harper isn't doing this out of the goodness of his heart or his belief in transit issues. Simply put, he has this wad of cash right now and he needs to get rid of it (or some would argue, make the appearance of getting rid of it without actually doing so - note the conditions on the stimulus funding, for example). Beyond that, why do we always have to go back to the Liberal for arguments - it was a different time then.

BTW, if one has doubts about Harper's nature, one only has to recall his original scheme for the distribution of new MPs for Ontario.

I would also dispute that Harris funded the shepherd subway because of 'inertia coming out of the NDP era'. That inertia didn't stop him from canning Eglinton West. He could have canned Shepherd if he was in a less generous mood without any serious electoral consequences.

The argument is that if he canned Sheppard, which is in Mel's turf, there could be electoral consequences in the 416 burbs - not to mention earning his worship's perpetual annoyance.

AoD

 

[lordmandeep]

Ontario's growth has gone down dramatically in the last year.

Its growing less a 1% a year now.

 

[afransen]

If that's the argument then why the hate on Harper? The way I see it, he's doing more for transit in the GTA then Chretien did (and possibly Martin) and he's doing it while he has no real incentive or 'inertia' to do so. Why is it okay for Chretien to do nothing about transit in the GTA because "rapid transit is not traditionally an area of federal jurisdiction" but if Harper does something limited (and that investment is starting to equal Harris' Shepherd contribution when corrected for inflation) it's considered terrible and inadequate.

My dislike for Harper stems out of other policies than his transit funding. As I recall, you can't say Chretien did 'nothing', as they did chip in a third to some vehicle replacements, etc.

I would also dispute that Harris funded the shepherd subway because of 'inertia coming out of the NDP era'. That inertia didn't stop him from canning Eglinton West. He could have canned Shepherd if he was in a less generous mood without any serious electoral consequences.

I'm not convinced. It also would have been a monumental waste of the sunk costs into building Shepperd. By inertia, I mean that he would not have elected to start Shepperd, but given that it was underway, he allowed it to be partially completed. I think it's fair to say that does not make him a transit hero in this province, when you consider the premiers that bookended his reign (Rae and McGuinty).

 

[afransen]

Ontario's growth has gone down dramatically in the last year.

Its growing less a 1% a year now.

What does that have to do with anything? I presume you're referring to the new seat allocation formula. Regardless of the rate Ontario is growing at, its growth should be treated equally, which was not the case under the initially proposed formula.

Harper is no friend of Ontario or Toronto. He is a friend of CPC ridings and swing ridings in small Ontario cities and GTA suburbs.

 

[nfitz]

Seems to me, the more conservative the riding, the less transit it has. Look at Durham. Look at the right-wing city councillors who are proposing cutting transit service after 10 pm when they go to bed.

 

[northstar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordmandeep
Ontario's growth has gone down dramatically in the last year.

Its growing less a 1% a year now.

What does that have to do with anything? I presume you're referring to the new seat allocation formula. Regardless of the rate Ontario is growing at, its growth should be treated equally, which was not the case under the initially proposed formula.

Harper is no friend of Ontario or Toronto. He is a friend of CPC ridings and swing ridings in small Ontario cities and GTA suburbs.

I believe he was responding to 'jaycola's' posting from earlier today, wherein jaycola was using 3 year old data from StatCan to try and prove a point.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Seems to me, the more conservative the riding, the less transit it has. Look at Durham. Look at the right-wing city councillors who are proposing cutting transit service after 10 pm when they go to bed.

Oh man, don't get me started on these misguided wankers we have for regional and municipal politicians here.

Head in the sand is an apt description of their technique.

 

[lordmandeep]

Yes I was trying to the days of 100K immigrants coming to Toronto a year are over for now.


However I would imagine in the long run the population figures will not be that wrong.


I always wonder, do all of those future population growth projections for like 2031, consider how the population growth rate will slow down to baby boomers dieing???

 

[afransen]

Yes I was trying to the days of 100K immigrants coming to Toronto a year are over for now.


However I would imagine in the long run the population figures will not be that wrong.


I always wonder, do all of those future population growth projections for like 2031, consider how the population growth rate will slow down to baby boomers dieing???

I'm not convinced. Once the boomers are that old, there is going to be a fairly desperate shortage of workers to support them.

 

[kEiThZ]

Like you've said - the burbs in GTA (especially with the failure of the Quebec strategy) is now considered to be key electoral battleground - and there was always hopes that the 905 can deliver for the Tories. Certainly Harper isn't doing this out of the goodness of his heart or his belief in transit issues. Simply put, he has this wad of cash right now and he needs to get rid of it (or some would argue, make the appearance of getting rid of it without actually doing so - note the conditions on the stimulus funding, for example). Beyond that, why do we always have to go back to the Liberal for arguments - it was a different time then.

I will readily admit that Harper is not pro-urban. However, I am critical of double standards. Credit should be given where it's due. In this case, the Conservatives are investing in transit. So what if it's in the 905? Is there any political party that does not act out of self-interest? If the Liberals were to invest in the 416, it could be said that they were investing in their base. Even if the Liberals were in power I still think we would see a federal emphasis on investing in the 905. That's where the votes are after all. The 416 is safe. 18-22 ridings a guaranteed for the Liberals even if they don't spend a dime in the 416. So why bother?

My dislike for Harper stems out of other policies than his transit funding. As I recall, you can't say Chretien did 'nothing', as they did chip in a third to some vehicle replacements, etc.

Sure. But even you have to admit that Harper's commitments to GTA transit are adding up to more than Chretien committed and that was in a term of office twice as long.

That you dislike him for other policies is fine. I just can't understand folks who won't even acknowledge it when their opponents do something good for their community. That's exactly the attitude that creates disincentives for the opposing political party to invest in said community when they are in power.

I'm not convinced. It also would have been a monumental waste of the sunk costs into building Shepperd. By inertia, I mean that he would not have elected to start Shepperd, but given that it was underway, he allowed it to be partially completed. I think it's fair to say that does not make him a transit hero in this province, when you consider the premiers that bookended his reign (Rae and McGuinty).

The tories were elected in 1995. At that time, the shovels were barely in the ground. If they wanted to can the subway, they could have done so with minimal consequences...about the same as that incurred on Eglinton. So the sunk costs argument does not wash, since they were obviously willing to incur it on Eglinton West. Inertia had nothing to do with it. I think there's some truth to Alvin's assertion that other Conservatives inside the 416 (such as Mel Lastman) saved that route.

 

[Brandon716]

Oh man, don't get me started on these misguided wankers we have for regional and municipal politicians here.

Head in the sand is an apt description of their technique.

Durham has a tradition of being auto-oriented with GM headquartered there, combine that with its smaller town oriented background its just never been a very transit centric region.

Most transit oriented people in Oshawa and Ajax and Pickering are really commuters to Toronto, probably most of them use GO transit. I don't have hard stats, but its just what I could imagine.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But its the impression I have after my visits there.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

The tories were elected in 1995. At that time, the shovels were barely in the ground. If they wanted to can the subway, they could have done so with minimal consequences...about the same as that incurred on Eglinton. So the sunk costs argument does not wash, since they were obviously willing to incur it on Eglinton West. Inertia had nothing to do with it. I think there's some truth to Alvin's assertion that other Conservatives inside the 416 (such as Mel Lastman) saved that route.

I don't know how anyone can debate the Harris-era transit legacy.
I haven't seen anyone mention that they TOTALLY cut TTC funding and only gradually, begrdugingly got back in the game a little bit when it became obvious, despite their protestations, that PUBLIC transit needs to be PUBLICLY funded.

I came across this brief summary of what Harris did to TTC funding.

I'll stand to be corrected but I think what Alvin said is the accepted truth: Harris wanted to cut both Shep and Eg but Lastman's lobbying managed to save it. The concession was that it was only 1/2 built and they had a "no frills" budget for the stations.

Harris might be the most anti-transit pol I can think of and while I wouldn't want to give Harper toooo much credit (haven't seen the Move2020 funding yet!) he is stepping into the fray a bit and accepting the need to spend on infrastructure.

Two examples of neo-cons realizing that there IS a need to invest in public infrastructure does not a leftist argument make, but it is telling that these guys know to change gears when push comes to shove.