Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'politicians'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Real estate projects
    • Proposals
    • Going up
    • Completed
    • Mass Transit
    • Infrastructures
    • Cultural, entertainment and sport projects
    • Cancelled projects
  • General topics
    • City planning and architecture
    • Economy discussions
    • Technology, video games and gadgets
    • Urban tech
    • General discussions
    • Entertainment, food and culture
    • Current events
    • Off Topic
  • MTLYUL Aviation
    • General discussion
    • Spotting at YUL
  • Here and abroad
    • City of Québec
    • Around the province of Québec.
    • Toronto and the rest of Canada
    • USA
    • Europe
    • Projects elsewhere in the world
  • Photography and videos
    • Urban photography
    • Other pictures
    • Old pictures

Calendars

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation


Type of dwelling

Found 6 results

  1. Read more: http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/disturbing-video-of-er-doctor-arrested-by-sq-while-working-1.1012910#ixzz2AT5149cw In all honest. Why is my tax dollars paying for these guys to "protect and serve". I want them fired or give me my money back. We the people of Quebec are the shareholders. The politicians and the people they hire, should be accountable to us and if we want someones head, we should get it.
  2. http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15726687&source=hptextfeatureCanadian cities Mar 18th 2010 | CALGARY AND TORONTO From The Economist print edition And the gloom in Toronto TIME was when the decision over where to put a new Canadian capital-markets regulator would have been automatic. Toronto, Canada’s most populous city and the capital of Ontario, the most populous province, has long been the country’s business and financial centre. The biggest banks are there, as is the stock exchange. Legions of lawyers, accountants and bankers flock daily to the towers surrounding King and Bay streets. And yet the Canadian government is in two minds over the home for the new authority, and may end up splitting it between several cities—partly to placate provincial regulators jealous of their purviews. This hesitation has brought grumbles from politicians in Ontario. But it is tacit recognition that economic and political power in Canada are slowly shifting westward, and in particular to Calgary, the main business centre in Alberta, a province with a large oil and gas industry. Toronto still has the top spot. Greater Toronto has 5.6m people, or almost five times as many as Calgary. It is home to more corporate headquarters than any other Canadian city. Of the 20 biggest companies in Canada, ten are based in the Toronto area. But six are now in Calgary. All are oil and gas firms, whose towers form the city’s dramatic skyline, set against the backdrop of the Rocky mountains. And Calgary has the momentum. The new housing developments that surround the city and stretch to the foothills are evidence that Alberta is sucking in people and investment from the rest of Canada. Between 1999 and 2007, while head-office employment grew by 14.1% in Toronto, it soared by 64.6% in Calgary, according to a report by the OECD, a research body. Alberta’s economy swiftly brushed off the recession. Its leaders dismiss hostility from greens to the tar sands that are the source of much of its hydrocarbons. If Americans do not want their oil, then Alberta will build a pipeline to the west coast and sell it to China, they say. Dave Bronconnier, Calgary’s mayor, laughs off the idea that his city might soon supplant Toronto. But he admits that he has tried to woo one of Canada’s big five banks to come and set up its headquarters. He is also courting branch offices of banks from China, the Middle East and South Korea. Office rents are higher in Calgary than in many other cities, though they have fallen sharply since 2008. But low business taxes and the lack of a provincial sales tax make overall operating costs lower than in Ontario. The city wants to become a global centre for energy companies. Its rivals are Houston, Dallas and Dubai, rather than Toronto, says Mr Bronconnier. This boosterism is in sharp contrast to the downbeat mood back east. Despite the strength of the banks, Toronto and Ontario—the home of Canadian carmaking—have fared badly in the recession. In an editorial earlier this month the Toronto Star, the city’s biggest newspaper, bemoaned growing social inequality, worsening gridlock, a deteriorating transport system and rising taxes. “There’s a nagging but entirely justified sense that Toronto has lost its way,” the paper concluded. Ontarians as a whole are feeling uneasy. In a recent poll taken in the province for the Mowat Centre, a think-tank, half of respondents felt that Ontario’s influence in national affairs is waning and about the same number thought the province is not treated with the respect it deserves. A generation ago Toronto benefited from an influx of businesses from Montreal fleeing the threat of Quebec separatism. That threat has receded, but federal politicians are ever-sensitive to the French-speaking province’s demands. Alberta’s politicians are becoming increasingly bolshy as their economic muscle grows. And Ontario? Torontonians were long used “to assuming that they are the centre of the universe,” as Joe Martin, a business historian at the University of Toronto, puts it. They are awakening to a world in which their planet, though still the biggest in the Canadian firmament, is being eclipsed. Copyright © 2010 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
  3. Politicians Smother Cities by John Stossel I like my hometown, but I must admit that New York has problems: high taxes, noise, traffic. Forbes magazine just ranked my city the 16th most miserable in America. Ouch! Of course, that makes me wonder: What's America's most miserable city? Cleveland, says Forbes. People call it "the Mistake by the Lake. " Cleveland, once America's sixth-largest city, has been going downhill for decades. Why do some cities thrive while others decay? One reason is that some politicians smother their cities with the unintended consequences of their grand visions, while others have the good sense to limit government power. In a state that already taxes its citizens heavily, Cleveland's politicians drown businesses in taxes. One result: Since 2000, 50,000 people have left the city. Half of Cleveland's population has left since 1950. But the politicians haven't learned. They still think government is the key to revitalization. While Indianapolis privatized services, Cleveland prefers state capitalism. It owns and operates a big grocery store, the West Side Market. Typical of government, it's open only four days a week, and two of those days it closes at 4 p.m. The city doesn't maintain the market very well. Despite those cost savings, the city manages to lose money running the market. It also loses money running golf courses — $400,000 last year. Another way that cities like Cleveland cause their own decline is through regulations that make building anything a long drawn-out affair. Cleveland has 22 different zoning designations and 673 pages of zoning guidelines. By contrast, Houston has almost no zoning. This permits a mix of uses and styles that gives the city vitality. And the paperwork in Houston is so light that a business can get going in a single afternoon. In Cleveland, one politician bragged that he helped a business get though the red tape in "just 18 months." Randall O'Toole, author of "The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future," says Houston does have rules, but they are more flexible and responsive to citizens' needs because they are set by neighborhood associations based on protective covenants written by developers. Politicians' rules rarely change because the politicians don't have their own money on the line. Cleveland's managers thought that funding gleaming new sports stadiums (which subsidize wealthy team owners) and other prestigious attractions like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame would revitalize their city. Urban policy expert Joel Kotkin says, "This whole tendency to put what are scarce public funds into conventions centers and ... ephemeral projects is delusional." But politicians claim that stadiums increase the number of jobs. Not so, says J.C. Bradbury, author of "The Baseball Economist: The Real Game Exposed." "There's a huge consensus among economists that there is no economic development benefit to having these stadiums," he says. The stadiums do create jobs for construction workers and some vendors. But "it's a case of the seen and the unseen," Bradbury says, alluding to the 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat. "It's very easy to see a new stadium going up. ... But what you don't see is that something else didn't get built across town. ... It's just transferring from one place to the other. "People don't bury their entertainment dollars in a coffee can in their backyard and then dig it up when a baseball team comes to town. They switch it from something else." Stadiums are among the more foolish of politicians' boondoggles. There are only 81 home baseball games a year and 41 basketball games. How does that sustain a neighborhood economy? But the arrogance of city planners knows no end. Now Cleveland is spending taxpayers' money on a medical convention center that they say will turn Cleveland into a "Disney World" for doctors. Well, Chicago's $1 billion expansion of the country's biggest convention center — McCormick Place — was unable to prevent an annual drop in conventions, and analysts say America already has 40 percent more convention space than it needs. Politicians would be better stewards of their cities if they set simple rules and then just got out of the way. I won't hold my breath. John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at http://www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
  4. (Courtesy of The Montreal Gazette) Got to love how dumb the law is in this country. You can't even defend your self from an intruder. I guess the politicians and police don't give a rats ass what happens to normal law abiding citizens I bet you break into a cops house or politicians house unknowingly and they stab you, the law will be on their side. I hate this hypocritical system As you can see I am biased. I am for the right the bare arms and self defence, but we just live in a to liberal society that lets people push people around and we have to be submissive / passive. OT: I think I should really go into politics and see how many votes I can get with my views and see if people would vote
  5. In search of a dream To persuade voters of the need for reform, India’s leaders need to articulate a new vision of its future Sep 29th 2012 | from the print edition WHEN India won independence 65 years ago, its leaders had a vision for the country’s future. In part, their dream was admirable and rare for Asia: liberal democracy. Thanks to them, Indians mostly enjoy the freedom to protest, speak up, vote, travel and pray however and wherever they want to; and those liberties have ensured that elected civilians, not generals, spies, religious leaders or self-selecting partymen, are in charge. If only their counterparts in China, Russia, Pakistan and beyond could say the same. But the economic part of the vision was a failure. Mahatma Gandhi, leader of the independence movement, Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, and his daughter, Indira Gandhi, left the country with a reverence for poverty, a belief in self-reliance and an overweening state that together condemned the country to a dismal 3-4% increase in annual GDP—known as the “Hindu rate of growth”—for the best part of half a century. That led to a balance-of-payments crisis 21 years ago which forced India to change. Guided by Manmohan Singh, then finance minister, the government liberalised the economy, scrapping licensing and opening up to traders and investors. The results, in time, were spectacular. A flourishing services industry spawned world-class companies. The economy boomed. Wealth and social gains followed, literacy soared, life-expectancy and incomes rose, and gradually Indians started decamping from villages to towns. But reforms have not gone far enough (see our special report). Indian policy still discourages foreign investment and discriminates in favour of small, inefficient firms and against large, efficient ones. The state controls too much of the economy and subsidies distort prices. The damage is felt in both the private and the public sectors. Although India’s service industries employ millions of skilled people, the country has failed to create the vast manufacturing base that in China has drawn unskilled workers into the productive economy. Corruption in the public sector acts as a drag on business, while the state fails to fulfil basic functions in health and education. Many more people are therefore condemned to poverty in India than in China, and their prospects are deteriorating with India’s economic outlook. Growth is falling and inflation and the government’s deficit are rising. Modest changes, big fuss To ease the immediate problems and to raise the country’s growth rate, more reforms are needed. Labour laws that help make Indian workers as costly to employers as much better-paid Chinese ones need to be scrapped. Foreign-investment rules need to be loosened to raise standards in finance, higher education and infrastructure. The state’s role in power, coal, railways and air travel needs to shrink. Archaic, British-era rules on buying land need to be changed. Among economists, there is a widespread consensus about the necessary policy measures. Among politicians, there is great resistance to them. Look at the storm that erupted over welcome but modest reformist tinkering earlier this month. Mr Singh’s government lost its biggest coalition ally for daring to lift the price of subsidised diesel and to let in foreign supermarkets, under tight conditions. Democracy, some say, is the problem, because governments that risk being tipped out of power are especially unwilling to impose pain on their people. That’s not so. Plenty of democracies—from Brazil through Sweden to Poland—have pushed through difficult reforms. The fault lies, rather, with India’s political elite. If the country’s voters are not sold on the idea of reform, it is because its politicians have presented it to them as unpleasant medicine necessary to fend off economic illness rather than as a means of fulfilling a dream. Another time, another place In many ways, India looks strikingly like America in the late 19th century. It is huge, diverse, secular (though its people are religious), materialistic, largely tolerant and proudly democratic. Its constitution balances the central government’s authority with considerable state-level powers. Rapid social change is coming with urban growth, more education and the rise of big companies. Robber barons with immense riches and poor taste may be shamed into becoming legitimate political donors, philanthropists and promoters of education. As the country’s wealth grows, so does its influence abroad. For India to fulfil its promise, it needs its own version of America’s dream. It must commit itself not just to political and civic freedoms, but also to the economic liberalism that will allow it to build a productive, competitive and open economy, and give every Indian a greater chance of prosperity. That does not mean shrinking government everywhere, but it does mean that the state should pull out of sectors it has no business to be in. And where it is needed—to organise investment in infrastructure, for instance, and to regulate markets—it needs to become more open in its dealings. Compare contrasting GDP and population levels across India’s states with our interactive map and guide India’s politicians need to espouse this vision and articulate it to the voters. Mr Singh has done his best; but he turned 80 on September 26th, and is anyway a bureaucrat at heart, not a leader. The remnants of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, to whom many Indians still naturally turn, are providing no leadership either— maybe because they do not have it in them, maybe because they have too much at stake to abandon the old, failed vision. Sonia Gandhi, Nehru’s grand-daughter-in-law and Congress’s shadowy president, shows enthusiasm for welfare schemes, usually named after a relative, but not for job-creating reforms. If her son Rahul, the heir apparent to lead Congress, understands the need for a dynamic economy, there’s no way of knowing it, for he never says anything much. These people are hindering India’s progress, not helping it. It is time to shake off the past and dump them. The country needs politicians who see the direction it should take, understand the difficult steps required, and can persuade their countrymen that the journey is worthwhile. If it finds such leaders, there is no limit to how far India might go. http://www.economist.com/node/21563720
  6. Guys - look at this http://www.tableaudebordmontreal.com/comparons/activiteeconomique/default1.en.html?mode=print Our economy frankly is shitting the bed. Every year our GDP growth falls behind every Canadian city. When do we hold ourselves and our politicians accountable for this mess? We all hate the Torontonization of the country, but at which point do Montrealers develop an economy that can compete?