 Harper unveils $1B economic aid package Prime Minister Stephen Harper unveiled a billion-dollar aid package on Thursday aimed at supporting Canadian communities hit by economic upheaval.Commentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
Who voted on this?
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
What does New Brunswick have to do with logging? Do they even have trees there, or is this just something off season fishermen came up with.
Seriously, this better not turn into another vote bribe.
know northern ontario has been hit especially hard by mill and sawmill closures and layoffs .
my guess is most of this money will go out east as its the area with most employment problems as of now , generally alberta and some western areas aren't facing same trouble .
just hope money is distributed fairly by these provincial governments and they don't give special treatment to areas of province represented by mpp's / mla's on provincial government side.
BRIAN LAGHI and RHÉAL SÉGUIN AND STEVEN CHASE
From Friday's Globe and Mail
January 11, 2008 at 1:00 AM EST
Premiers anxious about their provinces' economic future accused Stephen Harper Thursday of playing politics with a $1-billion aid program that hinges on the uncertain future of the next federal budget.
......
Mr. Charest told reporters that the $1-billion is not nearly enough to cope with the difficulties and was upset that the cash is tied to the budget.
......
“I don't think forestry workers of Quebec deserve to be part of the election campaign,” Mr. Charest said. “That's not what this is about. They need the help now and we should be moving now.”
Mr. McGuinty also called the announcement inadequate, reminding Ottawa that Ontario invested $3-billion to help forestry and manufacturing sectors. “I am also worried that this assistance is conditional to the adoption of a budget,” he said.
Opposition politicians have already said that they may defeat the next budget, a result that would plunge the country into an election.
Wow. Ripcat. No one has ever done that before.
Yeah, its OK if the Conservatives do it, what with their platform of integrity and all....if the allegations are true I'll but it under Cons on my Pros and Cons list with the heading "Does the CPC really have more intergity than the Liberal Party"....
What happened to your earlier statement?
Wow. Ripcat. No one has ever done that before.
Yeah, its OK if the Conservatives do it, what with their platform of integrity and all....if the allegations are true I'll but it under Cons on my Pros and Cons list with the heading "Does the CPC really have more intergity than the Liberal Party"....
What happened to your earlier statement?
Now THAT'S a bitchslap!
Is there a catch?
BRIAN LAGHI and RHÉAL SÉGUIN AND STEVEN CHASE
From Friday's Globe and Mail
January 11, 2008 at 1:00 AM EST
Premiers anxious about their provinces' economic future accused Stephen Harper Thursday of playing politics with a $1-billion aid program that hinges on the uncertain future of the next federal budget.
......
Mr. Charest told reporters that the $1-billion is not nearly enough to cope with the difficulties and was upset that the cash is tied to the budget.
......
“I don't think forestry workers of Quebec deserve to be part of the election campaign,” Mr. Charest said. “That's not what this is about. They need the help now and we should be moving now.”
Mr. McGuinty also called the announcement inadequate, reminding Ottawa that Ontario invested $3-billion to help forestry and manufacturing sectors. “I am also worried that this assistance is conditional to the adoption of a budget,” he said.
Opposition politicians have already said that they may defeat the next budget, a result that would plunge the country into an election.
and these premiers would of complained no matter what harper did , if he didn't give them money they would of complained and now he's giving them money and there still complaining well some are .
i mean there is no way he could of ever pleased mcguinty ever its impossible , no matter what he had announced .
Is there a catch?
BRIAN LAGHI and RHÉAL SÉGUIN AND STEVEN CHASE
From Friday's Globe and Mail
January 11, 2008 at 1:00 AM EST
Premiers anxious about their provinces' economic future accused Stephen Harper Thursday of playing politics with a $1-billion aid program that hinges on the uncertain future of the next federal budget.
......
Mr. Charest told reporters that the $1-billion is not nearly enough to cope with the difficulties and was upset that the cash is tied to the budget.
......
“I don't think forestry workers of Quebec deserve to be part of the election campaign,” Mr. Charest said. “That's not what this is about. They need the help now and we should be moving now.”
Mr. McGuinty also called the announcement inadequate, reminding Ottawa that Ontario invested $3-billion to help forestry and manufacturing sectors. “I am also worried that this assistance is conditional to the adoption of a budget,” he said.
Opposition politicians have already said that they may defeat the next budget, a result that would plunge the country into an election.
and these premiers would of complained no matter what harper did , if he didn't give them money they would of complained and now he's giving them money and there still complaining well some are .
i mean there is no way he could of ever pleased mcguinty ever its impossible , no matter what he had announced .
OMFG! It's "have", not "of!" As in "could have" not "could of" and "would have" not "would of." Jesus, where the fuck did you go to school? Did you go to school at all?
Is there a catch?
BRIAN LAGHI and RHÉAL SÉGUIN AND STEVEN CHASE
From Friday's Globe and Mail
January 11, 2008 at 1:00 AM EST
Premiers anxious about their provinces' economic future accused Stephen Harper Thursday of playing politics with a $1-billion aid program that hinges on the uncertain future of the next federal budget.
......
Mr. Charest told reporters that the $1-billion is not nearly enough to cope with the difficulties and was upset that the cash is tied to the budget.
......
“I don't think forestry workers of Quebec deserve to be part of the election campaign,” Mr. Charest said. “That's not what this is about. They need the help now and we should be moving now.”
Mr. McGuinty also called the announcement inadequate, reminding Ottawa that Ontario invested $3-billion to help forestry and manufacturing sectors. “I am also worried that this assistance is conditional to the adoption of a budget,” he said.
Opposition politicians have already said that they may defeat the next budget, a result that would plunge the country into an election.
and these premiers would of complained no matter what harper did , if he didn't give them money they would of complained and now he's giving them money and there still complaining well some are .
i mean there is no way he could of ever pleased mcguinty ever its impossible , no matter what he had announced .
OMFG! It's "have", not "of!" As in "could have" not "could of" and "would have" not "would of." Jesus, where the fuck did you go to school? Did you go to school at all?
wtf?
and these premiers would of complained no matter what harper did , if he didn't give them money they would of complained and now he's giving them money and there still complaining well some are .
i mean there is no way he could of ever pleased mcguinty ever its impossible , no matter what he had announced .
OMFG! It's "have", not "of!" As in "could have" not "could of" and "would have" not "would of." Jesus, where the fuck did you go to school? Did you go to school at all?
wtf?
ryan29 (the 29 must be his IQ) made the same grammatical error three times, and it's one of the stupidest, laziest errors people make. He's trying to write out a phrase he's heard and used but not been taught properly: "would have."
He wrote "these premiers would complained" when he should have written "these premiers would complained." Thing is, it gets contracted to "would've" when we speak and somehow a lot of people forget it's a contraction and split it back into two words when they write, but incorrectly. Microsoft Word, by default, quietly corrects it for you without you ever noticing. You never notice it when you say it because it sounds the same. Written down, though, it immediately shows that the writer has not been properly taught about contractions, or has simply been too lazy to remember.
and these premiers would of complained no matter what harper did , if he didn't give them money they would of complained and now he's giving them money and there still complaining well some are .
i mean there is no way he could of ever pleased mcguinty ever its impossible , no matter what he had announced .
OMFG! It's "have", not "of!" As in "could have" not "could of" and "would have" not "would of." Jesus, where the fuck did you go to school? Did you go to school at all?
wtf?
ryan29 (the 29 must be his IQ) made the same grammatical error three times, and it's one of the stupidest, laziest errors people make. He's trying to write out a phrase he's heard and used but not been taught properly: "would have."
He wrote "these premiers would complained" when he should have written "these premiers would complained." Thing is, it gets contracted to "would've" when we speak and somehow a lot of people forget it's a contraction and split it back into two words when they write, but incorrectly. Microsoft Word, by default, quietly corrects it for you without you ever noticing. You never notice it when you say it because it sounds the same. Written down, though, it immediately shows that the writer has not been properly taught about contractions, or has simply been too lazy to remember.
Spot the pinky grammar police. Call 911, I spelt fings wrong.
Spot the pinky grammar police. Call 911, I spelt fings wrong.
You joke, but my point stands. To make that sort of error shows an incredible lack of understanding of the language, or laziness, or stupidity, or perhaps all three.
Spot the pinky grammar police. Call 911, I spelt fings wrong.
You joke, but my point stands. To make that sort of error shows an incredible lack of understanding of the language, or laziness, or stupidity, or perhaps all three.
You are surprised that the odd grammatically challenged pleb posts here? Chill out old chap.
Pulling people up on grammar and spelling is for school.
Perhaps the poster speaks Canadian English as a second language, like I do?
Surely NDP voters can appreciate the message even if it is lacking in grammatical prowess?