Thursday, December 12, 2013

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and Holiday Season Greetings to ALL

Throughout the year let us remember ALL those who gave their life so that today we can celebrate ALL the various holidays, thanks to a system of open and participatory democracy.

The best to everyone, your families, friends and associates along with many, many, many, many exciting, active and healthy years ahead for EVERYONE!

May your individual beliefs be with you throughout the year!

Warmest regards,

Peter Clarke 

Sunday, December 8, 2013

All considered, raising the minimum wage is a poor policy!

Over the past decade stats along with common sense and logic confirm and have indicated that raising the cost of labour (increasing the minimum wage) reduces employment and employment opportunities.

Further, a minimum wage increase of 10% has proven to lead to an overall 5% to 6% employment reduction in employment opportunities for our teens and youth according to the U of T professor and respected economist Morley Gunderson.

Raising the minimum wage by 15%, 20% or 25% will not increase 
employment for anyone and would do them a great disservice. It further would contribute to the deterioration in the quality of our labour force.

Also, higher labour costs ultimately show up in higher prices. All considered, raising the minimum wage is a poor policy.

”Should a policy be enacted that gives 10 people an extra $40 a week, but whacks the 11th girl or guy? Shouldn't the terrible disruption to the lives of those who are fired be more of a concern to us than the extra money for those who are not? Is it right to redistribute from the worse-off poor to the better-off poor?”

There are more effective ways to help the poor that do not destroy employment opportunities. Such as an earned income tax credit that gets money to the working poor or a tax subsidy for firms that hire low wage workers.

Both are without the disincentives that accompany all increased minimum wage politically expedient policies put forth by politicians as endorsed by their respective political parties and supported by their lobbyists and union contributors.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Toronto's Social Housing Regulation Discriminatory, Violation of Rights and the Constitution.

The sequestering of our seniors and others to ones rent geared to income unit for 275 days out of 365 because they are healthy and receiving a taxpayer-funded social service of rent based on income does not decrease the demand for RGI subsidies or increase the supply of rental geared to income units for Toronto's seniors, single moms or dads and families.

It is an inhumane, bureaucratic- Absence from Unit-Social Housing regulation that is Draconian, Arbitrary and Capricious, in my humble opinion as a mere mortal.

Seniors, like me and my wife, represent 14% of Ontario’s population who live on fixed pensions along with hundreds of thousands of single moms or dads and families who are getting by on low incomes. Some are lucky enough to have found affordable homes or reside in RGI units or other forms of subsidized accommodations in Toronto, Ontario and across Canada.

All citizens require that sense of independence, feeling welcome and secure in their homes no matter if they are rental RGI units, shelters or other forms of subsidized accommodations within a community. And without as a group or individuals being discriminated against through bureaucratic draconian, arbitrary and capricious regulations and guidelines that are unnecessary and unfair to existing tenants or others in receipt of some form of public assistance.

Recently proposed regulation and guideline revision amendments by the City of Toronto Social Housing are NOT in keeping with the majority of provincial and federal absentee regulations and guidelines equally applied to all citizens for social benefits under OAS, GIS/GAINS and Ontario Health Insurance Plan coverage’s that uniformly stipulate a maximum of SIX consecutive months, not 90 days.

I am referring specifically to a the recently modified regulation under the Housing Services Act-housing eligibility rules-outlined under Toronto City Guideline number 2013-9 issued on September 6, 2013, under the signature of the City’s Social Housing Director.

This revised bureaucratic guideline or regulation introduced by Toronto’s Social Housing does nothing to decrease the demand for RGI subsidies or increase the supply of such units.

Our elected federal and provincial governments and their bureaucrats clearly understand the necessity of putting citizens, families and relatives first in a compassionate manner when it comes to absent regulations for all Torontonians, Ontarians and Canadians in receipt of social benefits.

Why does Toronto council feel it is necessary to take away rights from a group of city dwellers, most of whom are seniors residing specifically in RGI units, who might need, wish or find it necessary to visit their family, relatives and friends for periods in excess of 90 days consecutively or in a 12 month period?

Especially when the absentee regulations and guidelines specifically for all citizens eligible for social benefits under OAS/GIS/GAINS and Ontario Health Care coverages is a maximum of SIX consecutive months, not 90 days.

All citizens must be treated equally regardless of economic factors and be welcomed with respect in our communities. There is no need to treat any of our citizens as second class citizens because one might be in receipt of public assistance as is the case with this newly amended draconian city of Toronto Social Housing absentee regulation. 

Our seniors and others do not need any extra worries of being harassed or unnecessary pushed out from their unit home or fear of losing their home (unit) and RGI assistance. Because of newly imposed discriminatory practices aimed at a particular group (RGI tenants) in a way that treats them adversely and differently and that effectively leads to their less favourable treatment as existing RGI tenants further frustrate their rights as seniors etc.  

The sequestering of our RGI seniors and others to ones rental unit for a minimum of 275 days out of 365 because they are healthy and are receiving a taxpayer-funded social service does not decrease the demand for RGI subsidies or increase the supply of such units?

Families of seniors, single moms or dads represent an integral part of their health and life well-being activity and it’s vital and imperative that more frequent and longer visits are generated for our seniors and others with their living families and relatives.

No one or groups, of senior or others, in receipt of public assistance or social benefits should be treated as second class individuals by draconian, arbitrary and capricious bureaucratic Social Housing regulations, as this Local Eligibility Rule - Absence from Unit.

Because they visited their ageing family members or relatives living across Canada or who might live outside of Canada in Asia, Africa, Malaysia or South America for a period of longer than 90 days in total during any 12 month period.

The federal and provincial governments clearly have acknowledged this fact as under OAS/GIS/GAINS and Ontario Health Care benefits a maximum of SIX consecutive months, not 90 days is absent from country and province regulation.

Seniors and other snowbirds are not discriminated against for being absent from province, country, homes and units and neither should Toronto’s healthy senior or other RGI recipients. All must have the same inherent rights and privileges? 

This Toronto- Local Eligibility Rule- Absent from Unit- does not build a partnership with seniors and others in RGI units and definitely is not putting people and families first in a compassionate manner but rather is a form of harassment and openly represents a clear indirect discrimination practice.

We urge all members of the council along with residences of Ontario to take the necessary steps to ensure the amending of this 25% reduction change for the time that a healthy RGI tenant is allowed to be absent from their unit.

By urging your elected representative at all levels of government to strike a more equitable balance between the provincial and federal absentee regulations of six months and that of the City’s Social Housing one of 90 days, to that of a compassionate and resident first innovation of 5 months which would be more in line and in keeping with the six-month service provisions of the federal and provincial absent regulation for receipt of social benefits.

Number: 2013-9
Date Issued: September 6, 2013

Effective Date: Immediately

The policies and procedures in this City Guideline are to be implemented under the
following programs:

 HSA*, Section 78 Market and RGI** Non-Profit Housing Section 95
 HSA, Section 78 100% RGI Rent Supplement Programs
 Federal Non-Profit Housing Section 26/27 Toronto Community Housing Corporation
Please note: If your program is not checked, this City Guideline does not apply to your
* Housing Services Act, **Rent-Geared-to-Income

Subject: Local Eligibility Rule - Absence from Unit


Regulation 367, Section 37 of the Housing Services Act (HSA) gives the City of Toronto,
as Service Manager, the ability to create local eligibility rules about absence from a unit.
The local rules can specify either or both the maximum number of consecutive days
and/or the maximum number of days in a year that a household can be absent from their

City Guideline 2002-3 (revised June 1, 2004) has been revoked and replaced with City
Guideline 2013-9. This Guideline directs housing providers to comply with the Local
Rule -Absence from Unit as published in Chapter 3 of the RGI Guide. The revised Local
Rule is effective for all new absences.

The full text of the Local Rule - Absence from Unit is included below:

1) A household is no longer eligible for RGI assistance if:

Page 2 of 3
a) all members of the household have been absent from their unit for more than 90
consecutive days; or
b) all members of the household have been absent from their unit for more than 90
days in total in a 12 month period.

Short Absence
i. An absence of 7 consecutive days or less will not be counted in condition 1.(b)

Medical Condition of a Member of the Household
ii. If a household has only one member and that member has a medical condition
that makes it necessary to temporarily leave the unit, the household will not be
considered absent from the unit.

iii. If a household includes one or more members who have a medical condition
that makes it necessary to temporarily leave the unit, and as a result other
household members are also absent because they are accompanying them, the
household will not be considered absent from the unit.

Note: This exemption applies only if a member of the household has a
medical condition. It does not apply when the person with a medical
condition is not a member of the household.

Housing Provider Policy on Medical Conditions Required
iv. Housing providers must develop a fair policy for deciding what a valid medical
reason is and what supporting documents they will accept. This policy must be
applied consistently. An example of a valid medical reason for absence may be a
long stay in a hospital, rehabilitation, or treatment facility. This must be supported
by documentation from a medical professional that details the condition and the
reasons for the absence.

Absences Due to Criminal Charge/Conviction
v. If a household has one member, and the member is absent because they are
being held in jail while awaiting trial, the household will not be considered
absent from the unit.

vi. If a household has one member, and a bail condition of release prevents the
member from living in the unit, the household will not be considered absent from
the unit.
Page 3 of 3
vii. If a household has one member, and the member has been convicted of an
offence, the household will be considered absent from the unit for more than 90
days if the jail time to be served is greater than 90 days.

Note: Being convicted of a criminal offence does not make someone
ineligible for RGI subsidy (unless the conviction is for RGI fraud or
misrepresentation). However, someone who is convicted of a crime may
serve a sentence that makes them absent from their unit for more than 90
days. In this case this Local Rule – Absence from Unit applies.

2) Housing providers may extend the time a household may be absent from a unit in
extenuating circumstances. This applies if a housing provider has reviewed
appropriate documentation from the household and has decided that there is a
legitimate reason for an extension.

3) Housing providers must include the requirement to comply with the Local Rule -
Absence from Unit in the Consent and Declaration section of their household income
and assets review form. See the sample Household Income and Assets Review form in
the RGI Guide, Chapter 10, Appendix 1, page 11.

Action Required:
1. Housing providers must enforce the Local Rule-Absence from Unit as published in
the RGI Guide, Chapter 3.
2. Housing providers must inform their residents about the Local Rule - Absence
from Unit.

Helpful Hints:
 The following are methods by which housing providers could inform their residents
about the Local Rule - Absence from Unit:
 update documents and forms to include references to the rules
 discuss the rules with households at the initial lease interview
 include the rules in a tenant/member handbook

For more information, or if you have questions, please contact your Social Housing

Original Signed

Rob Cressman,
Director, Social Housing

It appears that bureaucrats and technocrats seem to have forgotten Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That all Canadians have the right to "equal treatment before and under the law and equal protection and benefits of the law without discrimination."

Dear Mr. Clarke,

I am writing to you pursuant to our conversation on October 21, 2013 regarding the  Housing Services Act  ("the Act") and the City of Toronto's Local Eligibility Rules in Guideline 2013-9 ("the Guideline"). You complained that the Housing Services Act may have been amended the Local Eligibility Rules without proper input from the public. You further complained that the City of Toronto's Guideline discriminates against tenants in social housing by unreasonably limiting a tenant's absence from their rental unit to only 90 days within a 12 month period.

As I explained when we spoke, the enactment of statutes, such as the Act, are the responsibility of the elected representatives in the legislature. The Ombudsman's Office reviews and investigates complaints about the services and programs created by these statutes and that are administered by the provincial government.  As part of my review of your complaint, I researched the Act and Guideline.  

Regarding your concerns about the public consultation process surrounding the amendment of the Act, you may wish to contact the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing ("the Ministry). Please be advised that our Office has authority to review complaints about the  administrative actions of the Ministry. 

Section 42 of the Act empowers each municipality to establish their own local eligibility rules.  I have attached the Guideline for your reference. You may wish to raise your concerns regarding the rationale for establishing the Local Eligibility Rule to Rob Cressman, Director of Social Housing at Toronto Shelter, Support & Housing Administration. You may reach him at:
       Rob Cressman, Director Social Housing 
       Toronto Shelter, Support & Housing Administration
                                                                               365 Bloor Street East, 15th Floor
                                                                               Toronto, ON M4W 3L4
                                                                               Tel: 416-338-8342
       Fax: 416*338-8228

If you are not satisfied with Toronto Shelter, Support & Housing Administration's response, you may wish to raise your concerns with the Office of the Ombudsman for the City of Toronto.

During our conversation you also raised concerns that Guideline 2013-9 may violate your human rights.  You may want to raise these concerns with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal directly.

Given all of the above, further action will not be taken by our Office and your file is now closed.

Thank you for contacting the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman.


Laila Said-Alam

Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario | Bureau de l’Ombudsman de l’Ontario 
1-800-263-1830 - Complaints Line | Ligne des plaintes 
1-866-411-4211 - TTY | ATS | Facebook | twitter 
Subscribe to our e-newsletter | Abonnez-vous à notre e-bulletin

2 attachments — Download all attachments  

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Religious Expressions confined to Houses of Worship, Not the Service Counters or Halls of Governments.

Governments that are formed by religious doctrine and use the power of government to support a religious belief undermines democracy and a free society.

Religion or religious cultures must not be used as the essential device for holding a democratic society together.

In an open, transparent and honest democracy there must always remain a separation between religion and government.

Religious neutrality by government demands that the halls, offices and institutions of the government are not used as the places for religious expression by any individual employee’s religious or atheist’s beliefs.

Diversity within a democracy cannot be defended by the male’s individual’s political-religious cultural traditions that coerce, female children, young girls and women to be self stigmatized and isolated within Canadian communities by demanding that they wear a religious symbol such as the niqab and burka!

For over 1400 years Muslim women have been explicitly prohibited by their religion from covering their faces and identity if they wished to pray in the Ka’aba, holiest house of God and the Muslim’s grand mosque!

As such in Quebec and throughout Canada, with all our customs, traditions and respect for women and children, our governments must not now be obliged to accept those who are committed to wearing a niqab or burka in government offices or institutions.

Quebec’s and Canada’s freedom of religion must recognize, rely on and uphold the truth and reject the false and wrongs of an interpretation of the Muslim religion that continues to be used to impose the worst king of no freedoms and stigmatization of women and children.     

The government of Quebec is showing leadership with the introduction of a values charter for government workers.

That at least attempts once and for all to take the veil off the lies Islamists use as propaganda in promoting their political-religious ideology.  

The wearing of a niqab or burka is coerced barbaric cultural traditions that have NO connection to Islam or the Quran and further limits the fundamental rights of women and children.

By banning the wearing of a niqab or burka by government employees the Quebec government is effectively telling Muslims specifically and others generally to practice one’s religion at home or in a place of worship and adopt one of Quebec's and Canadian values for the respect of women and children. 

For over 1400 years Muslim women have had to remove such cultural veils if they wished to pray. It is past time that the niqab and burka be permanently banned in all Canadian and Provincial government offices and institutions.

Saturday, September 7, 2013

Multiculturalism a Failure in Quebec and Canada?

The liberal party’s cherished ideologies for a communal society based on shared values of divergent cultures jammed into Canada’s national boundaries has caused endless cultural conflicts as opposed to harmony. And in reality, is a failure throughout Canada, Quebec and the European community of nations!

Unfortunately the majority of immigrants coming to Canada for the past twenty-five years have done so for our social benefits i.e. a free hospital, healthcare and handouts by politicians using taxpayer funds as opposed to their own.

Under these socialists and progressives, ideologies and doctrines for state multiculturalism it has become quite obvious and apparent that various cultures have been encouraged to reside and live separate lives apart from the Canadian mainstream and even apart from one another’s cultures.

It seems a lot of immigrants or would-be refugees come to our country, with baggage for a clash of civilizations that fosters extremism and homegrown terrorists. And thus, they are not completely willing to accept our way of life, laws and culture. As they prefer to live and reside separately in their enclaves of various communities based on religious doctrines of conflict carried in their e baggage from a clash of civilizations that have fostered extremism and homegrown terrorists in their former countries.

And for far too long now as a nation we have tolerated such segregated religious and cultural communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to the values of our nation were founded on and citizens fought two world wars to uphold.

I strongly believe that while it is important to respect some culture differences, Canada and Quebec, Canada as a whole must be one national community and not just a coexistence of various different cultural communities within a nation that forces other cultures on Canadian citizens. Try that in Africa, Asia, or the Middle Eastern countries and see how that works!

Canada a nation founded with Judeo Christian values upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.  

Our immigration policy should be that if you come to Canada or Quebec then one must accept to melt into our single Canadian community. If one wishes not to accept that notion, then you cannot be welcome in either Quebec or Canada, in my humble opinion. 

Canadians must not tolerate extremism or racism carried out by people be they white, black, brown, pink, yellow or a rainbow of colours. Further, we must not allow teachings of views through laws that allows for the protection of one's colour, race or religious rights to supersede the rights of others freedom of expression or views or that one's gender beliefs or colour etc are more important or superior to those of others. 

This should be the cornerstone of Canada's and Quebec's immigration thinking and policy.      


Saturday, August 31, 2013

Syria Represents the Unknown of Known or the Known of Unknown

If Sarin gas was used by either the government forces or the army deserters and rebels there is also evidence as reported by the UK news, Independent that the Government let British company export nerve gas chemicals to Syria! ...

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, a 'call to action', appears to have been based solely on the USA version for a 
new world order of might is right?

Syria a sovereign country has been in a civil war going on nearly three years and for anyone to assume that it is only the leader of the Syrian government and its forces that continues to solely have access to chemical weapons in such a war-torn country is asinine or blind to the realities of war.

Any fool can start a fight but it takes a statesman to negotiate a peaceful solution to a conflict.

Syria is NOT a threat to the people of the USA nor is it a national security issue. 

Without a declaration of war by the United States senate and congress an attack against Syria by the USA ordered by the President of the USA would not be legal by its' own constitution, its own laws or those of the world court.

This so-called Syrian opposition is made up of armed forces deserters, Syrian exile members of the de facto groups like the SNC (Syrian national council), FSA(free Syrian army) and non-Syrian fanatic extremists for a free Palestine along with the Muslim brotherhood for Sharia law and all are doing battle against the Assad regime and the Syrian people.

A fraudulent unelected group of individuals, mainly from foreign countries, who call themselves the Syrian National Council claiming to be the opposition forces for the protection of the unarmed citizens of Syria and its resources. 

Under a 
banner of the SNC or FSA these opposition forces, for the protection of the unarmed citizens of Syria and its resources as they previously stated, have been and continue to kill innocent woman, children, youth and the elderly all of whom are Syrian people?

They continuing bombings in Damascus and throughout Syria, that have the finger
print tactics used by al- Qaeda, fundamentalist Sunni Muslim terrorist groups and others from throughout the region in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Jordan, by these heavily armed opposition forces comprised of rebels, insurgents, army deserters and terrorists can attest to the Syrian government’s claim that Syria is fighting Islamist militants steered from abroad!

How can Canada, the USA and other western powers support such radical extremists and fanatical religious non elected but self anointed individuals and armed forces deserters and terrorists who call themselves the opposition and then
proceed to intentionally detonate 10 kilos of highly flammable explosives in the centre of Damascus next to a primary school, shops and a mosque?

I cannot understand how a fraudulent unelected group of individuals, mainly from foreign countries, under a banner of the SNC or FSA the opposition forces who call themselves the Syrian National Council and claim to be the opposition forces for the protection of the unarmed citizens of Syria and its resources themselves continue to kill innocent woman, children, youth and the elderly all fellow Syrians?

These groups claim they do not have chemical weapons and it's only the government forces! 

If one believes that then one believes in the tooth fairy.

They call the government of Syria uncivilized yet it was the government of the USA that used napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam and used depleted uranium and white phosphorus in Fallujah, Iraq and not to be outdone, Britain firebombed Dresden and other German cities in WW2 and the USA dropped nuclear bombs twice on Japan!

You be the judge on this proposed illegal limited and narrow bombing by the USA on yet another sovereign country by the President of the USA in assisting the so-called Arab Spring uprisings!


Russia asks Turkey for info on sarin terrorists
America's President Says He Is Prepared to Order Military Action, but Wants Support First From Lawmakers
           Syrian rebels jail and torture American photographer! They are no better than the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad and more barbaric in my opinion.


Monday, July 29, 2013

Toronto a Sanctuary for Violent Youth and Huggers of Law Breakers?

Wait a minute here. First off, this young man contrary to what his friends have said obviously had not at all adjusted well to living in Canada or the Canadian way of life.

What he did was unacceptable. He broke the laws of the country he came to reside in when he first exposed himself on public transit, then provoked a situation, put innocent transit riders at risk and in harms way by brandishing a knife demanding that they get off the streetcar in the middle of the night.

In my humble opinion, such actions are not those of a person who is flourishing in Canada

Many questions have to be answered starting with the reason why he left his job and for what reasons, why he moved out of his fathers residence and who had he been with just prior to his illegal actions of hijacking a public transit vehicle?

Also was this TTC streetcar driver the same person who Mr. Yatim junior previous had a confrontation and attitude problem with?

A scrawny 110 ten pounds of sweet, very loving kind-hearted and well-adjusted guy in civil society does not go around exposing himself, brandishing knife or gun and hijacking public transit vehicles and demanding everyone get off and then further start taunting and calling police officers f... ing pussies

Are these the actions of a law-abiding well adjusted teenager with respect for the rights of others and authority as learned or was taught by his youthful friends and family?

Now after the fact,  why are some of these previous passengers claiming, after the fact that they were in no immediate danger or threatened by this drug high knife provoking passenger?

As they now claim no perception of threat, so why then did they not group together and disarm this skinny kid as opposed to fleeing the streetcar and leaving it to the police who did not run yet perceived a threat of self-defence and thus demanded that he drop the weapon and not move towards them or he would be shot?

As tragic as it was this young man was obviously high on marijuana or other illegal drugs and decided to end his life with the assistance of the officers, in my humble opinion.

The bottom line in any confrontation with police is NOT to refuse an order to drop any weapon that one is obviously holding be it a knife, bat, scissors or gun.

Unless one wishes to commit suicide!


Friday, July 19, 2013

A Subway Funding and Congestion Solution.

City streets represent the most utilized and fastest commuter transportation mode and account for 75% of Toronto's daily commuters by people, cars, trucks and vans.

Tearing up these streets to put streetcar tracks or LRTs, with or without right-of-ways, and reduce the available road width usage for these daily commuters and commerce purposes are NOT visionary or leadership.

Toronto's previous mayor Miller should have upgraded the City's and TTC's outdated signalling systems and traffic signals before borrowing close to a Billion dollars for new streetcars and subway vehicles in my humble opinion. 

LRT cost forecasting, as witnessed with the ST. Clair line (call it a streetcar or LRT) and the Eglinton LRT already $400 Million over budget and not even a third of the way completed, are continually underestimated in costs while overestimating the demand. 

Reports by non elected technocrats and bureaucrats are slanted in order to produce unrealistic cost figures that favour and constitutes technical justification for political-public works programs rather than real economic or technical criteria. 

Streetcars or LRT's are in NO way the solution to any cities transit requirements across Canada that have populations of over 2.6 million residents. If one wishes to see how engineers, planners and bureaucrats have screwed up a pedestrian, cyclists, autos, vans and commerce transit within a city go to Zurich, a city of less than 400,000 that is congested with inner city streetcars, LRTS or whatever one wishes to label them.

What Toronto urgently requires is funding from the province and the federal government for construction of a Scarborough subway today not tomorrow, replacing and upgrading the TTC signalling system coupled with the upgrading of all existing four-way traffic signals throughout the city, now, and within 3 to 5 years start construction on the DRL and then 2 years later finish the Sheppard subway connection to Scarborough and Spadina.

Now for the funding to accomplish all this is rather easy if the politicians had the political courage and the best interest of citizens in mind and not their respective unelected political parties.

A transit and infrastructure levy of 2% should immediately be required from all corporations operating and doing business in any province of Canada that has annual gross revenues in excess of $500 million dollars. This would be their mandatory investment for doing business within Canada

This levy would be designated solely for communities that already have an existing subway operation. Like it or not there is just no way Individual taxpayers and property taxes can continue to absorb and bear the brunt for transit and infrastructure costs in Toronto or any Canadian city.

Corporations, banks, unions and organizations like individual taxpayers all have an obligation when it comes to funding costs for transit and infrastructure within our cities.  

Its either a 2% tax levy now or a minimum 10% tax in the very near future for corporations with annual gross revenues that exceed half a billion dollars in my opinion. 


Up Dates:

Nobody knows what it will really cost for subways, streetcars or LRT’s

The United StatesCanada and other leading world economies that want multinational corporations to pay more taxes.