News   Apr 16, 2024
 256     0 
News   Apr 15, 2024
 1.2K     0 
News   Apr 15, 2024
 2.4K     6 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

All I have to say about the above post is that fanatical devotion to one party is dumb. Hyping up the CPC no matter what they do...
I do blame Mulroney for not eliminating deficit in the 1980's, and severely criticize him for accepting bags of cash.
I credit Chretien for balancing the books. If it were not for the Adscam, and the Liberal party refusal to repay the proceeds of crime, I would have a much higher opinion of him now.

I am a Keynesian to a large degree, so I understand the deficits that Harper rung up. The key is to have deficits when times are bad, and pay it off when they are not. Harper did this. The danger of running up deficits when times are not good enough gave us the errors of Pierre Trudeau (rang up deficits before 1980's recession), and Mulroney (same thing, deficit heading into 1990's recession). I see the same thing happening with this Trudeau as well.
 
Can't wait for spring when the real party gets started.

Reeve of Manitoba border town irked by behaviour of some asylum-seekers

As the number of people crossing the border continues to climb, Reeve Greg Janzen says he would like the RCMP to continue monitoring security.

EMERSON, MAN.—Officials in the Manitoba border town of Emerson say some residents are starting to get a little annoyed with how asylum-seekers are behaving when they arrive in the community.

Reeve Greg Janzen says nine or more people who illegally crossed the border walked into town early Tuesday morning.

He tells CTV Winnipeg that one group of three people started ringing doorbells at 4 a.m. at a house in town, looking for help.

He says on Sunday morning, another group of six was knocking on doors and looking into a window, characterizing the behaviour as “a little rude.”


As the number of people crossing the border continues to climbing, Janzen says he would like the RCMP to continue upping security.

The latest crossings come on the same day the federal government released a new website tracking statistics on asylum claims and interceptions of asylum seekers between ports of entry.

According to the website, RCMP interceptions have been the highest in Quebec. In January and February, 677 people were intercepted there. Meanwhile, there were 291 in British Columbia and 161 in Manitoba.

He tells CTV Winnipeg that one group of three people started ringing doorbells at 4 a.m. at a house in town, looking for help.

He says on Sunday morning, another group of six was knocking on doors and looking into a window, characterizing the behaviour as “a little rude.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...rked-by-behaviour-of-some-asylum-seekers.html
 
Can somebody explain why deficits are such a boogieman? I mean, it is either austerity or deficits anyways. We need to invest to expect growth, no? So, is it deficits you have a problem with or where the Libs invest the money?

I'll tackle this.

Deficits, like anything (almost) ...taxes, laws, the weather.... are neither evil nor good. The question is one of understanding what they can achieve, at what price and at what risk; then deciding if you find that to be reasonable and beneficial in the circumstance.

So, rather than looking at any single year's deficit, any of which could arguably be justified based on what it may fund, or what tax hike it may avoid or defer; let's consider the cumulative effect of all those deficits.

At the Federal level alone, debt servicing cost (or annual interest payments) exceed 30B per year.

Put one way, had government run no deficits in the past, it could have produced this years program budget with a surplus of several billion dollars.

Put another, were cumulative deficits (debt) lower, by say 1/2, and the reduced interest were all spent on programs, it would cover the entire cost, both provincial and federal
of universal pharmacare AND dental care and have billions left over.

Irrespective of one politics that ought to be disappointing and disconcerting.

There is no question 'new investments' need to be made by government.

One could debate at some length whether some of those funds could be recovered from other lower-priority programs......

But to be sure, nowhere near the full amount.

That means, if new investments are indeed a priority, one should probably argue for raising taxes to pay for said investments, rather than racking up debt which will only cause
more painful tax hikes and/or program cuts down the road.

Again one could debate as to which taxes might rise and by how much; but I think people of any political persuasion ought to be able to get behind the idea of paying your bills off, in full, in real time, whenever practical.

At a time of unemployment below 7% nationally, with economic growth, albeit modest, and artificially low debt-servicing costs on past debt due to a period of historically low interest rates; there really ought not to be reason we couldn't finance from current revenue in this time.

Were this a recession or other crisis, one might argue thoughtfully in favour of short term deficits so as to boost the economy and not savage program spending due to a brief revenue shortfall.

This is not such a time.
 
In respect of this budget, while there are elements to recommend within in it; I would call Budget 2017 a disappointment, on balance.

Laudable are the real investments in aboriginal communities and more broadly in rural/northern communities; these are much needed and have material
economic payoffs (potentially), particularly in linking remote communities to roads, the grid and highspeed internet.

The housing investments sound good; but with only 20M flowing in the current year, this is more smoke and mirrors than substance.

Absent from budget were commitments to high-frequency rail; and any move to seriously remove tax distortions that favour the wealthy.

On the latter, I might note here than I'm a beneficiary of many of the tax instruments in question (capital gains etc.); I'm not necc. in favour of massive
tax hikes, but I'd rather see lower deficits, more quality investments, and reduced taxes across the board, in a less distorted system. (ie. higher basic exemption, or lower entry level tax bracket).

The childcare investment is fine, as far as it goes.

The Parental leave extension is deeply disappointing in that it will largely be available only to wealthy families (18 month leave @33% income reimbursement is only useful if you have a high income)

Nothing was done to address those who don't qualify due to part-time work; or who can't use the leave because 55% of a low income may not be something one can survive on; nor did it provide for a mandatory paternity leave.

So it failed to address either income inequality or gender inequity. Poor symbolism for a government that understand that concept quite well.

I would have preferred a model that made parental leave available based on weeks worked rather than hours; that provided a higher percentage of the first $50,000 in earnings, then a lower amount for the balance (ie. 70% of the first $50,000, then 50% of the balance of any insurable earnings).

For purely symbolic purposes, it would have been good to tackle corporate governance. I'm loathe to impose quotas, and a strong believer in merit; but its clear some companies are overlooking qualified women for their boards for no obvious reason. As such a 'temporary quota' (ie. one with a sunset clause) that said 'Boards shall have at least 30% membership of each sex by 2021 would have been quite reasonable and shifted the needle on an important issue.

Likewise, raising the Federal min. wage (even though it applies to a limited subset of workers) would have been a no brainer, for its symbolic value in addressing income inequality.

***

Further, in an age where we should all realize that most government programs to assist business (with a few notable exceptions, BDC, and EDC among them) have proven to be quite ineffective. If one were to incent business, I'd rather target any tax or user fee that applies to business irrespective of its profit (or as a gross cost). That to me would do more to reduce barrier to entry for new business or lessen the strain on marginal ones.

From a point of view of what it accomplishes in the here and now, I rate this budget a 6.5/10; for its higher than needed deficit, a 5/10, for its political cowardice a 4/10.

On balance....I'll award a 5.5/10, a bare pass, in consideration of the notion, it could have been worse.

But really, I would have and did hope for better.
 
The changes to parliamentary procedure that the current government are proposing are very disturbing.....they are precisely the sort of changes that if, say, Mr. Harper had proposed (he didn't) the Liberal Party lead by Mr. Trudeau would have been up in arms about. But the whole issue seems to get hardly a mention as we are introducing a budget and the world (including our own media) is focused on our nutty neighbour to the south.
 
So Trudeau takes away the public transit tax credit, which I personally benefited from, and only promises $11 billion for transit for the entire country as his justification for scrapping it? Wow! I'm starting to think the next election won't be the cakewalk the Liberals are hoping for with all these blunders.
 
So Trudeau takes away the public transit tax credit, which I personally benefited from, and only promises $11 billion for transit for the entire country as his justification for scrapping it? Wow! I'm starting to think the next election won't be the cakewalk the Liberals are hoping for with all these blunders.

The tax credit did nothing to help build or fund transit, it was found to be largely ineffectual in increasing transit usage, and, most importantly, it did almost nothing to assist lower-income Canadians to access transit (it was a nonrefundable tax credit; the bottom third of Canadian tax-filers owe no taxes and therefore benefited $0.00 from this credit).

The credit was originally introduced mostly to curry favour with suburban, middle-class voters by effectively subsidizing their GO passes (or the equivalents elsewhere in the country). Nothing wrong with that (I have no issue with government subsidizing transit usage), but from a dollars perspective it was among the least effective ways in which the Feds could positively impact public transit in this country. It also didn't help the people who most need financial assistance in affording transit.

Would I have liked the government to invest more in transit in the budget? Most certainly. But public transit issues have rarely impacted federal elections, and my very strong view is that the elimination of this credit will have zero impact on the next election. If anyone pissed about the loss of the credit is switching his or her vote from the Liberals to someone else, they were probably already likely to do so (credit issue aside).

But I do see why you are annoyed. I would be too if I lost a credit like that.
 
Last edited:
Interesting though that China has plenty of limits on foreign ownership in their own country and yet want full access to ours?

The Chinese know a good opportunity, and the Trudeau Liberals are no exception.

Beijing pressing for full access to Canada’s economy in trade talks

China wants to invest in all sectors, envoy says, but security concerns, human rights not up for discussion

China’s new envoy says Beijing is seeking unfettered access for Chinese state-owned firms to all key sectors of the Canadian economy during free-trade talks now under way with Ottawa – including an end to restrictions barring these enterprises from investing in the oil sands.

The envoy also signalled that China does not want human rights to be used as a “bargaining chip” in free-trade talks with Canada. Ambassador Lu Shaye told The Globe and Mail that China will regard as trade protectionism any attempt by Canada to invoke national security to block state owned firms from buying Canadian companies or doing business with the federal government.

Canadian and U.S. intelligence agencies have warned that these enterprises or even non-stateowned firms, such as Chinese telecommunications and networking equipment giant Huawei, act in the interests of China’s Communist Party.

But Mr. Lu discounted the security concerns, suggesting Canadian spy agencies were acting for political reasons. He left little doubt that China would be miffed if the Trudeau government made national security an issue during trade talks.

“Investment is investment. We should not take too much political considerations into the investment,” he said, speaking through an interpreter. “Just like the negotiations of the FTA, we should not let political factors into this process. Otherwise, it would be very difficult.”

Mr. Lu, who sat down for his first exclusive interview this week, said the initial round of exploratory trade talks took place in late February and a second meeting will happen in April.

» Mr. Lu assumed his post as China’s new ambassador to Canada in early March.

He said Beijing’s focus in the negotiations is to remove Harper-era barriers that limited takeovers of oil sands companies by state-owned enterprises, specifically from China, and to expand Chinese investment throughout the Canadian economy.

“All enterprises should be treated equally,” he said. “No matter if they are state-owned enterprises or private enterprises, they are equal. They are both Chinese enterprises.”

Fortune Magazine says 12 of China’s biggest companies – including massive banks and oil companies – are state-owned. The government appoints the CEOs and makes decisions on large investments.

Only 22 of 98 Chinese companies on Fortune’s Global 500 list are private.

Mr. Lu, who played a major role as an envoy in Africa where he helped China acquire mineral rights, said his country’s investment ambitions go far beyond scooping up Canadian resources.

“China has invested in many aspects in energy and mining. But now other areas are expanding, such as manufacturing, agriculture and scientific research,” he said.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made deepening trade relations with China, including a free-trade deal, key foreign-policy objectives and the Liberals are also loosening restrictions on outside investment. In November, Ottawa announced it would raise the threshold for automatic reviews of foreign takeovers to $1-billion two years ahead of schedule.

The Liberals have already signalled a greater willingness than the Harper government to open Canada’s economy to Chinese investment.


As The Globe and Mail has reported, the Trudeau government set aside a Harper cabinet order blocking O-Net, a Chinese company with ties to the Chinese state, from buying a Montreal-area high-tech company – despite warnings from a Canadian national-security agency that the purchase would undermine a technological edge that Western militaries have over China.

“If the technology is transferred, China would be able to domestically produce advanced military-laser technology to Western standards sooner than would otherwise be the case, which diminishes Canadian and allied military advantages,” a national-security assessment had warned Ottawa about the O-Net transaction. The Liberals nevertheless are undertaking a new security review.

A concern frequently voiced by Canadian national-security officials is that companies owned or partly owned by the Chinese government are not merely profit-seeking operations, but make decisions and investments that serve the ruling Communist Party’s larger strategic and geopolitical aims, including passing on technology or information to Beijing. The premise is that Beijing’s long-term interests are often antithetical to Canada’s, and that state-owned firms or companies partly owned by the government are liable to be arms of China’s political masters.

The former Harper government barred China’s Huawei from bidding on federal government contracts in 2012 after the U.S. House intelligence committee issued a report, concluding that the company’s ties to the Chinese state posed a national-security threat.

Mr. Lu said Huawei and other Chinese firms are being scapegoated and denied they spy or act in the interests of Beijing.

“High-tech enterprises from China sell their products to countries all over the world, so only why here and your neighbour, the United States, have worries about those enterprises?” Mr. Lu said. “If we abuse the excuse of national security – this is the manifestation of trade protectionism.”

The Chinese envoy argued that Western high-tech companies have no restrictions to invest and sell their products in China.

In fact, many of China’s corporations – most notably in its financial and telecommunications sectors – are considered off limits to foreign investment.


Mr. Lu said China was open to negotiating a cybersecurity treaty as it has with the United States and Britain, but flatly denied his country engages in industrial spying in Canada or elsewhere. “China never carries out any cyber espionage activities to other countries.”

In 2014, the Harper government squarely blamed a highly sophisticated, Chinese statesponsored actor for an intrusion into the National Research Council’s networks that resulted in a shutdown of the agency’s computer system for an extended period.

As part of the free-trade talks, the Liberal government has begun a consultation process with Canadians to hear their concerns about “issues relating to the environment, labour, gender equality, rule of law and human rights.”

Asked whether Canada would address China’s human-rights record in a trade deal, the Department of Global Affairs said in the consultation paper that the Liberal government is committed to a “progressive and inclusive approach to international trade that takes into account the impact of trade on areas such as labour and human rights.”

It said a free-trade deal would not deter Canada from “urging and working with China to meet its international obligations in these areas.”

However, Mr. Lu said China has no interest in talking about human rights or democracy during the trade talks. “We don’t want one side to use democracy or human rights as a bargaining chip to make the other side compromise. The negotiations of the FTA should be confined within the area of free trade. If you let too many other factors into it, it would be very difficult.”

Mr. Lu said Canada and China have still not begun formal bilateral talks on an extradition treaty – something that Beijing has become much more insistent upon since President Xi Jinping launched an anti-corruption campaign to track down Chinese citizens accused of economic crimes around the world.

The United States, Britain and New Zealand have been reluctant to sign extradition treaties while Australia has not ratified one it signed in 2007, largely over concerns that China’s legal system used torture to extract confessions, show trials and the death penalty for non-capital offences.

“We hope to strengthen our cooperations in judicial and law enforcement, jointly cracking down on all crimes including abuse-of-power crimes and economic crimes and making all crimes intolerable,” the ambassador said.

Mr. Lu remarked on how relations had improved under Mr. Trudeau and said there was a possibility that Mr. Xi might visit Canada but he gave no time line.

http://www.pressreader.com/canada/the-globe-and-mail-ottawaquebec-edition/20170324/textview

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nadas-economy-in-trade-talks/article34412957/
 
Interesting poll on federal sentiments that seems to show a break from other recent polls that still show a Liberal majority.

One thing for certain for all polls- the NDP need to ditch Muclair, find a better leader and figure out what they're fighting for.


Forum Poll: Conservatives 38%, Liberals 36%, NDP 15%, Bloc 6%, Greens 4%

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2695/conservatives-inch-ahead/
 
Interesting though that China has plenty of limits on foreign ownership in their own country and yet want full access to ours?

The Chinese know a good opportunity, and the Trudeau Liberals a̶r̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶e̶x̶c̶e̶p̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ will capitulate.

Fixed that for you.
 
What a wasteful, ineffectual budget. Apart from shoring up some essential needs on reserves, still a Band-Aid solution to a systemic problem, this budget includes a grab-bag of questionable items that lack substance. Here's reality: Morneau and Trudeau prepared the public for the massive deficit spending in store straight after the election, with promises of infrastructure spending and creating conditions for Canada to be competitive in the 21st century. What actually happened: The Liberals spent the treasury on a refugee program for which they and the country were ill-prepared. It's nice to help people in other countries, and that program better be included in our foreign aid stats, but what about the needs at home? Trudeau will spend the rest of his time in office back-peddling on promises because he can't fund them. Canadians are left holding the bag of debt so that his champagne socialists can boast about Canada's progressive way.

The federal Liberals, like their provincial counterparts, have countless pet projects that pick winners and losers and skew the natural supply and demand of markets, creating moral hazards. Five recommendations: 1. Stop overspending (no more deficits). 2. Stop incentivizing inactivity (no more increases to EI or similar so-called benefits). 3. Stop funding industries. 4. Stop making us uncompetitive by adding costs to businesses and individuals with policies like the carbon tax. 5. Increase spending in an area that will certainly boost productivity, improve economic conditions for all, and significantly reduce carbon emissions: infrastructure and mass transportation.
 
Huh, that doesn't make any sense.

The amount they spent on Syrian refugees is not as large as you are trying to make it sound. And it isn't so large that it has forced them to cancel other spending.

It looks like they realized they just don't have the money to spend that they want. So they aren't going to spend it.
 
It looks like they realized they just don't have the money to spend that they want. So they aren't going to spend it.

No, it looks like they wasted the money on useless thing and don't have money left.

What are the 11 year totals, $20B for transit. A couple of Billion on housing.

And we are paying what, $25B deficit times 11 years is $275B.

That means they are spending money at about 10% efficiency.
 

Back
Top