More, More Politics (Ot But Relevant)

[Guest tailwheel]

Looking at some of the subjects posted here, I agree with Don on the drug issue. I am for decriminalizing at least the light drugs and it is unfortunate that this is not being done.

But, time to look at the big picture. It looks like the world economy is going downhill again as the stock markets are plunging around the world. We have seen this before and I am quite happy how our present government performed the last time this happened.

The opposition screamed for a lot of money to be spent(called stimulus) and threatened to topple the minority government if they did not do so. The government agreed and did it even if forced. Unfortunately, when the government scaled back the spending, the opposition screamed for more spending and also complained how the deficit was so big. Obviously, the debt would not have been around with them as they would have and will raise taxes significantly. The GST will be the first thing to go up.

If the present government stays in power, you will not see a large increase in spending unlesswe get another great recession. Instead, they will continue to scale back the overall size of the government. That is why your federal taxes have not gone up over the past decade but have instead gone down.

Sure there are some minor annoyances with this government. And there is the occasional scandal just like there has been under every previous government. That will not change no matter who is in power. But, if you want massive spending on green energy with the huge energy bills to go with it like Ontario, massive amounts of money to go from your wallet to the public sector workers like in Ontario, unaccountable spending on the natives(Remember Paul Martin calling Chief Spence a role model for us and Justin visiting), lots of your hard earned money being restored to nearly every hand reaching out for a free ride, then vote for the opposition.

[Fido]

10 years ago or more the vitriolic opposition to Steven Harper started with the tag-line of "Scary".

Since that did not work now the opposition to him is "I do no like him".

What will be the next tagline?

[Guest]

10 years ago or more the vitriolic opposition to Steven Harper started with the tag-line of "Scary".

Since that did not work now the opposition to him is "I do no like him".

What will be the next tagline?

Next Tagline: " oh **bleep** he won again!

[Moon The Loon]

.

Harper hysteria a sign of closed liberal minds

Monday, Aug. 24, 2015 - Globe and Mail

Konrad Yakabuski

The best part of this article is the Comments section. 1150 and counting, all in a 12 hour window.

Insinuations were made that KY is "on the take," a ridiculous accusation, of course.

[Guest]

And according to the CBC

DEO

Are you better off after 9 years of Conservative government?

CBC News Posted: Aug 25, 2015 1:53 PM ET Last Updated: Aug 25, 2015 2:32 PM ET

It's the modern Canadian version of an age-old ballot box question: are you better off than you were nine years ago?

More specifically, under Stephen Harper's stewardship of the economy, are Canadians better off financially?

The answer? It depends.

Single men — and single dads with kids — saw their take-home pay decline between 2006 and 2011.

The winners? Senior females, who have seen their pocketbooks boosted, and two-parent families.

Watch the video above to see how different demographics groups have faired financially.

Canada's three main party leaders seem content to make the economy the ballot box question in this election, recalling Ronald Reagan's famous question to Americans during the 1980 U.S. presidential election, "are you better off than you were four years ago?" Americans then looked at the state of their economy — dragged down by years of stagflation — and voted Jimmy Carter out of office.

How will Canadians answer that question this time out?

Check out the CBC's other election promise fact checks:

Comparing the major parties on child care promises

TFSAs: Who really benefits from new contribution limits?

goto to video etc. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tfsas-who-really-benefits-from-new-contribution-limits-1.3066478

[Guest tailwheel]

I wish I had been wrong about Harper because that would mean he's motivated by principles, not partisanship and power. If he were a principled fiscal conservative, he would have instituted across the board income tax cuts benefitting everyone, rather than build fiscal policy around boutique tax cuts for hockey and arts programs, or home renovations.

You must be gravely disappointed today as they are all doing boutique tax cuts.

"Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's proposal for a school supplies tax benefit for teachers goes "above and beyond" a broader employment benefit created by the Conservatives nearly a decade ago, his press secretary told CBC News.

Trudeau, a former teacher, promised a tax credit on up to $1,000 spent on out-of-pocket expenses starting this coming school year during a campaign stop at a school supplies producer in Newmarket, Ont. on Wednesday morning. The credit would be worth 15 per cent — or up to $150.

"I know very well as a teacher that sometimes you have out-of-pocket expenses to help enhance the activities in your classroom — everything from gold star stickers to times table posters. Unfortunately, those expenses aren't recognized by our federal tax system," he said.

The Conservative campaign called Trudeau's proposal redundant, claiming educators can already claim those costs under the Canada employment amount, introduced by the Conservatives in 2006.

The employment benefit "provides recognition for work-related expenses such as home computers, uniforms and supplies," with 15 per cent back on up to $1,127, according to the Canada Revenue Agency.

Trudeau's press secretary Zita Astravas told CBC News in an email that the benefit to teachers would go "above and beyond the employment credit that any employee in any field already receives."

The employment credit does not require receipts while the benefit proposed by Trudeau would require receipts.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper initially said the teacher benefit was "worth considering" when asked about it during his own campaign stop in Lancaster, Ont., shortly after Trudeau's announcement.

Harper also said that Trudeau appeared to be trying to "ape" the many Conservative tax credits that the Liberal Party has opposed in the past.

"It's an interesting switch for the Liberal Party," he said. "We brought in tax credits for students, for their bus passes, for their textbooks. We've brought in various plans to improve educational savings for Canadian parents — all things, which Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party have opposed."

Harper announced his plan to introduce a tax credit for people who belong to service clubs, such as the Royal Canadian Legion, at a campaign event on Sunday.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair also proposed a tax credit Wednesday that aims to bolster the sagging manufacturing sector by giving a break to businesses that invest in "innovation." He said it would save manufacturers $40 million annually by defraying costs of machinery, equipment and property to assist research and development in the manufacturing sector."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-promises-tax-benefit-for-teachers-1.3204160

[Guest]

I wonder if this will change the opposition to "Alberta Dirty Oil"

Hey Ontario, do you realize?

Oil-price plunge could cost Ontario billions in equalization

Change to 'have' from 'have-not' status would cost Ontario $2.4B, but poorer provinces gain

By Kyle Bakx, CBC News Posted: Aug 27, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Aug 27, 2015 5:00 AM ET

The swing in oil prices could dramatically shift the equalization payments for provinces. (Larry MacDougal/Canadian Press)

Ontario big loser on transfer payments, budget officer confirms

Ontario’s Wynne, Sousa react to federal budget

Western Canada's oil price nightmare could have a significant financial impact on provinces with little or no oil wealth, a University of Alberta economics professor says.

That's because the massive drop in oil revenue for Alberta and other oil-producing provinces could shift the central Canadian province to "have" from "have-not" status.

Such a shift in the country's largest province would create a ripple effect for the remaining have-not provinces, which would become eligible for a greater share of the equalization program, observers say.

"Ontario may find itself a have province," said Melville McMillan, an economics professor at the University of Alberta who has published research on the Canadian equalization program. "That could occur, we're moving in that direction.

"Ontario may shift [to have status] because of what's happening in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland," McMillan said. "The price of oil goes down, their natural resource revenues go down, corporate taxes go down and personal income taxes go down as well."

Shift for Ontario

The equalization program is designed to ensure provinces can deliver reasonably comparable services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. It's historically been controversial because every Canadian pays into the program, yet funds are only given to certain provinces.

Equalization looks at the revenue each province can generate based on personal income tax, corporate tax, sales tax, property tax and 50 per cent of resource revenues.

In the last 50 years, Alberta is the only province to not receive any money from the program. Even with its economy in a recession this year, it will not benefit from the program.

Ontario is near the divide separating wealthy provinces and those less-prosperous.

The Ontario government expects its residents to contribute about $6.7 billion to equalization this year, with the province receiving about $2.4 billion in return in 2015-16. Next year, if its status changes, it might not receive a penny in return.

North American oil prices were above $100 US a barrel in the summer of 2014. This week, prices are below $40 US.

"It [lower natural resource revenues] would certainly increase the odds of Ontario ending up above the average," said Noah Zon, who is a part of the Mowat Centre at the School of Public Policy at the University of Toronto. "Any province that is close to the average, and just below it right now, could end up just above it and may not receive equalization payments any more."

Win for remaining have-nots

If Ontario shifts to become a have province, the remaining have-not provinces would benefit. Ontario's $2.4-billion share this year from the program would be returned to the $17-billion fund that is dispersed among the have-not provinces.

"The existing amount that is allocated for equalization would be distributed across a smaller number of provinces. They could actually get more," McMillan said. "This is one thing about equalization that some of us have criticized."

McMillan's conclusions are based predominantly on the change in oil prices. However, there are many other factors at play, including each province's economic performance.

If Ontario becomes a have province, it could spur even more frustration with the program.

Ontario was already unhappy with equalization and other federal transfers to the provinces. In its spring budget, Queen's Park wrote the "fiscal imbalance in the federation could have profound effects on the federation's future. It could limit provinces and territories from making the necessary investments that strengthen their economies and maintain the public services that Canadians expect and deserve."

Calls for change

Ontario is not the only province pushing for a revamp to equalization.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall renewed his calls for change during an interview last weekend on CBC Radio's The House.

Brad Wall May 28

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall says the equalization program is unfair. (CBC)

"One change we'd like to make, to modernize it, is to include hydro in the calculation," he said. "We'd also argue those provinces with the great advantage of hydro that other's don't have should probably have to have that included in their calculation of economic capacity."

Provinces that have hydroelectric power are able to export it, but profits made on those exports aren't part of the equalization formula, according to Wall.

He also wants to get rid of the lag time built into the program. Equalization is calculated on three-year rolling averages to avoid sudden spikes.

"Albertans will fund their share, probably $2 billion of the $17 billion program, even though they're getting hammered by $40 oil and there's massive lay-offs," Wall said.

Wall also suggests the current formula could be tweaked with half of the money in the fund going toward supporting infrastructure across the country.

[dagger]

I wonder if this will change the opposition to "Alberta Dirty Oil"

Hey Ontario, do you realize?

I'm not quite sure what this has to do with pipelines. It has everything to do with world prices. I actually favor the Energy East Proposal - in conjunction with more stringent emissions standards for the oil sands and a national carbon tax (funds used to lower income taxes). We know that low prices stimulate consumption. High prices stimulate the development of new technologies and spur conservations. Case in point. GM manufactures the Equinox SUV at the CAMI plant in southwestern Ontario. Since gas prices have dropped, especially in the US where there is no exchange rate overhang, demand for the Equinox has soared. The CAMI plant can't make enough. The body shop there can build more Equinox bodies but there isn't the capacity at CAMI to assemble more cars. So GM has announced that a part of the Oshawa complex that was scheduled to close in 2016, will be kept open at least a year longer to assemble the overflow of Equinox vehicles. GM will transport car bodies from CAMI to Oshawa.

If gas prices were much higher, this wouldn't be happening. Crude would cost more, the Canadian dollar would be higher, SUV demand would be down, demand for Volts and Leafs and other "green" cars would be up. Oshawa would close according to the original schedule, etc. etc.

The enemy of high crude prices is not Alberta, it's the US and other frackers, and the Saudis and other foreign producers who will go as low as $10 a barrel to make budget. We should want as much oil sands oil to be used precisely because it can be high priced crude, and if we lock into that, and tax end users too, it serves the overall interests of both the Canadian oil producing regions, and the cause of climate change mitigation and reduction.

As for your point about equalization, if crude prices stay low for a long time, the dollar will stay low and this will even out. Ontario will lose its have not status and equalization dollars, but the provincial economy will be rebuilt. A large dose of infrastructure spending to which the NDP and Liberals are committed, would be of further help in that regard. So it's not clear if Ontario is actually going to be worse off if crude stays cheap. But it would be healthier for all of Canada if there was a middle ground, like $75 a barrel + carbon tax.

[Guest]

Dagger, you are missing my point. Mr Trudeau has yet to say yes to the Pipeline east, lots of opposition in Ontario or so we are told. If Alberta can not ship their oil at whatever price then Alberta will lose $$$$, this loss could indeed have an negative effect on equalization so I am suggesting that those who are opposed to using Alberta oil and those who want to continue to import their oil from overseas should be aware of what could be the result. The article source was not the Sun etc but rather your beloved CBC

\

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-price-plunge-could-cost-ontario-billions-in-equalization-1.3204437

[Guest tailwheel]

Some of you may remember that the initial post on this thread by De-icer was an article claiming that only the left wing governments around the world these days seemed to be the ones that are able to reduce deficits during their time in power(of course it wasn’t mentioned that Germany forced Greece to do it).

So, after years of hearing the Liberals and their supporters deride Harper as fiscally incompetent for having deficits(which they could have minimized earlier by raising taxes instead of bureaucracy cuts), guess what the headline is today. Trudeau plans to go from a near balanced budget this year to a 10 billion dollar a year deficit. He is following the path of the Ontario liberals and is campaigning beside Kathleen Wynne(and he supports her green energy policies that have made electricity prices skyrocket for homeowners and manufacturers).

For the first time, I am really starting to believe that Trudeau is in over his head. Years of complaining about deficits and now this. Mulcair meanwhile is stating that he is for balancing the budget but with big spending plans, that almost certainly means a lot more taxes.

One has to say that there are certainly three clear choices in this election.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-propose-modest-deficits-in-order-to-kickstart-the-economy/article26125406/

"The Liberal Party is promising to run deficits of up to $10-billion a year over the next three years, touting a new infrastructure program as the best way to create economic growth and help balance the books by 2019.

Justin Trudeau’s pledge is putting the Liberal Party in a starkly different position than the Conservative Party and the NDP, which are both promising balanced budgets. Over all, the Liberals would boost federal infrastructure spending by $60-billion over the next decade, on top of the currently planned spending of $65-billion.

Combined with a promise to increase taxes on the richest Canadians – in order to provide a tax cut to members of the middle class – the Liberals are putting forward a plan that is clearly to the left of the New Democrats on key issues.

“This election is a clear choice between smart investments that create jobs and growth, or austerity and cuts that will slow our economy further,” the Liberal Leader said in Oakville, Ont.

The economy has become the dominant issue of the campaign, with turmoil in global markets, plummeting oil prices and a slowdown in Canada forcing all three major parties to adapt their policies and their political offerings. The leaders are campaigning in Ontario these days to unveil those economic promises.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper mocked the Liberal proposal as conducive to large deficits and looming tax hikes, urging voters to “stay the course” in the next election.

“We already raised our infrastructure spending in this country by three times what the previous government was doing, and we’ve done it while balancing the budget and lowering taxes,” Mr. Harper said at a campaign stop in Markham. “What these guys will do, what they will do with spending they cannot finance, they will inevitably raise taxes that will hurt Canadians and kill jobs.”

Mr. Harper added that in times of “modest growth, you don’t return the country into deficit.”

The Conservatives argued that at $53-billion over 10 years, their New Building Canada Plan is the “largest long-term infrastructure plan in Canadian history,” while keeping the government out of a “structural deficit.”

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair promised different strategies than the current Conservative government to balance the books, saying he would bring down spending on the Senate, get rid of subsidies to the oil industry, reverse income-splitting for families and stop fighting First Nations in the courts.

“Our first budget will be a balanced budget,” Mr. Mulcair said. “We’ve got a clear plan to help the middle class, to create jobs. Mr. Harper’s plan is not working.”

The NDP has promised to increase the gas-tax transfer to the provinces for municipal infrastructure projects by $1.5-billion a year by the end of a first mandate, to an annual total of $3.7-billion a year. Mr. Mulcair is also proposing a Better Transit Plan that would invest $1.3-billion a year over 20 years on public transit.

“[Mr. Trudeau’s] plan is unaffordable,” said Carolynn Ioannoni, the NDP candidate in Niagara Falls. “There is a need for an increased commitment by the federal government, but not at the cost of running the deficit that they are speaking about.”

The Liberals have criticized the Harper government for running eight straight deficits, but are now pledging to continue in the same vein as they trail the Conservatives and the NDP in most recent polls. Still, Nanos Research has found that 54 per cent of respondents in a recent poll either “supported” or “somewhat supported” a new round of deficit spending by the federal government to stimulate the economy. By comparison, 36 per cent of respondents said they opposed the measure.

The Liberal plan would focus spending on transit, and social and green infrastructure, with a boost of $5-billion a year over the next two years. The spending would then drop to $3.6-billion a year for two years, to help the government balance the budget, before increasing to an additional $9.6-billion in spending in 2025-26.

“Every dollar we spend on public infrastructure grows our economy, creates jobs and strengthens our cities and towns,” Mr. Trudeau said. “Canada’s economic growth was made possible by building ambitiously. We must do so again if we are to transform our transit and transportation systems, create more liveable communities and ensure that we adapt to a changing climate.”

Mr. Trudeau defended the plan to stay in the red by saying that interest rates are low and that Canada benefits from a strong debt-to-GDP ratio. He added that a Liberal government would sign agreements with the provinces – along the same model as the gas-tax transfer – to provide “long-term, stable and predictable funding for provinces, territories and municipalities.”

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities applauded the promise, stating that “investments of the scale proposed today will create jobs, strengthen the economy and make our communities more resilient.”

Toronto Mayor John Tory welcomed the announcement, stating that such spending was “critical as we focus on building transit, cutting congestion and making badly needed repairs to affordable housing.”

By talking about running a deficit and raising taxes, Mr. Trudeau is arguing that he is simply telling the truth to Canadians, instead of waiting to find out the government’s true fiscal situation after the election.

“We are focused on creating the growth that is necessary so that we can grow back into balance, out of Mr. Harper’s deficits, by 2019,” Mr. Trudeau said, while acknowledging that the fiscal situation could evolve along the way. “All the way through, I will be open and transparent and tell the truth about our plans.”"

[Guest]

His Dream, "Build the Fund and they will Come"

Reevely: The trick to Trudeau's $60B infrastructure fund will be finding things to spend it on

DAVID REEVELY
More from David Reevely

Published on: August 27, 2015 | Last Updated: August 27, 2015 6:27 PM EDT

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has pledged to spend $60 billion more than the Conservatives on transit and green projects over the next 10 years — and admitted a government he led would probably run a deficit to do it.

“We will have additional announcements in support of these vital investments over the course of this campaign,” the party’s campaign document says, so expect photo-ops across the country offering specifics about things the Liberals would like to help pay for.

Trudeau might have more trouble with that than you’d think. But that’s a problem for later, once he and his party are in power.

Right away, Trudeau’s promise means he gets to trump Stephen Harper’s claim that the Conservatives have created the biggest and longest infrastructure program in Canadian history, which is both true and misleading. The Tories’ $53-billion “New Building Canada Fund” is so big precisely because it’s so long-lasting, promising less money each year than previous infrastructure programs but lasting more years. The Liberals would double the spending the Conservatives have promised.

This isn’t a stimulus program, Trudeau insisted in making the announcement in Oakville, Ont., Thursday — it’s “smart investments” to “build a strong economy.”

Whatever you want to call it, the plan is straight out of Kathleen Wynne’s Ontario playbook. Trudeau, like Wynne, argues the stalled economy needs a boost from government spending and that long-term investments in things like new bridges and subway lines will pay dividends well beyond their immediate costs. She calls it “building Ontario up,” and is borrowing to do it.

Trudeau likewise. He expects to run a deficit of $10 billion in each of the next two years and some unspecified but smaller amount in 2018. The Conservatives and New Democrats promise balanced budgets despite the damage the oil crash has done to the federal treasury, so there are some points for honesty on the Liberals’ part here.

The Liberals’ additional $60 billion would focus on transit projects, “green infrastructure” such as water-treatment plants and upgrades to resist climate-change-induced damage like floods and fires, and “social infrastructure” such as new subsidized housing and daycare centres.

There’s a two-step built into the plan, however. The extra Liberal money would go to things urban leftish voters like, but in the written version the Liberals say it would free up the billions in the existing Conservative program for “roads, bridges, transportation corridors, ports, and border gateways,” which are typically more appealing to suburban and rural voters.

The plan sucks up to Canadian cities and towns that have been demanding richer federal infrastructure programs for years (they got closest to what they wanted when Paul Martin was prime minister and have been pretty unhappy the last nine years) but it implies some pretty heavy spending by those municipalities and cash-strapped provincial governments, too.

That’s how most infrastructure spending works: costs are split among three levels of government. Not everything’s done that way (not on things the federal government owns, for instance), but if Prime Minister Trudeau wants to spend $60 billion, expect our governments collectively to spend something closer to $180 billion.

Municipalities are always happy to take federal and provincial cheques, but drastically increasing their capital budgets would mean drastically increasing their own borrowing.

Ottawa already figures it’ll be borrowing up to the limit of what it’s comfortable with to finance its light-rail plans over the next couple of decades, having increased its debt markedly for stimulus projects, the Lansdowne redevelopment and the first phase of rail over the last few years. Harper has already promised billions for full slates of transit projects here and in Toronto and Calgary; Vancouver voters rejected a small tax hike that their local leaders thought was the best way to pay for more transit there.

The Ontario government has a big long-term infrastructure program worked into its budget but not every province does. The Western provinces, beaten up by the oil bust, are trying to spend a lot less than they have been.

The Liberals have given themselves an out: Money they don’t spend each year will just get transferred to municipalities via existing gas-tax payments. So the cash will go out the door one way or the other.

But there’s also the problem that once you’ve built something, you have to operate and maintain it. Light rail in Ottawa will move a lot more people than buses do, but it’ll also be more expensive to run. New social-housing units mean more ongoing rent subsidies. Build a new daycare and you need people to work in it. The feds can show up with their great big novelty cheques, but the provinces and cities will get to pay the bills that come in later, as they’re well aware.

It could actually be difficult to find twice as many things Canada’s cities are willing to build between now and 2025. It’s certainly not clear that the stuff they find to buy, with the second $60 billion they might get, will be as economically useful as what they spend the first $60 billion on.

But between now and Oct. 19, the promise gives Trudeau a big number to throw around and a lot of dreams local candidates can promise to fulfil.

dreevely@ottawacitizen.com
twitter.com/davidreevely

[Guest]

Much too long to post but if you are keeping score:

Here’s what Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau, May, and Duceppe have promised voters

http://globalnews.ca/news/2190805/heres-what-harper-mulcair-and-trudeau-have-promised-voters/

[J.O.]

In 2008, our total federal debt was $457.6 billion. Today it's $634 billion. In other words, 24% of our total debt has been amassed in the last 7 years. During most of this time, interest rates have been at historic lows.

I wouldn't be bragging about financial stewardship.

[Guest]

In 2008, our total federal debt was $457.6 billion. Today it's $634 billion. In other words, 24% of our total debt has been amassed in the last 7 years. During most of this time, interest rates have been at historic lows.

I wouldn't be bragging about financial stewardship.

And if you lived outside of Canada?

[Fido]

In 2008, our total federal debt was $457.6 billion. Today it's $634 billion. In other words, 24% of our total debt has been amassed in the last 7 years. During most of this time, interest rates have been at historic lows.

I wouldn't be bragging about financial stewardship.

What was significant about 2008 again?

Oh yeh, the whole world went tilt-a-whirl with Canada coming off in better shape that almost any other country.

Also back in 2008 the Dippers and the Lieberals were yelling for the Cons to SPEND MORE, SPEND MORE.

Fortunately the Cons only spent on one time stimulus and not forever big programs. Now Canada is back in reasonable good shape even with the collapse of oil prices.

[Guest tailwheel]

Well, Mr. JO, I appreciate your concern, but unfortunately, this is the financial stewardship the Liberals and NDP offer. More and more spending that never stops. That doesn't mean that they themselves wouldn't have run deficits. After all, massive tax increases are part of their strategy. That's OK, if they admit this to Canadians.

The article below is from N.Y. based Bloomberg in 2010.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-09-01/canada-may-need-more-stimulus-as-growth-slows-opposition-lawmakers-say



Canadian Opposition Says More Stimulus May Be Needed

Sept. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Canada’s sagging economic recovery means Prime Minister Stephen Harper should ready an extension of stimulus measures, lawmakers from the three opposition parties said.

Canada’s economy grew at a less-than-expected 2 percent rate in the second quarter, Statistics Canada said yesterday, one third the pace of the previous quarter. Government spending was responsible for a quarter of the growth rate, its smallest contribution since 2008, the government agency said.

Slower growth comes less than a year after Harper’s stimulus measures powered Canada’s economy out of recession, and show efforts to support the economy are beginning to fade and drag down growth. Harper needs opposition support to pass legislation and stay in power because he leads a minority government.

“The government should not be going full steam ahead to slam on the fiscal brakes,” John McCallum, the opposition Liberal Party’s main economic spokesman, said in a telephone interview. The government should have a “plan B.”

McCallum, whose Liberal Party is the second biggest in Parliament, said the government’s exit from stimulus may be “premature.”

New Tax Credits

Thomas Mulcair, of the New Democratic Party, said in a separate interview that Harper should reintroduce a home renovation tax credit and extend other stimulus measures due to expire next year.

The Bloc Quebecois, which focuses on issues affecting Canada’s French-speaking province, wants Flaherty to implement assistance programs for the forestry and manufacturing sectors and provide more funds to fight homelessness, said Daniel Paille, the party’s finance critic and Canam Group Inc.’s former chief financial officer.

“Our worry is that growth isn’t uniform and that the regions that haven’t benefited from the start of the recovery will get hurt even more,” he said. When Treasury Board President Stockwell Day “brags that the deficit will be erased a year ahead of schedule, someone should tell him that he’s not managing a private company but a government, and that the budget spending is needed now,” he said.

Fiscal Room

McCallum, Mulcair and Paille said the improving fiscal outlook creates scope for more stimulus measures. Canada recorded a deficit of C$7.2 billion ($6.9 billion) in the first three months of its current fiscal year, compared with C$12.5 billion a year ago.

“They should definitely use some of the fiscal room to maintain the stimulation,” Mulcair said.

The three lawmakers also said the government should extend its March deadline on stimulus funding for infrastructure projects that have yet to be completed.

Statistics Canada data show the country’s recession, which ended in June last year, would have extended into the third quarter without a pick-up in government spending, while public expenditures were responsible for almost half the country’s 4.9 percent growth rate in the fourth quarter.

“It’s unlikely that government spending is going to add much more to growth through the remainder this year and early next year, and it will become a drag in 2011,” Doug Porter, deputy chief economist at BMO Capital Markets in Toronto, said in a telephone interview. “What could raise the case for more government stimulus is if the U.S. and Canadian economy stumble more heavily in the months ahead.”

‘Right Track’

Investments by all levels of government in the first half rose at one-fifth the pace recorded in the final six months of 2009, according to figures from the government statistics agency.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said in a statement yesterday following the GDP report that the numbers show Canada’s economy “is on the right track” and creating jobs.

Asked at a press conference Aug. 27 whether an economic slowdown could warrant additional stimulus measures, Flaherty said the government’s priority is to complete its current stimulus package, which expires in March.

“We’re on track in terms of execution, implementation of our stimulus plan in Canada,” Flaherty told reporters in Dublin. “So I think we’ll just stay on track.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Theophilos Argitis in Ottawa at targitis@bloomberg.net; Ilan Kolet in Ottawa at ikolet@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Christopher Wellisz at cwellisz@bloomberg.net

[AAS]

As I've said before. Those who can't teach. Or coach ultimate frisbee.

[Guest tailwheel]

Something very strange happened today as I read this article about the anticipated waste of money in Trudeau's tax plan.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-spend-all-that-money-mr-trudeau-why-and-on-what

There is a video that has all three leaders talking about Liberal plan. Somehow, ice cold Harper has become the most animated and colourful of the three leaders(he must be taking lessons). Both taxman Tommy and JUSTIN time to create a new deficit seem stiff and grey while hangman Harpo is the most entertaining.

Very strange.

[Guest]

As I hear more and more $$$$ promises from the Liberals and the NDP along with the following, I am teetering back towards the Conservatives.

Refugee crisis: Canada not doing enough, Mulcair says

NDP leader takes aim at Tories during campaign stop in B.C.

The Canadian Press Posted: Sep 02, 2015 2:47 PM ET Last Updated: Sep 02, 2015 2:47 PM ET

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair is taking aim at the Harper government over the refugee crisis in Europe — saying Canada hasn't done enough for those fleeing Syria and Iraq in large numbers.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has promised to bring in an additional 10,000 religious minority refugees from Syria and Iraq over four years — on top of an earlier commitment to resettle 10,000 refugees from the war-torn Middle East.

But Mulcair says Europe is facing what he calls the worst humanitarian crisis since the Second World War and Canada is not pulling its weight.

Campaigning in B.C. today, he said the NDP would take the crisis seriously and make sure Canada does its part so it can once again become a respected player on the international stage.

But Harper says Canada continues to be the largest single recipient per capita of foreigners of any country in the world.

He also told reporters during a campaign stop in North Bay, Ont. that refugee resettlement alone can't solve the problem as long as there are organizations like the Islamic State creating literally millions of refugees and threatening to slaughter people all over the world.

Harper says that's why his government is taking part in the military bombing mission to fight the militants.

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, meantime, says Canada should become a safe haven for far more than the 10,000 that number to 25,000 before the election campaign even began.

[J.O.]

What was significant about 2008 again?

Oh yeh, the whole world went tilt-a-whirl with Canada coming off in better shape that almost any other country.

Also back in 2008 the Dippers and the Lieberals were yelling for the Cons to SPEND MORE, SPEND MORE.

Fortunately the Cons only spent on one time stimulus and not forever big programs. Now Canada is back in reasonable good shape even with the collapse of oil prices.

The reason Canada came away from that collapse relatively unscathed was because of the structure of our banking system. Please tell us again which party refused to allow our banking system to be structured as was the system in the U.S. and many other countries?

Depending on whose numbers you believe, the stimulus package totalled somewhere between $50 and $60 billion. So even if you assume the highest number, the remaining debt growth since 2008 has been in the range of $100 billion. If things have been so great in our economy since the mess of 2008 ended, why has this happened?

I'm not saying I'm a fan of the opposition platforms. In fact, I'm not. I just don't understand how anyone can say that the current government has been a model of financial responsibility and that this alone is more than enough to forgive the other things they have engaged in to change Canada in ways many of us find hard to accept. When did it stop being okay to ask questions of all parties?

[J.O.]

And if you lived outside of Canada?

Then you probably can't vote in this election.

Objection your honour. Irrelevant.

[Guest]

Then you probably can't vote in this election.

Objection your honour. Irrelevant.

Of course I responded to "bragging" not voting.

[Fido]

Being a resident outside Canada does not prevent a Canadian citizen from voting in a Federal election:

Elections (voting from abroad)

Canadians who are living or travelling outside Canada can vote by special ballot in federal elections, by-elections and referendums.

To vote by special ballot, you must be a Canadian citizen 18 years of age or older on polling day and have previously resided in Canada.

more here:

http://travel.gc.ca/travelling/living-abroad/elections-faq

My daughter voted from South Africa one time just to say that she had exercised her rights.

I

[Guest]

Perhaps of interest to all those on pension:

Thank you for your email regarding income splitting.

We're pleased to let you know more about our position on this issue and our plan to make life better for Canadian seniors.

The NDP continues to support pension income splitting for seniors – a commitment made by former NDP Leader Jack Layton in 2007. While the Conservatives continue to spread misinformation, Canadian Press sets the record straight in this article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/would-opposition-parties-scrap-pension-income-splitting-1.3064910 .

An NDP government will do more for seniors. We have put forward our solutions to lift seniors out of poverty: we'll boost the Guaranteed Income Supplement, lower the Old Age Security eligibility age from 67 to 65 and ensure Canadians have stronger pensions and secure retirements now and for future generations.

While Canadians are being squeezed by a slumping economy, Stephen Harper is handing out a $2 billion a year tax break that will only benefit 15% of Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed in their update on the Budget 2015 that the Conservative income-splitting scheme is an ineffective tax measure that would benefit families in medium-high through high-income households while lower-income households would get absolutely no benefit.

This tax break represents loss government revenue — money that could be put to better use on public services for all Canadians. That's why we have called on the Conservatives to cancel their wasteful and ineffective income-splitting proposal.

Over the next twenty-five years, the number of seniors in Canada will double. And, all those seniors deserve to retire in dignity and with financial security. The NDP will continue to put forward ideas to make sure that when the time comes, all Canadians can retire with peace of mind.

We've been releasing aspects of our platform every week—and we'll continue to share our policies with Canadians as the campaign progresses. We hope you'll check out our announcements and other updates from the campaign here: http://www.ndp.ca/news .

Again, thank you for taking the time to get in touch.

All the best,

Canada's New Democrats | Le NPD du Canada

Ready for change | Ensemble pour le changement

[Guest]

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair promises to boost Canada’s aerospace industry

By Staff The Canadian Press

MONTREAL – NDP Leader Tom Mulcair is promising to give a boost to Canada’s aerospace industry, a sector that has seen hundreds of layoffs this year.

Mulcair said he would set up a $160-million, four-year fund to help small- and medium-sized aerospace companies adopt new technology and increase production in an effort to better compete globally.

The plan would require firms to show a plan to create jobs and provide professional training to workers.

Mulcair also committed to setting aside $40 million over four years in the Canadian Space Agency’s space technology development program to help companies commercialize new technologies.

He said he would also lead trade delegations to help promote Canada’s aerospace industry.

Mulcair was campaigning in Montreal, a hub for the aerospace sector that hosts the headquarters of companies including Bombardier and CAE.

In May, Bombardier announced it was laying off 1,750 employees in Montreal, Toronto and Ireland, while CAE said last month it was letting go of 350 workers.