Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Malcolm

Our Prime Minister

291 posts in this topic

Trudeau got raked over the coals at CFB TR today.

Seen on CFTO TV this afternoon

Lady asked him how she, who worked 15 hours a day, had 4 children, helped with the grand-kids and had a total of $65.00 left over every two weeks was supposed to feed the family and also pay a carbon tax. Loud applause for close to 1/2 a minute.

Trudeau mumbled on about climate change and that we all had to make sacrifices...((booing in the background)). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The man is a bad joke.

The cash from the catbon tax will probably end up being used as a junket fund for the Trudeau clan.

The young lady that wrote the CBC opinion piece isn't experienced enough yet to be aware of the rule that says; 'if the public is required to pay for 'anything' related to a politician and his activities, we absolutely have a Right to know what he's up to', otherwise he'll be inclined to take advantage of us and engage in 'questionable activities' such as, partying with clandestine characters on private islands and giving away millions of tax dollars to fund illegitimate causes.

   

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to Sears today.

As I approached the entrance, I noticed a driver looking for a parking space.

I flagged the driver and pointed out a handicapped parking space that was open
and available.

The driver looked puzzled, rolled down her window and said, "I'm not handicapped!"

"Oh, I'm sorry," I said. "I saw your, 'I voted Liberal for Kathleen Wynne'

bumper sticker and just assumed that you were mentally handicapped."

She gave me the finger and screamed some nasty names at me.

Some people just don't appreciate help anymore.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DEFCON said:

The man is a bad joke.

The cash from the catbon tax will probably end up being used as a junket fund for the Trudeau clan.

The young lady that wrote the CBC opinion piece isn't experienced enough yet to be aware of the rule that says; 'if the public is required to pay for 'anything' related to a politician and his activities, we absolutely have a Right to know what he's up to', otherwise he'll be inclined to take advantage of us and engage in 'questionable activities' such as, partying with clandestine characters on private islands and giving away millions of tax dollars to fund illegitimate causes.

   

unless I misjudged it, the CBC piece was quite tongue in check. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably just me, and a personal pet peeve, but does anyone notice as soon as JT appears/disappears on the 310, he waves like a rock star to his assumed fans. Most other heads of gov't behave in a more low key, humble, business like manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More "foot in mouth" Note the "restating" at the end of this article which attempts to drag our former PM into the fray.

Trudeau's 'phase out' oilsands comments spark outrage in Alberta

'If [Trudeau] wants to shut down Alberta's oilsands ... he'll have to go through me,' says Wildrose leader

By Kyle Muzyka, CBC News Posted: Jan 13, 2017 12:13 PM MT Last Updated: Jan 13, 2017 2:29 PM MT

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sparked immediate anger among Alberta politicians on Friday by suggesting Canada should "phase out" the oilsands.

Speaking at a town hall in Peterborough, Ont., Trudeau was asked about his government's approval of pipelines and his commitment to the environment.

"You can't make a choice between what's good for the environment and what's good for the economy," Trudeau said. "We can't shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out. We need to manage the transition off of our dependence on fossil fuels.

"That is going to take time. And in the meantime, we have to manage that transition."

In Alberta, both the Wildrose Party and the Progressive Conservatives were quick to condemn the statement.

"I am sick and tired of people attacking our oilsands," Wildrose Leader Brian Jean told CBC. "I truly would suggest that Mr. Trudeau keep his comments to himself when he doesn't know what he's talking about.

"We certainly don't need out-of-touch, federal politicians sounding like Jane Fonda on this topic."

Jean said the oilsands are an economic engine that powers both Alberta and Canada.

"The economic benefits of the oilsands are immeasurable," Jean, who represents Fort McMurray, said earlier in the day in a statement. "If Mr. Trudeau wants to shut down Alberta's oilsands, and my hometown, let him be warned: he'll have to go through me and four million Albertans first."

'We certainly don't need out-of-touch, federal politicians sounding like Jane Fonda on this topic.'- Brian Jean, leader of the Wildrose

In a tweet, PC leadership candidate Jason Kenney asked if Trudeau would rather "hand over all global oil production to Saudi [Arabia], Iran [and] Qatar.

"If we end 'dependence on fossil fuels,'" Kenney asked in another tweet, "how will Justin Trudeau fly to private Caribbean islands? Planes & helicopters fuelled by pixie dust?"

Provincial government response

For her part, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley adopted a more measured tone.

"We have to remember, this is coming from a prime minister who's just approved not one but two pipelines that are going to assist in our diversifying the markets to which we sell the product coming from the oilsands," Notley told CBC Radio's The House.

She cautioned Albertans not to get "too excited" about Trudeau's comments.

"At the end of the day, this is what I know to be true: the world market for oil is not going anywhere soon. So the job of Albertans, and the job of Canadians, is to make sure that that world market looks to the oilsands, as they should, as the first choice for where they get that product from."

Countries that depend on oil imports will have an incentive to buy Alberta oil because governments and companies here are proving they can work responsibly together to produce energy and at the same time reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to protect the environment, Notley said.

"And that's why people are going to come to the oilsands for a long time to come."

Notley also released a video response on Twitter.

Alberta Liberal Leader David Swann said he agrees the industry is in a transition from the oil and gas to other energy sources. But he said he's not sure his federal counterparts understand the impact on the Alberta economy.

"We have to be careful," Swann said. "It's essential that we [make the transition] in a thoughtful and measured way."

In an emailed statement, Greenpeace strategist Keith Stewart said the transition to other energy sources is a global trend that Canada should follow. "Even Stephen Harper signed on to the G7 commitment to phase out fossil fuels, and the only real debate is how fast this will happen," he said.

By mid-afternoon, Trudeau's office issued a statement.

"The prime minister — as he and previous prime ministers, including Stephen Harper, have been saying for a long time — was reiterating the need to move away from our dependency on fossil fuels and his commitment to growing the economy, all while protecting the environment.

"As a government, we were proud to work with provinces and territories to introduce a price on carbon pollution - to create jobs and protect the environment. We are also proud of our recent announcement which will ensure that we can move Canada's natural resources to international markets."

According to a 2014 study, Alberta's oilsands contributed $91 billion of Canada's gross domestic product (GDP) that year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photo ops a plenty, hugs are free but is this accomplishing anything for Canadians or only perhaps for the Liberal Party?

Andrew Coyne: Just keepin’ it real, with Justin Trudeau, as he hangs out with the commoners

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau waving goodbye with Rice Lake behind him, January 13, 2017 in Bewdley, Ont.
Pete Fisher / Postmedia NetworkPrime Minister Justin Trudeau waving goodbye with Rice Lake behind him, January 13, 2017 in Bewdley, Ont.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is ringing in the new year with a determined effort to re-establish his connection with grassroots Canadians … a campaign-style tour, talking to average folks at coffee shops and church basements across the country. — Canadian Press

(A coffee shop, somewhere on the 401. The door opens. The prime minister enters, pursued by reporters, photographers and various advance people.)

Greetings, fellow commoners! I come among you, unchaperoned and unadorned, in a spontaneous and unrehearsed effort at mingling with the middle class, and those wanting to join it. Just keepin’ it real, kickin’ it, hangin’ out, as we middle class folk are wont to do of a weekday. Don’t mind the cameras, they’re just here to record my every move.

I’m here to “reconnect with Canadians,” as my people were saying the other day, though that should not be taken to imply that I have in any way become disconnected from Canadians. I may be the prime minister now, but I want you to know I’m still the same humble, unpretentious, down-to-earth Justin Trudeau I always was — you know, Justin from the block. The Langevin block!

Ha, ha, just a little dynastic humour there, I mean you have to laugh, don’t you? Hey, did somebody say “roll up the rimshot”?

Now some of you have probably been reading stories suggesting I’m all about attending fancy dinners with Chinese billionaires, or flying off to private islands in the Caribbean at the invitation of billionaire religious leaders, or partying with billionaires and celebrities at Davos.

Well, I’m not at Davos, am I? I could have gone — I could be on the slopes with Heidi Klum right now — but I didn’t. Instead, I’m here, with you, downin’ double-doubles in some godforsaken Ottawa Valley Tim Hortons at seven o’clock in the morning and honestly, Gerry, I couldn’t be happier about it.

In fact, there’s nothing I like less than hanging out — er, hangin’ out — with billionaires. I mean, you couldn’t pay me to do that! Well, you could, but you’d have to pay me, oh, $1,500 at least. Each. The only reason I spend any time with them is for the opportunity to talk about what we’re doing for the middle class.

And let me tell you, we’re doing plenty: things like taxing carbon, sending peacekeepers to Mali, and taxing carbon. Because your concerns are our concerns.

And that’s why I’m here. I’m not here to talk: I’m here to listen.

“That’s great Prime Minister, because I’m really worried that” —

To listen, and most importantly, to learn. I want to know what’s on your mind, the issues that concern you, in a way I couldn’t discover from one of the many polls and focus groups we conduct every day. So let’s hear from you. Does anyone have any questions they’d like to ask? You sir, yes?

“Er, no, I was just trying to order an orange cruller, actually.”

I want to thank you for that question, and for your courage in asking it. I think in many ways the question you’re asking is the question a lot of people are asking these days: can I get an orange cruller? Now, some parties think only the top one per cent should get orange crullers. And some other parties think the government should just give everyone an orange cruller. But we in this government reject both those extremes. We say that everyone should have an orange cruller, so long as they donate to the Liberal party. Which reminds me, could everyone remember to leave their email addresses with my assistant?

Yes ma’am?

“Prime Minister, I am at wit’s end. I don’t know how much longer I can hold on. I was just barely getting by as it was, what with the cost of electricity having tripled and all, but now you’re going to add a carbon tax on top? I’ll be eating catfood before long. I don’t know when things have ever looked this bleak.”

Clifford Skarstedt / Postmedia Network
Clifford Skarstedt / Postmedia NetworkPrime Minister Justin Trudeau greets supporters after speaking to a packed banquet hall at the Evinrude Centre on Friday January 13, 2017 in Peterborough, Ont.

What I hear you saying is that for you, better is always possible. And let me reassure you, this is entirely out of our hands. I mean, this is a problem for the provinces to deal with, not us. It’s not like we can just tell the provinces what to do, beyond telling them to tax carbon. Take it up with them. By the way, did I mention I’m a feminist?

Sir?

“Prime minister, I have to ask about these conflict of interest issues you keep getting yourself into. Whether it’s offering privileged access to people with an interest in government decisions in exchange for party contributions, or accepting free flights from the head of an organization that is in receipt of tens of millions of dollars in federal grants, you appear to be in violation of not only your own ethical guidelines, but federal law. Have you lost your ethical compass?”

I want to thank you for your question, and for your fastidiousness in asking it. But help me out: you say conflict of interest. Where’s the conflict?

“You’ve been accepting benefits, personal or political, from people you were in a position to reward. You’ve been using your position as a public office-holder to raise funds for the party. You’re even paying for this transparently political ‘listening tour,’ designed to change the channel from these and other recent controversies, out of public funds.”

I’m sorry, but I still don’t see how there’s a conflict. It seems to me more a happy overlapping of interests. My friends, I talk a lot about sunny ways —

(An aide jumps in.)

Thank you! That’s all the time we have. Bus leaves in two minutes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2017 at 11:52 AM, deicer said:

Trudeau is being treated in the same manner Obama was when he took office.  Responsible for every ill that he inherited, and scrutinised for breathing.

If Harper would have done this YOU would have lost your mind on here! 

For the record, I voted Liberal for the first and last time. Harper was hard to like but these tax-and-spend Liberals have no boundaries.

Have you heard about the $2 NetFlix tax they floated last week? You know, just contemplating another 20% tax to "support" the CBC and Canadian content.:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau was voted in because Harper was so distasteful.  He is having his shot, and if he continues like this, then he will only serve one term.

That's how the system works, isn't it?

The problem that really exists is that there is such a funding shortfall because of previous tax cuts, and as well, regulations that allowed the offshoring of profits. It is the corporations that have pushed not just Canada, but pretty much all countries into this same position.

Last I read, Canada had over $800 Billion in offshored profits that weren't taxed.  The U.S. was something like $2.4 Trillion!  If taxes were paid on that money, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, deicer said:

Trudeau was voted in because Harper was so distasteful.  He is having his shot, and if he continues like this, then he will only serve one term.

That's how the system works, isn't it?

The problem that really exists is that there is such a funding shortfall because of previous tax cuts, and as well, regulations that allowed the offshoring of profits. It is the corporations that have pushed not just Canada, but pretty much all countries into this same position.

Last I read, Canada had over $800 Billion in offshored profits that weren't taxed.  The U.S. was something like $2.4 Trillion!  If taxes were paid on that money, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

People always make the off-shore accounts the bogeyman but in reality the elephant in the room is the looming public sector pension crisis. Couple this with the exploding health care costs and It is UNSUSTAINABLE.

The contracts were signed when people retired at 65 and died at 68. Alright not quite that drastic but it's very, very bad.

People can whinge all they want but it will collapse. Every government is afraid to tackle it because they'll get voted out, union members will always overwhelmingly vote to protect themselves. The problem is the rest of Canadians will be taxed to failure before it collapses.

 the only one that is actually solvent is CPP. I have no other pensions. I have saved a fair bit and I would like to get it out of the country too. Junior and his ilk would love nothing better than to be able to re-distribute the wealth to those that vote for them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pensions and health care aren't the problem, but that is what conservatives want you to believe.

Just look at one companies pensions that were all of a sudden out of a deficit once long term contracts were signed.  And if pensions were so bad, why are they only fighting to get rid of them from the employees, yet executives keep their cushy defined benefit programs.  If it is bad for one, shouldn't it be bad for all?

As for health care, one only has to look at the explosion in administrator compensation to see where the true problem is.  They cut funding for beds, doctors and nurses, yet the heads of hospitals take home astronomical pay packages that keep on rising.

Same with our utilities.  Electricity, water, these are all things that the public paid for, yet are being sold off for profit.  And once it's out of the publics hands they raise prices at will. It has to stop.

We are in this place because of policies brought in by conservatives, such as Harper and Harris, which downloaded costs onto the average guy, at the same time as cutting taxes, and allowing companies to move profits off shore.  Couple this with the agenda to lower costs by cutting wages and benefits for the workers, well, something has to give.

People are fed up and tired of the crap that is being shovelled at them.  Just look at what happened in the U.S.  Republicans were so incensed at losing power they conducted an eight year war of disruption and delay, as well as a smear campaign, yet every metric in the U.S. turned around from when the last republican regime was in power.  Now they want to turn it over and go back to the way it was with 'business' running the show and syphoning off every last cent they can get.

I agree with you that there is a problem, where I disagree is that the wrong issues are being blamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, deicer said:

Pensions and health care aren't the problem, but that is what conservatives want you to believe.

 

head-in-sand.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Recently, while I was putting  the snow blower away, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog. During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted to be when she grew up. She said she wanted to be Prime Minister someday. Both of her parents, Liberal Party members, were standing there so I asked her, "If you were Prime Minister what would be the first thing you would do?" 
 
She replied... “I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people." Her parents beamed with pride!  
"Wow...what a worthy goal!" I said...”But you don't have to wait until you're Prime Minister to do that!"  
"What do you mean?" she replied. 
 
So I told her, "You can come over to my house and shovel my lane-way, sweep off the patio and other stonework and put the tools away and I'll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."  

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?" 
I said, "Welcome to the Conservative Party." 
Her parents aren't speaking to me anymore. 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
January 15, 2017 8:00 am

Justin Trudeau’s vacation: ‘Just don’t break the rules,’ journalist panel says

Amy Minsky covers politics for Global News. By Amy Minsky National Online Journalist  Global News

WATCH: Bob Fife, Ottawa Bureau Chief for the Globe and Mail and Joanna Smith from The Canadian Press join Vassy Kapelos for a discussion about why the ethics commissioner is looking into a possible violation of federal laws during the Prime Minister’s holiday to a private island.  http://globalnews.ca/news/3180143/justin-trudeau-aga-khan-vacation-investigation/

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau launched his Canadian tour last week, it was under the dark cloud of his controversial – and potentially illegal – vacation to a private island during which he travelled aboard a private helicopter.

The story snowballed throughout the past couple of weeks, from open questions about whether Canadians even need to know where the prime minister is vacationing (the Prime Minister’s Office at first wouldn’t say), to pointed questions about the ethics and legality of his trip.

Veteran journalists Robert Fife, Ottawa Bureau Chief of The Globe and Mail, and Joanna Smith of The Canadian Press joined Vassy Kapelos on The West Block to unpack the politics of it all.

READ MORE: Ethic commissioner receives 2nd request for investigation into Trudeau vacation

“I don’t think Canadians should have a problem with the prime minister going on a winter vacation if he wants to,” Fife said. “Except, don’t break the rules. [Trudeau] put the rules in place … [he] told us [he] was going to have these very important rules and hold the government to these very high standards, and then he ignores them.”

Trudeau and his family spent their New Year vacation on the private Bahamian island belonging to the Aga Khan – the hereditary spiritual leader of the world’s Ismaili Muslims and a long-time Trudeau family friend.

The potential conflict comes from the fact the Aga Khan’s foundations receive tens of millions in funding from Ottawa.

“It’s astounding to me [the PMO] didn’t take a second look at this and go, ‘let’s make sure this is all OK,’” said Smith. “I think they should have … been more sensitive to the optics of it, to any potential rules [being broken].”

Liberal MP Seamus O’Regan and his husband, as well as Liberal Party president Anna Gainey and her husband, who is president of the Liberal-linked think-tank Canada 2020 were also on the trip. MPs, however, are not bound to the exact same rules as prime ministers, ministers or parliamentary secretaries and their families.

READ MORE: Trudeau took an MP, party president to vacation on Aga Khan’s private island

One section of the Conflict of Interest Act forbids public office holders and their families from accepting “directly or indirectly any gift or other benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the member” in their work.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson received a request to investigate whether vacationing on the private island constitutes a gift and, if so, whether it was appropriate for the Trudeaus to accept a gift from an individual whose foundation receives federal funding.

Dawson’s office said the commissioner has launched a preliminary investigation into this matter.

Another relevant section of the law states public office holders, their family, advisers and staff cannot accept trips on non-commercial chartered or private aircraft. But there are exceptions.

READ MORE: Do Canadians need to know where the prime minister is vacationing?

They can board private planes if doing so is required in the capacity of their job or “in exceptional circumstances or with the prior approval of the commissioner.”

Trudeau has said he didn’t speak with the commissioner prior to his trip, but will be happy to answer any questions she has. While taking questions from reporters on Thursday, Trudeau said there is no way to get to the private island, save for private aircraft.

“You know, he’s a rich guy. And the guys who were going with him … they’re not poor people,” Fife said. “They could have thrown in $500 each and got a helicopter to fly them there.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Malcolm said:

The story snowballed

A bad analogy.

Hung around like a wet fart would be more apt.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As for health care, one only has to look at the explosion in administrator compensation to see where the true problem is.  They cut funding for beds, doctors and nurses, yet the heads of hospitals take home astronomical pay packages that keep on rising.

Same with our utilities.  Electricity, water, these are all things that the public paid for, yet are being sold off for profit.  And once it's out of the publics hands they raise prices at will. It has to stop."

Not sure how you link these problems to the conservatives....it pretty much falls into the Ontario Liberals policies. 

 

And it it might not have been Harper that downloaded the $ shortfalls to the provinces:

Quote

MORE SPENDING CUTS THAN TAX HIKES

The ratio of spending cuts to tax hikes was seven-to-one. Asked why, Chretien said simply: “There was more need on one side than the other.”

That contrasts with proposals this year by President Barack Obama and the Democrats to have a much higher proportion of revenue increases in the deficit-tackling mix.

Canadian ministers were told how much they had to cut and then told to come back with a plan on how to do it. Cuts ranged from five% to 65% of departmental budgets and included controversial cuts in transfers that help provinces pay for health and education, decisions that lengthened medical waiting lists for years to come.

Chretien exempted just a few areas from the cuts, including the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. He also blocked big changes to benefits for the elderly and made sure tax collectors had enough resources.

In the end, program spending (everything except interest payments on the debt) fell by about 12%, or C$14 billion, between 1994-95 and 1998-99. The%age fall was substantially more after adjusting for inflation.

The gloomy Canadian reaction to the 1994 budget changed to applause in 1995. “People came up to me to say, ‘You guys got it,'” DeVries said.

The deficit disappeared by 1997 and the debt-to-GDP ratio began a rapid decline – it is now at about 34%.

http://business.financialpost.com/uncategorized/lessons-from-canadas-basket-case-moment

 

We'll see who has the guts to clean up the mess that Wynne and Trudeau are putting us and your kids into.     CRIMINAL!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/ottawas-overhaul-of-health-care-funding-has-left-enormous-fiscal-gap-for-provinces-pbo-warns

The Conservative government is downloading billions of dollars of health-care costs on the provinces, says the parliamentary budget officer, making federal finances sustainable over the long term but leaving provincial governments to stare down severe financial pains in the coming years.

The PBO’s annual long-term fiscal sustainability report released Thursday says the Harper government’s decision to scale back the growth in Canada Health Transfer payments means provincial governments will increasingly struggle to afford health-care services for their citizens.

“The fiscal imbalance is back and it’s thanks to Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty,” NDP finance critic Peggy Nash said in a statement.

“Far from putting our fiscal house in order, this report shows how Conservative cuts to the Canada Health Transfer and Old Age Security are actually just downloaded these costs onto the provinces and individual Canadians.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't let revisionist history cloud the facts. Highlighting is my emphasis...

 

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/04/19/no-matter-how-you-add-it-up-harpers-fiscal-record-is-a-catastrophe/

Granted, the Liberals did cut transfer payments to the provinces. But with debt as a percentage of GDP at a post-Second World War high and with ever-increasing interest rates due to a lack of confidence in financial markets, everything had to be put on the table. Once the federal government achieved a balanced budget, that interest rate risk premium quickly disappeared and all levels of government benefited from lower borrowing costs. The Liberals then introduced a 10-year plan which put the major transfers to the provinces on a sustainable and growing track.

In 1994-95, the federal deficit was 4.7 per cent of GDP. By 1997-98 the deficit had been eliminated and the federal government ran surpluses for the next nine years. The federal debt was actually reduced by $90 billion; the debt burden fell from 66.6 per cent in 1994-95 to 31.4 per cent in 2006-07.

How does this compare to the Harper government’s fiscal record? In 2006-07, the Conservatives inherited a surplus of $13.8 billion — which the

turned into a deficit of $5.8 billion within two years.

Since then, they have been in deficit each and every year. In 2009-10, the deficit reached its peak of 3.5 per cent of GDP. They are desperate now to show a surplus in 2015-16 — one surplus in nine years. Since Harper was elected, the federal debt has increased by over $150 billion, wiping out the reduction in federal debt achieved under Chretien and Martin. Not much to boast about there.

Joe Oliver has announced that the government will introduce balanced budget legislation. But legislation won’t keep a government out of the red if it lacks the political will to do so.

What about the government’s commitment to economic growth and job creation? Who hasn’t heard about the 1.2 million jobs created since “the depths of the recession”? Again — time for a reality check.

The figure — 1.2 million — is correct, but almost meaningless. It certainly doesn’t describe the performance of the economy since 2006 and the labour market situation in Canada. Since 2006, economic growth has declined in every year since 2010 and averaged only 1.7 per cent per year. In the previous nine years, economic growth averaged 3.4 per cent per year. In 2014, only 120,000 new jobs were created — less than in 2013.

At the end of 2014, the unemployment rate was higher than at the end of 2008. The labour force participation rate was lower than in 2008. The employment rate (the percentage of the adult population employed) was lower than at the end of 2008. The youth unemployment rate was higher than at the end of 2008. The share of total employment made up of full-time jobs was less than in 2008 — and the quality of jobs had sunk to its lowest level in a quarter of a century.

Then there’s Oliver’s claim that his government has put money back in the hands of Canadians through its commitment to reducing taxes. This government has definitely cut taxes for high-income, single-earner families with children under 18 — just 15 per cent of all families. They’ve been very good to families with teenage children who — somehow — still need ‘child care’. They’ve been generous to families who can afford to put their kids in sports leagues and summer camps, and they’ve cut taxes for high-income seniors who can split their pension income with a spouse.

The government has announced it will double the contribution limits for Tax-Free Savings Accounts, despite research by the PBO and others indicating this will — again — overwhelmingly benefit high-income Canadians and leave a growing unfunded liability to be paid for by all Canadians in the future. Oliver and Harper claim to be doing this for our grandchildren. Somehow we don’t think they’ll be grateful.

All of this, of course, came after the government’s biggest and most foolish tax cut — the two point cut in the GST which every economist warned them was a terrible idea. Sure enough, it was a major factor in putting the government into deficit.

The key thing to remember here is that these tax cuts accomplished nothing for the economy. None of them contributed to economic growth or job creation. They certainly didn’t contribute to tax fairness.

Numbers don’t lie, but people do. It’s one thing to spin your failures as successes — it’s another thing entirely to try to present a decade of fiscal failure as one long triumph. The journalists going into the budget lockup will have their work cut out for them, trying to separate the Harper government’s fiscal fantasies from the true record of the past ten years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can argue this all day and night...the liberals cut and the conservatives cut [dont forget the recession of 2008] and whether you listen to 2 former employees of a former liberal government or the NDP, there is never enough money for health care. Now the little prince is about to findout how hard it is to live up to all those election promises and expectations.

Sooner or later, you have to deal with the federal deficit. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that the deficit does need to be brought under control, where I disagree is the virulent rhetoric being thrown already at the current government.

While I don't agree with all that they are doing, it is still early in the mandate.  They have to deal with what they inherited, and it isn't an overnight accomplishment.

If it is that bad, then we will have another government voted in at the next election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, deicer said:

They have to deal with what they inherited, and it isn't an overnight accomplishment.

 

21 minutes ago, deicer said:

If it is that bad, then we will have another government voted in at the next election.

And therein lies the problem....we have two parties with divergent opposing philosophies  and the taxpayers are stuck picking up the tab....and sooner or later, we will.    :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we need to do is reduce government and increase efficiency.  Get rid of all the bureaucratic BS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a referendum through which 'we the people' decide' the fiduciary responsibilities of government? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the people to decide which 'services' will be funded from the public purse as opposed to letting slackards like Trudeau & Wynn squander your children / grandchildren's future.

Just my opinion, but a high percentage of so-called government services would be better characterized as 'causes' and funded by private interests versus being considered an entitlement by those that benefit from same.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0