In case there are any illusions out there…
It’s Tuesday morning and I am sitting in the House of Commons. Separatist leader Gilles Duceppe just made his budget speech, explaining why the BQ will support the Harper Administration and pass the budget. The reason: because Harper is giving Quebec more than $3 billion. That’s it. End of story.
Following his remarks, Jim Flaherty’s Parliamentary Secretary, Diane Ablonczy, stood up to thank Duceppe for his support in propping up her government. He stood and answered in English, his eyes flashing and the colour rising in his cheeks. It’s about the money, he said, and after next Monday, when there is a sovereignist government in Quebec led by Andre Boiusclair, then Quebeckers will be spending this money on programs, for an independent Quebec.
He took his seat, to thunderous applause from his colleagues. Ablonczy sat opposite, looking devastated, with no reply.
It was a shameful moment, but one of insight. Stephen Harper is a sell-out.
UPDATE (3:30 pm) — Quebec premier Jean Charest announces he will, if re-elected on Monday, use the new cash from the feds for a universal tax cut for all Quebeckers. Yes, folks, Mr. Harper just bought an election, or gave it a damn good shot.
129 comments ↓
The thing is, would the Liberals be any different towards Quebec? Their past clearly makes this answer a no.
Anyways, this is the sad part that we have to put up with a separatist party. We can thank the Supreme Court and the Communist Party for this fiasco.
I’m in favour of treating them just like any other province, unfortunately, the Feds never do this and the BQ look like spoiled brats as they do here.
Harper is clearly hoping for a Charest win and with this money he’s giving, he’s trying to convince some separatists to vote Lib. Duceppe is hoping for a PQ win. Both are counting their chickens before they’re hatched. If you look at Duceppe’s comment, and the Libs win, Duceppe looks like the idiot. If the PQ wins, Harper looks foolish. If the AD wins, it looks like a positive for Harper. I hope the PQ/BQ doesn’t win because I don’t support a racist party, but I think that the government shouldn’t feel it has to bribe Quebecers.
Garth, what else for freak sakes did you think Gilles would say, oh we love it, vote liberal in la belle province. its politics and you have played the game for a while. I will reserve my thoughts on the budget but I do know that Mr.Dion is wrong on one thing, there is 800m in the budget for secondary education, but I do have questions for you, the most common comment I heard last night from the Lib side of the house was, not enough and no strings. One do you agree it was not enough spending, and two would you have criticized the Harper government for putting strings on the money and there for breaking another promise.
Oh, I do not criticize Duceppe. He is a separatist dedicated every moment of every hour of every day to destroying Canada and setting up an indepedent country in the middle of it. I do lament our prime minister is not only not standing up to, but feeding it – just to stay in power. Hypocrisy abounds in this Parliament in which I am sitting at the moment. Not proud of it. — Garth
Example 3,432,106 of a politician saying exactly what’s expected of him.
“In other news, birds continue to migrate, the sun rose early this morning & scientist’s predict that it will set again this evening around 7ish.”
Why would anyone be surprised by this situation? I heard Duceppe on CBC radio last night say exactly the same thing.
I don’t know if you noticed this: Under the proposed amendments to theCanada-U.S. Tax Treaty, withholding tax on cross-border interestpayments will be eliminated. Expect to see more cross-border debtofferings. I don’t think this is positive for either Canadian taxrevenues or Canadian dealers. Last week, both EnCana and CanadianNatural Resources announced long-term debt deals ($2.2b). Both dealswere led by US investment banks and sold to US investors. All the cashflows represented by the interest payments on the debt will flowdirectly to US investors without any Canadian income tax or withholdingtaxes applied. (Given that one of the CNQ obligations matures in 2038, Iwonder how much tax leakage that represents to the Canadian gov’t).Canadian dealers have to worry that issuers will choose US investmentbanks with their larger distribution networks over Canadian dealers whenselling into the US debt market.
You’re being silly again.
Anyone with the ability to watch a television or read a newspaper in this country knows the separatists in Quebec are taking a beating, and likely to lose out big time in the upcoming provincial election. Support for the PQ is lower than it’s been since their inception. Duceppe is not holding up the government because of federal funding in areas of provincial jurisdiction, as a separatist this is as far from his ideological base as he can get. He’s holding up the government because he knows that an election, if held now, is going to end with the Bloc running into the same problems the PQ Is having.
I’m not going to credit Harper with the weakened position of separatism in Quebec, I think credit for that likely goes to a mixture of the pragmatic leadership of the ADQ and economic factors, but I will give him credit for taking advantage of that weakness and forcing Duceppe to choke on a budget that 6 months ago he would have condemned as more evidence of federal interference in the affairs of Quebec.
Sean,
Quebec has always made out like a favourite grandchild – under all governments – over the past 30 years. You don’t like it, I don’t like it, I’m sure Harper doesn’t like it either. But that’s just the way it goes when Quebec has an entrenched political advantage over the rest of the country. It doesn’t help that the usual suspects have always denounced even the mildest objection to the status quo as racism and intolerance. Quebec is smarter than everyone else when it comes to squeezing concessions from the federal gov’t. Anyone who thinks this just happened yesterday must have been born yesterday.
Can a government vote against it’s own budget thus triggering an election? (As silly as that sounds)
Hypocrisy abounds in this Parliament in which I am sitting at the moment. Not proud of it. -Garth
Nor should you be. If this were a Liberal budget (which it is, in all but name) you’d be praising it as the most visionary document since the Magna Carta.
It is not a good idea for Canada to lock us into this level of spending. We will regret it. — Garth
I like the determination of the Bloc. Everytime they stand up in the House, they have only one thing on their agenda….more money for Quebec….and they get it.
Too bad we don’t have a Bloc head fighting that way for Canada. Did you see that part in the Budget that said Canadian tax payers were financing foreign purchases by multinationals and thus making it easier for them to take their businesses out of Canada?
Maybe if we give Quebec the Sovereign Nation status, the rest of Canada can benefit by the transfer payments? After all, it’s just a meaningless word and we will still have a United Canada.
Consider this strategy Prime Minister Harper…you will be regarded as even a more clever chess player. You will leave Duceppe speechless.
Man, you know this would be the standard responce from the PQ/BQ. Duceppe made it very clear yesterday it was about the money and nothing else.
CPC stood up in the House and basically said, “Please Mr. Duceppe, Please give us kick in nutz in front of the country”
The funny part here is the CPC bitch and screammed about the Liberals brown bagging it in Quebec, money spent to defeat the PQ/BQ and to keep Canada together. Yes the money was used illegally (so don’t bother bitching about that) But now we have Harper hanging his hopes on Liberal victory in Quebec and he just finished feeding the “enemy within” which has now turned around and bit his hand.
Can Politics get anymore screwed up in this nation?
Another think that confuses me is the political parties saying the budget is trying to buy Quebec’s votes. hell its trying to buy everyone votes. Would I have loved a nice big income tax cut, damn right I would but I am like another poster on here who stated, not pensionable yet, kids just turned over eighteen, so no trinkets for me but I am totally happy for the middle class family that will score these cuts. heck three years ago it would of been me and 620 dollars (2 beautiful intelligent daughters that would of spent that no problem lol) would of been welcome relief. I actually pulled out my old tax form and figured out it would of amounted to approx a 6% cut in my federal tax. I am not totally defending the Govt, but they did run on a four your program and I will give them that long to implement the rest of there tax reductions. As for NL, NS, and Sask, get real, you cant plead poverty as you rake in other money, hell lets just subtract the oil revenue from Alberta too and see if we have to provide them with equalization payments. IMHO Danny Williams just as he did with the flag lower against Paul Martin must makes a proud hard working people look bad.
An Exhibition
Duceppe was like the guy at the CNE who yells “Doggie…Doggie…Doggee!” hoping the suckers come by and toss their quarters. But in the House Of Commons, the PC’s tossed $3.4 Billion. What a disgrace!
No surprise with Duceppe-He said the same thing on Duffy last night.
I must say that I think we are doomed forever as far as fiscal responsibility is concerned.It doesn’t make a difference whether it’s Lib or Con,they are just going to spend foolishly to buy votes.Maybe that’s the weakness of a minority gov’t.
What a morass!
Garth: It is in no way surprising. Harper and his Harpercrats are short-sighted, bloody-minded chickenshit cowards, as are bullies in general. We talk about harboring terrorists in our midst. Screw the Arabs – what about PQ and BQ? They offer more threat to our counry than any number of Al-Queda, Taliban, Tamil Tiger, Hezbollahs, whathaveyous. Soft on terrorism? Dude, Harper is SPOONFEEDING the mothers. Mind you, that comes from some 140 years of pandering to them. They don’t wanna be Canadian? Actually, they don’t want to LEAVE Canada – they want to BE Canada. They want the world to recognize THEM as the driving force in Canada, more than the tail that wags the dog. Stuff that, they can’t even support themselves.
If they really, really, REALLY want to leave Canada, LET THEM @#$%^&!-ing LEAVE! Cut off the equilization. Shut down Churchill Falls. Make them get their own passports. Let them buy their own oil from outside of Alberta.
Mind you, without Gatinneau to relive the monotony, the guys in Ottawa would die of boredom in two weeks, but hey, a few less bureaucrats and lobbyists in Oddawa is a small price, that the rest of us will stop hearing: ARE WE FREE YET? The freedom will be ours, when the kids grow the hell up and move the hell out.
Excuse me, but I’m not about to hold my breath, waiting for the wind chill reports from The Infernal Regions.
This country is lunched.
This is a statement about Duceppe, nothing more. He complained for years that the Liberals did nothing about the fiscal imbalance and this is how he responds….shame!
No Garth Duceppe is not interested in a seperate Quebec, like the rest of you freeloaders, he’s interested in receiving a brown envelope in the mail with a Gov cheque……..
Of all people to talk about selling out and trying to get elected…come on Garth stop the childish rants…..
Zorpheous, If by some chance this totally works out and knocks the PQ for a loop and it could, we will be praising the CPC and Stephen Harper for his great political foresight for years to come (IRONIC HUH). If as I said does work I would love to see the government fall the day after the prov election and the CPC and Libs rebound in Quebec and revert the Bloq to the rump party it deserves to be.
Garth, your comments about the level of spending are totally accurate and I agree but can you clarify your Party’s attack on the budget of not spending enough. I am not understanding this, Dion, says the Libs would of given more to Quebec on a interview last night, more for aboriginals, more tax cuts, the only cut I saw that the Libs were willing to make was the 240 mil to the oil sands investment depreciation, or whatever it is called. Please help me balance your comments with Mr. Dion and Mr.McCallum’s
KH, FYI, Newfoundland and Labrador has been treated like a second-class province from the moment we’ve entered this federation in 1949!
Also, the reason Premier DW is making such a big deal out of the equalization formula is because PMSH promised in the 2006 Election Campaign that Non-renewable resource revenues wouldn’t be included in the Equalization formula AND that there’d be no ‘Ontario Cap’.
Instead, Mr.Harper is now offering us either the exact deal we signed on for in 2005 (but no new equalization money that’s supposed to be divided amongst ALL the provinces) or we can opt into the new system and have all non-renewable resource revenues excluded from equalization but with a cap (which is what we did away with in the 2005 Reneg. Atlantic Accord deal).
So basically, we have to choose either the status quo or a 1/2 broken promise.
And all this shows that the Government of Canada only cares about NL when it’s in agreement with all the other provinces: as soon as there’s any disagreement, we become the sacrifical lamb of this federation!
Indeed, i’m currently helping the NL First Party get federally registered and the 3 Cons NL MPs have got alot of answering to do!
And in my opionion, the 2005 Atlantic Accord is the best thing that ever happened to NL!
Read Chantel Hiebert’s new book “French Kiss”. Quebecers will never vote Liberal. They have always voted like Europeans. Did not support the war in Iraq, support Kyoto, have the best day care program in the country, when Israel invaded Lebanon, 100,000 Quebecers took to the streets in protest. Harper will do anything to get votes, including sleeping with separatists. Anyone can be bought – name your price. What a victory for Duceppe. Harper didn’t get votes in the three big cities and won’t get them now.
Jefferey Simpson on the budget and productivity:
“We do need major investments in innovation, research, universities, and this budget, to its credit, does move somewhat in this direction. They are going to spend — next year — $800-million on universities. They did keep CFI going, although they gave only $37-million more to medical research.
The tax cuts are not directed at the productivity challenge, although the one for manufacturers will help, as will the changes to the Sustainable Technology Development Fund that will help bridge the financing gap between ideas and commercialization.
So, on the productivity front, I would give this budget a C-plus or B-minus. It’s way better, though, than the first Harper budget which was about those famous five priorities, most of which were bunk, none of which did anything for productivity improvements.”
Why couldn’t the CONS just give every working Canadian a tax cut to between 14-15% instead of the tax increase to 15.5% at payroll? Why can’t the CONS just do the right thing? Why can’t they just give all working Canadians a break! Maybe they would get re-elected if they stop with this re-election agenda, neo-con agenda; how about an income tax cut agenda?
Mr. Harper – oh what a tangled web you weave when first you practice to deceive.
I live in rural Ontario and so far the letters in our local paper indicate unhappy campers.
Hey, the health care monies for Ontario aren’t available until 2014 – fat lot of help that will be.
Those who are ill now will have to hold on for another 7 years.
Well, I guess we’ll bee needing Dion for more than just the environment. Harper’s an idiot when it comes to the Bloc.
It is not a good idea for Canada to lock us into this level of spending. We will regret it. — Garth
No one can fault a man for being cautious. But your “cautious” stance on the budget rings a little hollow in light of the incredibly reckless commitment that you (and the rest of the opposition) just forced through a minority parliament. That’s the Kyoto Enforcement Measure, of course.
People who preach prudence for their political opponents on the one hand should try to avoid forcing the country into a 30% contraction in GDP on the other. It tends to make your “prudence” a little suspect.
You don’t want to lock us into increased spending but you’re quite cheerful about locking us into a UN supervised scheme that requires a 30% reduction across our entire economy.
Yep, a lot of hypocrisy in that place.
This budget looks like being put together by a bunch of college kids as a college project?
Garth, does it mean that, if passed, investors will no longer be able to deduct interest on loan taken out for investment in the foreign companies?
How about this idea? Quebec can separate as soon as they pay Canada back the $700 BILLION Canada has pumped into them?
If a State in the U.S. tried this BS they would find the National Guard and U.S. Army at their door steps with arrest warrants for sedition!
What Canada needs to do is hold a referendum on whether Canada wants Quebec as part of Canada. Oh, say what?
How would that be for a sensible act of reality?
Bon voyage!
Zorpheus,
“Can Politics get anymore screwed up in this nation?”
YES! Wait until they fully engaged being like the American government…you haven’t seen total buffoonery yet!
Yes the money was used illegally (so don’t bother bitching about that)
Legal, illegal; what’s the diff?
Greasing the separtists or greasing your own party; it’s a distinction too fine to bother with, eh?
The stories that Liberals tell themselves are elaborate mass deceptions like Area 51 or the Kyoto Accord. Your party conceived and implemented an illegal embezzlement scheme and none of you has ever been held accountable for it. Well, I hold you all accountable and I will never stop reminding others about the details of this crime and the fact that rank & file Liberals denied, obfuscated, minimized and misrepresented the facts THEN and continue to do so now.
If you can’t see the difference between above-board legal measures and criminal enterprises for private gain… well there really isn’t much to be done for you. But as long as I am able, I will set the record straight every time I catch another liberal trying to revise and whitewash the truth.
Lawrence, you’re right, and I don’t think this is just happening, hence my opening line. I think that the word tolerance has been misused so often that we forget what the word is for, especially in respect to the separatists.
There is one OTHER reason I knew the BQ was going to support the budget. The PQ are having a horrible time on the campaign trail this election, polling roughly 30%, the BQ are only running about 35% in Quebec. If there was a federal election, the Bloc would have lost alot of seats.
At the same time, support for separatism has dropped off, and support for a referendum is even lower.
Realist:
The Quebec Liberals are sitting at 30%. In order for them to win a majority government they need to receive 45% of the popular vote.
The Quebec media are treating this budget for what it is, a vote buying exercise for both Mr. Charest and Mr. Harper.
This budget will not hand Mr. Charest that much needed 15% and if Quebecers react badly to the blatant vote buying it could actually cost him the election thus making Mr, Duceppe’s statements very true.
It is a sad fact but Canadians cannot write-off the separatists yet and we still need to see how Quebecers are going to react to this budget before we can all breath easy.
Quebec should just separate
A budget so Liberal, the Grits should sue
The fiscal conservative has gone the way of the dinosaur
JOHN IBBITSON
How Liberal is this allegedly Conservative budget? It’s so Liberal that it actually revives the sponsorship program.
There was a time when some of us thought Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty were conservatives: prudent politicians who were definably to the right of, say, Jack Layton or Stéphane Dion. What fools we were.
This sky’s-the-limit budget provides few real tax breaks, wildly increases spending, repeatedly intrudes into areas of provincial jurisdiction and — brace yourselves — puts $30-million into a program “in support for local arts and heritage festivals that engage Canadians in their communities.”
How many months will it be before we see the first stories on how all the heritage-festival money goes to Conservative ridings in Quebec, and the receipts are missing?
The Conservatives have discovered the golden elixir of political success: Target modest tax cuts to the working and middle classes, don’t give money to the provinces without taking credit for it, and, when in doubt, spend.
It is a formula that has stood Liberal governments in good stead for generations. It should keep the Conservatives in power until at least the fall and, if there is an election, it will greatly increase their chances of re-election.
The only losers — apart from the opposition parties, which are left slack-jawed, with nothing meaningful to oppose (although that won’t stop them) — will be those few remaining citizens who would actually like to vote for a conservative party. No such creature exists any more.
Consider this telling example: Budget 2007 solves, once and for all, the notorious fiscal imbalance between federal resources and provincial obligations. We know this because the budget says so. It is, the budget modestly declares, “a historic achievement.”
Well, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
To solve the fiscal imbalance, a truly conservative government — one that believed in getting Ottawa out of areas of provincial jurisdiction while permanently constraining the federal spending power — would simply transfer the appropriate amount of money to the provinces, either through direct grants or by surrendering taxing power, while vowing never again to spend money on social programs without provincial consent.
This budget, however, seeks to close the gap by outLiberaling the Liberals. There is money for postsecondary education, money for child care, money for infrastructure, money for labour training. Most of it, however, will be spent next year rather than this year, and only after the federal and provincial governments have hammered out provincial accountability agreements.
But don’t worry: Provinces that don’t want to go along with the federal conditions — hello, Quebec — can opt out, provided they run programs of their own along similar lines.
This is so Liberal, the Grits should sue for breach for copyright.
It isn’t necessarily a bad thing that the Tories have gone all pinkish. After all, the country has been run by the Central Canadian liberal consensus for most of its history, and has done fine by it, overall. It’s just that there were a few folks, especially out West, who wanted a more robustly conservative and non-interventionist government, and who thought they’d voted for one when they picked Stephen Harper’s Conservatives last year.
Sorry. Try again next decade.
Politically, this budget is a masterstroke. The Tories, having established their social conservative bona fides on such symbolic, but ultimately trivial, issues as appointing judges, toughening criminal sentences and opposing same-sex marriage, have now tacked centre-left in all the areas that matter, by either sustaining or embellishing spending on health care, education and the environment (with more to come in the latter case).
Vast swaths of the suburban middle class may start to wonder whether maybe this Harper fellow isn’t as scary as his critics make him out to be and, besides, that baby bonus sure has come in handy.
The Liberals and the NDP, meanwhile, fight over the downtown Toronto lesbian vote.
We haven’t even begun to talk about how the new equalization formula benefits Quebec — no wonder even the Bloc Québécois couldn’t bring themselves to oppose it –while the changes to how social transfers are disbursed is great news for Ontario. So the two provinces where the Tories most need to pick up seats win hugely, while the West and Atlantic Canada are left relatively out in the cold.
Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert and Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams raged against a “betrayal” of their provinces. But there are emollients in the budget to bridge the shortfalls that result from rejigging the equalization formula and, besides, Liberal governments know the West and Atlantic Canada don’t have enough seats to determine an election. And Stephen Harper is a Toronto boy, born and bred, don’t you know.
All in all, it is a brilliant budget for a party with centre-right credentials that seeks to capture the middle-of-the-road vote in urban Central Canada, in order to sustain its government and perhaps even achieve a majority.
The Liberals should sue for identity theft.
Next time, just a link, please. — Garth
To everybody who claims that the budget is for buying votes, that’s the business every political party is in, that is the game.
Garth, the Liberals keep saying it.
” It is not a good idea for Canada to lock us into this level of spending. We will regret it”.. GARTH
Ok so, which specific items in the budget would the Liberals remove, and because you would not add additional spending to the budget, what specifically are the no cost programs that you would add?
Off topic, but Garth can you please see what you can do to make O’Connor find those 4 detainees so Canadians can have some assurance that our troops are following the Geneva Conventions, and have some assurance that those detainees have not been released to shoot at Canadians again? Where does a citizen call to express his or her concern over this outrageous state of affairs? I doubt calling O’Connor’s office will have any effect.
Thank you,
Liz
Duceppe is showing tipping his cards to show us his real agenda:
Flaherty says budget aimed at middle-class families
Last Updated: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 | 11:12 AM ET
CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/20/budgetmaintues.html
The Bloc Québécois has indicated it will back Flaherty’s fiscal plan, which means the budget probably won’t trigger an election. Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said Tuesday that his party wanted more action on the fiscal imbalance than Ottawa was offering, but there was enough for him to support the budget.
“Having said that, there’s money on the table [for Quebec],” he said, “so we’ll take that money.”
Garth, I agree with your assessment. 3.4 BILLION in bribes to win the support of Quebec separatists. OUTRAGEOUS! PM Harpo will do anything to stay in power – even hand over our country to a group of separatists. It was one thing to recognize Quebec’s distinctiveness – or even nationality – but this latest move smacks of hypocrisy of the grandest order.
Duceppe sure is a good politician! Too bad he is not a federalist…
Geoffrey L,
I did my taxes with QuickTax and they are less than last year. The personal exemption went up. The higher tax brackets were lowered and the Employment Credit did lower my taxes. It isn’t true that taxes were “raised”.
Sell out….that’s not how I would describe it…incompetent and nieve about the relationship between the Feds and Quebec.
PMSH, A man down at the casino betting a good portion of the surplus on getting a federalist premier of Quebec re-elected. But the problem is, its double or nothing. If Charest wins great; if he loses, then PMSH has just handed federal tax dollars over for separtist goals.
And given Mr. Duceppe and Ms. Ablonczy’s exchange, PMSH didn’t understand the bet! He does now!
Here is a tax leakage aimed at corporate executives donating to Conservative think tanks:
“Eliminating the capital gains tax for charitable donations of publicly-listed securities to private foundations.”
KPK on 03.20.07 2:37 pm
I am still working on my taxes and I will let you know if my taxes have gone up or down. In terms of the payroll tax at source when I get my biweekly pay I am pretty sure that they are taking more money.
I did my taxes with QuickTax and they are less than last year. – KPK.
I do mine with Quicktax, and my average tax rate went down too! But the issue with any tax changes is some will benefit, like you have, others will not.
Lowering tax rates on the highest brackets only helps those with higher incomes. A better approach would be to lower the lowest tax rate. That would help all taxpayers…ah. but that’s what Paul Martin wanted to do and PMSH and JF reversed that tax reduction!
James,
It would be interesting to here from someone who is only in the 15.5% marginal tax rate to see if the other .5% was offset by other credits and of course the 1% drop in the GST. The only way to tell how much you saved on the GST is if you tracked your finances with Quicken or kept all your receipts for the year. Much to complicated.
There are newspaper articles about this:
“Ensuring that Canadians benefit directly from federal debt reduction by guaranteeing tax relief for Canadians from any future surplus through the Tax Back Guarantee.”
How about the fact that there is a huge unexplained surge in tax revenues at least partially due to income trusts? How about the fact that Canadians are already overtaxed?
Since the Bloc will be voting for this budget we the Liberal party can now oppose it since it will not force an election. We the NDP oppose the Budget because like all budgets it does not create one class of people – the class we define as haves and have nots all having the same. We the Greens oppose this budget because all the green backs being spent are not enough on our two issues the environment and child care. I Garth Turner oppose this budget because it was written by the Conservatives – those blue bullies and their horrible leader Harper.
I also don’t understand the equalization formula. Why isn’t it done on a per capita basis? Why are resources, property values etc included? It should be based on total tax revenue collected divided between the provinces based on population – that’s it. If there are more rich people in Ontario than Newfoundland, then Newfoundland should get more money for social services. Why is this thing so complicated?
Get this:
via Paul Wells The latest news from the Quebec election
“Today Jean Charest told a business lunch that if re-elected — lately a big if — he’ll bring in $700 million in income-tax cuts, mostly by increasing cut-offs for the various brackets”
“We know readers outside Quebec will be grateful for the contribution they’ve been permitted to make to Jean Charest’s re-election fund.”
Words fail me.
KPK,
“Can a government vote against it’s own budget thus triggering an election? (As silly as that sounds)”
Unlikely, but they might ‘miscount’ their number of MPs who show up. But that didn’t go very well with Joe Clark.
Today on the news (680 Radio) I heard that the Dollar is up over a cent, reason,… a spike in the inflation rate that was higher than predicted. This is making markets believe that the BoC will not decrease the over night rate. If we get another spike in inflation, you can bet dollars to donuts that the overnight rate will be increase another 0.25% in an attempt to chill inflationary pressures.
Now is this caused by increase government spending? I don’t know, it is most likely a mixture or inflationary forcings (increased Government spending being one of them)
Right now I am really happy that my wife and I have been paying off all our debt and should be completely in the black in the next few months.
I feel sorry for people who have been buying new homes with 5 to 10% down, they may end loosing a lot if things start to go south.
Hi Garth,
Do you know what the Conservative’s big announcement later this week will be about?
Enquiring minds want to know.
-R
Could someone please explain this:
“Extending the public transit tax credit to innovative fare products like electronic fare cards and weekly passes when used on an ongoing basis.”
Could someone please explain this:
“Extending the public transit tax credit to innovative fare products like electronic fare cards and weekly passes when used on an ongoing basis.â€
By Geoffrey L. on 03.20.07 3:32 pm
Currently the transit tax credit apply only to monthly passes. I read this as it will be expanded to include weekly passes and other types of products.
You are right Zorpheous – there is an economic storm coming (China & India), and the only way to weather it is to BE DEBT FREE. The Chretien government saw the storm coming and pored resources into balancing the budget and paying off the debt. SPEND IT HARPER is pursuing a tax and spend policy, which is the exact opposite of what we need. The only way to stay ahead, personally, is to retire your debt and minimize your overhead. When the economy hits the wall, say by a hick-up in China’s growth, oil prices may plummet, the economy might falter, and many many people will lose their jobs and their homes.
“Personal Income Tax
A new $2,000 child tax credit will provide up to $310 per child of tax relief to more than 3 million Canadian families.
Ending the marriage penalty by increasing the spousal and other amounts to provide up to $209 of tax relief for a supporting spouse or single taxpayer that is supporting a child or relative.
Extending the public transit tax credit to innovative fare products like electronic fare cards and weekly passes when used on an ongoing basis.
Increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption for farmers, fishermen and fisherwomen, and small business owners from $500,000 to $750,000.
Enacting the Tax Fairness Plan, which delivers over $1 billion in additional tax savings for Canadians including:
Increasing the age credit amount by $1,000 to $5,066.
Allowing pension income splitting.
Encouraging older workers to stay in the labour market by permitting phased retirement. This would allow an employer to simultaneously pay a partial pension to an employee and provide further pension benefit accruals to the employee.
Increasing the age limit from 69 to 71 for converting a registered retirement savings plan (RRSP) to strengthen incentives for older Canadians to work and save.
Amending the list of qualified investments that can be held by RRSPs and other registered plans to include most investment-grade debt and publicly-listed securities.
Increasing the share of meal expenses that long-haul truck drivers can deduct for tax purposes from 50 to 80 per cent.”
If Jean Charest is giving a tax cut in Quebec, then maybe the Liberals in Ontario should be announcing some tax cuts with the money they are getting.
In his GO-train guy thread, Garth posted a good analysis of the Harper Gov. budget. This is definitely NOT a Conservative Gov. budget. It resembles Paul Martin’s last budget, except that it does not have any of the usual Liberal pet projects that they like to spend taxpayer money on.
This budget is not what Canada or Canadian citizens require at this time in history, regardless of which political party brings this budget out.
As an independent conservative oriented and reform-minded person who wants to change how government works, I have my own package of wide-ranging constructive policy programs that I would implement if I were the PM. As far as I can tell, the only item in this budget that might even come close to my program is the new funds for Lacrosse and Canadian Football. I have a comprehensive sports program that would build a variety of new sports facilities and provide new funds for sports development.
For example, Quebec City and the Maritimes would each get funding for a new Stadium, and PM Harper could have done this as soon as he became the PM in a minority government. Is this item mentioned in this budget?
Most of my programs involve economic development in some way, either directly or indirectly. How much economic development does this budget mention? Remember, PM Harper has a Degree in Economics. How often does he discuss the Canadian Economy? Hardly ever!
Many negative things are facing us in the near future. The American dollar is under attack once again. Some people are warning about the upcoming Recession. Many people have been warning about the increasing rate of inflation. The officials numbers that government officials give out are out of touch with reality. If you compare what you paid for a basic lifestyle two years ago with what you are spending now, you are probably paying at least ten percent more than you did then. For some people, this number is even higher.
In reply to Georgine 3.19.07 1:02 pm
and the comment about the psychic who predicted an inflation rate of 20-25%. The name of this psychic and remote viewer is Sean David Morton. He spends a lot of time giving advice on the financial market to a variety of private clients. He is doing well with his private predictions, but I do not know how his record is with public predictions. In his most recent radio appearance, he made a number of comments that confirms how badly the stock market is being propped up and manipulated. He used terms like Ponzi scheme and criminal operation to describe the types of transactions he saw happening in the financial market. I wonder if this also includes the White House Plunge Protection Team?
These are the signs of how close we are to the upcoming financial collapse. Another sign is the total amount of outstanding derivative contracts. The most recent amount that I saw was 373 TRILLION dollars. This is an increase of 25% just in the 2006 time period. This is the riskiest form of financial investment and there are rumours that a number of contracts are in default but have not been called. This is known as the proverbial “house of cards”.
We will now have to wait to see if PM Harper finds a reason to call a spring election. I have been on record for some time now that Harper was running to lose. However, his recent spending announcement for Ontario changed the landscape somewhat. It is possible that you could have the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec helping to re-elect the Harper Government just so that they can receive all of the funds that Harper has been promising them.
It is time for the Liberal Party to draft Frank McKenna to become the new Leader of the Liberal Party and future PM.
It takes time and effort to Become Aware. If you are Aware then you will not be Fearful. Instead you will be Prepared to respond as necessary.
Cheers.
Elias,
Fortinately I have been seeing this coming for last three years and have been working hard to retire my household’s debt. My wife and I were planning on buying a new home later this year,… but I may hold off and wait to see that happens with the economy. Cathrine will not be pleased about this of course. Even walking into a morgage with no other debt and a 25+ percent down has me a little nervious. I would rather wait another year or two and sack away money into short term/secure investiments and get a larger down payment put together, say 40 to 45 percent.
Still I have time to wait and see. We are walking into the market from a strong position into a possible weak sellers market.
This spike in the inflation rate has given me reason to pause. We current rent and rent we have is cheap. So for use we can move when the market is best for us. The only pressure I have deal with is from my wife who WANTS a house and explain inflation, markets and risk (the logic of when to buy) doesn’t play very well on her. I tend to be the hard ass when it comes to money.
Geoffrey,
I believe it’s a change in the existing tax credit for mass transit users. One criticism of the program was that the initial credit only applied to monthly passes rather than across the board to other types of fares. It’s an implementation change that (I think) is designed to broaden the credit for folks who don’t buy a monthly bus pass.
Quebec could have been bought with income splitting just like the rest of us.
Chill out all you Doom & Gloomer Poulet Peu. The rececession has been cancelled, forever. Haven’t you heard…the money supply is endless.
In response to the Subprime Mortgage situation in the States, (notice I didn’t call this a crisis?), Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd has called for a Government Bailout. Financed, of course, by those taxpayers that are still liquid.
See…borrowing pays and the responsible savers are always there to bail out the imprudent. Coming next, bailouts for those maxed out on their Credit Cards.
The money supply is endless…it’s only paper and faith (in Politicians BBBrrrrrrrrrrrahahahahahaha). Witness Flaherty’s Budget…did I just hear someone saying that it’s actually in deficit?
Party on Dudes and Poulettes.
The Liberal MP Joe Comuzzi from Thunderbay actually reminds me a lot of Garth, pretty straight forward and doesn’t really care what the Leader thinks about it and here I thought Garth was one of a kind. The future of Canada is looking up.
Looks like the budget will pass for sure. One Liberal is voting with the government and it looks a bunch of Quebec Liberal MPs will abstain lest they get lynched in the next election. Harper may not be Mr. Smiley but I bet he is an excellent chess player.
I can’t help but remember Rick Mercer saying that a Harper minority government would have the lifespan of a fruit fly. I guess one day he will have to eat his words…
How about a house fly? — Garth
Going from a 9 Billion dollar surplus to zero in two Budgets? Now that’s what I call “Getting it Done!” at toutedesuite vitesse.
No wonder Harper was sweating. Maybe they should change the Budget Title from “Aspire” to “Perspire”.
Houses cheaper than cars in Detroit. At least 16 under 30k.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2962227&page=1
Lawrence Garvin on 03.20.07 5:02 pm
I know that this was intially a Conservative promise before the last election to include weekly passes. My question is does this include the GO transit 10 ride pass? It does not always make economic sense to buy the monthly pass. The way this is worded, it sounds like a person has to buy more than 3 ten ride passes and then time stamp them every day consecutively. For instance, if I started buying ten ride passes now, I would use them for two weeks in a row and then I am off work for 3 weeks because my wife is having a baby. This would presumably disqualify me because I didn’t use these passes 3 weeks in a row. What about if I am sick for 3 days in a row, like I was last month? Disqualified? My monthly pass costs around $275, which some can’t afford with one paycheque, but this doesn’t take into account that there are sick days, personal obligation days, and vacation days. If you take any of these, you probably won’t get a tax break!
How about a house fly? — Garth
Or maybe Harper is just on a diet
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0000129F-71F1-117D-B1F183414B7F0000
Carb on:
Let’s not forget the ADQ. Although I”m not in Quebec, the indication I have gotten is that most of the support lost by the PQ has bleed over to the ADQ. While harper may or may not be trying to help the Quebec Liberals, I would think he would be more comfortable working the a right leaning federalist party such as the ADQ.
Going from a 9 Billion dollar surplus to zero in two Budgets? Now that’s what I call “Getting it Done!†at toutedesuite vitesse.
No wonder Harper was sweating. Maybe they should change the Budget Title from “Aspire†to “Perspireâ€.
By kitkat on 03.20.07 6:02 pm
Actually, KitKat, we are not supposed to have ’surpluses’. Surpluses simply means we are over-taxed. Harper has paid $9billion down on the debt, plus has given the money back to the provinces so they can again run their own programs. It has been the liberal government of the past 15 years that has taken power away from the provinces (cut transfers). The Feds have no business in education, childcare ect. ect. they have always been provincial jurisdictions. The Libs. were even moving onto municipal responsibilities. Why did they need all that control?
We should all quit bitchin and moanin about Quebec. Since P.E.T. guaranteed them 75 seats no matter what the population…they will always be a very powerful player in federal elections. There’s no undoing that sadly.
Which brings me to one more question…why has the liberal party only had one leader not from Quebec in 40 years? What’s wrong with the rest of Canada?? L
>Garth wrote
>Hypocrisy abounds in this Parliament in >which I am sitting at the moment. Not >proud of it.
Garth you are off the mark on this one and you should not be proud of parliament for the last 30 odd years.
The Conservative budget is no different regarding Quebec then all the previous budgets ( Both Liberal & Conservatives) since Rene Levesque came to power in Quebec.
To say that hypocrisy abounds in parliament at the moment is hogwash because if there is indeed hypocrisy as you claim then it has been present for the last 30 years and to imply otherwise as you have done is misleading the voters of not only your constituent but all the voters of Canada.
Bill
Sorry to burst your bubble but in America the National Guard’s are the militia under the command of the Governors of a given state. The whole point of the American 2nd amendment is to ensure that states have the option to leave the union.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The only time the president may call upon a state’s national guard is if the governor of said state allows him to.
Basically, if an American state tries to separate they are set up to have a full blown civil war between two fully equipped militaries. I much prefer our system for dealing with our separatists.
Charest’s tax breaks sure shed light on the , ummm, fiscal imbalance. Feds take too much tax money needed for programs in provincial jurisdiction? Those RATS (reform-alliance-tory-supported) politics leave a sour, cynical taste in voters’ mouths.
Well I finished my U-File taxes last night (
Digression: after years of being gouged by QuickTax when they bought my favourite, HomeTax, I made the switch – happily – to budget-priced U-File last year), and I’m staring at my 2005 and 2006 returns right now. And my Federal taxes were UP $202.30 in 2006. Furthermore, the tax credits were lowered and tax rate for the lowest bracket raised effective July 1, 2006, so all that extra tax cannot be blamed on the previous Liberal budget that was still in effect on January 1 2006: it was all gathered in the latter 6 months of the year.So contrary to your assertion, it is TRUE that taxes were raised…
Nevermind the fiscal imbalance who’s going to fix the fairness imbalance?
I work in customer relations and about half a dozen of my customers in BC and Saskatchewan gave me the gears today, “Well you people in Ontario and Quebec must be happy today.”
Not so much.
KitKat
I think you are right. Harper is going to sweat a lot in the next few days.
His traditional conservative backers are turning on him. The tranfer payment program that was suppose to shut up the provinces arguments for more money is getting legs: 4 or more provinces vowing to fight it!
CARP ( 50+, mainly retired)members are supposed to benefit but are 51% dead set against it.
Investers still realing about the Trust Haloween debacle, saying this is doing nothing.
Sources among others: National Post, Big Oil, CARP, 50+, CTV and CBC newsnet.
Realist,
You are partially correct. The National Guard is made up of those who have already served in the Army, or have had a deferrment conferred on them.
I know what you are saying, but when push comnes to shove the National Guard will fall under the authority of the federal government.
You also correctly state that they are what the Constitution refers to as ‘a well regulated militia’, not the bunch of Rambos running around playing ‘I wanna be a soldier!’
Trying to tell that to the gun crazed illiterate morons of the NRA is like trying to tell Harper he is way off base regarding Canada!
BTW, where do you think the supplies come from for the National Guard? AH! The U.S. Army and USAF! It would be a very, very short confrontation.
The progression is from regular duty, to reserves, and then by choice to the National Guard. And yes I remember Dan Qayle. I am from the U.S., and a former Marine!
I also agree, I like our system much better!
Garth, will you be voting for or against the budget? Or are you waiting to see what Dion tells you to do? Or are you polling your constituents?
Read my analysis and commentary of the budget below. See for yourself how I will be voting. — Garth
To answer the question of the 15.0% vs 15.5%…Well that tax rate only applies to a persons first $37000…Exclude untaxabale ($16000)..Therefore 0.05 x 17000 = $850..Divide by weeks in year…850/52 = $16.00 extra off check..Hence a person would have to spend $1600 to get his money back, but wait a person making 37000 doesn’t make that so they would have to spend their entire cheque to get back in GST what they lost in income tax…Hopefully this clears up a few questions…Please correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks
Nor should you be. If this were a Liberal budget (which it is, in all but name) you’d be praising it as the most visionary document since the Magna Carta. – Lawrence Garvin.
Pre. Paul Martin maybe! Who know post Martin…hopefully the Liberals would maintain his steady Eddy approach.
I’m with Alex on this one. Why not just let them go? Really. I’m sick of it. And we could sure put the money we give to Quebec to a lot better use. They’re just a bunch of ingrates anyway. I read somewhere that Quebec gets more subsidies per capita than any third world nation. That’s a disgrace.
Nelson,
What about the increased personal exemption, child tax benefit (assuming you have kids) and employment credit which is given to everyone to who works?
I actually think Harper has done more for middle class families with children than any other previous government…
However all this placation to this Duceppe moron is disgusting and shameful. It really does have the stench of a weasel like sell out in my opinion. I Agree Garth.
Dube, you got me curious about the tax thing so I went back and re did my taxes using my income amounts for 05, in both 2005 and 2006 using Genu tax, and I would be paying 117. 45 less this year, did you get a kick ass raise this year my friend
Leasa…
Harper has paid down $9 Billion in debt….where did that $9 Billion come from? Sure some was budgetted, but the rest came from the surplus!!!
That’s a fiscal play right out of Paul Martin’s book!
As with Mr. Martin, and I asked the same question then, is this paying down the debt too fast and thus overtaxing Canadians? Its about balancing the two.
There are things in this budget that reflect some of the largest flip flops in Canadian history.
Stephen Harper always took offence at the federal government using its spending power to bully the provinces. Harper is doing exactly that.
For example, he is trying to bully Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to give up any chance for long term progress from off shore development. The choice he has given is short term gain for long term pain. For provinces where incomes are lower and taxes higher than the national average this is not an easy choice. Do you take the badly needed money now and risk remaining a so called “have not” province or do you take revenue cut and gamble on the future? What can you cut: a health care system or education system that is cut to the bone now? Do you stop repairing roads or allow municipal water and sewer system disintegrate? Do you increase the tax burden on families and businesses that already pay some of the highest taxes in Canada?
There are some people who get their “kicks” by knocking the provinces and the people that must do with less because of lower incomes. It makes them feel superior by putting down others. That is a personal flaw.
The issue is that Stephen Harper has shown that he cannot be trusted. His word is worthless.
Garth, Serious question for you if you can answer it, will understand if you cannot. Who was in the lock up for the Liberal Party, it is obvious that there is no way that a leader of any party can make a support or no support statement of a budget that is a couple of thousand pages in detail while the M of F is still reading the preamble. Is it Party Staff or the critics.
The government allowed about 10 Liberals into the lock-up, including research staff, the critic, house leader and others. The leader was taken in before Flaherty even started to speak, and fully briefed on the contents by his staff, plus budgetary experts. He was up to speed by the time the finance minister started talking. — Garth
What a laugh. All the emotions on something that isn’t going to happen. Harper wants an election so he can try for his ajority on lies and empty promises. Don’t get excited about the budget crap get ready for the real stuff, an election which I think the opposition should take turns in preventing and having Harper and his government slowly disintegrate.
CB, I grew up in a have not province and this is a serious issue to me, but do you think it is fair for a have not province to be able to continue to receive full equalization plus have an outside income that in facts allow them to provide services at a per capital income higher then those have provinces paying the transfers. i.e , say 6500 per capital is the nat average, so NB is 5500 so the fed tops them up to 6500 and then they take the 800 million from selling electricity to the eastern US and also use that to provide services. I do not believe that is fair to the have provinces.
Raise yes, but not kick ass, just enough to pay for my coffee. So to correct for this error, substituted 2005 income into 2006 return and regenerated; taxes are still up, but now at $60 rather than $200.
Well, Garth, the G&M confirms your prediction of an impending campaign: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070320.wair0320/BNStory/National/home
Boy you’re good!
Trust me. Gonna happen. Of course I’m good. — Garth
C.B. Innes,
Off shore resources are constitutionally the property of the federal government AND not the provinces. You might say that given the ‘ownership’ Williams should be happy to have any say.
The Atlantic Accord that Martin signed was a blatant attempt to win re-election. It was unfair to Saskatchewan or any other ‘land-locked province’ since it provides a benefit to the east coast premiers that are not available to the rest.
Ed the Hun
Innes,
As well, back in the early days of King Ralph’s reign, Alberta faced with a debt in excess of $20.0Billion CUT services, forced a 5% wage CUT on its public employees, reduced the public sector.
So C.B. what is a province to do? Maybe exactly what a province out west did when faced with a dire situation.
Hell, there are more universities/hospitals/etc. per person out on the east coast than in every other province (if my memory works right). Why? Because nobody has the guts (federally or provincially) to make the hard decisions and downsize. Political suicide.
Maybe there are very good reasons for some of these provinces being in such dire financial straights and it has nothing to do with how much money they are making/receiving, but how much they are spending.
Ed the Hun
Ed the Hun
C.B. Innes,
Off shore resources are constitutionally the property of the federal government AND not the provinces. You might say that given the ‘ownership’ Williams should be happy to have any say.
The Atlantic Accord that Martin signed was a blatant attempt to win re-election. It was unfair to Saskatchewan or any other ‘land-locked province’ since it provides a benefit to the east coast premiers that are not available to the rest.
Ed the Hun
By Ed the Hun on 03.20.07 9:29 pm
Certainly a separate agreement could have been struck with Saskatchewan. Most fair people, including Danny Williams, believe Saskatchewan has received a raw deal from both Liberals and Conservatives. All provinces should be allowed to progress and given time to diversify their enomomies when they have the sought after resources to do so.
Remember that at one time Alberta’s resources also belonged to the federal government but they were given to Alberta.
What is so wrong with the federal government using the resources connected with these regions to help them develop? Why would be so opposed to these areas becoming affluent and contributing to federal coffers instead of requiring equalization?
What is your vested interest in keeping other regions of the country down?
That kind of thinking is why there is no room in the new Conservative Party for progressives. The new Conservatives seek to maintain the status quo by keeping others down whether it is on a regional basis or on an economic class basis.
The Conservatives are shafting Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland/Labrador. They are doing so to to play to the “greed” of their neo-con base.
I’m confused, why is SH bullying NL, Lab. & NS, and Saskatchewan? I know promise breaking is like breathing to him but I don’t understand the why behind it. It won’t grab him any votes that I can see.
If fact it may help Elizabeth May against Peter Mackay. I’m pretty sure that she’s sure she has a better than even chance against him. This may up those odds.
Isn’t it illegal for a PM to interfer in a provincial election?? If it isn’t it should be!! Even the preception of interferance. All the pols (before the budget) show the bloc dead last, and Charest well up front. And the ADQ(?) well down in the middle. Just polls I know, but still.
Off topic
Garth, maybe you or someone else knows something about this:
Last Dec. the Harper gov said NO to the Canadian Space Agency building a Mars rover, the ExoMars. It would not cost any money as the CSA were happy and willing to postpone or delay other projects. The US wanted them to do it. The EUSA asked them to do it. They (Canada) are the best at it. And Harper said NO!
Industry Minister Maxime Bernier told the companies the government hadn’t made up its mind about the future of Canada’s space role and didn’t want to go forward with the project.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/14/mars-rover.html
I can’t find any mention on the CSA site. Or what’s happened now. Who has taken it on? Has it gone private? Lot’s of info just after, but then nothing. Harper’s Arrow, for the Avro Arrow, is what it’s being called.
So any help as to where this project is today I would be greatly appreciative. Thanks.
“CB, I grew up in a have not province and this is a serious issue to me, but do you think it is fair for a have not province to be able to continue to receive full equalization plus have an outside income that in facts allow them to provide services at a per capital income higher then those have provinces paying the transfers. i.e , say 6500 per capital is the nat average, so NB is 5500 so the fed tops them up to 6500 and then they take the 800 million from selling electricity to the eastern US and also use that to provide services. I do not believe that is fair to the have provinces.”
By KH on 03.20.07 8:51 pm
When a province or region has been below the national average for decades they do not have the infrastructure to develop. It takes years to close the gap with the other provinces. Alberta was allowed to maintain its federal transfers for several years until it reached a certain level.
Equalization never brought the provinces up to the national average. The way the formula works is that it brings provinces up to a certain minimum. New Brunswick has much less to spend per capita, for example, than Ontario. If they sell electricity to the eastern U.S. that is deducted for equalization.
This means that there is never any fiscal room to move forward. Every time a province receiving equalization makes headway the money is taken back by the federal government. In order to build infrastructure to encourage development they have to increase taxes. If they want to lower taxes they have to cut services.
What the off shore deal did was give Nova Scotian and Newfoundland and Labrador a limited number of years (not indefinate) to use the extra revenue for development purposes such as paying down debt, upgrading infrastructure such as education and health care services, etc.
With a much better economy in much of the rest of the country you would think this would not be a problem for a few years. However, those areas with booming economies, complain about giving these areas equalization but at the same time want to keep them in need of equalization.
While Saskatchewan may have reached the fiscal level of a have province it needs more time to catch up in development after years as a so called “have not” province. That is why it should also be able to retain some “catch up” fiscal room.
British Columbia also faces major challenges because of its geography. It is far cheaper and easier to build roads in Alberta than in BC (although, I must admit that Alberta has opted not to spend much on its roads but that is a provincial choice).
We do not envy Alberta’s affluence or its low taxes. However, there seems to be a group, primarily in Alberta who begrudge every single federal cent that comes this way. That is reflected in the behavour of the leaders of the new Conservative government.
Well, seems the Star has also picked up on the reality check, er cheque, of the Harper budget!
Opposition unites to seek climate act changes
Tory budget may trigger blockades, chiefs warn
Provinces slam Tories’ fiscal gap cure
Government emissions tax ‘ineffective’: Critics
Budget unfair to Ontario: McGuinty
So, now it has truly begun. The first article will probably be the Butt Buster for Mr. Harper, but we all know Fearless Leader has plans, and those plans are from God, so, will he change them?
Ed The Hun,
“Maybe there are very good reasons for some of these provinces being in such dire financial straights and it has nothing to do with how much money they are making/receiving, but how much they are spending.”
But Ed, they have ‘economists’ with spreadsheets and Voodoo Economic Theories to prove they are right! Right?
Oh, and Harper is an economist, so we ‘know’ all is well because their theories never fail, well, er, unless someone listens to the Nobel Prize winning Dr. John Nash!
This budget is a ruse…promise the moon to each and every constituent, try to make them all happy, then make the clean air or police legislations as a matter of confidence. If the rest of the House rejects the legislation out of principle, then Harper will use this as “ammunition” against the Liberals, combined with the “favourable” (ugh) budget that was rejected. He wants nothing less than a majority, and he is treating the voting public as pawns. Deplorable.
If the Liberals and NDP instead insist on introducing amendments to the budget and to the forthcoming clean air bill and police bill and avoid making it an issue of confidence, then the Liberal platform is preserved. If the opposition continues to support the government while adding their own amendments, it will makes Harper look like a fool. As his intent is not to follow through with the budget, preserving the government to ensure that the budget is implemented, warts and all, will eventually alienate his base, and reveal any and all desperate tactics to seek an election and thereby wash their hands of this budget.
If the opposition can do this for a few months, it will leave the CPC flapping in the wind…
It is absolutely abominable that parliament has become little more than a game, but if a game is what they want, I say play and let the CPC dig its grave. Only then can real government return.
C.B. I cannot not find much in your argument to disagree with, but correct me if I am wrong, The govt did not tear up the Atlantic accord to the best of my knowledge. If anyone has a reason to be pissed it would be Sask because they did not have this same deal. As I understand the deal is they will be allowed to keep 50% of their royalties before it starts to effect their transfer payments. When a Sask NDP former minister is saying its fair then I am totally confused to what the Premier is trying to do but provoke a fight with Ottawa in that old time political tradition of they are horrible you need me to protect you. Oh, and I do think he broke a promise on this but that is another topic.
Garth,just watched on CTV news that Liberal MP’s are divided on support for the budget. Quebec MP’s and some ontario MP’s like the budget. Many call it a liberal one. What are your constituents saying.
That is media junk. One MP will be voting against, for reasons of direct funding to his constituency. Otherwise, Liberals will vote together in opposition. As for my constituents, I have heard from perhaps two dozen against, two in favour. Basically no reaction.– Garth
Lawrence: May I suggest that you contact the RCMP with your allegations. They, of course, will want names and proof. Perhaps an inquiry will be held!!! (oops, I think that was already done)
Or, just wait a little while. The Cons have been lying, deceiving, and flim-flamming us for only a short while. I’m sure that there is a scandal in waiting in their future.
Toy,
CTV = Conservative TeleVision! They are more biased than Global National, which actually has been pretty balanced to be fair, but CTV even makes the National Compost look fair IMHO!
Bill-Muskoka,
Not sure what your point is? I don’t know who is responsible for the dire straits of some of this country’s provinces. Economists? Lawyers? Certainly politicians.
Regardless, me thinks they should look into their provincial capitals and will see the culprits.
Ed the Hun
C.B. Innes,
I never said that the feds shouldn’t use their offshore resources to help the east coast regions. What I said was that Williams can’t have his cake and eat it too.
By one-offing arrangements across the country (to win elections), the equalization process has been hijacked into a vote buying scheme.
If the rules are set (and clear) then everyone (including the haves) will know what to expect and I’d suggest the have nots can then work towards rectifying whatever might be wrong in their backyards.
Provinces have their responsibilities and are responsible to their citizens for their actions. Not to the feds for provincial responsibilities.
I never said that equalization should be ‘banned’ just expressed the opinion that the program only develops a dependency upon the federal government to fund its wants. I believe that equalization, especially the way it is established, develops a ‘welfare-trap’ mentality.
If I had my way, equalization would be used to pay down have-nots’ provincial debts only. The provinces would have to work with balanced budgets and over time thier debts would be eliminated and their operating budgets would benefit from not having to service the debt (debt payments). At that point, then equalization could be applied to maintain a ‘common-level’ of funding for agreed upon levels of minimum service across all provinces.
Anyway, that is what I think.
Ed the Hun
Lawrence
Judy writes
“The Cons have been lying, deceiving, and flim-flamming us”
I`m astounded some people are a little uneducated about the political game. Today it`s the federal budget. lol everything from spending to little or spending too much. Too big a surplus that`s is truly overtaxing but lets not forget how Ottawa does it`s books.
The more programs you promise in the budget the more you spend, obviously. However only the `paper spending` is accounted for. In other words if you have $100 billion and create programs to use up balance after the normal government expenditures, health, education, golf balls, you know the usual stuff the money for most of these new programs stays in general revenue. So if you only spent $90 billion you would have a $10 billion surplus even though this `surplus` is earmarked for and heading for the programs. The idea is to spend looks but leave as much in general revenue as possible creating a surplus.
We in BC are still waiting for monies promised last year, lol, it`s now part of the surplus, probably never to be seen again because you can`t pay two bills with one check.
As these programs never get funded showing the programs are bogus which means Ottawa is intentionally overtaxing in order to create a bogus surplus.
Once steve has his majority theres gonna be some serious butt kickin` Alberta Style Hee haww!
Those effete frenchie surrender monkeys are gonna be in for some big time payback! hee haww!
Git oucher bibles folks gonna hunt us down some unbelievers! If you think the wrath of gordo is bad..wait`ll you see steve in action! Heee Haww!
Once steve has his majority theres gonna be some serious butt kickin` Alberta Style Hee haww!
Those effete frenchie surrender monkeys are gonna be in for some big time payback! hee haww!
Git oucher bibles folks gonna hunt us down some unbelievers! If you think the wrath of gordo is bad..wait`ll you see steve in action! Heee Haww!
By Albert on 03.20.07 11:50 p
Grow up !
CB,
Thanks for your explanation re NS, Sask. et al. I think I understand what’s going down there a bit better.
And, essentially, with Harpeer and co it’s ideological as with most Albertans. It just seems to me that doing what ever it takes to help out or permit the “have-not” provinces, especially ones that have been so for a long time, to become “haves” is good for all of us.
I mean, good on Alberta for being stinko rich. It does not mean you get to tell the rest of us how to live. Good on Ontario for encompassing the centre of the universe, the rest of us don’t care, but we can spot you a mile away when you move to BC. We are all supposed to be in this together aren’t we? Duccepe notwithstanding.
This turning away from a valid need is reflected in this budget, the ones with the greatest need, see the least.
a good budget review:
tp://progecon.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/budget-2007/
Dube, you’re telling only a half truth
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/5000-s1/5000-s1-06e.pdf
From schedule 1:
2005 35595 * 15% 5339.25
2006 36378 * 15.25% 5547.64
Diff is 208.39
however, personal exemption went up in 2006, so depending on your non refundable deductions, you’re either breaking out EVEN or better in 2006!
But, hey, let’s not have facts in the way of Liberals story telling.
Georgine,
As far as ideologies, I think what you are seeing is the influence of having an Albertan background. Let the provinces take care of their constitutional responsibilities and the feds will take care of their own.
In my opinion not a bad philosophy since it will probably lead Canada back to the way it was setup. Democracy, based upon the constitution. If that were to happen it would take much of the wind out of the sails of people like myself.
Ed the Hun
Catherine on 03.21.07 5:25 am
Pay cheque to pay cheque, the Conservatives are grabbing more money.
What I find perplexing is that on this blog and other poli-speak blogs, some people comment on the fact that M. Harper believes in God and the comments are really crude. I can’t find any example where he has let his religion rule his professional life. However, that doesn’t matter. Is the consensus of most liberal supporters that they believe Liberal leaders and MPs are athiest? Is that a prerequisite now for political life?
It may surprise many to realize that PM Martin was also a highly religious person. Sure, he made decisions that went against his church, but he never missed Sunday mass and confession. He probably had to say a ton of Hail Marys.
My point is that no one has any right to dis anyone for their religious conviction. No right what-so-ever. I have observed this last half decade that the Christian faith seems to be fair game for attack. Muslim is off limits lest you be labelled a racist by the same folk who condemn Christians.
Is Garth an athiest? I doubt it, perhaps some of Garth’s most valiant supporters are insulting him as well as Mr. Harper in their Christian hate rants?
Think about it. Making anti-Christian (or Jew) comments is wrong. We are an inclusive country, er, supposed to be anyway and this is as wrong as is attacking folks based on race.
Leasa
Leasa,
a stirring defence of religious tolerance, but where has it been violated on Garth’s blog?
Ed the Hun,
“Regardless, me thinks they should look into their provincial capitals and will see the culprits.”
Try looking in the mirror Ed. ‘We has found the enemy and they is us!’
Leasa,
Regarding your poser about Harper’s religion. Consider his position on SSM, abortion, etc. Same rhetoric as George W. Bush and the American neo-con evangelical movement. ‘Looks like, walks like, sounds like? It is!’
When a politican drags their religious biases into the political arena they open the door for criticism, and deserve it. We will not be another theocracy in the making.
Lesson learned, history learned, not to be repeated!
Ok, How did we get on to religion.Lets leave who we pray to out of this. I do not want to have to admit to a room full of guys that I worship my wife.
Garth – I was extremely surprised that you weren’t picked as one of the Grit MP’s to go into the budget lockup. This is NOT ACCEPTABLE. Dion is not appreciating your experience and talents. You’ve done your time in the Liberal trenches and it’s time they stop holding you back. I personally have been e-mailing Dion’s Office daily on this.
ACORN Canada points out, working people will be paying $3 billion more in income tax as the lowest tax rate goes up in 2007 from 15 per cent to 15.25 per cent.
Leasa, while I agree that everyone has a right to their religious beliefs, they are more than fair game for attack.
There are two key reasons why I say this.
First, a person choses his religion. It’s not an unchangible quality like race. If you want to be a jew, you can convert — and good on yeh if you want to.
Second, there are vastly different levels of christians. From agnostics/aethists who celebrate christmas but have never seen the inside of a church, all the way to batshit crazy sobs like Fred Phelps. Where one sits on this religious ladder is most certainly available for criticism and personally, I think that PMSH is letting his organized religion (an invention of man) guide his politics a little too much.
You can say the same about Jewish people who get mad any time non-jews discuss Israeli politics or for Muslims who get up in arms over a political cartoon.
It’s all fair game in my books.
One of the worst things about watching the leaders’ debates during elections is watching the CPC, LPC and NDP leaders whipping out the kid gloves in dealing with Gilles Duceppe. No one can afford to say, “Your presence here demeans this debate and all of Canada.” That’s why it’d be sweet if another party was able to break through–maybe Elizabeth May could say something like, “Anyone else notice that Gilles tends to focus an awful lot on Quebec in his responses?”
Leasa ask Charles McVety about religion and politics .
The nit wit that tried to have Garth unseated at a nomination meeting .
If I had my way, equalization would be used to pay down have-nots’ provincial debts only. The provinces would have to work with balanced budgets and over time thier debts would be eliminated and their operating budgets would benefit from not having to service the debt (debt payments). At that point, then equalization could be applied to maintain a ‘common-level’ of funding for agreed upon levels of minimum service across all provinces.
Anyway, that is what I think.
Ed the Hun
By Ed the Hun on 03.20.07 11:45 pm
You have accepted the Liberal “big brother” concept of federalism which is what new Conservatives once decried. Most of these provinces do balance their budgets through much higher levels of taxation so you premise is based on inaccurate factual information.
If your plan to “pay down the deficit” was implemented then you would cut health care, education, highway construction, and all the traditional provincial services. This would help drive away private investment so you would really punish hard working people simply because they work harder for less money.
You have to understand why equalization became necessary in the first place. It had to do with decisions by the federal government to place economic develop in the central part of the country during wartime. This was centralized planning designed to provide the country with a post war industrial complex. The area around the Great Lakes already had major advantages such as proximity to the US industralizing centers, rail connections both east and west, a large water based transportation, excellent farm land able to feed a large population, etc. There was always a gap between the regions but these caused a major widening of the gap.
Basically this was a regional form of “trickle down economics.” It was assumed that the wealth generated by centralized investment would trickle down to all regions of the country. It did not work as the regions did not have access to the same tax base and equalization was born as a way to compensate.
The discovery of large oil reserves in Alberta was like winning the lotto. This highly sought after resouce allowed the province to prosper although in the early stages of its development the federal government continued payments.
Rather than looking at the reasons for Alberta’s wealth, some Albertans tend to put others down because they don’t have access to the same resources.
The reason that these particular Albertans have a “superiority complex” seems to have several root causes: a religious belief that because they have oil they are God’s chosen people (LOL, that idea once was restricted to some of the residents of the “Golden Horseshoe”), that because they have higher incomes they work harder (statistics have disputed that claim) and I am sure people could come up with others. There are others who believe that no one should resist the power of capital to dictate the lives of all “inferior” individuals (the neo-con view).
There are people who are moving to Alberta today because the government has more money to devote to special services. What do you think would happen if several million more people ended up in Alberta: to the price of housing, to the health care system, to its education system, to water resources, to its welfare rolls, to its inflation rate, etc.?
The problem is that there is a group in Alberta who find it comforting to believe that they are superior and that anyone who lives in a region that needs equalization is somehow their “inferior.” It helps their ego to characterize equalization as “welfare.”
C.B. Innes,
Good comment. I would add the tale of Abram’s conversation with God as an exemplar regarding the the Oil Chosen! LOL
God: ‘Abram, I am going to bless both your sone Isaac and Ishamel’
Abram: ‘How Lord?’
God: ‘To Isaac I will give you the Promised Land if you behave! It is a dusty little tract that needs some fixing up, but has great ‘promise’!’
Abram: ‘What about my son Ishmael?’
God: ‘To him I will give all the oil in the Land!’
And so the story continues on!
Catherine,
Short of rekeying in my entire 2005 return into 2006, which I won’t do, I cannot exactly determine what the differences would be. You are correct, my mistake, the brackets only changed in January, not July. Now, I did key in my 2005 T4 income and still came out with $60 more tax in 2006. I cannot exactly explain why this happened, since contrary to urban legend, taxes have generally been going down or have been flat for years. I did, however, do this basic sample calculation and came out with $36 more tax in 2006.
January 2005
From To Rate TaxCred
0 35595 0.15 8649
35595 71190 0.22
71190 115379 0.26
115739 ... 0.29
July 2005 (no change)
January 2006
From To Rate TaxCred
0 36378 0.15 9039
36378 72756 0.22
72756 118285 0.26
118285 ... 0.29
July 2006
From To Rate TaxCred
0 36378 0.155 8639
36378 72756 0.22
72756 118285 0.26
118285 ... 0.29
Income = 50000
2005
35595 X 0.15 = 5339.25
+(50000-35595) X 0.22 = 3169.10
- 8649 X 0.15 = 1297.35
=======
7211.00 Net Tax
2006 – Jan (Lib Budget)
36378 X 0.15 = 5556.70
+(50000-36378) X 0.22 = 2996.84
- 9039 X 0.15 = 1355.85
=======
7197.69 Net Tax
2006 – Jul (Con Budget)
36378 X 0.155 = 5638.59
+(50000-36378) X 0.22 = 2996.84
- 8639 X 0.155 = 1339.05
=======
7296.38 Net Tax
2006 – Blended
(7197.69+7296.38) / 2 = 7247.04
Extra Taxes 2006
7247.04 – 7211.00 = 36.04
C.B. Innes,
If you review my comments you will see that if FULLY oppose the liberal’s (ie. Turdeau’s) version of federalism. I said in my comment that equalization has a place but not to support programs like $7/day daycare in Quebec. If that is what they want, good for them, but they should pay.
What I said is that if the equalization is used to pay down their debts (every province has one except Alberta), then their operating budgets would have more spending capacity (from the interest payments used to service the debt). Once the debt was paid and the province had the benefit to use the savings intheir operating budgets, then whatever services the provinces could agree on (ie. healthcare) could be costed and then a common level of funding established (per capita) to ensure those services could be provided. Then things like $7/daycare could be paid for by the citizens of Quebec (if they wanted it) and not the citizens of Alberta. And if a province didn’t want a nationally agreed program, then it could opt out and receive the funding to do WHATEVER IT WANTED.
In that way provinces would no longer be at the beck and call of central Canadian voters (via Parliament) and the people who put most of the MPs there.
Ed the Hun
C.B. Innes,
By the way, I never had a plan to ‘pay down the deficit’. It was a plan to pay down the DEBT. Different things.
Ed the Hun