Liberal government's first budget 22 March 2016

143 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2016-03-22 22:26

mark_alfred

Yeah, there needs to be some sort of tax reform in the future. And their delivery on the child care promise is pathetic (there's really just peanuts for actual child care spaces.) Instead they're opting for the following:

Quote:
The Conservatives said they did not believe in big government programs and did not favour government-provided child care. Give families money and they will decide how to spend it on child care, the Harper people proclaimed.

Now the Trudeau team seems to have bought into that free market approach. They have abandoned any idea of working for universally accessible and affordable child care -- which would have been an innovation on a par with health care -- and have opted only for an improved version of the Harper plan.

link

Tue, 2016-03-22 22:29

#53

White Cat

The UI spending is also bullshit. Temporary money, most going to Alberta's tanked dirty-energy super-power economy.

Chretien brought in a bunch of UI cuts. Then Harper brought in a bunch of UI cuts on top of them. Now only 4 in 10 workers who pay UI premiums are eligible to collect. Which is to say, these lowlifes turned an insurance program into a tax on poor workers. (Plus they raided the UI fund of a $54-billion surplus to pay down debt they created with around $100-billion a year in tax cuts, beginning with Mulroney.)

Trudeau didn't undo any of this damage done.

Gotta hand it to Team Trudeau, though. They are masters at optics and shell games. Of course, fooling Canadians and "growing the economy" are mutually exclusive options. You can sell someone a lemon; but you can't, simultaneously, sell them a well-running reliable vehicle.

Tue, 2016-03-22 22:41

#54

White Cat

Yeah, gotta love tax cut daycare. Who knows what right-wing ideology will be called "progressive" next.

But clearly no one with a functioning brain can call themselves "progressive" or even "centrist" and a Liberal supporter at the same time.

I remember when Mulroney was in power, people used to say he led the "regressive conservative" party. No one back then would've ever have guessed that the Liberal party would turn into the abomination it is today.

Wed, 2016-03-23 00:10

#55

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Where are all the Lib shills? Why aren't you posting here telling us how wrong we are? We aren't you protesting and trying to protect your leader from evil aspersions regarding the intent of his actions and his character.

How can this thread have gone almost two pages with no LPC sycophants jumping to Le Dauphin's defense and telling us we simply don't understand? Now, THAT, I don't understand.

Wed, 2016-03-23 01:00

#56

Pondering

White Cat wrote:

Yeah, gotta love tax cut daycare. Who knows what right-wing ideology will be called "progressive" next.

But clearly no one with a functioning brain can call themselves "progressive" or even "centrist" and a Liberal supporter at the same time.

I remember when Mulroney was in power, people used to say he led the "regressive conservative" party. No one back then would've ever have guessed that the Liberal party would turn into the abomination it is today.

All three major parties support the status quo in general so same goes for anyone who supports the NDP. The Liberals are doing far more than could be afforded with a 2% corporate tax increase. Given that the NDP are convinced they don't have the credibility to run a deficit they couldn't have done half as much as the Liberals are doing to reduce poverty.

He is being criticized by both the Conservatives for spending too much and the NDP for spending too little.

Karl Nerenberg has some criticisms but also gives credit.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2016/03/trudeaus-first-bu...

The Trudeau government has tabled its first budget and it is radically different from what we got from the Harper government for nearly a decade.

The Trudeau government obviously believes that if a government wants to achieve an important goal it should invest -- not, as Harper did, create a complex series of boutique tax measures....

What the budget actually does, concretely, is announce that the government will, a year from now, set up a National Framework on Early Learning and Childcare. The Framework will cost $500 million, of which $100 million will be for on-reserve, Indigenous childcare and early learning. ...

On other fronts, the budget significantly loosens Harper government restrictions on Employment Insurance, especially for the 12 economic regions that have experienced the sharpest and most severe increases in unemployment. In those regions, the budget increases the duration of benefits by five weeks, to a maximum of 50 weeks.

Morneau announced $2.6 billion over five years for First Nations education, more than double the $241 million per year the Harper government pledged in its last budget. Harper had earlier committed to a bigger sum, $1.25 billion over three years, but backtracked when First Nations balked at his proposed reforms to the system for managing their schools. There are no strings attached to the Trudeau government's funding pledge. The budget even commits extra funds to "support the transformation of the current reserve education system through a respectful process of consultation and partnership with First Nations."

The budget will increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) for poor, single seniors by 10 per cent. This will make a big difference to 900,000 Canadians living on the edge of poverty. It is an example of the current Liberals' penchant for targeted social spending.

There is one smallish item that is notable because it is the first time we have seen a federal budget favourably use the word "union" in a very long time.

Under the heading "Strengthening Union-Based Apprenticeship Training" the budget pledges $85.4 million over five years to "develop a new framework" to foster "greater union involvement in apprenticeship training" and to "support innovative approaches and partnerships with employers and other stakeholders."

Elsewhere the budget touches on many of the Trudeau government's political priorities. It even commits $10.7 million over four years for an electoral reform consultation process.....

and

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mixed-reaction-to-8-4b-budgeted-for-indig...

OTTAWA -- The Liberals’ plan to spend $8.4 billion over five years to improve the lives of indigenous people is getting mixed reviews from Aboriginal leaders, with some calling it a historic investment and others saying it’s not enough.

Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde was among those who called it a “historic day” and “a significant first step.”

“It's way better than Kelowna,” Bellegarde said, referring to the $5-billion 10-year agreement signed by Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin in 2005 but never fully implemented after the Conservatives took office in 2006.

Budget 2016 lays out a five-year, $8.4-billion plan to 'bring about transformational change,' including significant investments in First Nations education, employment training, housing and health programs.

Congress of Aboriginal Peoples National Chief Dwight Dorey, who works on behalf of indigenous people living off-reserve, called the budget “a good start and a positive change in attitude from the previous government who continually slashed crucial funding.”

Sheila North Wilson, Grand Chief of the northern Manitoba First Nations group MKO was more hesitant, calling the money is only “a deposit on a historic reset.”

North Wilson told CTV News Channel that, compared to “the amount that our communities need and, you know, dreamed about,” the $8.4 billion “is not enough.”

North Wilson said that the 30 First Nations and roughly 65,000 people she represents need at least $2 billion of immediate investments in housing alone, not to mention upgrades to schools, clean water and other infrastructure.

“The need is right now,” the chief said. “There’s no time for broken promises.”

Chartrand said that the budget overall is good for Canada, adding that aspects of it will help “the mothers, the children and the elders."

The roadmap outlined in Tuesday’s budget includes:

$1.8 billion over five years to improve water quality on reserves

$2.6 billion over five years for primary and secondary education, including what’s left from funding announced by the Conservatives in 2014

$635 million has been allocated to strengthen the First Nation Child and Family Services program over five years

$554.3 million over two years to address poor housing conditions

$270 million over five years for health care infrastructure, including repair of nursing stations

$10.4 million over three years to for renovation and construction of shelters for victims of violence

I would not expect indigeneous people to fully satisfied at this time. It's going to take decades not years to heal the deep systemic wounds of indigeneous peoples and their communities they experienced as a result of colonization and racism.

and

The budget also proposed to increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement top-up benefit by up to $947 annually for the most vulnerable single seniors starting in July 2016, aimed at supporting those seniors who rely almost exclusively on OAS and GIS benefits and may therefore be at risk of experiencing financial difficulties.

“This enhancement more than doubles the current maximum Guaranteed Income Supplement top-up benefit and represents a 10% increase in the total maximum Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits available to the lowest-income single seniors,” said the budget document.

“This measure represents an investment of over $670 million per year and will improve the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across Canada.”

http://www.benefitscanada.com/news/budget-2016-changes-to-oas-and-gis-be...

Currently the poorest seniors get 16129.44 per year. The extra money will be appreciated.

Wed, 2016-03-23 02:30

#57

mark_alfred

Andrew Coyne's feelings on the budget: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/andrew-coyne-...

I don't know if I buy all of Coyne's rationales. But one thing Coyne mentions is this:

Andrew Coyne wrote:
All told, that’s nearly $40 billion in new spending over two years. How much of that is to be invested in infrastructure, the Liberals’ promised elixir for sluggish productivity? Accepting the Liberals’ own expansive definition of “infrastructure,” i.e. virtually everything, it adds up to barely a quarter of that sum: $4 billion this year, $7.3 billion the next.

Regarding the Liberal claim that their infrastructure spending will act as something to "jumpstart" the economy (or "elixir", as Coyne terms it), does anyone actually believe this anymore? Because my feeling is they're just hoping for oil prices to go up.

Wed, 2016-03-23 04:42

#58

mark_alfred

Craig Scott wrote:
Libs true to the Lib-Con ideological alliance: they raid EI fund for general revenue grab but then leave 800,000 workers still ineligible.

Wed, 2016-03-23 05:33

#59

mark_alfred

https://beta.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/03/22/desperate-parents-pray-for-...

Quote:

Desperate parents pray for federal action amid daycare ‘anarchy’

New parents Glenn Gustafson and Sara Ehrhardt are totally fed up with the state of daycare in Toronto and are looking to Justin Trudeau’s first budget — and his promise to build a national child care system — to provide some relief.

They, like everyone else, should have voted NDP. The Liberal's "national chid care framework" is peanuts.

Wed, 2016-03-23 05:41

#60

lagatta

Why Toronto art? Was that only for cultural industries in Toronto, and not throughout Canada (including artists in Indigenous communities)?

I have a bit of a puppy in that fight, as I work with groups devoted to fostering Indigenous arts and culture (as a miserable freelancer, like everyone else).

While I most certainly agree that the funds for Indigenous mental health are a pittance, we really don't want a fight between First Peoples and cultural workers - cultural workers are also very poor on the whole, and there are more than a few people who belong to both those constituencies. Cultural expression is also among the means needed to improve the mental and social health of Indigenous communities. A young cousin (more like a niece...) is involved in that specific mission, among urban Indigenous people.

The Cons distinguished themselves for their contempt for Indigenous nations, but also their contempt for the arts ... and for scientists.

Wed, 2016-03-23 05:47

#61

mark_alfred

Pam Palmater wrote:
More money given to Canada Day celebrations (210M over 4 years) than First Nation education (200M over 5 yrs) - that is unbelievable.

Where is the money needed to implement TRC recommendations? Where is the money needed to implement UNDRIP? Woefully inadequate budget.

Don't forget the double counting here - money for water on reserve included in money for water overall nationally. The numbers r not as is

2M per year for mental health in First Nations is 3k per First Nation. Less than a dollar a person. That won't address suicide crisis.

Highest number of #MMIW in MB and SK and AB yet increased policing funds go to Ottawa. Where is FN policing, or shelters for Indig women?

And where is the money for First Nation child and family services? Canadian Human Rights Tribunal case proves discriminatory underfunding

Budget is insult to First Nations and shows priorities. 25M for Toronto art versus 2M for 633 First Nation mental health? Not reconciliation

Wed, 2016-03-23 08:15

#62

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Currently the poorest seniors get 16129.44 per year. The extra money will be appreciated.

Pondering its 2.59 a day. Are you really serious? If Junior had closed the CEO loophole he could have given that money to seniors and the mulitplier effect would by far had a better impact on the economy than most of the other measures in this budget. He is a toady of the welathy and will give them whatever he wants. I can't believe you think 947 a year more is something to cheer about. Especially when Trudeau could have EASILY wanted to. His choices show that he DIDN'T want to, and worse DOESN'T CARE about people who need help.

That alone is more than enough reason to NEVER vote Liberal, EVER.

Wed, 2016-03-23 09:02

#63

josh

Progressive economist Jim Stanford:

‏@JimboStanford

Despite imperfections, no doubt #budget2016 is most sig expansion of fed govt's econ role in a generation. Very positive chg in direction

Wed, 2016-03-23 09:17

#64

A_J

mark_alfred wrote:

And their delivery on the child care promise is pathetic

They delivered exactly what they promised to deliver. Hard to fault them for that.

Wed, 2016-03-23 09:51

#65

swallow

Stephen Harper also did much of what he promised, and plenty of people faulted him.

Trudeau kept the promise on "child care" benefits, but it remains poor policy compared to assisting in the creation of badly-needed affordable childcare spaces (a need everywhere in Canada, including Quebec).

The larger issue, perhaps, is should "progressive" groups continue to press for better policy, even when it contradicts the Liberal election platform? Personally, I am sad to see the end of the child fitness tax credit, one of the few positives from the Harper years.

Wed, 2016-03-23 10:03

#66

lagatta

I would have preferred the child fitness tax credit socialised, that is, more support for facilities and programmes for all youth. I certainly support youth fitness (hell, of course I want every one of them to learn to ride a bicycle (including adapted bicycles or tricycles for disabled youth)). But the tax credit is easier to use for parents with a certain income - and can it be a monetary benefit for poor families who pay no income tax? It is shocking how few schools have fitness equipment and swimming pools.

There has been far too much catering to private daycares in Québec, with the excuse that there weren't enough place in public ones, but they should never have been given perpetual permits; they should be eliminated as public non-profit ones are created. It is the proverbial licence to print money. The Liberals have doled such permits out to friends all over the place, but I'm sure the PQ has not refrained from doing so either.

Any money is better than no increase for seniors with no other income, but $2,59 a day is a bit of a bad joke. Perhaps you can buy some fruit, if you live in a neighbourhood where you can buy fruit or vegetables loose and not pre-packaged for families with guaranteed waste for a single person with a smaller appetite than younger people have.

Wed, 2016-03-23 11:49

#67

quizzical

Justin was uh, interviewed uh, this morning uh, by Global TV uh, Vancouver. trying to uh, sell his uh, budget.

Wed, 2016-03-23 11:51

#68

mark_alfred

Wed, 2016-03-23 12:07

#69

quizzical

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
It's called "Growing the Middle Class".

A few growing tips:

While the middle class is fairly hardy, and typically easy to grow in Zones 4, 5 and 6, it doesn't do well in more northerly zones such as 3 and 2, and is nearly impossible to grow in Zone 1.

Middle class requires very specific environmental factors, without they will fail to grow, despite their apparent fertility.

Nearly all examples of the middle class are recent imports to Canada -- native middle classes have been all but extinct for over a century, despite well-meaning but ineffectual growing programs.

Don't be fooled! Many other classes can superficially resemble middle class -- only careful inspection of roots, fruit, and climbing intention can provide definitive identification.

The presence of upper classes can be beneficial when co-planted, as they train new shoots and stems to climb in the appropriate direction, and have been known to repel pests, however great care must be taken to remove lower classes with a sharp trowel or grub hoe, lest they crowd out the middle class by depleting resources or rendering the environment unsuitable for middle class.

Many a grower has watched as their once-thriving patch of middle class suddenly withers and vanishes, only to reappear several yards away where conditions are more favourable.

Regular and sustained attention, as well as watering with tax cuts and incentives, is the best way to ensure that your middle class will reward you with a new crop of middle class season after season!

brilliant!

Wed, 2016-03-23 14:29

#70

mark_alfred

A_J wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

And their delivery on the child care promise is pathetic

They delivered exactly what they promised to deliver. Hard to fault them for that.

Liberal Platform wrote:
We will also work with provinces, territories, and First Nations to create a new National Early Learning and Child Care Framework, to ensure that affordable, high-quality, fully inclusive child care is available to all families who need it.

link

I don't believe that the pittance within the budget will be able to deliver upon this promise. If you wish to make the case that it will, feel free to. But until you or anyone else does successfully make the case, I consider this a failure of the Liberals to meet the standard they set in their platform for child care. I do not believe that the money they've set aside for it will "ensure that affordable, high-quality, fully inclusive child care is available to all families who need it."

ETA: Perhaps I'm being hasty to write this off. It's $500 million beginning in 2017 (of this, $100 million is for First Nations), but there may be more later. I don't think it's enough, but we'll see. link

ETA2: It does seem a one-off rather than ongoing funding, which in my opinion is insufficient. But again, we'll see.

Wed, 2016-03-23 14:33

#71

mark_alfred

Federal Liberal budget failed First Nation children, families: Blackstock

(emphasis my own)

Quote:

The federal budget unveiled by the Justin Trudeau Liberal government Tuesday failed First Nation children and families, says Cindy Blackstock, the tireless children’s advocate behind the successful human rights complaint against Ottawa over its underfunding of child welfare services on-reserve.

On the surface, the Liberal budget commitment to invest $634.8 million for child welfare on reserves appears like a big figure, but scratch a little and a different reality emerges. The number is spread out over five years, with the largest amount appearing in the fiscal year after the next federal election which is scheduled for the fall of 2019.

Wed, 2016-03-23 16:50

#72

mark_alfred

Mulcair expresses his concerns about the budget (primarily EI and first nations children):

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2685743952/

Wed, 2016-03-23 16:59

#73

mark_alfred

Trudeau won’t say why Edmonton was left out of EI extensions in federal budget 2016

Quote:
In Tuesday’s budget, the federal government announced EI benefits in 12 jurisdictions hit hardest by unemployment can now be claimed for a maximum of 50 weeks, an increase of five weeks.

The changes also reduce the time laid-off workers must wait before they start claiming EI, as well as slash the number of working hours they need to have accumulated in the year prior to applying to receive EI.

“I’m still trying to get some background on why Edmonton is not included when the rest of Alberta is,” Edmonton Mayor Don Iveson said.

“My understanding is that it’s because the employment numbers in Edmonton have not dropped as dramatically or as significantly as other parts of the province,” Premier Rachel Notley said Tuesday.

Wed, 2016-03-23 17:14

#74

Paladin1

If the Liberals want to help First Nations they should hire Chief Clarence Louie.

Wed, 2016-03-23 17:33

#75

mark_alfred

lagatta wrote:

Why Toronto art? Was that only for cultural industries in Toronto, and not throughout Canada (including artists in Indigenous communities)?

Yeah. I just found that Palmater had a lot of negative tweets about the budget, which surprised me. Previously she had spoken well of the Liberal government, and many on the news declared that spending on Indigenous issues had gone quite up. So I just posted a sample of the tweets, but I'm not completely sure of the context.

I did just now find a blog entry by her: Trudeau's promises of 'renewed relationship' with First Nations evaporated with Liberal budget

ETA: I just finished reading it. It didn't elaborate on the specific tweet you asked about, but it did get into some other monetary issues (she echoed Blackstock's issue of child welfare, and mentioned protection of languages, and lots of other concerns.) The main point of contention though is that the government is not taking a nation-to-nation approach.

Quote:

Not only did he back away from supporting a First Nation's right to say no to development, with this budget so too does the nation to nation relationship disappear. There are no real funds set aside to support this foundational promise and his words say it all.

[..]

I think I can definitively say the honeymoon is over. Time to snap back to reality and stop being distracted by the shiny beads and trinkets contained in all the flowery speeches and smiling photo ops.

The health of our planet and future generations depends on us taking our role as the real governing power seriously. We need to hold this government accountable for its commitments and hold ourselves accountable to act and speak honestly.

This budget is crap and we all deserve better.

Wed, 2016-03-23 18:16

#76

swallow

Ah, Calrence Louie, "the archetype of the “successful Chief”, based on cursory examination of some of his stated beliefs."

[url=http://apihtawikosisan.com/2016/02/the-myth-of-the-corrupt-chief-and-ban..."There is probably no more famous Chief in all of Canada than Chief Clarence Louie of Osoyoos, British Columbia. Whenever the issue of First Nations comes up in a news piece, you can lay a very safe bet on Chief Louie being raised in the comments section as an example how all First Nations leaders ought to be."[/url]

Lagatta, I agree on the larger child fitness issue. I've just noticed locally that the participation in groups sports for kids seems (anecdotally) to be up since the tax credit. Better still if these activities were collectively funded, of course.

Wed, 2016-03-23 20:59

#77

Pondering

lagatta wrote:

I would have preferred the child fitness tax credit socialised, that is, more support for facilities and programmes for all youth. I certainly support youth fitness (hell, of course I want every one of them to learn to ride a bicycle (including adapted bicycles or tricycles for disabled youth)). But the tax credit is easier to use for parents with a certain income - and can it be a monetary benefit for poor families who pay no income tax? It is shocking how few schools have fitness equipment and swimming pools.

There has been far too much catering to private daycares in Québec, with the excuse that there weren't enough place in public ones, but they should never have been given perpetual permits; they should be eliminated as public non-profit ones are created. It is the proverbial licence to print money. The Liberals have doled such permits out to friends all over the place, but I'm sure the PQ has not refrained from doing so either.

Any money is better than no increase for seniors with no other income, but $2,59 a day is a bit of a bad joke. Perhaps you can buy some fruit, if you live in a neighbourhood where you can buy fruit or vegetables loose and not pre-packaged for families with guaranteed waste for a single person with a smaller appetite than younger people have.

I agree with just about everything but my mother is living in a senior's home and she is very happy about getting an extra 77$ a month and that seems to be a widespread reaction within her building. An extra 77$ a month will definitely impact me positively once I reach 65.

Wed, 2016-03-23 21:50

#78

mark_alfred

CCPA ranks the budget. http://behindthenumbers.ca/2016/03/22/and-the-medal-goes-to-ranking-budg...

Thu, 2016-03-24 10:41

#79

sherpa-finn

An interesting conversation on social media underway re one of the Annexes to the Budget which looks at the comparative debt stats used across the OECD. It basically argues that Canada is far and away better off than other countries because Canadian Gov'ts (federal and provincial) actuallly fund a good portion of pension liabilities (both CPP/QPP and public service pensions) with real cash and investments, as they are incurred. Vs the practice of funding obligations out of current revenues as they come due, as is apparently the practice elsewhere. (And is how Canada funds OAS, for example.)

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2015/docs/plan/anx2-eng.html#wb-cont

Thu, 2016-03-24 11:33

#80

White Cat

Pondering wrote:

The budget also proposed to increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement top-up benefit by up to $947 annually for the most vulnerable single seniors starting in July 2016, aimed at supporting those seniors who rely almost exclusively on OAS and GIS benefits and may therefore be at risk of experiencing financial difficulties.

“This enhancement more than doubles the current maximum Guaranteed Income Supplement top-up benefit and represents a 10% increase in the total maximum Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits available to the lowest-income single seniors,” said the budget document.

“This measure represents an investment of over $670 million per year and will improve the financial security of about 900,000 single seniors across Canada.”

http://www.benefitscanada.com/news/budget-2016-changes-to-oas-and-gis-be...

Currently the poorest seniors get 16129.44 per year. The extra money will be appreciated.

So seniors get $670-million a year, while the rich get about $100-billion a year in accumulated tax cuts over the past 3 decades. Makes perfect sense!

Or just compare this money to other tax cuts Trudeau supports. His $1.2-billion a year in upper-middle-class tax cuts. And his and Harper's $15-billion a year in "dead money" corporate tax cuts.

If Trudeau was really interested in growing the economy and creating middle class jobs, he would distribute this money more evenly. The trickle-down approach is clearly not working.

Thu, 2016-03-24 13:23

#81

Debater

Bill Morneau’s centre-left budget puts Tom Mulcair’s NDP in a bind

If the Liberals become standard-bearers for the centre-left, what remains for the NDP to do?

Thomas Walkom

Thu Mar 24 2016

There are many winners in Tuesday’s budget, ranging from middle-income families with children to poor seniors to university researchers.

But there is one clear loser — Tom Mulcair’s New Democratic Party.

With this budget, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government has confirmed that its veer to the left during last fall’s election campaign was not just a fleeting tactic.

It seems the Liberals plan to position themselves as standard-bearers of the centre-left. They hope to be known as the party of activist government and, when necessary, big government.

And the NDP? After years of moving rightward in order to capture votes, it now faces the prospect of being seriously outflanked on the left.

Full article:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/24/bill-morneaus-centre-left-...

Thu, 2016-03-24 15:02

#82

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

Bill Morneau’s centre-left budget puts Tom Mulcair’s NDP in a bind

If the Liberals become standard-bearers for the centre-left, what remains for the NDP to do?

Thomas Walkom

Thu Mar 24 2016

There are many winners in Tuesday’s budget, ranging from middle-income families with children to poor seniors to university researchers.

But there is one clear loser — Tom Mulcair’s New Democratic Party.

With this budget, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government has confirmed that its veer to the left during last fall’s election campaign was not just a fleeting tactic.

It seems the Liberals plan to position themselves as standard-bearers of the centre-left. They hope to be known as the party of activist government and, when necessary, big government.

And the NDP? After years of moving rightward in order to capture votes, it now faces the prospect of being seriously outflanked on the left.

--

Full article:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/24/bill-morneaus-centre-left-...

This is just nonsensical. Trudeau is a neo con as is his Finance Minister and with this budget the Devil is the details.

The ONLY reason Trudeau did this is because of the prescense of the NDP. LPC sycophants on this boards recounting your chickens before they hatch. You assume the NDP will continue to communicate poorly and that Trudeaumani will last through 2019. That
Is a real reach. This will continue only if the NDP continues its inept ways. And once Trudeau signs TPP, if the NDP rises to the challenge and acts like the NDP, the TPP Albatross around Juniors neck will choke him. I've never seen a more self satisfied group of partisans the LPC supporters in my life. Keep it up. The bottom line is your success depends on continued NDP fecklessness. That's a stretch.

Thu, 2016-03-24 15:39

#83

mark_alfred

And you couldn't find a bigger Lib ass kisser than Walkom if you tried. Conversely, Dr. Pamela Palmater said, "This budget is crap and we all deserve better." link

Thu, 2016-03-24 15:43

#84

quizzical

Quote:
Trudeau's honeymoon is over for Indigenous people

Not only did he back away from supporting a First Nation's right to say no to development, with this budget so too does the nation to nation relationship disappear. There are no real funds set aside to support this foundational promise and his words say it all.

Nowhere in the budget document does he refer to this "nation-to-nation" relationship, but instead refers to a renewed relationship with "Canada's" Indigenous people aimed at "unifying Canada" and ensuring participation of Indigenous people in the economy.

Throughout the document we have been downgraded from Nations to people, groups, communities and stakeholders. There is no mention of UNDRIP, TRC, or free, informed and prior consent. There is no mention of the "sacred" constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights in need of implementation. In fact, the nation-to-nation relationship based on free informed and prior consent turned into a "partnership" based on "consultation, and where appropriate, accommodation." We are back to square one: letting courts determine the relationship.

If you are the kind that is OK with endless "first steps" or "its a start" or believe "every dollar counts" or "something is better than nothing" or "we better take what we can get" -- then I'm sure the budget works for you.

However, I think our children deserve better than this. I think reconciliation envisions far more than this. If we don't use our collective power as Indigenous Nations and allied Canadians to set this government back on track, we risk another lost decade and many more lost lives.

I think I can definitively say the honeymoon is over. Time to snap back to reality and stop being distracted by the shiny beads and trinkets contained in all the flowery speeches and smiling photo ops.

Thu, 2016-03-24 15:54

#85

Pondering

Who are you quoting Quizzical?

Thu, 2016-03-24 16:12

#86

quizzical

from the link right above of mark_a's

Thu, 2016-03-24 17:28

#87

Pondering

Thank-you Quizzical. I sometimes follow links in which nothing is quoted but rarely. Your quote gave me enough information to see that it was a serious and informative commentary.

If anyone thought that any Canadian government would ever give indigenous governments (which one?) equal power to the Canadian government as though we are separate countries I think they were very naive. No government could begin to address all the ills of centuries of mistreatment within a five year mandate which isn't to say they couldn't do a lot better.

From a practical perspective (as in Canada will never willingly give Vancouver Island back to indigenous people) there is a limit to how "nation to nation" will be interpreted.

This feels buried yet it is the easiest point in which to hold the Liberals feet to the fire:

First Nations children still in crisis

It's hard to believe that Trudeau would not at least ensure that the budget line for First Nation child and family services was consistent with the costs noted in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the child welfare case it lost. An increase of $200 million is needed annually just to get child welfare funding for First Nations children somewhere close to provincial levels of funding.

... In Manitoba alone, 90 per cent of all kids in care are Indigenous with one baby taken away from its mother every day on average.

No reasonable person could possibly not be shocked by the above. A 200 million annual increase is not a lot of money when you consider that economists called 10 billion a rounding error in Canada's budget.

Another strong point was made on drinking water. Safe drinking water for all indigenous communities over five years was a clear and prominent commitment.

On the other hand, 66 billion over 4/5 years was never going to happen even though it should happen.

All in all it is an excellent clarification of the needs of indigenious communities versus government shortfalls in meeting their responsibility towards indigenous peoples.

Thu, 2016-03-24 20:27

#88

swallow

Pondering wrote:

If anyone thought that any Canadian government would ever give indigenous governments (which one?) equal power to the Canadian government as though we are separate countries I think they were very naive.

And yet, that is in fact the literal meaning of "nation to nation."

Thu, 2016-03-24 20:27

#89

quizzical

gaaak....

Thu, 2016-03-24 21:14

#90

Pondering

swallow wrote:

Pondering wrote:

If anyone thought that any Canadian government would ever give indigenous governments (which one?) equal power to the Canadian government as though we are separate countries I think they were very naive.

And yet, that is in fact the literal meaning of "nation to nation."

Canada has a nation to nation relationship to the US but that doesn't mean we are equal in power nor that nation only has one meaning.

noun 1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax. 2. the territory or country itself: the nations of Central America. 3. a member tribe of an American Indian confederation. 4. an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.

I'm pretty sure the government is using the 3rd meaning.

Can you honestly tell me that you thought Trudeau meant otherwise? If we had a nation to nation relationship in any other sense then we would be drawing boarders and there would be no need for any budget items as things like education would not be Canada's responsibility. That obviously isn't going to happen. Non-indigenous Canadians are not going back where their ancestors came from.

I do think the relationship between First Nations and Trudeau will be far better than that between Harper and First Nations. The budget would have been even tighter under the NDP. There is no way they would raise taxes high enough or have as large a deficit as the Liberals will have.

Economists are saying we could afford to have a considerably larger deficit but I don't think even the Liberals could have sold that with both Conservatives and the NDP claiming deficits are irresponsible and passing our debts on to future workers.

Trudeau also had and has good reason to avoid the word "veto". It would be political suicide to say indigenous peoples have a veto on pipelines even though they should and effectively do have a veto. When is the last time a foot of pipeline has been built on indigenous or contested land against the will of indigenous peoples?

There are definite short-comings and the package does not fully meet expectations based on campaign commitments. Balance means acknowledging that there is considerable improvement even though there remains a shortfall.

Thu, 2016-03-24 21:45

#91

White Cat

Debater wrote:

Bill Morneau’s centre-left budget puts Tom Mulcair’s NDP in a bind

If the Liberals become standard-bearers for the centre-left, what remains for the NDP to do?

Thomas Walkom

Thu Mar 24 2016

There are many winners in Tuesday’s budget, ranging from middle-income families with children to poor seniors to university researchers.

But there is one clear loser — Tom Mulcair’s New Democratic Party.

With this budget, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government has confirmed that its veer to the left during last fall’s election campaign was not just a fleeting tactic.

It seems the Liberals plan to position themselves as standard-bearers of the centre-left. They hope to be known as the party of activist government and, when necessary, big government.

And the NDP? After years of moving rightward in order to capture votes, it now faces the prospect of being seriously outflanked on the left.

--

Full article:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/24/bill-morneaus-centre-left-...

OMG, what a disgusting display of corrupt agenda-driven nonsense parading as journalism. Fox News North.

This plutocrat fluffing meth whore is attempting to manipulate Canadians in two ways:

1) Calling a right-of-center budget that cemented in place Harper's $50-billion a year in tax cuts — as well as spending cuts, UI cuts, etc. — "center-left."

It boasts of $670-million a year for seniors — half the cost of Trudeau's $1.2-billion upper-middle-class tax cut (apparently Ronald Reagan was center-left.)

It boasts $20-billion in stimulus spending — half the size of Harper's $40-billion stimulus package (apparently Trudeau is not as center-left as Harper.)

It boasts of $6-billion a year in increased infrastructure spending. This a fraction of the Harper/Trudeau "dead money" corporate tax cuts that waste $15-billion dollars a year.

All this money borrowed, of course. A very progressive way of "starving the beast."

So what does this make Mulcair? A commie? Oh, no. We learn the actual truth is that Mulcair is right of Trudeau. And right of Harper, of course. No wonder The Star was opposed to the NDP in the last election: if Mulcair had won he would've turned Canada into Nazi Germany!

2) Interfering in the NDP leadership issue.

Like all the Liberal partisans on this board, they want to kill Mulcair off because they feel that's their best play at winning another fake majority in 2019.

I can't be the only one who finds this filthy agenda just as sleazy as anything Harper pulled.

Who would've thought the Harper Conservatives turned out to be more honest than the Trudeau Liberals?

I know that the Harper Conservatives believe in what they stand for. Yet the Liberals stand for nothing but getting empty power so they can cash in on bribes in post-public-service speaking fees and token corporate board positions.

In any case, it will be interesting to see how far these on-the-take journalists can fool Canadians. They are shouting from the rooftops about the big feast Trudeau has prepared for the Canadian public after 30 years of Tough Tory Times. But it's going to be a tougher sell when the people show up only to find table scraps that fell out of the gaping chomping maws of insatiably gluttonous oligarchs.

Thu, 2016-03-24 21:49

#92

swallow

"Nation to nation," in the context of native-newcomer relations in Canada, has a specific and long-established meaning. The key document is the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, [url=http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014597/1100100014637]People to People, Nation to Nation[/url].

Thu, 2016-03-24 22:22

#93

Pondering

swallow wrote:

"Nation to nation," in the context of native-newcomer relations in Canada, has a specific and long-established meaning. The key document is the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, [url=http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014597/1100100014637]People to People, Nation to Nation[/url].

Thanks for the link. I'm not saying this isn't due to indigenous peoples or that it shouldn't be demanded. I'm saying there was no realistic expectation that it would happen certainly not to the satisfaction of indigenous peoples.

Aboriginal Peoples as Nations

The arguments for recognizing that Aboriginal peoples are nations spring from the past and the present. They were nations when they forged military and trade alliances with European nations. They were nations when they signed treaties to share their lands and resources. And they are nations today - in their coherence, their distinctiveness and their understanding of themselves.

Recognition of Aboriginal nationhood poses no threat to Canada or its political and territorial integrity. Aboriginal nations have generally sought coexistence, co-operation and harmony in their relations with other peoples. What they seek from Canada now is their rightful place as partners in the Canadian federation.

This chapter shows how the foundations of Aboriginal nationhood were undone and how they can be rebuilt.

...

Indigenous people remain subject to the charter...

...

Three other sources of the right of self-government apply to Aboriginal peoples:

In international law, which Canada respects, all peoples have a right of self-determination. Self-determination includes governance, so Indigenous peoples are entitled to choose their own forms of government, within existing states.

In Canadian history, the colonial powers won no 'rights of conquest', for there was no conquest. Nor was North America terra nullius, free for the taking, as was claimed later. In most of their early dealings with Indigenous peoples in what is now Canada, the colonial powers recognized them as self-governing nations - codifying their recognition in treaties and in the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

Aboriginal peoples' right of self-government within Canada is acknowledged and protected by the constitution. It recognizes that Aboriginal rights are older than Canada itself and that their continuity was part of the bargain between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people that made Canada possible.

Aboriginal nations have accepted the need for power sharing with Canada. In return, they ask Canadians to accept that Aboriginal self-government is not, and can never be, a 'gift' from an 'enlightened' Canada. The right is inherent in Aboriginal people and their nationhood and was exercised for centuries before the arrival of European explorers and settlers. It is a right they never surrendered and now want to exercise once more.

As indigenous peoples and lands remain subject to Canadian law the power between the Canadian government cannot be equal.

I do support indigenous peoples having a veto over anything happening on indigenous lands. Im just saying that politically it's not something any plausible political party is going to say point blank.

Thu, 2016-03-24 22:38

#94

mark_alfred

Palmater's complaint was that the government is not living up to its promises. From the article:

Dr. Pam Palmater wrote:
He gave moving speeches about Canada's shameful history with Indigenous peoples and committed to implementing all the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

Trudeau promised to start this process by implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and respecting the right of First Nations to say no to development on their territories.

From the Liberal Party platform:

Liberal Party platform wrote:

We will enact the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

To support the work of reconciliation, and continue the necessary process of truth telling and healing, we will work alongside provinces and territories, and with First Nations, the Métis Nation, and Inuit, to enact the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, starting with the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Given that UNDRIP wasn't mentioned in the budget, seems it's fair to say that the Liberals are breaking their promise to "enact the recommentations of the Truth and Reconcillation Commission starting with the implementation of the United Nations Declation on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples."

Thu, 2016-03-24 22:56

#95

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
swallow wrote:

"Nation to nation," in the context of native-newcomer relations in Canada, has a specific and long-established meaning. The key document is the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, [url=http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014597/1100100014637]People to People, Nation to Nation[/url].

Thanks for the link. I'm not saying this isn't due to indigenous peoples or that it shouldn't be demanded. I'm saying there was no realistic expectation that it would happen certainly not to the satisfaction of indigenous peoples.

Aboriginal Peoples as Nations

The arguments for recognizing that Aboriginal peoples are nations spring from the past and the present. They were nations when they forged military and trade alliances with European nations. They were nations when they signed treaties to share their lands and resources. And they are nations today - in their coherence, their distinctiveness and their understanding of themselves.

Recognition of Aboriginal nationhood poses no threat to Canada or its political and territorial integrity. Aboriginal nations have generally sought coexistence, co-operation and harmony in their relations with other peoples. What they seek from Canada now is their rightful place as partners in the Canadian federation.

This chapter shows how the foundations of Aboriginal nationhood were undone and how they can be rebuilt.

...

Indigenous people remain subject to the charter...

...

Three other sources of the right of self-government apply to Aboriginal peoples:

In international law, which Canada respects, all peoples have a right of self-determination. Self-determination includes governance, so Indigenous peoples are entitled to choose their own forms of government, within existing states.

In Canadian history, the colonial powers won no 'rights of conquest', for there was no conquest. Nor was North America terra nullius, free for the taking, as was claimed later. In most of their early dealings with Indigenous peoples in what is now Canada, the colonial powers recognized them as self-governing nations - codifying their recognition in treaties and in the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

Aboriginal peoples' right of self-government within Canada is acknowledged and protected by the constitution. It recognizes that Aboriginal rights are older than Canada itself and that their continuity was part of the bargain between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people that made Canada possible.

Aboriginal nations have accepted the need for power sharing with Canada. In return, they ask Canadians to accept that Aboriginal self-government is not, and can never be, a 'gift' from an 'enlightened' Canada. The right is inherent in Aboriginal people and their nationhood and was exercised for centuries before the arrival of European explorers and settlers. It is a right they never surrendered and now want to exercise once more.

As indigenous peoples and lands remain subject to Canadian law the power between the Canadian government cannot be equal.

I do support indigenous peoples having a veto over anything happening on indigenous lands. Im just saying that politically it's not something any plausible political party is going to say point blank.

weasel weasling around as identified by pondering's weasel words...and the mockery of "unrealistic" what in the hell were FN thinking hey voting for Liberals?

they think we were and are unrealistic.

fkn Liberals. they're pos under our feet. i've got no use for any FN's who are part of this Liberal goverment. got a name for them.

Fri, 2016-03-25 00:10

#96

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

I do support indigenous peoples having a veto over anything happening on indigenous lands. Im just saying that politically it's not something any plausible political party is going to say point blank.

It's in their platform:

Liberal Platform wrote:
We will undertake, in full partnership and consultation with First Nations, Inuit, and the Métis Nation, a full review of laws, policies, and operational practices. This will ensure that on project reviews and assessments, the Crown is fully executing its consultation, accommodation, and consent obligations, in accordance with its constitutional and international human rights obligations, including Aboriginal and Treaty rights and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Liberal Party, "point blank", did clearly say they would respect "consent obligations" on project reviews and assessments. Not including this in the budget does seem to be a broken promise to me.

Fri, 2016-03-25 05:11

#97

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I do support indigenous peoples having a veto over anything happening on indigenous lands. Im just saying that politically it's not something any plausible political party is going to say point blank.

It's in their platform:

Liberal Platform wrote:
We will undertake, in full partnership and consultation with First Nations, Inuit, and the Métis Nation, a full review of laws, policies, and operational practices. This will ensure that on project reviews and assessments, the Crown is fully executing its consultation, accommodation, and consent obligations, in accordance with its constitutional and international human rights obligations, including Aboriginal and Treaty rights and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Liberal Party, "point blank", did clearly say they would respect "consent obligations" on project reviews and assessments. Not including this in the budget does seem to be a broken promise to me.

I don't see the word VETO there. I said they will not use that word because it would be political suicide but that indigenous people virtually have one now because as far as I know it has been many years since the government has been able to force development on contested lands. If Trudeau forces a pipeline or any other project through claimed lands then he will have broken his promise.

Fri, 2016-03-25 05:26

#98

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Given that UNDRIP wasn't mentioned in the budget, seems it's fair to say that the Liberals are breaking their promise to "enact the recommentations of the Truth and Reconcillation Commission starting with the implementation of the United Nations Declation on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples."

Why would it be mentioned within the budget? It has been discussed since the election. It's a process not something that can be implemented overnight.

You didn't notice my criticism:

Pondering wrote:

This feels buried yet it is the easiest point in which to hold the Liberals feet to the fire:

First Nations children still in crisis

It's hard to believe that Trudeau would not at least ensure that the budget line for First Nation child and family services was consistent with the costs noted in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the child welfare case it lost. An increase of $200 million is needed annually just to get child welfare funding for First Nations children somewhere close to provincial levels of funding.

... In Manitoba alone, 90 per cent of all kids in care are Indigenous with one baby taken away from its mother every day on average.

No reasonable person could possibly not be shocked by the above. A 200 million annual increase is not a lot of money when you consider that economists called 10 billion a rounding error in Canada's budget.

Another strong point was made on drinking water. Safe drinking water for all indigenous communities over five years was a clear and prominent commitment.

On the other hand, 66 billion over 4/5 years was never going to happen even though it should happen.

All in all it is an excellent clarification of the needs of indigenious communities versus government shortfalls in meeting their responsibility towards indigenous peoples.

I fully acknowledge Trudeau is not keeping all his campaign promises and the numbers have changed.

Fri, 2016-03-25 19:47

#99

swallow

Realism is not the point. The point is, Pam Palmater knows what she is talking about, and she's right. All the rest is just spin.

Fri, 2016-03-25 20:28

#100

Debater

Liberals' progressive-minded budget delivers more bad news for Mulcair

ADAM RADWANSKI

Friday, Mar. 25, 2016

Quote:
At serious risk of being forced out of his job next month when his party holds its post-election leadership review, Thomas Mulcair really didn’t need more evidence to be presented to New Democrats about how much trouble they are in.

But in the first budget tabled by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, that kind of bad news is exactly what the NDP got – to the extent that there is now even more incentive for party members to consider new leadership than there was immediately after last fall’s precipitous plunge from a lead in the polls back to third-party status.

Coming out of that crushingly disappointing election result, many New Democrats echoed one of their favourite truisms: that Liberals campaign from the left and govern from the right. While loaded with frustration at the way Mr. Trudeau had supplanted Mr. Mulcair as the choice of non-Conservatives to replace Stephen Harper, that refrain also carried a hint of optimism. Once the Liberals showed their true colours, maybe some of the people who gravitated to them would feel betrayed and return to the NDP fold.

But the evidence, so far, is that Mr. Trudeau’s Liberals – unlike the last ones to govern federally, or those running the country’s second-largest government in Ontario – will if anything govern to the left of where they campaigned. Rather than using worse-than-expected finances as an excuse to scale back social spending and infrastructure plans, they will finance such investments with a deficit three times the size of the $10-billion one they promised in their election platform.

Full article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/budget-delivers-more-bad-ne...

Fri, 2016-03-25 22:08

#101

quizzical

lolol

Liberal government's first budget 22 March 2016

Pages