Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

The Canadian Election - Liberals Win Majority


DonLever

Recommended Posts

so....6 links. 4 deal with provincial level issues and a tirade written by someone who still probably believes the evil soviets are coming across the bering strait which you thought was well written.

Come back when you can speak more about the election as a whole and not just oil.

Because believe it or not...thus is about Canada.

Not Alberta alone

Let's pretend we have no oil.

Explain how raising corporate taxes will attract new enterprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, we have a Prime Minister unwilling to answer a single pointed question. A man who transformed Canada from a leader in global peacekeeping into a country that follows whatever the US wants to do. Harper pushed through C-51, which is a fundamentally unacceptable bill for a country that hopes to avoid becoming a police state. While campaigning on running the economy, Herr Harper has no idea how to actually foster a sustainable economy, instead putting all his horses in front of his cronies in big oil.

Finally, this scumbag wishes to waste more of my tax dollars by escalating the drug war and mock candidates who want to end the madness.

I'll take a few higher taxes over a facist dictator myself.

just like to point out.

That while this guy mutters his nonsense about the NDP at the provincial level.

He forgets 2 important things.

1. The NDP has the best financial record at the provincial level of all 3 big parties. And if you take Alberta out of the picture with its oil wealth the Conservatives have a record that is laughably 3rd.

2. The NDP has never governed federally so mumbling nonsense about the NDP being capable leaders is beyond stupid. There's literally no basis.

But on a side note. Have you noticed how that side of the spectrum cannot even debate Harper or the election anymore? Just insult and obfuscate and talk about oil.

I wonder why that is. Why oh why won't you speak of the election and Harper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point absolutely any of the other leaders would be better. There's simply no excuse for allowing this psychopath to further ruin a once-great nation.

Better or worse, but it's irrelevant. It's just time for a change. I don't think the change will be any better, it will just lead to the other sides supporters complaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe I am doing this because one I don't like to add to the derailment of this topic and two I don't wish to defend the oil industry. However a heavy dose of realism is needed.

Between federal and provincial subsidization oil/energy costs taxpayers in canada nearly $38 billion per year.

The tone you use suggests to me that you think there is a direct cash injection to the energy sector of $38B per year by those two levels of government. There isn't.

I also wonder if you actually read the links you post. Or if you understand them.

All of these are opinion pieces based on the same IMF study. It makes me think you just did a google search based on your premise, read the headline and said 'yeah, there is another story to support my point.' Why didn't you just link the IMF study? Here it is http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2013/012813.pdf

None of your links quote $38B. One of them directly quotes the IMF study at $25B.

Now let's have a look at the IMF study.

From the report I posted above I couldn't find a direct quote of $B in subsidies for Canada. There are tables at the end of the report that list subsidies as % of government revenues and % of GDP by region (each for 2011). 3.96% of government revenues and 1.52% of GDP. Government revenues for 2011-2012 were $245.2B. http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2012/report-rapport-eng.asp Canadian GDP for 2011 was $1.36T http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/econ04-eng.htm

My calculations for subsidies are $9.7B based on percent of government revenues and $20.67B based on percent of GDP. Strange that these numbers are not the same. I welcome anyone to come show me where I erred. (but hey at least I did some digging and some calculations, right?)

Neither of those numbers are the same as what WH quoted or the editorials quoted. Hmmmm.....

Direct quote from one of your links (just in case you didn't read it)

The lion's share of the $34 billion are uncollected taxes on the externalized costs of burning transportation fuels like gasoline and diesel -- about $19.4 billion in 2011. These externalized costs include impacts like traffic accidents, carbon emissions, air pollution and road congestion.

You said subsidization costs taxpayers. Yet a lion's share of yet another $B are uncollected taxes. Sounds like taxpayers are actually saving under this scheme.

Externalized costs are also highly subjective and represent opportunity costs. They are not direct cash flows to the energy industry or energy companies. They represent costs relating to activities surrounding energy. Activities that ultimately consumers would pay for. Therefore, the energy industry is not being subsidized by these amounts (anywhere from $9B to $38B). Instead...

Energy subsidies have wide-ranging economic consequences.

(first line from the IMF report)

Now these two links are great.

Instead of being opinion pieces they are reports from 'think-tanks'. (I personally don't like the term 'think-tank' and I don't know if that is the best way to describe these two groups. Just the term that came to mind.)

Each report details subsidies that have immediate cash impacts to the energy industry.

The Pembina actual report is here http://www.pembina.org/reports/fossil-fuel-subsidies.pdf

(upon further inspection the Pembina report references the IMF report but spends most of the time discussing analysis from the IISD report)

The IISD report summarizes subsidies to the Energy Sector at $2.8B.

(direct quote from page 15)

In total, this study estimates that provincial and federal governments are providing over $2.8 billion in subsidies to the oil sector in Alberta, Saskatchewan and offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. These three jurisdictions account for more than 97 per cent of oil production within Canada and so this study provides a comprehensive subsidy estimate.

About $2.8B too much in my opinion but still not $38B.

Now I could accept arguments to subsidies that cover start up costs and would eventually be recovered via taxation. However, these two reports show how the tax generated from the sector is not enough to cover those subsidies.

In summary (also know as TLDR version):

  • the energy sector is subsidized more than it needs to be.
  • $38B is not a real cash flow to the industry.
  • Posting multiple opinion pieces based on the same highly subjective report does not mean posting multiple support
  • One should read and understand what they link
  • A bunch of bozos (myself now included) should stop derailing this thread with too much discussion on oil/energy
  • "Nice hair though"

Edit: correction - I should have deleted this link to the group referencing the IMF study.

http://www.jeffrubinssmallerworld.com/2013/01/07/how-big-is-canadas-oil-subsidy-to-the-us/

This is an editorial on Canada subsidizing the US energy sector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remind us again how well the ndp has governed, maybe you can get hippy to help you...

Ontario-enormous debt, high taxes, huge unemployment numbers. Ahh the Rae days.

B.c-stagnate growth, little investment, high taxes.

Saskatchewan-was governed by ndp for the majority of a century during which time it was a nothing province, now a global leader under right wing.

Manitoba- high taxes, low household income, pst raised last year.

Forget all that about how much both Liberals and the NDP have sucked, just getting rid of Harper = magic bullet. Weed would be legal, all else is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remind us again how well the ndp has governed, maybe you can get hippy to help you...

Ontario-enormous debt, high taxes, huge unemployment numbers. Ahh the Rae days.

B.c-stagnate growth, little investment, high taxes.

Saskatchewan-was governed by ndp for the majority of a century during which time it was a nothing province, now a global leader under right wing.

Manitoba- high taxes, low household income, pst raised last year.

Really? NDP? I'm starting to wonder if you're genuinely slow. I asked last time, who in this thread is an NDP lover, and I didn't get so much as a cricket. Yet here you are again, beating the same imaginary horse. Why do you expect me to defend the provincial NDP?

That said, should we look at the state Alberta is in after forty-some decades of conservative rule?

And I do recall hearing a fair bit about how the government doesn't have control over the economy. It seems to be coming from the Conservative side and getting louder the worse our economy is becoming (completely silencing the trumpets of their economic stewardship). What I'm getting at is that it isn't so simple as pointing at a bunch of provinces over periods of decades and based on that alone making a conclusion.

Look at BC under the Liberals. Lowest wages in the country, highest child poverty in the country, among longest waits for medical specialists, services, and procedures, etc. Yay. Oh, and a giant real estate bubble that just won't pop. Thanks, 45,000 millionaire investor immigrants that swarmed to Vancouver over the last few years.

I have said this a billion times. Harper is no saint but show me something better.

Where I think we differ here, is that I think the culture change under Harper is detrimental to our democracy. The facts we're learning from the Duffy trial, to his lack of transparency, to the irrelevant, catered to lowest common denominator voter attack ads, to the distaste for expert opinion and data in making policy, Harper is cancerous to our very establishment. And not necessarily directly, but by a tremendous contribution toward this degradation that will ensure only slimy, paper politicians can even have a chance. To put it another way, he's salting the field, and you're wondering why it's you don't see any flowers growing.

FPTP is an outdated, dysfunctional method of electing our politicians. Let's begin by electing a party who is willing to fix such a fundamental problem in our democracy, not one benefiting from the status quo, long term consequences be damned. CPC supporters are being incredibly short-sighted by overlooking the many issues permeating the PMO.

Forget all that, just getting rid of Harper = magic bullet. Weed would be legal, all else is irrelevant.

Keep trying to reduce my position to your caricatures. I'm sure it's working well. My actual posts notwithstanding...

What does it say about a person who puts someone on ignore, but can't stop talking about them? Probably the same thing one could say about a libertarian who mocks attempts at restoring basic freedoms to millions of people. You can guess what that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just remember ladies and gentlemen

1 out of every 3 Harper supporters....is just as stupid as the other 2

Just remember ladies and gentlemen

1 out of every 3 Harper supporters....is just as stupid as the other 2

Shows your level of debating politics hey?

You make up total bullish!t then when you get called on it you make comments like that. It seems Canadians disagreed with you in a few elections eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe I am doing this because one I don't like to add to the derailment of this topic and two I don't wish to defend the oil industry. However a heavy dose of realism is needed.

The tone you use suggests to me that you think there is a direct cash injection to the energy sector of $38B per year by those two levels of government. There isn't.

I also wonder if you actually read the links you post. Or if you understand them.

All of these are opinion pieces based on the same IMF study. It makes me think you just did a google search based on your premise, read the headline and said 'yeah, there is another story to support my point.' Why didn't you just link the IMF study? Here it is http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2013/012813.pdf

None of your links quote $38B. One of them directly quotes the IMF study at $25B.

Now let's have a look at the IMF study.

From the report I posted above I couldn't find a direct quote of $B in subsidies for Canada. There are tables at the end of the report that list subsidies as % of government revenues and % of GDP by region (each for 2011). 3.96% of government revenues and 1.52% of GDP. Government revenues for 2011-2012 were $245.2B. http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2012/report-rapport-eng.asp Canadian GDP for 2011 was $1.36T http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/econ04-eng.htm

My calculations for subsidies are $9.7B based on percent of government revenues and $20.67B based on percent of GDP. Strange that these numbers are not the same. I welcome anyone to come show me where I erred. (but hey at least I did some digging and some calculations, right?)

Neither of those numbers are the same as what WH quoted or the editorials quoted. Hmmmm.....

Direct quote from one of your links (just in case you didn't read it)

You said subsidization costs taxpayers. Yet a lion's share of yet another $B are uncollected taxes. Sounds like taxpayers are actually saving under this scheme.

Externalized costs are also highly subjective and represent opportunity costs. They are not direct cash flows to the energy industry or energy companies. They represent costs relating to activities surrounding energy. Activities that ultimately consumers would pay for. Therefore, the energy industry is not being subsidized by these amounts (anywhere from $9B to $38B). Instead...

(first line from the IMF report)

Now these two links are great.

Instead of being opinion pieces they are reports from 'think-tanks'. (I personally don't like the term 'think-tank' and I don't know if that is the best way to describe these two groups. Just the term that came to mind.)

Each report details subsidies that have immediate cash impacts to the energy industry.

The Pembina actual report is here http://www.pembina.org/reports/fossil-fuel-subsidies.pdf

(upon further inspection the Pembina report references the IMF report but spends most of the time discussing analysis from the IISD report)

The IISD report summarizes subsidies to the Energy Sector at $2.8B.

(direct quote from page 15)

About $2.8B too much in my opinion but still not $38B.

Now I could accept arguments to subsidies that cover start up costs and would eventually be recovered via taxation. However, these two reports show how the tax generated from the sector is not enough to cover those subsidies.

In summary (also know as TLDR version):

  • the energy sector is subsidized more than it needs to be.
  • $38B is not a real cash flow to the industry.
  • Posting multiple opinion pieces based on the same highly subjective report does not mean posting multiple support
  • One should read and understand what they link
  • A bunch of bozos (myself now included) should stop derailing this thread with too much discussion on oil/energy
  • "Nice hair though"

Edit: correction - I should have deleted this link to the group referencing the IMF study.

http://www.jeffrubinssmallerworld.com/2013/01/07/how-big-is-canadas-oil-subsidy-to-the-us/

This is an editorial on Canada subsidizing the US energy sector.

first off you win.

The hair line is a closer.

But you're correct in that I didn't correlate and connect the taxation and taxation benefits within the report. You're also correct to point out that it's the energy sector not just oil (as I've been saying)

Furthermore I agree I do not like general think tank pieces but the links provided do indeed offer further insight into the subsidization of the energy sector as a whole which is why I posted them.

To sum up. The actual cash injection isn't as high as some want you to think. But I do keep saying the subsidies include incentives. Tax breaks and also in general include land, lease agreements and purchase rights.

Something lost on so many as this thread as you so succinctly put it has indeed been beyond derailed and nobody reads anymore.

We just by and large respond.

Tldr? Well said well written. Glad someone sees the issue as a whole.

Care to speak of the main issues surrounding the 3 leaders and their platforms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to make a statement.

Just for the record I do say some crap without any real thought or logic to get my point across. Sometimes I am a sarcastic dink because I'm not actually that smart and I'm too lazy to back every claim I make.

I apologize.

But when I do actually post a link or quote from a media source, I make sure I not only read it, but fully comprehend it.

Let's learn and grow together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

again. Simple truth lost upon people somehow in their March for righteous anger and a child like need to be heard.

Welcome to a four party system..

You're basically explaining yourself btw. You have been corrected in this thread so many times it's not even funny. You made the biggest deal about the Oil sector then when you were shown to be inaccurate you wanted to change the subject.

You want sensible political debate but yet you lower yourself to personal attacks on others who support a certain individual/party. Care to explain why anyone should have a discussion with you when you act like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's get back on topic. I am rather done arguing with the same crowd about the same nonsense.

One of the main and unspoken issues in this election is canada's health care system, how it is failing and what will be done about the Conservatives offloading a major amount of the yearly cost on to the provinces much like he did EI.

This is actually a fair write up from the Huff from 2013. It points out a lot of the ongoing issues that have been neglected over the last 20 or so years between the last 2 major governing parties.

Health care in a system that is supposed to be universal but now sees more provinces than ever adopting a "medical services plan premium" system (in effect a provincial medical payment plan when healthcare is supposed to be free) but instead sees a lot of those funds go to non health care related issues; should be one of the first and foremost issues in a country with a major part of the population aging and hospitals and vital equipment not being built or purchased

I will listen very intently to a party that finally brings up the ongoing issues with health care and develops a plan, not just a promise; to deal with it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/natasha-macdonalddupuis/the-future-of-canadian-healthcare_b_4429892.html

A little over 2 months ago, the Society of Actuaries and the Canadian Institute of Actuaries released their "Sustainability of the Canadian Health Care System and Impact of the 2014 Revision to the Canada Health Transfer," report, outlining the viability of our health care system over a 25-year horizon. While the report seemed to slip under the media radar, the results are nonetheless daunting. Actuarial analysis of the Canadian health care system concludes that, at current growth rates, a staggering 97 per cent of total revenues available to provinces and territories will be spent on health care expenditures by 2037, compared to 44 per cent in 2012.

Canada ranks as the fifth most expensive country of the OECD in terms of per capita health care expenditures, dedicating resources equal to a whopping 11.4 per cent of GDP to health care. In spite of these tremendous costs, Canadians remain immensely proud of their health care, and often grow exceedingly reluctant at the idea of rethinking the system. We stubbornly harbor a status-quo mentality when it comes to our prized health care system; perhaps a symptom of witnessing our southern neighbours' struggles in that regard over the years.

As our population ages and the ratio of working Canadians declines, projected real GDP simply won't continue to grow at the same pace as observed historically. With this reality in mind, it is imperative that Canadians come to terms with the fact that this generational demographic shift will result in steep growth of health care expenditures. One of many examples is the supply of physicians; it will need to increase by at least 46 per cent over the next 25 years just to keep up with increased demand for services by the aged population. And according to this report, without much-needed significant government intervention, we are at risk of losing free health care altogether.

To make matters worse, the recent modification in the way that the Canadian Health Transfer (CHT) will now be calculated further complicates things. While Canadian provinces and territories are primarily responsible for their own health care delivery, the federal government provides funding support through the CHT. On Dec. 19, 2011, however, the federal government announced (under the radar, as usual) that they were going to significantly drop funding from the current 21 per cent to 14.3 per cent by 2037. As a result, Canadian provinces will have no choice but to impose severe cutbacks to other already neglected sectors (such as the arts, public transportation, infrastructure, education, social welfare, etc.) and put in force abrupt tax increases.

The rippling effects of this bottleneck situation will be felt by all. For the first time in history, as the outnumbered youth struggle to support their aging elders, their living standards will be significantly lower than that of their parents. Cutbacks in social services, coupled with an increased proportion of revenue being spent on healthcare will mean we won't live as comfortably as the generations that preceded us. Paradoxically, the senior population will vehemently demand high quality health care services (isn't that what they paid taxes for?) but inevitably find themselves utterly disappointed.

Assuming that the government will take action, several economically viable options must be brought to the table in an attempt to safeguard the sustainability of our health care system. Public policymakers will need to put more emphasis on programs to control risk factors associated with chronic diseases and more seriously address issues such as obesity and nutrition. The importance of research and cost-reducing technology as a means to improving the effectiveness of processes and procedures will have to be stressed. More imperatively, the government must find new and/or additional sources of funds to support projected expenditure increases. Boosting GDP growth traditionally means raising taxes/fees, cutting government programs/services, or a combination of both. But with an already burdened youth minority, the extent and effectiveness of such measures will need to be carefully calculated.

Many have advocated the virtues of Public Private Partnerships as a way to alleviate this burden. Several successful hospital projects involving PPPs have already been developed across the country, namely in Ontario and British Columbia, and this trend is continuing to grow. In these cases, PPPs have provided much needed capital to finance government programs and projects, all while freeing public funds for core economic and social programs.

However, research has found that in many cases PPPs offer no evidence of improved service levels and that private sector involvement leads to information being classified as sensitive to business interests, resulting in a loss of accountability to taxpayers. This means that while partnering with private sector organizations can provide new sources of capital, expertise and technology, the loss of public control that occurs when a private sector company is involved in financing, building or delivering public services remains a major issue. In the end, PPPs clearly need to be an integral part of the solution, but it is our responsibility to demand transparency through government monitoring and control.

Moreover, while our attitudes regarding health care policy needs to shift, perhaps it is also time to rethink the place and role of senior citizens in our society. The cult of youth, self-reliance, and independence means old age is more miserable than ever before. While our elderly used to hold a central place in society and family dynamics, they are now relegated to retirement facilities. What then, is the value of elders in our society? Not much, if we consider the staggering rates of senior isolation and depression. And with the impending burden they will soon represent, it is easy to see how this situation is bound to worsen with time.

The paradigm needs to shift now. Instead of viewing the elders as the reason for the eminent Canadian health care crisis, we need them to be an active part of the solution. In the business world for instance, white collar workers seem to have an expiration date; past 65, you're a relic. Go play golf, buy a condo in Florida, and let us younger technologically savvy folks handle things.

While it is true that the technological learning curve might be a real challenge for older workers, it doesn't mean that they are to be dismissed altogether. With their experience and knowledge, they can add valuable insight in regards to long-term planning, mentoring, and overall management. In addition, seniors can also be extremely useful once retired. As grandparents, great-uncle or great-aunts, they can serve as highly qualified and free babysitters. This represents a cost-effective alternative to high priced babysitting services and state subsidized day cares.

In the end, it is hoped that both policymakers and the general population will come to terms with the importance of developing both funding and societal strategies in order to maintain high quality standards in the Canadian health care system. There needs to be a shift in our status-quo mentality; we must accept that we will have to work longer and pay more taxes, all while actively holding our governments accountable in regards to long-term health care policy. And while Canadians don't seem ready to have this discussion, they will sooner or later have to face the facts to ensure the survival of their prized health care system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to the ongoing health care woes facing our country moving forward is the oft mentioned in rumour national drug plan/policy. It is something that is a serious sticking point in harpers european trade agreement with the way ours is currently unwritten and no movement or action towards writing one or at least revamping what we currently have.

Numerous countries with similar health care systems as canada's have a national pharmacare plan or drug plan to help reduce costs on prescription drugs.

There has been talk that a plan in place could in effect save billions in short time and manage to stimulate the economy as well as allow for the entrance of lesser known manufacturers into a system dominated by the largest pharmacare companies on the planet.

The star wrote a decent piece last year about it, worth delving in to. again something I would find very interesting during this election having 2 children and on regular medication after the accident that cost me use of my arm.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/08/18/a_national_drug_plan_in_canada_could_boost_the_economy.html

Canadians pay among the highest costs per capita in OECD countries for prescription drugs, with one Canadian out of 10 unable to fill their prescriptions because of financial reasons.

According to a study to be released this week, A Roadmap to a Rational Pharmacare Policy in Canada, commissioned by the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, there are two main reasons why prescription drug costs are so expensive in Canada.

First, we have a fragmented system with multiple public and private drug plans. In a fragmented system, attempts to reduce costs normally result in shifting the cost somewhere else in the system. Although provincial public plans have managed to significantly reduce drug costs since 2010 by cutting the price of generics and negotiating confidential agreements with drug companies, there have been significant cost increases in private plans as drug companies and pharmacists seek compensation for their losses from public plans.

Second, Canadians pay artificially inflated prices for both brand-name drugs and generics in order to support the national pharmaceutical sector. But this strategy has not delivered what was promised: namely, investment and employment in Canada.

Studies show that paying higher prices for drugs does not result in a thriving pharmaceutical sector. Numbers alone tell the story; employment in the Canadian brand-name pharmaceutical sector went from 22,332 employees in 2003 to 14,990 in 2012.

Instead of eliminating this failed strategy, the federal government’s plan appears to be to allow drug companies to increase drug costs further by permitting the extension of patents via a trade agreement with Europe. The presumption is that the Canadian pharmaceutical sector will thrive again, and more jobs for Canadians will be created. This goes against all the evidence.

Around 60 per cent of Canadians are covered through private drug plans provided by their employer. The inability to contain drug costs in Canada has led to increased labour costs, making Canadian enterprises less competitive. The possibility of losing drug coverage also reduces labour mobility for employees.

Employee benefits now represent more than 10 per cent of gross payroll, and drugs represent the highest single benefit cost component. According to a 2012 survey by the Conference Board of Canada, half of the employers questioned indicated that cost containment of employee benefits was a “very important” issue on their radar, and 55 per cent considered that prescription drug coverage should be the focus of their next major strategic review.

Private health benefits in Canada are also tainted by the high administration fees charged by for-profit Canadian insurance companies: one in every six dollars on average for private plans compared to one in every 50 dollars for public plans. The disproportionate premiums paid by employers and employees to insurance companies end up favouring the financial sector to the detriment of the real economy.

Canada is the only country in the world with a medicare system that excludes prescription drugs as if they are not part of the health-care system. Yet the CFNU study demonstrates that if Canada implemented universal pharmacare for all Canadians without any out-of-pocket expenditures for patients, there would not only be greater access to prescription drugs for Canadians, but a potential savings up to $11.4 billion every year by decreasing drug costs and reducing administration fees. These results would be achieved by all levels of government working together to contain costs instead of working against each other by shifting costs elsewhere in the system.

Such savings would represent not only a significant decrease in labour costs for Canadian employers, it would also increase net disposable income for all employees. It would have the same effect as a significant tax cut to help boost the economy, while providing better access to care and greater labour mobility.

A 2013 EKOS poll showed that 78 per cent of Canadians are in favour of establishing a universal pharmacare program in Canada. Our policy-makers have all the necessary tools to assume leadership on this issue. In spite of self-serving lobby groups that insist the current system is working well and should not be reformed, establishing a national drug plan is the best thing to do for patients, for employers, for employees, for taxpayers and for the Canadian economy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Infrastructure. What made this country great was the attention and hard work paid into the infrastructure that spanned it. A major railroad, a major highway and at one point the longest unbroken radio and tv system in the world.

We are now lagging behind and watching as vital infrastructure erodes and other important pieces are sold to private companies to maintain only to see tolls put on them.

The infrastructure we need to build this country again or at least re-make it is within our current power to achieve as we have the know how,t he man power and the funding to do it provided we take stock of what is monetarily important to the future of this country as opposed to the right now. Instead we've seen funding all but vanish over recent years which has left us patching vital areas together with what we can afford

kevin Page who was lauded as one of the better economic watch dogs of this country over the last 40 years had a brilliant write up about this recently which is worth a read.

again, a topic woefully unspoken of during what is Canada's longest election in modern history.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/former-budget-watchdog-says-parties-should-focus-more-on-infrastructure-1.3197906

Canada's former budget watchdog says all parties should pledge to spend a lot more money on infrastructure ahead of the October election as a way to kickstart the sluggish economy.

"If we're not investing in the economy we won't be growing in the future," Kevin Page told CBC News Network's Power & Politics. "Investment's been flat — we're shrinking right now."

Infrastructure has not been a hot topic in the early days of the campaign, but Page said it is the best way to get the economy back on track.

The finance department's own numbers indicate that spending on infrastructure provides the best return on investment. "This is the biggest bang in the buck in terms of increased output and jobs," said Page.

Never a better time

Page said there's never been a better time to invest in infrastructure, given record low interest rates mean a low cost to borrow money.

But when asked by host Rosemary Barton what is the right amount to be spending, Page was quick to respond. "More than we're spending now," he said.

Spending on infrastructure has declined over the years. In the 1960s, governments spent as much as 5.7 per cent of GDP on infrastructure. The government would need to spend $20 billion to $40 billion annually to reach those same spending levels now, said Page. In 2013, infrastructure spending reached only 3.9 per cent of GDP.

infrastructure-spending-since-the-60s.jp

Government spending on infrastructure has declined as a percentage of GDP since the 1960s Source: CANSIM 031-002; CANSIM 380-0064; CANSIM 380-0017

Over the years the federal government has also reduced its share of funding, leaving municipalities to pay more for every dollar spent on infrastructure, Page said.

"If you look at the data now, you see that in the current context the feds are small players on the public sector dollar," said Page. "If we go back to 1955 when we had higher growth rates... there was much more equitable distribution."

share-of-infrastructure-spending.jpg

Since the 50s the federal government is investing less in infrastructure requiring municipal government's to fill in the gaps

Another concern for Page is the amount of infrastructure money that goes unspent. Every year the government budgets billions more for infrastructure than it actually spends.

"They're leaving a billion to two billion dollars unspent, and it's money that we really need now," said Page. "Particularly in the context an economy that's declining."

lapsed-infrastructure-spending.jpg

For years the government has failed to spend all the money budgeted for infrastructure projects. Source: Public Accounts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh health care. Canada's toughest category to tackle.

The cost is getting astronomical with the influx of immigrants and the baby boomers. I agree that putting it on the Provinces isn't the right idea as it will only lead to further provincial taxes.

I really wish there was a medical system that worked perfectly but at this point it just cost billions with no indication things are getting better. Sadly this has been an ongoing issue for years and it seems parties/politicians would rather toss more money at the problem rather then solving the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to the health care and diet points noted above, I'd like to add that sustainable agriculture and farming practices for healthier food and less toxic farming environments are serious issues as well that are not even in the radar of the conservatives.

The Green and NDP are the only parties with real agricultural reform in their platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...