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

1st Liberal Budget Gives Canada a $29 Billion Deficit this Year and $118.6 Billion Over 5 Years


DonLever

Recommended Posts

Liberal backbenchers joining forces with opposition, voting independantly on bills

 
Spoiler

OTTAWA – Justin Trudeau promised to empower his backbenchers and increasingly, the Liberal MPs seem to be taking the prime minister at his word.

Twice on the same day late last month, dozens of them joined forces with opposition MPs to give second reading approval to private members’ bills which the government clearly opposed.

A bill from Liberal MP Bryan May, of Cambridge, Ont., to offer a non-refundable tax credit of 15 per cent to anyone who takes an accredited first aid course passed easily by a vote of 227 to 81.

Similarly, a bill from his colleague Mark Gerretsen, of Kingston, Ont., to allow women in dangerous jobs to take their EI maternity benefits earlier in their pregnancy passed by a vote of 231 to 78.

READ MORE: Conservative motion aims to force Liberal hand on policing ethics

It was the first time more than a handful of Liberal backbenchers have gone their own way on any bill, even though Trudeau has promised to allow more free votes.

The show of independence – or perhaps defiance – came despite the recommendation of Trudeau’s cabinet that both bills be defeated.

The “bill kits” that had been circulated privately to Liberal MPs to explain the bills, and the government’s position on them, were unambiguous.

“The cabinet will not be supporting Bill C-240,” says the kit on May’s bill, which was obtained by The Canadian Press.

While the goal of the proposed legislation is laudable, the kit added: “The bill is inconsistent with the government’s stated policy objective of tax system simplicity and efficiency.”

READ MORE: Liberals announce Canada infrastructure bank: what is it and how does it work?

Similarly, the kit on Gerretsen’s bill said the government supports the intent of the legislation but argued that any change to maternity benefits should wait for the conclusion of recently launched consultations on more flexible maternity, parental and caregiving benefits and leave provisions.

“There are advantages and efficiencies to preparing policy proposals and legislative change regarding more flexible EI maternity and parental benefits and leave at the same time,” it says.

“Co-ordinating the work on these elements would enable consultations on these issues jointly and reduce the need to engage the same sets of stakeholders multiple times and on related issues.”

A voting sheet circulated by the whip’s office to all Liberal MPs on Oct. 26, the day of the votes, was similarly clear about both bills: “government position: against.”

Despite the government’s clear preference, private members’ bills are traditionally free votes, without backbenchers being required to toe the party line. And on these two bills, most Liberal MPs chose to ignore the government’s position.

READ MORE: Why the former CSIS director says the Liberals shouldn’t touch Bill C-51

“We feel quite comfortable in our party that you can vote against the government and that’s okay,” May said in an interview later.

“The sky didn’t fall.”

During last year’s election, Trudeau promised to loosen oppressive party discipline, allowing MPs to, as he put it, represent their constituents in Ottawa rather than having to represent Ottawa to their constituents.

To that end, he said Liberal MPs would be required to support the government only on budget or money bills, legislation to implement promises from the campaign platform on which they were elected and bills involving fundamental charter rights.

Yet until now, few backbenchers have taken advantage of their newfound freedom to vote as they please on many bills.

Last May, for instance, just four Liberals – including David Lametti, parliamentary secretary for international trade – voted against the government’s controversial, restrictive bill on medically assisted dying at third reading, which was ostensibly put to a free vote.

READ MORE: Assisted dying law legal challenge to be joined by excluded Canadians

“I think some people are nervous (about the bill), but they are really good team players and they want to play on the same team and play nice,” Winnipeg Liberal MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette, one of the four dissenters, said ahead of the vote.

Now, with a year under their belts, backbenchers seem emboldened.

May suggested that experience breeds confidence.

Still, he cautioned against reading too much into the show of independence on his and Gerretsen’s bills.

Backbenchers, he argued, are simply doing what Trudeau encouraged them to do: using their own judgment.

“A free vote is a free vote. It’s not just lip service,” May said. “We’ve got to show that the changes (to empower MPs) are legitimate changes.”

 

Even members of his own party are turning their backs on Little Potato.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Grapefruits said:

Liberal backbenchers joining forces with opposition, voting independantly on bills

 
  Hide contents

OTTAWA – Justin Trudeau promised to empower his backbenchers and increasingly, the Liberal MPs seem to be taking the prime minister at his word.

Twice on the same day late last month, dozens of them joined forces with opposition MPs to give second reading approval to private members’ bills which the government clearly opposed.

A bill from Liberal MP Bryan May, of Cambridge, Ont., to offer a non-refundable tax credit of 15 per cent to anyone who takes an accredited first aid course passed easily by a vote of 227 to 81.

Similarly, a bill from his colleague Mark Gerretsen, of Kingston, Ont., to allow women in dangerous jobs to take their EI maternity benefits earlier in their pregnancy passed by a vote of 231 to 78.

READ MORE: Conservative motion aims to force Liberal hand on policing ethics

It was the first time more than a handful of Liberal backbenchers have gone their own way on any bill, even though Trudeau has promised to allow more free votes.

The show of independence – or perhaps defiance – came despite the recommendation of Trudeau’s cabinet that both bills be defeated.

The “bill kits” that had been circulated privately to Liberal MPs to explain the bills, and the government’s position on them, were unambiguous.

“The cabinet will not be supporting Bill C-240,” says the kit on May’s bill, which was obtained by The Canadian Press.

While the goal of the proposed legislation is laudable, the kit added: “The bill is inconsistent with the government’s stated policy objective of tax system simplicity and efficiency.”

READ MORE: Liberals announce Canada infrastructure bank: what is it and how does it work?

Similarly, the kit on Gerretsen’s bill said the government supports the intent of the legislation but argued that any change to maternity benefits should wait for the conclusion of recently launched consultations on more flexible maternity, parental and caregiving benefits and leave provisions.

“There are advantages and efficiencies to preparing policy proposals and legislative change regarding more flexible EI maternity and parental benefits and leave at the same time,” it says.

“Co-ordinating the work on these elements would enable consultations on these issues jointly and reduce the need to engage the same sets of stakeholders multiple times and on related issues.”

A voting sheet circulated by the whip’s office to all Liberal MPs on Oct. 26, the day of the votes, was similarly clear about both bills: “government position: against.”

Despite the government’s clear preference, private members’ bills are traditionally free votes, without backbenchers being required to toe the party line. And on these two bills, most Liberal MPs chose to ignore the government’s position.

READ MORE: Why the former CSIS director says the Liberals shouldn’t touch Bill C-51

“We feel quite comfortable in our party that you can vote against the government and that’s okay,” May said in an interview later.

“The sky didn’t fall.”

During last year’s election, Trudeau promised to loosen oppressive party discipline, allowing MPs to, as he put it, represent their constituents in Ottawa rather than having to represent Ottawa to their constituents.

To that end, he said Liberal MPs would be required to support the government only on budget or money bills, legislation to implement promises from the campaign platform on which they were elected and bills involving fundamental charter rights.

Yet until now, few backbenchers have taken advantage of their newfound freedom to vote as they please on many bills.

Last May, for instance, just four Liberals – including David Lametti, parliamentary secretary for international trade – voted against the government’s controversial, restrictive bill on medically assisted dying at third reading, which was ostensibly put to a free vote.

READ MORE: Assisted dying law legal challenge to be joined by excluded Canadians

“I think some people are nervous (about the bill), but they are really good team players and they want to play on the same team and play nice,” Winnipeg Liberal MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette, one of the four dissenters, said ahead of the vote.

Now, with a year under their belts, backbenchers seem emboldened.

May suggested that experience breeds confidence.

Still, he cautioned against reading too much into the show of independence on his and Gerretsen’s bills.

Backbenchers, he argued, are simply doing what Trudeau encouraged them to do: using their own judgment.

“A free vote is a free vote. It’s not just lip service,” May said. “We’ve got to show that the changes (to empower MPs) are legitimate changes.”

 

Even members of his own party are turning their backs on Little Potato.

 

 

I don't like Trudeau at all but this is a good thing. All votes should be free votes, you don't agree? It's pretty silly to think all members from one end of the Country to the other agree on everything 100% of the time, that's dictatorship!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Casually reading whatever blogs reinforce your preconceptions does not mean you know what you're talking about.  Let's go through line by line.

 

On 03/11/2016 at 9:27 AM, Warhippy said:

Do you remember what the purpose of the bank of canada was?

 

To regulate currency, just like it continues to do.

 

Quote

Do you know or remember what happened when that intended purpose changed?

 

Nothing because it never did.

 

Quote

 

Do you know why rocco gallardi is suing to reinstate the bank of canada act to its original purpose?

 

Not really because a dozen idiots a day come up with cases based on nonsense that never go anywhere.  Also as mentioned, good luck to him when the BoC's purpose has never changed.

 

Quote

 

There was never supposed to be a return from it.  It was essentially there to ensure the country didn't go broke while building or maintaining itself

 

Lots of industries which were previously public became private.  Lots of them should not (see: healthcare, education and prisons) but plenty were better for it.  Particularly those industries that had lots of private companies already working in similar fields, construction being the prime example.  You know who is better at contracting, managing and building infrastructure than an organization of generalist bureaucrats?  People who do it to make a profit.

 

Take building a dam.  Site C is going to cost at least 10x what it should have because it's being done by a slow, bureaucratic government entity that really has no business building power plants.  BC Hydro could just have just put out a request for proposals saying "We need X GWh/year, tell us how much you would need us to pay you to make it economic enough to build."  Happens all the time. They could have gotten a number of smaller projects to provide power and only requested more power as demand grew. Instead we get a massive dam no one needed or wanted at a previously unfathomable cost.  Weirdly when no one's job is on the line despite losing buckets of money, there isn't much impetus to spend money wisely.  Who knew.

 

Quote

http://www.socred.org/index.php/blogs/view/the-case-to-reinstate-the-bank-of-canada

 

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/04/17/Liberate-Bank-of-Canada/

 

http://qualicuminstitute.ca/federal-debt/

 

once upon a time reserves were set up so that Canada could essentially borrow from itself and the taxpayers to fund massive projects like the st lawrence seaway, cross country rail, the 401 etc all interest free without touching pensionable assets or the national deficiet/debt

 

Interest free money sounds great until you understand "opportunity cost".  To have a reserve on hand means that money is just sitting there for long periods unused.  If that's the case, you can't invest it in things that will earn the country money.  Canada can make money from loans and investments too and that's money that doesn't come out of taxpayers' pockets.  So why would they not roll as many dollars as possible under CPPIB's portfolio?  They have investments that could pay for whole domestic infrastructure projects just with the returns they generate.  Dollars sitting around is money lost, period.

 

Quote

Pierre elliott trudeau sr sold our debt to private banks in 1974 ensuring we now borrowed from them after changing the BoC act and monetary policy which started our downward slide into poverty ensuring we'd not be able to keep up with interest payments.  We know owe over $3 (if i recall) for every dollar we borrow as a nation.  In interest.  To private sources.

 

Okay now you're just telling me that you don't know the basics of corporate finance.  Debt is the cheapest capital out there and every company out there would kill for a governmental credit rating.  If you look at a list of countries by how little debt they have, you'll quickly realize that it isn't a measure of fiscal responsibility.

 

It's the opposite.  Banks won't give poorly run economies more debt despite those countries desperately seeking it.  We are one of 14 countries with a AAA credit rating, a club that not even the US is a part of anymore.  That's because we have less debt than we had in the 60s.

 

Also our debt is owned by a wide range of organizations.  All we do now is grind banks for the best rates then borrow from the cheapest one instead of trying to get old ladies to buy savings bonds.  No one even wants to invest in savings bonds because only a massive bank has access to cheap enough money to offer it at the rates a well-run government expects.

 

Quote

 

Instead of simply fixing that issue and using the BoC for its intended purpose he is going to take $35 BILLION and more and put it in to an institution that essentially does the same thing, yet will ask corporations to also kick in money.  The difference?  Corporations will be able to demand return on investment, dictate terms about unions/employee wages/benefits and where equipment and material comes from 

 

Corporations don't demand a return.  That's not even how it works.  Corporations are guaranteed a return as set by the government.  The risk is low so the returns will be loooooow.  But also safe and therefore attractive.  See the explanation on cheap debt above.

 

Corporations also don't dictate terms about unions, wages, benefits, equipment or material.  The Canadian government has reams of documents that spell out every one of those items.  Signing a contract with the Canadian government to build a piece of infrastructure means conforming to a laundry list of equal opportunity legislation, minimum domestic sourcing requirements, minimum wages, benefits and a host of other things.  Things you would have known if you had bothered to look, instead of just working yourself up into a frenzy about nothing.  Look up articles about the recent contracts for navy ships, they provide a hint of how specifically companies must organize their operations to even be eligible to be awarded a contract.

 

Quote

Essentially we are paying for a redundant bank where we will now have to pay out for secondary funding.  With interest.  Because while we will not have to pay interest on what we borrow there is no clause or contract stating that the money corporations kick in will be interest free.

 

Uhhhh...interest and returns are the same thing.  That really is something you should have figured out if you're going to be this preachy about fiscal policy.  Companies will get their guaranteed return.  That is their interest.  And no it's not free because no one is dumb enough to earn 0% from their money (see why reserves suck, as I described earlier).

 

Quote

This is not a good thing.   It;s like having everything you need for a salad at home and instead of simply making it ordering one at extra cost from a restaurant.

 

The comparison you're making is actually more akin to having a restaurant that charges you grocery store prices while complaining that a free salad didn't just get delivered to your table at home, complete with a waiter.  Your expectations are just pure ignorance but hopefully addressing your points has been enlightening for some others who took the time to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it amusing so many people get triggered by national debt. You guys realize national debt isn't like personal debt, like at all, right? We can keep paying off debts on a national scale for hundreds of years, and it's likely a major world event will nullify the debts eventually anyway. Not to mention, this debt will go to invest in the country and could easily become profit in the long term anyway.

 

This isn't like you taking on $500000 in debt then being financially crippled until you die 30 years later. It's not the same thing at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Moonshinefe said:

I find it amusing so many people get triggered by national debt. You guys realize national debt isn't like personal debt, like at all, right? We can keep paying off debts on a national scale for hundreds of years, and it's likely a major world event will nullify the debts eventually anyway. Not to mention, this debt will go to invest in the country and could easily become profit in the long term anyway.

 

This isn't like you taking on $500000 in debt then being financially crippled until you die 30 years later. It's not the same thing at all.

Downplaying debt and deficits is very irresponsible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, mdehaan said:

Canada should stop relying on the USA for everything and start accumulating gold. If that means mining it and not exporting it, fine.

 

:huh:

 

Hey, you know that shiny metal that is in no way essential for life?  Let's stockpile that instead of useful things like food security, clean water and power.  When the world goes to hell, everyone will need shiny, structurally useless metal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SamJamIam said:

 

:huh:

 

Hey, you know that shiny metal that is in no way essential for life?  Let's stockpile that instead of useful things like food security, clean water and power.  When the world goes to hell, everyone will need shiny, structurally useless metal!

Do a search in the off topics forum for gold, going back 3 years. I think the thread was called 'the history of money in less than 3 minutes', or something like that.

Watch the videos, read up on it and then we can discuss gold there if you want. I can tell by your response you've only ever taken someone else's word for it, without actually doing the research your self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Moonshinefe said:

I find it amusing so many people get triggered by national debt. You guys realize national debt isn't like personal debt, like at all, right? We can keep paying off debts on a national scale for hundreds of years, and it's likely a major world event will nullify the debts eventually anyway. Not to mention, this debt will go to invest in the country and could easily become profit in the long term anyway.

 

This isn't like you taking on $500000 in debt then being financially crippled until you die 30 years later. It's not the same thing at all.

 

Very short-sighted.  Guess who owns a large portion of the debt?  Mostly individuals, retirement saving plans, Canadian Pension Plans, etc.  But hey... who cares, right?  We can just default.  Lets just pass the euthanasia bill and make it non-voluntary.  Move over grandma!  You've lived a long enough life.  You don't need no retirement savings.  Let those who will be living longer use the money that's remaining.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, mdehaan said:

Do a search in the off topics forum for gold, going back 3 years. I think the thread was called 'the history of money in less than 3 minutes', or something like that.

Watch the videos, read up on it and then we can discuss gold there if you want. I can tell by your response you've only ever taken someone else's word for it, without actually doing the research your self.

The point -> 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your head ->

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SamJamIam said:

The point -> 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your head ->

 

 

Funny. I know, too much work. I had a hard time finding it too.

Here is a hint - gold is money. That is the role it plays. Essential? No. But neither is my iPhone.

 

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...