Sunday, February 21, 2016
How is North Vancouver doing under new Federal Government?
Although it's still early days, so far there are no specific or concrete funding proposals for North Vancouver. Based on the Trudeau government's election platform, it would seem we can assume there will be Federal money spent in North Vancouver on infrastructure (transportation and housing). Announcements will likely take place within the next few months, at the latest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
The question for me is how do North Vancouverites view the performance of the new Federal Government? Their decisions will effect every taxpaying North Vancouverite.
I am glad to see a new spirit of cooperation between the Feds and the Provinces. I also like the freedom for scientists under Federal funding to speak out and give their opinions on important topics without government censorship.
However, I am wondering how much of the vote was "for" the new government or was it "against" the old?
I thought that the Liberal financial promises were dubious but I also thought that if they can pull it off then good for them. The big 3 promises were a real cornerstone of my voting decision. They have now disclosed that they intend to break all of them.
1. A 10 billion dollar deficit every year for 3 years then surpluses resulting in a balanced budget in 2019. They now say that their programmes will cost more than $10 billion every year resulting in a much greater deficit.
2. The are now saying that they will not be able to balance the budget in 2019. We will just be in a growing debt with no projected cap.
3. A revenue neutral income tax revision. The rich pay more and the middle class will pay less. They are now saying that the rich will pay more but the middle class won't pay less.
If I had been told this during the campaign I would probably have changed my vote.
February 22, 2016. Government announcement.
"OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's new Liberal government, citing a sluggish economy and low commodity prices, cut its growth forecast on Monday for 2016-17 and said it would run a much bigger budget deficit than earlier expected.
Finance Minister Bill Morneau, citing an average of private sector economists' forecasts, said growth in 2016 would be 1.4 percent, down from the 2.0 percent it forecast in November.
He said the 2016-17 budget deficit would be C$18.4 billion, while the 2017-18 deficit will be C$15.5 billion. Those figures exclude Liberal spending plans that will be unveiled in the March 22 budget, so the overall deficit will be higher than the figures released on Monday.
In November, the Liberals had forecast that excluding their spending plans, the budget deficit would be C$3.9 billion in 2016-17 and just C$2.4 billion in 2017-18.
The Liberals pledged during last year's election campaign to run three consecutive budget deficits of no more than C$10 billion a year to help fund spending on infrastructure before balancing the books in 2019/20."
Holy cow, the one-year deficit will be $18.4 billion instead of $3.9 billion and this is before adding in the Liberal deficit spending on enhanced services and projects!!! If this was a private company the head of Finance would be fired.
If the government is interested in coming anywhere close to a balanced budget they will need to spend less and tax more. No wonder they have backed off on the promise to reduce taxes for the middle class. We should buckle our seatbelts for upcoming tax increases.
So much for the promises of politicians.
I suspect that the biggest whiners about higher taxes are that segment of the population who will be consuming the most over the next while. Namely the boomers. Such a self-absorbed group who want everything but don't want to pay for it. Meanwhile, the rest of us are thoroughly f*cked and will be paying for your generation for decades.
Full disclosure - I voted Conservative. The first post has an interesting question.
This is for Liberal voters. Did you vote Liberal because you thought that they would be a responsible government? I wonder if a lot of undecided voters voted Liberal as a vote against Stephen Harper?
The news today says that the Liberals will probably run a one-year deficit of $30 billion with more to follow. Liberal voter, if you had known up front this would you still have voted Liberal?
To Anon 6:37. We getting down to the back end of that post-WW II population explosion as they retire out of employment. So it's up to you now to run the businesses and governments. You're the new bosses, nobody to blame.
Let's look at the new Prime Minister - not a boomer and running debt up like a maniac. You've got more to worry about paying that back than you do the boomers.
Today's news item. Currently, immigrants who come to Canada and acquire citizenship and who take up arms against Canadians and/or undertake terrorist activity in Canada can have their Canadian citizenship revoked and they can be expelled from Canada.
The Liberals intend to retract this law. They prefer that the immigrant terrorist can retain his citizenship and remain in Canada. The Liberals tell us that Canadians think this is the correct approach.
I have not met one person that thinks this is a good idea.
Liberal voters, you are so silent. Do you really believe that this is a good idea? If so, what is your rationale?|
So, how many people are we talking about?
One is too many.
Cool, so more citizens are still being killed by distracted drivers and other domestic ills. Those are the real terrorists that you should worry about. And some of them were even born here. How are you going to revoke their citizenship?
Stop listening to the fear mongering being imported from the US.
What an irresponsible statement. A thoughtful adult doesn't trivialize serious matters.
The Toronto terrorist attack resulted in the arrest of 14 al-Qaeda inspired adults and 4 youth. Canada is providing manpower and material with the intent of fighting and killing Islamic terrorists. How childish to think that of these purely Canadian concerns are somehow not really involving our country.
To equate distracted drivers with immigrants who swear an oath of loyalty to Canada and then take up arms to kill Canadian citizens is beyond belief.
Back to the legislation. Revoking citizenship and expelling an immigrant that has attempted and/or succeeded in killing Canadians is a legislative tool. If the tool isn't needed then fine. If it is needed then it is available. A reasonable perspective.
Don't let your distaste for the US blind you to reality.
What reality? How frequently is this boogieman actually rearing it's head? There are more important, real problems to worry about. You bloody cons are too busy trying to invent more things to worry about to keep people frightened and distracted from the real, every day issues. Stop trying to copy the tactics of the GOP. Don't let your love for American conservative politics blind you to reality. Talk about irresponsible!
Well, I hadn't heard of anyone that thought repealing the anti-terrorist legislation was a good idea and now I have. Thank you for your thoughts. I understand them, we just don't agree.
Sorry, I haven't "invented" the Toronto 18 terrorist group or Canada's ongoing involvement against terrorism. Just a fact not an opinion.
Anyhow, just grab your snowboard and enjoy the day with the rest of the adolescents. Kick back with some pot and mellow out. Have fun. Nothing happening here folks. It's someone else's fault and problem. Peace.
Protecting against terror is fine. Creating different classes of citizenship is not. If a citizen (regardless of their country of birth) does anything to endanger the safety of fellow citizens, there are already laws on the books to address that. Existing laws against treason are probably a good start.
Acknowledging different methods of entering into citizenship is already a matter of fact. Review the passport application. It does not stop at the question, "are you a Canadian citizen?" as you propose and then simply accept that proposition. It qualifies your method of being a citizen. You must disclose your country of birth, whether or not you are a naturalized Canadian, whether or not one of your parents was a Canadian etc.
All countries with the rule of law have a system to deal with criminal activity. In the case of natural born citizens there is no choice. Those criminals enter into their country's legal/penal system.
It is a choice whether a country chooses to revoke citizenship and return convicted foreign born criminals to their original country or not.
It is also a choice for a foreign born national to enter our country and seek citizenship.
Our Oath of Citizenship requires an applicant to swear or affirm that that "I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen."
I view this as an Agreement. There is a contract between the applicant and the welcoming country. Based upon fulfillment of your promise you will derive various benefits from the nation.
If you choose to break your sworn oath then you have voided Agreement and the nation is no longer bound to provide benefits.
As with most frustrated contracts each of the parties (the terrorist and the nation) should be placed back in the same position that they were in when the agreement was made.
Therefore, the convicted terrorist resumes the citizenship of his birthplace and is returned there. He is no further burden to the taxpayers of his welcoming nation.
I don't think that if you have gained citizenship based upon a deception that the nation is permanently bound to maintain their part of the bargain. That is naive and unreasonable.
The contract goes both ways. Once a citizen, if criminal activity is undertaken, he is bound by the same laws/punishments as a natural born citizen. To say otherwise is supporting the notion of a second class citizen. If that's what you support, I can't agree with you.
No contract based upon bad faith goes both ways. The contract is frustrated and void as a result of the deception. When the applicant has committed a fraud to become a citizen then the other party (the nation) is not bound by that deception. To say otherwise is to support deception as acceptable in creation of a binding agreement. That is not and has never been accepted in law. It would only be acceptable if we choose to make that exception. I don't.
In any case we don't agree but appreciate your perspective. Thanks.
I don't know who Anon 7:05 is, or the position from which they speak, but I cannot and will not accept his or her logic. Becoming a Canadian citizen is a privilege, not a right, and once you break the covenant that has been undertaken in becoming so, all bets are off, so I agree with Anon 9:52, who ever s/he is. There has to be some price to pay in breaking an oath of allegiance to Canada and to my way of thinking, to be returned to one's country of origin is a fitting punishment/response. To become a Canadian with any future plan of terrorism is fraud at best and sedition at worst. Either does not merit forgiveness in the context of citizenship. If you commit the crime, then you pay the price. In this case, it is expulsion. Why cannot Anon 7:05 see that? Left wing softie maybe? In any case, I cannot accept his or her argument.
Does this apply to the immigrant who comes to Canada as a child, only as an adult to commit crimes or acts of terrorism? Did that child plan to defraud the government at a later date? Once a citizen, penalize them as any other citizen. Once you create different classes of citizen, where does it stop?
I am Anon 9:52 and I obviously agree with Anon 12:38.
The "creating a different class of citizen" is the Liberal argument. It is a clever choice of words and was well-repeated throughout the election. The implication is that "we" (Canadians who favour expulsion) are creating 2 classes of Canadians.
The reality is the opposite.
Here is our Our Oath of Citizenship: An applicant must swear or affirm that that "I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen."
The person who falsely swears the Oath of Citizenship has, by his own fraud, created a second type of new Canadian. "We" did not create the fraudulent deception, the applicant did.
The Liberal view is as follows: OK, we don't deny that a fraud may be perpetrated and we can be deceived. That isn't the point. The point is that, deceived or not, we must accept the outcome of the fraud and play by the rules. If you sneak in then that is not relevant and we must be the bigger parties and overlook the lie and continue to provide you with the benefits of our country.
I don't buy it but lots do.
The fallback position of the Liberal is more difficult as seen above.
Alright what about a child immigrant who becomes a terrorist?
A child under 14 may take the Oath but is not compelled to do so. He/she becomes a citizen on the basis of his parent taking the Oath and becoming a citizen.
The Liberal will disagree but I go back to Canadian contract law. An Agreement may be assigned. That is, a new or related party may become a party to an Agreement and enter into the benefits of the Agreement as long as all parties accept that person and agree that the essential elements of the Agreement are not violated.
My view is that the benefits of the Agreement made by the parent's oath flow to the child and therefore the child remains bound by the parent's Agreement. The essential element is the promise "to faithfully follow the laws of Canada." Obviously if this is distasteful to the child he/she he may renounce his Canadian citizenship and seek citizenship elsewhere. Alternatively, if the child takes up arms against Canada I favour expulsion of him or her.
The Liberal will say, no, you are treating a naturalized Canadian citizen differently than a native born Canadian citizen. On this point the Liberal is right.
The real point is should the rights or assigned rights of the individual who has broken his fundamental oath to the country and by doing so become a citizen supersede the rights of the welcoming nation? Liberals yes, me not so much.
Fortunately, the majority voted against Harpers mean-spirited policies.
You think it is mean for a government to kick someone out of the country for terrorism? I think it is a measured response.
I am mixed on this issue because I can see where it would be abused, but in most cases I think it is reasonable. The government cannot currently ascribe dangerous offender status for high treason or terrorism. They also seem to be stymied when it comes to consecutive sentencing versus concurrent sentencing, but it is not unreasonable for the public to expect that anyone engaged in terrorism (regardless of their dual citizen status) will only ever be released under the strictest conditions.
I realize these situations are rare, and typically, the sentence for terrorism keeps the person locked up for a very long time, so they are not likely to be a significant threat to Canadians in the future, but I don't think it is mean-spirited to kick a person out of the country that they apparently hate.
Huh? An unscrupulous person contrives to deceive by lying when he swears an oath to become a citizen and "Harper is mean-spirited." You've got to love that level of logic.
Got any numbers that show how many people are being deceptive and lying during their oath of citizenship?
Well, we have the Toronto terrorists but it doesn't really matter. One or more Paris/Madrid/London bomber-shooters is one or more too many and sending them back where they came from is appropriate.
So a lot of fuss over a handful of people whose crimes can be handled by laws already on the books. Meanwhile, more people are killed on a daily basis by distracted and careless drivers, accidents on job sites and in our homes, smoking, drugs and alcohol related deaths, etc. Creating second class citizens by raising the spectre of terrorism is a distraction by the cons that plays to the fears of anxious people. You've been duped and are playing into their hands. Why don't we all concentrate our efforts on eliminating the very real, daily killers in our society?
I love your assumption that because I think terrorism and insurrection should be dealt with harshly, therefore I must live my life in fear. I don't.
This idea that the policy creates second class citizens is absurd. I am already a second class citizen because I am not a dual citizen of another country and cannot therefore take advantage of that other nation when it suits my interests. If you really want to get rid of a so called second class, get rid of dual citizenship and bill C24 would no longer be an issue.
Getting rid of dual citizenship would also stop the practice of insurance Canadians. This is where someone immigrates to Canada for five years, becomes a citizen and then leaves, but whenever their home country turns to crap, they flash a Canadian Passport and get a free pass out, on our dime even though they do not contribute to Canadian society. In 2006 Canada spent $94 million bringing 15,000 dual citizen Canadian Lebanese people out of the Lebanon. A small portion were tax paying Canadians that were visiting family, the rest were permanent residents in Lebanon. The most frustrating part was when the government went back three months later almost all of the evacuees had returned to Lebanon.
Terrorism and insurrection can be dealt with harshly with laws already on the books. No need to create new ones for a small group of people. We have more important things to take care of than fret over Harpers boogiemen.
What is it with you Liberals? Are you incapable of having people take ownership of their own behaviour? Blame the person who draws the line and won't be taken advantage of?
If a foreign individual maliciously practices to deceive the government of Canada by swearing a false oath and then proceeds to contrive a plan to injure and kill innocent Canadians you somehow assign the evil behaviour to the former PM? Maturity needed.
As patiently explained earlier, the malefactor creates his own stigmatized citizenship by his behaviour. Canadians don't undertake the behaviour. Canadians don't create the stigmatized citizenship. Canadians create an appropriate response to the behaviour. There is a huge difference that a reasonable adult should be able comprehend.
The guy who did the deed inherits the consequence. Expulsion is appropriate.
Just to clear up your assumption. Responsible Canadians don't "sit around and fret" as you propose. An unreasonable situation is considered, legislation is available to be used if and when required, and move on.
Your position is indefensible.
Ah, now you're using Fox 'news' tactics and labelling only those who think like you as "reasonable". Just because my opinion is different from yours doesn't make me un-reasonable.
My position is defensible and it would appear that, based on the last election outcome, I'm not alone in my opinion.
The risk of death by terrorist on Canadian sold is minuscule compared to other daily killers of our citizenry. Let's fix those before we create new, unnecessary laws for a handful of people. Laws are on the books to deal with those who commit treason. You have your opinion and I have mine. We'll see how our government deals with it.
Your guy lost and now you're just going to need to deal with it until the electorate swings your way. Surely you've been around long enough to know that this too shall pass...
So, back on topic, how is North Vancouver doing under the new government? Probably too early to tell.
Dear 8:07. Tactics? When you blame Harper (your post 2:42) for the actions of criminals that is an example of using misleading tactics employed by both far left and far right media. They both love to portray the perpetrator as a victim and the parties responding to their acts as heavy-handed.
Once again you miss the point, "lets fix those before we create new, unnecessary laws..." The law is already created and on the books. It is the objective of the Liberals to go to the waste of time to remove that good law.
The law causes no harm if left in place, may be useful in the future, and may be applied or not as appropriate. Removing it is a fool's errand but, that being the case, the right folks are contemplating it.
Yes, I must partially agree. While the defensibility of your position is dubious (at most generous) you are not alone in your opinion. Lincoln's fooling all of the people some of the time comes to mind.
"The risk of death by terrorist on Canadian sold is minuscule compared to other daily killers of our citizenry."
Well, ya, but the risk to society posed by an INDIVIDUAL terrorist may easily be considered to EXCEED the risk posed by an INDIVIDUAL daily killer.
Canadian society protects itself from these more numerous 'daily killers' with a process of proof and a response of imprisonment which is applied on the basis of an individual's crime and liklihood to reoffend. Its purpose may include rehabilitation or even punishment, both of which are arguable, but keeping an individual killer off the streets and away from society accomplishes the protection of society against the risk of that killer repeating the harm and is a much less arguable reason to act.
I tend to agree with the 'boy prince' that we ought not be cancelling citizenship as it provides us with the tools to protect ourselves from future harm. Cancelling Canadian citizenship for a dual citizen, allows the terrorist to continue to work unfettered against the citizens of Canada in his first or second country. We lose our grip on the threat. So no. I think it better we hold on to that terrorist, as a murderer, and demand accountability for his actions against our citizenry and perhaps that means we have a Guantanamo North or a Polar colony for these 'special' citizens. Rehab could include extensive training in polar housing construction, bear behaviour and seal whispering. After all, we aren't cruel. We just want protection from risk.
Permanent prisoner designation at Guantanamo North? How Jonathan Swift.
Dual citizen terrorists should serve an appropriate sentence in Canada with loss of Canadian citizenship and expulsion at the end.
I wonder how Anon 8:07 would react should a member of his family be killed by a terror attack perpetrated by one of these newly-minted Canadians. I bet we'd hear him singing a different tune. I am not one to tempt fate, and if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and acts like a duck, IT IS A DUCK. Ergo, if someone is participating in terrorist-like activities within our borders, and against the very people who welcomed him with open arms, he is a terrorist and no longer deserves safe haven in our country.
And while we're at it, I really don't think that the Conservatives lost because they wanted to protect our borders from would-be terrorists, it was more that they were past their best-by date. The whole immigration thing is a scapegoat for a government that was past its prime, and a prime minister who had probably grown tired of the job.
Hopefully Mr. Trudeau and his band of incompetents will not take ten years to reach that point.
"Band of incompetents"
hmmm. I am a Conservative, but I have to say I think the new Liberal cabinet has more talent in it than the last conservative one. This is the only thing Trudeau has going for him, he has surrounded himself with agile, smart, talented people... when he ignores them you see his limitations. Mr. Harper had a certain insecurity about the way he handled his own caucus. Jim Flaherty seemed to be the only one who he genuinely trusted and his loss was a huge blow to the capabilities of the caucus. John Baird, Peter McKay, James Moore, and Jason Kenney where the next circle of influence and three of the four left and none of them were intellectual giants, they just talked the loudest. If the Conservatives are going to rebuild they need to attract some real thought leaders or they will eventually realign as a protest party akin to the Tea Party... it sounds extreme but the pieces are there.
I hope the next leader of the Conservatives is a Libertarian, who can bring forward serious legislation protecting the privacy of our citizens and limiting the power of Government.
Anon 8:40 am
They may have more talent, on paper, but they are still doing things to the economy that I do not think are bright. Trudeau is much less educated than the majority of his caucus, let alone his cabinet and he has no choice but to surround himself thus if he is to have any credibility. Even so, I fear that most of them are not willing to stand up to him and point out the folly of what they are doing - at least not yet. We spent years getting out of debt and here they are putting us right back into it, big time.
I do agree with your comments about Mr. Harper being a bit insecure. I never understood his need to micromanage but obviously he did for some reason - always an economist perhaps. I also agree with your comments re less government intervention in our day to day lives.
Lets be clear about what the Conservatives did...
The Conservatives didn't get us out of debt. Our net Federal Debt will cross 620 Billion this year. What they did was lower the annual deficit, which they had raised following the 2008 crash, and lowered the ratio of national debt to GDP. They did that by lowering the federal tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years which meant more money in our pockets which we happily spent increasing our GDP at a higher rate than other G8 nations.
So some good, some bad, but generally better than our closest competitors.
The Liberals are not afraid of deficits. This concerns me. If I was a betting man, I would wager that the deficit will top $40 billion this year which represents a ~15% increase, but on a $2 Trillion GDP its not a huge problem if you can grow the GDP at a higher rate. The problem is, there is no way our economy will grow by more than 3% this year (2.4% is predicted). So Trudeau's promise to grow the GDP at a faster rate than the Debt is a non-starter.
Yes the Conservatives made mistakes, but after four years of the Liberal's our country will be kinder and gentler, but with fewer prospects for our children and a decreased ability to meet our own needs.
I'm just imagining the state dinner now..
'Boy Prince' meets 'The Donald'.
Donald: Welcome Justin, welcome. We're gonna build a wall, Justin, a wall.
BP: Oh we'll HELP you Mr. Trump. Seems fair to me. Perhaps it could be made of softwood lumber?
$30 billion in the hole first year out and $ billions in growing debt every single year afterward with no plan or future date for a balanced budget. Poor taxpayers. Sooner or later it will need to be repaid with interest. Don't try this at home kids.
What about District of North Vancouver's "sunny ways"?
Budget meeting last night brought District Council bickering over whether to dole out a meagre $1000 collectively to our fine Community Associations.
But it was all "sunny ways" for District Mayor & Council to hand out another $100,000 to the North Shore Mountain Bike Association.
thanks for the heads up 11:22
Any idea as to WHY ?
It seriously could not be demand.
Meanwhile, back at the topic, the Liberals are busy preparing to revise the Transparency Act.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/bennett-first-nations-transparency-1.3371591
Apparently it is too intrusive.
This is the Act that follows public money and reports who receives it and what they spend it on. Wrinkled some noses when the members of some of the native bands saw the money being taken by their administrators for bloated salary and expenses and not trickling down to the rest of the people. Good idea to keep the disposition of public money secret. Such a nuisance when Harper and his colleagues made us aware. Thanks!
Haha. Trudeau dumps 8 billion into first nations and gets rid of the financial reporting... Yeah, that's going to end well.
They should be subject to the same standards as ever other local government.
Post a Comment