Hill Backs Flaherty's Plan

Thursday, November 27, 2008 04:10 PM

Prince George -Peace river M.P.Jay Hill is standing up for his government's economic update released today by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty “The measures contained in today’s economic statement recognize that there are tough times ahead for Canadians and show that the Government will take action to restrain spending in this period of global economic uncertainty,” said Hill. “We are ensuring that the federal government and politicians cut back at a time when Canadians are tightening their belts.”

Measures in the statement will:

Eliminate the taxpayer subsidy for political parties, saving Canadian taxpayers an estimated $27M.
Restrict discretionary spending for ministers and deputy ministers on such things as travel, hospitality, conferences, exchanges and professional services, including polling and consultants.
Limit public service pay increases to 2.3 per cent this year and 1.5 per cent annually the next three years, including the pay of MPs, Senators, cabinet ministers and senior bureaucrats.

The government continues to plan on balanced budgets. However, considering the ever-changing economic situation, a deficit cannot be ruled out.

“Our government does not take the possibility of a deficit lightly. But we will not engineer a surplus for the sake of having a surplus, or put the future of the Canadian economy at risk.” Hill added, “Any possible deficits will be temporary until the economy is back on the right-footing.”

The Economic Statement also proposes to allow seniors to reduce by 25 per cent, in this tax year only, the amount they must withdraw from their registered retirement income funds, known as RRIFs. “Our seniors built this country. They deserve to live with dignity and respect. We share many seniors’ concerns about the impact of the economic downturn on their retirement savings,” said Hill.

The leaders of the opposition have already publicly stated they will not support this plan and the matter is expected to spark a confidence vote. There is also talk of the development of an accord or a coalition government in an effort to avoid another trip to the polls.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2008 04:10 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: beesknees on November 27 2008 7:35 PM

I like that elimination of the subsidies to the political parties. I don't feel its my responsibility to support the NDP, or any organization. If they can't find enough people through private fund-raising efforts, then they obviously don't have support for their ideas, and shouldn't be funded by us taxpayers.

I didn't vote for the Tories last election, but I will now.

Posted by: BCRacer on November 27 2008 7:40 PM

Mr Hill , of course you are going to back your fellow politician, if you don't you won't have a job, so now on to the next piece of crap you plan to throw at us. Different day same old stuff...
I wonder if they make muzzles his size?

Posted by: Chester on November 27 2008 10:46 PM

So, Mr. BCRacer, what great words of wisdom do you have to offer? We have some serious issues and challenges. Your thoughts and opinions of possible solutions would be very welcome. Speak up!

Posted by: Wolfie on November 28 2008 12:00 AM

Posted by: beesknees on November 27 2008 7:35 PM

"I don't feel its my responsibility to support the NDP, or any organization."

You don't. Your vote, like all others, gives the party you vote for $1.95. That's right... for less than the cost of a cup of coffee once per election, you can make democracy work! If you don't vote for the NDP, they don't get your $1.95. $1.95 each, once every (until recently) 4 years is going to make an important difference to the finances of the country? I don't think so.

This is the political equivalent of threatening to grab the ball and go home when your team is ahead. But at the same time as you're playing children's games, thousands of jobs are being lost and savings are being erased daily.

Posted by: Eagleone on November 28 2008 5:17 AM

Wolfie, thats well said IMO.

Harper is holding hostage the economic policy of the country in order to defund all the opposition parties because the conservatives are the ones with all the private money. The homeless don't have money to donate only their vote.

This is one of the lowest political moves ever in Canadian politics and never should have been including in an economic emergency plan. Its a power grab in a crisis and thats not right for anyone that supports democracy.

I think Harper just in effect called a new election for January. I think Ignatief will be the next Prime Minister in the new year.

Posted by: Wolfie on November 28 2008 7:35 AM

Well Eagleone, I think we can all agree that another election would be a huge waste of time and money, especially during the current situation, so I don't think there will be one of those.

However, the coalition idea being kicked around is intriguing. Collectively more Canadians voted for the other parties than the Tories, and they have more in common than any other party has with the Conservatives, so I think the Governor General would have to give it a shot if the parties agreed to it.

The only problem I could see with it would be that the BQ would obviously have great influence, which could mean too much special treatment for Quebec. But of course, that happened under Harper's first term when he was trying (unsuccessfully) to buy votes there.

Posted by: Eagleone on November 28 2008 8:19 AM

Not if you made Duceppe the Prime Minister of the coalition government.

You get Duceppe to agree to put the separatist issues off the table for 2-years... and if he lasts that long then let him dissolve government in a sink or swim new confederate offer to the rest of Canada from the perspective of responsibility... if we don't like it the government falls and we have a new federal election and move on... by then the liberals might have a new leader that is more acceptable and its a whole different situation.

I think Duceppe is the best most practicable leader in Canada in governing for the people as citizens that he works for, and if you could convince him to be the leader of all of Canada, even if only as a bribe to get his opportunity in two years to present his policy from government... I think by then he would be remembered as a great Canadian PM... and then it seems kind of treasonous to break up a country you are recognized for being a great leader in... and then the whole separatist movement in Quebec falls apart without their leader and the movement becomes something else with independence replacing separatism and who knows... in the mean time we criticize him up the ying yang about everything Quebec calling favoritism to the point where he needs his coalition so can't be seen as giving all the money to Quebec?

A kind of voodoo politics Canadian style that just might work by putting the leader of the separatists in charge of the country....

Posted by: winnie on November 28 2008 8:32 AM

I support the measures listed above. They make sense to me. Eliminating taxpayer subsidies to Political parties, limiting spending on travel & consultants and things that are not necessary. This makes perfect sense to me.
Limiting public service pay increases.......at least they get an increase. Many of us got pay CUTS or lost our jobs all together.

They need to quit whinning and get working together.

Remember - the only money the government has is Tax payers money - so they should be careful about how they spend my hard earned money!

Posted by: diplomat on November 28 2008 9:03 AM

Eagleone:"This is one of the lowest political moves ever in Canadian politics and never should have been including in an economic emergency plan."

I agree and I have a better economic emergency plan: Bring the troops home from the sinkhole called Afghanistan and save a billion dollars a year - plus many lives, ours and theirs.

These manipulative Harper moves remind me of the bullying tactics of a person who calls himself the Decider.

Posted by: tinyapplecork on November 28 2008 9:31 AM

I am in agreement with winnie. All seems reasonable to me. As for the concerns that some posters have expressed in regards to the elimination of the subsidy to political parties being one of a conspiracy-like attempt to financially disable the opposition, LUDICROUS!
An elimination would affect ALL parties.
Our Prime Minister and the conservative government are working prudently to stabilize our economy with the tools they have.
The opposition parties are just having a tantrum imo. If there are key areas of the plan they oppose so strongly to an MP can propose an amendment.

Also, with the opposition's latest fit, they have also introduced further fear into the market. A destabilized government (real or imagined) may scare off investors which is something Canada does not need during a global economic meltdown.

Posted by: Wolfie on November 28 2008 9:48 AM

Wow Eagleone, I thought we were on the same page but that last suggestion was much more farfetched than anything that had entered my mind.

First of all, I don't think the Liberals or NDP could support Duceppe as PM. The general public would definitely frown upon them for making a separatist a PM and this could be easily used by the Tories to gain votes. The public perception would be too poor.

Also, I don't think the BQ would go for this. Remember that separatism is their raison d'etre, and a large segment of their supporters still want to see it happen. The grassroots would not support the party agreeing to never mention separatism for 2 years.

So, while your idea is interesting, I think Ronald McDonald has a better chance of being PM than Duceppe. It would be ironic though... I remember during the last leaders' debate, there was a question like "what would be the first thing you would do as PM?". Duceppe made a joke that the question didn't apply to him since he could never be PM. Though he won't be PM, I bet he never thought he would be this close to it.

Posted by: Wolfie on November 28 2008 10:02 AM

Tinyapplecork, of course this is an attempt to cripple the opposition. The Conservatives support tax cuts for businesses and people with higher incomes. Both of these groups are able to donate far more to political parties than homeless people or students or others who typically support the NDP, for instance. Thus, the Conservatives will continue to rake in huge donations, and the parties who aren't going to do things that rich people and big businesses like will continue to be underfunded and unable to get their voices out. How is this democracy? As for the cost savings, that is garbage too. Remember that political donations are tax deductible. Thus, if the subsidies are cut, and are replaced by private donations, this still costs the government money. It is just in the form of lost tax revenue rather than the cost of the subsidies. This fact alone shows that this move isn't about saving money at all.

In fact, given that the cost to the government is about the same, I would argue in favour of a system where all funding comes from a per-vote subsidy, and all private donations are banned. This would reduce the patronage, kick-backs, industry lobbying, and favours-for-funds that are all too common in politics today. To me, this amounts to corruption that all parties are guilty of. Take away private donations and you take away the obligation of government to work primarily in the interest of those who can afford to donate. This leaves them better able to work truly in the interests of the people.

Posted by: Wolfie on November 28 2008 10:32 AM

Guess it's all a moot point now, as the Tories blinked and dropped the subsidy cuts from the bill, according to the CBC.

Posted by: Don Wilkins on November 28 2008 4:03 PM

I like the conservative approach. We are in a good place in this country because of the present government. I also like the fact that they have been going through every part of government to see that our dollars are being used effectively. I do not agree with everything but I like it better than the alternative. I have had enough of the Liberals and don't trust the NDP not to run us into the ground.

Posted by: The_grandinquisitor on November 28 2008 9:10 PM

I thought harper said the canadian economy was in good shape. Lots of government workers had to cope with a wage freeze in the 90's for what, 5 years? while the rest of us got raises....

Politicians are the ones who cause all the trouble...voting themselves huge increases...the rest of us should not have to suffer....for instance..the rcmp...they have historically been paid the s**ts compared to other city police forces...
If harper freezes their wages I bet a huge number will simply quit to join other police forces or simply retire because I think their pensions are based on their best five years?? Now if the experienced members retire...and no one bothers to join because wages are frozen...then that leaves us with a bunch of inexperienced youngsters running around with guns and ticket books....SO I hope Harper is defeated on a non confidence vote for this aspect alone....

Posted by: Wolfie on November 29 2008 11:08 AM

Check this out:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081129.wtories_message1129/BNStory/Front/

It would make a fun drinking game to play over the next week, whenever you hear one of these lines verbatim. I bet you'd get pretty tipsy...

And Mr. Meisner... if one of our local MPs uses these talking points on your show, I hope you'll call them on it. The least we can expect of our elected officials is for them to speak for themselves.