250 News - Your News, Your Views, Now

October 28, 2017 12:34 am

Economy to Take Centre Stage Once Parliament Resumes

Sunday, January 24, 2016 @ 12:00 PM

Prince George, B.C. – Expect the economy to take centre stage once Parliament resumes in Ottawa tomorrow.

University of Northern British Columbia political science professor Dr. Gary Wilson says many people will be looking for the federal government to follow through on its promise to spend billions on infrastructure projects considering our flagging economy.

“People will be looking to him (Prime Minister Trudeau) to take more proactive measures in terms of boosting economic growth,” he says. “Obviously that’s not something that can happen in one day or one week but I think people will be looking for at least a plan or a strategy on how it’s going to role out.”

Wilson doesn’t expect Trudeau to stall on that plan.

“I wouldn’t think so because it was a major platform in his campaign and people are kind of thinking this is one of the solutions to getting the economy up and running again,” he says.

“For the government to spend as the Conservatives did after the 2008 recession.”

As Wilson says, spending was a major plank in the Liberals election campaign last fall.

In fact they promised to spend $60 billion dollars over 10 years on infrastructure projects.


I suspect that Justin and Co. will blow through this $60 Billion is only 3 years! Hang on to your wallets!

And we’ll have precious little to show for it. The needed ‘foreign markets’ will still be elusive. And the prices of everything here, including what we remit in taxes overall? Higher than ever. Oh well, perhaps those ‘foreign investors’ he was courting at Davos will see some hidden value, at fire-sale prices.

Oh well, perhaps those ‘foreign investors’ he was courting at Davos will see some hidden value, at fire-sale prices ?????You’re still not following the money cred . Okay . I’ll tell you again where to look . Cppib.ca there is news from Davos there . Don’t look to MSM for positive news . They are all controlled by righties . CPPIB.ca is our pension investment fund sitting at 272 billion dollars plus . This ship is already turning around . Stevie had nothing but fun with it for way too long . Some of the investments there in the last ten years were politically motivated in the most bizarre way .

Ataloss, re your comment:

“Don’t look to MSM for positive news They are all controlled by righties.”

Seriously? Not one of your brightest posts Ataloss, haha!

All these con supporters with their crystal balls.. To bad they didn’t work when Harper was driving us horrendously deep in debt.. Invading our privacy, signing the TPP, screwing over our veterans, homeless, missing and murdered women etc..And that is a fact.. I know cons don’t like those “fact” things when it comes to the con party but facts don’t lie but cons do..


“Don’t look to MSM for positive news They are all controlled by righties.”

I always new you had a sense of humour in their somewhere.

PVal:-“All these con supporters with their crystal balls.. To bad they didn’t work when Harper was driving us horrendously deep in debt.”

‘Debt’ is simply a financial tool, PVal. Harper deficit spent while we were in a recession. If he hadn’t done that the effects of that recession would’ve been far worse on the majority of our citizens than what they actually were.

We didn’t have a collapsing dollar while he was doing that, making everything we purchase as imports for our own consumption here way more expensive, while we get ever the less for what we export. Now we have.

And many of the ways in which Harper moved to stimulate the economy were uniquely beneficial to a large mass of Canadians as individual citizens.

The Home Renovation Tax Credit for one. That encouraged many people to do work on their homes, and greatly aided contractors who might otherwise have been unemployed, and the whole building supply industry, which led to the continued employment of many others. But no government, no matter who forms it, can deficit spend ad infintum without some negative consequences also occurring.

It doesn’t HAVE TO BE that way, it could be changed. But Trudeau hasn’t said anything about changing it. And his little trip to kow-tow before his superiors at Davos is a pretty good indication he’s got nothing like that in mind. So we engage once more in what could be called another round of insanity ~ doing the same thing that’s failed continually in the past expecting a different result.

Ah.. So we where in a recession the entire time Harper was pm..

The collapsing dollar has to do with the price of oil..not the party in charge..

How about we wait and see about this trip and what comes of it..

I know Harper didn’t bring anything back from all the hockey games he attended on our tax dollar ;)

The home owners tax credit was to small to really help any contractors.. Was made so the home owner did the work.

Ataloss, it will probably be lost on you, but the funds invested by the CPPIB are not immune to the same problem facing all funds invested by anyone in any modern industrialised country anywhere. The profits on those investments, taken as a percentage of sales, are FALLING. Why? Simply put, because we continue to displace overall consumer incomes from ’employment’ every time we become more ‘productive’ through investment. And we have not instituted any other means of replacing those incomes in a meaningful way that does not simultaneously reduce the overall incomes of those who are still working. We are, in other words, continually trying to re-distribute an insufficiency. An insufficiency of incomes relative to the prices they have to liquidate to provide an adequate profit for business to continue. And pay an adequate return on the money invested in them. Never a sufficiency will be made from redistributing an insufficiency.

PVal:-“The home owners tax credit was to small to really help any contractors.. Was made so the home owner did the work”
It was indeed small in cost to the government, but psychologically it provided an enormous boost to that whole sector of the economy. People ‘believed’ they were getting a benefit. And they did, they had something of their own to show for it after what they’d done to their home was done. And that’s really a lot of what anything to do with money is ~ simply ‘belief’.

We hope Trudeau can find the least visited space by himself. HIS DESK. I have my doubts even if he finds it, it will not be the economy be on his mind. He has the up and coming talk show “The Social” front and centre on his mind.

Poor Justin! Sooooooooo easy to make promises in an election, especially when the person and the party making the promises never really expected to win the election in the first place!

The budget will balance itself! Yup, with the help of about a gazillion dollars in deficit spending!

In all of my years, I have yet to see a government, any government so inept, so soon out of the gate as this one! We are so screwed!

A physiological boost, now that’s play garbage.. Never heard anyone talk much about it let alone get any boost.. Hilarious.

As for not winning the election, of course the liberals where going to win, that’s why Harper started to follow trudeaus promises just prior to the election..because Harper knew he was toast.. Hart guy a blind man can not see what’s directly in front or behind him.. You are definitely blind when it comes to the past gov.

Harper adding 165 billions to the debt = tremendous positive achievement.

Trudeau projection to add vastly less billions to the debt to stimulate a very stagnant economy = tremendously negative plan, making the sky seem to come crashing down!

HG:”We are so screwed!” Actually we WERE so screwed!

As many pundits are suggesting, infrastructure spending doesn’t do a whole lot for the economy. In 2008 Harper, who had a minority at that time, was somewhat bullied into that spending by the opposition. Even Stephen Poloz, Governor of the Bank of Canada, has said the economy has to work it’s way through these times. What needs to happen is get those pipelines going both east as west …long overdue. Private sector money rather than all those tax payor dollars being eaten up in the bureaucracy.

P Val. As usual you are spouting off without having a clue as to what you are talking about.

1. The TPP has not been signed, and when it is signed it will be signed by the Justin Trudeau Government.

2. Between 1980 and 2012 there were 164 missing aboriginal women and 1,017 murdered. Trudeau was in power from 1968-1979 and 1980-1984.Mulrooney from 1984-1992. Chretian between 1993-2003 and Paul Martin between 2003-2006. So one wonders how you can attribute this problem to Harper, when the Liberals were in power the majority of the time. Obviously you have no comprehension of what’s taking place in the Country.

Starting to-morrow we will be able to sit back and see what the **What me Worry** kid is made of. If the last few months are any indication, I believe we are in for some rather embarrassing times.

Prince George:-“Harper adding 165 billions to the debt = tremendous positive achievement.

Trudeau projection to add vastly less billions to the debt to stimulate a very stagnant economy = tremendously negative plan, making the sky seem to come crashing down”

Two wrongs don’t make a right. If the addition to the debt under Harper disturbs Liberal supporters so much, why do you want more of the same under Trudeau? Why not realise that there are more than likely to be future unforeseen events quite possibly of greater magnitude than the rapid fall off of oil prices, and that it’s long past time to stop this whole nonsense of accounting our Assets as Liabilities when it come to government bookkeeping. As it sits, we’ll get infrastructure out of Trudeau. But we’ll be paying for it more than once, even if interest rates stay low. WHY? Isn’t ONCE enough? Or do we have to keep the money boys in Davos happy?

“If the addition to the debt under Harper disturbs Liberal supporters so much, why do you want more of the same under Trudeau? ”

I think many Liberals remember that Martin reduced the debt by about the same amount that Harper added to it again! Imagine what our debt would be now if it had not been reduced so substantially during the years before Harper. You don’t think that unpaid for infrastructure is a liability? What about debt that was piled up on non-infrastructure spending? Nothing that one can point to, touch and take a picture of?

I agree with you. My son was one of the victims of job loss due to the oil/economy collapse. He was so discouraged to find out the Liberial government a week after mass lay offs promised $4 billion to foreign countries under the pretences on climate change.(bad investment as it’s impossible to track where the money ends up)
I honestly feel we are in big trouble locally and globally. At the moment Trudeau is batting zero with no plan. We are fastly becoming a joke globally. I am personally embarrassed everytime Trudeau opens his mouth. I never agreed with all Harper did BUT I was never felt embarrassed to be Canadian.

Prince George. Martin was a charlatan. He reduced the debt by using 43 Billion out of the EI fund, which we could surely use for the next few years. In addition he reduced transfer payments to the Provinces.

If you care to do some serious reading about his policies you would find that he was a nutbar. Remember the **Redbook**

Prince George, whether we have a Liberal government, or a Conservative one, or even, Heaven forbid, an NDP or Green Party one, a National Debt is MORE than just an accumulation of government deficits. It is a ‘distributing agent’ ~ how necessary new money currently enters the economy. When a sovereign government pays down a National Debt it is sending an equivalent amount of money to extinction as money. If, in the economy as a whole, there are goods for sale with a price tag on them in money, as there are, the pay down of a National Debt will add to the already normally existing discrepancy between the total amount of money in the hands of the public and the total of all goods for sale at their normally accounted for prices. The ONLY ways those goods can then be sold is if some other entities, individuals or businesses or lower levels of government BORROW an equivalent amount of money to that which the government has just paid off. So the idea that a government can ever pay off its National Debt, or even meaningfully pay it down, is, under the current rules of accounting governing governments as specious a notion as having a truly ‘balanced Budget’.

The other way is for businesses to sell below cost. But that results in them going bankrupt. And yes, there is also one other way. We can have a surplus of exports over imports and receive some other countries’ money exchangeable into ours for the difference. But that is self defeating. No country can continually sell more than it buys, that would bankrupt its customers. And then what would it do?

happy13:-“At the moment Trudeau is batting zero with no plan. We are fastly becoming a joke globally. I am personally embarrassed everytime Trudeau opens his mouth. I never agreed with all Harper did BUT I was never felt embarrassed to be Canadian. ”

Well, I agree with you entirely, happy13. But that seems to be the kind of Canada that many on here seem to want back. As I see it, the Conservative ads didn’t lie about Trudeau. “He’s just not ready.” I, too, didn’t always agree with everything Harper did. I don’t share his faith that having free trade with every country in sight is going to solve our economic problems. But the alternative of protectionism isn’t much of a solution either. I think we really need to look at how our money system actually works ~ or doesn’t ~ and make it do what it’s supposed to do. Serve us. Instead of us serving it.

Speaking of that kind of country Liberal supporters seem to want back, one of the most objectionable things about it has to be its govedrnmental wishy-washiness. They’d have Canada be a nation of fence sitters, ones who can’t lead, can’t follow, and won’t get out of the way. The kind of land that was epitomised in MacKenzie King’s famous World War Two epithet, “We’ll have conscription if necessary , but not necessarily conscription.”

In other words, if you have Canada for an ally we’ll support you completely, til you need our support. Then we’ll have to think about it. I highly doubt THAT was the kind of Canada that the people of this country really wanted then, despite its government’s procrastinations.

And what has changed in Liberaldom between a Liberal government then, and another Liberal government now? Nothing.

We’ll continue to war against ISIS because they’re an affront to the civilised world, but we won’t really fight in it or provide any meaningful bloodletting on our own.

Instead we’ll take our jets home, and provide more ‘trainers’ for other people who’ll do the actual fighting. Now just how is THAT ever going to work? It isn’t. It never has, anywhere, unless the ‘trainers’ have actually gone into battle along with their ‘trainees’, and are still in command of them. So why carry on the pretense?

If we’re going to get involved in defeating ISIS, get involved. If we’re not, then pull everything out of there and let the chips fall where they may. Douglas MacArthur said it best, many years ago, “In war there’s no substitute for victory.” And I think he knew a lot more about the subject than Trudeau.

Palopu.. Harper stopped anymore investigation into the missing and murdered women… That’s how .. Grab a clue dude.

And yes Harper did sign the TPP to start the initial process. When he came back from the negotiations he started setting money aside for everyone who will loose their jobs etc due to the TPP? You do read the news don’t you?

Socred if you really believe this latest rant then give up the evidence . The truth is that the fund has been growing at an upward trajectory. Yes there are losers but the trend is up . The fund is one of the few things we can measure because it’s openish to view . I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall once in awhile during the deals , specially the ones done in 2011 . If memory serves the fund was about half of what it is today . It’s your money folks . Let’s hope for a triple under Trudeau .

Ataloss, the age for future retirees collecting full CPP pension has been raised from 65 to 67. Why? And when you now take a CPP pension early at a reduced amount, as many of us who are self-employed have done, you no longer get to stop paying any more into it at that point if you’re still working. You have to contribute until you’re 65. These are hardly signs that all is well in the world of returns on CPP investments. Want further proof? Look at the fate of some of the companies that were once considered the ‘bluest’ of blue-chip investments. And how are corporate dividend payouts these days, compared to what they were from businesses back when CPP was initiated, or a decade earlier?

One other thing you should realise, Ataloss. Every dollar contributed towards CPP, RRSPs, TFSA, or any other type of savings fund that is going to invest that money is a dollar that’s already been costed into the price of some good or service for sale somewhere in the economy. When that dollar is invested, it creates ANOTHER cost. While the one it originated from remains unliquidated. And unliquidatable. Unless someone BORROWS another dollar. Which has to be created by one of our banks. Which they don’t do for nothing.

The question of retirement age: at one time the average person lived to be 70 or so and left school at or before high school completion. Now people live 10 years longer, go to school 5 years longer, and the retirement age was lowered. The total full time work life was some 50+ years at one time. Now it is more like 40+.

With a 65-year age of retirement we have people who have fewer productive years and have to live longer from their parents’ generosity or borrowing money to attend college or university and then off their savings at 65.

Look at the demographics and the ratio of non-working life to total life and it is easy to see why the retirement age has been increased in the western industrial world. My father “retired” in 1985 but was “allowed” to work for another two years after he turned 65. He lived for 20 more years after that and was bored stiff much of the time because he had no hobbies. He enjoyed those two years that he was “allowed” to work after he got his “gold” watch.

There is nothing nefarious about increasing the age of retirement and the eligibility for government pensions. On the other hand, if one has a hard physical job, it may be impossible to some people to continue at the same pace as they were able to earlier. One size does not fit all. One can get early access to pensions with commensurate monthly reductions based on actuarial tables. One can also wait to get pensions and receive an increase in monthly payments. To me, with the flexibility that is available, it will accommodate some variations in people’s choices.

Some people want to retire early, others of us are quite satisfied to work longer. Until we drop, in some cases. Whatever, I believe once anyone has reached a certain threshold ~ and in some countries, like China, for instance, it’s 55, in others 60 or 65 ~ they should be able to retire. In many instances if they didn’t retire the next generation is held back from advancing in the workforce. CPP was set up with the idea that the average age most people want to retire at was 65. Now there’s some question whether the fund would be able to continue to support retirements at that age, so the government raised it to 67. Maybe future governments will raise it further, who knows? Regardless, the real question here is whether we actually NEED two more years of extra production from those who turn 65? Or is the ‘need’ to try to make it seem as if the retirement fund is financially sound when it increasingly may not be.

I took my CPP pension at age 60, even though I continued, and still continue to work 9 years later. I did this because as a self-employed business owner I had to contribute BOTH the ’employee’s’ portion and the ’employer’s’ for myself. At that time, and for all but 4 months of the next five years, once the pension was taken you stopped paying in. The pension itself, by taking it early, was reduced by 1/5 per year over what I would have received if I’d waited until I was 65. But if I HAD waited until I was 65, it would have taken me until I was 73 to recoup the amount I had contributed as both employer and employee between 60 and 65 and what I lost in pension payouts. I will probably work until I’m no longer able, or until the amount of inane governmental bureaucracy I have to deal with annoys me to the point where I can’t stand it any more, or until the ever rising property tax on my business makes it no longer viable to continue operating it.

Nice try P Val. The TPP will be signed by Trudeau, because he, you, and many others know that this trade agreement if not signed will leave us out in the cold.

As far as the investigations into the missing women go, I notice that you make no mention of how much investigation actually took place during the time the Liberals were in power.

You are obviously unable to make any comments that are not biased.

I say to you read more, write less, and absorb facts. Eventually you will be able to determine the difference between a fact and a fantasy.

Just a point of clarification – the CPP – employee/employer funded, is still 65. It’s OAS – taxpayer funded, that is currently at 67 – but the PM has promised to roll that back, he just isn’t being very quick about it.

I think because of our population demographics it’s essential the retirement age be pushed back to make up for the fact that for the first time in history, there is more people over 65 than under 15. There will be a lot of people with their hands out for taxpayer funded assistance, and not that many taxpayers to pay it. Considering I’ve got an extra 10 years life expectancy, I could probably work a couple of extra years.

As an aside, by 2045 33% of Saskatchewan population will be F.N. and comprise the majority of the under 65 age group. If something isn’t done to deal with their lower participation rates in the workforce, and their exemption from taxation under certain criteria, Saskatchewan very well might see mass emigration of the non-F.N. people who have marketable skills and/or pension income.

Comments for this article are closed.