Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

National

Federal government’s promises of deficit reduction ring hollow

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen and Jake Fuss

” the most credible promises are introduced with immediate action “

As budget season approaches, it’s worth remembering that policymakers must pair promises of fiscal discipline with concrete action.

According to projections, the Trudeau government will run a $40.0 billion deficit this fiscal year, which is slightly larger than last year’s $35.3 billion deficit, even though revenues are up almost $10.0 billion. Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has repeatedly said that the era of large deficits won’t last forever and promised that starting in 2026/27 the federal deficit will be held every year to less than one per cent of GDP (the value of all goods and services produced in the economy).

But Freeland’s promises should be taken with more than a grain of salt because all governments have spotty track records when it comes to fiscal promises, particularly when they’re based on spending restraint in the future. Conversely, the most credible promises are introduced with immediate action.

The most famous example in Canada’s recent fiscal history came in the 1990s when Paul Martin, the then-Liberal government’s finance minister, vowed to slay Canada’s crippling budget deficit and repair federal finances “come hell or high water.” Martin’s words were accompanied by immediate action in the form of the transformative 1995 federal budget that began a process of deep budget cuts and major policy reforms that immediately put the government on a path to fiscal balance. The deficit was quickly eliminated and Canada was put on a sound fiscal footing that served the country well for almost two decades.

The “hell or high water” episode shows us how governments must match strong commitments with strong actions to increase the likelihood of success. On the other hand, promises for fiscal improvements in the future—unaccompanied by any concurrent action—usually aren’t worth the paper (or Tweets) they’re printed on.

The Trudeau government has produced many examples of incredible promises. First, on the campaign trail back in 2015, Trudeau and his team promised small and temporary deficits, and to shrink the national debt burden. Since then, the prime minister and his finance ministers have never been shy about promising to improve the bottom line. However, the target dates associated with these promises came and went without much notice, and the government pivoted to new plausible-sounding targets, using only words without policy change.

Again, the Trudeau government is far from alone in this tendency. In Ontario, Premier Wynne’s government repeatedly promised to shrink that province’s daunting debt burden, yet failed to decisively act. Basically, it was wishful thinking.

After Ontarians voted out the Wynne government, the Ford government promised to break from the Wynne approach and introduce real reforms that would slay the deficit quickly. But after a few half-hearted feints in the direction of fiscal discipline, the Ford government also failed to make good on its promises of debt reduction and as a result Ontario remains stuck under a mountain of government debt.

Canadian history is clear—unless government promises coincide with concrete actions to immediately start shrinking budget deficits, these promises of fiscal restraint at some future date shouldn’t be given much credence. Minister Freeland’s recent promises fall into this category. In the upcoming federal budget, if the Trudeau government and its cabinet want its promises to be credible, it must learn from its Liberal predecessors and their “hell or high water” moment, and reduce spending to immediately begin a process of deficit reduction.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

Elon Musk skewers Trudeau gov’t Online Harms bill as ‘insane’ for targeting speech retroactively

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

It literally spits in the face of all Western legal traditions, especially the one about only being punished if you infringed on a law that was valid at the time of committing a crime

Billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk remarked that it is “insane” that the Trudeau government’s proposed “Online Harms” bill would target internet speech retroactively if it becomes law.

“This sounds insane if accurate!” wrote Musk on Tuesday, in reply to an X (formerly Twitter) user named Camus who detailed that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government’s Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, could see Canadians fined or even jailed for things posted on the internet prior to the bill becoming law.

Camus noted how Bill C-63 could give police “the power to retroactively search the Internet for ‘hate speech’ violations and arrest offenders, even if the offence occurred before the law existed.” 

A brief time later, X’s “CommunityNotes” program – a system in which users collectively “fact-check” information shared on the site –confirmed what Camus had written was accurate, quoting a section of the bill’s text.  

“Part 3 of Bill C-63, which is still at first reading stage and is not yet law, adds to the Canadian Human Rights Act: ‘a person communicates or causes to be communicated hate speech so long as the hate speech remains public and the person can remove or block access to it,’” CommunityNotes wrote. 

Camus observed about Bill C-63 that the “Trudeau regime has introduced an Orwellian new law.” 

“This new bill is aimed at safeguarding the masses from so-called ‘hate speech,’” he wrote. “The real shocker in this bill is the alarming retroactive aspect. Essentially, whatever you’ve said in the past can now be weaponized against you by today’s draconian standards.” 

Camus observed how historian Dr. Muriel Blaive has weighed in on “this draconian law,” labeling it outright “mad.”  

Bill C-63 was introduced by Liberal Minster Attorney General Arif Virani on February 26 and was immediately blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome. 

The bill, if passed, will modify existing laws, amend the Criminal Code as well as the Canadian Human Rights Act, in what the Liberals claim will target certain cases of internet content removal, notably those involving child sexual abuse and pornography. 

However, the bill also seeks to police “hate” speech online with broad definitions, severe penalties, and dubious tactics. 

Trudeau’s new bill a ‘terrible attack’ on speech, Musk warns

On Tuesday, well-known Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson replied to Musk by saying about Bill C-63, “It’s much much worse than you have been informed: plans to shackle Canadians electronically if accusers fear a ‘hate crime’ might (might) be committed.” 

“It’s the most Orwellian piece of legislation ever promoted in the West.” 

Musk replied to Peterson by saying Bill C-63 is “[a] terrible attack on the rights of Canadians to speak freely!” 

Other notable X users, such as Canadian lawyer David Freiheit, who is known online as Viva Frei, confirmed Musk’s concern that Bill C-63 could go after X users from posts/tweets made long ago. 

“It’s pretty close to accurate, Elon. If someone has the ability to delete a ‘hate speech’ tweet / post and does not, and someone else retweets that tweet, it would qualify as ‘publication’ under the law and be sanctionable,” he wrote. 

Details of the new legislation to regulate the internet show the bill could lead to more people jailed for life for “hate crimes” or fined $50,000 and jailed for posts that the government defines as “hate speech” based on gender, race, or other categories. 

The bill also calls for the creation of a digital safety commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and a digital safety office. 

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has said Bill C-63 is “the most serious threat to free expression in Canada in generations. This terrible federal legislation, Bill C -63, would empower the Canadian Human Rights Commission to prosecute Canadians over non-criminal hate speech.” 

In a recent podcast, Peterson and Queen’s University law professor Bruce Pardy warned of the “totalitarian” impact Trudeau’s new Online Harms bill will have on Canada. 

Peterson observed that the Trudeau government is effectively “establishing an entirely new bureaucracy” with an “unspecified range of power with non-specific purview that purports to protect children from online exploitation” but has the possibility of turning itself into an internet “policing state.”  

Continue Reading

National

Taxpayers Federation presents Teddy Waste Awards for worst government waste

Published on

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Franco Terrazzano 

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation presented its 26th annual Teddy Waste Awards to CBC President Catherine Tait for handing out millions in bonuses while announcing hundreds of layoffs; the Mission Cultural fund for its sex-themed artistic performances; and the city of Regina for its Experience Regina rebrand fiasco.

“Because it spent buckets of taxpayer cash funding birthday parties and photo exhibits for celebrities, and making things awkward for countries around the world with sex-themed artistic performances, the Mission Cultural Fund earned the Lifetime Achievement award for waste,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director.

“Tait is winning a Teddy Award because she handed out millions in bonuses despite announcing hundreds of layoffs just before Christmas, only to turn around and beg for more taxpayer cash.

“The Alberta Foundation for the Arts spent tens of thousands flying an artist to New York, Estonia and South Korea so she could flop around on a futon for a couple minutes and showcase a painting that can best be described as ants on a pop tart.

“The city of Regina came up with snappy slogans like, ‘Show us your Regina,’ and ‘Regina: the city that rhymes with fun.’ After spending $30,000 and facing backlash, the city ditched the entire rebrand so it won a Teddy Waste Award.”

The Teddy, a pig-shaped trophy the CTF annually awards to governments’ worst waste offenders, is named after Ted Weatherill, a former federal appointee who was fired in 1999 for submitting a raft of dubious expense claims, including a $700 lunch for two.

This year’s winners include:

  • Municipal Teddy winner: The city of Regina

Regina spent $30,000 rebranding Tourism Regina to Experience Regina. But after facing backlash, the city scrapped the rebrand. And Regina taxpayers are out $30,000.

  • Provincial Teddy winner: Alberta Foundation for the Arts

The Alberta Foundation for the Arts spent $30,000 flying an artist around the world to produce art few taxpayers would ever willingly buy or pay to see.

  • Federal Teddy winner: CBC President Catherine Tait

Tait handed out $15 million in bonuses to CBC brass in 2023 as she announced hundreds of layoffs weeks before Christmas and lobbied the government for more money. Bonuses at the CBC total $114 million since 2015.

  • Lifetime Teddy winner: The Mission Cultural Fund

The Mission Cultural Fund spent $10,000 on a birthday party for Margaret Atwood in New York, $52,000 for a photo exhibit for rockstar Bryan Adams, $8,800 on a sex toy show in Germany and $12,000 for senior citizens to talk about their sex lives in front of live audiences.

You can find the backgrounder on this year’s Teddy Waste Award nominees and winners HERE

Continue Reading

Trending

X