Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy

[Bird_Gunner45]

Because both of them did a pretty bad job in the eyes of the people.

Some of the people. George W won 2 elections with roughly Obama's level of support

 

[PuckChaser]

I hope Trudeau does better.

Hope is not a COA.

 

[cavalryman]

So far, he seems like far less an idiot than I thought he was at the beginning of the campaign.

I'm going to take a wild guess that your expectations were pretty low if you think his performance at the G-20 and APEC were anywhere near adult-sized.  Sure, he deserves his chance, but you'll permit me to cringe while he turns this country into a frat-boy mockery on the international stage.  At this point, all I can hope is that the backroom boys keep a tight rein on him.  Statesman-like he ain't.  You can blame Harper for many ills besetting the Conservative party, but at least he came across as a statesman on the international stage, not a boy barely out of short pants.

 

[jmt18325]

I'm going to take a wild guess that your expectations were pretty low if you think his performance at the G-20 and APEC were anywhere near adult-sized.

What exactly did he do that alarmed you so much, exactly?  He was praised at the G-20 for his infrastructure program.  At APEC, he had very productive meetings.  The fact that people like him personally and that there is a certain celebrity to him doesn't make him a 'frat boy'.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

He was praised at the G-20 for his infrastructure program.  At APEC, he had very productive meetings.  The fact that people like him personally and that there is a certain celebrity to him doesn't make him a 'frat boy'.

$10 billion is an election promise, nothing meaningful.  Alberta gives Quebec $10 billion per year in equalization because we like them so much.  I see nothing but a frat boy - no substance.  You will rarely see hem answering questions in the House or even spoon fed media questions because of the Bozo eruption problem.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>He was praised at the G-20 for his infrastructure program.

It's going to achieve SFA.  About $2B of the proposed $10B "deficit" can be attributed to nuts-and-bolts infrastructure, which was all the talking heads talked about - a smokescreen for the other $8B ($2B "social" infrastructure, $2B "green" infrastructure, and $4B unattributed - doubling the CPC program accounted for only 6 of the 10).

$2B on top of what is already being spent is a rounding error; the other $4B of "infrastructure" has white elephantosis, and the remaining slush fund is most likely to wind up in a pork barrel.

 

[Kirkhill]

Hey Brad, don't sweat it.

The youngster has got a brand new, never before used excuse.  The cupboards are bare and it is all the last guys fault.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/morneau-fiscal-update-1.3327571

 

[Brad Sallows]

The Liberals own the current FY for four months, which is long enough to own the resulting balance.

 

[jmt18325]

a smokescreen for the other $8B ($2B "social" infrastructure, $2B "green" infrastructure, and $4B unattributed - doubling the CPC program accounted for only 6 of the 10).

First of all, your numbers are off.  The Liberal program sets aside new money for only 3 things - transit, green, and social infrastructure.

Second, it's 1.6B for each of those 3 things next year and the year after, and 1.1B for the each of the next two years after that.

Third - social infrastructure is things like hospitals, jails, schools, social housing, etc, etc.  Green infrastructure relates power projects and retrofits of existing infrastructure to make it more energy efficient.  Nice try though.

As for owning the current fiscal year (the Liberals actually own approx 5 months of it) - the projections provided today contain only spending and tax measures introduced by the Conservatives.  Almost none of the Liberal spending program, other than refugees and tax changes, starts until April 2016.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The FACT being, according to the PBO, is that we are in a surplus, a small one, but a surplus. I await the Trudeau Liberals answers to the Official Oppositions questions on how they managed to jig the numbers into a deficit.

 

[jmt18325]

The FACT being, according to the PBO, is that we are in a surplus, a small one, but a surplus. I await the Trudeau Liberals answers to the Official Oppositions questions on how they managed to jig the numbers into a deficit.

The PBO, as it currently stands, has access to less info than Finance.  The Conservatives made sure of that when they created the office.

 

[Brad Sallows]

My numbers are on.  The CPC program called for roughly $65 billion in infrastructure spending over 10 years and the Liberals promised to (almost) double it - $125B over 10 years was the figure repeated during the campaign.  The CPC spending was planned within a balanced budget; ergo, if the Liberals proposed to increase the commitment by $60B over 10 years the average deficit should not really be more than $6B even if the budget balance was on a razor edge.

So right away there is a question - which was studiously ignored by the press - as to why the Liberals might need an extra $4B each year.  Given the desperation of the LPC and NDP to find money to buy good will, "slush fund" is the most reasonable hypothesis.

When "social" infrastructure was mentioned, the most common examples were "affordable housing" and "seniors centres".  You don't get to fill in the list of what you think it means; the LPC already stated their aims.  And in particular, "affordable housing" didn't mean "social housing" - when I searched for some details, I found the Liberal scheme was to somehow make housing more affordable for the middle class.  For example, one of their ideas was to free up federally owned land for development.  (As I wrote earlier on these boards, it'll be a neat trick if they can figure out how to release federally owned land for development in the Vancouver area without it immediately coming under several land claims.)

"Green" referred to airy-fairy generalizations which included "climate change" and "smart cities".  You may attach your own interpretation to those of course; to me, they mean "boondoggle" and "subsidies to otherwise non-viable businesses" and unwelcome future operating costs to whichever political jurisdiction is unfortunate enough to receive them (hence, white elephant).

The pre-election projections were for a surplus.  If the mood of the country has changed since the election, that is the new government's coat to wear.  Governments are responsible for the economic morale of the country in terms of what they say and do, even if they don't touch a page of legislation.  If trash-talking the economy and proposing deficits has persuaded Canadians to shrink their spending and thereby sent projections down, that is the Liberals' own fault.

 

[jmt18325]

My numbers are on.  The CPC program called for roughly $65 billion in infrastructure spending over 10 years and the Liberals promised to (almost) double it - $125B over 10 years was the figure repeated during the campaign.  The CPC spending was planned within a balanced budget; ergo, if the Liberals proposed to increase the commitment by $60B over 10 years the average deficit should not really be more than $6B even if the budget balance was on a razor edge.

No, they're not on:

https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/09/The-Liberal-fiscal-plan-and-costing.pdf

Page 13

When "social" infrastructure was mentioned, the most common examples were "affordable housing" and "seniors centres".  You don't get to fill in the list of what you think it means;

Social Infrastructure is a subset of the infrastructure sector and typically includes assets that accommodate social services. As set out in the table below, examples of Social Infrastructure Assets include schools, universities, hospitals, prisons and community housing.

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=definition%20social%20infrastructure

Words have meanings.

"Green" referred to airy-fairy generalizations which included "climate change" and "smart cities".  You may attach your own interpretation to those of course; to me, they mean "boondoggle" and "subsidies to otherwise non-viable businesses" and unwelcome future operating costs to whichever political jurisdiction is unfortunate enough to receive them (hence, white elephant).

Yes, those things are included:

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_what.cfm

So are windmills and energy retrofits, especially in a Canadian context dealing with cold.

The Liberals then went on to say this- dedicating this specific amount of money to these particular things allows you to use the rest of the money (the money already allocated by the Conservatives) for traditional infrastructure projects.

The pre-election projections were for a surplus.

And the economy changed from April to now.  That's no government's fault.

 

If the mood of the country has changed since the election, that is the new government's coat to wear.  Governments are responsible for the economic morale of the country in terms of what they say and do, even if they don't touch a page of legislation.  If trash-talking the economy and proposing deficits has persuaded Canadians to shrink their spending and thereby sent projections down, that is the Liberals' own fault.

You do a lot of assuming for someone with so little in the way of facts on your side.

 

[Brad Sallows]

In the summary provided here we find:

"Liberals: Promise largest new infrastructure investment in Canadian history. Plan would nearly double federal infrastructure investment to almost $125 billion — from current $65 billion — over the next decade."

and:

"New, dedicated funding to provinces, territories and municipalities for public transit infrastructure; social infrastructure (including affordable housing and seniors facilities, early learning and child care, and cultural and recreational facilities); and green infrastructure (including local and waste water facilities, climate resilient infrastructure and clean energy)."

Here we find:
"The Liberal Party is promising to run deficits of up to $10-billion a year over the next three years, touting a new infrastructure program as the best way to create economic growth and help balance the books by 2019.

Justin Trudeau’s pledge is putting the Liberal Party in a starkly different position than the Conservative Party and the NDP, which are both promising balanced budgets. Over all, the Liberals would boost federal infrastructure spending by $60-billion over the next decade, on top of the currently planned spending of $65-billion."

Confirmation here:
"Aug. 27: Increase federal infrastructure investment to almost $125 billion, from the current $65 billion, over the next decade. Provide new, dedicated funding to provinces, territories and municipalities for public transit, social infrastructure and green infrastructure."

Some descriptions here:
"Provide infrastructure funding for affordable housing, public transit, transportation, climate change and “smart cities.”"

Lots about social infrastructure here, including:
"We will conduct an inventory of all available federal lands and buildings that could be repurposed, and make some of these lands available at low cost for affordable housing in communities where there is a pressing need."

You'll have noted that I cited what the Liberals said about "social" infrastructure, not someone else's definition.  What anyone else thinks doesn't matter; what the Liberals think does matter.

There are no "facts" about why fiscal projections have changed; only facts about what the projections are.  I'll stick to blaming it on human behaviour, which is always subject to influence by changes in incentives and anticipated outcomes.

 

[Brad Sallows]

BTW: I have no problem accepting the cited $1.675B figures for each of the "big 3".  My "$2B" was always a rough estimate based on the idea that there were 3 categories divided across $60B across 10 years.  That leaves $5B in each of the first couple of years' projected deficits to be explained, rather than $4B.  That might be somewhere in the "plan", but the point is this: the campaign humbug was essentially "the Liberals will go into deficit $10B in the first couple of years to fund infrastructure investment".  So now we're down to $1.675 on nuts-and-bolts, ROI-type infrastructure investment, as a smokescreen for much of what is either outright misallocation of capital or plain old pork and promises.

[Add]And you may have the last word, if you wish, since this is off-topic for the thread.

 

[Kirkhill]

Much was made of PM Harper "pandering" to his base.  As much as PM Trudeau claims a mandate, in fact his adherence to his electoral promises in the face of stiff opposition from the populace at large, equally, could be described as "pandering" to his base.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Much was made of PM Harper "pandering" to his base.  As much as PM Trudeau claims a mandate, in fact his adherence to his electoral promises in the face of stiff opposition from the populace at large, equally, could be described as "pandering" to his base.

No matter what colour the Team, Blue, Red or Orange, pandering to the base "our most loyal supporters" is part of the MO. 

What intrigues me is the feel of PMJT walking through molasses as he defends policy promise x (pick one) in light of new factors y and z.

 

[Kirkhill]

No matter what colour the Team, Blue, Red or Orange, pandering to the base "our most loyal supporters" is part of the MO. 

What intrigues me is the feel of PMJT walking through molasses as he defends policy promise x (pick one) in light of new factors y and z.

Light on his feet, he isn't.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I suspect that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not, at all, "disappointed" ~ gleeful is, in fact, my guesstimate of his reaction. Our prime minister wants "out," he doesn't want to be dragged farther "in," not, at least, without an explicit, unanimous UNSC call for direct action as cover.

Remember, please, who I think is whispering in his ear, showing him "the way" ...
.
.
.
.
.
                   

And this, a UNSC Resolution that, explicitly and unanimously “calls upon member states that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures ... on the territory under the control of Isil [Isis]" coplicates matters. It would make it easier to stay in the coalition if that is what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wanted to do ... it makes it harder if, as I suspect, he and his advisors and most of his base really want out. I believe that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was serious in expressing his own sincere views (and those of his closest advisors) when he excoriated Prime Minister Harper for "whipping out his CF-18s."

 

[Cloud Cover]

Lots about social infrastructure here, including:
"We will conduct an inventory of all available federal lands and buildings that could be repurposed, and make some of these lands available at low cost for affordable housing in communities where there is a pressing need."

well, one unanticipated outcome of the above will be slum housing on Federal lands, something the Federal government already cannot deal with competently on First Nations lands. It is this type of thing that created the large Muslim ghetto's in France, where miscontent and malfeasance, in fact downright hatred of indigenous French people, is part of the social culture. Way to go Pierre Justin.   

edit to add, just to get this back on track, if one thinks these things will not affect Canadian foreign policy, they better get their head out of the sand. it will be immigrants who settle on these developments. These places could be breeding grounds for a large future problem where the disaffected and unsatisfied rise up and strike here and at home.