And pay them like they are best and brightest . Pity .
WE really need to get rid of this guy
- Thread starter Retired_Can_Soldier
- Start date
The Liberal government (& later the NDP/Liberal Government, in their Non-Coalition Coalition that’s definitely Not a Coalition) managed to pass a budget with almost half a trillion dollars in spending. Half a trillion!
Since coming to office fewer than eight years ago, the Trudeau Liberals have increased federal spending from $281 billion to $497 billion. That’s an increase of 76% at a time when the national population increased 21%.
And that’s not because of the pandemic.
Even if you account for all the extra billions in pandemic relief, and you figure in population growth and inflation, the federal government is still more than 20% larger than when the Liberals took over.
That’s an enormous expansion with almost nothing to show for it.
Most of it is money spent on raises for civil servants, bonuses for civil servants and adding more civil servants. The federal workforce is almost a third larger than in 2015. And in just the past three years, the average annual federal civil servant’s pay, with benefits and pension contributions, has gone from $117,500 to $125,300.
This year’s budget increase, to what was already excess spending, is one of the things the Liberal-NDP cohabitation arrangement achieved this session.
apple.news
More at the above Link…
Since coming to office fewer than eight years ago, the Trudeau Liberals have increased federal spending from $281 billion to $497 billion. That’s an increase of 76% at a time when the national population increased 21%.
And that’s not because of the pandemic.
Even if you account for all the extra billions in pandemic relief, and you figure in population growth and inflation, the federal government is still more than 20% larger than when the Liberals took over.
That’s an enormous expansion with almost nothing to show for it.
Most of it is money spent on raises for civil servants, bonuses for civil servants and adding more civil servants. The federal workforce is almost a third larger than in 2015. And in just the past three years, the average annual federal civil servant’s pay, with benefits and pension contributions, has gone from $117,500 to $125,300.
This year’s budget increase, to what was already excess spending, is one of the things the Liberal-NDP cohabitation arrangement achieved this session.
GUNTER: Liberal achievements take Canada backwards — Toronto Sun
The House of Commons rose this week for its summer recess and a lot of people seem to think the Trudeau government accomplished very little in this parliamentary session. I beg to differ. The Liberals and their NDP gofers accomplished quite a lot. All of it bad. First, the government managed to...
All those new liberal voters was accomplished .The Liberal government (& later the NDP/Liberal Government, in their Non-Coalition Coalition that’s definitely Not a Coalition) managed to pass a budget with almost half a trillion dollars in spending. Half a trillion!
Since coming to office fewer than eight years ago, the Trudeau Liberals have increased federal spending from $281 billion to $497 billion. That’s an increase of 76% at a time when the national population increased 21%.
And that’s not because of the pandemic.
Even if you account for all the extra billions in pandemic relief, and you figure in population growth and inflation, the federal government is still more than 20% larger than when the Liberals took over.
That’s an enormous expansion with almost nothing to show for it.
Most of it is money spent on raises for civil servants, bonuses for civil servants and adding more civil servants. The federal workforce is almost a third larger than in 2015. And in just the past three years, the average annual federal civil servant’s pay, with benefits and pension contributions, has gone from $117,500 to $125,300.
This year’s budget increase, to what was already excess spending, is one of the things the Liberal-NDP cohabitation arrangement achieved this session.
More at the above Link…GUNTER: Liberal achievements take Canada backwards — Toronto Sun
The House of Commons rose this week for its summer recess and a lot of people seem to think the Trudeau government accomplished very little in this parliamentary session. I beg to differ. The Liberals and their NDP gofers accomplished quite a lot. All of it bad. First, the government managed to...
I'm not so sure new immigrants will vote Liberals. If they are given the information as to what the Trudeau government is doing, in all likelihood they won't vote for them if it means going back to ghe type of government they fled from. They just need to be informed. If the conservatives do that, they'll get their votes. The issue is will Conservatives do the job. That is the question.
Can’t watch two hour interviews , ten minutes at a time works better
I watched that one , but the Tamara Lich was an hour and three quarters .
A progressive public policy think tank is urging the federal government to side against oil and gas transmission giant TC Energy in its ongoing dispute with the United States over the ill-fated Keystone XL project.
How can our Prime Minister not be against a pipeline? Regardless of the situation?
WASHINGTON - A progressive public policy think tank is urging the federal government to side against oil and gas transmission giant TC Energy in its ongoing dispute with the United States over the ill-fated Keystone XL project.
The Calgary-based company is seeking to recoup US$15 billion in lost revenue from the on-again, off-again cross-border pipeline expansion, which President Joe Biden killed off for good in 2021 on his first day as commander-in-chief.
The lawsuit is based on the investor-state dispute rules in the now-expired NAFTA, as well as that deal's successor, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which included a three-year extension of those rules for so-called "legacy" investors.
A new report to be released Wednesday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives recommends Ottawa back the U.S. defence: that TC Energy has no legal recourse under North American trade rules, past or present.
"Though the TC Energy dispute pits a Canadian company against the U.S. state, it does not follow that it is in Canada's interest for TC Energy to prevail," the report reads.
Rather, it argues, the case represents an important chance for both governments to defend their ability to pursue climate-friendly public policy without being forced to "unjustly" enrich impacted investors.
"The Keystone XL case is a clear example of a company wanting to be compensated for making a risky bet," wrote senior researcher Stuart Trew and Queen's University professor Kyla Tienhaara, the report's co-authors.
The gamble, they say, was on the 2020 re-election of former president Donald Trump, who championed and resurrected the project in 2017 after it had been rejected by the Obama administration two years earlier.
"This bet didn't play out."
The dispute is being heard by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, a World Bank offshoot based in Washington, D.C., that registers dozens of investor-state clashes from around the globe each year.
At the moment, it's about jurisdiction: TC Energy wants to apply the now-defunct investor-state dispute settlement mechanism in NAFTA, which expired in 2020, since the project traces its lineage as far back as 2008.
The company hopes to use a three-year grace period for NAFTA disputes that was included in the new USMCA, known in Canada as CUSMA. By the report's count, some 15 investors including TC Energy lodged their disputes after NAFTA expired but before the grace period ended April 30.
Five of those cases, including Keystone XL, are based on alleged violations of NAFTA rules that occurred after the agreement expired — in TC Energy's case, Biden's decision to withdraw the presidential permit in January 2021.
The U.S., however, is arguing that the grace period was not intended as a "sunset clause" for NAFTA disputes, but "an orderly way to resolve prior disputes" that were left outstanding after the deal's expiration.
"The U.S. argues that, had the CUSMA parties wanted to simply extend NAFTA's investment rules and ISDS procedures for another three years, they would have done so through a boilerplate sunset clause," the report says.
TC Energy is disputing that interpretation, arguing it hasn't been floated before and that there is no evidence to suggest that U.S., Canadian and Mexican negotiators envisioned anything other than a sunset clause for resolving disputes.
There is more at stake than just TC Energy's eye-popping damages claim, the report says: An early dismissal of the suit would mitigate the ongoing cost of the global energy transition, not just for the U.S. but the rest of the planet.
A host of other legacy cases under the USMCA rules are still outstanding, and amount to compensation claims in excess of US$23 billion.
"This is why Canada’s next move, and that of Mexico, is so important," the report says.
"A win for TC Energy would send a devastating message to countries around the world, most of which cannot afford to finance the transition to clean energy while also paying off the fossil fuel industry."
Canada has two options to influence the tribunal, the report notes.
One is to work with the U.S. and Mexico on an official, binding interpretation of the rules from the USMCA Free Trade Commission, while the other would be a "non-party submission" directly to the tribunal itself.
"Due to the novelty of the U.S. argument and its fundamental importance to the operation of the CUSMA, a no-show from Canada at this stage of the arbitration would signal to the tribunal that the U.S. position on the legacy provisions is not credible," the report says.
"It would also demonstrate that the government is more interested in bowing to the interests of the oilpatch than in the correct interpretation of treaties."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 28, 2023.
WASHINGTON - A progressive public policy think tank is urging the federal government to side against oil and gas transmission giant TC Energy in its ongoing dispute with the United States over the ill-fated Keystone XL project.
T he Calgary-based company is seeking to recoup US$15 billion in lost revenue from the on-again, off-again cross-border pipeline expansion, which President Joe Biden killed off for good in 2021 on his first day as commander-in-chief.
The lawsuit is based on the investor-state dispute rules in the now-expired NAFTA, as well as that deal's successor, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which included a three-year extension of those rules for so-called "legacy" investors.
A new report to be released Wednesday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives recommends Ottawa back the U.S. defence: that TC Energy has no legal recourse under North American trade rules, past or present.
"Though the TC Energy dispute pits a Canadian company against the U.S. state, it does not follow that it is in Canada's interest for TC Energy to prevail," the report reads.
Rather, it argues, the case represents an important chance for both governments to defend their ability to pursue climate-friendly public policy without being forced to "unjustly" enrich impacted investors.
How can our Prime Minister not be against a pipeline? Regardless of the situation?
WASHINGTON - A progressive public policy think tank is urging the federal government to side against oil and gas transmission giant TC Energy in its ongoing dispute with the United States over the ill-fated Keystone XL project.
The Calgary-based company is seeking to recoup US$15 billion in lost revenue from the on-again, off-again cross-border pipeline expansion, which President Joe Biden killed off for good in 2021 on his first day as commander-in-chief.
The lawsuit is based on the investor-state dispute rules in the now-expired NAFTA, as well as that deal's successor, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which included a three-year extension of those rules for so-called "legacy" investors.
A new report to be released Wednesday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives recommends Ottawa back the U.S. defence: that TC Energy has no legal recourse under North American trade rules, past or present.
"Though the TC Energy dispute pits a Canadian company against the U.S. state, it does not follow that it is in Canada's interest for TC Energy to prevail," the report reads.
Rather, it argues, the case represents an important chance for both governments to defend their ability to pursue climate-friendly public policy without being forced to "unjustly" enrich impacted investors.
"The Keystone XL case is a clear example of a company wanting to be compensated for making a risky bet," wrote senior researcher Stuart Trew and Queen's University professor Kyla Tienhaara, the report's co-authors.
The gamble, they say, was on the 2020 re-election of former president Donald Trump, who championed and resurrected the project in 2017 after it had been rejected by the Obama administration two years earlier.
"This bet didn't play out."
The dispute is being heard by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, a World Bank offshoot based in Washington, D.C., that registers dozens of investor-state clashes from around the globe each year.
At the moment, it's about jurisdiction: TC Energy wants to apply the now-defunct investor-state dispute settlement mechanism in NAFTA, which expired in 2020, since the project traces its lineage as far back as 2008.
The company hopes to use a three-year grace period for NAFTA disputes that was included in the new USMCA, known in Canada as CUSMA. By the report's count, some 15 investors including TC Energy lodged their disputes after NAFTA expired but before the grace period ended April 30.
Five of those cases, including Keystone XL, are based on alleged violations of NAFTA rules that occurred after the agreement expired — in TC Energy's case, Biden's decision to withdraw the presidential permit in January 2021.
The U.S., however, is arguing that the grace period was not intended as a "sunset clause" for NAFTA disputes, but "an orderly way to resolve prior disputes" that were left outstanding after the deal's expiration.
"The U.S. argues that, had the CUSMA parties wanted to simply extend NAFTA's investment rules and ISDS procedures for another three years, they would have done so through a boilerplate sunset clause," the report says.
TC Energy is disputing that interpretation, arguing it hasn't been floated before and that there is no evidence to suggest that U.S., Canadian and Mexican negotiators envisioned anything other than a sunset clause for resolving disputes.
There is more at stake than just TC Energy's eye-popping damages claim, the report says: An early dismissal of the suit would mitigate the ongoing cost of the global energy transition, not just for the U.S. but the rest of the planet.
A host of other legacy cases under the USMCA rules are still outstanding, and amount to compensation claims in excess of US$23 billion.
"This is why Canada’s next move, and that of Mexico, is so important," the report says.
"A win for TC Energy would send a devastating message to countries around the world, most of which cannot afford to finance the transition to clean energy while also paying off the fossil fuel industry."
Canada has two options to influence the tribunal, the report notes.
One is to work with the U.S. and Mexico on an official, binding interpretation of the rules from the USMCA Free Trade Commission, while the other would be a "non-party submission" directly to the tribunal itself.
"Due to the novelty of the U.S. argument and its fundamental importance to the operation of the CUSMA, a no-show from Canada at this stage of the arbitration would signal to the tribunal that the U.S. position on the legacy provisions is not credible," the report says.
"It would also demonstrate that the government is more interested in bowing to the interests of the oilpatch than in the correct interpretation of treaties."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 28, 2023.
WASHINGTON - A progressive public policy think tank is urging the federal government to side against oil and gas transmission giant TC Energy in its ongoing dispute with the United States over the ill-fated Keystone XL project.
T he Calgary-based company is seeking to recoup US$15 billion in lost revenue from the on-again, off-again cross-border pipeline expansion, which President Joe Biden killed off for good in 2021 on his first day as commander-in-chief.
The lawsuit is based on the investor-state dispute rules in the now-expired NAFTA, as well as that deal's successor, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which included a three-year extension of those rules for so-called "legacy" investors.
A new report to be released Wednesday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives recommends Ottawa back the U.S. defence: that TC Energy has no legal recourse under North American trade rules, past or present.
"Though the TC Energy dispute pits a Canadian company against the U.S. state, it does not follow that it is in Canada's interest for TC Energy to prevail," the report reads.
Rather, it argues, the case represents an important chance for both governments to defend their ability to pursue climate-friendly public policy without being forced to "unjustly" enrich impacted investors.
How did all these anti everything groups get to be labeled progressive? They are anything but.
No idea. I also have no idea why the US government wants Trudeau to back them against the Alberta Based TC Energy…if this is a Slam-Dunk Case like they are saying in the article above….???
I mean, it’s not like Trudeau won’t be against in Alberta based pipeline company…. But why they push from the US government? Something is stinky here.
Biden is anti-everything O&G which is why he kyboshed the XL pipeline on his very first day so of course, do you expect him to do anything else? They don't want pipelines in the U.S. either so both Trudeau & Biden are following the WEF agenda 2030 don't 'cha know. How they expect anything to run after 2035 or so is beyond me as electricity has to come from somewhere & needs to be stable and apparently, that's not an issue ????????
Gung ho on solar & wind I guess & regular black/brown outs are in the future ??????
Its was because of the lobbying of three huge privately owned rail tanker companies. Not enviro or any other concocted bullshit.
And repaying the favour to the Michigan governor Gretchen something or another, who back to him for his presidential bid…