September 21, 2015

Trudeau finally admits it: His "infrastructure" plan is really social program spending

Brian LilleyArchive

I've pointed out before that what Justin Trudeau means by "infrastructure" isn't what most Canadian voters think of when they hear that term: things like roads and bridges.

No, the fact is that two-thirds of Trudeau's plan really involves social engineering: "green" (and more costly) energy courtesy of Trudeau/Kathleen Wynne advisor Gerald Butts; and what Trudeau calls "social infrastructure" -- such things as childcare and affordable housing.

By the way, he's not even talking about building new day care centres and old folks homes, either.

Trudeau is talking about social spending that would mimic Quebec's "affordable" child care program.

He's been cagey about all this, but Justin finally admitted all this today.

What he doesn't want you to think about his the fact that his "infrastructure" plan will cause massive structural deficits.

READ Brian Lilley's book CBC Exposed -- it's been called "the political book of the year.”

SIGN UP FREE for Election 2015 coverage from The Rebel team!
Don't miss a minute of our exclusive interviews and investigations!

GET YOUR "I'M A HARPERMAN" t-shirt ONLY from The Rebel Store!
Now in THREE fun designs (and ladies' versions, too.)

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-10-19 00:38:03 -0400

The Trudeau policies will be destructive ! Vote Conservative OR ELSE expect job-killing national prohibition against pest control products from Liberals and New Democrats ! If successfully elected to power, Trudeau’s Liberal Party will lead to destroyed businesses, killed jobs and hardship for people, and weakened communities ! Under a Liberal government, Trudeau will impose fanatical national prohibition against safe and effective pest control products that are desperately needed by the agriculture, golf, and professional lawn care industries. Thomas Mulcair has been held accountable for destroying more lawn care businesses and killing more lawn care jobs than any other person on the planet ! From 2003 to 2006, when Mulcair was Environment Minister in Quebec, he imposed fanatical prohibition which inflicted widespread and extensive job-killing business destruction and business failures leading the owners, employees, and families dependent on professional lawn care businesses to face destruction, terror, despair, and destitution. Since 2006, Mulcair’s prohibition has spread beyond Quebec, leading to even more business destruction and business failures. If successfully elected to power, Mulcair’s New Democratic Party will further impose fanatical national prohibition against safe and effective pest control products. The ONLY SANE CHOICE for the agriculture, golf, and professional lawn care industries is TO VOTE FOR THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA ! Canada’s Conservatives will NEVER, EVER, impose any NATIONAL job-killing prohibition against pest control products. Prime Minister Harper is NOT a job-killer, but Trudeau’s Liberal Party and Mulcair’s New Democratic Party BOTH INTEND TO IMPOSE RECKLESS NATIONAL PROHIBITION ― and BOTH WILL INFLICT CATASTROPHIC JOB-KILLING BUSINESS CARNAGE ! We hope Prime Minister Harper and his Conservatives are re-elected with a strong majority. WILLIAM H GATHERCOLE AND NORAH G

commented 2015-09-25 10:42:09 -0400
On one level it is profoundly moral that this man seeks power. Oh well, pays better than substitute teaching.
commented 2015-09-22 19:18:18 -0400
Apparently he has some education, though you would never know it by listening to him.

“Trudeau has a Bachelor of Arts degree in literature from McGill University and a Bachelor of Education degree from the University of British Columbia.” – Wiki
commented 2015-09-22 19:14:01 -0400
Keith, I think you are correct. I think he is a university drop out. I am going to look that up.
commented 2015-09-22 19:12:09 -0400
I seem to remember hearing that Master Trudeau actually dropped out of University. Dose this mean that we will have a High School Graduate for a PM, if, God help us, he is elected?
A vote for Trudeau or Dulcair, is a vote for Shria Law and the dogma of Islam. Trust me.
commented 2015-09-22 19:11:33 -0400
Yea, nice of him to offer to the CBC our money. Socialists are real good at giving away other people’s money.
commented 2015-09-22 19:04:26 -0400
Hey, he promised to give the CBC a wad-load more of our money. Nice of him.
commented 2015-09-22 16:09:44 -0400
Marty, I think that Trudeau does not even realize how stupid he really sounds. From what I have be observing, he really thinks that he is an intellectual. He personifies perfectly the old adage, “Ignorance is bliss.”
commented 2015-09-22 15:45:08 -0400
How does this guy live with himself?
commented 2015-09-22 13:47:38 -0400
Lynn Seguin,
It is Liberal policy to make vague promises to vague categories of Canadians. This way, they won’t feel so bad when they actually screw the middle class.
commented 2015-09-22 12:38:31 -0400
Mr. Double speak is trying to con us with outrageous Social Program spending that is already not working in Quebec – while hiding the truth by calling it Infrastructure spending!
Don’t be duped!
commented 2015-09-22 12:08:29 -0400
Got a laugh out of the staged/hired Progs in the background, all wearing their new shiny Liberal red hard hat, new swanky vest, with their high heels, flip-flops and birkinstocks. Phony JT and his phony regular folks.
commented 2015-09-22 09:18:58 -0400
The race to the bottom is on with Trudope or Dulclair. Who will be the winner?
Using their bogus calculators both have a good chance. The voters will have to decide which commie pig is most brain dead.
commented 2015-09-22 06:45:06 -0400
I don’t know what he means when he throws around the word Millionaire either; but apparently they are the scum of the earth. Does that mean someone who makes a million a year or has a million dollar home in Toronto or a million in retirement assets? I don’t know what taxing the rich means either. I assume it means anyone making over $200K in Ontario and $120K in Alberta. I don’t think these people are rich. Aren’t they the middle class?
commented 2015-09-22 01:38:21 -0400
No wonder the Conservatives have pulled out ahead in the polls—almost a full percentage ahead of the Liberals and half a percent above the NDP. The Conservatives are now solidly above 30%. I suspect it has something to do with the new campaign manager Inger Stojberg.
commented 2015-09-22 00:21:55 -0400
Recently a Liberal party candidate came to my door pushing his party and Trudeau . He actually used these words: “Trudeau is a real leader” . Now when you have what appear to be sound minded, normal looking people making statements like that, believing it, and running for political office is their any hope for this country anymore??
commented 2015-09-22 00:15:55 -0400
Greece, here we come, if God forbid, this little commie gets in.
commented 2015-09-21 23:19:00 -0400
So let’s review this
-33%………….Windmills and solar panels(all of Obama’s investments into this has gone bankrupt)
-33%…………..Social infrastructure without any tangible infrastructure. Mind blowing
-33%…………..Skimming off the top of the first 66% by friends of the Liberals. A time tested proven Liberal tradition.
-1%……………..Brain Research. Particularly, the correlation between being a Liberal and being brain dead.

Don’t anybody go against that 1%. Canada needs this
commented 2015-09-21 21:18:07 -0400
Handouts to First nations for daycare – cause everyone knows how people on the rez have the same needs as yuppie DIOKs (double income one kid) from GTA.

Given the LPC’s long history of vote buying and patronage, “social infrastructure” is Libe code for rebuilding their patronage base with borrowed moolah. The LPC was and still is a “brokerage party” selling political influence to a patronage clientel. When that evaporated as they sat in the opposition bench, their funding went with it – LPC does not have “doners” they have a client base – and here it comes again Adscam 2.0
commented 2015-09-21 21:14:41 -0400
This plan appears to be contained in a report called … Recycling Ontario’s Assets .. by the MOWAT CENTRE
This report was completed for the Liberal government of Ontario in April of 2014.

Note who the ADVISORY PANEL MEMBERS are ..

Tony Dean, Professor, School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto
Shirley Hoy, CEO, Toronto Lands Corporation
Don MacKinnon, President, POWER WORKERS UNION
Duncan McCallum, Managing Director, PUBLIC SECTOR AND INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP, RBC Capital Markets David MacNaughton, Chairman, StrategyCorp Inc.

Author info
MICHAEL FENN is a management consultant and Board Director. For seven years he was an ONTARIO DEPUTY MINISTER, also serving as Chair of Ontario Realty Corporation, before which he was chief municipal administrator for Burlington and Hamilton- Wentworth. Following his RETIREMENT from the Ontario public service, he was founding CEO of a regional health authority (LHIN) and the regional transportation authority Metrolinx. He now serves on the Boards of OMERS AC, Toronto Lands Corporation (TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD) and McMaster University.

» Many of the accounting, audit, and tax rules currently
governing the disposition of public assets will need to be
reformed. We have designed these rules with the public
interest in mind, but some have come to undermine good
public policy. Currently, it is often necessary to book the
proceeds from an asset sale in the year in which the sale
took place, rather than allowing the proceeds from an asset
sale to be saved, invested or deployed in ways that re-
invest in public assets over a longer time horizon.

Phase One of the ‘Asset lifecycle’: The Acquisition Phase of Public Assets

In the ‘acquisition’ phase, funds are used to build or acquire public assets. Governments have a variety of options. These
include the manner in which the asset is created or assumed, and whether the private sector or other governmental or non-
profit partners can contribute to the efficiency or productivity of the asset being acquired.

Using output-focused specifications, or design-build construction processes, governments can benefit from the innovation and
expertise of the private sector, including performance-based contracts and innovative financing mechanisms that serve the
needs of both the government and its partners.
Infrastructure Ontario (IO) has pioneered a largely successful model to build, finance, operate and ultimately transfer public
assets, ranging from hospitals to municipal transit. One of the less noted elements of the IO process is the industry-wide
effect of its rigid adherence to standard procurement processes and standard contracts, with few change orders. Some have
complained of these practices, and suggested that they fail to include policy considerations or to promote diversity and innovation in bidding. However, the IO processes have created a level of predictability that attracts return bidders and reduces
the need to price-in uncertainty risk.

One of the major hurdles to private investment in “smaller” infrastructure projects (i.e., below $100 million) is the extensive
and idiosyncratic ‘due diligence’ process that investors must conduct before they are willing to commit their funds, especially
over the long term. Standardization and a potential to “bundle” similar projects opens the door to many smaller provincial
and local government infrastructure projects that might otherwise not attract the interest of major construction firms,
pension funds and other domestic investment pools. Given that many public asset projects are small, both in the ‘acquisition’
and ‘disposition’ phases of the cycle, it is useful to attract
investors to projects that may be “small” but are important
to the communities that they serve.

The capacity of the private sector to operate public assets
can be enhanced (and its bids made more price-competitive)
if it has the opportunity to integrate or re-engineer the
various components of the asset.
Too often in government, however, the potential for
increased asset performance through integrated approaches
is compromised. Some capital projects, for example,
have removed supporting services that would likely have
benefitted from competitively bid contracts, such as HVAC,
laundry, catering, vehicle maintenance, back-office systems,
etc. If bidders know that they will have responsibility for
operating key elements of a new facility or service, not just
building it or financing it, they will be much more likely to
invest in longer-lived and productivity-enhancing designs
and technologies. They will also have a stronger incentive
to commit to ongoing maintenance and refurbishment to
protect the value of the asset.

Privatization advocates often favour fully integrated DBFOM
models (design, build, finance, operate, maintain) for this
reason. This strategy emulates the practices of turn-around
investors in the private sector, who seek internal synergies
and use cross-subsidization of business units, along with
a reassessment of lines-of-business, to achieve a more
productive, revitalized whole enterprise.
Governments do not need to own an asset in order
achieve an outcome. They can ensure facilities or services
are provided through regulation and other methods.
Governments have the option to “own” a service or facility,
or just to “cause” the service or facility to be available to the
public on reasonable terms and conditions, including serving
‘marginal’ customers or regions. Governments can regulate
to ensure that policy objectives are achieved. For example,
governments have made this choice in the energy sector,
where electricity became a group of public assets, whereas
the natural gas network was created through standardized
municipal franchises and regulatory oversight. The same
choice is often available to those considering a new
expressway, airport, transit facility, or major bridge project.
For the past century, Canadian governments have favoured
the “we’ll do it” approach without much consideration of
the alternatives. Globally, there are many different approaches
to asset acquisition. Given the current fiscal and political
environment, governments should consider these successful,
alternative approaches in order to create maximum public value.

Phase Two of the ‘Asset lifecycle’: The Operation Phase of Public Assets

Once established, public assets require continued
reinvestment, development and review. Operators must
explore options to contain costs, increase operating
revenues, improve delivery models, and enhance client and
citizen experience. Above all, operators must achieve the public
policy objectives for the asset and enhance public value.
Key to these ongoing activities is looking at the public asset
as both a public-policy vehicle and a business operation,
with the former typically being a narrower frame of reference
than the latter. A useful way to see this distinction is to
consider the typical city parks and recreation department.
Municipalities offer a range of programs and amenities
to serve the fitness and recreational needs of their
communities. These basic programs benefit from taxpayer-
financed facilities, like arenas or community centres. But the
program offerings, and their degree of cost-recovery, vary by
clientele and consumer appetite. Programs for at-risk youth
or those with special needs are subsidized. Other programs,
or premium-quality supplements to basic programs, typically
command a higher registration fee, a minimum threshold of
patronage, and charge higher user fees at popular times of
the day or week.

Governments can make important decisions that affect
the ‘operations’ phase of a public asset. If an asset is to
remain in public ownership for the medium or long term, the
government has the option to hive-off elements that are not
crucial to its public policy objectives if a more productive
or economical operating model is available. Governments
can contract for the services mentioned above (HVAC,
catering, laundry, vehicle, computer maintenance, and other
back-office systems), while maintaining full ownership.
Governments may own and operate highways, transit
systems, social housing units, cultural institutions and
landfill sites, but they can leave collateral, labour-intensive
functions to private providers (e.g., highway maintenance,
residential waste collection and recycling)
linking a public asset’s lifespan to its financing

It is important for governments to avoid creating conditions
during the “acquisition” or “operation” phases that
they might regret when subsequently considering the
restructuring or disposing of a public asset.

Often ignored is the fact that many public infrastructure
assets (bridges, hospital wings, water lines, generating
stations, etc.) have an initial ‘useful life’, after which they
may need replacement or refurbishment that may exceed
the asset’s original cost. In Canada, it is common for all
assets to be pledged as security for all government debt
obligations (“full faith and credit”). But there is an attractive
alternative practice which matches the purpose and / or
the term of debt-financing obligations to the useful life—or
extended life—of an asset. Project-specific financing is
common in the United States and in Europe. As noted, these
assets may be substantially repaired or refurbished to extend
their useful life, but those new investments and financing
obligations can also be financed on an amortization
schedule that parallels the extended life expectancy of the
public asset.

Over the past few decades, Ontario and its municipalities
have moved away from the historic model of tying specific
assets to specific financing. This shift in financing now
favours general-recourse debt and lump-sum capital
payments (e.g., provincial capital grants to the broader
public sector entities; development charges and developer-
financed growth-related civic infrastructure; and local
service improvements by the whole tax-base or all utility
ratepayers). While this may be easier, it is not necessarily
best practice.

This general-taxation approach rations capital in response
to taxpayer resistance, thereby denying specific projects
the opportunity to proceed based on the willingness-to-
pay or ability-to-pay of the direct beneficiaries or project
supporters, much less the need for new technology or
expanded capacity

The debt-service costs of general-recourse financing
also place a direct and tax-related burden on the annual
operating budgets of provinces, municipalities and other
broader public sector entities. It tends to encourage being
“debt free”—or at least debt-reduction—as a fiscal strategy,
which may appear laudable. However, given the need for
new and replacement infrastructure, “debt free” really
means deferring investments and deferring maintenance—
missing ‘installment payments’ on vital and underinvested
public infrastructure and other public assets.

The fiscally prudent practice of segregating capital and
operating expenditures should not come at the cost of one
another. For example, if a municipality or a P3 operator must
assume both the operating and ‘debt-service’ costs of new
infrastructure, they will (or should) pay much more attention
to designing facilities that have reduced maintenance needs
and / or that protect the initial capital investment through
programmed maintenance.

Government business enterprises (GBEs) also face the
lifespan challenge. As market conditions change and
technology advances, GBEs must evolve and invest to meet
public (and consumer market) expectations. New retail
formats for liquor stores, new smart-meter technologies
for electricity providers, new developments in the gaming
industry, technological and customer-service advances in
transportation—they all require GBEs to seek substantial
and ongoing reinvestment. Some of this reinvestment
inevitably comes at the expense of increasingly coveted net
government revenues from those enterprises. In other cases,
reinvestment is denied or delayed because of constraints
on the ability or willingness of governments to authorize or
finance them. In practice, a combination of capital rationing
by deficit-reducing governments and an understandable lack
of commercial expertise by public servants makes a strong
case for exploring private-sector options, either as equity
partners, or as owners or operators.

Freed from the constraints of the governmental decision-
making environment, and with the cost-benefit equation
deciding investment decisions, it is reasonable to assume
that public assets would benefit from technological
investment and productivity improvements, where they
enhance the performance of the asset.
commented 2015-09-21 20:38:08 -0400
What do you expect from a socialist? It’s hard ro find anything credible in anything he says because it’s sssooooooooo scripted and read like a teenager that can’t act in a poorly written high school play. I can’t believe anyone would actually vote for this idiot or any of the minions scurrying around under him.
commented 2015-09-21 19:56:11 -0400
“Fully ‘inclersive’ child care learning spaces”, says JT, meaning spending as much as it takes to make him literate.
commented 2015-09-21 19:20:58 -0400
How can a guy, a trust-fund kid, worth millions of dollars know anything about being middle-class? He wouldn’t know middle-class if it slapped him across the face. I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who said: “You can fool all of the people some of the time. Some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool ALL of the people ALL OF THE TIME.” I guess Justin thinks he’s smarter than Abraham Lincoln and will try to hood-wink us with his charm (dad’s side of the family) and his brains (mom’s side of the family). Justin Trudeau…middle-class my posterior!
commented 2015-09-21 19:11:57 -0400
Nothing new here folks, just more of two faced, lying Trudope and his sidekick Gerald Butthead.
The really sad thing about all of this is that there are so many people that just don’t give a dam and will vote for this empty, lying, a$$hole that is hell bent on bringing Canada to its knees. I was talking to a couple of friends of mine last evening that have decided that they will not vote conservative no matter what. When asked why they told me that they had seen a news cast on TV from Vancouver where the conservatives were campaigning at the same time as a rally for Terry fox. Supposedly the Terry fox people were told that if they voted for the conservatives and they won the election they would match all contributions. These ‘friends’ decided that because of that they would not vote for them – quote – anybody else but the conservatives. What the hell do you say to people like that?
commented 2015-09-21 18:44:41 -0400
If stupid fk troodo wins, incorporate and get on the Fed vendor of record and do it fast.

It will be Christmas time for the next few years.

Fraud for everyone. Just cut Ottawa the invoice for “nothing services” and keep billing. When they figure it out, admit it, say sorry and pay your $100 fine.