January 06, 2017

Trudeau to run deficits until 2055: Canada’s fiscal sustainability at risk

Brian LilleyArchive

Remember that promise Justin Trudeau made about running three small deficits? We called it a lie when he said it but, how big a lie are we talking?

Well a new report from the officials inside the finance department says the Feds will be running deficits until 2055.

Watch as I lay out the details of Jr. Trudeau's bad spending plan that will empty your pockets for decades to come.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-01-06 17:18:50 -0500
commented 2017-01-06 16:52:39 -0500
commented 2017-01-06 16:43:13 -0500
commented 2017-01-06 16:40:27 -0500
John Sicillano… Unfortunately you may be correct on all points.
This is all been predicted in scripture whether you believe in it or whether you don’t.
The globalists can only achieve their goal once all nations are properly broke and de-financed then the final step in their agenda can be forwarded.
commented 2017-01-06 16:39:36 -0500
commented 2017-01-06 16:39:25 -0500
All three mainstream parties want the NWO, more failed free trade, and both the Liberals and Conservatives haven’t said they oppose TPP and therefore probably do support it. Even the Conservatives sold out some industries to the Saudis.

Lilley might want to understand that privatization only works when the industry is not a crucial one like power in Ontario which should have remained public. Crucial or essential services should always be in public ownership to guarantee the lowest costs for consumers and society, and to create an environment of natural monopolies. How else do you think before 1995 in Ontario that provincially Ontario’s debt was not even that high. Debts across Canada looking at every single graph and chart will show that each province was tied to the Bank of Canada to fund projects and priorities, and PM King set it up as a public bank for monetary creation. The big banks only care about profit and print money at interest. Hence, Lilley, Levant and the people on here support fiat money, and not using the Bank of Canada.

They are also for private money creation and the international bankers getting a piece of the action.

Many on here do not research Rocco Galati’s case against the Bank of Canada, so we can have public money financing projects, and our debts decreasing.

Which is why the minor parties on the left and Christian right like the CHP all support using the Bank of Canada. The left wing minor parties include the Canadian Action party, Communist party and others. Centrist and centre-right minor parties include the Progressive Canadian party and the United Party. This is not a hard concept to understand. How else do you think America became the richest nation on Earth? They had the Greenback.

Vote for smaller parties!

commented 2017-01-06 16:31:17 -0500
Which is why I don’t understand why somehow conservatives will be better than liberals and that is still playing the left / right game as if any of the three mainstream parties are willing to change anything, and institute something to actually bring down the debts.

Don’t forget it was India that has a much lower debt to GDP than we do that brought in getting rid of higher denomination bills / rupees in their country, and that resulted in even worse problems occurring where people could not do anything.

The fact is all three parties in Canada seem to want a globalist government, and many somehow think that the Conservative party wants nationalism when they wanted tons of immigrants even more than the Liberals back in the 90’s coming in.

This is all just a game to Rebel and the people that head Rebel News. Quite frankly, only minor parties are truly willing to fix Canada and bring down our debts all over Canada, and not just federally but also provincially and municipally.

Another key aspect which proves all three parties are for debts and playing the game, in order to have politics for life and be a politician for life, is the idea of austerity somehow working to rein in spending. People think that debts and society can be managed like a household budget. Bringing back the Bank of Canada to finance projects and programs can go a long way. Check any graph from 1938 to 1974 and Canada averaged 10 to 22 billion during a 36-year time period. That proves that our entire political class does not care about debts and / or deficits. They want to use those ideas to win power and govern dictatorially. It is a shrewd way of wanting to frame politics, but many on here simply don’t understand that money in society has to be run and operated like a utility and it must be publicly-operated. It is as simple as that. Which is why the left-right paradigm is simply for marketing purposes, and only works on the easily-swayed, and those that think cuts alone will fix a society. It never worked with David Cameron, whose Great Britain now has an average deficit added in the tune of 1 billion per week. Britain is even worse than Canada right now with a debt of 1.4 billion and that was from 700 billion just 7 years ago.

Many have to understand that cuts alone do not fix economies. It is also because of the low GDP all over the West, and the fact that all manufacturing sectors in the West have been hollowed out due to free trade, globalization, and companies moving to developing nations.
commented 2017-01-06 16:03:50 -0500
Harper never had a 7.5 billion surplus. Where are you reading those numbers? All governments since 1974 have increased Canada’s overall debt, and people on the right were fine with it when Harper did it, and the fact is balancing the budget is just transferring the deficits to the debt, and simply Trudeau has shown that debts don’t matter, but he is being much more forthright about it and open about it, when Conservatives simply pretended to care about saving money.

It is really just about which government increases it the slowest.

But the Conservatives are also starving the beast and leading to less and less social programs and eventually and I keep saying this federally we may have a flat tax but provincially the other provinces will probably institute more and more taxes to offset the Conservatives.

I frankly don’t like either one of the three parties. They all agree with free trade, globalization, and more globalism, and more wars.

None of them truly agrees with a value-based currency or full employment or lessening the wars or lessening the globalization.
commented 2017-01-06 16:00:24 -0500
Why does Lilley make it seem like any of the three mainstream parties care about debts and deficits?! They all want to raise our national debt. Does he forget about Harper and his government adding 160 billion to the national debt and starving the provinces and why debts in all provinces and the federal government increased and went under Harper’s tenure or 10 year period from 700 billion among all provinces and the federal government and municipalities to approximately now 1.2 trillion on the low end.

Therefore, Lilley is just playing partisan politics and speaking to the choir.

Everyone knows that the mainstream parties all three of them serve the international bankers.
commented 2017-01-06 15:33:24 -0500
Never in the field of human stupidity has an electorate been so chronically under-equipped to handle the public debt it voted for.
commented 2017-01-06 14:39:31 -0500
Strange, isn’t it, that the previous government was capable of having a $7.5 billion surplus and within less than a year we now have $30+ billion deficit. How much of a deficit will we have this year? How many luxury cars do the Liberal MPs and their employees need at the taxpayer’s expense? Does Marc Garneau really need a German sports car when a Chevy Malibu will do nicely? How about something built in Canada that doesn’t have the moniker “BMW”?

The Liberals, especially the finance minister and our fearless leader Baby Doc Trudeau, can’t manage their own finances without funds from or left to them by their parents.

Baby Doc is very generous with our money, He has given away about $6 billion dollars to UN Climate Change (the joke of the century), and various dictatorships and Sharia countries. We pray that he doesn’t make “official” visits because of hir generosity with our tax money – which is also money that he borrowed supposedly for us.

Why is helping infrastructure in other countries so important and giving any money to projects in this country such a problem? Why are we expected to be his bankroll to make himself look good and to get a seat at the UN Security Council; most Canadians don’t give a spit about the Security Council.

Baby Doc has done everything to put the government’s hand in our pocket, paid for schemes already proven useless (Wynnemills, solar, hocus-pocus green projects) and done just about everything to kill jobs. Carbon Tax? Just about everything has and will give off CO2, and we are still waiting to see fact, not conjecture, that Global Warming is manmade and not a result of the sun, orbit, wobble, and continental drift.

We are so screwed, and the MSM doesn’t question. Sadly, most of the population takes what the news tells them as the whole story, Critical thinking has been drummed out of most voters.
commented 2017-01-06 14:17:59 -0500
Further to Dirk Kanis,

Ron Joseph, explain how the maximum pension split of $2000 puts billions into the pockets of the rich? This wouldn’t even be bubble-gum money for them. However, it is something significant to fixed income pensioners. So, like Dirk asked, explain this new economics to me.
commented 2017-01-06 14:17:12 -0500
You dumb ass voters wanted change and you got it.Don’t fire up any dubes yet that hasn’t changed pot head.
commented 2017-01-06 14:07:01 -0500
Addendum, Note that one of the variables not considered in the finance report is the Carbon Tax Extortion. I think the slope of the straight line can be significantly increased if this variable is considered.
commented 2017-01-06 13:58:26 -0500
@ Ron Jospeh,
What was the problem with income splitting, maybe i am missing something
commented 2017-01-06 13:56:38 -0500
In this story, we are also seeing the duplicitousness of the MSM. The narrative is that this is a straight line projection over the next 25-30 years based upon a few variables. Correctly, it is pointed out that many variables are involved and the straight line projection is a simplified model, that can change at any time pending other variables. Such is the reality of statistical models. For example, I refer to Andrew Coyne’s article in this morning’s National Post as being a good example of how the MSM considers the projection over-simplified, but at the same time he slams Baby Doc and his economics, so a decent article.

HOWEVER, the same MSM, including Coyne, will slavishly defend the Global Warming computer model straight line projections based upon statistical the forcing of a single variable, carbon dioxide; not empirical evidence nor multiple variables as this finance report does. From this comes the MSM defense of the carbon extortion. Duplicitous to the extreme.
commented 2017-01-06 13:55:15 -0500
Ron Joseph – you are again in denial of the facts, function and use of charter section 33 (AKA the notwithstanding clause) – it was included as a government over ride of the charter but limited to sections 2 (fundamental freedoms) and 7 to 15 (legal and equality rights) – all other sections of the charter are exempt from notwithstanding non compliance. That includes aboriginal treaty rights.

Secondly, section 33 has only been used 4 times, all by provinces and never by the federal government – in a case with aboriginal treaty claim over land use, section 33 would not apply, as for any contention with the federal government over resource development, this is the SOLE jurisdiction of the provinces – UNLESS IT IS A MATTER OF CROSS BORDER TRANSPORT OF THOSE RESOURCES – then the feds claim jurisdiction over only that part of the resource marketing cycle. FedLibs may try to claim more resource jurisdiction through environment or treaty protection but essentially this interference is “ultra vires”.

Harper was essentially powerless to do anything about native claims for or against resource development that is provincial jurisdiction, he did what he could by approving cross border pipelines – if the natives impact this this is a provincial matter to settle as both resources and land use dispensation are their exclusive jurisdiction. The provinces dragged their feet legally – Harper could have put an end to the endless nattering done in the “consultations” where every urban “born again native” exploited the process to waste time and money. Once the consultation was done , the feds responsibility to the natives ends. If they want to stop development on a land claim, that goes to provincial courts through provincial authority over land an resource development.
commented 2017-01-06 13:53:11 -0500
“2. Harpers terrible policies such as Pension and Income splitting for the Rich. Billions of our surplus dollars went to the rich.”

Billions? Such a gross exaggeration that it is humorous. Care to post some actual links to back up this claim or are we suppose to take your word on it?
commented 2017-01-06 13:32:05 -0500
Our own federal finance department has condemned Junior’s “budgets balance themselves” vacancy in fiscal policy – if you read through the report (and I did) these bureaucrats are speaking the same tone Harper took about “sustainable government entitlement liabilities” – what they are essentially saying in regular Tim Horton’s lexicon is that ridiculous spending and borrowing while running deficit budgets not seen since the 70s during a time when GDP is in negative numbers and unemployment is imperiling the continuity of things like CPP, EI and health care funding – they say that the glut of "McJobs that remain after this government has killed the high income jobs by stilling the national wealth engines of the resource dollar, cannot put enough revenues back in place to continue core social programs.

THAT is a damning statement of fiscal mismanagement from the government’s own finance department.
commented 2017-01-06 13:23:59 -0500
Lone Stubblejumper—-Although the MSM had a lot to do with Trudeau’s Victory, however their were three other reasons:
1.Mulcair’s policy in letting immigrants wear head covers at swearing in ceremonies. The Quebec voters (where most of his seats were) disagreed with this policy and voted for other parties, giving Trudeau the victory.
2. Harpers terrible policies such as Pension and Income splitting for the Rich. Billions of our surplus dollars went to the rich.
3. Harpers weakness in not using the notwithstanding clause on the Supreme Court decisions like the BC Indian claim that gave Reservations some decision making ability on land 100’s of miles away. The courts making Pipeline decisions should have been blocked by this clause.
The last time I mentioned this clause, Bill Elder said it was only for the Provinces. Bill was wrong; in fact I believe old Trudeau used it to change our Constitution in either Bilingualism or Multiculturalism, or both. Here it is:
It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause (or la clause dérogatoire in French), or as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override certain portions of the Charter. It was, and continues to be, perhaps the most controversial part f the charter.
By the way the last 3 lines are straight from the act; why bore us all with the whole act.
commented 2017-01-06 13:21:08 -0500
Just like spousal abuse or the beaten red headed step child, you have to distance yourself from your abusers.

Separation is the only answer!!!!!
commented 2017-01-06 13:16:05 -0500
This P.M.from QUE.could cut it down by defunding the C.B.C.
commented 2017-01-06 12:40:53 -0500
“Are the liberals that sure of themselves they will form gov’t for the next 38 yrs. Not on your life, because by then Canada will have disintigrated as a result of their attrocious fiscal leadership. "

The Libs are indeed that arrogant as to believe they will forever be in charge, that is why they want to tinker with the electoral system to ensure they will retain the power.

I do hope the Liberal voters are pleased with their stupidity, their grandchildren and great grandchildren will be paying for it provided Canada is still around in 2055.
commented 2017-01-06 12:20:44 -0500
SO, have we already decided we are going to allow him to stay in until 2055??
Hate to tell you but we aren’t going to be around then and nor will Canada! But don’t let that decide your vote. Him being a Muslim and promising to serve and protect them over us and Canada didn’t sway your vote the last election!
commented 2017-01-06 11:36:53 -0500
No worries. WHEN the Liberals planned fiscal collapse occurs Trudeau will use his recently enacted “bank bail in” law to pillage our personal bank accounts, leave all Canadians broke and continue on his “sunni ways”.
commented 2017-01-06 11:33:31 -0500
Trudeau is doing a bang up job at bankrupting the country.
More refugees, more carbon tax, more vacations, more conferences, more retreats, more summits, more jaunts coast to coast shooting the bull with his fans, etc, etc. Do anything he can possibly get away with so he doesn’t have to be in Ottawa to answer questions, for which he has no answer
Deficit till 2055, sounds a little rich don’t you think? Are the liberals that sure of themselves they will form gov’t for the next 38 yrs. Not on your life, because by then Canada will have disintigrated as a result of their attrocious fiscal leadership.
commented 2017-01-06 11:01:30 -0500
Who voted for this retard? A part time high-school drama teacher with nice hair who takes selfies and so obviously doesn’t have a clue about economics ? The MSM went out of their way to vilify Stephen Harper and promote this mindless twerp as an alternative. All we heard was “Stop Harper” and “Canadians want change”. The MSM is culpable in this as much as the Liberals for deceiving gullible voters. Now we’re all going to pay the price for this Olympian act of stupidity.