Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Earlier discussion

Jeffrey Simpson on the 2007 Harper budget

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 2:14 AM EDT 22/03/07

Jeffrey Simpson took your questions ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Frankie @^_^@ from hamilton, Canada writes: Quebec cries and Ottawa shovels.The more they cry the more Ottawa shovels.You can have caravans of money going there and still they will cry. This time the bloc figured the caravan would be as long as it gets so they shmooze up to the liberals.
    My overtime money , being used to bribe people. UNREAL
  2. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: This is a brilliant strategic budget that places the PC's as the only party looking at the big picture. They goaded M. Dion into focussing on one issue, the environment and then he linked it to the pocket book thereby self-destructing. The PC's had open ground to produce a Paul Martin budget that says 'I dare you.' A 'family friendly suburban' budget simply reflects the new Canadian reality and needs, as shown in last week's census numbers. Green is a concern, but in this overtaxed country the budget is everything.
  3. garlick toast from mill village, Canada writes: what's the difference between farmers and fishermen/women?they both have heavy capital costs,engage in a seasonal harvest and depend upon market forces to determine their net income.and yet fishers[including those who are owners/operators] receive e.i. benefits when not persuing their trade.my wish would be that farmers get the same deal.i don't fish or farm but i am a canadian.
    regards,
    stephen g.
  4. G. Veneta from Calgary, Canada writes: The biggest waste of tax money ever. The biggest spenders in the history of Canada and for what.....peanuts for suburbia....the concept killing the planet?? THIS HAS NOTHING OF VISION FOR CANADA AND NOTHING FOR THE 'BIG PICTURE'.

    Larry Robinson of Whiterock.....go read and understand the budget before you display your ignorance. B.C. got thrashed! They're including the sky high real estate values in equalization so you're toast--just keep giving your money to Quebec! Harper also reneged on his promise to provide flood and emergency planning money to B.C. on top of other broke promises to B.C--less money to fight the pine beetle..... Go read a paper before you repeat your cult mantras. This budget was directed to stupid Canadians period and seems we have a number of them.
  5. B R from Canada writes: First Quebeckers felt they were bought with the Sponsorship Program and now they are bought with the Fiscal Imbalance Program. What is the Difference ??

    Auditors General : On guard !!!!!!
  6. MJ Patchouli from Regina, Canada writes: Gilles Duceppe just rose in the house in response to Diane Ablonsky thanking his party for propping up the government, and said it's all about the money -- and responded in English that when Boisclair wins in PQ next week, all the money the conservatives have thrown at pandering to Quebeckers will go toward programs for an independent Quebec.

    I hope Charest loses just so Canadians can see how ugly Steve can get.
  7. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: If the Liberals had brought in this budget, a Conservative opposition would have been scathing; and, what's more telling, so would conservative circles throughout the country. Instead, the West and traditional conservative supporters, while raising their eyebrows at such a 'liberal' budget, are also holding their tongues. Why is that, do you wonder? It is likely because they know--or have been told--that this 'Liberal' budget is simply giving the population what it traditionally wants so that the Harper government can win its majority. The real conservative budget will come after the majority is won. Then, the middle class, education, infrastructure, the environment, the poor (even more than this time around), the arts, etc. will take a very distant back seat to budget support for big business--especially the energy sector, the military, and the internal security forces, including the building of more prisons. Messrs. Harper and Flaherty have done nothing to soften Canadians' cynicism about politicians and politics; however, you can bet they will be more open about their true intentions when it is safe to do so.
  8. Stringer's Smarter Cousin from London, Canada writes: '...but in this overtaxed country the budget is everything. ..'

    ............Well, excuse me, but the Harper government RAISED my taxes in the previous budget and this one brings no relief. Conservative supporters keep yapping about being overtaxed, but where is the beef? Tax reductions for the most of us are few and far between; the Liberals did a better job of cutting income taxes over the last years of their regime than the Conservatives have done. All hat, no cattle; that's Harper!
  9. Santino DeGasperis from Toronto, Canada writes: Stephen Harper is obviously playing a very strategic form of chess with the Canadian public right now. If and when he does win a majority, the 'Hidden Agenda' will be hidden no more. If Harper succeeds in targeting the 'Battlers' then we will see an attack on single people, couples without children, The 'Gay' community, and other alternative lifestyle groups which will be the majority in 20 years. Pandering to the middle class may win elections, but in 'Tory Blue', will seriously injure the progressive social fabric of Canada.
  10. Ken Lawson from Richmond BC, Canada writes: This budget is not good, to much money for Quebec, getting more than their fair share, year after year, no matter what Party is in Power. Quebec is not a have NOT HAVE province, this all b.s.! Keep out of BC !
  11. bruce reid from Toronto, Canada writes: Nick Wright - wow. Paranoid much?
  12. G. Veneta from Calgary, Canada writes: Nick Wright from Halifax. GREAT POST AND EXACTLY MY FEAR!! The silence is deafening so perhaps all part of the 'playing along' with the game to manipulate the masses until they get their majority.

    The most cynical budget and waste of money this country has ever witnessed. Directed directly to reward and seduce their base paid for by the rest of Canadians.

    No big plan just cookies to bribe the children.
  13. Rick Drysdale. from Sidney B.C., Canada writes: Nick Wright from Halifax
    I think you may be right in that this is what they may be planning. I do not think that this will work for this bunch.
    They have betrayed too many of the people whey need to get them re-elected with a majority.
    Given their recent lies and deception I cannot believe them. Their word is worth nothing to me.
    I also really do not know at this time what party I will vote for in the next election. Having said that I do know what candidate I will actively work against.
  14. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Nick:-- Those are my sentiments, exactly. There is no vision for Canada, no we're-in-this-together, no creativity, no national aims - just parochial self-interest. It's all about a big pot of money and who gets to have his or her vote bought (or pandered to). Personally, I would like to see an international expression of what it is to be Canadian other than military materiel and might, but I fear that that's the road we're heading down. The CPC are just putting blocks up so that we can't see beyond the bend. I just don't trust these guys - at all - and no amount of 'fairy dust', as one pundit put it, will make any difference.
  15. Ranald Walton from Hamilton, Canada writes: If anybody doubts Mr Harper's ability to grow the Conservative base (bake a bigger pie as Ms Stronach used to say), this budget should dispel those. As Dion moves his party to the left, the middle has been opened up to the Conservatives, and with this budget, they have taken it. I don't think there is any rush to call an election because the problems of the three main opposition parties will continue to grow (the Liberals will continue to suffer new revelations of past excesses and current leadership woes, the PQ's one trick pony is on its last legs and the NDP are being crowded by the Greens and Dion's Liberals). The next decade is the Conservatives' to lose. As a supporter, I'm not sure I like seeing the Conservatives become Canada's 'natural governing' party, because of what that power did to the Liberals. Even with a majority, I doubt whether there is much leeway a government has in dealing with most of these issues. The Conservative majority that will follow either this year or the next, will still govern from the centre notwithstanding the shrill accusations of 'hidden agendas'. It would be nice to see a 'government in waiting' materialize over the next decade, to replace the new bums if taxpayer cash starts again being passed around in envelopes. I guess at least we can finally dispel that nonsense about the Conservatives' 'hidden agenda' (which really was to govern like Liberals except without the scandals).
  16. John Doucette from Manotick, Canada writes: There is but one political party the corporatist party. God bless our virtual democracy!
  17. Cameron Reid from Toronto, Canada writes: This is by far the most blatent sellout for political gain I've ever seen. The depths that Harper will sink to to get power is frankly very frightening.
  18. Richard Hawrelak from Sarnia, Canada writes: Simple question. What is the formula for the fiscal imbalance that gives Que. 40%? How can Ontario adopt the Quebec formal to breakeven with them?
  19. Derek Holtom from Swan River, Canada writes: wish I had asked him how Quebec is considered a have-not province.
  20. dwight tanner from Vancouver, Canada writes: Just because the provinces take the federal government's money doesn't mean they will be loyal.
  21. marvin krawec from Canada writes: The first priority of a politician is to get elected. The second priority is to get re-elected.That is what Mr. Harper is doing. He is trying to suck people in with this budget only to throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing should he be fortunate enough to elect a majority. In most cases, what Mr. Harper is doing , is recycling the Liberal initiatives to which he objected when he was in opposition.There does not seem to be any strategic plan in this budget.
    The increase in spending from this budget is some two and one-half times the annual GDP.
    It seems to me that income tax was increased last year.Therefore, there is very little gain, if any, for the average person.
    I think Senator Gladstone's comment about politicians is appropo at this time.'Some politicians have as much regard for the truth as a tom-cat has for a marriage liscence'.
  22. roshan daver from Toronto, Canada writes: Everyone awaited the budget with baited breath.....there was a large surplus and the possibilities were endless. Not investing in children and education, being tight with the enviroment (short sighted). The oil sands the worst polluter gets off lightly indeed. The equalisation payments are a joke because they are giving tax payers what they took away in the first place, leaving them no better off in the long term. A much better way would have been to reduce federal taxation and what happended to the promice of healt care , we all know our health care system is a real mess , yet they choose to spend on the armed forces instead. Another thing was the promice they broke with taxing Trust funds, many pensioners and seniors had a larger ammount of their portfolio tied up here, due to this promice. What has been done here is curry the peoples favour in the short run so they get a majority and once that happens, watch out....the lizard will crawl out and swallow the supposed butterfly up whole, with a drastic shift in their real agenda. Very unfortunate but ture, but the people will realize and when election time rolls around they will know that the Conservatives will drag us back into the dark ages once more much like whats happening in the U.S.A leading the country into a recession. A very bad budget, short sighted and totally self serving.
  23. David Palmer from Canada writes: Jeffrey Simpson is absolutely right: if the Liberals had produced this budget, the conservatives would be screaming and the conservative hacks would be piling all over this.

    So much for Harper standing by his supposed principles and convictions. Broken promises, flip flops, hypocrisy, big spending, surpluses, polling, focus groups, vote buying, making deals with the Bloc. I guess he'll do anything to get votes.

    Why aren't the conservative supporters saying these things about Harper that they heaped on Martin?

    I see only two possibilities: Either they are so completely and blindly partisan, or they think that Harper is just doing this to fool Canadians into giving him a majority before he reasserts his right-wing convictions.
  24. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: G. Veneta - B.C. has not learned the lesson of Quebec or Alberta, vote in a block (Bloc) for political power and economic control. Or in the case of Saskatchewan, send quality people that will be in Finance ( i.e. Ralph Goodale). Getting thrashed? Ottawa has not determined the fate of B.C. since Confederation - we have minimal representation and what we get, we get.

    Pine beetle and flooding - all the money in the world will not stop either of these natural phenomona. Only the desperate would think government can do something about pine beetles.

    You're right about real estate, but you see I am an independant entrepeneur who does not whine or snivel about transfer payments or government supporting me - I sell real estate and am doing very well, thank you.

    Gotta go to work. How does it feel to be totally stripped of your platform except Kyoto - you can have it and try to sell it.

    Lovely day on the coast, cherry blossom, daffodils, Liberals crying ...
  25. Gary Christian from Canada writes: Hard working Canadians have had their tax dollars being used to shut-up the cry babies in Quebec. Harper is trying to by votes much the same way Mike Harris (a conservative!!!) did in Ontario and look what happened. If Harper wins a majority government, things will not be the same as they are now. The real Steven Harper and true conservatives will paint this country with their own intentions and disregard the voices of the electric.
    All this budget is doing is trying to help Harper win a majority government. God forbid!!!!!
  26. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: Larry Robinson, it is obvious you didn't read this because the exact opposite was concluded. There is no big picture that the CPC were looking at and they have no real strategic economic plan for the country. As Mr. Simpson pointed out and I have also pointed out in these discussions, the Liberals did have a plan for building Canada for the knowledge-based economy. The pittance that the CPC gave CIHR is but one example of how they just don't get it. Read the discussion. This is exactly what Simpson says and I agree 100%. We require leaderships not this simple solutions for simple minds approach of the CPC. Playing to the suburbanite crowd that is focused always on me, me, me, is NOT leadership. Building a future for their children is leadership. Harper is very good at strategy but very poor on leadership and even worse on policy. The last two budgets have proven this.
  27. Jim Zawacki from Thunder Bay, Canada writes: The biggest blunder in this budget is that the Conservatives did not follow the advice of the finance committee who recommended a 10% tax on income trusts in lieu of the 31.5% proposed. This recommendation would have solved the tax leakage they could have grandfathered the existing trusts and not allowed any new trusts and took sometime to study the impact on the economy. An article in the Globe and Mail stated that over and above the initial 25 billion loss of investors money the final figure could top 1 billion dollars. Not only that but the American private equity funds have 160 billion dollars ready to go and takeover our energy sector. Which will result in another sell out to the Americans. Brings to mind the Avro Arrow project and Nafta all under Conservative governments. The Conservatives critize the Liberals on their conduct then turn around and lie outright we will not tax income trusts. I will never trust any political party in the future. I will vote against the Conservatives till they are out in the cold again. This budget is all about an election and getting elected. Once again trying to buy votes especially in Quebec. The communities in Northern Ontario are being devastated due to the forestry crisis nothing in this budget to address this crisis. We really know what it feels like to be second class citizens in the north. I cannot wait till the next election so I can cast my vote against this government of first class morons. Mr Flaherty was part of the Harris experiment which set the Province of Ontario back 10 years. What a poor excuse for a Minister of Finance, J Zawacki
  28. Don Wells from Calgary, Canada writes: Interesting that the Conservatives trying to win a majority is so roundly criticized by the left. It seems to me the left has sacrificed its soul for majorities! A hidden agenda--Lots of unfounded accusations for many years. This unfounded FUD tactic has inured the public to it. So reducing taxes with the savings in interest in paying down the debt is right wing conspiracy to enrich the rich. Incresed RESP and an RESP type plan for the mentally and otherwise impaired child is enriching the rich. I think the left has been prempted in the area of the family. Big government and administration such as that proposed by the Liberals for hard caps for C02 emissions, gun control doesn't do families any good. A Paul Martin budget--I hardly think so
  29. Peter Fink from Canada writes: One good thing for Harper is,that the Liberals left enough money in the kitty.Now they can spend it right and left too look good.No complaining here from the Tories about the 'bad' Liberals.
  30. Clark Kent from Canada writes: I don't see any non-partisan strategy in this budget. Meaning, nothing beyond vote buying. If Ottawa doesn't want to help Canadians succeed in the new competitive world we have a Federal government with sense should dissolve more powers so the Provinces can. (Equalisation certainly doesn't help.)

    I've said it before: Most Conservatives and Liberals are the essentially same. Only insignificant issues truly separate them. This is reflected in the parties we have in the Commons. (I pray for electoral reform in Ontario.)
  31. Gabriel Dumont from Canada writes: Hey Nick Wright: What's wrong with building more prisons? Look around -- there are a lot of people who should be in prison.
  32. Nancy Nuschke from Halifax, Canada writes: I see a some clouds gathering over Mr. Harper's hopes for a bribed Quebec. Correcting the supposed 'fiscal imbalance' was supposed to help cash-strapped provinces pay for essential services like healthcare, infrastructure, and education. However, Mr. Charest just announced that he will distribute the extra budget money to Quebecers as a tax cut. I don't think people in other provinces are going to be too happy about their tax dollars being 'redistributed' so Quebecers, alone among the provinces, can have lower taxes. Can anyone spell 'backlash'?
  33. Sue Steeves from Hannon, Canada writes: The new budget, what a crock. I fear that Mr. Harper is trying to bribe Canadians with this budget and if he ever wins a majority government we will see the REAL budget. This is so far off what the Conservatives really think and sadly many Canadians will buy into it.
    Not to mention he has probably really upset the auto industry and anyone that owns a larger vehicle. I know that they take more gas, but depending where you live, sometimes you need the larger ones. We are out in the country and in the winter a small car would never make it out to the highway. My vote never was with Mr. Harper and never will be.
  34. Steve G from Canada writes: Bang on Mr. wright.
  35. G. Veneta from Calgary, Canada writes: Actually Larry we all know it's to be pouring rain yet again after 6 months of the same so spare me the blossoms.....most are suffering deep SADS and realtors are up there with politicians and their value they add to society so evident why you are a loyal Con. A cad but then anyone can be a realtor out there better than a job at Tim's eh?! Sounds like you'd fit in better here in Alberta. Must be lonely out there for types like you. Only the very dim and witless buy into this crap called a budget. On mass it's dismissed as the biggest attempt to bribe votes this country has ever seen ....conservative integrity and principles at their finest. Soon the grownups will be back taking care of the country.
  36. B Fulsom from Menlo Park, United States writes: Simpson's very insightful as always, but there were a couple of zingers in here that are just too much. 'Fortunately, the government's fiscal position is so good...This is the Liberal legacy...' I think Mr. Simpson's definition of the 'Liberal legacy' differs substantially from what springs to the minds of most Canadians. 'The Chrétien-Martin government actually had a plan...I see no evidence that the minority Harperites are interested in that kind of planning.' Check the calendar, 1997 was 10 years ago. The Liberal glory days are long gone. Oh, the pains of a moderate centrist with a sinister ex-Reformer in power and the nerdy opposition wobbling out in left field. How will Canada ever survive? Perhaps Hot Air will have all of the answers...
  37. B Fulsom from Menlo Park, United States writes: Nick Wright, I agree, and that's what I'm counting on. Once they've bought and we've paid for their majority, they can get back to slashing taxes and programs to the bone. I mean really...increased funding for environmental and women's issues? This wouldn't even be a remote idea if the CPC had a mandate now. This budget is a farce to get elected, and as much as conservatives rightly hate it, I think they're willing to accept the short term risk if it somehow gets enough seats in Ontario and Quebec to win an election. I say bring back the hidden agenda after this hypocritical spending spree!
  38. N Witen from Montreal, Canada writes: Mr. Simpson is absolutely right. If we do not start creating some leadership in the market (be it research-based, technical-based or whatever) we are going to seriously fall behind the international marketplace. As other 'traditional' Canadian sectors are being hit financially, the Conservatives should be looking to diversify our economy to meet new growing market trends. This budget is short-sighted. Moreover, this budget completely ignores the young individual just entering the market, be it single or married without children. There are many of us and we also form part of that suburbanite demography. Canada needs these individuals as much as the family-income and more so since they are the ones who can leave the country altogether for better, more lucrative opportunities. I've seen people scoffing at these 'poor' individuals who didn't get a tax break, and worse, whose taxes probably went up from the last budget. If Harper and his gang is unwilling to create opportunities then why should we stay?
  39. jason davidson from Victoria, Canada writes: A subtle but very considerable consequence of the CPC budget is that is discourages Canadian companies from expanding outside this country by ending the tax deductibility of interest payments to finance expansion by our businesses. On the face of it, the NDP types and CPC stormtroopers will cheer this. However, the future implications are sinister; our already timid resource corporations which are being bought out by foreign multinationals will further be discouraged from expanding. They will therefore become juicy targets for foreigners. Inco, Falconbridge, Fairmont, Shell Canada represent just the start of what will become an accelerating trend where Canada sells out its treasures for short term gain. Of course , the shameful attack on income trusts will further hobble our own local companies and make them prime, cheap targets for foreign multinationals. Is this what you really want to be our future??? I never though electing a Harper government would give us the social policies of the Christian Heritage Party and the economic polices of the CPC - the COMMUNIST PARTY OF CANADA.
  40. CHP My vote from Ontario, Canada writes: I take great exception to Mr. Simpson saying that the Universal Child Care Benefit is a measly $4 per day 'Milk Peanut Butter Sandwich' money. $100 per month may not seem like a lot of money, but when you have 2 or 3 kids under six, that's 2 or 3 Hundred dollars for the month. I'll have you know thats a BIG help in my house! Not only that, but with stay at home moms, we get a piece of the pie this way, with the Liberal way, we'd pay but wouldn't get the benefit. Just you try to take that from us now!!
  41. Frank Godfrey from Canada writes: Where is Ottawa anyway ? I hear they have some National Museums there ?
  42. Gord Jenkins from Ottawa, Canada writes: There is a Federal budget surplus - which means we are being taxed too much? Right so far?

    The answer appears simple - dont tax people - ordinary Canadian people - who are paying taxes so much.

    Case in point - why tax Canadian Old Age Security AND Canada Pension Plan for poor old retirees ?
  43. Discussion Board Moderator from Canada writes: 1. Garlick Toast writes: 'what's the difference between farmers and fishermen/women?'

    Garlick, farmers grow things on land for people to eat. Fishermen take fish from the sea. As for women, you should ask your dad about the difference.

    2. V. Venetta writes: 'Larry Robinson of Whiterock.....go read and understand the budget before you display your ignorance.' Venetta was the first person on the thread to personally attack another poster rather than set out ideas. We take it from that that V. Venetta has nothing in the way of ideas to offer and so V. Venetta, you're our 'Jerk of the Thread'.

    Congratulations. We're sure you're a repeat winner.
  44. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: With all respect for Mr. Simpson and his followers, this is the headline of the lead editorial in the Vanouver Sun, March 20, 2007:

    'Masterful budget takes the wind out of the opposition's sails.'

    It's the largest circulation daily in the lower mainland and I am a little disappointed that I am not in the minority.
  45. Dennis Petruk from Canada writes: Simpson's take on the budget is extremely biased, as in supporting what the Liberals are saying word for word. Do you have no original thought?
    To say the Child Support parents are now getting is a sandwich and a drink, is right out of Scott Reids' playbook, remember ' popcorn and beer'. How arrogant of both of you.
    I think the leftists are freaking out because the Fiscal imbalance is code for decentralization. Ottawa will stop being the 'big brother' to Canadians and the Provinces will have some control over programs they are responsible for. The feds have no right to dictate to provinces how they run their programs which have provincial jurisdiction. This is how things worked in the Chretien/Martin fiasco.
    It would seem that your article critizes anything the bill has to offer. The fact this is not shared by most pundants, tells me some reporters have their own adgenda.
  46. Steve (not the paunchy, controlling, paranoid Steve of Ottawa) from Alberta, Canada writes: A near-Liberal budget being applauded by Conservatives?? Hmmm, I guess their glee is because they know this will garner votes, which is necessary to give them a majority, which will then allow them to rule in the 'right' (right-wing) way they prefer. What follows will be program-slashing, tax-cutting (mainly to benefit the wealthy), further privatization of healthcare, right-wing paranoid judges etc. - all the things conservatives REALLY want. Followed by being voted out of office & centre/centre-left gov'ts for most of the following decades (as always happens in Canada) & the development of another 'true', 'grassroots' right-wing movement. And repeat.
  47. Patricia McDevitt from Toronto, Canada writes: What is in this budge for a single middle aged working
    person NOTHING
  48. b mac from Canada writes: Regardless what Canada's Yuppie reporter thinks ' the Conservative budget is good for Canadian families.' My beef is with Liberal leader Dion who had the nerve to vote against the budget before he even read it. I hear he still hasn't read it? There are free cancer vacinnations for young girls, closing of tax havens, fresh water money, money for children with families. I can only think of one item that is not good for Canada. That's equalization I would have included house prices in the equalization formula.
  49. Robert Lepage from Canada writes: CHP, Mr. Simpson is correct. That $2-300 you would be getting is taxable. You are literally getting about 4$ per day. It would have been a better investment to put the money into daycares. Three hundred dollars may be of use in YOUR house, but you get a better benefit to cost ratio by investing this money into daycares. There is nothing stopping you from putting your children into daycare! And I'm not the only one who thinks this. If you check it out, the only organisations who support this 'beer and popcorn' free money are right-wing partisan groups (generally affluent, where the man is the main bread-winner with 6 digit salaries... but people don't want to hear this, so shhhhh... don't ruin it!)
  50. B Fulsom from Menlo Park, United States writes: CHP My vote from Ontario, Canada writes: 'I take great exception to Mr. Simpson saying that the Universal Child Care Benefit is a measly $4 per day 'Milk Peanut Butter Sandwich' money.'

    It's the same logic people use when they say a 1% GST is meaningless, an unusable few cents at Tim Horton's, as though it doesn't add up to the same $300 of your money the government sits on for a year. I don't really follow his point here either. Mr. Simpson loves to complain about bottomless pit healthcare spending, yet he seems to favour a big government childcare scheme. I guess maybe if you listened to the CBC, paid attention to special interest group whining, and met some aboriginals, you'd understand. :)
  51. Kurt H from Vancouver, Canada writes: I think if the current government was serious about helping all Canadians, because we're apparently so overtaxed, they would have done something akin to having a flat tax and raising the deductible to $24k for people before you start paying taxes. This would be a more fair and even taxation policy that would truly help lower earners.

    Raising the bottom tax tier and giving people a break on the GST, when most of the things poorer people buy are GST exempt anyway, isn't an honest attempt to help those lower-middle earners who are overtaxed.

    This is a targeted atempt, as many have pointed out, at getting Quebec votes and furthering their social conservative belief that we need more stay at home moms pumping out kids.

    As for the selling out to get/stay in power, why are you so surprised? They ALL do this. They're all, essentialy, the same. These guys like to talk about openess and transparency and ethics but it's all a bunch of horse pucky. It's really lust for power, ego and greed.
  52. Kurt H from Vancouver, Canada writes: I tend to disagree with Mr. Simpson on his point about having to increase our productivity. Increased productivity is euphamism for squeezing employees as much as possible, lowering wages with technology and slashing jobs due to automation/outsourcing.

    I don't believe for a moment that companies who invest in technology will increase wages, hire more and become globally competitive with China and India's cheap labour forces.

    I hope I'm wrong, but I think the next generation of North Americans, perhaps not Mexicans, will suffer a drop in their standard of living. With decent paying manufacturing jobs becoming history, how many people can be salespeople or provide services in an economy? Who are going to be all the people buying things when the vast majority are struggling to get by on McJobs and the cost of living increasing MUCH faster than wage increases?

    I'm not concerned for myself, but I DO worry about the younger generation.
  53. K. B. from Canada writes: G Veneta, you are in serious need of perspective. 'The biggest waste of tax money ever. The biggest spenders in the history of Canada ...' ???? What about Martin's 15% year-over-year increase in his budget? Or Trudeau's similar 15% hike in 1974-75? Compared to those, this budget is peanuts. Give the hyperbole a rest. It's more like you hate that Harper's read the Liberal book, and is using it against you.

    I don't care at all for the increased spending (if you govern like a Liberal, then you've effectively defeated yourself), and the lack of any across-the-board tax cut, but it is what it is. I am astonished that the Liberals don't love this budget, it could've been written by them!!! Flaherty for me is basically in last-chance saloon. I have to hope he honestly intends to fulfill his promise to keep spending to the level of growth in the economy, averaged over 4 years. That would call for serious restraint in the next two budgets. Either that, or phenomenal economic growth (this budget projects growth of 2.3% and 2.9% for the next two years). It means any excess revenues for the next 2 years will have to go towards tax cuts.
  54. K. B. from Canada writes: G Veneta: 'Soon the grownups will be back taking care of the country.'

    Just feeeel the arrogance in that statement eh? I wonder how many people's parents (the grownup Liberals) looted their kid's savings accounts for their own ends???

    Doctors orders: fill up the kitchen sink with water and ice, and throw your head in there three or four times. That should stop the swelling, plus also wake you up from your stupor.
  55. CHP My vote from Ontario, Canada writes: Robert Lepage from Canada writes: CHP, Mr. Simpson is correct. That $2-300 you would be getting is taxable.

    Okay Robert, it's taxable if your lowest income earner actually makes a taxable income. My wife doesn't so, we keep all that money.

    It would have been a better investment to put the money into daycares.

    My kids are a far better investment than bricks and mortar for a building my friend!!

    There is nothing stopping you from putting your children into daycare! And I'm not the only one who thinks this. If you check it out, the only organisations who support this 'beer and popcorn' free money are right-wing partisan groups (generally affluent, where the man is the main bread-winner with 6 digit salaries...)

    Okay, there's something else I take great exception to. I'll have you know that I make $50,000 per year and my wife stays at home. We own our house (mortgaged) and have 2 vehicles. Don't tell me you need to make 6 figures to make that work! It's the same as people who think you need to make millions to send your kids to a private school, that's totally not the case. But that's another conversation.
  56. PJ Casey Jardine from Canada writes: wow - people don't like this budget - they are really a ME crowd. When are Canadians going to realize that the government is not there to pay for everything you would like. Your have your family that was not the decision of the government - you had them you raise them with your money not mine. You want an education fine - get it but no one paid for my education but my family and I so you want it go get it but I have no intention of paying for it. The liberal govenment has been in power too long with their culture of entitlement and it sure has rubbed into the heads of the average Canadian. Wow people start looking after yourselves and you will be much happier.
  57. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: How refreshing to have Mr. Simpson tell it as it really is! Mr. Harper has not had a unique thought in his brain nor does he have proper vision. He has borrowed many of the policies from the Liberals (some of which he cut and now is bringing back in poor formalae) or from the Americans, like the capital gains suggestion in the previous budget which was such a disaster in the U.S. that he just decided to pretend it didn't happen. I am waiting for the polls, hoping they will not be as corrupt as they were in the last election. Every time I received a phone call from a pollster, the only answer which could be given was in favour of Stephen Harper and then CTV proudly gave the results!
  58. Mike Jewczyk from Toronto, Canada writes: This is just a get me elected budget, the Liberals are proud!
  59. clayton hann from gander, Canada writes: Michael and Jeffrey may find NL's premier Danny Williams stand on equalization laughable but it was a commitment given by Mr. Harper in writing. An untrustworthy prime minister is no laughing matter. What I find laughable is the whining from some quarters in mainland Canada over the fact that $billions from the recent budget are being poured into Quebec to be used, among other things, to lower their taxes. When it comes to being ripped off by Quebec, join the club, Danny Williams is the president. Quebec realizes $billions from NL over the obscene one-sided Upper Churchill hydro contract (which thankfully expires in 2041). Also Quebec will not allow electric power transmission across their territory from potential large hydro power developments in Labrador. Meanwhile, the feds recently announced plans to phase out the coal fired electrical generating plants in Ontario which account for 9% of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions. They will provide $586million for an east-west electrical grid to Manitoba to allow power hungry Ontario to import clean hydroelectric power. Funding will help develop the Conawapa hydroelectric project in Northern Manitoba. I suspect some of the power will help Thompson and Sudbury process nickel concentrate shipped from Voisey Bay, NL. What is the chance of a similar announcement for NL? I would suggest none. Considering the ripoff of our natural resources, maybe the two aforenamed gentlemen can understand why the equalization agreement previously negotiated in good faith is of such importance to NL.
  60. david beed from cole harbour, Canada writes: Man people on the left just can't stand it ,Harper is a populist not a hard right wing nutjob from the deep south.If the man was back in Calgary he'd be driving a minivan going to 6 am hockey practices trying to get out of taking his daughter to dance class and worrying about his bills just like MOST of the rest of us.The left goes on about a hidden agenda ,lets see gay marriage yup still legal, abortion yup,comments or views from the religious members of the tory caucus nope,but he is paying down the debt to the tune of 22 billion so far. Not bad for 14 months in office.Harper is on a long term plan to change how we see ourselves. In ten years we will all be less in debt we 'll feel safer in our communities, all types of families will be better off and the country of Canada will be able to better defend itself. If that bugs the left then move to France.
  61. jason davidson from Victoria, Canada writes: It certainly isn't a Paul Martin or John Chretien budget as those budgets were quite prudent from a spending point of view. Further, the budget is very targeted. It doesn't give broad tax relief equally or equitable. Rather, it focuses on buying very specific votes for Harper with our money!!! I had to laugh on the CBC comment by Jeffrey S. - I don't think Harper catered the budget to those who read the Globe & Mail either - more like someone who reads the Enquirer and watches Fox News!!! In fact, if you are any of the following: single, have no school age kids, double income couple, live in Saskatchewan, high income earner, native, an investor you are SOL. Most fascinating, however, is that Harper also appears to be attacking the Canadian Establishment and the socioeconomic echelons just beneath them - the budget, the failure to follow through with the capital gains promise, the attack on ATM fees, the elimination of the tax break for companies to expand outside Canada, the income trust attack etc. etc. As Jeffrey S. and others have very perceptively pointed out, Harper is snubbing/attacking (deliberately as revenge for being an outsider perhaps???) the folks who read the Globe & Mail Business Section, listen to CBC FM, own shares in Canadian banks and perhaps live in places like Rosedale in Toronto or Mount Royal in Calgary (yes - Calgary, Alberta!). But that's actually consistent with the election rules brought in by Harper to end corporate donations and place limits on the amount of individual contributions. I wonder though whether those people are going to hit back and how when they see their influence being attacked by a conservative govt. no less??? This could get very interesting!

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top