Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sorry man, you’re just not very smart about this stuff and it’s pretty evident. I mean, you’re going to pretend “most Canadians will see a net loss” and talk about “facts” when the fact is that you’re conveniently light on the details and that the report you’re citing is talking about 2030-31, where it shows the average Canadian will actually get more in payments than it spends on the federal fuel charge (directly and indirectly) and related GST. Them “facts”?

Or, no, you’re talking about the “fiscal and economic impacts” section, right? Where it lumps employment income and investment income together with the actual fiscal component, and declares that because Joe Blow isn’t getting as good of a return on his investment into the oil sands or because even one position is phased out of that specific industry the money I get back from the rebate doesn’t count as much because, you know, we’re all part of the average!

Here’s your clown makeup. You forgot it big boy. But I guess if the average Canadian understood that report the same way you did, it makes sense.

The fiscal impact is exactly the way we should be looking at it from a policy standpoint. Just because the amount of money you are losing is hidden doesn’t make it not real. A slight reduction in gdp as a result of the tax is okay. It’s still a good policy based on tonnes of carbon reduced.

[PepsiFree]

And, really, who do we think is actually right about the carbon tax?

The 200 economists who signed a letter supporting the carbon tax?

Or the freedom convoy apologists against it?

The CPC has sided with the latter, calling 200 of Canadas economists “so called experts” on… economics… wait… that can’t be right. Ah well, this is probably somehow the Liberals’ fault. After all, the carbon tax was so great in 2021 that even Smith loved it! But today, everyone but the actual experts agree, the carbon tax is vewwy bwad and the fact that the freedom convoy says so is allllll we need.

Experts? Boring. Throw “so-called” in front of that word and it doesn’t seem so special, does it? If that’s a good enough move to convince Firebot and curves, it’s good enough for .

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sorry man, you’re just not very smart about this stuff and it’s pretty evident. I mean, you’re going to pretend “most Canadians will see a net loss” and talk about “facts” when the fact is that you’re conveniently light on the details and that the report you’re citing is talking about 2030-31, where it shows the average Canadian will actually get more in payments than it spends on the federal fuel charge (directly and indirectly) and related GST. Them “facts”?

Or, no, you’re talking about the “fiscal and economic impacts” section, right? Where it lumps employment income and investment income together with the actual fiscal component, and declares that because Joe Blow isn’t getting as good of a return on his investment into the oil sands or because even one position is phased out of that specific industry the money I get back from the rebate doesn’t count as much because, you know, we’re all part of the average!

Here’s your clown makeup. You forgot it big boy. But I guess if the average Canadian understood that report the same way you did, it makes sense.

You basically mocked the PBO's own report and reporting methods just to get a chance for a one liner at me because you simply cannot accept data that the tax may have an overall negative monetary impact when more factors are included? That's pretty funny yet sad.

Yes, PepsiFree, if you do basic math and only focus on the basics, you come out ahead! That's what the Liberals have been selling with the Canada Carbon Rebate being a big quarterly paycheck courtesy of Liberal action. Basically you are readily admitting you will only accept stats that agree with your personal narrative?

https://pbo-dpb.ca/en/publications/R...emissions-2030

The report focuses on 2030, because it's called "A Distributional Analysis of the Federal Fuel Charge under the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan".

It's also focusing on 2030, because as you may or may not have noticed based on today, the carbon tax is not static and increases every year as part of the plan until we hit 170$ per tonne! Also to dismiss the number due to it being an average is quite the cop out. All but the lowest quantile and a couple provinces in the 2nd lowest come out negative, and the lowest quantile are households at or under the poverty line. Apparently the "most households" statement was just completely ignored by you.

If the Liberals came out and admitted that carbon tax is not meant to be revenue neutral, is a punitive tax to Canadians that will be costly but is worth it to fight climate change (well they can't because of that whole heating oil carve out for politics thing) at least it would be truthful. Instead, we have this rhetoric:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/car...%20in%20Ottawa.

Trudeau responded today that while the price on pollution is rising, so is the Canada Carbon Rebate.

"It's money in people's pockets while we continue stepping up in the fight against climate change," said Trudeau while making an unrelated announcement in Ottawa

It's ok, go right ahead make a quick one liner and sail on.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

The messaging here in Nova Scotia is not that Carbon Tax is bad per say, but that it shouldn't be on home heating oil.

Here's the thing. In principle I don't disagree.

If you want homes to stop heating with oil then new builds should be banned from using heating oil.

Have incentives to replace oil tanks/furnaces.

If a tank or furnace needs to be replaced there should be a program that renders it cost effective to switch to Heat pump/electric or whatever.

If you're a senior who always had oil, and are on a limited income switching could be cost prohibitive. But having heat in February is a necessity. So is taxing their home heating oil going to reduce consumption? Likely not.

If it's not going to reduce carbon emissions, and it's going to hurt low income Canadians, then I'm ok with the exception.

That said, I don't actually know about all this stuff. My stance is 100% open to change.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

The messaging here in Nova Scotia is not that Carbon Tax is bad per say, but that it shouldn't be on home heating oil.

Here's the thing. In principle I don't disagree.

If you want homes to stop heating with oil then new builds should be banned from using heating oil.

Have incentives to replace oil tanks/furnaces.

If a tank or furnace needs to be replaced there should be a program that renders it cost effective to switch to Heat pump/electric or whatever.

If you're a senior who always had oil, and are on a limited income switching could be cost prohibitive. But having heat in February is a necessity. So is taxing their home heating oil going to reduce consumption? Likely not.

If it's not going to reduce carbon emissions, and it's going to hurt low income Canadians, then I'm ok with the exception.

That said, I don't actually know about all this stuff. My stance is 100% open to change.

Does your position also extend to natural gas across the rest of Canada?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

The messaging here in Nova Scotia is not that Carbon Tax is bad per say, but that it shouldn't be on home heating oil.

Here's the thing. In principle I don't disagree.

If you want homes to stop heating with oil then new builds should be banned from using heating oil.

Have incentives to replace oil tanks/furnaces.

If a tank or furnace needs to be replaced there should be a program that renders it cost effective to switch to Heat pump/electric or whatever.

If you're a senior who always had oil, and are on a limited income switching could be cost prohibitive. But having heat in February is a necessity. So is taxing their home heating oil going to reduce consumption? Likely not.

If it's not going to reduce carbon emissions, and it's going to hurt low income Canadians, then I'm ok with the exception.

That said, I don't actually know about all this stuff. My stance is 100% open to change.

Home heating oil is the exact commodity you want to tax. It is where you have the largest affect. You have a lower cost substitute with a barrier to entry. You make the cost of heating oil so uncomfortable that people upgrade before the end of life of their boiler.

The whole point of the Carbon tax is brutal efficiency not caring about income. For these seniors eventually there will be businesses offering low cost loans and free heat pumps because the savings are so high.

Also using seniors is a cop out. There are many supports available for low income seniors. In fact seniors have the lowest rates of poverty of any demographic in Canada. You can throw out the whole program because a small portion of people is negatively affected. You could choose to subsidize them more.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Firebot

You basically mocked the PBO's own report and reporting methods just to get a chance for a one liner at me because you simply cannot accept data that the tax may have an overall negative monetary impact when more factors are included? That's pretty funny yet sad.

Yes, PepsiFree, if you do basic math and only focus on the basics, you come out ahead! That's what the Liberals have been selling with the Canada Carbon Rebate being a big quarterly paycheck courtesy of Liberal action. Basically you are readily admitting you will only accept stats that agree with your personal narrative?

https://pbo-dpb.ca/en/publications/R...emissions-2030

The report focuses on 2030, because it's called "A Distributional Analysis of the Federal Fuel Charge under the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan".

It's also focusing on 2030, because as you may or may not have noticed based on today, the carbon tax is not static and increases every year as part of the plan until we hit 170$ per tonne! Also to dismiss the number due to it being an average is quite the cop out. All but the lowest quantile and a couple provinces in the 2nd lowest come out negative, and the lowest quantile are households at or under the poverty line. Apparently the "most households" statement was just completely ignored by you.

If the Liberals came out and admitted that carbon tax is not meant to be revenue neutral, is a punitive tax to Canadians that will be costly but is worth it to fight climate change (well they can't because of that whole heating oil carve out for politics thing) at least it would be truthful. Instead, we have this rhetoric:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/car...%20in%20Ottawa.



It's ok, go right ahead make a quick one liner and sail on.

Maybe we should defer to Giroux himself?

Conservative MP Phil Lawrence asked Giroux whether there is ultimately “more money coming into Canadians’ pockets or leaving their pockets” for those where the backstop applies.

“If one looks at the fiscal impact, that is the amount of the carbon tax paid directly, indirectly and the GST that applies on these embedded direct carbon taxes paid minus the carbon rebate, most families are better off — we estimate around 80 per cent,” said Giroux.

But, it’s OK, that’s just “basic math” right? Here’s your smoking gun:

However, the numbers changed once the PBO included the economic impacts of the introduction of the carbon tax. The assumption is that the tax will have had an impact on some sectors of the economy, and therefore family incomes.

“Then, we find that most Canadian families, in provinces where the federal backstop regime is in place, will see a small negative impact of the carbon tax,” Giroux told MPs.

Ah, right, so the cold hard data that I’m not “accepting” are what the National Post refers to as “assumptions.” Damn, man. What a smoking gun. “Well, 80% of households are better off, but assuming the tax has a negative economic impact on incomes and investments… maybe not.” Firebot: OMG

With such sound data, that you’ve clearly seen, it is surely all encompassing, correct?

The Canadian Climate Institute, for example, accused the PBO of being “misleading” for failing to consider “economic benefits of carbon pricing and the costs of climate inaction, both in terms of stabilizing the climate and competing in a global economy racing to net zero.”

And this week, hundreds of economists signed an open letter saying that a national carbon price is the cheapest way to cut the most emissions, while disputing arguments put forward by Poilievre that the carbon price is driving up inflation and the cost of living.

You’re so confident, so the PBO must be, yeah?

However, the PBO did attempt to account for the cost of climate change in a report back in 2022. The analysis noted that extreme weather had already reduced Canada’s GDP by 0.8 per cent between 1981 and 2021 and that the GDP could be further reduced by five per cent by 2100. But the report noted that “accounting for the cost of climate change is not straightforward.”

Liberal MP Irek Kusmierczyk challenged Giroux this week and said it “boggles the mind” that the PBO did not account for the costs of climate change in its carbon tax analysis.

Giroux said that his mandate is to estimate the cost of government proposals, and encouraged other entities like think tanks or the government itself to disclose their numbers if they want to venture in a cost-benefit analysis of the carbon tax.

…

“So that’s why even though it would be ideal to have the cost-benefit analysis, the benefits are not always very tangible, and not easily measurable.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...-pbo-says-both

(all from the leftist National Post)

So, you, the freedom convoy, and PP on one side, “hundreds” of economists on the other. You’re smarter than they are, yeah?

And the PBO, who openly admits they’re making some assumptions and estimates with incomplete data and data they simply do not have… that’s your smoking gun?

Sorry it was more than one line. Don’t skip on the round red nose. It really completes the whole fit.

[PepsiFree]

Mostly I’m just bored by the new conservative mental gymnastics in what has firmly become a post-truth world.

Experts are now “so called” and the actual math is just “basic.” What’s really important is what the common people think and the assumptions we can make based on rough estimates that don’t even include the financial impact of the thing the carbon tax is attempting (and according to “so called” experts - in the best way possible) to correct.

Just tasty bait for the dumbest of us in a population segment that is only getting dumber and bolder.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Mostly I’m just bored by the new conservative mental gymnastics in what has firmly become a post-truth world.

Experts are now “so called” and the actual math is just “basic.” What’s really important is what the common people think and the assumptions we can make based on rough estimates that don’t even include the financial impact of the thing the carbon tax is attempting (and according to “so called” experts - in the best way possible) to correct.

Just tasty bait for the dumbest of us in a population segment that is only getting dumber and bolder.

The PBO produced that data based on the best estimates available to understand the Carbon tax impacts on federal and provincial revenues. Why do you discount the fiscal impacts from the Carbon tax when the people preparing the federal budgets do not

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

The PBO produced that data based on the best estimates available to understand the Carbon tax impacts on federal and provincial revenues. Why do you discount the fiscal impacts from the Carbon tax when the people preparing the federal budgets do not

I thought you had misspoken the last time you said “fiscal” but since you’ve used it twice you clearly haven’t even read the report. The fiscal impact assessment shows that, in Giroux’s words, “most families are better off — we estimate around 80 per cent.”

That isn’t what is being questioned and Firebot is the one discounting the fiscal impact assessment as “basic math.”

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I thought you had misspoken the last time you said “fiscal” but since you’ve used it twice you clearly haven’t even read the report. The fiscal impact assessment shows that, in Giroux’s words, “most families are better off — we estimate around 80 per cent.”

That isn’t what is being questioned and Firebot is the one discounting the fiscal impact assessment as “basic math.”

This time I used the term correctly. The first time I used in error and should have stated that the total economic impacts is what should be being used for assessing the affect of the tax.

The second time I used the term correctly as the fiscal impacts to the government are a result of the source economic impacts and are outlined in table 3.

I will restate my question correctly

Why do you ignore the economic impacts as outlined in Table 2 of the report when the PBO is including those economic impacts in calculating the budgetary impacts for the federal government as per Table 3.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And the PBO, who openly admits they’re making some assumptions and estimates with incomplete data and data they simply do not have… that’s your smoking gun?

Smoking gun? Freedom convoy? Put the pipe down for a second, and go through what you posted again.

We are going full circle now, but first thank you for linking the NP article which is a well rounded article by a reputable news source explaining the nuances of both sides of the argument. So now you want to accept the PBO's findings? Or not accept it (well only accept the part you like which is the fiscal impact), but only if we also calculate in climate change impacts, or what exact train of thought you are going with here?

You are even selectively quoting the Canadian Climate Institute as a source, which is a liberal think tank with dubious claims of calling itself a charity and appears to be running a greasy slush fund. Perhaps you missed this post?

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...ostcount=10873

Originally Posted by Firebot

Independent indeed. How the heck does this qualify as a charity? I would love for a few of the more astute posters to correct me here and provide something i don't see.

No one did take me up on my request, you are welcome to. I would have assumed astute posters would have taken the challenge.

And of course not surprisingly you completely misread the end of the article where Giroux is actually contending the claims by Liberals and their think tanks.

Giroux said that his mandate is to estimate the cost of government proposals, and encouraged other entities like think tanks or the government itself to disclose their numbers if they want to venture in a cost-benefit analysis of the carbon tax.

“To my knowledge, there hasn’t been that much work undertaken on the cost-benefit analysis, because it’s a complicated field that requires lots of data spanning several years,” he said.

“So that’s why even though it would be ideal to have the cost-benefit analysis, the benefits are not always very tangible, and not easily measurable.”

Giroux is contending the government and Liberal think tanks' wanting to include climate change cost-benefit analysis are on dubious measurable grounds and not easily measurable. He is not dismissing his own report as you are trying to portray.

Since we are yet not in 2030 (well maybe you are based on your last post), the PBO needs to project based on best estimates and assumptions on what the situation may look like in 2030 to measure the fiscal and economical impact. That's...literally the entire point of the report and his mandate.

You are clearly very ideologically invested in carbon taxes and the idea behind it, so much so that you are adamantly going after anything that moves and even dares challenge your narrative, even if this is a report from the PBO itself. You are just upset the report conclusion came against your narrative, otherwise you would be right here parroting the fiscal and economical impact projections as evidence towards your narrative as you have when you are quoting the fiscal impact projection...which is *surprise* also a projection and estimate! One projection happens to be more thorough in analysis than the other, which you are refusing to accept...and went on some gibberish rant about freedom convoy and post truth.

Let's remember the series here:

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

“The perception has changed! It must be because of the tax! It couldn’t be because conservative populists are doing it on purpose!”

Originally Posted by Firebot

It could be that the revenue neutral claim has fallen flat where even the PBO is advising that most Canadians will see a net loss. The carbon tax narrative is no longer working on Canadians, especially as the heating oil carve out killed the carbon climate angle (one which keeps getting omitted by those defending the tax).

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sorry man, you’re just not very smart about this stuff and it’s pretty evident. I mean, you’re going to pretend “most Canadians will see a net loss” and talk about “facts” when the fact is that you’re conveniently light on the details and that the report you’re citing is talking about 2030-31, where it shows the average Canadian will actually get more in payments than it spends on the federal fuel charge (directly and indirectly) and related GST. Them “facts”?

Or, no, you’re talking about the “fiscal and economic impacts” section, right? Where it lumps employment income and investment income together with the actual fiscal component, and declares that because Joe Blow isn’t getting as good of a return on his investment into the oil sands or because even one position is phased out of that specific industry the money I get back from the rebate doesn’t count as much because, you know, we’re all part of the average!

Here’s your clown makeup. You forgot it big boy. But I guess if the average Canadian understood that report the same way you did, it makes sense.

Your entire post is wrong, take it on the chin already and just step away for a day. It's ok, it's been a bad day.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

This time I used the term correctly. The first time I used in error and should have stated that the total economic impacts is what should be being used for assessing the affect of the tax.

The second time I used the term correctly as the fiscal impacts to the government are a result of the source economic impacts and are outlined in table 3.

I will restate my question correctly

Why do you ignore the economic impacts as outlined in Table 2 of the report when the PBO is including those economic impacts in calculating the budgetary impacts for the federal government as per Table 3.

I’m not and you used it incorrectly twice, read better I guess? idk.

Originally Posted by Firebot

Smoking gun? Freedom convoy? Put the pipe down for a second, and go through what you posted again.

We are going full circle now, but first thank you for linking the NP article which is a well rounded article by a reputable news source explaining the nuances of both sides of the argument. So now you want to accept the PBO's findings? Or not accept it (well only accept the part you like which is the fiscal impact), but only if we also calculate in climate change impacts, or what exact train of thought you are going with here?

You’re the one who brought up “accepting” the report. I fully accept the report, I also understand the limitations of the economic impact portion, which you do not, and was capable of adding the necessary context around what you posted, which you were not (or you would’ve posted it).

Originally Posted by Firebot

You are even selectively quoting the Canadian Climate Institute as a source, which is a liberal think tank with dubious claims of calling itself a charity and appears to be running a greasy slush fund. Perhaps you missed this post?

No one did take me up on my request, you are welcome to. I would have assumed astute posters would have taken the challenge

I didn’t “selectively” quote them, the National Post did in the “well rounded article” you just thanked me for posting.

I probably did miss your post and I’m honestly not going to go read it. And, not because of some “narrative” or “denial” or whatever debate-pervert determination you’re going to make about it, but just because I don’t like you much and it’s funnier to me if I don’t.

Originally Posted by Firebot

And of course not surprisingly you completely misread the end of the article where Giroux is actually contending the claims by Liberals and their think tanks.

Giroux is contending the government and Liberal think tanks' wanting to include climate change cost-benefit analysis are on dubious measurable grounds and not easily measurable. He is not dismissing his own report as you are trying to portray.

Since we are yet not in 2030 (well maybe you are based on your last post), the PBO needs to project based on best estimates and assumptions on what the situation may look like in 2030 to measure the fiscal and economical impact. That's...literally the entire point of the report and his mandate.

I didn’t misread it, I included it because it’s important to the overall point, which is that you’re making conclusions you can’t make because there isn’t enough to support it. I know, I know, for every resident debate-pervert, every single thing quoted must serve to prove some binary point with zero nuance. I just don’t care. Me this side. You that side. Very cool, but boring.

But why isn’t there enough to support your conclusion? Because these things are complex, and you tried to make them simple to make your lame “the narrative is dead” point. That’s also why I’m not trying to suggest he’s dismissing his own report (I know that doesn’t fit your “narrative”) I am, again, suggesting that he understands the complexity of that estimate better than you do.

Since you brought your post up again, let me help you edit it so that you can look like you know what you’re talking about:

“It could be that the revenue neutral claim (which is not a claim, but a fact, as the money taken in goes directly back out) has fallen flat where even the PBO is advising that most Canadians will (actually, may) see a (small) net loss (in 2030-31, 7 years from now, if the economic impact comes true and not considering the impact of the carbon tax on reducing the economic impact of climate change nor the positive impact of replacement industries on job creation and income). The carbon tax narrative is no longer working on Canadians, especially as the heating oil carve out killed the carbon climate angle (one which keeps getting omitted by those defending the tax (except for the hundreds of scientists and economists that suggest the carbon tax is both effective and the cheapest way of achieving our climate goals)).”

It’s a little wordy, but honestly, a lot better. You’re welcome in advance.

Originally Posted by Firebot

You are clearly very ideologically invested in carbon taxes and the idea behind it, so much so that you are adamantly going after anything that moves and even dares challenge your narrative, even if this is a report from the PBO itself. You are just upset the report conclusion came against your narrative, otherwise you would be right here parroting the fiscal and economical impact projections as evidence towards your narrative as you have when you are quoting the fiscal impact projection...which is *surprise* also a projection and estimate! One projection happens to be more thorough in analysis than the other, which you are refusing to accept...and went on some gibberish rant about freedom convoy and post truth.

The irony here is pretty funny. “Gibberish rant” “even dares challenge your narrative” “going after anything that moves” from the guy who has a fit every time anyone isn’t fully criticizing the Liberals, sensing it like he has some Pavlov's dog condition, citing “the usual suspects” instead of just being a normal functioning person who recognizes that we’re members of the same group of people that post in this thread, just like you. You talk about “narrative” more than an English teacher and cite “the usual suspects” more than the cast of the film on a press tour.

None of what you just posted added anything to the discussion. Just “you’re refusing to accept blah blah blah” but man, just read the posts. Read the article properly. Read the report and realize the limitations of that economic impact that you tried to reframe to “fit your narrative.” Hell, you like to consider yourself an intellectual, so read what the “hundreds” of economists and scientists have to say on the matter. I can quote some for you, but you’ve got a measured view of things, so I’m sure you’ve already read them. Though, they’re probably just ideologically invested in it, right?

If you don’t like me mentioning freedom convoy and post-truth stuff, it seems like the simplest solution is to… have a more educated and fact-based opinion than the people currently blocking the trans canada and Pierre’s “I’ll listen to the common man, not the experts!” narrative. Seems easy. Pretty surprised as a non-partisan man yourself you didn’t jump all over that statement (considering you would’ve frothed at the mouth if Trudeau said it). But I dunno, again, I skip a lot of posts, so maybe you did, or maybe you’re the only one who gets to accuse people of being partisan and when you do it you just plum “forgot.” Beats me!

The idea that anyone is ideologically invested IN a tax is almost too stupid to comprehend. I might be financially invested in… you know… those sweet rebates… but ideologically? Jesus dude, get a grip on reality. It’s a tax.

Originally Posted by Firebot

Your entire post is wrong, take it on the chin already and just step away for a day. It's ok, it's been a bad day.

My guy, you couldn’t cause someone to have to “take it on the chin” if you paid them for it.

[PepsiFree]

Also, don’t try to out long-post me again or I’ll call the cops.

[GGG]

It’s like you read the words of the report and then just choose to discount that the PBO is assuming the net loss in their budgets as a result of the reduced income taxes collected.

It’s okay to accept the Carbon tax is only mostly revenue neutral and as a tax drag affect.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

It’s like you read the words of the report and then just choose to discount that the PBO is assuming the net loss in their budgets as a result of the reduced income taxes collected.

It’s okay to accept the Carbon tax is only mostly revenue neutral and as a tax drag affect.

No, I just understand the context of what the report says and the numbers that go into it and what the PBO actually does, but that’s just coming from someone who didn’t have to read it three times to figure out what “fiscal” meant, so I’m blessed in that way.

On that note, what do you think the PBO does?

“the PBO is assuming the net loss in their budgets”
“Why do you discount the fiscal impacts from the Carbon tax when the people preparing the federal budgets do not”

I’m genuinely curious, because these two lines made me wonder. Maybe they’re just written weirdly.

[chemgear]

YOU'RE saying immigration is not "under control"?

Who is responsible for this, this sounds racist.


https://globalnews.ca/news/10397176/...ration-canada/

Trudeau says temporary immigration needs to be brought ‘under control’

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the government wants to rein in the number of temporary immigrants coming to the country, saying the situation needs to be brought “under control.”

“Whether it’s temporary foreign workers or whether it’s international students in particular, that have grown at a rate far beyond what Canada has been able to absorb,” Trudeau said at a housing announcement in Dartmouth, N.S.

The prime minister then said that this is driving mental health challenges for international students and that more businesses are relying on temporary foreign workers, driving down wages in some sectors.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, I just understand the context of what the report says and the numbers that go into it and what the PBO actually does, but that’s just coming from someone who didn’t have to read it three times to figure out what “fiscal” meant, so I’m blessed in that way.

On that note, what do you think the PBO does?

“the PBO is assuming the net loss in their budgets”
“Why do you discount the fiscal impacts from the Carbon tax when the people preparing the federal budgets do not”

I’m genuinely curious, because these two lines made me wonder. Maybe they’re just written weirdly.

You are fairly insufferable today and clearly not interested in a good faith discussion so I will bow out

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

You are fairly insufferable today and clearly not interested in a good faith discussion so I will bow out

Well, that was yesterday (technically two days ago now), but I’m absolutely interested in a good faith discussion (definitely more interested in it than someone who isn’t even really bothering to read the posts he’s responding to), I simply asked you if you actually understood what the PBO does because your posts indicated that you don’t, which I’m assuming is true based on the non-response.

You don’t have to be embarrassed about it. It’s not a big deal.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

but that’s just coming from someone who didn’t have to read it three times to figure out what “fiscal” meant, so I’m blessed in that way.

I for one can't imagine why he wouldn't want to continue the conversation. What a mystery this is.