Mediaboss Marketing

Ontario Liberal MPP's were giving thanks to Premier Kathleen Wynnein the first week as the legislature returned at Queen's Park. The CBC'sOntario Political analyst says that was all part of theplan to spread some happy news as Wynne leads the party into the next election.

Fisher spoke with theCBC'sConrad Collacoabout the return to legislature work for MPP.Listen to the full interview by clicking the image at the top of the page or read an edited and abridged transcript below.

Veteran political analyst Robert Fisher delivers his insights into Ontario politics every two weeks. (CBC)

Why were Liberal MP's thanking the Premier in the legislature this week?

My political radar tells me that this is kind of part of a strategy, I think it's pretty clear if you follow provincial politics or politics anywhere that things never happen by accident so I think this was all planned.

You had the Premier being lauded for her support of the Mars project in Toronto. You had the Premier being lauded for her protection of water in the Guelph,Kitchener [and] Waterloo area, but water generally in the province. You had the Premier lauded for taking her effort to protect trade relations with the United States to the U.S. but nevertheless, you have these cabinet ministers and MPP's all thanking the Premier.

I suppose it shows, or they want to show, that it's a unified caucus and people support the Premier. It's kind of akin to, on the other side of the house, you have the opposition throwing as much mud, and they certainly did that this week, as they possibly can hoping that some will stick. For the liberals, all of these thank you's and commendations for their leader are something that they hope will stick with the Premier and be picked up by the public.

Now it will be interesting to see if that strategy develops outside of the legislature where people who don't follow Queen's park on a daily basis like I do are actually paying attention to this kind of stuff.

If the poll are any indication Kathleen Wynneis a very unpopular Premier. Is that part of why the backbenchers and ministers have been so quick to thank the Premier?

I think that's an excellent question and it truly reflects where the Premier is and where the government is at this point as a new session begins just 17 months before an election campaign. Obviously things have to change in terms of the public perception of Kathleen Wynne and so you have this kind of strategy that is out there and again, if it stretches beyond the legislature then I think it becomes part and parcel of where the liberals are going to be as they try to rekindle the kind of support the Kathleen Wynne had when she became the Liberal leader and eventually in 2014, the Liberal Premier.

Her numbers are so low now that there are even liberals who would worry that the best thing she could do in June 2018 is to hang on to a minority government.

Perhaps the biggest piece of news this week out of the legislature has been the decision to prevent power companies from cutting power in the middle of winter to people who aren't paying their bills. Why has it taken so long for the Liberals to take action on this?

Well that's the key question and I think its critically important. There was legislation that talked about stopping these winter disconnections and if I recall correctly there was something like sixty thousand disconnections in 2016 in this province and goodness knows how many during the winter of 2017.

Nevertheless, it was part of an ominous bill. The problem is that you can't, as a member of the opposition, vote for one section of a bill and against another. So when it came up for a vote it never got anywhere even though, quite frankly, this issue with the disconnects was well known and the government could have acted.

As you say, the biggest thing coming out of the legislature in terms of substantive legislation was this law that prohibits distributors from cutting off people's power when they can't pay their bills in the middle of winter, but it took a huge upset among people in the public and certainly at Queen's park this week to refocus the government's attention. It's kind of like the issues we've talked about in past weeks about hydro rates. The government seemed to be unable to understand that rates were going so high and that's why people were angry.

Now they get that part of the equation and this week in a matter of 48 hours this legislation came to the legislature from Glenn Thibeault the energy minister, was introduced, was passed, and was given royal ascent all in the space of a few hours. So it can be done and if you have a majority government, it should have been done a long time ago.

It seems from the last election quite a few observers had said that it was Tim Hudak's election to lose, and he lost it. The Premier turned it around in time for the election. What are her chances of doing the same for June 2018?

Well it's a big job there's no doubt about it. If you talk privately with the Liberals they will concede that this is a huge mountain for the Premier to climb. It's not that it's impossible to do but it's made more difficult by the fact that in 2018 as opposed to 2014, the Premier carries all of her own baggage. In 2014, it was mostly the baggage left over from Dalton McGuinty and people were prepared to acceptthat she was new and different and forgive her for past problems created by the Liberal government. This time it's all happening on her watch and so that's what makes it difficult. All that said, the Premier is an extraordinarily good campaigner and I think it's important to say that campaigns do matter, so what happens on the campaign trail when it starts is going to be critically important.

Andrea Horwath and Patrick Brown aregoing to have to earn this victory. It's not simply going to be handed to them by the electorate. They are both going to have to prove between now and 2018 that they are ready to be premier and that they have a caucus that is ready to serve as a cabinet in Ontario. So there's a lot of things at play here but Kathleen Wynne has a big job to pull off, and if she does it, I think it will go down in the annals of Ontario political history as the miracle on Queen's Park Crescent.

Do you think that Horwath and Brown have been too quick to hammer the Premier this week at Queen's Park? Are they relying too much on the Premier's current unpopularity?

Robert- I think they have been quick but I thinkthere's angst in the province that goes from the big cities to the small towns from people who are really having difficulty paying their hydro bills and want the government to do something about it. [The government] has promised over and over again, it's become their mantra actually, that help is coming, but for the opposition parties it's now a situation where they must earn the trust of the electorate and must show the electorate that they are ready to govern. It's time now to start bringing out some policies about what this government is all about.

I think Patrick Brown has shown that he's been very hard for the Liberals to hit and the best example of that happened just yesterday in the legislature when he supported, much to the surprise of the Liberals, the anti-Islamophobia resolution tabled by the Liberals. I think the government thought there was a fight coming here but Mr. Brown said, 'no this is the right thing to do and lets do it,' and that resolution was passed. It's symbolic, but I think important to show that Patrick Brown has a very flexible ideology compared to his past in Ottawa and what's going on in Parliament Hill right now on this very same issue.

The same goes for Andrea Horwath, it's a bigger climb for her because she's in third place but again it's all to show the electorate that she is ready to govern and often people have said they believe she's the best person to be Premier of Ontario but it never translates to the caucus. That's where the NDP have to mind the gap.

See the original post here:
Liberals thank Kathleen Wynne at Queen's Park but will voters? - Robert Fisher - CBC.ca

The Ontario government, facing a political backlash over soaring hydro prices, is pursuing a fundamental overhaul of the provinces electricity market in an effort to keep rates as low as possible.

The province is considering a technology-neutral bidding process to replace the current approach, in which the system operator issues contracts from specific power sources such as natural gas, wind or solar, Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault said in a speech Friday.

It is also looking at a new pricing approach that would give ratepayers options, such as whether to choose a flat rate or a time-of-use plan, in which prices fluctuate depending on off-peak or peak use, he said.

Read more: Premier Kathleen Wynne promises to win back Ontarians trust, calls high electricity prices her mistake

Related: Ontario business owners say high electricity rates are a threat to their survival

Related: Why does Ontarios electricity cost so much? A reality check

It is our governments intention to reshape the foundation of the electricity sector to ensure hydro costs are reduced for ratepayers going forward, he said in the speech to the Economic Club of Canada in Ottawa.

In an interview afterward, Mr. Thibeault said it is too early to commit to a specific market model, noting the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) is currently in consultations with the industry, consumer groups and power producers. There still needs to be a lot of work with the system operator to unleash them to find ways to make that happen, he said. If we dont evolve the system, if we dont change it, were going to run into problems again.

But he said the current model needs to change.

Allocating the precise mix of technology types has largely been arbitrary and led to suboptimal siting, uncompetitive prices and heightened community concerns, he said.

The government is also looking at additional short-term measures to provide rate relief, especially to rural customers, who have often faced higher prices than urban consumers.

Residential electricity prices have doubled in the past seven years, and Premier Kathleen Wynne is facing angry consumers and nervous industrial users across the province. With an election scheduled for 2018, the governments record on electricity prices has emerged as a key issue.

Progressive Conservative MPP Lisa MacLeod said the Liberal government has mismanaged the sector for years, going back to the introduction in 2009 of the Green Energy Act, under which Ontario issued high-priced contracts for wind and solar power with the aim of building a renewable energy sector in the province.

The Liberals have to acknowledge theyve taken us down a very expensive and unsustainable path, Ms. MacLeod said after Mr. Thibeaults speech. Ontarians are going to look at this Liberal government and say, Im not better off than I was eight years ago. The true cost of the Green Energy Act is one that has been exorbitant and has a real impact on our bills.

Mr. Thibeault said critics overstate the impact of the Green Energy Act, arguing that costs soared because the province had to rebuild the system after years of neglect, all the while phasing out coal-fired power, which he claimed led to a major improvement in air quality.

The IESO has been in consultations for almost a year on how to proceed with electricity market reform. But there are concerns that the goals of the effort remain unclear.

In a letter to the system operator dated Jan. 30, Colin Anderson, who represents industrial power users, said the government talks about cost control, but the system operator has been less focused on prices as it pursues a reform plan.

IESOs restatement and endorsement of a cost-control goal would be very helpful to all stakeholders and would provide much needed direction and clarity to the discussions, wrote Mr. Anderson, president of the Association of Major Power Consumers of Ontario. He was unavailable for comment Friday.

Follow Shawn McCarthy on Twitter: @smccarthy55

Continued here:
Ontario Liberals eye electricity market overhaul to lower rates - The Globe and Mail

Liberals aren't welcoming enough to Trump voters, or so the headlines say. Every week theres another batch of think pieces scolding Democrats and leftists for being mean to folks who cast their ballot for the former reality television star.The New York Times quotes a small-business owner complaining that liberals tell him,"You're an idiot if you support any part of Trump." Protests against Trump, we're told, push Trump voters to double down on love of Trump. The left must assure Trump voters that they are awesome and lovely and wonderful people. Or else.

Isn't there something backwardabout all of this? Trump won. Republicans won the White House and both houses of Congress; they have the ability to choose a Supreme Court justice. Trump voters are in power; they are going to get the policies they desire, more or less. If anyone has a right to be bitter and resentful, isn't it the left? Why are Trump voters nursing a sense of grievance? They got what they wanted.

In the usual course of things, it's the winners who are supposed to reach out to the losers, not the other way around. Generally, the new president takes steps to assure the losing party that he's planning on governing for all Americans. Shortly before his inauguration in 2009, Barack Obama held a dinner honoring his defeated Republican opponent, John McCain.Obama also kept Republican Robert Gates, Bush's defense secretary, at his post.

Such bipartisan gestures are typical for a new president and you'd think Trump would be more eager to make them than most. Despite the pundits'warnings that leftists will never be popular again if they do not make nice with Trump voters, the truth is that millions more people voted against Trump than voted for him. He is a deeply divisive figure even within his own party.

As an unorthodox candidate with few long-term ties to the GOP, it would make sense for him to try to find common ground with Democrats. Trump could have appointed compromise picks to his Cabinet, for example. He could have kicked off his legislative agenda with an infrastructure project, which many Democrats signaled they would support.

Instead, Trump has appointed hard-right ideologues to his Cabinet, relied on right-wing, white-nationalist-affiliated gutter journalists like Stephen Bannon for his advisorsand pushed the most polarizing aspects of his agenda, such as banning travelers from majority-Muslim countries. He's even been weirdly reluctant to condemn anti-Semitic bomb threats against Jewish Community Centers a gimme bipartisan gesture if ever there was one.

In speeches, he returns obsessively to the November election, insisting his electoral victory was historically large, even though it was one of the narrower ones in recent history, and claiming that people who voted against him did so illegally. Rather than assuring those of us in the opposition that he is our presidenttoo, he has gone out of his way to say that our dissent is illegitimate, and that he despises us.

This is the message from others on the right as well. Congressmen faced with angry town hall meetings blame paid protesters, refusing to acknowledge their own constituents. And pundits write incessantly about how the left needs to embrace Trump supporters, presenting those voters as the real Americans with real grievances, whose egos must be eternally salved, even in victory.

People on the left aren'tfocused mainly on being mean to Trump voters. On the contrary, people on the left are scared of Trump voters and what they have wrought, and with good reason. Trump and the Republicans have promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, but have not said how they would replace it; people fear what will happen to them if they have no access to healthcare. Trump has made frightening comments about sending troops into cities like Chicago. Immigration agents are arresting people leaving church shelters. The list could go on.Many people are genuinely, and justifiably, afraid of what is happening, and what will happen, under a Trump administration.

Trump is the one in power; Trump voters are the ones who put him there. Why exactly is it up to the left to reassure them?

Trump voters are upset, we're told, because they're being called bigots or racists. I can't speak for the left as a whole, obviously, but I know that I, personally, would love to be convinced that Trump supporters don't approve of bomb threats against synagogues, and don't want people with cancer to die without care. I would love Trump voters to demonstrate that they are better than the president's worst rhetoric.

I don't have any particular desire to yell at or insult Trump supporters. But I would say to them: You won. Your candidate is in power. If you think the people who voted against you are human, this is your chance to show it. And if you don't, then yes, the people you're kicking are going to judge you.

Noah Berlatsky is the author most recently of Corruption: American Political Films.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter@latimesopinionorFacebook

Originally posted here:
Trump voters won. Why should liberals be nice to them? - Los Angeles Times

CRUZ: Mark, I'm pretty sure that's the first time we've ever walked out to dance music. (LAUGHTER)

LEVIN: Well, I did think about holding hands, but...

(LAUGHTER)

... I didn't think that would come off right.

(LAUGHTER)

Well, it is my honor to be here with Senator Cruz. We're going to have a short discussion about the Constitution. How many of you support the Constitution?

(APPLAUSE)

So we're not at the DNC event here, that's obvious.

(LAUGHTER)

Senator Cruz...

CRUZ: I think the smell would be somewhat different.

LEVIN: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

He means pot, of course.

(LAUGHTER)

Study ambiguity or something, right?

(LAUGHTER)

You're one of the leading constitutionalists, not just in the Senate, but in the country. And one of the problems we have in this country today is so much of what we do is not within the constitutional construct. You have introduced an amendment to the Constitution to place term limits on members of Congress.

(APPLAUSE)

So tell us why you did it and tell us about your amendment.

CRUZ: Well, Mark, I think it's one of the first and biggest steps we can take to actually drain the swamp.

(APPLAUSE)

You look across this country people are fed up with Washington. This election was the American people saying, enough already with the corruption in Washington and it's both parties. Its Democrats and Republicans who have been here too long, who've become captured by this city and -- and if you look at -- President Trump campaigned on draining the swamp, on term limits.

You look at congressional leaders. We've got majorities in both Houses, I think we ought to demonstrate that we heard the voters, bring up term limits, pass it, and send it to the states for ratification. And what's amazing is the support for this, it cuts across in this polarized time, you get super majorities of Republicans, or Democrats, of Independents who all say, throw the bums out and we ought to listen.

(APPLAUSE)

LEVIN: Now, it takes time to get these sorts of things passed, because you've got to develop support among the American people and so forth. So, what should the people in this room and across the country do? Because obviously you have an entrenched ruling class, and they're not going to say yeah, let me vote myself out.

So, what do we do? We put pressure on them? How should we handle this?

CRUZ: Look, hold us accountable. There is an incredible power the men and women in this room, the men and women of CPAC, the grassroots have the ability to get people's attention, to hold our elected officials accountable -- hold every one of us accountable.

The message that I am conveying to President Trump, to the Cabinet, to leaders in both Houses is real simple. Let's do what we promised. Let's deliver on the promises and if we do that, we'll win at the ballot box and if we don't, the people will hold us accountable for that too.

LEVIN: Let me ask you about the courts. We saw what the 9th Circuit did, or a panel of the 9th circuit on an executive order, that once the executive order was modified, really it was even a controversial executive order from a constitutional point of view, and then you have three judges who did what they did. The other day we had the 4th Circuit basically tear the guts out of the Second Amendment...

CRUZ: Yup.

LEVIN: ... reject the Heller decision in the Supreme Court. So the Gorsuch nomination's important. How do we get our hands around all this?

CRUZ: Well, you're right. You look at judicial activism, and those are two great examples, the 9th Circuit and the 4th Circuit decision in recent weeks. If you look at the 9th Circuit, it's based in California, its long been the most liberal Court of Appeals in the country.

If you look at the decision of the 9th Circuit and the decision of the California District Court -- actually the Washington District Court that struck down, that enjoined the president's order, both decisions are utterly lawless. You know, the reason the Constitution gives judges life tenure is so they can be independent of political pressures and follow the law.

I've read the District Court decision, I've read the Court of Appeals decision, they don't even cite the controlling federal law. By statute, Congress has given the president the authority to suspend immigration -- any class of immigration if he deems it in the national interest. Now, any judge that was actually being a judge would begin with a statue, would look to the precedence, would interpret it -- they don't even mention the statute. They just say, we don't like this policy and there engaged in legislation. You take the 4th Circuit decision, upholding Maryland's laws on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The 4th Circuit used to the most conservative court in the country. I started my career as a law clerk of the 4th Circuit, and it was 20 years ago, the 4th Circuit was tremendous -- it was dedicated to protecting our constitutional rights.

The 4th Circuit now, they invented this new test for the Second Amendment, and here's what their test said. "The Second Amendment doesn't protect a weapon if it would be useful in a military context."

(LAUGHTER)

This test isn't just sort of questionable, it isn't just a little bit out there, it is nuts.

(APPLAUSE)

The Second Amendment was designed explicitly to protect weapons that would be useful in a military context.

(APPLAUSE)

If we were living back in 1789, your musket would be really useful in a military conflict. If you were called up to service, they said bring your musket. And indeed, the First Congress passed a law. You want to know the first gun control law in America? First Congress passed a law mandating that all able-bodied men must own a musket.

(APPLAUSE)

Under the...

LEVIN: That's an individual mandate we can live with.

CRUZ: There you go.

That's -- under the 4th Circuit's test, they say well gosh, if it would be useful in a military context. In the Second Amendment, it's not about hunting, it's not about target shooting, it's about protecting your home and your family and your life.

(APPLAUSE)

So under the 4th Circuit's test, the only things that are protected are things that are not useful in a military context. So apparently, the Second Amendment protects feather dusters.

(LAUGHTER)

You have a right to have a feather duster. If anyone breaks in, you can make sure they're really clean as they're robbing your house.

(LAUGHTER)

This is lawless. And it's why after eight years of Obama, there are few, if anything, more important than putting principled constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. The Gorsuch nomination is important. It matters. And mark my words, Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed.

(APPLAUSE)

Let's -- let's talk about separation of powers. We have this massive administrative state, this fourth branch of government within the executive branch. The executive branch does more legislating than the legislative branch. And they're pushing out 3,000, 4,000 laws, regulations every year.

Isn't there a law that Congress passed itself, the REINS Act, that empowers itself to do something about this? Well, that should be one of the singular priorities of this new Congress and of this new administration, is reining in the out of control regulatory state.

The REINS Act would require Congress to approve any regulation that would have an impact of greater than $100 million on the economy. Now, you want to talk about a basic common sense step. If the federal government is going to cost $100 million or more of your jobs going away, at a minimum the people who are elected by the people ought to have to vote and say, yes, I support taking away your job; or no, I don't support taking away your job. (APPLAUSE)

And part of the regulatory state -- you know, what the framers understood was accountability. I mean, the Constitution is brilliant for accountability; for posing factions against each other, to fight amongst themselves in government, which protects our liberty. But also in ensuring that decision-making is made by those who the people can hold accountable.

The regulatory state now lets politicians wipe their hands and say, hey, it's not my fault. It just came from these bureaucrats who work for nobody and are accountable to nobody.

And I will say, one of the things that I have encouraged President Trump to do, and I'm optimistic about this, is to take on directly the regulatory state; to take it on, to fire bureaucrats.

(APPLAUSE)

And what I've encouraged President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions -- and by the way, let me just repeat that again: Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

(APPLAUSE)

I just like making Chuck Schumer twitch.

(LAUGHTER)

But what I have urged them to do is put together a sophisticated, serious legal strategy to take on the regulatory state. Now, you'll be sued. You'll end up in the Ninth Circuit. You'll end up with activist judges trying to protect the regulatory state. But if you look at executive power -- we saw eight years of Obama. And what Obama did wrong with executive power is he tried to change the law. He tried to ignore the law. And under the Constitution, Article I, all legislative authority is vested in Congress.

CRUZ: And the president doesn't have the authority to change the law or ignore the law, and that's what Obama tried to do. But under Article II, all executive power is vested in one president of the United States. The regulatory state is Congress's efforts to undermine the president's authority. And my hope is we will see a president use that constitutional authority to rein in the uncontrollable, unelected bureaucrats and to rescind regulations.

I hope we see the Waters of the United States rule rescinded.

(APPLAUSE)

And reining in the regulatory state would have a massive impact on economic freedom going forward.

(APPLAUSE)

Let me -- impeachment. Impeachment is a constitutional function. Yes, the left keeps talking about impeachment. I mean, they were talking about impeachment before the inauguration.

(LAUGHTER)

And, you know, I think impeaching Obama in January probably would have been a mistake.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

So would retroactive impeachment be unconstitutional?

(LAUGHTER)

I don't know, but it would be fun.

(LAUGHTER)

Let me ask you this question. Do the Democrats understand they need to control the House of Representatives to impeach somebody?

(LAUGHTER)

You know...

(LAUGHTER) ... the Democrats right now are living in an alternative universe.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

The week after the election, I was back at the Capitol. I was in an elevator at the Capitol with a well-known liberal Democrat, who was simply staring ahead in this complete stupor.

(LAUGHTER)

And that hasn't changed.

(LAUGHTER)

They all look like that. They are in denial. And they're angry.

I mean, you and I were talking backstage before this. The anger on the left -- I've never seen anything like it. I mean, they're right now opposing everything. Democrats in the Senate are filibustering absolutely everything. This is the longest we've been. The Cabinet is still not confirmed. This is the longest we've been since George Washington without confirming a Cabinet.

They're filibustering everything. We voted a couple of weeks ago on approving the journal. Now, Mark, I'm going to confess, I have idea what the hell that is.

(LAUGHTER)

I've never -- I voted yes. I hope yes was the right vote.

(LAUGHTER)

Approving the journal is the most mundane procedural step. It is always done by unanimous consent. I didn't know we did that until they objected to it and said, no, you've got to have a full Senate vote; everyone come down to approve the journal.

What that means if this continues, and from the left, their base -- there's a technical term for their base -- Moscow.

(LAUGHTER)

I was going a different direction, which was bat-crap crazy.

See original here:
Read Ted Cruz's Remarks on 'Bat-Crap Crazy' Liberals - TIME

It's that time of year again when everyone connected with politics starts looking at what could be, or more precisely, what should be in the federal budget.

It's the Ottawa equivalent of sharing home remedies for the common cold. There's no shortage of advice on the best way to treat whatever ails the Canadian economy.

More spending on infrastructure! Drop the proposed price on carbon! Impose new or more user fees! Raise the minimum wage! Incentives for key industries!

This year isno different. The chatter's underway even though Finance Minister Bill Morneau hasn't confirmed when he plans to table his second effort at directing the country's fiscal policies. It could be as early as the first week of March;it could just as easily be the end of the month.

The Conservatives certainly aren't waiting for the date to be announced. This week, interim Leader Rona Ambrose led the Official Opposition's efforts to argue the Liberals, far from helping the middle class as promised in the 2015 campaign, are actually hurting them.

"Canadians are paying more and getting less," she said during question period Wednesday. "The Liberals are hiking taxes and adding debt. And for what? Canadians were promised a stronger economy and better jobs, but a lot of the jobs created are not better. Only one in five jobs created have been full time."

Interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose criticizes the government's job-creation record during question period. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

The prime minister, not surprisingly, insisted everything his government does is with the best interests of the middle class in mind.

"We lowered taxes on the middle class by raising them on the wealthiest one per cent," Justin Trudeau said. "We brought in the Canadian child benefit that gives more money to nine out of 10 Canadian families, which will help them with the costs of groceries, school supplies and raising their kids."

We'll see more of these kinds of exchanges in the days ahead as each party jockeys for public attention. The Conservatives believe the Liberals will raise taxes on capital gains, 50 per cent of which must currentlybe included in an individual's taxable income. The NDP still wants to close a loophole that allows corporate executives to avoid taxes on stock options.

The Liberals, by virtue of being in government, keep pointing to what they've already done.

But beyond the political posturing are some harsh fiscal realities, particularly the fact the country's finances are in worse shape now than even a few months ago.

The Finance Department released a forecast before Christmas that conceded the government, as of now, will run deficits until sometime mid-century.

Many economistsbelieve the election of Donald Trump, with his "America First" agenda, could have an impact on our balance of trade with the United States.

The potential impact of U.S. President Donald Trump's 'America First' approach is a concern for policy-makers in Canada. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)

There are also concerns that if Trump follows through on his stated plans to slash corporate tax rates it could draw future investments away from Canadaand make this country less competitive vis-a-vis U.S. companies.

Kevin Page, a former parliamentary budget officer who heads the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, wrote this week that the Trudeau Liberals need a "policy reset" to addressthe deteriorating fiscal situation.

"Some of this deterioration comes from the moribund economic environment. Some of this deterioration is a policy choice a strategy to boost a sagging economy with the nation's fiscal credit card. Either way, program spending and debt are way up."

Kevin Page, a former parliamentary budget officer who heads the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, says the government needs a 'fiscal policy reset.'

The question facing Morneau is how to respond. He could follow through, as Page suggests, with a strategy to boost innovation and skills a key recommendation put forth last month by the finance minister's own economic advisory council.

Others believe the government has to look at ways to increase revenues.

One possible route is to reduce what's known as tax expenditures or tax credits by, for example, taxing health and dental benefits paid by employers or removing the tax credit given to Canadians over the age of 65.

Trudeau publicly ruled out taxing health and dental benefits.

But if his government is indeed looking for new sources of revenue, there's no easy target, says Janice MacKinnon, a former provincial finance minister who teaches public policy at the University of Saskatchewan.

"I think this is the most politically dangerous ground that they've been on," she says in this week's edition of The House podcast.

"For one, it's hard to remove tax credits without hitting the middle class whose taxes you promised to reduce."

The same concern exists with increasing the percentage of capital gains that are taxable on, forexample, the sale of shares people hold in publicly traded companies.

MacKinnon says the best option may be to do very little in this budget beyond following through on the innovation agenda and waiting for the infrastructure money announced in last year's budget to finally flow, with all the jobs that spending will create.

For his part, the prime minister doesn't appear to be willing to wait. In a speech he gave last weekend to a black-tie audience in Hamburg, Germany, Trudeau re-stated his vision of an activist agenda.

Trudeau delivers a speech at the St. Matthew's Day banquet in Hamburg, Germany, last week. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Some of the more interesting snippets have been dissected: that taxpayers aren't seeing the rewards of big corporate profits through more full-time jobs and higher wages, and that governments too often seem to be serving special interests instead of those of the ordinary citizen.

"Whether you're a business or a government, it's time to realize that this anger and anxiety we see washing over the world is coming from a very real place," he said. "And it's not going away."

It's an interesting diagnosis. Canadians will have to wait for the budget to see what remedy Trudeau's Liberals have in mind to treat what ails the Canadian economy.

Read the rest here:
Plenty of budget remedies offered as Liberals prepare prescription for ailing economy: Chris Hall - CBC.ca