Mediaboss Marketing

OTTAWA The Liberal government won't be able to spend hundreds of millions in infrastructure money this year, instead moving the planned spending to next year.

Spending documents released Tuesday show that $828 million that was budgeted to be spent this year on the Liberals' new infrastructure plan will be moved over to the coming fiscal year that begins April 1.

That amount represents about one quarter of the $3.27 billion budgeted to be spent on new and existing infrastructure programs in the 2016-2017 fiscal year.

The figure doesn't include $282 million that Public Services and Procurement Canada and Fisheries and Oceans had planned to spend on federal infrastructure projects in this fiscal year. Nor does it include $24.4 million being carried over from a national program to upgrade community and cultural centres as part of Canada 150 celebrations.

Justin Trudeau speaks to the media with minister Amarjeet Sohi in Edmonton in March 2016. (Photo: Codie McLachlan/The Canadian Press)

It's not unheard of to have federal infrastructure money "reprofiled" from one fiscal year to the next: Spending analyses have shown that about one-quarter of infrastructure funds don't get spent in the year for which they are budgeted.

The reason is that federal dollars only flow once project proponents submit receipts for reimbursement, often leaving a lag between when work takes place and when infrastructure money is actually spent. In some cases, the federal government won't receive receipts until the end of a project.

And projects themselves can be delayed for any number of reasons, such as bad weather or a labour disruption, that are beyond the control of the federal government.

The money, however, doesn't disappear.

"Money committed to specific projects continues to be available for those projects and is reprofiled as needed to reflect the updated needs of our partners and their timelines," said Brook Simpson, a spokesman for Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi.

"We will continue to work with all of our partners to deliver on our infrastructure commitments."

The government's economic agenda is tied to spurring construction projects that can create enough growth to help bring the budget back to balance, which Finance Canada doesn't expect to happen for decades under current spending plans.

The government is quick to say that a lack of federal spending doesn't necessarily mean that cities and provinces aren't spending money on construction projects that can yield the needed economic benefit.

Departments behind on infrastructure plan

The latest figures tabled in Parliament add to concerns raised earlier this month by the parliamentary budget office that departments are well behind on allocating infrastructure spending, putting economic growth projections at risk.

The Liberals' first budget predicted that the infrastructure money would boost the economy by 0.6 per cent over two years.

Last week, in an appearance before the Senate's national finance committee, budget officer Jean-Denis Frechette said the actual impact could now be lower, given the slow pace of fund allocation. Frechette's office now predicts a reduction in employment equal to 7,400 full-time jobs.

View post:
Liberals Put Off $828M In Infrastructure Spending Pegged For This Year - Huffington Post Canada

Failing to woo a liberal this Valentines Day? Its not just you. For some liberals in the United States, the presidential election results have been a total turn-off.

Normally in the first month of the year, the dating site Match.com sees an uptick in the number of active users on the site. January, after all, is a popular month for singles to get back out there.

But this January, Match.com noticed something surprising: a decrease in activity among the sites more liberal users. In January, people who call themselves liberals were far less likely to sign up with Match and werent contacting potential matches or checking out new profiles as much, says Helen Fisher, the companys science adviser.

Meanwhile, conservatives flocked to find new partners in droves. Users in counties that voted for Donald Trump seem to be more interested in dating than users in counties that voted for Hillary Clinton.

Match was curious about why, as the site didnt see conservatives drop out of the game after Barack Obamas reelection in 2012. So in the past few weeks, Match randomly polled 1,800 of its users. The sample included roughly the same number of Trump and Clinton voters (38 percent voted for Trump, 40 voted for Clinton) and slightly more men than women (54 percent of the sample were men).

The results suggested the election really did have an effect on users self-reported dating drive: 29 percent of liberals said they felt less like dating since Trump won. Among conservatives, that figure is 14.2 percent.

Why? Match is not so sure. Fisher, a biological anthropologist by training, suggests a simple answer: Theyre depressed. (A political loss could depress the drive to mate. Or it could be that liberals are generally feeling downtrodden and arent yet ready to let joy back into their lives.)

Whats more, conservatives reported a greater willingness than liberals to reach out across the aisle in their love lives post-election. Around 60 percent of the liberals responded they are less likely to date a conservative than two years ago. Meanwhile, around 56 percent of conservatives said the same.

Of course, a poll of Match users isnt representative of all of Americans. But it illustrates a trend other social scientists have picked up on. As Ezra Klein has written, its now more common for Americans to discriminate based on politics than it is to discriminate based on race.

The more partisanship becomes a social identity and I think this is as true today as it's been in modern American politics the more we should expect people to engage in in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination," political scientist Danny Hayes told Klein. So its not surprising that in the aftermath of a hostile election cycle, partisans are feeling less warmly toward one another, and less likely to date the other side.

We tend to fall in love with somebody who has the same values as we do, Fisher says. And this is a time when the values are very polarized, and very personalized.

Which is perhaps concerning. People who have more social interactions with members of other political parties tend to have warmer feelings about them, Pew Research finds. Fully 62% of Republicans with just a few or no Democratic friends feel very coldly toward Democrats, Pew reported in June 2016. That compares with just 30% of Republicans who have at least some Democratic friends.

As the political shockwave of the 2016 election continues to set in, people are still figuring out how to deal with it on a personal level. A recent Reuters poll finds the number of people who reported getting into arguments with family or friends increased 6 points from December to January (from 33 to 39). Thirteen percent told Reuters they had ended a relationship with a family member or friend due to the election.

But if Republicans and Democrats cant get together over awkward first-date drinks, how will the parties ever get along?

See more here:
Liberals on Match.com aren't in the mood since the election of Donald Trump - Vox

For the second year in a row the federal government is writing off millions in student loans it will never collect, this time to the tune of $178.4 million.

The money represents 32,554 loans that federal officials believe they will never be able to collect, either because a debtor may have filed for bankruptcy, the debt itself has passed a six-year legal limit on collection, or the debtor can't be found.

Last year, the government wrote off 33,967 loans totalling $176 million.

Federal officials have increased their efforts in recent years to collect outstanding student loans after watching write-offs hit $312 million in 2012 and $295 million in 2015.

The previous Conservative government ordered officials to ramp up collection efforts in order to bring the write-offs under control.

The Liberals' first budget offered a new tool for the Canada Revenue Agency in its collection efforts: legal changes allowing it to use tax information for the purpose of collecting debts from the student loan program overseen by Employment and Social Development Canada. The CRA had expected to receive that power last year, but the federal election delayed political approval.

Figures provided by the CRA late last year showed the agency collected $208.8 million in unpaid loans, a three per cent increase in collections between 2015 and 2016.

The CRA is responsible for collecting loans in default and can do so by withholding income tax refunds to cover the outstanding amount, or by referring cases to the attorney general for legal action which could lead to garnisheeing wages or seizing assets.

See more here:
Liberals move to write off $178 million in unpaid federal student loans - CBC.ca

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Mike Flynn was right to quit. You dont lie to the vice president of the United States and let him go out on national television and lie to the American people.

President Trump was right to accept his resignation. Or demand it, depending upon which version you choose to believe.

But Mr. Flynns original sin is hardly a high crime.

Based on what we know now, the retired general merely dished in private to a top Russian official the precise same sentiments Mr. Trump has been dishing quite publicly in the media, at rallies and on Twitter for over a year and a half now.

Mr. Trump wants to genuinely reset relations with Russia to focus on fighting the relentless scourge of terrorism around the globe. Now, you may think this is a terrible strategy and you may think Russian President Vladimir Putin is a murderous thug running a crime syndicate. But we had an election and this is what voters voted for.

Also, by the way, where is all this justifiable outrage from so-called liberals when it came to the thankfully dead murderous thug of Cuba, Fidel Castro?

So Mike Flynn violated some arcane statute that has never been prosecuted in the more than 200 years it has been on the books. The statute is so loosely defined that Jimmy Carter, Dennis Rodman and the entire Clinton Cartel could have been rung up on that charges a hundred times over.

Again, when did the open-borders crowd become such sticklers for obeying federal laws?

To be sure, what Mike Flynn did was not wise, especially for a guy so steeped in the intelligence world. It was definitely stupid.

But it is not like he hit the Sunday talk show circuit to tell known lies after the ambassador and three others were killed in a terrorist attack on an unguarded consulate in Benghazi.

It is not like he was secretary of state and knowingly lied about the cause of that terrorist attack by blaming it on an obscure internet movie, which virtually nobody had seen. But which became a global sensation after the secretary of state advertised it and it led to deadly protests around the globe.

Nor is it like he gave away the store to our most ardent enemy in the Middle East, removed a raft of global sanctions and essentially paved the road for Iran to develop a nuclear warhead that will probably be able to reach the United States by the time the deal is finished.

But dont expect to read any of this in the press.

With Mike Flynn, the media are salivating. They think they have finally cornered Mr. Trump in a web of lies that are so serious about a national security issue that is so vital. They think they finally got him.

They are gleeful, whispering about how this really could lead all the way to President Trump himself!

What did you know, Mr. President, and when did you know it? Sir, it is not the crime, but the cover-up.

They are gleeful, they are breathless and they are certain that this time, finally, they got their prey.

If the past year and a half are any guide, however, Teflon Don will live to fight another day.

Charles Hurt can be reached at churt@washingtontimes.com; follow him on Twitter via @charleshurt.

Go here to read the rest:
Media and liberals think they've finally caught their prey - Washington Times

The federal director of the Liberal party, Tony Nutt, says activist organisations such as GetUp should be subject to a ban on foreign donations along with political parties. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

A ban on receiving foreign donations should apply across the board to Australian political parties, associated entities and activist groups, the Liberal party has submitted to a parliamentary committee.

The Liberal partys federal director, Tony Nutt, told the committee on Wednesday that a level playing field would mean applying the ban to groups such as GetUp.

Labors assistant national secretary, Paul Erickson, supported the level playing field in principle and consideration of extending the ban to associated entities or third parties undertaking campaign activities.

The joint standing committee on electoral matters is inquiring into foreign donations after reports that international environmental charities funded opposition to the Adani coalmine and concerns that Russia interfered in the United States presidential election in favour of Donald Trump, albeit through hacking rather than donations.

Nutt said that a foreign donation ban was a necessary prudential measure to prevent interference in elections by foreign entities, including states, who have no legitimate role in our democratic society.

The Liberal senator Linda Reynolds, the committees chair, asked both about the need for a level playing field and noted GetUp and the Australian Conservation Foundation received foreign donations.

Nutt replied that rules should be set in such a way as to capture all participants in the democratic process. We would support a level playing field as a matter of principle.

The quantums of money available to political parties which people generally think are pretty large are in fact reasonably modest compared to some of the resources of foreign entities and their capacity to affect public policy.

If you can pump in a couple of million bucks to try and disrupt the Queensland government building a mine, that gives enormous assistance if youre running some sort of global agenda on that issue.

Asked about the fact activist groups only have to declare donations that relate to political campaigning, and not day to day expenses, Nutt replied the same rules should apply as apply to political parties, which have to declare all donations.

In response to a question about whether a ban on foreign donations to political parties could boost groups such as GetUp and environmental campaigners 350, Nutt warned of the risk of unintended consequences to inconsistent campaign finance.

He noted that reform efforts in the US had produced a system where parties were highly regulated but third-party Super PACs, which can raise unlimited sums, proliferate.

Nutt said any foreign donation ban should not apply to Australian residents overseas, dual citizens and enterprises that conduct business in Australia that employ Australians.

In his introductory remarks, Nutt recognised that activist groups and unions were legitimate contributors to political debates and stressing cross-party co-operation on reforms.

The comments were an olive branch after Malcolm Turnbulls remarks to the National Press Club earlier in February that Australians expect us to ensure that only Australians and Australian businesses can seek to influence Australian elections.

The remarks raised concern in Labor because although Turnbull said Australians exercised influence via a political party, an activist group like GetUp or an association or a union he did not accord their rights the same status as those of business and individuals.

The committees deputy chair, Andrew Giles, told Guardian Australia that Labor did want a level playing field to see our long-held position that foreign influence and money and doesnt shape [politics] reflected in law.

Giles said he looked forward to a constructive discussion on Labors bill proposing to ban foreign donations, which is already before the parliament.

In his evidence to the committee, Erickson accepted the need to ban foreign donations beyond those to political parties because otherwise foreign entities could mask donations by giving them to a third party.

We have publicly advocated ... that this committee or the parliament looks at exactly how we might broaden the prohibition on gifts of foreign property to contemplate a scenario where foreign property might be gifted to an associated entity or third party undertaking campaign activities.

Erickson accepted the principle of a level playing field, as it applied to foreign donations, but noted political parties, associated entities and other bodies running campaigns had different rights and responsibilities.

Its not as simple as enforcing one rule for all because not every actor is engaging from the same position.

The committee will report on foreign donations by 3 March.

View post:
Liberals boss Tony Nutt calls for foreign donations ban on all entities, including GetUp - The Guardian