Recession.

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Recession.

Post by altiplano »

SNC was willing to own up to those charges under the laws and practices of our system.

Deals are made all the time. It's expedient, it's cheaper than a trial, it delivers the desired outcome of punishing poor behaviours. In this case, it was in the best interest of the government, SNC, and Canadians... Trudeau badly fumbled the handling of it, but I don't appreciate this kind of stuff getting dragged on.
---------- ADS -----------
 
flyzam
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:15 am

Re: Recession.

Post by flyzam »

YYZSaabGuy wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:31 am I agree with your point that bribery is the norm in some other countries, and that we shouldn't disadvantage Canadian companies from competing on a level playing field.
You both realize that in any of these places bribery and corruption are illegal as well right?

Saying that we shouldn't disadvantage Canadian companies from breaking the law to create a level playing field sounds more than unethical.

I'm not a liberal or otherwise and have no horse in this race, but that absolutely is the governments job to stop Canadian companies from breaking the law here and elsewhere.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
YYZSaabGuy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Location: On glideslope.

Re: Recession.

Post by YYZSaabGuy »

Sure, a DPA might have been the better option, but the DPP rejected that solution as inappropriate (if you review the requirements at https://www.osler.com/en/blogs/risk/sep ... -in-canada, for example, you might be able to guess why that decision was made). Moreover none of the terms which might have been included have been released, so as a practical matter it's impossible to say it would have been a better outcome.

I am quite sure that SNC would have been delighted to accept a DPA, thereby avoiding the ongoing publicity and the ultimate risk of a criminal conviction which could result in a multi-year lockout from bidding on federal government contracts.

The problem in this case is that the PMO intervened in an attempt to override the decision of the accountable civil servants. I think we can all guess the underlying motivation: the Caisse is a major SNC shareholder, the Quebec government has designated SNC as one of 10 publicly-traded Quebec-based companies considered "strategic", the historic Liberal base in Quebec, and the fact that JT himself is a Quebec MP facing re-election in a few months. Understanding the motivation doesn't excuse the blatant politically-motivated interference. The impartiality of our justice system has already come under some scrutiny as a result of the Huawei CFO arrest and extradition proceedings, and McCallum's public musings about the rationale. The follow-on SNC debacle doesn't help.

Like you, I suspect we're all going to be very tired of this story before it's over. But put the blame squarely where it belongs, on the PMO. Not on the Opposition, for doing its job, and not on the Press, for doing the same. A fish rots from the head down, and I would prefer having this stuff aired out in public to having to watch and wonder as pols abuse their influence for their own advantage under cover of benign indifference from the rest of us.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
YYZSaabGuy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Location: On glideslope.

Re: Recession.

Post by YYZSaabGuy »

flyzam wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:50 am
YYZSaabGuy wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:31 am I agree with your point that bribery is the norm in some other countries, and that we shouldn't disadvantage Canadian companies from competing on a level playing field.
You both realize that in any of these places bribery and corruption are illegal as well right?

Saying that we shouldn't disadvantage Canadian companies from breaking the law to create a level playing field sounds more than unethical.

I'm not a liberal or otherwise and have no horse in this race, but that absolutely is the governments job to stop Canadian companies from breaking the law here and elsewhere.
I'm happy to let other countries enforce their own laws, including those applicable to Canadian companies operating in their jurisdictions. I don't see any need for the Canadian government to competitively disadvantage Canadian businesses by enforcing the laws of another country, any more than I expect other governments to enforce Canadian laws. That's not unethical, it's just common sense.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Recession.

Post by rookiepilot »

Personally, I hope they dig deep enough to reach China. Maybe then we'll find out more, like who and how much would be paid off for SNC to avoid prosecution. That might be fun speculation, but it sure as heck happens in other countries, we'd be incredibly naive to think it doesn't happen here.

If you all are happy with a PM who panders relentlessly to Quebec, as I've said many, many times, while giving the west the shaft good for you but it's not my Canada.

It's funny how the rule of law applies in Canada, except in Quebec.

This is an embarrassment to Canada.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by rookiepilot on Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
flyzam
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:15 am

Re: Recession.

Post by flyzam »

YYZSaabGuy wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:39 am
flyzam wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:50 am
YYZSaabGuy wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:31 am I agree with your point that bribery is the norm in some other countries, and that we shouldn't disadvantage Canadian companies from competing on a level playing field.
You both realize that in any of these places bribery and corruption are illegal as well right?

Saying that we shouldn't disadvantage Canadian companies from breaking the law to create a level playing field sounds more than unethical.

I'm not a liberal or otherwise and have no horse in this race, but that absolutely is the governments job to stop Canadian companies from breaking the law here and elsewhere.
I'm happy to let other countries enforce their own laws, including those applicable to Canadian companies operating in their jurisdictions. I don't see any need for the Canadian government to competitively disadvantage Canadian businesses by enforcing the laws of another country, any more than I expect other governments to enforce Canadian laws. That's not unethical, it's just common sense.
So a Canadian peodiphile goes to Thailand and has sex with underage girls and you think they shouldn't be held accountable in Canada?

As someone who grew up in Africa, no bribery is not that common and is certainly not out in the open. Most of the time. Foreign companies coming in with large pockets only makes the issue worse.

Yes it is unethical and only pushes back valid efforts to rid these countries of this issue. It is absolutely unethical.

It is also illegal under Canadian law under the Canadian Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA). The fact you are sitting here on a public professional pilots forum advocating for a.canadian company to break both Canadian and international law because it is 'common sense' makes me question your suitability as a pilot.

despicable.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
YYZSaabGuy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Location: On glideslope.

Re: Recession.

Post by YYZSaabGuy »

flyzam wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:28 am
YYZSaabGuy wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:39 am
flyzam wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:50 am

You both realize that in any of these places bribery and corruption are illegal as well right?

Saying that we shouldn't disadvantage Canadian companies from breaking the law to create a level playing field sounds more than unethical.

I'm not a liberal or otherwise and have no horse in this race, but that absolutely is the governments job to stop Canadian companies from breaking the law here and elsewhere.
I'm happy to let other countries enforce their own laws, including those applicable to Canadian companies operating in their jurisdictions. I don't see any need for the Canadian government to competitively disadvantage Canadian businesses by enforcing the laws of another country, any more than I expect other governments to enforce Canadian laws. That's not unethical, it's just common sense.
So a Canadian peodiphile goes to Thailand and has sex with underage girls and you think they shouldn't be held accountable in Canada?

As someone who grew up in Africa, no bribery is not that common and is certainly not out in the open. Most of the time. Foreign companies coming in with large pockets only makes the issue worse.

Yes it is unethical and only pushes back valid efforts to rid these countries of this issue. It is absolutely unethical.

It is also illegal under Canadian law under the Canadian Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA). The fact you are sitting here on a public professional pilots forum advocating for a.canadian company to break both Canadian and international law because it is 'common sense' makes me question your suitability as a pilot.

despicable.
Look, I understand that intellectual rigor isn't your strong point, but try and keep up.

1. I'm not sure how (or why?) you would extrapolate from a discussion about an SNC Lavalin DPA to sex tourism. Try and address the issue at hand.
2. However, to your point: sex with an individual under the age of consent is illegal in Canada, so Canadian sex tourists are (I assume) liable for prosecution in Canada under the criminal code. I say assume, because I've never had occasion to look into it - maybe you have?
3. Your definition of what is and isn't "absolutely unethical" isn't always going to synch up with everyone else's definition: it's a complicated world out there, and shockingly, your personal ethics aren't always going to be universally accepted.
4. I'm well aware of CFPOA's provisions. Go back and read, carefully this time, what I wrote (sound the words out loud, if it helps you). I did not advocate that Canadian companies should break the laws. I advocated for the Canadian government to enforce Canadian laws applicable to Canadian companies, and for foreign governments to enforce their own laws applicable to Canadian companies operating in their jurisdiction. Period. I'm not sure why you find that either complicated or nefarious.

And finally, don't worry your pretty little head about my suitability as a pilot.......I'll take my chances with the regulatory authorities over an anonymous little internet troll any day, thanks.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Recession.

Post by rookiepilot »

YYZSaabGuy wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:02 am
2. However, to your point: sex with an individual under the age of consent is illegal in Canada, so Canadian sex tourists are (I assume) liable for prosecution in Canada under the criminal code. I say assume, because I've never had occasion to look into it - maybe you have?
This is not very nice to say , or imply about another poster, YYZSaab, and I'm quoting it so it doesn't disappear.

You might think that's cute, personally it makes me lose respect for every other word you wrote.

Totally out of line.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Recession.

Post by Diadem »

Americans are losing $323 billion in tax deductions this year because of their government's terrible ideas about the economy: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/tax ... f77651b412
Keeping $323 billion from returning to their economy is going to hurt them badly, and substantially increases the risk of a recession. Oh yeah, MAGA...
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
YYZSaabGuy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Location: On glideslope.

Re: Recession.

Post by YYZSaabGuy »

rookiepilot wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:16 am
YYZSaabGuy wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:02 am
2. However, to your point: sex with an individual under the age of consent is illegal in Canada, so Canadian sex tourists are (I assume) liable for prosecution in Canada under the criminal code. I say assume, because I've never had occasion to look into it - maybe you have?
This is not very nice to say , or imply about another poster, YYZSaab, and I'm quoting it so it doesn't disappear.

You might think that's cute, personally it makes me lose respect for every other word you wrote.

Totally out of line.
Agreed: quote your heart out. That said, I'd guess it's about as out of line as the previous poster's comment that I would consider sex tourism acceptable. Or did you not bother to read the full thread?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Recession.

Post by Diadem »

rookiepilot wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:43 am CANADA:
"The country's economy grew by just 0.1 per cent in the fourth quarter, for an annualized pace of 0.4 per cent, Statistics Canada said Friday from Ottawa. That's the worst quarterly performance in two and a half years."

USA:

"The 2.6 percent annualized rate of gains in gross domestic product from October to December compared with the 2.2 percent median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg".
"The report shows how Republican-backed tax cuts may have continued to aid growth and help bring the full-year figure to 3.1 percent, just above President Donald Trump’s 3 percent goal."

MAGA!

----

People here think Trudeau chasing away foreign investment is somehow a good thing. Don't believe me, look at the figures. International investors have given this country the big middle finger, which is fine in a socialist paradise I guess.
I'd like to know where this quote came from, since you didn't provide a source. This article provides different figures: https://globalnews.ca/news/5011834/cana ... growth-q4/
The economy expanded at an annualized pace of 0.4 per cent over the final three months of 2018 as the country posted its weakest quarterly growth since the middle of 2016, Statistics Canada said Friday. The agency’s latest figures for real gross domestic product show that for all of last year the economy grew 1.8 per cent, compared with the three per cent expansion in 2017.
---------- ADS -----------
 
flyzam
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:15 am

Re: Recession.

Post by flyzam »

YYZSaabGuy wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:02 am
flyzam wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:28 am
YYZSaabGuy wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:39 am
I'm happy to let other countries enforce their own laws, including those applicable to Canadian companies operating in their jurisdictions. I don't see any need for the Canadian government to competitively disadvantage Canadian businesses by enforcing the laws of another country, any more than I expect other governments to enforce Canadian laws. That's not unethical, it's just common sense.
So a Canadian peodiphile goes to Thailand and has sex with underage girls and you think they shouldn't be held accountable in Canada?

As someone who grew up in Africa, no bribery is not that common and is certainly not out in the open. Most of the time. Foreign companies coming in with large pockets only makes the issue worse.

Yes it is unethical and only pushes back valid efforts to rid these countries of this issue. It is absolutely unethical.

It is also illegal under Canadian law under the Canadian Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA). The fact you are sitting here on a public professional pilots forum advocating for a.canadian company to break both Canadian and international law because it is 'common sense' makes me question your suitability as a pilot.

despicable.
Look, I understand that intellectual rigor isn't your strong point, but try and keep up..

. I say assume, because I've never had occasion to look into it - maybe you have?

Go back and read, carefully this time, what I wrote (sound the words out loud, if it helps you).

And finally, don't worry your pretty little head.
You got defensive quick didn't you? Watch your blood pressure princess.

Bribery is against Canadian law in Canada. Hence the comparison. These companies are breaking Canadian law. If you defend corruption, you can expect to be called out for it.

Insult all you want, but you've made your character quite transparent and continue to do so bud.

Have your last word, I'm done with you.
---------- ADS -----------
 
eyebrow737
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:33 am

Re: Recession.

Post by eyebrow737 »

YYZSaabGuy wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:02 am Your definition of what is and isn't "absolutely unethical" isn't always going to synch up with everyone else's definition: it's a complicated world out there, and shockingly, your personal ethics aren't always going to be universally accepted
Yyzsaabguy, it wasn't his personal ethics. It is the law. So technically everyone's personal ethics under penalty.

Except yours as you have made apparent.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
YYZSaabGuy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Location: On glideslope.

Re: Recession.

Post by YYZSaabGuy »

flyzam wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 11:23 am
You got defensive quick didn't you? Watch your blood pressure princess.

Bribery is against Canadian law in Canada. Hence the comparison. These companies are breaking Canadian law. If you defend corruption, you can expect to be called out for it.

Insult all you want, but you've made your character quite transparent and continue to do so bud.

Have your last word, I'm done with you.
Nope, not defensive at all - simply responding to the offensiveness in your post. And your leaving is probably a good idea: you've no doubt met your quota of character assassination, mischaracterization, and trolling for the day. Bravo.

Now run along and find something useful to do, and perhaps leave discussions like this to the grownups in the room, thanks.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
YYZSaabGuy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Location: On glideslope.

Re: Recession.

Post by YYZSaabGuy »

eyebrow737 wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 11:36 am
YYZSaabGuy wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:02 am Your definition of what is and isn't "absolutely unethical" isn't always going to synch up with everyone else's definition: it's a complicated world out there, and shockingly, your personal ethics aren't always going to be universally accepted
Yyzsaabguy, it wasn't his personal ethics. It is the law. So technically everyone's personal ethics under penalty.

Except yours as you have made apparent.
Ethics and law are not the same thing, Eyebrow, "technically" or otherwise. But hey, thanks for that gratuitous ad hominem attack, and welcome to the thread.
---------- ADS -----------
 
eyebrow737
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:33 am

Re: Recession.

Post by eyebrow737 »

YYZSaabGuy wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 11:41 am
eyebrow737 wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 11:36 am
YYZSaabGuy wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:02 am Your definition of what is and isn't "absolutely unethical" isn't always going to synch up with everyone else's definition: it's a complicated world out there, and shockingly, your personal ethics aren't always going to be universally accepted
Yyzsaabguy, it wasn't his personal ethics. It is the law. So technically everyone's personal ethics under penalty.

Except yours as you have made apparent.
Ethics and law are not the same thing, Eyebrow, "technically" or otherwise. But hey, thanks for that gratuitous ad hominem attack, and welcome to the thread.
The point is corruption overseas is the against Canadian law. So we are all beholden to that ethics aside.

Correct me if I'm wrong you seem to be saying that it is ok for Canadian companies to bribe officials overseas? Because others do it?

If I was mistaken, I apologize.
---------- ADS -----------
 
altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Recession.

Post by altiplano »

LOL..

Good discussion gentlemen... what were we taking about again?

Seriously... SNC weren't getting a pass. They woud enter into an agreement of guilt in the DPA, pay fines, and could also be compelled to do/reveal other things in a DPA that a judge couldn't compel even if found guilty in a trial.

Your boss arguing to you to look at alternatives isn't nefarious.

The AG is appointed by the PM and isn't on an island, there is nothing wrong with presenting +/- of their choices and alternatives. Even other cabinet members/staff arguing and pushing for alternatives - even vehemently -to the AG - that's the job.

This isn't the little leagues... we vote for these people because they can face big decisions under immense pressure... and they are there to represent our interests. No doubt Trudeau is representing his riding's interest. No doubt it's Canada's greater interest to finish this off, avoid the uncertain outcome of a trial, while keeping SNC viable and in Canada.

Again. Not suggesting a pass for the offenders. But that wasn't the deal anyway.

Some ridiculous faulty parallels in this thread too... letting off sex tourists? Hardly. But I guarantee a criminal has charges brought up and is willing to plead guilty the crown would look at an appropriate deal. Not let him off, do a deal, punish the offender, save the cost and uncertainty of a trial.

Anyone who doesn't think kickbacks and bribes are the cost of doing business in parts of this wide world is naive. Not saying it right... but you have to pay for the Beyonce and Mariah concerts somehow... besides they kicked back a bit to Canada... Didn't Nelly Furtado play at Gaddafi's place too?

Whatever... Topple SNC, topple a chunk of the QPP, cut out some GDP, and 1000's of jobs, ... where's the positive in that? Does that teach some unknown guys that were part of the scheme a lesson? Of course not...

Weed them out, replace them, the company moves on...

This isn't some partisan Liberal idea, I'm far from what Liberal has become and I don't support most of the direction of this government...

I mean even Conrad Black thinks this is ridiculous and has written some good perspective on the affair... hardly a Liberal supporter.

I can't help but wonder if the equality of outcome in JT's cabinet appointment choices have come back on him here... maybe that's the biggest lesson in all this.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
YYZSaabGuy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Location: On glideslope.

Re: Recession.

Post by YYZSaabGuy »

eyebrow737 wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:12 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong you seem to be saying that it is ok for Canadian companies to bribe officials overseas? Because others do it?

If I was mistaken, I apologize.
Look, it's illegal (obviously) for Canadian companies to bribe government officials either domestically or in other jurisdictions. Most governments around the world have similar restrictions on companies domiciled in their jurisdictions. And not that anybody should particularly care what I think, but in fact I happen to be fully in favour of preventing commercial interests from bribing government officials - I thought I had made that clear in my previous posts about the whole SNC debacle. My point here was that the Canadian government should busy itself by upholding the legislation by which it is bound, including the various OECD, OAS, UN, TPP and USMCA (once ratified) conventions to which it has subscribed. It doesn't pretend to try to enforce the laws of other jurisdictions, nor should it - that's just wrong-headed.

As far as the ethics of the matter: so long as governments respect their treaty obligations, then obviously we're all better off with laws that prohibit corruption and bribery. I just don't like it when Canadian companies are competitively disadvantaged because"ethical" concerns (which cast a pretty wide net) can sometimes trump common sense: witness the Canadian government's desire to cancel LAV sales to the Saudis, regardless of the economic impact and completely ignoring the fact that several other countries would quickly step up and benefit from taking over that procurement. I'm not sure why Canadian companies should be forced to throw themselves on that particular ethical sword. And I happen to think it's wrong that Canadian companies may be competitively disadvantaged because other countries decide not to play by the rules, whether corruption-related or otherwise: see, for example, the Trumpian view that vehicle and parts imports should bear punitive tariffs because they constitute a national security threat. Seriously?
---------- ADS -----------
 
eyebrow737
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:33 am

Re: Recession.

Post by eyebrow737 »

YYZSaabGuy wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:57 pm
eyebrow737 wrote: Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:12 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong you seem to be saying that it is ok for Canadian companies to bribe officials overseas? Because others do it?

If I was mistaken, I apologize.
Look, it's illegal (obviously) for Canadian companies to bribe government officials either domestically or in other jurisdictions. Most governments around the world have similar restrictions on companies domiciled in their jurisdictions. And not that anybody should particularly care what I think, but in fact I happen to be fully in favour of preventing commercial interests from bribing government officials - I thought I had made that clear in my previous posts about the whole SNC debacle. My point here was that the Canadian government should busy itself by upholding the legislation by which it is bound, including the various OECD, OAS, UN, TPP and USMCA (once ratified) conventions to which it has subscribed. It doesn't pretend to try to enforce the laws of other jurisdictions, nor should it - that's just wrong-headed.

As far as the ethics of the matter: so long as governments respect their treaty obligations, then obviously we're all better off with laws that prohibit corruption and bribery. I just don't like it when Canadian companies are competitively disadvantaged because"ethical" concerns (which cast a pretty wide net) can sometimes trump common sense: witness the Canadian government's desire to cancel LAV sales to the Saudis, regardless of the economic impact and completely ignoring the fact that several other countries would quickly step up and benefit from taking over that procurement. I'm not sure why Canadian companies should be forced to throw themselves on that particular ethical sword. And I happen to think it's wrong that Canadian companies may be competitively disadvantaged because other countries decide not to play by the rules, whether corruption-related or otherwise: see, for example, the Trumpian view that vehicle and parts imports should bear punitive tariffs because they constitute a national security threat. Seriously?
As you say, it is a complicated world. I agree with your sentiments. Sometimes the most unscrupulous win.

Needless to say, Canada is not the only western country struggling with this.. especially with the rise of China.
---------- ADS -----------
 
teacher
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:25 pm

Re: Recession.

Post by teacher »

This is where it gets scary when it comes to Liberal government spending.....

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ ... ent-it-all (and borrowed on top of it)

Anyone who screams about Harper's deficits is being extremely disingenuous as they fail to mention that the deficits were temporary stimulus spending during a global financial crisis AND not only supported by the Liberals BUT criticized for NOT SPENDING MORE!

Trudeau's deficits are structural and permanent which means the next global recession will be even more painful than the last (budget deficit wise)
---------- ADS -----------
 
https://eresonatemedia.com/
https://bambaits.ca/
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”