If Canada and the indigenous community could come together to get mines built faster — primarily gold mines — we would have no issue whatsoever. Gold has started a meteoric run as the current environment is heavily reminiscent of the 1970’s (stagflation — ie low economic growth and high inflation). During this period gold went over 10x (it hasn’t even gone 2x this cycle). The current environment one could argue is even more favourable to gold as the geopolitical dynamics are more drastic/dire today than they were then (back then The US was the undisputed top dog — which clearly it is no longer with The BRICS rising). Also, The US financial situation was much better then than now. Gold is priced in USD so Canadian gold miners get a major benefit as they get paid in USD for their gold production while most costs are in CAD (ie a lower CAD is better for gold miners profits in Canada).
Canada has more than enough gold in the ground to deal with our debt issue, and to create strong tax revenues for spending; if we can get out of our own way and get projects built in a timely and efficient manner. After all, when a mine isn’t built in Canada it is typically built elsewhere with far worse labour and environmental regulations — so we are literally passing the buck and losing out on the economic benefits in the process, which is foolish any way you look at it.
In gold we trust ought to be the Canadian motto going forward.
It’s an interesting choice to give examples such as the arts and social programs that could be examined, but not mention the over $18 billion in federal subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Tax dollars going to the richest corporate sectors should be the first ones to be looked at when considering cuts.
Well, first of all, I don't see any reference to arts programs in my post.
But the main thing is that I really don't understand how oil and gas industry subsidies work. What I have seen suggests that it's incredibly complicated and it's simply not something I've explored yet. For example, the term "subsidy" could include tax credits, loan guarantees, or royalty credits - all of which would be useless in the context of a government debt crisis.
This is the 4th paragraph of your post: « Some of this may seem obvious. After all, when there are First Nations reserves without clean water and millions of Canadians without access to primary care physicians, how can we justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars funding arts projects that virtually no one will ever discover, much less consume? » There is a link in that paragraph to another post you wrote that says « Public funding for the arts introduces perverse incentives. And besides, do we really want government deciding what we’ll get to read and watch? »
Maybe looking deeper into corporate subsidies, like you have with arts funding, should be your next endeavour.
Corporate subsidies do certainly fit nicely into The Audit's lineup. I've added it to my target list but, given the length of the existing topic queue, I can't guarantee when it'll get its turn.
Corporate subsidy is a definite area of interest. Not only O&G but across the board. Any analysis would also need to include things like oil sands cleanup, how much of that is funded with actual cash set aside. If it isn't we are allowing private companies to benefit off a public resource, without having to pay for a cost that the use of this resource incurs.
Also, how much is subsidy thru another means. I read an article this morning that the federal government is lending the power Corp in Romania 3 billion dollars as part of a deal for Candu reactors. It's tied to procurement of Canadian items, for sure, but what's the interest rate we get from that deal?
I support this article. Any curious Canadian feeling penny-pinched has wondered what exactly our tax dollars have been funding. Spending cuts make absolute sense, but there would need to be powerful leadership in place and an informed and supportive public. Because there will be a LOT of pushback from the social justice community, who seem to have a hold on many of our institutions.
"Contributions to provide income support to on-reserve residents and Status Indians in the Yukon Territory ($1.05 billion). Note that, as of the 2021 Census, there were 9,150 individuals with North American Indigenous origins in Yukon. Assuming the line item is accurately described, that means the income support came to $114,987/person (not per household; per person)."
You've misread the first sentence. Those funds are for income assistance for people who reside in First Nations communities south of 60 ("on reserve residents") and for status indians in the Yukon, not just the latter. The distinction being necessary because there are no reserves in the Yukon.
I believe there are reserves in Yukon (Ta’an Kwäch’än Council Indian Reserve being one of them). And why single out just Yukon and not the other territories?
As I remember it, whole of govt budget reviews like what you're suggesting have taken place at least once - under Paul Martin & Jean Chretien in the 90s, and then i think once again under Harper. Do you know by how much the spending was reduced? I don't think it was much but I'm not aware of the amounts
I don't have the exact numbers, but my memories of the Martin/Chretien budget cuts include a lot of public sector screaming about "draconian cuts" - and they did bring Canada's debt/deficit under control in a meaningful way. Perhaps it might be worth seeing what I can find out about their process.
I believe the liberals brought the deficit under control by reducing transfer payments to the provinces (which had the greatest impact), and then a 2% cap on Indigenous expenditures, and cuts in military spending. I don't think their own budget review was significant beyond that, but I don't have any supporting data.
Mulroney govt also did a thorough review, undertaken by 'Yukon Eric' Nielson, which recommended a lot of programs be wound down. Mulroney didn't follow through on most of it, although he did bring in Free Trade and the GST, which laid the foundation for the economic recovery and budget balancing of the 90's.
These are issues best analyzed by thinking of the nature and roles of the state. We got here by empowering politics. I believe that the following quotes help:
“If you wish to be a success in the world, promise everything, deliver nothing.” – Napoleon Bonaparte
“When people want the impossible, only liars will satisfy them.” - Thomas Sowell
"No vast leviathan such as ours will ever be ruled by good people for no good people would seek such dominion over others. As soon as you allow politicians to determine that which can be bought and sold, the first thing bought and sold will always be politicians.”- El Gato Malo
The first step would be single term limits eliminating the notion of re-election and politics as a career with the goal of eventually making Parliament a part time, one time only voluntary assignment.
If Canada and the indigenous community could come together to get mines built faster — primarily gold mines — we would have no issue whatsoever. Gold has started a meteoric run as the current environment is heavily reminiscent of the 1970’s (stagflation — ie low economic growth and high inflation). During this period gold went over 10x (it hasn’t even gone 2x this cycle). The current environment one could argue is even more favourable to gold as the geopolitical dynamics are more drastic/dire today than they were then (back then The US was the undisputed top dog — which clearly it is no longer with The BRICS rising). Also, The US financial situation was much better then than now. Gold is priced in USD so Canadian gold miners get a major benefit as they get paid in USD for their gold production while most costs are in CAD (ie a lower CAD is better for gold miners profits in Canada).
Canada has more than enough gold in the ground to deal with our debt issue, and to create strong tax revenues for spending; if we can get out of our own way and get projects built in a timely and efficient manner. After all, when a mine isn’t built in Canada it is typically built elsewhere with far worse labour and environmental regulations — so we are literally passing the buck and losing out on the economic benefits in the process, which is foolish any way you look at it.
In gold we trust ought to be the Canadian motto going forward.
Sincerely,
Robert Kenneth Mackey 🍀
It’s an interesting choice to give examples such as the arts and social programs that could be examined, but not mention the over $18 billion in federal subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Tax dollars going to the richest corporate sectors should be the first ones to be looked at when considering cuts.
Well, first of all, I don't see any reference to arts programs in my post.
But the main thing is that I really don't understand how oil and gas industry subsidies work. What I have seen suggests that it's incredibly complicated and it's simply not something I've explored yet. For example, the term "subsidy" could include tax credits, loan guarantees, or royalty credits - all of which would be useless in the context of a government debt crisis.
This is the 4th paragraph of your post: « Some of this may seem obvious. After all, when there are First Nations reserves without clean water and millions of Canadians without access to primary care physicians, how can we justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars funding arts projects that virtually no one will ever discover, much less consume? » There is a link in that paragraph to another post you wrote that says « Public funding for the arts introduces perverse incentives. And besides, do we really want government deciding what we’ll get to read and watch? »
Maybe looking deeper into corporate subsidies, like you have with arts funding, should be your next endeavour.
Ah. Fair point.
Corporate subsidies do certainly fit nicely into The Audit's lineup. I've added it to my target list but, given the length of the existing topic queue, I can't guarantee when it'll get its turn.
Corporate subsidy is a definite area of interest. Not only O&G but across the board. Any analysis would also need to include things like oil sands cleanup, how much of that is funded with actual cash set aside. If it isn't we are allowing private companies to benefit off a public resource, without having to pay for a cost that the use of this resource incurs.
Also, how much is subsidy thru another means. I read an article this morning that the federal government is lending the power Corp in Romania 3 billion dollars as part of a deal for Candu reactors. It's tied to procurement of Canadian items, for sure, but what's the interest rate we get from that deal?
I support this article. Any curious Canadian feeling penny-pinched has wondered what exactly our tax dollars have been funding. Spending cuts make absolute sense, but there would need to be powerful leadership in place and an informed and supportive public. Because there will be a LOT of pushback from the social justice community, who seem to have a hold on many of our institutions.
"Contributions to provide income support to on-reserve residents and Status Indians in the Yukon Territory ($1.05 billion). Note that, as of the 2021 Census, there were 9,150 individuals with North American Indigenous origins in Yukon. Assuming the line item is accurately described, that means the income support came to $114,987/person (not per household; per person)."
You've misread the first sentence. Those funds are for income assistance for people who reside in First Nations communities south of 60 ("on reserve residents") and for status indians in the Yukon, not just the latter. The distinction being necessary because there are no reserves in the Yukon.
I believe there are reserves in Yukon (Ta’an Kwäch’än Council Indian Reserve being one of them). And why single out just Yukon and not the other territories?
As I remember it, whole of govt budget reviews like what you're suggesting have taken place at least once - under Paul Martin & Jean Chretien in the 90s, and then i think once again under Harper. Do you know by how much the spending was reduced? I don't think it was much but I'm not aware of the amounts
I don't have the exact numbers, but my memories of the Martin/Chretien budget cuts include a lot of public sector screaming about "draconian cuts" - and they did bring Canada's debt/deficit under control in a meaningful way. Perhaps it might be worth seeing what I can find out about their process.
I believe the liberals brought the deficit under control by reducing transfer payments to the provinces (which had the greatest impact), and then a 2% cap on Indigenous expenditures, and cuts in military spending. I don't think their own budget review was significant beyond that, but I don't have any supporting data.
Mulroney govt also did a thorough review, undertaken by 'Yukon Eric' Nielson, which recommended a lot of programs be wound down. Mulroney didn't follow through on most of it, although he did bring in Free Trade and the GST, which laid the foundation for the economic recovery and budget balancing of the 90's.
These are issues best analyzed by thinking of the nature and roles of the state. We got here by empowering politics. I believe that the following quotes help:
“If you wish to be a success in the world, promise everything, deliver nothing.” – Napoleon Bonaparte
“When people want the impossible, only liars will satisfy them.” - Thomas Sowell
"No vast leviathan such as ours will ever be ruled by good people for no good people would seek such dominion over others. As soon as you allow politicians to determine that which can be bought and sold, the first thing bought and sold will always be politicians.”- El Gato Malo
The first step would be single term limits eliminating the notion of re-election and politics as a career with the goal of eventually making Parliament a part time, one time only voluntary assignment.