A compromise on democracy? Plus other letters, Nov. 24: ‘Pierre Poilievre is starting to show his true colours’
Re “Pierre Poilievre playing to base on Canada-Ukraine free-trade agreement is a compromise on democracy” (Nov. 23): If I ever had any doubt, Pierre Poilievre is starting to show his true colours more clearly in recent weeks.
His default setting seems to be negativity. Rather than be seen to vote with Liberals and socialists, he opposes a Ukraine free-trade agreement. He complains that the Liberals are doing nothing to help the housing crisis, and then complains that they are spending too much when they actually do. The name Justin Trudeau appears in nearly every sentence.
He seems to be a man obsessed and willing to do whatever necessary to gain power. That’s a scary prospect, and eerily reminiscent of a recent U.S. president.
Costs and benefits
Re “Faced with an economic downturn, the Liberals’ fiscal framework could easily derail” (Editorial, Nov. 22): For decades, I have witnessed the cacophony and hand-wringing that surrounds government deficits and accumulating debt. Balancing budgets and overspending have become an obsession with politicians, particularly from the right of the political spectrum.
I have never observed what I consider to be negative effects of large government expenditures. Indeed, quite the opposite. Medicare comes to mind and more recently the Canada Emergency Response Benefit. Now, there is the pending massive investment in housing. More is coming.
Yet we continue to hear the usual criticisms. Even if there is a little bit of truth in some of them, I believe they pale against the benefits of large outlays of spending.
The proof lies in the significant benefits to most citizens as a result of huge government investments and, yes, producing debt which, for at least as long as Canada has been a country, has been manageable.
Re “Pierre Poilievre playing to base on Canada-Ukraine free-trade agreement is a compromise on democracy” (Nov. 23): If I ever had any doubt, Pierre Poilievre is starting to show his true colours more clearly in recent weeks.
His default setting seems to be negativity. Rather than be seen to vote with Liberals and socialists, he opposes a Ukraine free-trade agreement. He complains that the Liberals are doing nothing to help the housing crisis, and then complains that they are spending too much when they actually do. The name Justin Trudeau appears in nearly every sentence.
He seems to be a man obsessed and willing to do whatever necessary to gain power. That’s a scary prospect, and eerily reminiscent of a recent U.S. president.
Costs and benefits
Re “Faced with an economic downturn, the Liberals’ fiscal framework could easily derail” (Editorial, Nov. 22): For decades, I have witnessed the cacophony and hand-wringing that surrounds government deficits and accumulating debt. Balancing budgets and overspending have become an obsession with politicians, particularly from the right of the political spectrum.
I have never observed what I consider to be negative effects of large government expenditures. Indeed, quite the opposite. Medicare comes to mind and more recently the Canada Emergency Response Benefit. Now, there is the pending massive investment in housing. More is coming.
Yet we continue to hear the usual criticisms. Even if there is a little bit of truth in some of them, I believe they pale against the benefits of large outlays of spending.
The proof lies in the significant benefits to most citizens as a result of huge government investments and, yes, producing debt which, for at least as long as Canada has been a country, has been manageable.
PP has plenty of time to implode. Rates will be down, inflation down more EVs,
