Each of the six federal leaders made statements with varying degrees of accuracy on Monday night. Here's the fact check: cdnpoli elxn43 canadadebates2019
Each of the six federal leaders made statements with varying degrees of accuracy on Monday night.
Story continues below advertisementOn Feb. 7, the Globe and Mail newspaper first reported that Trudeau’s office pressured Wilson-Raybould to offer the company a remediation agreement. SNC-Lavalin’s stock was already declining.The bad news continued for the company over the ensuing months, and in early August it announced it was cutting its quarterly dividend by 80 per cent and getting out of the business of fixed-price construction contracts, where the company eats any cost overruns, which the company’s CEO said was the “root cause of the company’s underperformance” for the quarter.
The company’s reports to investors have pointed to issues in its oil and gas segment as among the business reasons why it is shrinking its workforce. Previous chief executive Neil Bruce also said that company lost out on $5 billion to $6 billion in contracts over the last five to seven years because of the ongoing corruption case.
It’s not entirely clear the political scandal surrounding Trudeau and his government has been the source of declines in the company’s stock value, and loss in workforce, and even fuzzier is the link to Scheer’s commentary.Also, over the course of the last month, the stock price has gone up.
For all the above reasons, Blanchet’s statement gets a rating “a lot of baloney” because there are elements of truth, but they are few and far between.Story continues below advertisementConservative Leader Andrew Scheer“Your tax policy has meant that 80 per cent of Canadian families pay higher taxes today than when you first took office.”
Scheer lobbed that argument at Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, a talking point the Conservatives have used for quite some time.The party says the source for that statistic is a 2017 study from the Fraser Institute, a right-leaning think-tank. The study explored how fiscal changes the Liberals made in their first two years in office were affecting the middle class.
They concluded, after examining the impacts of tax cuts but also the elimination of various tax credits, there would be higher income taxes for 81 per cent of Canadian families with children whose incomes fall between $77,089 and $107,624.Story continues below advertisement
But the study failed to take into account other fiscal measures that considerably bolstered families’ bottom lines, several economists point out. Among them, the major Canada Child Benefit.Leaders’ Debate: Scheer says Trudeau wears ‘masks’ and can’t be trusted
Leaders’ Debate: Scheer says Trudeau wears ‘masks’ and can’t be trusted“I think it should be considered part of any serious analysis of the fiscal program of the (Liberal) government,” said Kevin Milligan, an economist at the University of British Columbia.
At the same time, the idea that the tax credits cancelled by the Liberals — some of which the Conservatives have promised to return — had a dramatic impact on families’ tax burdens is questionable, said Jennifer Robson, a political-management professor at Carleton University.
She analyzed the boutique tax credits in question and found that a minority of families actually claimed the credits.“Eighty per cent of families with kids cannot, by definition, be paying more taxes as a result of the cancellation of tax credits that were reaching between 10 per cent and 32 per cent of families with kids,” she said in an email.
For those reasons, the statement earns a rating of “some baloney” — the statement is partly accurate but important details are missing.NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh“We see with Mr. Trudeau he says nice words, but he gave $6 billion in corporate-loan writeoffs last year.”
Story continues below advertisementThroughout the debate, the NDP’s Jagmeet Singh advanced his main theme of his party being the only one to stand up to corporate Canada.His party sourced that example to media coverage of the federal government’s Public Accounts, the annual document published by the federal government that lays out in detail how and where it spends money.
In 2018, the Liberal government reported that it would not collect $6.3 billion in loans for the 2017-2018 fiscal year, nearly the double the amount it wrote off in prior years.The jump in uncollected funds was due to a $2.6-billion writeoff that was part of a financing package the federal government supplied in 2009 to keep automaker Chrysler afloat and save thousands of jobs in the middle of the recession.
Leaders’ Debate Wrap: Jagmeet Singh stands out in the packLeaders’ Debate Wrap: Jagmeet Singh stands out in the packThat deal was struck by the previous Conservative government, which never expected to get all the money back.“At the end of the day, there’s not going to be full recovery of the taxpayers’ investments that were made back in 2008-2009 — in the sense of cash recovery,” former finance minister Jim Flaherty said in 2011.
“But what is the value of preserving an industry? What is the value of preserving 52,000 jobs in our country? You have to put a value on those, which are pretty substantial values in my view.”Story continues below advertisementSingh’s figure on the Liberal government’s loan writeoffs is accurate but there’s much more to the story.
For those reasons, Singh’s statement earns a rating of “a little baloney” — the statement is mostly accurate but more information is required.People’s Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier“Canada receives more immigrants per capita than any other western country, three times higher than the U.S. … It is the equivalent of one Nova Scotia every three years, the population of Nova Scotia every three years here in Canada .”
In a segment of the leaders’ debate on immigration, Bernier argued that his is the only party willing to have a serious discussion on the impacts of immigration on Canada and the need for more focus on integration, citing two sets of statistics to bolster his argument.
Story continues below advertisementImmigration levels in Canada are determined in three-year chunks, which is likely why Bernier used the time reference.According to Statistics Canada, as of mid-2018, Nova Scotia’s population was 959,942.The federal immigration plan for 2019-2021 aims to settle 1,021,800 people over three years. So, the plan is to take in slightly more than the population of Nova Scotia.
But that’s a red herring, points out Sharry Aiken, a law professor and immigration expert at Queen’s University.Immigrants don’t just go to Nova Scotia, they go across the country.Leaders’ Debate Wrap: How Maxime Bernier defended his policiesLeaders’ Debate Wrap: How Maxime Bernier defended his policies
“When we’re talking about immigration-absorption and capacity to integrate immigrants, we’re looking at not just absorption in Halifax, we’re looking at Quebec City and Montreal and Toronto and Ottawa … London and Windsor and Saskatoon and Edmonton, et cetera,” she said.
When it comes to how many immigrants per capita that Canada accepts, several experts on Monday night pointed to a 2019 World Economic Forum study examining United Nations data.It found that in 2015, the U.S. has the highest number of immigrants — defined as foreign-born individuals — with 48 million, roughly six times the number in Canada, which that year has an estimated 7.6 million.
Story continues below advertisementPut another way, foreign-born residents make up 15.1 per cent of the U.S. population, while in Canada it’s 21 per cent.In 2017, 1,127,167 people were granted permanent residency in the U.S., representing about 0.3 per cent of the population. That same year, 286,479 people were granted permanent residency in Canada, representing about 0.8 per cent of the population.
Again, said Aiken, what matters in developing policy is the trend line, and how the number relates to Canada’s total population, not how it’s seen in comparison to others.For those reasons, the statement contains “a little baloney” — the statement is mostly accurate but more information is required.Read more: Globalnews.ca »
Imagine being stupid enough to think that MaximeBernier said that Nova Soctia gets 1,000,000 immigrants every three years. is 'a lot of baloney' We are all individuals we all have different needs. Our government has played this game for as long as I been alive here in MY CANADA and for the adults that have been raised in this country lived through this you should he ashamed this happens every election stop the divide.
I love this shit man. You people call yourselves Canadians. That debate should of shown eveyone the power struggle in the government between the 2 sides that have destroyed our country. This is not about left and right this about divide the people to control power in government There was only 1 party and leader that openly lies to Canadians that is Scheer and the Conservatives
I don't have to read the global article to no it says trudeau amazing, Singh beautiful , may graceful,scheer homophobe,racist,misogynist and stomps on kittens. I get a kick everytime I hear GlobalNews doing a fact check. Where was the fact check when the Russian collusion was the top news agenda? Pushing lies and false narratives, yes we still remember. Hypocrisy.
Unsurprisingly, Trudeau’s statement that the Globe and Mail SNC Lavalin story was false received zero mention. 'The allegations in the Globe story are false' The world laughs at trudeau and Canada. cdnpoli elxn43. Last night, the laughter got louder.
Global presents federal leaders’ debate bingoYou can bet the party leaders will find ways to work in their favourite talking points during the debate. Use this bingo card to try to keep up with them. CanadaDebates2019 elxn43 cdnpoli You forgot The Globe and Mail injunction Saturday October 4,2019
Six leaders set sights on English-language election debateSix leaders set sights on English-language election debate GlobePolitics globepolitics NDA..NDA. Canadians deserve to know the truth before the election kkirkup Feeling overwhelmed by all the news this election cycle? Get informed on the leaders, the issues and the latest headlines all in one place: kkirkup .AndrewScheer we understand how you feel about JustinTrudeau but can we please make this debate about the issues and not just a trash fest? Thanks.
Blog: 2019 Canadian election leaders’ debateConservative Leader Andrew Scheer attacked Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's use of two planes for his election campaign, calling his defence 'privileged.' CanadaDebated2019 elxn43 cdnpoli Read more: CKNW Scheers whole campaign has been about attacking Trudeau. I take this as I have to knock the big guy down a peg. What he fails to see is he is pointing out who the big dog still is. 630CHED Attacked is a strong word. Challenged is more like it. AM980News Perfectly honest and corroborated by May Singh Bernier and Blanchet
Watch live: 2019 Canadian election leaders’ debateThe six party leaders will be facing off in the official Leaders' Debates Commission’s English debate on Monday at 7 p.m. ET. It is absurd they are allowed to talk over each other None because this is pathetic Shut MaximeBernier up. Take control moderators. I really think candidates should be put in sound proof boxes for debates to cut down on this crude talking over each other business. Pipe the questions in. Turn on and off their mics. Elxn43 electiondebate cdnpoli
Scheer pledges to get rid of admissions fees for Canada’s national museumsAndrew Scheer made the announcement on an otherwise quiet day, as the party leaders prepare for the English-language debate later today. I just threw up in my mouth. Flashbacks from my high school days. For everyone? That's stupid, it's a great source of tourism revenue. Make it free for kids / locals sure, but to throw away the income is just dumb.
REPLAY: Fact-checking and analysis of English-language federal leaders' debateReplay the CTVNews.ca live blog as journalists and experts analyzed claims made during the federal leaders' debate. This was by far the most entertaining of any debate I've watched. Not a single news outlet commented on theJagmeetSingh’s comment about indigenous. His promise to them was better welfare. Now if that isn’t racist I don’t know what is In his mind these people are only good enough to get welfare? Opportunities? Nah, they just get good welfare Scheer won in a landslide. Trudeau was embarrassing as always. Singh was entertaining but can never be taken seriously. May is a blowhard and the rest were irrelevant with little meaningful logic to offer.