Why the so-called Canada Job Grant isn't working - Macleans.ca

Why the so-called Canada Job Grant isn’t working

The Conservatives sweetened the deal to save their jobs plan. John Geddes explains why no one’s buying


Deborah Baic/The Globe and Mail/CP

Schemes to place hard-to-employ young people in jobs tend to come and go. BladeRunners is the exception. The British Columbia program has been around since 1994, long enough that even its managers aren’t entirely clear on how it got its name—and for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to single it out as a proven model. BladeRunners helps unemployed 15- to 30-year-olds—mostly Aboriginal, sometimes homeless, often with histories of substance abuse—learn basic skills and land several key weeks of job experience. Counsellors are on call around the clock when participants run into the inevitable problems.

It sounds like the sort of feel-good program any politician might rush to line up behind. But the B.C. provincial government cites BladeRunners as a prime example of the kind of training that the federal Conservatives are out to cut. At issue is the so-called Canada Job Grant (CJG), announced by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty with considerable fanfare in last year’s federal budget. Under the CJG, Flaherty proposed that the federal government, the provinces and employers each pay a third of up to $15,000 a year for every employee enrolled for training at an eligible institution. But there was a catch: The federal government’s $300-million share was to be taken out of the $500 million a year Ottawa transfers to provinces under existing labour-market agreements—the main source of BladeRunners’ $6-million budget.

Not surprisingly, the provinces cried foul. By bringing in employers as partners, the new CJG was designed to help train new hires those businesses see as most promising. But the funding the federal Tories propose to reduce is earmarked for trying to provide skills to those most deeply mired in unemployment. “That means we are going to have to cut programs that are working for Aboriginals, people with disabilities, people who need help with literacy and basic skills, at-risk youth, youth in general, new immigrants,” says Ontario Training, Colleges and Universities Minister Brad Duguid. “Those segments should not be left out in the cold.”

Almost immediately after Flaherty announced the CJG in his budget last spring, provincial opposition began to harden. By summer, the clash had emerged as a serious headache for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. In his July cabinet shuffle, Harper named Jason Kenney, who had proven his ability to get things done as citizenship and immigration minister, as the new employment minister. Taking on the CJG file, Kenney quickly served notice that Ottawa would not be abandoning the concept, but also signalled a willingness to negotiate.

On Christmas Eve, he delivered a proposal to the provinces that contained a big concession, clearly meant to break the stalemate that had seen not a single province agree to go along with the federal plan. Kenney said the provinces would no longer be required to put up their own money to fund a third of the new job grants. It was undeniably a show of willingness to bargain seriously, perhaps in a bid to wrap up the most glaring piece of unfinished business from 2013’s budget before the 2014 version, which Flaherty is expected to table early next month. “The federal government has listened to provinces’ concerns and significantly restructured the offer based on their feedback,” he said in a written statement.

But Kenney added: “We remain prepared to deliver the Canada Job Grant ourselves, if an agreement with the provinces is not met.” If he thought the provinces would gratefully fall into line, though, he was to be disappointed. The provincial ministers responsible for training held a conference call on the issue last week and decided to hold firm in demanding that the feds not pay for the CJG by cutting the existing labour-market agreements. Time to hammer out a deal is now running short, since those agreements expire at the end of March.

Kenney contends that the agreements should not be viewed in isolation from other federal transfers to the provinces. His office provided a list of related transfers to help those who have a hard time getting jobs, including hundreds of millions for older workers and disabled people, and billions, since the Harper government won power in 2006, for Aboriginals and youth. Perhaps even more central to the federal government’s case for the CJG concept is the way it brings employers to the heart of training. From the time the grant plan was announced, the Conservatives have touted business support as a key selling point. “The Canada Job Grant will ensure employers put more skin in the game, when it comes to training unemployed and underemployed Canadians,” Kenney said.

But business groups contacted by Maclean’s were split on the CJG. Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said his small-business lobby group has long been skeptical about the effectiveness of government-run training. “When the feds proposed a different model, by having a heavier degree of employer involvement, that sounded good to us,” he said. So the federation has remained solidly in the federal camp, although Kelly said he still wants to see details of the program design, to make sure it won’t be too cumbersome to administer for small-business owners.

John Winter, president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, said his membership has already decided the CJG would be far too complicated for small firms. The federal proposal would require employers to sign up workers for training at outside institutions, such as colleges or private training companies. Winter said small businesses just don’t have the human resources capacity to manage those arrangements. “It just isn’t a realistic proposal,” he said. “It only subsidizes big businesses and big unions who are already doing training.” Kenney is proposing letting business groups form CJG consortiums, so individual small firms wouldn’t have to carry the administrative burden alone. As well, he has floated the idea of small firms being allowed to include wages paid to workers receiving training as part of their required employer’s contribution.

Despite such shows of flexibility, provincial business groups remain, on the whole, sympathetic with provincial governments in the dispute. The federal government boasts some support from national groups. Allan O’Dette, president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, said that’s because companies that have first-hand experience with provincial training programs, funded by the labour-market agreements, don’t see them as a waste of money. “Pulling funds out of existing programs that seem to be working well is not, to my mind, a good way to go,” O’Dette said.

Some companies also wonder why the federal government decided last year to reassert itself by designing and announcing the CJG alone. The move reversed a long-term shift toward the provinces running training, which culminated in 2007 with the labour-market agreements that the federal government now aims to shrink. Ontario’s Duguid has a theory about what happened. “I think the federal government didn’t have a lot of money to put together a strategy that actually creates jobs,” he said. “They thought, ‘Well, we have to be involved in jobs somehow, so let’s dive back into training.’ ” It’s turned out to be a plunge into rough waters.


Why the so-called Canada Job Grant isn’t working

  1. The Job Grant isn’t working, eh?
    Maybe that’s because the guy running it has never actually held a job…nor his gadfly boss.

    • wait…
      this smells a lot like Harper’s favorite ploy…”self-regulation””…
      Corporate welfare without legal obligation.

      • Liberals used to push job creation programs too. But its all a farce, its all to lend the fallacy and illusion that government can create jobs and the perception that big statism works for us.

        Taxing 50,000 people $1 to buy a $50,000 job, means you bought job but 50,000 people spend $1 less to loose someone else’s job. +1 -1 = 0 net jobs.

        But government enjoys the propaganda factor. Its all about selling the illusion that big fat huge corrupt governemtn can effectively manage our lives as if we were chickens.

        Government can’t solve the economic and job loss problems at it is our government bloat and waste causing the problems.

        People taxed for less value money will get less goods and services. And that means less jobs to produce the lower demand of goods and services. The more the governments get, the less the people get. And that includes jobs.

        • Every time you spout this crap I’m going to point out how you’re an idiot for it, dave777, so you really should go learn about economies of scale which might enable you to come up with a better example.

          Once again, if you tax 50,000 people $1 each, then those people get to buy one less chocolate bar than they might have otherwise.. over the course of the entire year. Not even the chocolate bar companies are going to notice this deviation.

          Meanwhile, that 50k now goes to pay someone’s wages, gets them off of social services, and may even allow them to leverage those wages to make larger purchases like an automobile or a home, something that can really make a difference to our economy, and, again, that’s without even considering the productive value of what they may contribute to society — which in a public service job may be something such as aiding domestic businesses navigate international rules and regulations.. something that can easily cause *those* businesses to see increased profits as well.

          • So the chocolate bar maker lays off people. You just supported my assertion. As for the numbers, I used 50,000 as a reference, but the theory is right when you scale it up to 14 million workers paying taxes or consumers having $44+ billion in hidden tariff taxation and more in price protectionism.

            People like you are obviously governemtn employees deluding yourselves on your worth to Canadian society and push propaganda to justify the wastes.

            And as you elude to, governments make things so complex and bureaucratic you need massive amounts of more union governemtn to master it. Its why small business suffer as they can’t afford the lawyers to navigate the complexities.

            Governemtn always touts the good it does while ignoring the harm they do. BS is Ottawas best product.

          • So now you’re saying you don’t know what the words “don’t notice this deviation” mean? I can believe that.

            No, the theory is not right. If it’s not right at 50,000, it’s not right at 35 million.

            Is there some loss from those who have the taxes taken? Of course.
            Is it as much as the gain from those who receive the taxes? Highly unlikely thanks to how economics of scale work.

            Your assumption as to my employment is not only laughably wrong, it also shows that you simply don’t have any arguments left that make sense.

            The “complexities” you speak of are part of how governments ensure that the products we are sold are safe. Or do you really *want* glass in your chocolate bars?

          • You’re entire premise is laughably flawed. You’re taking money out of the economy that does something productive for society, and giving it to somebody who won’t do anything productive with it.

            You can make baseless assertions like “the chocolate bar companies” aren’t going to notice a significant reduction in sales, but that’s a complete lie. Due to the reduced revenues, the chocolate bar makers will likely have to lay people off and do more with less. So to create that one job, you’ve destroyed several others.

            If there were any sense to your theory, the government could just tax workers at 100%, and use all of that extra revenue to create “jobs”, and we’d have a 0% unemployement rate. Jeez, why hasn’t the government thought of that before?

          • “You’re entire premise is laughably flawed.”

            Satire may not be dead, but your doing you’re best to kill it.

          • Actually, the baseless assertion here is that the money is coming from something that’s productive. Even going by your completely flawed logic, the money could be coming from a government employee and going to support a private business venture through Federal Training Programs. Or perhaps you’re saying that government employees are productive and private training businesses aren’t?

            $50,000 worth of chocolate would barely cross the line of materiality in the large candy bar makers financials.. and that’s assuming that everybody who got the $1 tax chose not to purchase a chocolate bar, and they all chose the same company to not purchase that bar from. In reality, the effects would be spread even wider and thinner across the whole economy. Or do you really think Labatt’s is going to fire someone because once a year you choose to purchase their economy beer rather than their expensive stuff. This is a serious question, actually, given your understanding of economics, it wouldn’t surprise me if you did.

            As to why the government hasn’t thought of that before, it’s probably because they’re not as dumb as you. Or you’d realize that taxing 100% eliminates any economies of scale gained.

          • The CPP tax won’t be $1. More likely people will be seeing $20-$30 off of each paycheck. You think that’s peanuts, I get it. You think there’s always a little bit more than the poor taxpayer can afford to prop up unnecessary government programs.

            “It’s only a cup of coffee a day” is a favorite line of the tax-and-spenders. But guess what. I only drink 2 cups of coffee a day, and in the last 5 years I’ve been told that line 5 times to justify tax increases. So now according to their logic, I’m not just out “a cup of coffee a day”, I’m not buying 3 cups of coffee for other people while I have none. Meanwhile, I’ve got nothing to show for it, because my coffee’s going to pay for services I don’t use. And the coffee company is out of business and all of their workers are unemployed.

          • And once again your anaology misses the point.

            What if you are one of those folks…who pays over $50,000 per year in taxes? And that is only income taxes…what about all of the other taxes we pay….provincial, Fed, EI, CPP, QPP, property tax, capital gains tax…etc..etc…

            You may like to talk about not buying a chocolate bar but the reality is that some chocolate bars, cost more than a nice SUV. And that is EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

          • He’s not talking about one person paying $50,000… he’s talking about 50,000 paying $1.. there’s a difference. And the difference is in the economies of scale.

            So yeah, if you’re the ONLY person out there paying taxes, it would suck, because you’d never get the value back out that you put in.

            Fortunately, you’re not. There’s several million people out there doing it, and the economics of scale mean that, if used wisely, that massive pool of resources can create *far* more value than if it was managed separately.

    • wow seriously you cant be that incompetent. harper has a masters degree in economics, without being Pm he could get a job anywhere

      • He can only get a job with the oil companies because they OWE him big time. I don’t think any other company would touch him with a 10 ft pole.

        • wow its hard to argue with stupid

          • We won’t argue with you anymore.

      • Just because he has a masters degree in Liberal Economics buffoonery, doesn’t mean he know real world economics. And if he does know real world, doesn’t mean he is working for us.

        We don’t manage government, government manages us. Take most PMs we had, “…it costs government….”, the only way it costs government is if they own you like slave.

        It really costs us, and not governemtn if we are deemed free. But hearing politicians say it costs government tells you the mindset of Ottawa. They view you and I as economic slaves of state.

        But you will vote for it, its the only effective result of all options on your statism rigged ballot. Cardinal sins of Ottawa are to tax us less, become efficient, effective or economical….

        • yes economics is ‘buffoonery’ made up word, shows how intelligent you are. but its still more impressive than being a substitute drama teacher who got a fat check from his dad.

          • no, it isnt

            Harper is only qualified to be a mail room boy, as was his ONLY real job

            he was never a working economist

          • LOL wow. that doesn’t mean he couldn’t get a job as one. the 2 are not related.

          • Doesn’t mean he could either

  2. as a business owner, I am in need for a tech (mechanic) and, I checked the local newspaper, and there more than 20 demands for a mechanic, already, what is one supposed to do? Who is gonna fix people’s cars?
    Action Plan.

    • When possible, I do it in the USA for nearly 1/2 price. Was quoted $945 CAD + GST in Canada, got it done in USA for $516 and $26 GST at the border.

      Reason is, the people that do the work in USA have a lower cost of living as their costs are not hidden tax inflated like ours. They have a lower income tax rate too and can charge less. Move value.

      But in Canda we graduate not mechanics, we generate lots of non-value added Arts, BA, M(ore)BA, lawyers and politician want to be, or techers glut, any gov union job is all students focus on.

      But we have lots of jobs for mechanics, welders, millwrights, and productive jobs.

      There is no shortage of jobs. There is a glut of productive jobs, but a shortage of cushy consumptive chair mushroom jobs. Hey, why be a mechanic when you can work for CRA anf get paid more to abuse Canadians?

      • And it only costs American workers $25,000 a day to stay in a hospital compared to how much here?

        • I have lived in the USA and other countries. Fact is you are brainwashed. Here is a good example:


          In US, SSI pays more for real disabled and includes drugs and medicare/medicaid.

          in Canada, CPP Disability pays less for real disabled, does not include drugs and dental unless you are totally worthless and penniless.

          Save $20,000 real and hidden taxes for life, setting aside $6,000 for a top notch health care plan is a net savings.

          NL Premier Williams went to Florida when it was his heart on the line.

      • YOU are part of the problem.

        • Nope, Canadians gouging Canadians is the problem. They can force me to pay taxes, but they can’t yet force me on how I spend and much money is offshore already. To a point that if I can convince my wife to learn Spanish, we can pay no more taxes to Ottawa as we will not be residents.

          Maybe you like price fixing, me I don’t.

      • Meanwhile, your opening satement is that you take your money out of the country. Way to support your local exonomy and local business interests.

        • right wingers are adept at convincing themselves of almost anything.

    • Try offering a better benefit package. The free market works both ways.

      • Here in Ontario we keep hearing about a trades shortage yet when Toyota, Honda, GM, Ford or Chrysler advertise for skilled trades they get hundreds of applicants.

        • And mostly unqualified, as you need an electrician or robotics/electronic specialist and a arts degree applies.

          Lots of productive jobs, not to many consumption jobs.

        • The shortage is in the tradespeople willing to work for a subpar wage. When a company that does offer a living wage and a decent package advertises an opening, I would bet the applicants are making a move from a less lucrative employer.

          • You nailed it Chad. The good employers never have a problem getting good employees. That’s my experience from over 40 years in the trades. If a company has a problem getting good people maybe they should look at themselves rather than blame others.

      • How about next time you get your car fixed, ask whether they are training apprentices. If they say no, go somewhere who is. And don’t complain about the bill.

        Almost no one is training apprentices. Why? Because their customers won’t pay the cost, and when they are trained they move to Alberta to get higher wages.

        A service business only has money that the customer is willing to pay them.

        • Canadian Tire mechanics are mostly apprentices.

          • From my experience, the Canadian Tire mechanic working on your car on Monday, is the same dude who mixes your paint from Tuesday to Thursday. Friday and Saturday….he’s in the yard works section.

          • LOL
            It’s true that Canadian Tire doesn’t have a reputation for having the most skilled mechanics. Thing is, if you are a top notch auto mechanic are you going to work for the place that wants to pay you the least that they can get away with? I’d rather pay the bit extra to get my vehicle repaired at a place where the mechanics are not just parts changers.

      • Sure, you must be public servant

      • The best would be a hybrid system. But unscrupulous politicians only think tax greed of government and no accountability,

    • How many apprentices have you started?

      • First I have to find them

        • Contact the local high school ?

          • Exactly. Many companies recruit from the local high schools. Both my sons were recruited straight out of high school trades programs, one as an electrician and one as a tool and die maker.

          • why didn’t they choose to be a mechanic?

          • I hope, they don’t have a hard time to find a good mechanic for their vehicle, throughout their life, i truly wish them luck

          • But will they show up? Will they be willing to learn and work?

            Lots do get hired, 3 days later they don’t show up.

          • Please don’t tar all our youth with the same brush.

        • Yep, no shortage of people seeking consumption jobs, but a huge shortage of people getting the education for productive jobs. Everyone wants to be a government chair mushroom or teacher witl low hours and summer off.

          • yes, then greedy POS like you import workers because you dont want to have to offer a competitive wage

            temporary foreign worker program is a betrayal of Canadians

    • wow you mean you might need to offer a competitive wage?

      oh, the HORROR

  3. Conservatives = Liars

    • you = stupid

      • Boo hoo

    • That should be all caps.

    • Liberals = Liars + Thieves.

      • you know Rick, I used to think that

        then we gave Harper a majority

        worst PM in Canadian history

  4. There is nothing essentially wrong with the CJG although in reality it is a subsidy and hopefully an enhancement of something that would be happening anyway. Companies are not going to create new jobs for this, but provided the paperwork is not too onerous they will be pleased to get some government money to offset the costs of training someone for a position. If that training is a little better than it would otherwise be… great. It will take people who are already quite employable and move them into existing openings.

    The provinces are correct however to try to protect their programs that address moving people out of the unemployable category. Although much more challenging, getting people off welfare roles and into productive positions is something that will never be employer driven. The real value from such programs in terms of reduced welfare payments, reduced crime, reduced property values etc accrue to society as a whole and are a legitimate role for government to play.

    • I’m sure if the Harper Government is behind it, the program will consist of giving multinationals tax refunds for training TFWs back in their home countries. Introducing the Tim Horton’s diploma in food preparation; then they can continue to claim a “skilled labour” shortage.

  5. Ottawa plans to pay for its share of the grants by cutting transfers to the provinces for training by $300-million a year.

    That’s why

    • Er, election coming up…must get that budget balanced for ’15 at all costs…. must get that budget …must get that budget…must get that budget….

      Also must get more credit for a programme some fool unwisely set up in such a way that devolves all the credit on to someone other than us, namely the provinces….must fix…must get that budget…must get that…

      PMO~ memo

      • Yeah, I know…..yet if they hadn’t blown the surplus this problem wouldn’t exist. They’ve been holding an ongoing yard sale too. Worst govt we’ve ever had.

        • The bigger Ottawa gets, the less they serve the people and they more they serve their wasteful bloat and buddies.

          Only option on my ballots is who gets more of my money for doing less for us. We havea ballot limited to statism….. government managing people like chickens.

          • I do not support or encourage Dave’s rubbish economics.

          • http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/canada

            Yes Dave, lets have even more of our tax money going to interest rather then doing anything at all.

            Dave, if you really want to quit paying taxes you can live in the wild. Canada, unlike other countries, actually still has some wild spaces left.

    • Why not eliminate transfers altogether? As transfers essentially subsidies dysfunctional provincial governments. Then drop federal taxes.

      But like Paul Martian did, Cons will do the same, Ottawa does less and taxes more. They did this with health care. Used health care to jack up Ottawa taxes then push the burden to the provinces keeping Ottawa taxes high.

      Ottawa, its about deceiving you out of your money for government bloat, inflated contracts, buddy deals and bailout buddies. Its why CBC censors and doesn’t allow comments on many articles, they are corporate welfare types like Air Canada sucking hard on taxpayers wallets.

      • I do not support or encourage Dave’s rubbishy economics.

      • And now you don’t understand how transfers work.

        Transfers are based on federal income tax revenues from each province. They are set at the rate which would mean that every province could collect the same amount of tax from every citizen if they all taxed at the same rate.

        If Alberta reduced the subsidies it provides to energy companies through low royalties and tax exemptions not enjoyed by any other industry, the amount of federal transfers to every other province would go down, simply because our wages, driven mostly by the energy firms, skew the average.

        • This is the type of brilliant economic analysis I expect from Liberals.

          Yes, if only Alberta were to intentionally knee-cap their entire economy in an effort to ensure workers in Alberta received massive sweeping pay reductions, then they wouldn’t have to fund the welfare provinces in Canada.

          Do you honestly not see how such thinking immediately turns into a race to the bottom? This is the type of thinking the governments in Ontario and Manitoba have been operating on for the last 5 years. It’s clearly a recipe for disaster.

          • Thwim says: “If Alberta reduced the subsidies it provides to energy companies through low royalties and tax exemptions not enjoyed by any other industry…”

            Rick translates: “Yes, if only Alberta were to intentionally knee-cap their entire economy…”

            Gosh Rick, if reducing subsidies to an industry have the effect of knee-capping the economy, then that industry isn’t sustainable. Maybe that industry ought to stand on its own two feet rather than looking to the government for handouts.

            But maybe that’s “Liberal” economics at work.

          • Um, no. The only reason that oil and gas companies in Alberta receive any “tax exemptions” is because they have to pay royalties that no other business pays. You’re simply suggesting that oil firms should pay more in taxes than other businesses. “Low royalties” suggests that like a proper Liberal, you believe all money is the government’s and that private industry is lucky the government lets them keep any at all.

          • Ok, start a tool-and-die business in Alberta. Start a temp agency in Alberta. Start an IT shop in Alberta. Start a minerals-extraction business in Alberta.

            One of these businesses is unique. Can you spot the difference? Take your time.

            That’s right! Resource-extraction industries always have to pay “royalties that no other business pays” because they’re extracting valuable resources that are publicly owned.

            “Low royalties” suggests that like a proper Liberal, you believe…”

            Based on your track record, Ricky, whenever you start telling me what I “believe,” you need to stop and shake your head. Not only do you know nothing about me, you’re apparently writing about absurd stereotypes known only to you.

            Natural resource extraction almost always involves royalties paid to some level of government. Why? Because those resources are owned by the public, and a license to extract them includes some sharing of the wealth with the people who own it.

            …”like a proper Liberal, you believe all money is the government’s and that private industry is lucky the government lets them keep any at all.”

            See, when you start typing stuff like this, you really need to find an adult to edit your posts. Otherwise you would sound like a braying moron, and we wouldn’t want that now, would we?

            Imagine you discover a vein of gold in your backyard. You sign an agreement that allows a private company to dig it up. Do you want anything from that company, or are you happy to let them destroy your yard and make a load of money from your land? Again, take your time.

  6. Myth: Government can create jobs.
    Truth: Government can inefficiently reallocate jobs with a lower standard of living for all.

    A simple explanation follows: If you take $1 in taxes from 50,000 people to buy a job, then 50,000 people spend $50,000 less on someone else’s job. Thus, +1 – 1 = 0 net jobs. 50,000 people also get less goods and services and a lower standard of living.

    The best job producer know is to reduce tax consumption and leave people with more of their own money and to lower hidden taxes to ease off on inflation. Also to stop printing money out of thin air for inflation and governmental debts.

    But our politicians say one thing and do another. With 10 cents off the dollar, its (1.00 / 0.90) 11% inflation to you, as your money, incomes, pensions, savings and wages just got devalued for excessive government consumption.

    Its why governments can’t solve the economic problems, they are not leaving people with enough money of value and enough money to spend on other peoples jobs. Its not GDP that drives jobs, its the exchange of goods and services that drives jobs. A 1.2% GDP growth in a real inflation of 7% is well, negative value growth and why the jobs are not there for young people.

    Keep on listening to government propaganda, politicians prey on the naive. Fact is government is our worst enemy when it comes to financial liberty and prosperity.

    • Once again, if you tax 50,000 people $1 each, then those people get to buy one less chocolate bar than they might have otherwise.. over the course of the entire year. Not even the chocolate bar companies are going to notice this deviation.

      Meanwhile, that 50k now goes to pay someone’s wages, gets them off of social services, and may even allow them to leverage those wages to make larger purchases like an automobile or a home, something that can really make a difference to our economy, and, again, that’s without even considering the productive value of what they may contribute to society — which in a public service job may be something such as aiding domestic businesses navigate international rules and regulations.. something that can easily cause *those* businesses to see increased profits as well.

      So stop spouting this lie of yours.

      • And once again…what if instead of going without one chocolate bar…..some of us have to go without 70,000 chocolate bars?

        I’m not against taxes, but I am against taxes that are too high, and provide little in the way of benefits given the costs. One simply has to look at your power bill in Ontario, and the impact of the Green Energy Act.

        I’ts not that taxes are bad in themselves….but it’s the politicians (Liberals in ontario) who waste what they do take…….it shoujldn’t be a surprise that businesses are leaving town.

        • This is reasonable. You can certainly complain that taxes aren’t being used well enough, but to make a blanket statement, like dave777 does that any tax is an automatic loss to the economy equal to the gain it might generate is simply an asinine statement of someone who’s ignorant.

      • So Nestle and Cadbury Canada lays off people so government choose who has jobs. You just supported what I said.

        Any savings on social assistance is mythical, as the new unemployed gets EI and governemtn managing this on union wages is purely non-value added consumptive waste.

        Good part is I know reality always wins and delusional thinking always loses in the end game.

        • No. I didn’t. “don’t notice this deviation”. Try reading. If you can.

    • You keep repeating yourself. Same talking points YOUR gov’r uses and they don’t work. Try something new for a change.

  7. I’m still seeing those action plan ads that promise the job training before the programme exists. Does this govt have any shame at all?

    • None whatever.

      Neither do it’s supporters

    • Ottawa has no shame, they are amoral. Ottawa is about the illusion of big government helps us when in fact they help themselves and back room buddies.

      Very little of what Ottawa spends actually helps us all equally. Its a clearing house of other peoples money for special interests. Effectively their job is to tax us as much in visible and hidden taxes as much as they can to play power/money broker with or money.

      They lay out a false perception, an illusion by spending a very small amount on us while the lions share goes to power corruption, union bloat, waste, inflated contracts and just squandered. They even give away our money for wine and cheese parties.

      Its a ruse, and most Canadians haven’t caught on and do not take a pragmatic or critical look on how government spends all that money of ours.

      Ever notice how from coast to coast the ballot NEVER contains a credible option for less governemtn waste, less money for nothing programs, less inflated contracts, less bailout buddies….for less taxes to us so we have more money to spend on other peoples jobs?

      The only options we have on our ruse of democracy is who gets more of our money that doesn’t’ benefit us at all. 4 placatory parties, and not one for less government.

      • You could always move to Toronto and vote for the man.

        • I wouldn’t move to Toronto, too taxing and too dysfunctional. In 20 years or less, Toronto will be just like Detroit. In many ways, its already there.

          • So far off the mark… I don’t know where to begin.

    • No, but they have their tried and true ideology. Demagoguery at it’s worst.

    • Yep, time to change the Harper name to someone else in then with a fresh face, push the same old lies.

      The real story of Canadian politics.

      • Cynicism is easy. Change is hard. Besides there is no such thing as a perfect school of politics or ideology that is invulnerable to corruption or bad policy. It’s people. You can’t run the country like a flawless bit of software or a sure fire hedge fund you know.

    • No, its obvious they have no shame.

  8. And the Conservative government has already spent $2.5M advertising this program that doesn’t exist. Awkward.

  9. Far too much focus is being placed on the push and pull war between the Federal and Provincial Governments. The real focus of the proposed Canada Jobs Grant program is the millions of Canadians who will be impacted by the decision to shut down programs that are very successful. These programs help Canada’s most marginalized citizens who are not supported by any other programs. We spend billions of dollars supporting the growth and development of people living in third world countries yet we are not prepared to continue to invest $500 million in Canada’s “own third world country” those who are low literate, low skilled, low employed or unemployed. We all want Canadians to be employed for those of us working with Canada’s most marginalized citizens we want those we work with to have access to employment where they can earn a living wage to support themselves and their family. The proposed Canada Jobs Grant will destroy their chance for equality.

    • We also spend billions on welfare for the big corps.

      • Yep, which party you choose decides who gets more of your money for doing less for you.

        Our ballot options are pathetic to a point where I call it the ruse of democracy. Not one party saying less bailouts, less corruption, less waste, less union and political pork barreling….and less taxes.

        Not one option offering economic liberty, just more taxes and less benefits. A statism rigged ballot.

        • Dave, why don’t you form a Freedom From Tax Anarchy Party.

  10. This government is a bunch of pathological liars

    • Just like the governments in the last 37 years of my voting….

      Politicians are like diapers. Vote differently, change them often to avoid the stink.

      As voting for a party is sort of a mindless vote, the thinking vote is the one politicians worry about.

  11. Harper detests the marginalized. They’re a drain on society and they aren’t trying hard enough; lazy, non-believers and criminal of mind. They need to be punished. Stephen and the inexplicable base love retribution.
    It’s their aphrodisiac and Dear Leader needs all the help he can get in the bedroom.

    • And besides they don’t wear lipstick or vote for him…

    • Why else build prisons we don’t need rather than maintaining the ones we already have.

    • That’s a ridiculous comment -utterly. The Harper government has been very proactive about attempting to address mental health issues, addictions, providing income support for those with disabilities (RDSP) and support for other marginalized groups. You may not agree with what they have done, but to make a hateful comment such as yours is just ignorant.

  12. Some companies also wonder why the federal government decided last year to reassert itself by designing and announcing the CJG alone.

    That’s because the federal government KNOWS what is best for everyone and doesn’t need to talk to anyone.

    • Yes, Dear Leader is omniscient like God.

  13. Isn’t working because the who program is a farce. The whole premises of the program is based on stupidity.

    If you tax 50,000 people to buy a $50,000 job, you have 50,000 people collectively spending $50,000 less on someone else’s job. +1 -1 = 0 net jobs. All government can do is inefficiently reallocate a job and stick the taxpayers with higher governemtn administration costs. Governemtn administration costs of wages, pensions, building, vehicles et al. is no a record setting 29.5 cents of each tax dollar.

    They only do it to sell the perception of big inefficient governemtn PR. Any half witted economic knowledgeable person knows this program is a waste of money and a total farce. They do it to sell government bloat and perception. It has no other tangible value.

    Ottawa is the biggest con game going. The idea is to get as much money from us and do as little for us as they can get away with. Politicians just sell perception, deceit and lies while ignoring real economics.

    Real economics says tax people less on hidden spending taxes and incomes, then they have more money to spend on other peoples jobs. People with less money after hidden and real taxes, devalued money (inflation/debt fraud) will ultimately spend less on other peoples jobs. No politics can change reality, but they have deception and false excuses.

    • You really do believe if you say this enough time it magically comes true!

    • $1 from 50,000 is like 50,000 deciding to buy one less candy bar, per year. Or buying a cheaper vodka once every 5 years.

      $50,000 to one person is enough to start supporting yourself, getting off of social services, and perhaps doing something that might aid the private sector in doing even more profitable work.

      Learn economies of scale. Seriously. You don’t have to be ignorant for the rest of your life.

    • get lost, you greedy, grasping, incoherent traitor

      we dont want people like you in our country – you’re scum

      • Wow, you really showed him. Oh wait, no you didn’t. You just came off sounding like a typical better-than-thou Liberal.

    • I think they are trying to address the skills shortage vs. Unemployment issue. Many people do not have jobs because they do not have the right skills. That means temporary worker programs. I admire Kenny for trying to do something. The Provinces are often territorial and short sighted.

  14. Myth: Governemtn can create jobs.
    Truth: Governemtn can only inefficiently reallocate jobs and consume wealth for a lower standard of living for all.

    If governemtn taxes 50,000 people a $1 nd buys a $50,000/year job, then collectively 50,000 people spend $50,000 less on someone else’s job. +1 – 1 = 0 net jobs created.

    Worse, taxpayers get a 29.5% general administration costs of supporting excessive government to manage above, and is wealth consumption without real value to Canada’s value.

    But politicians love propelling the myths as to put bloated government in good light. Fact is people with less money (taxes) and less value money (thin air money for debt fraud/inflation) are going to acquire fewer goods and services. And fewer goods and services mean less jobs.

    GDP doesn’t drive jobs, exchange of goods and services drives jobs. You can have 1.2% GDP growth, fewer jobs as inflation is higher than growth becomes a value loss.

    Canada is a tax inflated economy of debt and ponzi fraud debt by governments. They can not fix the economic problems as it their waste causing the problems..

    • Myth: dave777 has any clue what the hell he’s talking about.

      Truth: dave777 hasn’t bothered actually learning about economics of scale, yet thinks he can speak about it.

      $1 from 50,000 is like 50,000 deciding to buy one less candy bar, per year. Or buying a cheaper vodka once every 5 years.

      $50,000 to one person is enough to start supporting yourself, getting off of social services, and perhaps doing something that might aid the private sector in doing even more profitable work.

      Learn economies of scale. Seriously. You don’t have to be ignorant for the rest of your life.

      • Except for the inconvenient fact that the Liberals have raised taxes every year. So it’s not 1 candy bar less per year. It’s one candy bar less per year every year over 10 years. So you’re out 10 candy bars per year after 10 years. And you only eat 10 candy bars per year.

        • Raise taxes or increase debt seems to be the choice these days. Debt comes with interest and doesn’t ask those who spend the money to actually pay the bill.
          Taxes come with no interest and it’s the people who get the stuff now who pay for it.

          Now who are the real welfare queens?
          The ones who insist we pay for what we get and pay no interest (everyone but Rick and the Cons); or those who want stuff now but don’t want to pay for it and are happy to leave debt for future generations (Rick, the Cons and Corporations.)

          • No, there’s a clear and obvious third option: the government should spend within it’s means. But I know that’s not an option to radical NDP wingers like you who believe the only way an NDP government can be successful is by buying more trinkets with the voters money before each election.

            Take a look at Manitoba to see how that works out over the course of a few years. Or even look at the Ontario Liberals who are now running on NDP economics.

          • Spend within its means hey? And you support this deficit building economist and his “I promise we’ll break even soon” gnome of a finance minister?
            Bwa ha ha
            I think you are the last one who should be lecturing anyone about their fiscal aptitude.

      • Hmmm….. lets lower taxes cut healthcare spending so we all have to pay for things we didn’t before like eye exams etc. we pay more for this than if we had not lowered my taxes but then the optometrist earns more so he can buy the expensive car and since I have less money and now can’t afford a car have to take a bus which gives the bus driver his job now everyone wins but me but I do pay less taxes!!!!!!

  15. regrettably, the sad facts are business doesn’t train and individual canadians are strapped and don’t have the income to invest in their own training/development.
    last month the ceo of the chief executives club lamented in a speech that canadian firms are not investing in skills develoment in any meaningful or substantive ways, the global academic literature is full of studies concluding that business (especially SME’s) does not invest in training, due to fears that they will not get a return on the investment when the employee leaves their employ after completing the training program and enhancing their own marketable skills. the nations woeful productivity reflects this reality.
    its doubtful this most recent scheme will produce any meaningful results in training and skills development, beyond greasing the wheels of the political industrial complex.

  16. There is no jobs out there factories are closing everywhere what is a grant anyways if there is a job for them out there how can they pay it back there isn’t a party out there who is going to come out here and save the citizens money who will stop the rain maybe McDonalds Harveys Wendys Tim Hortons KFC the MP’s main job is creating minimum wage slavery that’s your plans for all the students out there no matter who you are

    • With grammar like that I’m not sure you’d qualify to work at McDonald’s. Try using a period some time.

  17. If as an employer, I’m contributing $5000 towards employee re-training/ upgrading (whatever you call it), what is in it for me?
    1. Am I getting the tax break?
    2. Are the FEDs or Province ensures that once the employee is trained, (s)he will not quit and go to my competitor?
    3.After spending $5000 on re-training am I suppose to give the employee raise and benefits according to new/ upgraded skills.? And if yes, then are Feds or Provinces ready to bear the additional cost?
    4. Are the Feds or Provincial pay us to hire another employee, because the union will not allow me to make the upgraded employee do the task (s)he was doing before training.
    If the answer is NO , then as a business, I’m not interested in such tom foolery.
    Remember this $5000 contribution on 1 employee will affect other employee benefit/incentive programs, the $5000 contribution on employee is coming from my operating cost, it’s my investment… show me the figures of returns on my investment, and we can talk.

    As a business, I’m ok to contribute / tuition reimbursement for an employee retraining or upgrading their skills, who has been with the organisation for few years, shown their committment, performace, integrity and drive to move ahead with my business.
    Why would I be investing in someone I don’t know ? Just because the Feds adn provinces are covering 2/3 of the cost??