Blaine Higgs blasts federal budget, 'shocking' spending
Premier also laments continued existence of carbon tax
New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs attacked federal spending plans on Tuesday, alleging they were out of control and unlikely to get results.
"This government is obsessed with spending taxpayer dollars in the name of improving the working conditions and the affordability for all Canadians," Higgs said to reporters after the federal budget was introduced in the House of Commons.
"It absolutely has not worked. It will not work and every Canadian is seen failing it."
The budget, tabled by Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, proposes more than $52 billion in new spending over five years. That includes $8.5 billion for housing.
With a projected deficit of about $40 billion for the 2024-2025 fiscal year, the federal government is spending more to pay interest on the debt than has been allotted to health care this year.
Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland delivered the federal budget on Tuesday. (Jean-François Benoit/CBC)
"Shocking, absolutely shocking, totally out of control," Higgs said.
He also complained the budget did not rescind the carbon tax.
"Can you imagine though, if this budget would have included axing the tax and getting rid of the carbon tax?" he said. "And tomorrow when people went to the pumps, they had a 20 per cent a litre cheaper all across this country?"
When asked about federal housing money, Higgs said announcements about funding were merely headlines and would not actually help create housing.
He said the housing crisis is serious across the country, not just in New Brunswick.
The cause of the crisis, he said, is "record, record immigration" and the country needs to find "sustainable" immigration levels.
"How do we get to the point where we say, 'OK, this is what we can manage in our province because everyone is feeling it," Higgs said.
Higgs also complained that Ottawa was forcing more programs into provincial jurisdiction, citing funding for daycares that does not have a long-term outlook and a health-care system "that needs more and more all the time."
"So again, in dumping things into the provincial jurisdiction without thought, without any sort of real understanding and expecting the province just to take it."
He said he wanted greater co-operation among different levels of government.
"You know the reality is, we're not seeing that co-operation, we're not seeing that ability for us to find solutions that work."
Higgs was asked if there was anything in the federal budget that he did support.
"Well, it's limited," he said. "There are a few isolated areas that you might say, OK, well, that's all right."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Blaine Higgs blasts federal budget, 'shocking' spending
Premier also laments continued existence of carbon tax
New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs attacked federal spending plans on Tuesday, alleging they were out of control and unlikely to get results.
"This government is obsessed with spending taxpayer dollars in the name of improving the working conditions and the affordability for all Canadians," Higgs said to reporters after the federal budget was introduced in the House of Commons.
"It absolutely has not worked. It will not work and every Canadian is seen failing it."
The budget, tabled by Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, proposes more than $52 billion in new spending over five years. That includes $8.5 billion for housing.
With a projected deficit of about $40 billion for the 2024-2025 fiscal year, the federal government is spending more to pay interest on the debt than has been allotted to health care this year.
Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland delivered the federal budget on Tuesday. (Jean-François Benoit/CBC)
"Shocking, absolutely shocking, totally out of control," Higgs said.
He also complained the budget did not rescind the carbon tax.
"Can you imagine though, if this budget would have included axing the tax and getting rid of the carbon tax?" he said. "And tomorrow when people went to the pumps, they had a 20 per cent a litre cheaper all across this country?"
When asked about federal housing money, Higgs said announcements about funding were merely headlines and would not actually help create housing.
He said the housing crisis is serious across the country, not just in New Brunswick.
The cause of the crisis, he said, is "record, record immigration" and the country needs to find "sustainable" immigration levels.
"How do we get to the point where we say, 'OK, this is what we can manage in our province because everyone is feeling it," Higgs said.
Higgs also complained that Ottawa was forcing more programs into provincial jurisdiction, citing funding for daycares that does not have a long-term outlook and a health-care system "that needs more and more all the time."
"So again, in dumping things into the provincial jurisdiction without thought, without any sort of real understanding and expecting the province just to take it."
He said he wanted greater co-operation among different levels of government.
"You know the reality is, we're not seeing that co-operation, we're not seeing that ability for us to find solutions that work."
Higgs was asked if there was anything in the federal budget that he did support.
"Well, it's limited," he said. "There are a few isolated areas that you might say, OK, well, that's all right."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
216 Comments
All Comments
Comment by Kristian Kirk.
First time I have ever seen a government anywhere actually spending taxpayer money on taxpayers and require the top 1 %ers to actually pay their taxes. As a millennial, I love that
Comment by Art McCarthy.
The Irvings have spoken, and higher taxes on the wealthy are not what they want.
Reply by William James.
Going after 0.01% of the population is just symbolism. It won't make a difference.
Reply by Art McCarthy.
$19B over 5 years is symbolism? You're clearly in a different tax bracket than me if $3.8B per year would make no difference to you.
Comment by Kristian Kirk.
Millennials are loving the spending. The budget was specifically targeted to benefit them. I’m good with that
Reply by andrew mornay.
After they drain me financially, where will they get the money ?
Reply by Kristian Kirk.
Same place every other country gets it. National debt amounts to a digital number on a computer somewhere you and I will never see. No need to worry, the bill isn’t coming to you. It’s paid over many many decades and really doesn’t affect much in your everyday life.
Reply by andrew mornay.
Ahhhh ! A believer in a self balancing budget and one of those who takes more from the system than they contribute.
Comment by Marcel Belanger.
As opposed to staggering underfunding by Higgs. He’s just mad he’s not getting more money to pad his surplus. Election can’t get here soon enough.
Reply by Eric Red.
Is an election coming up soon? That would explain all the stories coming out of NB.
Reply by Marcel Belanger.
October 21/2024 at the latest. Higgs gives the impression he’s running federally. But he has to deflect from his grim performance here in NB so there it is.
Reply by Eric Red.
Yup, that explains plenty right there.
Comment by Joe Slaman.
The capital gains increase is a large death tax increase. All your gains get realized the year you die, so many middle class people will fall into that category.
Reply by Kristian Kirk.
Lots of ways around that, always has been
Reply by Corrie Weatherfield.
true . . . but maybe some tax planning opportunities .. . ? For example, donation to a charity of a security with a capital gain avoids tax on the gain to the estate . . .
Reply by Joe Slaman.
Not for the average guy that I know of. Such as?
Reply by Eileen Kinley.
From the budget document
To ensure this increase in the capital gains inclusion rate is concentrated among the wealthiest, while keeping taxes lower on the middle class, the first $250,000 of capital gains income earned by Canadians each year will not be subject to the new two-thirds inclusion rate. Business owners will have access to this exemption from the increased inclusion rate as individuals.
Next year, 28.5 million Canadians are not expected to have any capital gains income, and 3 million are expected to earn capital gains below the $250,000 annual threshold. Only 0.13 per cent of Canadians with an average income of $1.4 million are expected to pay more personal income tax on their capital gains in any given year (Table 8.1).
As a result of this, for 99.87 per cent of Canadians, personal income taxes on capital gains will not increase.
Reply by Joe Slaman.
Not interested in getting my name in the "Panama Papers".
Reply by Joe Slaman.
I think they were talking about people that are alive, not the dead ones that have a final tax bill the next year.
Reply by Eileen Kinley.
Well it would help if you could provide an excerpt or a specific location in the budget. And to be honest I'm not sure why someone who has passed away would have any use for large amounts of money.
Hidden comment.
![The avatar of ""]( "The avatar of \"\"")
Reply by Art McCarthy.
Is there anything you can't take out of context? Trudeau's answer is clumsy, but not what you imply.
The question, unedited: “You mentioned the Bank of Canada’s mandate, that mandate is expiring at the end of this year. If re-elected, the review, or the extension of the mandate is probably the first big economic policy decision you will make after the election. There is some talk of allowing the Bank of Canada to make some tweaks to its mandate to give it the flexibility to tolerate higher inflation and help the economy a little bit more at this difficult time. Do you have a position on the mandate? Would you support a slightly higher tolerance for inflation?”
The answer, also unedited: “I don’t know. When I think about the biggest, most important economic policy that this government, if re-elected, would move forward, you’ll forgive me if I don’t think about monetary policy. You’ll understand that I think about families. When we first got elected in 2015, the very first thing we did was raise taxes on the wealthiest one per cent so we could lower them for the middle class. Similarly, if re-elected, the Liberal government will continue to invest in supports for families, for students, for seniors. Investing in housing, because we know that it is not right that so many people right here in the Lower Mainland and indeed across the country can’t afford their first home. We know that these are the policies that make a difference in the growth of our country, in the jobs people get, and the opportunities people have to grow and prosper. That is what we will stay focused on.”
Comment by Kyle Woodman.
I have now visited several sites and read a number of articles from economists and just watched a video by the CD Howe Institute; ALL of them agree with our premier and the mess this budget is, ALL of them. Increased taxes on businesses slow down investment which will continue to affect our economy negatively, out of control spending will continue to fuel inflation. The only people disagreeing with the premier appear on this web site on a regular basis, with posts that are backed up by no one of note or any type of link or article. But we must remember, support Liberal no matter what, this federal disaster is another failure of the Higgs government.
Comment by G. Timothy Walton.
20¢ a litre cheaper by removing 14.5¢ in carbon tax.
Higgs math, folks.
Reply by Gregory Wulf.
The added HST will get you to 17 cents., Not sure the other 3 cents.
Reply by G. Timothy Walton.
I know, but it doesn't sound as dramatic when you include HST.
Reply by George Mrinos.
20% not 20 cents read the article
Reply by G. Timothy Walton.
I did, and I apparently misread that part.
I would like to know where gas is so cheap that the carbon tax is 20% of it. 17¢ per litre being 20% of the price would mean gas costs 85¢ a litre at the pumps. When's the last time you saw prices that low?
Reply by George Mrinos.
Comes down to the breakdown of the costs and where the cost gets applied technically the carbon tax is on the base value of the gas not the gas plus the various taxes, the other taxes increase the other fees and taxes on the base gas price.
They made it super convoluted to make it harder for people to know what they are actually paying what and where
Reply by George Mrinos.
Hst is at the very end so it goes on top of everything but the stack starts way lower with alot of things that get added on and jack the price way up
Comment by Kristian Kirk.
Gen z and millennials are liking the spending. The older crowd, like always, can’t wrap their heads around it
Reply by Joe Slaman.
No, we are wise and realistic, and want to protect our kids.
Comment by Kyle Woodman.
As usual Blaine Higgs is talking from both sides of his mouth.
Comment by Koffi Babone.
"Can you imagine though, if this budget would have included axing the tax and getting rid of the carbon tax?" he sad. "And tomorrow when people went to the pumps, they had a 20 per cent a litre cheaper all across this country?"
___
Does Higgs really think people don't read or are ignorant?
The carbon tax adds another 3 to 4 cents per liter, not 20 cents nor 20 percent.
Reply by Joe Slaman.
In Ontario it is 17.6 cents, and 19.9 cents with the GST on top of that, so you are paying 19.9 cents per litre due to the carbon tax.
Reply by Eric Red.
It's 14 cents a liter, plus GST, eh?
Reply by Joe Slaman.
17.6 plus GST. It went up April !st. Check the date on your 14 cent source.
Comment by Gregory Wulf.
The last time Canada had a balanced federal budget was in the 2014-15 fiscal year. What happened?
Reply by William James.
Sunny Ways!
Reply by Eileen Kinley.
That required cutting funding for defence. And it resulted in a slower economic recovery.
Reply by Frank Wentworth.
Trudeau happened
Reply by G. Timothy Walton.
The new government had to cover all the payments the Harper government deferred to pretend they were spending less than they were taking in; they also couldn't sell off public assets for a fraction of what they're worth because all the easily sold ones were gone.
They also brought in a philosophy of permanent rolling debt payments that were supposed to grow more slowly than government revenues. That always seemed as reliant on nothing going wrong as the conservative fantasy that cutting government revenues by constant tax reductions would eventually increase government revenues enough to cover the extra borrowing costs.
Reply by William James.
Canada topped the G7 in economic growth twice under Harper, now we're dead last and dead last for personal debt, industrial productivity and business investment.
Reply by Eileen Kinley.
And yet Harper had to make cuts to balance the budget and wound up slowing our recovery.
We were also top or near the top before the global issues like the pandemic, supply issues, wars etc. hit. Actually, per Stats Canada
Canada tops G7 growth despite COVID
Comment by Ralph Steinberg.
Higgs also complained that Ottawa was forcing more programs into provincial jurisdiction, citing funding for daycares that does not have a long-term outlook and a health-care system "that needs more and more all the time."
I guess Higgs forgot he is in charge of Healthcare in his province.....
Reply by Eileen Kinley.
And I don't think he *had* to sign an agreement for early learning and childcare.
Hidden comment.
![The avatar of ""]( "The avatar of \"\"")
Hidden reply.
![The avatar of ""]( "The avatar of \"\"")
Reply by Frank Wentworth.
Trudeau is erring on the side of caution so he spends a few extra billion each budget.
Reply by Eileen Kinley.
Flaherty said they would balance themselves. O'Toole said they would balance themselves. Vic Toews said they would balance themselves.
Reply by Eileen Kinley.
What will Polievre cut?
Reply by Brian Vail.
No they didn’t
Reply by G. Timothy Walton.
The number of people collecting CPP at 65 (to zero).
Reply by Brian Vail.
Probably the massive increase in consultants that Trudeau promised that he would reduce because “Harper” spent too much on consulting services (yet Trudeau increases it by tens of billions), or reduce civil servants, you know those extra 100,000 that Trudeau hired since taking over (not sure why since he hired all those consultants). But then it did help his unemployment numbers. Maybe he would cut out giving money to any and every country and foreign organization that wants money from Canada
Reply by George Mrinos.
well how about the things we can't afford.
Money for nothing Welfare shouldn't be equal to minimum wage
Free Dental is nice to have we can't afford it
Export oil and increase our revenue by an unreal amount, to make it more green approve the carbon capture program which would increase investment that liberals won't approve because they just want it turned off.
Bring back the tidal power project on the east coast (NS) that trudeau shut down
Providing way more energy that we could then export
Biggest savings don't spend it before you have it... that would be the biggest savings but there is a few
Reply by Eileen Kinley.
Yes they did.
"the commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself" - Trudeau
"We will grow the economy so that we can get back to balance in a responsible and equitable way without cuts. That is our plan," - O'Toole
“If you look out into the medium term, the effect is okay so that we can balance the budget in the medium term—and that is around 2014-2015 or so, depending on the degree of economic growth,” - Flaherty
And in 2020, Vic Toews in Alberta
“We will not cut our way out of a $21-billion deficit,” Toews said in a year-end interview with The Canadian Press.
“We have to get the economy growing again. And economic recovery will very quickly become job No. 1 as we start to get past the pandemic.”
Comment by Frank Wentworth.
Why doesn't Higgs mention how he changed legislation last year to allow Irving to charge us an extra 7 cents a liter so we pay their portion of the carbon tax?
Reply by Gregory Wulf.
Are you burning the fuel? Who else should pay it?
Reply by Ralph Steinberg.
It is amusing how those that support him forget about that, as do those in Alberta with Smith, who just raised the cost of fuel to them as well......but it is the carbon tax they only care about.......very odd logic....
e.g. Apr 2, 2024 — Breakenridge: Smith argues against Ottawa's carbon increase while restoring own gas tax ... up the cost of gasoline by as much as 10 cents per ...
Reply by Brian Vail.
Albertans did not forget.
Reply by Gregory Wulf.
She went after EV owners as well. Don't forget that! lol
Reply by Frank Wentworth.
It is a federal carbon tax aimed at the refiners. But the Saint John refinery doesn't pay it because Higgs changed the legislation to allow Irving to charge enough extra at the pump to cover their carbon tax.
Reply by Frank Wentworth.
I know. It is so blatant what Higgs is allowing Irving to do.
Reply by Gregory Wulf.
At the end of the day, the consumer pays. Consumer demand drives the refining and should therefore realize the costs.
Reply by Frank Wentworth.
Actually we pay more than we should. Irving actually charges us much more than the amount of the carbon tax. It's ludicrous.
Reply by Frank Wentworth.
The Higgs gas tax is raising the price of gas for New Brunswickers while providing a windfall to the refinery. This has already cost drivers in NB millions of dollars, so it's time to axe the tax Higgs dedicated to the refinery.
The independent report by Energy Super Modelers and International Analysts found that the Higgs gas tax should not have exceeded 0.2 cents per litre this year, yet New Brunswickers were initially charged eight cents per litre, then 6.17 cents per litre.
Reply by Gregory Wulf.
I've driven your roads. You need the revenue.
Comment by Nick Salva.
If you look at the federal budget, there is usual a part that shows spenting and projected revinews, projected costs of programes
Reply by Nick Salva.
Where is it, they left it out for a reason.
Reply by Eileen Kinley.
Where was it in previous budgets?
What is missing from Table 1?
Comment by Stephen Gillis.
And people like this is why nothing ever changes. It wouldn't matter what the plan was there are always partisan politicians who will just stonewall and complain.
Good luck NB your leaders are some of the most petty and spiteful in the nation.
Reply by Frank Wentworth.
Amen
Comment by Kristian Kirk.
Younger, forty and under love it, older people not so much. Oh well
Reply by Joe Slaman.
I don't know why the young love it. They are the ones that are going to pay and pay, long term, and get less and less for it.
Reply by Kristian Kirk.
They probably aren’t very concerned. Like I never was at that age about Federal debt. It never crossed my mind and I bet it doesn’t cross theirs
Comment by Kyle Woodman.
Blaine better have a good look at the provincial immigration plan his government created. Every time we hit a population milestone, Higgs is out there patting himself on the back. His comments on immigration don't add up. He's using the dog whistle on himself.
Reply by Gregory Wulf.
More than anything else, the Maritime provinces need more tax payers.
Reply by Kyle Woodman.
Yeah his statement is the exact opposite of the stated provincial goals on immigration. He needs to get his story straight. If hes serious, he should tell Irving that they can't recruit any more immigrants to work in the woods and the mills. He should cut off the fish plants. He wants to have it both ways with his flippant comments.
Reply by Brian Vail.
They need to be able to sustain themselves instead of relying on equalization
Reply by Tim Lingley.
Yes, but those newcomers need to earn enough to be taxable.
Comment by Eileen Kinley.
Last spring, New Brunswick was pleased that the federal government increased their immigration levels. From an item at OpportunitiesNB
The provincial government announced today it has received a 67 per cent increase in immigration allocations from the federal government.
In addition, the provincial government announced through Opportunities NB a renewed Canada-New Brunswick Immigration Agreement.
The federal government has provided the province with a total allocation of 5,500 certificates for 2023 – an additional 1,084 spaces for the New Brunswick Provincial Nominee Program and an additional 1,116 Atlantic Immigration Program allocations over 2022. This is an overall 67 per cent increase from 2022. Additional increases in allocations are expected in both 2024 and 2025.
New Brunswick's own immigration page says there will be 60,000 job openings over the next 5 years.
Reply by John Montgomery.
Higgs wants to keep wages low yet does nothing about living costs like rent.
Reply by John Montgomery.
And then complains about tent cities.
Reply by Gregory Wulf.
It's not the province's business to interfere with the business of landlords, or anyone else who owns real estate.
Reply by Cliff Gervais.
Josef would disagree.
Reply by Frank Wentworth.
They don't need to interfere with landlords but they should have a plan on how they will house the 10,000 immigrants a year coming to NB. I'm fine with immigration but they do need a place to live.
Comment by Kyle Woodman.
Higgs has completely lost the plot
Comment by John Montgomery.
"This government is obsessed with spending taxpayer dollars in the name of improving the working conditions and the affordability for all Canadians,"
So Higgs actually admits publicly that he does NOTHING in the name of improving the working conditions and the affordability for all Canadians?
Reply by John Montgomery.
Or for anyone, rather.
Reply by Gregory Wulf.
What did you do when you were premier?
Reply by John Montgomery.
I give to the people around me when I can. It just astonishes me that he wouldn't think "in the name of improving the working conditions and the affordability for all Canadians" isn't a perfectly good reason to spend money! I mean, wow. I suspected it but now it is clear that he cares nothing for anyone in this province.
Reply by Gregory Wulf.
There are people in your province who think that the less the government interferes with, the better their lives will be.
Reply by John Montgomery.
Then those people can be absolutely free to live off the grid, use no public roads, get no garbage pickup or water service. But until they do, they don't have much of a leg to stand on.
Comment by Brian Robertson.
Same old Liberals buying votes by spending money that isn't there, so the debt will fall on the backs of our grandchildren.
Who amongst us can run their household or business using those economic principles?
Yet, a greedy populace will continue to fall for it just like mice lured to the cheese
And the claim of taxing the rich is really a tax on the upper middle class. Because any truly rich people (those 1%) are protected by trust funds and tax credits provided by these same charlatan politicians.
Reply by Eileen Kinley.
Economists have pointed out repeatedly that governments are not like a household.
And according to at least one economist that tax increase on capital gains does indeed only impact the very very richest.
Reply by John Montgomery.
I guess you don't know the difference between buying votes and helping people because your leaders never help people.
Reply by Brian Robertson.
Eileen; I have missed our little exchanges.
You are right, in the sense that governments are not like a household.
And that's because they hold all the strings. They can spend without direct consequence to themselves as long as the voters stay duped to their narrative.
But there is a cost to us; and it is called inflation.
Reply by Joe Slaman.
The government is not like a household in that they can print money and you can't. Unfortunately printing money devalues all the existing money you saved by 2 or 3 percent per year- the inflation rate, so in effect they are slowly stealing all your saved money from you over time, and you are not supposed to notice as you get poorer and poorer.
Reply by Tim Lingley.
Show me a government that doesn't buy votes.
Reply by Eileen Kinley.
And governments will also have revenue coming in.
And Poilievre's talking point is misinformative. Most of the inflation of the past couple of years has been due to global issues. Including the underlying cost of fossil fuels.
Reply by Eileen Kinley.
The government doesn't print money. However, per economist Kevin Milligan in 2020
Politicians often tell us that government debt will cause hardship because our kids will have to pay it back. Wrong. For a household, debt is most often accumulated when earners are young and then paid back through middle age; if it isn’t, your kids inherit that financial burden. But a country does not face the same life-cycle patterns as do individual families—countries don’t grow old, retire, and die. Government debt is simply not the same as the thirty-year mortgage on your house; the federal government has no fiscal obligation to reach zero debt over any short horizon.
Reply by Joe Slaman.
Tell that to Argentina.
Comment by Greg Miller.
Make no mistake--the budget is expansionary and will fuel inflation. The Federal Liberal Government is spending our tax dollars without any concern on present or future debt. Our dollar is down below 73 cents, investment has declined continually over the last 8 years and along with productivity and we have forced our population to increase 3.2 per cent in 2023.
Picture a dinner setting -- you have invited 10 people to dinner but there's only 8 place settings--that's Canada in a "nutshell"!
Reply by Eileen Kinley.
How will it fuel inflation?
I heard an interview this morning with an economist who said it is not inflationary.
Reply by Brian Robertson.
Was it on the CBC?
Reply by Greg Miller.
Check out the David Dodge comment. Who's the economist?
Comment by Jimmy Vee.
Sorry they did not hit stock buybacks like Holland did. Buy backs just make a company balance sheet look better but weaken the business over all.
Comment by Jimmy Vee.
I have to say I did not see the inclusion rate of capital gains coming, that hits anyone who has any sort of investment rich or just starting out.
Reply by Tim Lingley.
"Budget 2024 proposes to increase the capital gains inclusion rate from one half to
two thirds for corporations and trusts, and from one half to two thirds on the
portion of capital gains realized in the year that exceed $250,000 for individuals, for
capital gains realized on or after June 25, 2024"
Who do you know that's just starting out that would pull down over $250,000 in capital gains? That's quite a portfolio. Seems the inclusion rate is still 50% for anyone under that threshold.
Reply by Jimmy Vee.
yes I just read that, so those like CEO of any major bank who gets most of income in stock option will get hit cool.
Reply by Jimmy Vee.
I not too hard to manage capital gains from year to year using stock options. Buy a deep in the money call option that gets assigned well you buy for 50k buy at assignment that 50k goes to zero.
Reply by Tim Lingley.
They're still only paying 1/2 the tax on the first $250k, and 2/3 of the income tax on those earnings above the threshold compared to someone who makes the same amount in salary would pay. I'm sorry, but I am not shedding any tears for them.
Reply by Tim Lingley.
and that's AFTER they use any previous year's losses to cover up their gains.
Reply by Gregory Wulf.
Or anyone who tries to leave the family home to their kids.
Reply by Tim Lingley.
In that situation, the kids still don't pay a capital gains tax if it's the parent's primary residence, and would only pay capital gains tax on the proceeds of the sale over and above the fair market value of the home, calculated at the time of the home changing hands.
Reply by Joe Slaman.
It is a death tax. All your gains get realized the year you die, so many middle class people will fall into that category.
Reply by Tim Lingley.
Under the Canadian Tax system, Capital Gains are excluded on principal residences.
Comment by Jimmy Vee.
adding 52b over 5 year is like adding $11 on an economy of $3000, which is nothing, it could have an impact if there it were spent on something where there becomes a crowding out effect but that is a big assumption. Government tends to spend in areas that are under funded.
Reply by Gregory Wulf.
As a country, we pay more to service the existing debt, than to fund universal healthcare. Yeah... nothing.
Comment by Sylvain Carriere.
The GST collected barely covers Jusse's $ 54b. debt payment.
Higgs gets it.
Reply by John Montgomery.
That's why he's taxing the wealthy.
Reply by Kate LeBlanc.
It wasn't meant to. It was meant to help offset Health care costs. Higgs and co. would rather sit on surplus dollars accrued from TAXPAYERS, not his or his governments to hoard to be used as an election carrot. So no Higgs does not get it. Typical Con.
Reply by Eric Red.
I feel that the wealthy will find a way to dodge more taxes.
Reply by Wallace Croix.
Stellantis received $11b. from Jusse & Canadian taxpayers.
The Stellantis CEO pay package @ $ 39m.
Pretty sure he's got a bit of wiggle room.
Reply by John Montgomery.
I feel that it's sad that the government doesn't chase those people more, but if we give in because of it then we are just failing ourselves.
Reply by SW Home.
lol. No he doesn't. Higg's wouldn't get if it jumped up and bit him on the nose.
Comment by Ben DeKraker.
At least the feds are putting money where their mouth is. Higgs pats himself on the back for having run surpluses in NB; while the people of NB sit in ER waiting rooms for hours upon hours with some people actually dying in the waiting room. Higgs pats himself on the back while the roads in NB are barely passable with a modern car. Higgs pats himself on the back for not helping NBers.
I can hardly wait til he is gone.
Should he stay or should he go? Not even a real question. GO!!
Comment by Kate LeBlanc.
Higgs and Co. on both Federal and Provincial levels have to bash the budget. Its EXPECTED. Its how they the so called Cons think that's how to win their elections. Bash the party in power and believe voters are too stupid to know different. And yet they have nothing to offer, no plans no platform. No idea of how to move forward only backward which they seem quite adept at doing. Higgs and Co. are sitting on a surplus garnered by not spending tax dollars where they are needed, like housing, health and bettering the lives of the average New Brunswick citizen and not their 1% task masters.ABC
Reply by John Montgomery.
The problem is that they can and have won elections that way.
Comment by Suzanne Tucker.
"The cause of the crisis, he said, is "record, record immigration" and the country needs to find "sustainable" immigration levels." So, the fact that people are struggling to earn a living wage, the exponential rise in the cost of rent, housing, food, and necessities of life don't have anything to do with the housing crisis. A rather simplistic way of looking at a multi-faceted problem (and a rather discriminatory one). Maybe he can engage his colleagues and pray away the problem.
Reply by Jimmy Vee.
guess what Canada is Record old today and tomorrow again a new Record
Comment by Gary Webber.
Not any surprise coming from Higgs, blame the Feds for everything. If you look at the least popular premieres in Canada they are the loudest complaining about the federal government.
Comment by Jack Bell.
"Blaine Higgs blasts federal budget, 'shocking' spending"
Is anyone surprise that Ebenezer Scrooge is aghast that someone is spending money?
Comment by Kyle Woodman.
Have faith in our great PM, remember, the budget will balance itself.
Reply by Eric Red.
Yeah, on the backs of our children and grandchildren, eh?
Reply by John Montgomery.
It's more important to me that my immediate children can get healthcare if they need it.
Reply by Eric Red.
And can they? I don't know of anywhere where healthcare has improved over the years.
Reply by John Montgomery.
Well no it has gotten worse because so many people are retiring and we have also decided that we should spread a new virus. But by putting all the money into paying debt, Higgs hasn't even tried to counter those effects.
Reply by John Montgomery.
And also, Manitoba just announced they are building a new hospital. So there you go.
Reply by Eric Red.
Sooner or later those debt bills come due, eh? Although I think governments should find a better balance between paying debt and spending on priorities, including health care.
Reply by John Montgomery.
I'm not so concerned about that that I would choose to risk my kids lives.
Reply by Eric Red.
Yeah, a new hospital. In Winnipeg. Great if you live in the city, I guess.
Reply by John Montgomery.
You asked and I answered. You know how they accomplished that? They didn't vote conservative.
Reply by Eric Red.
Or are you talking about the new one in Neepawa?
Reply by Eric Red.
Or Portage?
Reply by John Montgomery.
No I had it wrong, it's not a new hospital but they are putting $1.5 billion into rebuilding the Health Sciences center. But, yes those are good examples too.
Reply by Eric Red.
All announced by their previous government, not that that matters much. HSC could use the overhaul, that's for sure.
Reply by Eric Red.
All three projects were announced when the Cons where in power...
Reply by John Montgomery.
You said, "I don't know anywhere where healthcare has improved over the years". As in, Higgs couldn't do it because no one can do it. You didn't specify political party.
Reply by John Montgomery.
But yes, fair point on my second comment.
Reply by Eric Red.
And you said they (MB) accomplished that (new hospitals) by not voting conservative...
Reply by John Montgomery.
Yes accepted that. It was just delayed by the checkers.
Reply by Eric Red.
Those pesky checkers, eh? Couple of mine got delayed as well.
Reply by John Montgomery.
I really don't know what the criteria is.
Comment by Marcel Marcotte.
The Higgs Government did the same thing in their March Budget, it was an election budget as well.
Reply by Kyle Woodman.
Exactly, I mean, the federal budget once again has a massive deficit, while our provincial one had a surplus. The federal budget introduced even more taxes while ours introduced tax cuts, but other than that, exactly the same.
Reply by John Montgomery.
Oh no there is a lot more help for people in Trudeau's budget.
Comment by Frank Blacklock.
Future taxpayers were just handed another big bill, while services continue to get worse.
Comment by Le Wier.
It is/ was an election budget just like what Higgs and Steeves presented.
Comment by John Montgomery.
What's shocking to me is how Higgs hasn't lifted a finger to make anything better. Perhaps if he offered an alternative to spending less other than, "just don't spend anything on anyone and let the population rot" he would be more credible in his comments.
Besides, Trudeau is making up for the extra spending by taxing the wealthy more and this will reduce the deficit. Isn't that what they wanted? To reduce the deficit? Unfortunately companies have put so much downward pressure on wages that a vast majority of citizens are unable to pay taxes at all so of course that has to shift more the wealthy.
I think this budget it dead on.
Reply by Frank Blacklock.
Why were things better when other governments ran smaller deficits and balanced budgets?
Reply by John Montgomery.
Because CEOs and big shareholders only made ten times the salary of the regular worker back then rather than 40. And the money put into higher wages with respect to lower prices meant a vast majority of people could afford to support themselves through higher taxes. There has been so much tax and wage cutting over the years that the wealthy end are the only place there is to go to support the country.
Reply by John Montgomery.
Also, you were probably younger then.
Comment by Frank Blacklock.
The federal government is a runaway train right now.
Comment by Mario Doucet.
spending and taxes again same as every other year, no end to debt in sight and the cost of living will continue to rise
Comment by Corrie Weatherfield.
Carbon tax rebate . . . is that a joke ??? Nothing showed up on April 15 in my bank . . . why ??? Oh, one had to file 2023 tax return by March 15 to get the "rebate" on April 15. That is quite difficult to do when T3 slips don't get to one before the end of March . . . Just another Justin joke on us I guess. What has the carbon tax got to do with filing tax returns?
Reply by MR Cain.
Relax, you get it in May.
Reply by John Montgomery.
Goes to show you how these people argue and argue without even knowing basic facts.
Reply by Deborah Reddon.
If you think your rebate cheque is a joke, you can always donate it to your local food bank. After all, Higgs isn't doing anything to help those essential services.
Comment by MR Cain.
Like the rest of the Cons, he keeps forgetting that a family of 4 will receive a nice rebate of $760 over the next year, and $380 for individuals. It's a figure that increases to $912 for families and $456 for individuals who live in rural areas, which is much of the province. Show us your plan Mr. Higgs.
Reply by Deborah Reddon.
Well said, Higgs has only his "piggy bank" plan. Take money from residents and put it into savings. End of story.
Comment by Daniel Henwell.
Higgs is absolutely right. Feds are spending the country into oblivion to try to achieve complete socialism.
Reply by Deborah Reddon.
The feds have to provide some relief to lower income, disabled persons, families, etc because governments like Higgs Cons won't lift a finger to help. They toss $300 to the homeless using a method that most cannot use. Higgs imposes higher taxes on property owners then wonders why rents must increase - dah, if you rent out part of your home you must pay Higgs 50% more. Focusing on debt reduction everyone while most residents are suffering from healthcare restrictions, roads and infrastructure projects languish, and homelessness gets worse is incomprehensible. Heave Ho Higgs.
Reply by John Montgomery.
Higgs is complaining without explaining how exactly the government supports citizens without spending anything. And no, Higgs isn't supporting the citizens of NB at all.
Reply by Kyle Woodman.
I am with you, this link doesn't count.
https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/corporate/promo/budget.html
Reply by John Montgomery.
Lol, I like the statement, "Biggest healthcare budget in NB history". Well.. There has always been inflation and healthcare has never gotten cheaper so just to keep up, yes of course he has to pay more. The question is, how much more beyond inflation did he raise the healthcare budget? How many more doctors and nurses do we have?
Like all of this is stating the obvious. In a time when there is massive inflation you *HAVE* to spend more. This page doesn't really say anything. It's smoke and mirrrors
Comment by Kyle Woodman.
A smart leader teaches people how to fish, he does not give them fish, because if everything is given to you, why work for it. Then he turns around and takes fish from people who actually work for that fish to give to those who could not be bothered. This type of thinking is why our country is in horrible shape. What is Higgs talking about, even though his budgets are praised by the business community and economists, those of us who post on here with little to no knowledge on the subject understand it more. It is becoming harder and harder to support the left and criticize the other side when they are doing much more correct than our side but that is what makes a good left supporter, we do it no matter what. The federal budget is another failure of the Higgs government.
Comment by Ted Gallant.
That's so rich coming from the least popular premier in Canada. Hey Higgs why don't you try working with the Fed's and secure the funding vs. working against the Fed's , sounds like Outhouse messaging is taking root...
Comment by John G Lavoie.
What a great budget!
Nevermind the premier, I'm sure there will be a couple more premier coming out of the woodworks. Now to you Ford!
Comment by John G Lavoie.
The wealthiest are finally paying more in taxes. This. Is. Awesome.
Reply by Mario Doucet.
not true - fake
Reply by John G Lavoie.
Lowering the boom! Yeah!
Reply by John G Lavoie.
Beyond my previous excitement of your quick response, what part is 'not true' and what part is 'fake'.
Comment by Kyle Woodman.
Sorry Mr. Higgs, but you are just one in a long line of people who actually understand finance on this level, joining political analysts and economists who have once again blasted another disaster of a budget. Former head of the BoC, David Dodge, called yesterday's budget the worst since 1982, guess who was driving our country into the ground then? Our PM once again sold his integrity, he does not actually have any left, to try to buy votes, thankfully our premier did not do that and maintained his strong fiscal management thinking of NBers of today and tomorrow. The good news for us on the left is, with the new taxes dumped on us from Ottawa on April 1 and yesterday, we have news things we can blame on Higgs, another failure of the Higgs government.
Reply by Deborah Reddon.
Oh that's funny, "new taxes dumped on us from Ottawa". Meanwhile Higgs raised our property taxes over 10%! The tax increase of April 1 will be returned in spades this year through the rebate program. Will Higgs return my 10% property tax increase and reduce climate change? He doesn't have the ability to make those calculations.
Reply by John Montgomery.
Understanding the needs of people and having compassion makes a way better leader than one who only understands finance.
Comment by peter clause.
I'm also to the opinion that this gov approach is the harder you work, the more you are penalized . the less , the more you are rewarded. Make no mistake, it's going to be the middle class that will flip the bill at the end. The richer, they have accountants to find the loopholes, the poor, nothing. I would imagine that its upsetting to many canadians.
Reply by John Montgomery.
The government cannot support people for free. People paying minimum wage cannot pay many taxes, so since so many jobs are minimum wage the wealthy have to pay. It's just an inevitable outcome.
Reply by peter clause.
Yes but at the same time you should only spend what we ça can afford. I’m not I treated in paying so many freebies or support other folks countries
Reply by John Montgomery.
Ok then as I keep saying, tell us how you can make a balanced budget while having consideration for the needs of all canadians.
Reply by John Montgomery.
That's not necessarily true in government spending. Government spending always comes back because when people have more money in their pockets they pay more taxes in turn.
Hidden comment.
![The avatar of ""]( "The avatar of \"\"")
Reply by peter clause.
The harder you work the more you are penalized , the less the more you are rewarded. If you are rich rich rich , they no the loopholes
Reply by Deborah Reddon.
You sound like PP, a lot of hot air without any pegs to pin your thoughts on. This budget ensures higher income pay more to support programs that ensure all Canadians have an opportunity to contribute. The "richer" Canadians as you describe them, do use financial experts and this budget ensure they contribute more, what a great concept.
Reply by Deborah Reddon.
You must be working at the PP Baloney Factory. Higher income Canadians do contribute more. And obviously it doesn't cause them to grow lazy as most continue to work hard and achieve more and make Canada a great place to live and work, including the less advantaged. That group is encouraged through Programs offered by the Feds to move forward and create their own future.
Reply by peter clause.
No no I don’t but garanti you work for JT freeload Inc.
Reply by peter clause.
But all seriousness just because I go the extra mile I shouldn’t get penalized for it. Anyone would agree. Plus , there’s no reason why folks in today’s day and age that you are won some form of welfare. Ok yes unless you have a true illness. I mean really sick . Then I’m good to support them for the unfortunate condition
Reply by John Lewis.
Fact is that I could name dozens of people I know well who are getting huge financial assistance who are capable of working and have many options (many job opportunities these days), but are choosing to stay home and spend taxpayers money because it is simply so easy to do so! How many people do I know that are not capable to work enough to earn a living? Very few! Just because you cannot afford luxuries like cell phone, satellite tv, 4-wheelers, and nice garage, etc., does not make you "in need". I have worked extremely hard my whole life and even I do not have 3 of those 4 things I just listed. People today are so entitled they think they should have what everyone else has even if they do not work for it. Like it or not, if this trend continues, I strongly believe fewer people will be willing to work. Really... why would they? And who will pay all the bills then?
Reply by John Montgomery.
Often jobs that pay for cost of living are out of reach for a lot of people, and jobs that they can get won't afford a car and rent in this province any more. Apartments here cost pretty much the same as what they do in Winnipeg or Edmonton now, yet the wages are higher over there. Why work if you are just going to be doing nothing but riding the bus and working all day for pennies?
Reply by Deborah Reddon.
Yes, there are some Canadians who 'take' and don't give. There are some who avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Keeping the status quo doesn't change a thing. If 12 Neighbours Community Fredericton can create a place for change for 100 homeless people that's an incredible thing. Helping the lowest economic group become good citizens helps everyone. It reduces strain on mental health care, it reduces homeless encampments, and so so much more So why doesn't the Higgs government invest in this group? Knowing that poverty causes so much strain on many other factors is why it's important to invest in lower income residents. Sure, a percentage will not make it or will abuse the program but doesn't mean we don't try to make lives better.
Comment by Robert Brannen.
This critique from a person once associated with an industry which, a bit over 50 years ago, increased the price of its products by 300% over the course of 5 months with no justification.
Comment by Errol Willis.
I'm neither a Liberal or Conservative supporter, but I agree that this budget is not a good one. More money spent servicing the debt than on health care? We've amassed 1.4 trillion in debt since Trudeau has been in office. This is the result - they now have to finance that debt at much higher levels. I applaud the social responsibility that Liberals always have, but they never can figure out how to pay for all of it.
I don't agree that axing the tax will produce any significant gain for the average citizen outside of a few buck each week at the gas pump. Inflation is well below the 2020 level, yet we have seen a steady rise and hold in virtually all commodities - especially food which is far more expensive that a tank of gas.
We've become numb to the cost of everything and eventually it will settle as the norm. Retailers are cashing in on us with pandemic prices that should no longer be the case.
Comment by Eugene Peabody.
Here is a premier who is completely out of touch with ordinary people. He criticizes a government who is trying to help ordinary people? I think he is just mad that they are raising taxes on the top 1% who have capital gains of over $250,000 and are pumping money to cities for building housing which he will not do.
Reply by Luc LeBlanc.
The best way a government can help its people is by moving out of the way. Yet, the current federal government just keeps creating more and more programs that just bog things down and cost way too much. Less is more!
Reply by Deborah Reddon.
The best way a government can help its people is by offering opportunities to those who need it. The method you describe reeks of Feudalism which is what has held NB back for it's first couple of centuries.
Comment by Marc LeBlanc.
Cried and whaled about a .03 cent carbon tax increase and passed the refinery portion onto us
The hypocracy is nauseating
Reply by Les Cooper.
We are the ones the refininers are producing for. Guess we have to pay for it.
Reply by Walter Vrbetic.
OPEC+ had two one million barrels a day in production cuts in less than a year, oil price is up near 30% since...
Wonder what impact that had on the price at the pump?
Reply by Deborah Reddon.
More PP Baloney. Refineries do it because it makes them rich and this Province provides little oversight or governance on their activities. Unlike wealthy Canadian who are required to pay a higher tax, this government ensures that continue to take and pay little for it.
Comment by Michel Pelletier.
Higg's is a con, and he think that not still taxing NBer more and not spending your NBers tax on where it need, like Education, health care is not important. He think that it's better to put that money into a piggy bank for his own idiology is good practice. Government and Higg's are not elected for the the government and Higg's. Government are elected by the people and for the people. I beleive that my tax should be collected to help the less fortunate, health care and education of our children.
Comment by MICHAEL O'DELL.
Mr. Higgs had his chance some time ago to lower prices at the pumps!
Reply by Dan Lee.
we are the 3rd highest province.........8.2 cents for irving s share.......poor soul................
Reply by Eugene Peabody.
Having prices here in NB always 10-16 cents higher than NS and PEI is such a help to us.LOL. But it does give Higgs a excuse to complain about the carbon tax.
Comment by Doug kirby.
He wants cooperation? Are u serious? NB has done nothing to help residents absolutely nothing and he attacks the feds?
Reply by Al Clark.
Incorrect. Our 0.00001% part time residents are looked after very well by him. Personally.
Reply by Jack Bell.
I believe it was slightly less than nothing he did to help
Comment by JOhn D Bond.
Mr Higgs do tell why our property taxes are going up up and away.
As for your nattering about the spending, funny you ignore that the annual deficit will shrink by 50% during that 5 yr period.
Comment by Al Clark.
Was the response written by his chief of staff or campaign manager? Who paid?
Reply by Deborah Reddon.
Brilliant statement! Yes, now we have to pay for his Campaign Manager as well. Higgs is so miserly he won't even pay for his own Campaigan. Heave Ho Higgs.
Comment by Al Clark.
Wait! Whoa! Stop the presses!
137 Comments