• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia

Status
Not open for further replies.

maharg

idspispopd
Wait, we're forced to have a Catholic School Board because a Constitution of Ontario says so?
Also we have a Constitution of Ontario? Or am I reading this wrong?

It's the constitution of Canada (in aggregate, including the BNA act, the acts that established the provinces, and the constitution act) that guarantees that whatever mechanism a province had in place when they joined confederation is maintained. So Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan have separate school systems.

That said, not all constitutional amendments are equal and provinces have changed their school systems (quebec and Newfoundland iirc) without plunging the nation into a constitutional crisis.
 
It's the constitution of Canada (in aggregate, including the BNA act, the acts that established the provinces, and the constitution act) that guarantees that whatever mechanism a province had in place when they joined confederation is maintained. So Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan have separate school systems.

That said, not all constitutional amendments are equal and provinces have changed their school systems (quebec and Newfoundland iirc) without plunging the nation into a constitutional crisis.

Ah, alright. So if say tomorrow Ontario woke up and decided "We don't want a separate system anymore" could Ontario just change the Ontario Act, or how does that work? Would we need to do an Ontario only referendum? Or would it just be a standard run of the mill bill in the Legislative Assembly?
 

maharg

idspispopd
Ah, alright. So if say tomorrow Ontario woke up and decided "We don't want a separate system anymore" could Ontario just change the Ontario Act, or how does that work? Would we need to do an Ontario only referendum? Or would it just be a standard run of the mill bill in the Legislative Assembly?

It'd be under Section 43 of the Constitution Act, so would require the Ontario legislature to pass a bill and the House to adopt a resolution agreeing to it. The Senate also needs to adopt a resolution, but if they don't within 180 days the House can bypass it.

See here for more details.
 

Tiktaalik

Member
Liberals to announce that changes to federal tax brackets won’t add up

The Trudeau government will acknowledge this week that its tax hike on the richest Canadians won’t cover the entire cost of its promised tax cut for the middle class, adding to the fiscal pressures on coming federal budgets, sources said.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau is set to announce changes to federal tax brackets in the coming days, at the same time as he will confirm that Ottawa is rolling back the maximum annual contribution to tax-free savings accounts to $5,500, from $10,000. Both changes are scheduled to take effect Jan.1.

The measures were key parts of the Liberal Party’s election platform, and are now the legislative priority as the House of Commons sits for one week ahead of the holiday break.

The Liberals had promised the lost revenue from their “middle-class tax cut” would be offset by a new tax bracket for income of more than $200,000. But economists have since raised questions about the Liberal Party’s numbers, which are magnified by new forecasts that show an increasingly negative picture of Ottawa’s fiscal situation. Instead of inheriting a balanced budget, the Liberals argue the government was already in the red when it took office, before it even started to implement ambitious spending plans and the tax cut.

Mr. Morneau said he will present the costs and benefits of the tax changes when he introduces them this week. While he refused to tip his hand over the past few days, federal sources confirm the numbers do not balance, which will add to government deficits in coming years.

“There are going to have to be some adjustments around the margins,” a senior federal official said.

Still, the official said the numbers are not as bleak as those presented by the C.D. Howe Institute, which predicted a multibillion-dollar shortfall.

Billing it as a middle-class tax cut, the Liberal government has vowed to reduce the tax rate on income between $44,701 and $89,401 to 20.5 per cent, from 22 per cent. It will also introduce a new tax rate of 33 per cent on income above $200,000, representing the top 1 per cent of income earners. The party has estimated these two measures will offset, meaning the tax hike would generate $3-billion in revenue and cover the $3-billion revenue cost of the tax cut.

The C.D. Howe Institute, by comparison, estimated last week the tax increase will actually raise less than $1-billion.

And in an open letter to the Prime Minister, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives has critictized the shift as ineffectual.

“Higher marginal rates may bring in revenue in the short term, but ultimately they encourage tax avoidance and undermine Canada’s international competitiveness,” CCCE president John Manley said.

Liberal House Leader Dominic LeBlanc said in an interview the tax measures and the TFSA change will be announced simultaneously to allow taxpayers to adjust before they come into effect at the start of the new tax year. The Liberal government’s plan to end income-splitting for families will be formally announced next year, along with the creation of the promised Canada Child Benefit.

Mr. LeBlanc added that the House will spend much of its time this week debating the Throne Speech, giving a number of rookie MPs a chance to make their “maiden speech” in Parliament. In addition, there will be a vote on Thursday on the cost of resettling 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of February.

But economic issues stand to occupy much of the debate in Ottawa. The Parliamentary Budget Officer warned last week that Liberal assumptions for economic growth are “optimistic,” suggesting the government is counting on billions in future revenue that may not materialize.

Speaking after the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Morneau said his government is banking on increased federal spending to stimulate Canada’s economy. He added that the middle-class will “invest” the proceeds of the tax cut in the economy, predicting it will stimulate growth across the country.

“We’ll continue to be prudent in the face of all of our challenges and make sure we need to make responsible investments but we’re going to stay on the course of working to enhance growth to deal with the slowing economy,” the Finance Minister said.

This will be pretty classic if it turns out to be the case. Good job Libs. Go into deficit for a pointless tax cut to the top 10%.

We'll probably see this hole in the budget fester for a few years until it gets pretty bad and some future government, Lib or Conservative has to slash funding to social programs to restore the balance. I'm sure no government will dare touch this tax cut though.
 

subrock

Member
God damn, just raise the taxes on the rich people and forget about the middle class cut. I'm good with the amount of taxes I pay.
 
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v3cTyCkP4yU/VmXGyn5f54I/AAAAAAAAY2A/_Qqx49Je-J4/s1600/2015-11.png

Eric averages post election polls. the Liberals continue to score better and better, Tories stagnate, NDP plunges back to traditional territory.. charts

2015-11.png


Looks like Trudeau's campaign to the Left of Chretien-Martin has paid off while Mulcair's play of moving to the Center to replace the Liberals failed.
 
And thus the dream is dead. Even in Quebec they are third place. lol

historically, they (NDP) never had a base there. 2011 was all about Jack the man, not NDP the party. NDP doesn't have roots or a base there.

Liberals are returning to pre-1980 levels of support in Quebec and they seems to be partly forgiven for Ad-Scam after a decade of punishment
 
I'm on the phone with a forum poll. Somehow my cellphone number ended up on a list :/

Hard to say who was sponsoring it. All the question were about refugees and dope.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
And in an open letter to the Prime Minister, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives has critictized the shift as ineffectual.

“Higher marginal rates may bring in revenue in the short term, but ultimately they encourage tax avoidance and undermine Canada’s international competitiveness,” CCCE president John Manley said

noting that he was the president of an organization devoted to making sure rich people and companies never need to give anything back to society but not seeing how that was relevant to his situation.
 
I can't believe I was out of the country for the Speech from the Throne. Doesn't sound like I missed anything crazy, but it still would've been fun to watch.

Man, oil at $40 a barrel
Hopefully all the Albertans affected land on their feet, but it's going to be hard times ahead.

This whole situation is going to really discourage oil investment there for a very long time.

Western Canadian Select (which covers basically all the oil coming out of Alberta) sells at around $13-15 less than the going rate for oil. Which means that when it's at $40/barrel globally, oil from Western Canada is actually at around $25/barrel. (Note that break-even for the oil companies is something like $70/barrel.)

During the last election, CPC and NDP financial projections were based on $60-65/barrel oil, and the Liberals were assuming around $35-40/barrel. In other words: Canada's finances may be deeply screwed up for quite awhile. I'd like it it the Liberals backed off their tax cut pledge, but I don't think that's about to happen.
 

Mr.Mike

Member
Is there a precise definition somewhere of what politician's mean when they talk about the "middle class"?

I imagine the definition in terms of the Marxist definition of the bourgeoisie (owners of capital) and the proletariat (workers). So the middle-class would be people who are in the middle, workers who also own some capital. Clearly this is not what is meant when the term is used, but it seems a more useful definition to me than just some big catch-all term for "everyone except the very poorest and the very richest".
 

maharg

idspispopd
Is there a precise definition somewhere of what politician's mean when they talk about the "middle class"?

I imagine the definition in terms of the Marxist definition of the bourgeoisie (owners of capital) and the proletariat (workers). So the middle-class would be people who are in the middle, workers who also own some capital. Clearly this is not what is meant when the term is used, but it seems a more useful definition to me than just some big catch-all term for "everyone except the very poorest and the very richest".

When a politician says "middle class" they basically tend to some random subrange between something like the 30th and 80th percentile in either income or wealth, which are only partially overlapping sets to begin with.

So no, there is no precise definition. Since most people consider themselves middle class, it is indeed an effective catch-all to say "you, so long as you're not dirt poor or obscenely wealthy."

But, in Marx' time, the bourgeoisie *were* the middle class. They were not aristocracy but had accumulated wealth to the point of having similar powers and privileges to the aristocracy. Keep in mind that what came before capitalism was feudalism, and while lords owned land in a way similar to capital, it was not really used like capital (it was not sold or bought, their workers were not paid wages nor had any particular freedom to pursue their own interests, etc). Shopkeepers and lawyers and other such people were bourgeoisie as well as titans of industry. The literal meaning is actually "city dweller."

The distinction between bourgeoisie and proletariat isn't really so much whether either of them work (the classical non-working class is the aristocracy), it's simply whether they own capital. The modern American/Canadian middle class is often defined by home ownership, which is a form of capital ownership, whether or not those owners also work. So sometimes politicians are also dogwhistling home owners when they call out the middle class.
 

Pedrito

Member
Exchange of the day in today's question period:

CPC's Marilyn Gladu: "Mr. Speaker, how come this governement does't care about innovation? The throne speech doesn't contain the word science".

Minister of science : "Mr. Speaker, the war on science is over". [/standing O']

Did she really think it was a good question? She walked right into that one.

Also, expect the CPC to pound into the national psyche that a referendum is "needed" for electoral reform. In a way, I agree with them. Though, they'll try to spin this as protecting democracy while we all know they don't really give a shit about that and are scared shitless of what will happen to them under anything other than FPTP.
 

Azih

Member
Wouldn't mind a referendum on what to replace FPTP with. But seriously there's no legal reason to have a referendum. We didn't have a referendum when we got FPTP in the first place.
 

Mr.Mike

Member
Negative interest rates an option in Canada, Stephen Poloz says

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stephen-poloz-monetary-policy-1.3355704

Canada could theoretically follow the lead of other countries that have recently gone to negative interest rates in order to stimulate the economy, central bank governor Stephen Poloz told a business audience today after yet another drop in the loonie.

...

That's a departure from 2009, when the bank said its theoretical lowest-possible interest rate was 0.25 per cent because to go lower would have been incompatible with certain financial markets, such as money-market funds.

...

"Today's remarks should in no way be taken as a sign that we are planning to embark on these policies," Poloz said. "We don't need unconventional policies now, and we don't expect to use them. However, it's prudent to be prepared for every eventuality."

The Bank of Canada twice this year cut its benchmark interest rate in an attempt to stimulate the economy.

But other countries have gone even further, slashing their rates below zero in an attempt to encourage spending and investment, instead of fearfully hoarding capital.

Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and the European Central Bank have all dipped their benchmark rate below zero for various reasons in recent years. Switzerland's central bank rate is now minus 0.75 per cent, for example. That means banks must pay a fee to store money with the central bank — something that encourages them to not do so, and deploy their capital into other investments that grow the economy.

"Why would anyone ever accept a negative nominal return when they could always simply hold cash and earn a zero return?" Poloz asked, rhetorically. "A big part of the answer is that there are costs to holding currency, particularly in large quantities, and these costs affect the lower bound. Because of the costs, which include storage, insurance and security, central banks can charge negative rates on commercial bank deposits without seeing a surge in demand for bank notes.

To put it simply, the Bank of Canada now thinks negative interest rates are a policy option in its tool belt because the experience of other countries that tried them wasn't calamitous. Negative rates, to varying degrees, achieved their goals without any undue negative consequences.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that Canadian consumers would actualy see negative interest rates — a mortgage that pays you to hold it, for example — even if the central bank goes negative, Poloz said, citing examples of what happened in other countries' consumer lending markets once the central bank went below zero.

"Interest rates [for consumers] don't go below zero," Poloz said at a question-and-answer session following his speech, noting that in Switzerland and elsewhere, consumers still earn microscopic amounts on savings and pay tiny interest rates on commercial bank loans, which are tied, but not directly, to the central bank. "We would expect the same sort of behaviour here," he said.

"We now believe that the effective lower bound for Canada's policy rate is around minus 0.5 per cent, but it could be a little higher or lower," Poloz said.
 
"Booming economy causes unsustainable housing price increases in Toronto"

"Stalling economy causes unsustainable housing price increases in Toronto"
 

maharg

idspispopd
"Booming economy causes unsustainable housing price increases in Toronto"

"Stalling economy causes unsustainable housing price increases in Toronto"

More accurate headline that encompasses all situations:

"Our understanding of economic forces hilariously underdeveloped, every theory predicts every outcome."
 

Divvy

Canadians burned my passport
I can't believe I was out of the country for the Speech from the Throne. Doesn't sound like I missed anything crazy, but it still would've been fun to watch.



Western Canadian Select (which covers basically all the oil coming out of Alberta) sells at around $13-15 less than the going rate for oil. Which means that when it's at $40/barrel globally, oil from Western Canada is actually at around $25/barrel. (Note that break-even for the oil companies is something like $70/barrel.)

During the last election, CPC and NDP financial projections were based on $60-65/barrel oil, and the Liberals were assuming around $35-40/barrel. In other words: Canada's finances may be deeply screwed up for quite awhile. I'd like it it the Liberals backed off their tax cut pledge, but I don't think that's about to happen.

I was talking to a employee of a small foreign oil extraction company and they were talking about how a lot of companies like theirs got incredibly burned in the last few years after investing in Alberta during the highs of a few years ago. Apparently in addition to the drop in oil prices, they didn't anticipate the high cost of winter maintenance and protection. It's going to take a lot for them to come back after this.
 
Video of today's "the war on science is over":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFUfEXJq3GQ

Gladu has to be an undercover liberal. She couldn't have set that up any better.

I love when Conservatives try to score points so blatantly disgeniously. They look like such foold when they try to pretend to care abouy something they were dead set on supressing when they had power.

It's like when the GOP attack muslims by pretending to care about women.

Lots of words from Gladu and yet they were all empty. All it took was one sentence to retort it. Brilliant.
 
Today I got a reminder of just how big a nerd I am: Stephane Dion was at an event I was working at, and I almost started hyperventilating with excitement when I saw him.

Wouldn't mind a referendum on what to replace FPTP with. But seriously there's no legal reason to have a referendum. We didn't have a referendum when we got FPTP in the first place.

I don't think the Conservatives are pushing for a referendum on what to replace FPTP with -- they want a referendum on whether we should replace it at all. No matter how many Canadians say they don't like FPTP, I think the CPC is betting that they could still win a referendum on whether to keep it or get rid of it. And I don't think I'd be willing to bet against them on that, either.

I was talking to a employee of a small foreign oil extraction company and they were talking about how a lot of companies like theirs got incredibly burned in the last few years after investing in Alberta during the highs of a few years ago. Apparently in addition to the drop in oil prices, they didn't anticipate the high cost of winter maintenance and protection. It's going to take a lot for them to come back after this.

Yeah...Alberta is in bad shape in so many ways right now, and I'm not sure how they get out of it. Someone was explaining to me today that even once their recovery starts, it will take up to 18 months for them to see results. I know their next election isn't for awhile, but things are already looking grim for Notley, unless they can find some magic way of turning it all around quickly.
 

Pedrito

Member
Eventually, Alberta will have to enter the real world where we pay taxes. Fiscally, it's been governed like a middle-eastern dictatorship: low taxes and financing the social system with oil revenues. In the middle-east, they do that to make sure the populace won't revolt. What's Alberta's excuse? With a sale tax and progressive income tax, it would be much easier to get through the rainy days (well...for the government).
 

maharg

idspispopd
Alberta is getting a progressive income tax, though it's still not super progressive. We would have even if the PCs had won. The flat tax has been effectively a dead thing since the election.

That said, a sales tax is probably never going to happen in my lifetime. People in this thread talk about constitutional amendments as impossible, but a sales tax in Alberta? That's just wishing for the moon.
 

Pedrito

Member
Speaking of Alberta, what's the deal with bill 6? Isn't it supposed to put in place rules similar to those in all the other provinces? So why will it "kill family farms"? As far as I know, they still exist elsewhere in Canada. Is the freakout justified or are the usual suspects overreacting as usual?
 

maharg

idspispopd
Speaking of Alberta, what's the deal with bill 6? Isn't it supposed to put in place rules similar to those in all the other provinces? So why will it "kill family farms"? As far as I know, they still exist elsewhere in Canada. Is the freakout justified or are the usual suspects overreacting as usual?

This is a pretty decent summary, though it's very much from one side's perspective. http://parklandinstitute.ca/blog/comments/bill_6_will_right_a_long_standing_wrong
 

Azih

Member
I don't think the Conservatives are pushing for a referendum on what to replace FPTP with -- they want a referendum on whether we should replace it at all. No matter how many Canadians say they don't like FPTP, I think the CPC is betting that they could still win a referendum on whether to keep it or get rid of it. And I don't think I'd be willing to bet against them on that, either.
Oh no doubt. I'm just saying that, while I don't think a referendum is needed at all, a referendum on what to replace FPTP with would be an okay compromise as it fulfills Trudeau's commitment to replace FPTP, is a sop to the commentators who insist that a referendum is needed, and the only option on such a referendum I wouldn't like would be 'ranked ballot' (AV) and it's easy to show that it's not a good system.
 

maharg

idspispopd
If there are multiple choices of any sort the referendum would fail, I have no doubt. In fact, a referendum along the lines of "should we change? Y/N; to what? AV/PR/MAGIC" would basically be an open admission there is no actual intent to change the system, because that kind of question is open to all sorts of FUD.
 
Very first questions in today's QP: demands from the Conservatives, in French and English, that no changes to the electoral system move forward unless there's a referendum in which a clear majority of Canadians support changing the system.

(Trudeau's comeback was pretty awesome, though: along the lines of "It's interesting that now the Conservatives are okay with consulting Canadians.")

I don't think they'd have a referendum on what the replacement would be -- the Conservatives realize that even that concession doesn't help them at all, since it assumes that a change is needed (which isn't a point that they're willing to concede). They're going to push explicitly for a straight yes/no vote on reform. I don't think they're going to get that vote, since electoral reform was a pretty major explicit plank in the Liberal platform, but I think the CPC is going to be as loud as it can be about that.
 
Very first questions in today's QP: demands from the Conservatives, in French and English, that no changes to the electoral system move forward unless there's a referendum in which a clear majority of Canadians support changing the system.

(Trudeau's comeback was pretty awesome, though: along the lines of "It's interesting that now the Conservatives are okay with consulting Canadians.")

I don't think they'd have a referendum on what the replacement would be -- the Conservatives realize that even that concession doesn't help them at all, since it assumes that a change is needed (which isn't a point that they're willing to concede). They're going to push explicitly for a straight yes/no vote on reform. I don't think they're going to get that vote, since electoral reform was a pretty major explicit plank in the Liberal platform, but I think the CPC is going to be as loud as it can be about that.

A referendum would basically be their last chance to stop the changes. They could carpet bomb $$$$$ saying that Trudeau is trying to rig the election system so that the conservatives could never win.
 

Pedrito

Member
A referendum would basically be their last chance to stop the changes. They could carpet bomb $$$$$ saying that Trudeau is trying to rig the election system so that the conservatives could never win.

It's obviously the plan. They'll repeat day after day after day that it's undemocratic to change the electoral system without a referendum and that the LPC is trying to rig the game. It's gonna be a long two years for Maryam Monsef. So far, I'm impressed by her in QP.

I'd be in favor of a referendum but I don't trust voters to make any effort to inform themselves on the matter. Many don't even understand the system we have now.
 

SRG01

Member
The weird thing about Albertan politics is that this has been happening in between elections for years ever since Ed Stelmach. The extreme right in Alberta always makes all sorts of noises to drum up support -- and makes sure to respond to polls as well. The right-leaning vote never materializes during an actual election, because the center vote has been significantly larger for over a decade now.

On Bill 6 though: the NDP was right to invoke closure on the bill earlier today. The WRP has never been interested in actual debate and good politics in their years of existence. They've been a grandstanding/posturing party from day one.

edit: Oh you changed the image. This one's funnier LOL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom