• 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.
Alright guys. I need to be hopeful again after all the craziness that has been happening with US and Trump. First and foremost, what can I do in Vancouver to help prevent a Canadian Trump from happening? I am quite seriously fed up now.

Well, you can do what SeanC says and join the Conservatives to vote against Kellie Leitch. There is also the Electoral Reform Committee which is due to come back with their recommendation next month, so make sure you tell your MP or the committee that you are against FPTP.
 

Azih

Member
Alright guys. I need to be hopeful again after all the craziness that has been happening with US and Trump. First and foremost, what can I do in Vancouver to help prevent a Canadian Trump from happening? I am quite seriously fed up now.
Well I don't know if your acquaintances make blanket statements about minorities but if they do then let them know it's not acceptable (in a way that won't make them defensive).

Also call your MP and let them know that you want an end to FPTP and the start of proportional representation.
 

mo60

Member
Looks like Jason Kenney will be fined $5K for breaking the PC leadership race and the delegation selection process in that edmonton riding will have to be redone. Will post a link to the story once it is posted later.
 
A few pages ago, there was some question about how the CPC is conducting voting for their leadership race. I now have a definitive answer: by mail. I'm sitting in class right now, and the CPC Executive Director is explaining the mail-in process.

So...don't trust that Reddit link saying they may have online voting.

EDIT: They'll also allow for in-person voting in some parts of the country. But definitely (and emphatically) no online voting!
 

Sean C

Member
The Environment Minister announced today that they're going to use regulations to firm up the existing plans to eliminate the use of coal power plants by 2030 (four provinces still use coal).
 

gabbo

Member
Anecdotal obviously, but there are quite a few that I know (well...knew) who are "happy that c**t Hillary lost, now we won't have World War III" or something to that effect. There's a reason why Leitch may have a shot the Conservative leadership and shouldn't be dismissed so easily. Hope in one hand, Trump in the other.

I know at least two members of my family who honestly feared a war was going to break out if Hilary won and that they'd be invaded (small southern Ontario town), and they started to change their various travel and holiday plans around it. So yes, Leitch has some base, but hopefully it's small and stays that way.

Hope the libs follow through on the coal plan, and can get green alternatives up and going before 2030
 

NetMapel

Guilty White Male Mods Gave Me This Tag
How do you feel about the whole joining the CPC to vote in the leadership election thing? You'd have to join before March-ish in order to be able to vote in it, and pay $15. It's set up so that each riding has 100 points and distributes those points according to the proportion of support within the riding, and also it's a ranked ballot. It works out such that if you're in a riding with a small number of CPC members your vote is worth a lot more, and you don't have to worry about strategically voting for a candidate that you like but also is popular within the CPC.

There might even be a candidate you're actually pretty OK with, like the sole one taking climate change seriously.
Alright I will take a look at their candidate platforms and join CPC to help choose a better party leader if my vote is worth anything. I am in BC so maybe it is worth something because most people here are NDP, green or liberals. We need all parties in Canada to pay attention to climate change, green technology and other kind of tech.
 

Mr.Mike

Member
is Chong the only CPC candidate to admit that Climate Change is real?

I think Brad Trost is the only one to dismiss it (and Chris Alexander claimed he was to only one to feel that way), but I don't think most of the other candidates have put up a serious plan. Although to be fair it is still early and Chong is more ahead of the curve with how fleshed out his platform is, rather then everyone else being behind the curve.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/1...hange-debate-brad-trost-chong_n_12951160.html
 
The Environment Minister announced today that they're going to use regulations to firm up the existing plans to eliminate the use of coal power plants by 2030 (four provinces still use coal).

It's mostly impacting Saskatchewan which uses coal for 40% of its electricity and doesn't seem to have transition plans in place. Alberta being the other heavy coal user but having already made announcements.
 
I'm still baffled that us Nova Scotians are clinging on to coal. Then again maybe I shouldn't be surprised because every time a small source of jobs leaves the province people lose their shit.
 

SRG01

Member
I don't understand why so many provinces cling to coal power. The cost of refurbishing, maintaining, and abiding by emission standards puts coal power within hitting distance of other technologies.

Not to mention wind power is already cheaper than coal since the last year or so. Load balancing that with NG means extremely cheap energy.
 

bremon

Member
I'm still baffled that us Nova Scotians are clinging on to coal. Then again maybe I shouldn't be surprised because every time a small source of jobs leaves the province people lose their shit.
I'm pleased Alberta is phasing it out as well. Saskatchewan being dragged kicking and screaming doesn't surprise me. Sometimes it seems Brad Wall would only be happy if everything in Saskatchewan was done the way it was in his great grandpa's day.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
I don't understand why so many provinces cling to coal power. The cost of refurbishing, maintaining, and abiding by emission standards puts coal power within hitting distance of other technologies.

Not to mention wind power is already cheaper than coal since the last year or so. Load balancing that with NG means extremely cheap energy.

Lobbyism. Every time the government wastes money doing something counter-productive, it's lobbyism.
 
Gerald Butts (PM's top advisor) kills Michael Chong's candidacy with a single tweet:

Gerald Butts said:
My feed right now is a 101 level explanation of why it's hard for Conservatives to have strong environment policy. Good luck, Michael Chong.

I shared this with some CPCers I know who insist that they don't care what Butts says about any of them, but you have to think that getting praise, however faint, probably won't help Chong's candidacy much.
 
Economically coal makes no sense

the further time moves and technology develops on the more less profitable is coal production


there is no point in holding onto some ancient form of fuel that will give us any benefit

use that coal for other things instead of crying that it needs to continue to power our country
 
Had an interesting mini lecture by this recent grad of waterloo on climate change and who should be responsible for the natural disasters and environmental effects it has. Her main point was that the military should not be used in response to natural disasters but rather we establish different organizations who work not only to fix the damage but work after the fact so that those disasters such as floods etc either do not occur again or cause damage to a lesser degree. That was interesting, but the real interesting bit was how climate change was going to positively affect Canada by bringing warmer winters and longer growing seasons. Hadn't really thought of how climate change would affect Canada, I more so thought of it on a global scale.

on a seperate note, I think I'll get in touch with the economics faculty so I can ask what we will do when low-skill labour in the energy sector and other areas which will be affected by automation is replaced by skilled labour in Canada. As oil is such a large part of our economy, it will interesting how, and who, will commit to the changes neccessary
 
Her main point was that the military should not be used in response to natural disasters but rather we establish different organizations who work not only to fix the damage but work after the fact so that those disasters such as floods etc either do not occur again or cause damage to a lesser degree.

I don't know that I agree with that. The value in calling in military for a response to natural disasters is that we have a standing body of people available, since they're usually not at full scale war, and they're distributed around the country.

Having an organization to prevent disasters might be unnecessary since local and provincial governments often put in the work to prevent disasters from re-occurring since they are the most directly affected by disasters. The best thing would be an automatic system to have the federal government cover the costs of disaster prevention since they get an out sized portion of revenue and are best prepared to fund such a thing.

That was interesting, but the real interesting bit was how climate change was going to positively affect Canada by bringing warmer winters and longer growing seasons. Hadn't really thought of how climate change would affect Canada, I more so thought of it on a global scale.

Yeah we're probably a net winner but you should also consider the problems internationally that can affect us. Like massive bodies of climate refugees, global instability, wars over resources like water, global economic depression. It's been brought up before but it's an interesting argument that climate change has already indirectly caused like... ISIS, the Syrian civil war, the recent refugee crisis, the radicalization of young people in the middle east, the recent international terrorism trend, etc due to drying up rivers in the middle east.
 

Tapejara

Member
Sent a letter to my MP about electoral reform and why I think the government should still pursue it. First time writing to an MP, so I don't really know what to expect in response (assuming I get one?).
 

Tiktaalik

Member
lol the Conservatives in the Senate are trolling the Liberals by amending the Trudeau "middle class" tax cut to actually make it more progressive.

Conservative senators amend government's middle-class tax plan

Plan would deliver a larger tax break to middle-class Canadians earning between $45,282 and $90,563

In a rare move, Conservative senators on the Red Chamber's finance committee have amended a spending bill passed by the House to rewrite the government's proposed middle-class tax plan.

Conservative Senator Larry Smith moved an amendment to Bill C-2, which he said would make the plan revenue neutral — a promise the Liberals made during the last election, but subsequently broke as their plan will cost the treasury an additional $1.7 billion a year — and would deliver a larger tax break to middle-class Canadians earning between $45,282 and $90,563.

For example, a Canadian earning $60,000 a year would get a tax cut of $570.12 under Smith's plan, versus the $261.36 the Liberals had originally intended, according to figures provided by Smith at committee.

But the amendment also reduces the tax savings Liberals had promised those earning between $90,563 and $200,000.

For example, a tax filer with an income of $120,000 would see tax savings drop from $766.37 to only $87.15 a year, Smith said.

Smith's plan would, however, keep Trudeau's tax hike to those earning more than $200,000 a year, who will see their bracket increase from 29 to 33 per cent of income.

The Quebec senator, a former president of the CFL's Montreal Alouettes, said that the Liberal plan actually delivered the largest dollar amount reductions to these higher earners, to the detriment of those earning less.

"We're increasing the debt and we're not giving the benefit to the people who are supposed to get it," Smith told committee Tuesday. "What we are trying to do is help focus the bill where the prime minister said he wanted to focus … middle-income Canadians."


The tax changes made under C-2 already took effect as of Jan. 2, 2016, meaning Smith's changes would have to be applied retroactively.

The amendment was adopted by the committee in a 9-3 vote, and will now be sent back to the chamber for a vote by all sitting senators.

If the amendment is carried by the Senate, the bill will be punted to the House of Commons for further debate and another round of votes. (The bill already passed the House in September.)

Finance Minister Bill Morneau said Tuesday he found the amendment "surprising," and that he preferred how the bill was initially drafted.

Independent Senator Andre Pratte, one of Trudeau's new appointees, criticized Smith for surprising the committee with this proposal.

"Sober second thought is not doing calculations on a napkin," he said, while questioning the legitimacy of the Conservative-dominated committee to pass this amendment when Independents hold a plurality in the chamber itself.

Grant Mitchell, a deputy of Peter Harder, the government's representative in the Senate, said the committee had no advance warning the amendment was coming and that the committee needed further details before voting — but was ultimately overruled, with Independent Senator Anne Cools also siding with the Conservatives.

All Senate committees currently have a Conservative majority. Committee membership was determined when Parliament returned after the last election, when the Tories still had a plurality in the chamber.

Smith said this wasn't a partisan issue, or an attempt by the Conservative caucus to flex its muscles. "If we can deliver, and make this [legislation] better, then I think there's a real opportunity to help Canadians."

Harder is in the midst of negotiations with leadership from the partisan Liberal and Conservative caucuses to change committee standings to reflect the growth of Independent senators.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has appointed 28 new senators this year, and all will sit as non-affiliated members.

The current count of non-affiliated (or Independent) senators stands at 44, meaning they are in a plurality in the 105-seat body.

There are 21 independent Senate Liberals and 40 Conservatives.

I look forward to hearing the government's explanation for why this amendment is bad and why those making $120k+ should be receiving such a big tax cut.

I'm assuming this amendment is half baked and purely an attempt to embarrass the government.
 

Mr.Mike

Member
lol the Conservatives in the Senate are trolling the Liberals by amending the Trudeau "middle class" tax cut to actually make it more progressive.



I look forward to hearing the government's explanation for why this amendment is bad and why those making $120k+ should be receiving such a big tax cut.

There are some technical issues with the plan. https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPoli...enators_move_to_rewrite_the_tax_code/dabbrcd/

Okay, I did the math. Under the legislation as rewritten by the CPC senators on the finance committee, if your taxable income is $95,000 or less, then you would pay 16.5% on income between $45,282 and $53,000, and 20.5% on income between $53,000 and $90,563.
If your taxable income is greater than $90,563, then you would pay 22% on income between $45,282 and $90,563. The marginal tax rate for taxable income over $90,563 (and less than about $142,000) is 26%.
So if your taxable income increases from $90,563 to $91,563 (an increase of $1000), you would pay an additional 26% on the amount over $90,563 (i.e. $260). Plus you would pay (22% - 16.5%) on ($53,000 - $45,282) and (22% - 20.5%) on ($90,563 - $53,000), i.e. $988.
So you earn an extra $1000 and you pay an additional $1250 in tax, i.e. a marginal tax rate of 125%.

It creates the situation people erroneously think happens with tax brackets, and complicates the tax system to make it worse. The Senate should criticize the tax changes as not actually achieving their stated goals, but sloppily rewriting legislation isn't really productive. They could have, and would have been correct to do so, just sent it back to the House.


As far as the tax issue itself, one way that comes to mind that the stated goals could be achieved is by simply increasing the WITB. Although I suppose that wouldn't be the middle class, but whatever, the Canadian middle class is one of the richest groups of people in the world.
 

Tiktaalik

Member
lol ok so this is very certainly purely an attempt to embarrass the government. Those tax changes are just stupid and not serious.

The Globe article on this is better than the one I posted and lays out the tax code code changes in detail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ove-to-re-write-the-tax-code/article32973580/

...

The Conservative amendment would create a new, lower tax rate of 16.5 per cent on income greater than $45,282 but less than $52,999. It would then maintain the 20.5-per-cent rate on income greater than $53,000 but less than $90,563. A handout from Mr. Smith’s office said there would be “a transition as an individual moves to the third bracket for income above $90,563” that would make the entire package revenue neutral.

Mr. Smith argued that the bill as written would create an annual shortfall of $1.7-billion, contrary to what the Liberals promised during the election campaign.

The transition measure marks a significant departure for current tax practice. It essentially means that Canadians earning about $95,000 or more would have to pay 22 per cent on income between $45,282 and $90,563, while Canadians who earn a smaller total would pay less tax on income earned in that same range.

Independent Senator Diane Bellemare warned this will create a disincentive in the tax code that would discourage Canadians from earning more and triggering the transition clause.

...
 

SRG01

Member
Wouldn't it be better to reduce the rate in the bracket sub-45k and increase it in the one above 90k to compensate?

Of course. But I figure that would happen in the next election rather than this one.

The cynical part of me, however, knows that there are very few votes to be had in the lower tax brackets so... yeah.
 

Mr.Mike

Member
Y'know, we could totally just get rid of tax brackets and implement progressive taxation through a non-linear curve. If you don't immediately panic at the sight of an exponent it'd actually be way easier too.
 

Dr.Guru of Peru

played the long game

Mr.Mike

Member
Uh, yeah. That's crazy. Is there any chance this senate amendment will actually stick?

It would have to actually get voted on by the Senate (it made it out of a committee, not the Senate). Then the House would vote on it again. So it's definitely not gonna happen, but the only thing that's gonna fit into the headlines is that the Liberals rejected a more "progressive" version.
 
http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/p...5044246-les-souverainistes-quittent-le-pq.php

Separaitst voters are leaving the PQ,

Prior to J-F Lisé's leadership win, the PQ held the support of 73% among Separatist voters,
now in late November the PQ support among them dropped to 57%

J-F Lisé has promised NOT to hold a referendum during his first mandate if he were to win the next election; that pissed off hard-liners.

many are hemorrhaging towards the hard-left QS on the Left. (QS support is strongest in low income ridings in Montreal)

while on the right, the CAQ a "autonomous" LOL party has been gaining support in the regions due to their more conservative hardline identity stances where many Nationalists on the right are clamoring towards.

the most hilarious outcome out this is that the division helps the unpopular Quebec Liberals keeping them in majority territory holding the lead in polls with Premier Couillard as "best leader" overall among all Quebecers regardless.

Premier Couillard is lucky as fuck because he is vanilla, boring and unimaginative.
But Couillard is level headed and he is the "least" ideological Quebec leader.
PLQ 36%
CAQ 31%
PQ 30%
QS 19%

Quebec Liberals haves 36% support among voters but with 56% unfovariblity LOL! Always in Majority territory
 

jet1911

Member
http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/p...5044246-les-souverainistes-quittent-le-pq.php

Separaitst voters are leaving the PQ,

Prior to J-F Lisé's leadership win, the PQ held the support of 73% of Separatist voters,
now in late November the PQ support among them dropped to 57%

J-F Lisé has promised NOT to hold a referendum during his first mandate if he were to win the next election; that pissed off hard-liners.

many are hemorrhaging towards the hard-left QS on the Left. (QS support is strongest in low income ridings in Montreal)

while on the right, the CAQ a "autonomous" LOL party has been gaining support in the regions due to their more conservative hardline identity stances where many Nationalists on the right are clamoring towards.

the most hilarious outcome out this is that the division helps the unpopular Quebec Liberals keeping them in majority territory holding the lead in polls with Premier Couillard as "best leader" overall among all Quebecers regardless.

Premier Couillard is lucky as fuck because he is vanilla, boring and unimaginative.
But Couillard is level headed and he is the "least" ideological Quebec leader.

Quebec Liberals haves 36% support among voters but with 56% unfovariblity LOL! Always in Majority territory

The Liberals being in first place in these polls still blow my mind.
 

bremon

Member
Sent a letter to my MP about electoral reform and why I think the government should still pursue it. First time writing to an MP, so I don't really know what to expect in response (assuming I get one?).
Judging by my experience; you'll definitely get one.
 

bremon

Member
Probably because the hateful vitriol people spew so freely is disgusting and tiring. The idea that a woman who disagrees with your political views, or changes sides, ought to "go to the kitchen" or is "dead meat" is absolutely infuriating. That's the pathetic generalization Alberta gets painted with and these misogynystic assholes need a reality check because their efforts towards building a time machine back to 1950 don't seem to be going well.

The fact that people feel they have to throw in hateful language towards LGBTQ people just for good measure is absolutely shameful.
 

gabbo

Member
because of all the hateful shit she got. What else?

I only thought you might be sighing about the shit she got after I posted. I thought at first her speaking/being applauded was causing it. Then it hit me.
Yes, her being threatened and verbally abused is disgusting, but sadly not shocking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom