Politics in 2016

[Colin Parkinson]

that implies that Russians and Canadians can work together

Well if JT can suck up to China, making nice with Putin should be easy. Plus it will show "Global leadership"  [

The biggest issue will be the GHG emissions from the older Russian tanks......

 

[jmt18325]

jmt, they're getting the same $80,100 as ministers now, but, they are still Ministers of State, in accordance with The Ministeries and Ministers of State Act, R.C.S. 1985 c. M-8, until another Order-in-Council is approved, superseding the 4 Nov 2015 OIC.  I checked PCO's OIC search site and as of today, such an OIC had yet to be approved.

You can hate the players as much as you wish, but it's really the game you appear to have an issue with, and the game is the law, Federal Legislation to be exact, Bill M-8, The Ministries and Ministers of State Act. 

Personally, I suspect there will be no such OIC, because the original OICs already included, as you can see by my quotes a few pages back, that the Ministers of State would by "styled" as Ministers of [insert State portfolio name here], and thus "styled" as Ministers and, being upgraded from a pre-election MoS remuneration of $60,000 to the post-election MoS rate of $80,100, there's nothing more to be done.  By Federal Law, they are Ministers of State, they are addressed as "Ministers" and those in Minister of State billets are now paid the same as those in Minister billets.

If, however, the day comes when a subsequent OIC is approved by the GIC which quashes the appointments and re-appoints them as full Ministers, I will then concede to you that you are now correct.  Til then...

Regards
G2G

I suspect you're right - the changes that were made are the changes that will be made.  Though technically (legally) ministers of state, they are treated as ministers.  I think we're talking past each other. I was under the impression that the OIC would be changed, but it seems that the changes were probably too cumbersome and not worth the time given that the ministers are already counted as being equal to all others.  Sorry for any misunderstanding.

 

[Journeyman]

...that implies that Russians and Canadians can work together

They were one of our flanking battalions in Kosovo.

That implies a knowledge and/or experience of Canada's military history.

 

[jmt18325]

They were one of our flanking battalions in Kosovo.

This isn't the 90s though.

 

[Journeyman]

This isn't the 90s though.

Oh, thanks.    :facepalm:

 

[jmt18325]

Oh, thanks.    :facepalm:

I just mean we're not in quite the same cooperative spirit.

 

[Loachman]

[/quote]

 

[Altair]

even though Goodale says they should be charged?

Oh whatever.

 

[PuckChaser]

even though Goodale says they should be charged?

Oh whatever.

Charged, convicted, released, fly to Syria on Canadian passport, fight for ISIL and then come back for Ontario's basic minimum salary and free health care? Could even get free treatment for PTSD from too many beheadings!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Charged, convicted, released, fly to Syria on Canadian passport, fight for ISIL and then come back for Ontario's basic minimum salary and free health care? Could even get free treatment for PTSD from too many beheadings!

That would be hilarious if it wasn't so true.

 

[a_majoor]

No other country in the coalition is providing a Battle Group - indeed the Government of Iraq would not accept such a thing.  I guess none of us are walking the walk then....

Perhaps worded poorly. If we were to do what the GoC says we need to do, then we would have to commit resources on the scale of an armoured battlegroup or ramp up training so that we would be sending thousands of Kurdish fighters into battle prepared to face a wealthy and numerically superior force equipped with a wide variety of equipment including tanks and AFV's. In either case there is no indication that resources on that scale are being prepared or committed.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

. In either case there is no indication that resources on that scale are being prepared or committed by any nation in the coalition, including the Americans..

FTFY

 

[Kilo_302]

Charged, convicted, released, fly to Syria on Canadian passport, fight for ISIL and then come back for Ontario's basic minimum salary and free health care? Could even get free treatment for PTSD from too many beheadings!

The idea that we should be stripping citizenship from anyone, no matter the crime they committed doesn't make sense. First of all, given the nebulous definition of terrorism, there's a chance a future Canadian government could abuse these powers. The fact that the RCMP has defined certain environmental groups as "threats to Canada" should be a warning that this could happen.

Secondly, from a purely security perspective, I have more faith in our jails than I do of whatever country we might ship them off to.

Finally, from the "hearts and minds" side of things, a fair and public trial in Canada, followed by imprisonment in Canada is more effective than sending someone off to be martyred in some Syrian/Egyptian etc prison.

Terrorism is a police matter, so we should treat the punishment for such crimes accordingly. Lock them up and throw away the key, I don't care. But it's a dangerous game when we get into playing with citizenship. To paint any government who recognizes the legal and constitutional issues with this as being "pro-terrorist" is juvenile.

Remember when the Right was calling Jack Layton "Taliban Jack" because he wanted to negotiate with the Taliban? Well only a few years later NATO began negotiating. So let's tone the rhetoric down a bit.

This all pure rhetoric from the right designed to score cheap political points.

 

[Kilo_302]

With all of the hullabaloo about the the Liberals not balancing the budget, here's an article that uses the CCPA's budget for ideas on how to stay in the black. Unsurprisingly, the federal government is the smallest it's been since World War II, so this idea that somehow the government is getting bigger must have come solely from the Toronto Sun.

Now a lot of you with disagree with these initiatives, but let's remember the military is set to lose about $400 million in funding this year as well. If we could eliminate the deficit with these ideas (that only really affect wealthier Canadians and corporations who have seen their taxes decline to historic lows), the military wouldn't have to suffer either.

As the article states, we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem.


There are also some graphs on the link that help drive the point home. For example, it's clear that lowering corporate tax rates didn't result in corporations investing in more jobs in Canada. Rather Canadian corporations have been hoarding the money, often offshore. We would be crazy not to tax it.


http://www.pressprogress.ca/5_places_where_canada_finance_minister_can_find_tens_of_billions_of_dollars_for_his_budget

Don't worry, Mr. Morneau – we've got you covered!

The federal budget is just around the corner and Finance Minister Bill Morneau is projecting an $18 billion deficit.

While there's been speculation Morneau might be deliberately setting expectations low so he can exceed expectations later, it is clear that Canada is going to have to find some new cash over the next few years.

As usual, conservatives will call for more spending cuts – except after the Harper decade, Canada is already spending at historic lows not seen since before the Second World War, so there isn't much room for more cuts:

govt-spending-1931-today.jpg

As the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives states in its annual Alternative Federal Budget, Canada doesn't have a spending problem, it has a revenue problem:

"The federal government is the smallest it's been since before the Second World War. Federal total spending as a share of the economy stands at 13% of GDP, its lowest point in the past 60 years. The last time the government was this small we had no national health care plan, no pension plan, no guaranteed income supplement, no employment insurance. Federal revenues have been diminished by cuts to the corporate tax rate, regressive income tax policies, and tax evasion on an ever-widening scale."
How can Canada get things going on the revenue side?

The AFB has a few suggestions – here are only five examples that could help raise $33.5 billion in by 2018-2019:

1. Restore the corporate tax rate:
Canada's corporate tax rate has been slashed again and again under Liberal and Conservative governments since the late 1980s:



One of the justifications for cutting corporate taxes was that it would create jobs and increase business investment – in the end, cutting corporate taxes did not accomplish either of those goals.



Meanwhile, rather than creating jobs or reinvesting in the economy, Canadian corporations are hoarding more and more of their profits:



Previous Liberal leaders toyed with reversing Harper's corporate tax cuts, but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been dodgy on the issue, only saying "where we are now is a very good place" and leaving the door open to further corporate tax cuts in the future.

He may want to rethink that. The CCPA says gradually restoring the corporate tax rate to 21% (still slightly below its 2006 level) would restore tens of billions in revenues at a time when the federal government is could use the extra cash.

Revenue: $18 billion by 2018-2019

2. Cancel income-splitting:
Stephen Harper's former speech writer calls income splitting "socialism for the wealthy," while others call it a tax giveaway to wealthy families with a stay-at-home spouse.



Trudeau's Liberals have pledged to cancel the "unfair" tax break for the wealthy – the CCPA estimates cancelling income-splitting would restore $2 billion each year.

Revenue: $6 billion by 2018-2019

3. Close the stock option loophole:
Trudeau's Liberals also promised to close the stock option loophole – though they're now being cagey about it.

Canada's highest paid CEOs were granted an average of $1.9 million in stock options in 2014, allowing them to "deduct 50 per cent of the income derived from exercising stock options,"and the Liberal Party's own fiscal plan and costing document justified closing the loophole by pointing out "8,000 very high-income Canadians" were shaving over half-a-billion dollars off their personal tax bills each year, an average of $400,000 per "very high-income" Canadian.

If the Liberals decide to keep their promise, the CCPA estimates the government can recover $2 billion in revenue over the next few years.

Revenue: $2 billion by 2018-2019

4. Close the small business loophole:
Trudeau's Liberals have also promised to close a loophole in small business tax rules that allows "high-income individuals use CCPCs [Canadian-controlled private corporation] status as an income splitting tool."

During the last election, Trudeau himself suggested  "small businesses are actually just ways for wealthier Canadians to save on their taxes" – Trudeau himself owns a number of small businesses, though he hasn't specified if he's used them to reduce his taxes.

What is known, however, is the loophole described by Trudeau costs Canada about $500 million in lost revenue each year.

Revenue: $1.5 billion by 2018-2019

5. Introduce an inheritance tax on wealthy estates:
"Unlike the United States and most European countries, Canada has no wealth or inheritance taxes except for property taxes," the CCPA explains, pointing out "this has led to growing inequality and economic stagnation because capital is much more concentrated."

The CCPA says that a 45% tax on estates valued over $5 million would generate $2 billion in revenue each year.

Revenue: $6 billion by 2018-2019

 

[Jarnhamar]

**changing threads

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Kilo_302]
The idea that we should be stripping citizenship from anyone, no matter the crime they committed doesn't make sense. [/quote]

It does when you approach the idea of citizenship as something to be cherished and fought for and not as a welfare ticket.

 

[George Wallace]

The idea that we should be stripping citizenship from anyone, no matter the crime they committed doesn't make sense.

Will you stop painting everything with a broad brush to suit your views.  Your comments are absurd.  Stripping of one's citizenship WOULD NOT be for committing just ANY crime.  It has already been established that the intent is that revocation would be aimed at those who commit VIOLENT CRIME or ACTS of TERRORISM. 

 

[Kilo_302]

Will you stop painting everything with a broad brush to suit your views.  Your comments are absurd.  Stripping of one's citizenship WOULD NOT be for committing just ANY crime.  It has already been established that the intent is that revocation would be aimed at those who commit VIOLENT CRIME or ACTS of TERRORISM.

You misread my post. I am saying that I disagree with ANYONE losing their citizenship, no matter what crime they commit, for the reasons that I subsequently listed. Take a deep breath. Read the post again. Calm down. Namaste.

 

[George Wallace]

You misread my post. I am saying that I disagree with ANYONE losing their citizenship, no matter what crime they commit, for the reasons that I subsequently listed. Take a deep breath. Read the post again. Calm down. Namaste.

Let me see?  Did you read your own words?

The idea that we should be stripping citizenship from anyone, no matter the crime they committed doesn't make sense.

Once again:

Will you stop painting everything with a broad brush to suit your views.  Your comments are absurd.  Stripping of one's citizenship WOULD NOT be for committing just ANY crime.  It has already been established that the intent is that revocation would be aimed at those who commit VIOLENT CRIME or ACTS of TERRORISM. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

You misread my post. I am saying that I disagree with ANYONE losing their citizenship, no matter what crime they commit, for the reasons that I subsequently listed. Take a deep breath. Read the post again. Calm down. Namaste.

Do you think Canadians should lose their citizenship under specific circumstances?