Budget 2012

[RangerRay]

I don't know.  Recently, it was the federal process that stopped a very poorly planned mine from going ahead in the Chilcotin area of BC.  The watered down provincial process (Thanks Gord!) approved the project, but the federal process found that there would be serious damage to a lake (which was to be drained dry), grizzly bear habitat, leaching of toxins into the water table, and serious legal concerns with the local First Nations.  All along, the proponent said that it's proposal was the only feasible option for the mine to operate.  As soon as the feds canned it, the proponents all of a sudden said that they could do it differently.  :

I fear that if this process is weakened, then bad projects like that mine would get rubber stamped, all in the name of economic prosperity.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I don't want the standards weakened - challenged on a scientific basis, yes, but not weakened without hard scientific evidence.

BUT: I am not sure that every single opponent needs to be given (at public (your and my) expense) a lawyer and weeks to prepare his or her brief, and the weeks appear to run concurrently, imposing expensive delays on the project approval process. I believe we need to hear the opposition but my impression is that the opposition is organized so as to impose unreasonable and unwarranted delays - in the hopes that the proponents of a safe, clean project will give up in the face of an endless line of publicly funded whiners.

 

[Rifleman62]

RangerRay:

To me, it would be a huge mistake to weaken the environmental assessment process and fish habitat protection laws.  These processes are the only way we have to ensure that industry mitigate their externalities, and ensure projects which would cost more environmentally than they would reap in economic benefits, never see the light of day.

Agree to some extent, but the Environment has become a huge public service growth industry, much like that other bugbear of mine, Public Affairs.

Example of where to save a buck. Note, that my info is out dated by almost five years.

Land Staff had approximately twenty-two public servants in their Environmental directorate. The was one LS General Safety Officer.

Trundling down Hwy No 1 West, RangerRay, towards Brandon in August. You put a vehicle into the absolutely dry ditch and spill a drop of POL and you have violated the Fisheries Act.

Sure Species At Risk is important to Shilo. How many trees did it take to produce and distribute the FTX Environmental Annex?

Ever take the Unit Environmental Officer course?

I was a CBG  GSO and Envir O.

 

[RangerRay]

Mr. Campbell, you bring up good points about a process that can get bogged down by everyone and their dog seeking representation on our dime at the assessment hearings.  And Rifleman62, you make excellent points about the silliness of many of the regulations out there.  They need to be fixed.

However, it is my experience that when these assessment processes and environmental regulations are weakened in the name of efficiency, they turn into rubber stamp processes for anyone who can promise huge economic benefits.  Scientists assessing the projects are ordered to not say "No", but to look for ways to mitigate the damage, even if mitigation is not possible.  This is especially problematic when the proponent is inflexible in its proposal, saying that any changes would make the project unfeasible. 

I am hardly a friend to the tree-huggers and eco-facsists out there, most of whom are totally uneducated in ecology, forestry or wildlife management.  However, I am very cynical when I hear that environmental assessment processes and regulations are being "streamlined" to help industry.  To me, it sounds like a giant rubber stamp is being made, economic benefits will trump environmental concerns, and we, the general public, pay for any and all damage to the environment.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The highlights just out....

.... The Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, today tabled Economic Action Plan 2012, a comprehensive agenda to bolster Canada’s long-term economic strengths and promote job growth.

“In this budget, our Government is looking ahead not only over the next few years but also over the next generation,” said Minister Flaherty. “The reforms we present today are substantial, responsible and necessary. They will ensure that all across government we are focused on enabling and sustaining Canada’s long-term economic growth.”

Economic Action Plan 2012 takes important steps to address the challenges and help take advantage of the opportunities of the global economy, while ensuring sustainable social programs and sound public finances for future generations.
Supporting Jobs and Opportunities

The Government is focused on boosting economic growth and job creation—innovation, investment, education and skills. Economic Action Plan 2012 will support jobs and growth by:

    Making major investments of over $1 billion to support science and technology.
    Providing $500 million to spur the growth of innovative start-up companies.
    Ensuring responsible resource development by moving to “one project, one review” within a clearly defined time period for major economic projects while continuing to protect the environment.
    Opening new markets and expanding international trade, bringing Canadian goods to the world.
    Extending the Hiring Credit for Small Business for one year to make it more attractive for small businesses to grow and hire more workers.
    Providing $150 million over two years for the new Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund.
    Providing $5.2 billion over 11 years to renew the Canadian Coast Guard.
    Better focusing Employment Insurance on promoting job creation by removing disincentives to work and supporting unemployed Canadians by connecting them more quickly to jobs.
    Providing $275 million over three years to support First Nations education and build and renovate schools on reserve.
    Building a fast and flexible economic immigration system to attract immigrants with the skills and experience our economy needs.

Sustainable Social Programs

In order to ensure Canada’s social programs are there for when future generations need them, we are taking responsible action to prepare today for long-term demographic pressures. To this end, Economic Action Plan 2012 will:

    Gradually increase the age of eligibility for Old Age Security (OAS) and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) benefits from 65 to 67, starting in April 2023, to be fully implemented by 2029.
    Allow Canadians to defer the take-up of their OAS pensions so they can receive a higher pension later.
    Put in place a proactive enrolment regime for OAS and GIS to reduce the burden on seniors of completing application processes and reduce the Government’s administrative costs. Proactive enrolment will be implemented in a phased-in approach from 2013 to 2015.

Responsible Expenditure Management

Economic Action Plan 2012 is our plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. An important part of our low-tax, low-debt plan is returning to a balanced budget in the medium term. Over the past year, we have found fair, balanced and moderate savings measures to reduce the deficit. These measures will achieve ongoing savings of $5.2 billion, representing less than 2.0 per cent of expected federal program spending in 2016–17. Over 70 per cent of the savings found are in operational efficiencies.

“We will stay on course, to keep creating high-quality jobs and long-term economic growth for Canadians,” said Minister Flaherty. “We will not raise taxes. We will maintain our consistent, pragmatic and responsible approach to the economy, and take the necessary next steps to build confidence in our future.” ....

.... and this on getting rid of the penny:

.... Introduction

    In Economic Action Plan 2012, the Government announced it will eliminate the penny from Canada's coinage system.
    Over time, the penny's burden to the economy has grown relative to its value as a means of payment. It costs the Government 1.6 cents to produce each new penny. The estimated cost to the Government of supplying pennies to the economy is about $11 million a year.
    Due to inflation, the penny's purchasing power has eroded over the years. Today it retains only about one-twentieth of its original purchasing power. Given its declining purchasing value, some Canadians consider the penny more of a nuisance than a useful coin.
    While the cent will remain Canada's smallest unit for pricing goods and services, the Royal Canadian Mint will no longer distribute pennies as of Fall 2012.
    The penny will retain its value indefinitely and can continue to be used in payments. However, as pennies are gradually withdrawn from circulation, price rounding on cash transactions will be required.
    In removing its lowest denomination coin, Canada will follow on the successful experiences of many other countries, including Australia, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Canadians can redeem pennies at their financial institutions. The Government encourages Canadians to consider donating them to charities.

Consumers can continue to use pennies indefinitely.

What it Means for Consumers

    The Royal Canadian Mint will no longer distribute pennies as of Fall 2012.
    However, consumers can continue to use pennies for transactions indefinitely.
    When pennies are not available, cash transactions should be rounded to the nearest five-cent increment in a fair and transparent manner.
    Rounding on cash transactions should only be used on the final bill of sale after the calculation of GST/HST.
    Non-cash payments such as cheques, credit and debit cards will continue to be settled to the cent.
    Canadians can redeem their pennies at their financial institution. Financial institutions may require that pennies be properly rolled.
    Removal of one-cent coins in other countries, such as New Zealand and Australia, did not cause an increase in price inflation.

What it Means for Businesses

    Businesses do not need to update cash registers for rounding, since prices and the final total payment will still be set at one-cent increments.
    GST/HST will be calculated on the pre-tax price, and not the rounded price. When customers do not have exact change, it is only the final total for cash payments that must be rounded.
    Electronic payments, such as credit and debit cards, will not be rounded and will still be paid to the nearest cent.
    Consumers can continue to use pennies for cash transactions indefinitely and businesses are encouraged to continue to accept the coin as a means of payment.
    Businesses are expected to round prices in a fair, consistent and transparent manner.
    Rounding guidelines will be adopted by all federal government entities for cash transactions with the Canadian public.
    Experience in other countries that have eliminated low denomination coins has shown that fair rounding practices have been respected ....

Feel free to hunt around here for what intrigues you.

 

[RubberTree]

The CBC tag line right now states that the CF (and other federal areas) will "pay more and get less" with respect to pensions. I looked at the budget (albeit briefly) to try and gain more info but no luck. Any ideas what this will mean for the average soldier?

 

[SupersonicMax]

From the Economic Action Plan 2012:

The Government proposes to adjust the Public Service Pension Plan so that public service employee contributions equal, over time, those of the employer (50/50). Comparable changes to the contribution rates will be made to the pension plans for the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Parliamentarians.

Also:

The Government is also taking specific action to bring federal public service compensation in line with that of other public and private sector employers. This includes eliminating the accumulation of severance benefits for voluntary resignation and retirement, which to date has been eliminated
for about 230,000 unionized and non-unionized federal government employees, including members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Forces and all executives in the core public administration. Other federal public sector employers are pursuing similar approaches.

2 questions:

1- How much do we pay now for our pension, in terms of ratio?

2- Does the second quote mean we will lose all accumulated severance pay or are we going to be given options?

 

[Haletown]

Quickie look says Federal spending will increase by $13 Billion over 3 years.

Only in Ottawa would that be considered an austerity budget.

 

[GAP]

Yeah, but they cut the CBC by 10% 

 

[Haletown]

Yeah, but they cut the CBC by 10% 

They missed a zero  . . .  :nod:

 

[Privateer]

From the Globe and Mail:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/budget/military-aid-and-diplomacy-face-deep-cuts-in-tory-budget/article2386038/

Most of the details on how the cuts will be made were kept hidden.

In fact, neither the budget nor the host of government officials attending a lockup to explain it provided a figure for the Defence budget for the coming year, and in the years affected by the cuts. Officials said that information was not being presented on budget day.

Still, it was clear that the impact will be deep. Since 2006, the Harper government has touted year-over-year increases for military spending, even when it announced two years ago the growth would be slowed. Now it’s cutting.

By 2014-15, more than $1.1-billion a year will be lopped off the regular Defence budget. But that’s not all. In addition, $3.5-billion in capital spending - the sums the military uses to buy equipment like planes, ships, trucks, tanks and weapons - will be put off until seven years from now, so that the government can save an average of $500-million a year.

The cuts to the regular annual Defence budget will be ramped up over three years, starting with a $327-million cut in the coming year, and reaching $1.12-billion in 2014-15.

Total actual Defence spending hit $21.5-billion in 2010-11, according to the Public Accounts. But before the budget, the Defence Department said it planned to spend $19.8-billion this coming year, according to estimates presented to Parliament.

The government didn’t provide a figure for what the Defence budget will be in each of the next three years - and it was impossible to precisely reconcile previously published estimates with the cuts in the budget because they are based on different accounting methods.

Based on figures from previous budgets, the cuts yesterday suggest spending will dip to about $19-billion this year, dip below that for the two following years, and rise again in 2015.

Ottawa also didn’t really say how the cuts will be made. The budget said the Defence Department will streamline contracting procedures, and centralize property and human resources management - but hasn’t detailed cuts to its large civilian staff or operations, other than to say that the current number of uniformed members of the Canadian Forces will not be reduced. It did not identify which purchases of equipment will be delayed over the next seven years.

 

[RubberTree]

A cursory look through the treasury board website shows the government (as of 2005, the page was archived) paying 78% of the pension while the members pay 22%.

 

[SupersonicMax]

A cursory look through the treasury board website shows the government (as of 2005, the page was archived) paying 78% of the pension while the members pay 22%.

So it will be a 172% increase!?  This would have an important impact on all CF members if that's the case. It would essentially cut our net pay by 17%!

 

[dapaterson]

From the Economic Action Plan 2012:

Also:

2 questions:

1- How much do we pay now for our pension, in terms of ratio?

2- Does the second quote mean we will lose all accumulated severance pay or are we going to be given options?

1.  Office of the Superindendent of Financial Institutions does regular evaluations of the CF pension plans; that would be the best place to start for current contribution ratios (as opposed to 7 year old figures that do not reflect increases to member contribution rates over the past few years).

2.  I suspect the PSAC model, where choices were given to take it now or later or a mix of both, is what will happen - the budget document stated that accumulation has ceased, not that accumulated benefits were lost.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Why do I get the feeling that they could have at least kissed me first...

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Globe and Mail has produced a good set of info-graphics to explain the budget highlights; they are reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/budget/infographic-your-2012-federal-budget-explained/article2384109/?from=2386120

In my opinion it is a pretty fair budget ... I believe it could have cut more from spending without doing any real economic damage, but politics would, probably, not allow it. Our national aim should be to get the total (federal and provincial) debt down to something in the range of 30% of GDP by about 2025.


Edit: typo

 

[AliG]

1.  Office of the Superindendent of Financial Institutions does regular evaluations of the CF pension plans; that would be the best place to start for current contribution ratios (as opposed to 7 year old figures that do not reflect increases to member contribution rates over the past few years).

2.  I suspect the PSAC model, where choices were given to take it now or later or a mix of both, is what will happen - the budget document stated that accumulation has ceased, not that accumulated benefits were lost.

2. The net effect of which is equal the equivalent of up to a 2% cut to the salary envelope. 

 

[kilekaldar]

$3.5-billion in capital spending - the sums the military uses to buy equipment like planes, ships, trucks, tanks and weapons - will be put off until seven years from now, so that the government can save an average of $500-million a year.

7 years with no new equipment? The LSVW is suppose to last another 7 years? LOL
And all the LAVs and armored vehicles we lost, guess we'll do without those too? Does this mean that the navy ships nearing the end of their lives won't get replaced? Or the CF-18 will get 'extended'?

The war ends, politicians always think 'that was the last war', and get caught by surprise when the next war happens.
When the ramp ceremonies start up again and the media suddenly gives a damn, then well see a slew of single-source panic purchases, when it's too late, and likely at a much higher cost then if we had purchased major equipment gradually.
Brilliant. It's great how history can go in circles, like a dog chasing it's tail.

 

[a_majoor]

WRT cuts, I'm somewhat underwhelmed. The total amount cut really should have been doubled, indeed the "Chopping Block" series in the National Post has laid out the argument for cuts of up to $12 billion. I doubt there is a cunning plan to cut another $5 billion next year and another $5 billion the year after...

One thing which is rather alarming is there seems to be no provisions to deal with Ontario, or to a lesser extent Quebec. Ontario's budget mismanagment is so bad that the provincial debt could be in the range of $300 billion to $400 billion by the time the next provincial election rolls around. (Given the McGuinty government has bailed on the Drummond report, I actually expect the higher figure as business, capital and skilled workers leave the province). The bond rating agenceis could cause a catastrophic event in the Canadian economy if they dongrade Ontario's credit rating, the higher interest rates that Ontario would have to pay (and the escalating issues of runaway debt, ever increasing defecits or taxes and economic flight from the province) could rapidly crater the national economic recovery, or force Ottawa to assume the Ontario debt and thus almost double the debt and increase the total debt plus unfunded liabilites to over $1.4 trillion dollars. This would cause ripples of alarm in the bond market, so Canada would get hammered with a greater risk premium. (This may happen even if the Federal Government refuses to assume Ontario's liabilites).

Only taking steps to rapidly clear the national debt would provide insulation should Ontario capsize, and this budget is not going to set the stage to do so.

 

[dogger1936]

......so whats happening to my pension now?