- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
She should be trying to fix the mess McSquinty and herself have made of this province, not out campaigning for Shiny Pony on the provincial taxpayer's dime. Not that she's ever cared what she does with our money.
Election 2015
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 180
Wynne is ticked off at Harper for not endorsing her very own slush fund. I'm thinking that she is trying to cure the chronic deficit with her Ontario Pension Plan. If it is like the CPP, the cash goes in the bank as revenue but the pension liability is not recorded as a liability. The federal deficit would be more than double if the CPP liabilty were included.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,103
- Points
- 1,160
Looks like the trial is starting to provide talking points for the campaign trail. As Mike Duffy's lawyer accuses the prime minister's former chief of staff of planning to deceive Canadians with a scheme to secretly use a Conservative Party fund to pay off inappropriate living expenses claimed by the senator, Mr Trudeau begins calling out the prime minister for not firing members of his staff who knew about the payment and negotiations leading-up to it.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Rocky Mountains said:
CPP Investment Board to Fraser Institute: you're wrong about public pension
Check out this recent public rebuke from the board, internationally recognized as a leading example of sound pension plan management that operates independently of the CPP and reports to an independent board of directors:
These statements betray a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the CPP. The authors are mistakenly judging CPP as a "closed-group" pension fund, such as employer-sponsored defined benefit plans. These plans face the risk that the business could disappear and therefore need to have sufficient funds to pay out all accrued obligations if the company and its pension plan closed.
This is not the case for CPP, which is considered an "open-group" fund. This recognizes the plan's ongoing ability to rely on future contributions from Canadians and fund returns to fund future liabilities. The Chief Actuary of Canada, who reviews the sustainability of the CPP every three years, explicitly states that the CPP's sustainability should be judged on an "open group" basis. To do otherwise one would have to assume that there is a risk that the entire workforce of Canada could suddenly cease employment and be unable to make CPP contributions.
The authors also state that the CPP is based on demographic assumptions from half a century ago that turned out to be false, and that "bold reforms" are required. In fact, however, reforms in 1997 succeeded in putting the CPP on sound financial footing.
In his latest review released in December, the Chief Actuary of Canada reaffirmed the CPP is sustainable for at least 75 years.
http://www.pressprogress.ca/en/post/cpp-investment-board-fraser-institute-youre-wrong-about-public-pension
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Rocky Mountains said:
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Maclean’s is Premier Wynne explaining to Paul Wells, in her own words, how she plans to help defeat Prime Minister Harper in Ontario:
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/kathleen-wynne-time-to-kick-harper-out/
Kathleen Wynne: Time to kick Harper out
The Ontario premier on her feud with the PM over pensions and her campaign for Justin Trudeau
Paul Wells
August 14, 2015
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper used a campaign news conference to answer a question nobody had asked about the Ontario government’s enhanced-pension scheme. On Thursday in her Toronto office, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne fired back. “We need a change in government at the federal level,” she told Maclean’s political editor Paul Wells. “I’ll be supporting Justin,” she said, referring to federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. Her aides say joint campaign appearances are planned. This kind of direct participation by an Ontario premier in a federal campaign has no recent precedent, not even in the days when Mike Harris and Jean Chrétien viewed each other with disdain. Even as she insisted that “this isn’t a political fight,” Wynne laid out her plan to beat Harper in Ontario.
Q: How did you get into this fight with the Prime Minister?
A: I guess by saying that we were going to introduce an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, when he decided that we weren’t, as a country, going to see an enhanced Canada Pension Plan, even though finance ministers across the country said that that was necessary. So this isn’t a political fight, from my perspective. This is a very fundamental difference in opinion about what’s needed in the country for people’s retirement security.
Q: In a news conference the other day, the Prime Minister called an enhanced Ontario pension a huge tax hike. Why would it not be accurate to call it a huge tax hike?
A: A tax is money that goes into a government’s treasury to deliver services. This is an investment in people’s future. This is a savings plan to help people in their retirement. And what’s motivating this is that we know that people in their 20s and 30s and 40s are not able to save enough, so they’re worried about their security and their retirement.
Q: Call it a tax, call it an investment; it will reduce the take-home pay in 2017-18 of people who have no choice whether or not to participate in the plan.
A: As I’ve said a number of times, the Canada Pension Plan is pretty much universally regarded as a good thing. People rely on it. They know it’s there, and there’s really no public debate about whether the Canada Pension Plan should exist. This is analogous to that kind of plan. You know, I ran on this. I ran, and we put it in our budget in 2014. We ran on it in our platform and were returned with a mandate in June of 2014.
Q: And yet you’re not saying, “The Prime Minister and I will have to agree to disagree.” You’re saying, “I would like a different Prime Minister.”
A: We’ve had this disagreement for some time, and I believe that we need a change in government at the federal level. Yes, I have said that, and I believe that, because the example of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan is only one example. There are other areas where this Prime Minister has decided he is not going to work with the premiers, doesn’t meet with us, doesn’t talk to us, doesn’t engage us as a group.
Q: What are the other items on that list?
A: Infrastructure investment. Climate change. He’s raised the issue of the Senate. Well, that needs to be a national discussion. In the [Maclean’s Leaders Debate], he was asked point-blank if he would meet with the premiers to talk about the Senate, and he said no. Those are three examples. [Saskatchewan Premier] Brad Wall has raised the question of equalization. That’s a conversation that needs to happen with all of the premiers and the Prime Minister at the table.
Q: What are you going to do about it? Will you actively campaign? Will you be showing up with Justin Trudeau on the campaign trail?
A: Well, as Prime Minister Harper supported Tim Hudak in the last provincial election, and his MPs supported the Conservative candidates, we’ll be working in ridings. And, as Justin Trudeau showed up at rallies and came out with me during our campaign, I will do the same for him. My first job is as premier of Ontario, so I’m going to be doing that job. But yeah, to the extent that I’m engaged in political activity, I’ll be supporting Justin.
Q: Your officials wrote to federal officials in February, seeking co-operation [with the Ontario pension plan]. They got a firm “no” from Finance Minister Joe Oliver in July. First, why were they seeking federal co-operation? What do the feds need to do?
A: The Canada Revenue Agency has the capacity, because of their tax-collecting mandate, to facilitate the contributions, so we were hoping we would be able to work with them by paying them a service fee. We were hoping we could get some help with the administration of the plan. We always knew there was a possibility that we wouldn’t. Unfortunately, the federal government has decided not to help us.
Q: What was it like getting that letter from Joe Oliver? It was released to my colleagues at about the same time it arrived in your office, and it was blunt.
A: It was pretty infuriating, actually, because we believe that if the federal government and the Canada Revenue Agency can work efficiently with Saskatchewan and with Quebec to provide the same kind of service under an agreement, why not with Ontario?
Q: Can this relationship between a Liberal government at Queen’s Park and a Conservative government on Parliament Hill be repaired?
A: The relationship has been difficult for some time. That doesn’t mean there aren’t areas where we have worked together—the auto sector, for example. We have officials who work together all the time, and there have been joint announcements. There has been some co-operation, for example, around working with First Nations and water. I would expect that those things would carry on. It will never be a warm relationship; that’s a given. But my job as the premier of Ontario is to make sure we find ways to co-operate where we can. We have continually tried to reach out and make the relationship work, but we haven’t received a warm reception.
Q: You’re not shy about participating in the dispute with the Prime Minister, and neither is he shy about it. How can you both be so sure, not only that you’re right, but that your side is a political winner?
A: What I’m sure about is that the people of Ontario need an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan or they need an enhanced CPP. I’m sure this country works better when the Prime Minister works with the premiers. And I’m sure that it is my job as the premier of Ontario to stand up and say what I know to be in the best interests of the people of the province. So that’s what I know. Beyond that, history will do the analysis.
Q: You’re backing the third-place horse in this federal race. Does that make you nervous?
A: It’s a long campaign. I don’t think anybody knows where this campaign is going, and I believe in what Justin stands for, and I’m going to support him in any way I can. I see a problem. I see a solution to the problem. I don’t think Stephen Harper has put forward a solution to the problem. The solution that Stephen Harper puts forward to an insecure retirement for a vast majority of the people in this country who are in their 20s and 30s and 40s is to have voluntary vehicles for saving, voluntary vehicles that people are not using. There’s billions of dollars of room in RRSPs. Young people are not able to save, and yet that’s the solution he puts forward. I’m looking for a solution, and the solution that has been proven to work is a plan like the Canada Pension Plan. It has worked, so we’re basing our ORPP on that kind of design.
Q: By the same token, and at the risk of repeating myself, if young people are unable to save, are they able to part company with a thousand dollars a year, $1,600 a year, for the duration of their working lives?
A: You know, it’s young people who are saying to me, “Thank you for doing this,” because they understand that, in the four, five, six or seven different jobs they’re going to have over the period of their working lives, they’re pretty sure most of those jobs are not going to have a workplace pension attached to them. The nature of work has changed so much in a generation, or a generation and a half, that we need to think of different solutions. That’s why this is a practical avenue for us to take.
I'm not sure how well (or poorly) this can work. I'll repeat my suspicion that Premier Wynne is strong where Justin Trudeau (or Thomas Mulcair) is already strong; she may help M Trudeau's candidate defeat a NDP candidate or she may just split the vote and let a Conservative "come up the middle." I think Premier Wynne is less popular in the "blue belt" of suburbs around Toronto which is where Prime Minister Harper needs to win ...
... her presence on the Liberal campaign team might even help Prime Minister Harper.
- Reaction score
- 1,721
- Points
- 1,090
Kathleen Wynne is doing what many other failed leaders have done in the past: find an enemy to blame for the problems you created. In this case, Mr Harper.
I think that Ontarians will see through her come voting day.
I think that Ontarians will see through her come voting day.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
I note that one of the largest "blue belt " communities, the city of Mississauga, is all Liberal provincially and presently Eric Grenier has all Mississauga federal ridings voting Liberal.
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
E.R. Campbell said:
From the "things happen in threes" department, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is yet another overview of Prime Minister Harper, the man, this time by Bob Rae in the form of a review of John Ibbitson's forthcoming biography of the Prime Minister:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/book-reviews/review-john-ibbitsons-biography-of-stephen-harper-shows-a-man-prepared-to-go-to-great-lengths-to-hang-on-to-power/article25968043/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=Referrer:+Social+Network+/+Media&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links
Review: John Ibbitson’s biography of Stephen Harper shows a man prepared to go to great lengths to hang on to power
BOB RAE
Contributed to The Globe and Mail
Last updated Saturday, Aug. 15, 2015
Title Stephen Harper
Author John Ibbitson
Genre biography
Publisher Signal
Pages 436
Price $35
When I read the opening words of this new biography of Stephen Harper, “He is a lion in autumn, weaker than in his prime, but still a force of nature” – I figured this might be a difficult slog through a fawning exercise in neo-conservative iconography. John Ibbitson’s book is fulsome enough, and as always with Ibbitson, supremely self-confident in its sweeping opinions and dismissals of other points of view, but it does contain some important insights into the life and times of Canada’s current Prime Minister.
Ibbitson is best known for his supportive apologia for Mike Harris’s government in Ontario and his co-authorship with Darrell Bricker of an account of how a conservative majority is now built into our changing demography and political opinions. Since I have taken issue with both books elsewhere, it would be easy for me to dismiss this later effort as simply another well-written but scarcely concealed exercise in iconography.
Yes, the book repeats the themes of those earlier efforts. The “Laurentian elites” are dragged out for yet another ritual flogging. The “Harper revolution” is permanent and can never be undone. For all his flaws, we are told, his successes and achievements justify the ruthless means. Ibbitson is a fan of the core of the Harper agenda and so attempts to put the most positive gloss on its shortcomings. He is a sophisticated and intelligent cheerleader.
But for those tired of the ritual denunciations of Harper and his bullying, his deep authoritarian streak, the way he throws even long-standing friends and supporters under the bus, Ibbitson has given us some insight into the character of Stephen Harper and the party and government he has built over 30 years in politics.
With the increased coverage of each of the leaders during an election, these insights are valuable. Ibbitson is wrong when he suggests Harper’s “revolution” is permanent and unchangeable. Governments come and go, and new people have new ideas and programs. Nor is he right when he suggests that demography points inevitably to a more conservative Canada. Rachel Notley’s election in Alberta should surely give some pause to that theory. Most Canadians value a stronger federal role in health care and social policy, and as western cities become more diverse ethnically and culturally, they will become more competitive battle grounds between all three parties. A majority of the Canadian population still lives in Quebec and Ontario. That fact, more than the “Laurentian elites,” explains why voters in those provinces have so much to say about the outcome of federal elections.
Harper emerges from Ibbitson’s pages as a shrewd disciplined politician who values his privacy and is prepared to go to great lengths to hang on to power. He dislikes the Charter of Rights, the Supreme Court of Canada, the media, opposition leaders and their parties, and people who don’t share his approach and philosophy. He needs to be in control and in charge, and has difficulty accepting authority. He shares jokes with his friends, enjoys Seinfeld and old episodes of The Twilight Zone, has a happy private life and plays the piano.
The book also provides valuable details on Harper’s difficult relationships with both Preston Manning and Tom Flanagan, and how both temperament and philosophy set him apart. The right has had difficult internal battles, which may well re-emerge if the election does not go the way Harper wants.
Ibbitson is not afraid to point out where Harper has gone astray, particularly in his browbeating of Parliament and his fight with the Chief Justice of Canada. These are not expressions of a coherent conservative philosophy, but rather reflect a pique at not being able to have his own way. His authoritarianism and need to control are the least appealing sides of his personality, Ibbitson argues, and at times lead him to make blunders that are unpopular with the Canadian public.
Harper and his government have had a good deal of analysis and criticism, from Paul Wells to Michael Harris, and Ibbitson’s account adds good value to the mix. One can disagree with his perspective and savour the nuggets of insight. I had not known about Harper’s love of the original Twilight Zone, which I share. One episode comes to mind. A spaceship lands and appears to be led by friendly people who have a book they are sharing called To Serve Man. They encourage the people they are meeting to come on board the spaceship to visit their planet. As the doors of the spaceship close for the voyage, the code to the book is finally broken. It’s a cookbook. I suppose the same might be said about the Conservative election platform. Only time will tell whether Canadians decide to go along for the ride one more time.
Bob Rae is a partner with Olthuis Kleer Townshend and teaches at the University of Toronto. He served as 21st premier of Ontario and interim leader of the federal Liberal Party.
So, that - the generally sympathetic piece by Tristin Hopper in the Ottawa Citizen, the wholly negative trashing in The New York Times and this still negative view by Bob Rae in the Globe and Mail - ought to be enough about the PM for one day.
- Reaction score
- 1,721
- Points
- 1,090
I neglected to add this to my previous comment on the subject:
Let's say for the sake of argument that Trudeau carries the day. What promises does he owe Ms Wynne, and how do they impact the rest of Canada?
Those are questions voters in the ROC should be asking.
TANSTAAFL
Let's say for the sake of argument that Trudeau carries the day. What promises does he owe Ms Wynne, and how do they impact the rest of Canada?
Those are questions voters in the ROC should be asking.
TANSTAAFL
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,736
- Points
- 1,040
>As Mike Duffy's lawyer accuses the prime minister's former chief of staff of planning to deceive Canadians with a scheme to secretly use a Conservative Party fund to pay off inappropriate living expenses claimed by the senator,
I get that it's an accusation, not a proven fact...but one thing at the link surprised me: are the Conservative Party's funds partly public funds, or did the lawyer misspeak?
I get that it's an accusation, not a proven fact...but one thing at the link surprised me: are the Conservative Party's funds partly public funds, or did the lawyer misspeak?
- Reaction score
- 27,469
- Points
- 1,090
Brad Sallows said:
Given the ridiculously generous tax treatment provided political donations and the fact that a large portion of electoral expenditures by the parties are reimbursed by the Crown, I believe the argument is that it's almost public money.
(One has to question how many blue-haired ladies would be happy to see the $5 they sent to support the Tories used to bail out an overweight, self-entitled buffoon - should the Dippers or Grits start using that sort of messaging, they may get some traction and encourage some Blue voters to stay home on October 19th)
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,736
- Points
- 1,040
I'm not quite tempted to wish Wynne to get what she asks for. Between transfer growth (see following paragraphs if you care; the current government has handed over a lot more money) and leaving tax points up for grabs, Harper has been a better friend to ON (all provinces, in fact) than Wynne deserves, and probably a better one than either a LPC or NDP federal government ever will be. But with interest rates low, the price of oil low, and the CAD low relative to the USD, Wynne is fast running out of excuses for not turning ON around and needs distractions. So, she picks fights. All she knows how to do is campaign - not much statesmanship in her toolbox. If the Conservatives lose to a NDP/LPC coalition, I hope the NDP go ahead with their proposed corporate income tax rate increase: the resulting tax avoidance will drop corporate tax revenues in all of the provinces, except they won't be enjoying the slight mitigation of the rate increase. All they can do is eat the loss or increase taxes themselves.
Chretien's government (Paul Martin) balanced the federal budget at a time when GDP growth and (consequently) federal revenue growth were atypically healthy, and did it in part by cutting federal transfers to other levels of government. The premiers - a lot of people, in fact - were pretty angry at the time. Resulting popular myth: "Liberals slew the deficit".
The current Conservative government has very nearly rebalanced the budget despite a major recession and weak recovery (severe federal revenue drop followed by mediocre growth), and done it without cutting transfers. Resulting popular myth: "Biggest spending government ever; inherited surplus and produced deficits".
Between revenue collapse, "stimulus", and maintaining transfers, all of those deficits had a cause and/or purpose. Federal transfers to other levels of government grew about $14.5B from 94-95 to 05-06 (11 years). Transfers grew about $19.5B from 05-06 to 13-14 (8 years).
Chretien's government (Paul Martin) balanced the federal budget at a time when GDP growth and (consequently) federal revenue growth were atypically healthy, and did it in part by cutting federal transfers to other levels of government. The premiers - a lot of people, in fact - were pretty angry at the time. Resulting popular myth: "Liberals slew the deficit".
The current Conservative government has very nearly rebalanced the budget despite a major recession and weak recovery (severe federal revenue drop followed by mediocre growth), and done it without cutting transfers. Resulting popular myth: "Biggest spending government ever; inherited surplus and produced deficits".
Between revenue collapse, "stimulus", and maintaining transfers, all of those deficits had a cause and/or purpose. Federal transfers to other levels of government grew about $14.5B from 94-95 to 05-06 (11 years). Transfers grew about $19.5B from 05-06 to 13-14 (8 years).
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,103
- Points
- 1,160
For those who want to see more defence topics in the campaigns we now have ballistic missile defence if necessary but not necessarily ballistic missile defence.
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com//news/canada/canadian-politics/ndp-would-lead-a-minority-government-if-elections-held-today-tories-slip-to-third-leger-poll
New poll puts conservatives in third place. Hopefully this is a trend that continues.
Maybe trudeau is receiving a bump from the debates.
New poll puts conservatives in third place. Hopefully this is a trend that continues.
Maybe trudeau is receiving a bump from the debates.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
E.R. Campbell said:In the "figures don't lie, but liars can figure" department, this graphic ...
Source: National Post based on Statistics Canada data
... should be popping up in CPCpropagandacampaign material to suggest that Messsrs Mulcair and Trudeau are fabricating poverty problems when poverty is at its lowest level (if you believe the LICO
is a valid measure of poverty) since they started collecting the data.
Agreed. The poverty rate is declining and has been for some time, just like this rate:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015001-eng.htm
I suppose which rate one would ignore/exaggerate would depend on which voters one is targeting. Progressive parties tend to exaggerate poverty, conservative parties tend to exaggerate crime. All of them seem to be successful.
Harrigan
Jed said:
Which is worse?
Winnipeg accounts for 52% of the population of the province, and has 57% of the seats (though I suspect the population is closer to 57% as well if one adds the suburbs that are included in the "urban" Manitoba ridings). In Saskatchewan, Regina and Saskatoon together account for 37% of the population, and 43% of the seats, but that includes the one remaining "rurban" riding - Regina-Qu'Appelle, so they really have 5.5 seats, which is more or less where they should be.
And at the moment, a strong case can be said that Saskatoon and Regina voters have "taken the hindmost" for a long time - they have voted majority NDP for a while and have zero MP's as the rural portion of the "rurban" ridings have outweighed the urban portions. (Wascana is an outlier as that seems to be a personal vote for Goodale rather than a Party vote - Liberal vote in SK is putrid).
NDP have only themselves to blame though - it was their idea to gerrymander those 8 ridings in the first place!
An interesting backgrounder: http://www.punditsguide.ca/2013/02/how-to-spot-a-gerrymander-in-canadas-independent-redistricting-process/
Harrigan
- Status
Similar threads
