Politics in 2016

[Kirkhill]

What happens if you slow down the career cycle so that everybody spends 3 or 4 years in a single position?

 

[PuckChaser]

Or put your effort into people who want to be promoted/posted. No reason we can't have CFLs in NCM and officer ranks.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Or put your effort into people who want to be promoted/posted. No reason we can't have CFLs in NCM and officer ranks.

Acceptance of mediocrity is what is killing the public service, and this includes CAF.

 

[McG]

They didn't have PS jobs before being staffers, why do they get paid to move when they applied for a job not in their town?

Because MPs require staff, and that staff should not be public servants.  But where that staff is necessary to the function of government, it does not seem unreasonable that the government pays with the same compensation model as is applied to the PS.  When a constituency elects a new MP, that MP needs to get some staff to Ottawa.  When Parliament selects an new PM, that individual should be entitled to bring in a slightly bigger staff too.

What happens if you slow down the career cycle so that everybody spends 3 or 4 years in a single position?

You would be getting into a topic for another thread; something for a military board as opposed to the political board of this site.

Moving to some other ideas ...  This was an entertaining article, though I don't agree with the premise that we should shy away from complicated solutions/initiatives for fear that Canadian's either not smart enough or not educated enough to understand.

Introducing the Liberals’ all-new middle-class moron tax
William Watson
Financial Post
22 Sep 2016

My favourite line from the backgrounder the federal department of finance just put out to coincide with parliamentary hearings on the Canada Pension Plan reforms it agreed to in June is the following: “With the automatic collection of contributions for all workers, the CPP is a simple way to save.” Well, yes. I don’t have to do anything at all when the government extracts my pension “contributions” from my salary before I even get that salary. Maybe the idea will have legs: The Canada Television Purchase Plan is a really simple way to take care of your HD needs: We take five per cent of your salary and send you a TV in return. You are saved the awful burden of choosing a home entertainment system yourself. What could be simpler?

The meat of the reform, which the rest of the country is undergoing because Ottawa didn’t want Ontario setting up its own version of the CPP, is that: the CPP payroll tax, euphemistically called the “contribution rate,” will rise from 9.9 to 11.9 per cent; the income replacement rate will jump from a quarter to a third; and the income level at which all this ceases will go from $58,000 to a hefty $82,700.

This is all done in the name of helping Canada’s hard-working but apparently somewhat dim middle class — dim because they’re assumed incapable of deciding their own retirement needs all on their own and saving accordingly, despite substantial fiscal incentives to do so.

Helping the middle class is of a piece with the Trudeau government’s permanent focus on this vote-rich demographic. (To paraphrase Lincoln on the poor: God must have loved the Canadian middle class: He made so many of them.) The Liberals must be hoping middle-class voters will be more impressed by the future increase in benefits than the immediate increase in payroll taxes. Funny about that, though: if in their political judgments voters really are able to weigh future benefits against current costs, you might think they’d also be capable of making intelligent saving choices.

Many Canadians were puzzled by the high priority a newly elected reformist government gave to cutting the income tax rate in the $45,282 to $90,563 range, thus giving a tax break to everyone making over $45,282 (even if it took it back from those earning over $200,000 by raising their top rate by four percentage points). The people in our society who are really hurting, you might think, are the people at the bottom, not the middle, even if those in the middle vote more dependably.

The CPP reform explicitly excuses low-income Canadians from the CPP rate increase by increasing the Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB) by roughly the hiked amount of CPP tax — this despite the fact that the backgrounder says the change in the CPP provides a net benefit all on its own: bigger pensions for slightly higher “contributions.” So it’s a double benefit for low-income earners: a supposedly better pension deal plus more money in the WITB.

So, to make the CPP tax hike more palatable for those with too much income to receive WITB the new contributions will be tax deductible. By contrast, a tax credit will continue to apply to existing contributions. So part of the very same payment will get a tax credit and part a tax deduction. (Do not try this at home!)

Finance’s reason for providing the deduction is that other saving, such as RRSPs and private pension plans, get tax deductions. If a company responds to a more generous CPP by downsizing its pension plan, or if an individual saver reduces his or her RRSP contribution, the effective tax on saving would rise as tax-favoured private plans declined and the fully taxed CPP became a more important share of people’s saving. As the new measures are supposed to increase saving overall, that would hardly do. Allowing a deduction for the new part of the CPP (but not the old) means any such switch is tax-neutral.

Except that Canadians aren’t supposed to be doing what this new tax deduction implies they might: that is, reducing (voluntary) private saving as (compulsory) public saving goes up. The whole idea is to increase savings. Because Canadians aren’t saving enough. But Finance concedes that’s what people might just do.

Now, did you catch all that?

We began with the backgrounder’s admiration for how simple and easy public pension plans are. Simple and easy? I may be roughly capable of understanding my own individual savings trade-offs. I doubt more than one or two per cent of Canadians will fully grasp how their new re-vamped CPP is going to work.

That can’t be a good thing for democracy 

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/william-watson-introducing-the-liberals-all-new-middle-class-moron-tax

 

[Brad Sallows]

>MP needs to get some staff to Ottawa

Or hire them there.  I propose a new model: MPs needing staff post job notices like everyone else; people wanting to work as staff will either move to Ottawa after successful application (on their own dime), or set up digs there and keep barking for a place at the table.

I'm still waiting for an un-muddled and correct explanation of the actual changes to CPP.  I'm pretty sure the widely reported +1%/+1% point employee/employer contribution increase on the amount under whatever the "old" threshold was ($58K?) is correct, but keep reading different interpretations on what is above that.  The most common explanation I have found is that it is only 4%/4% (not 5.95%/5.95% to match the bottom amount) on the amount up to $80-whateverK ($82.7K?).

The increases are scheduled to arrive over several years - the whole $3K+ lump (a bit larger than the $671 tax cut for that one income tax bracket, neh?) isn't going to land on everyone with a teacher-sized income in one year.

The IRR for CPP is something like 1.7-2.5 % depending on whose estimates and calculations you accept.  Is that on par with what federal pension plans provide?  Or did the government just stick a lot of people with a higher bill for their (net) federal pensions?

Policy-wise: in general, tax increases (payroll or other, doesn't matter) promote job losses and economic contraction; tax decreases promote job growth and economic growth.  We seem to be experiencing the perfect storm at present: many large governments in Canada running consumption spending deficits; tax increases militating against economic performance; aging (hence shrinking) work force; not particularly impressive productivity.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

When a constituency elects a new MP, that MP needs to get some staff to Ottawa.

Anybody have an idea about the staff an MP would have in Ottawa? I would think that most of the work is done back at his/her office in their constituency.

When Parliament selects an new PM, that individual should be entitled to bring in a slightly bigger staff too.

Isn't that what the PMO is for?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Anybody have an idea about the staff an MP would have in Ottawa? I would think that most of the work is done back at his/her office in their constituency.


Each MP has both an assistant in Ottawa and a small constituency office back home. Parliamentary Secretaries have larger staffs and Ministers larger, still.

Isn't that what the PMO is for?

Which is exactly where Mr Butts and Ms Telford work ... when PMs change so do all the PMO staff. It is the PCO (Privy Council Office) that is (mostly) non-partisan and manages government.

 

[ModlrMike]

The facts don't matter here, just the optics. The Liberals were more than happy to go after Mr Duffy for 90K which was repaid. They can't now expect a free ride for their own poor performance is this area. To argue differently is to take the public for fools.

 

[FJAG]

The facts don't matter here, just the optics. The Liberals were more than happy to go after Mr Duffy for 90K which was repaid. They can't now expect a free ride for their own poor performance is this area. To argue differently is to take the public for fools.

Once again the Wynne shows how anti-business she is.

Ontario Water-Taking Rules Need To Change, Premier Wynne Says:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/09/24/ontario-water-nestle_n_12170854.html

TORONTO — The bottled water industry in Ontario is facing renewed government scrutiny after a small township was outbid by multinational giant Nestle in its attempt to purchase a well to secure water supply for its growing community.

Premier Kathleen Wynne said Friday her government will look for ways to put community needs ahead of bottled water corporations.

"As we look at the water bottling industry, that has to be a question because we're talking about what we could argue is our most precious resource,'' she said.

"There is much pressure on our water, so as we have this discussion about our water, the status of and the treatment of water bottling companies, that needs to be taken into consideration.''

Wynne's comments came after The Canadian Press reported on Nestle's purchase of a well near Elora from a privately owned company. Nestle said the new site would supplement "future business growth'' and support its main-production site in nearby Aberfoyle, where the company has a bottling plant that employs over 300 people.

The Township of Centre Wellington Mayor Kelly Linton said they wanted to purchase the well to keep its water supply "safe'' from commercial water taking long into the future, and to give the fast-growing community "control of our water source.''

The New Democrats said that allowing a corporation to pump out water and sell it across Canada and beyond while a community is lacking water makes no sense.

"The danger is you'll have private companies squatting on water rights, effectively denying citizens access to their water unless they pay a ransom,'' said NDP environment critic Peter Tabuns.

Trillions of litres taken from Ontario daily

In Ontario, municipalities, mining companies and golf courses — in addition to the water-bottling companies — are allowed to take a total of 1.4 trillion litres out of the surface and ground water supplies every day.

In her mandate letters to her cabinet, released Friday, Wynne tells Environment Minister Glen Murray that "immediate improvements are needed when it comes to water bottling practices, particularly in the face of climate change, the increasing demands on water resources by a growing population and concerns about water security.''

It's time to separate bottled water companies from the many other sectors that have water-taking permits, including mining and construction, Wynne told reporters.

"It's not good enough from my perspective to say there's lots of industries that need water,'' she said.

"Water bottling is a different kind of industry and we need to treat it differently.''

Nestle prepared to pay more

Nestle, which has 2,500 employees in Ontario, has said it is prepared to pay more if rates were increased, but only if all companies with water-taking permits face the higher fees.

"We fully agree that all groundwater users should pay their fair share to fund the management of our water resources and all users must be treated equitably,'' the company said.

Wynne's mandate letter also told the environment minister to work with the finance minister on pricing options for water used by the bottled water industry.

A million litres costs only $3.71

Ontario charges $3.71 for every million litres of water, compared with $2.50 in British Columbia and $70 in Quebec, the two other provinces with major bottled water operations. But Wynne made it clear she wants to see bottled water companies pay more for the water they take.

"One of the reasons I want to make sure we move cautiously on this is I believe the rules need to be changed around water taking for bottled water companies,'' she said.

"I think we have to look very closely at what those companies are paying, what they're allowed to take, and that's exactly the work the ministry of environment and climate change is doing right now.''

Meanwhile, Nestle is allowed to keep taking up to 3.6 million litres of water a day for bottling from its well in Aberfoyle, near Guelph, Ont., while the government reviews its application to renew its water-taking permit, which expired in July.

Wynne noted Nestle had not been granted a renewal yet, nor had it been given approval for a pump test to determine water quantity and quality at the Middlebrook well, which she suggested is being held up by the review of water taking permits.

"I think we need to, not just as a government but as a society, look at the way we use bottled water — of course there are situations where bottled water is necessary — but we need to look at what our expectation is of these companies and how we can put some different limits around it,'' she said.

A spokeswoman for Nestle said the company agrees that it needs to pay "its fair share as should all groundwater users.''

"With only five per cent of permitted users paying 100 per cent of the cost, we believe it is important to look at all water users in Ontario to ensure the protection of the resource for future generations,'' Jennifer Kerr said in an email to The Canadian Press.

Nestle's decisions are driven by data and science, Kerr said.

"If testing and science proves the (Middlebrook well) water is not sustainable or of good quality, Nestle Waters Canada will evaluate other options.''

The Canadian Bottled Water Association wants all commercial operations with water-taking permits to be treated equally under the new rules, and said it would be "unfair'' to single it out for different treatment.

"It has to include all users,'' said executive director Elizabeth Griswold. "What would be quite interesting is to take a closer view, and education of the public, on who's taking the rest of the water, who's paying and who is not.''

It's not like Nestle's water is being used for fracking or anything. It's a drinking supply for people. The fact that it's not the locals makes very little difference.

I'm not a great believer in bottled water. Like Keurig cups I think it's a ridiculously expensive product and can easily be replaced by cheaper alternatives (bulk ground coffee and tap water) But that said, the Aberfoyle aquifer provides a good (albeit very hard) water supply for quite a number of municipalities including Guelph.  Unlike the municipalities that draw water there, almost 100% of Nestle's water goes down peoples' throats while the vast bulk of the municipalities' water goes down toilets or sink/shower/bathtub drains or on lawns, golf courses etc.

Nestles isn't the bad guy here; the way municipalities waste water is. Once again, Wynne with her twisted environmental agendas is jumping on what she thinks will be a voter bandwagon  :2c:

:cheers:

 

[Journeyman]

To argue differently is to take the public for fools.

Are they not justified in that belief?  Where's the outcry? 

If it even makes it to the Party's attention as any sort of serious issue, they know that the attention span will last maybe two days.... less if there's cute selfies, like the PM's kid on a backyard trampoline behind the Chinese Premier.  As it is, they're saying 'ok, we got caught; some of it is promised to be returned.  Anyone who says anything now is just a CPC apologist -- haters gonna hate.'

And they carry on blissfully, knowing their sheeple audience.

 

[jollyjacktar]

No Trudeau mania here...  ;D

Sorry, one doesn't high five with commoners: Canada's PM is left hanging as he attempts an awkward greeting with a VERY unimpressed Prince George at the start of the Royal tour

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3805952/Welcome-Canada-Kate-Wills-George-Charlotte-touch-Victoria-royal-tour-family-four.html#ixzz4LHWRMLZy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[George Wallace]

LOL!  Just thought of what a crusty old Sgt Major would say about this tie:

 

[Occam]

LOL!  Just thought of what a crusty old Sgt Major would say about this tie:

Fortunately, fashion changes and crusty old Sgt Majors retire...

http://www.ties.com/how-to-tie-a-tie

 

[dimsum]

LOL!  Just thought of what a crusty old Sgt Major would say about this tie:

When I first saw those series of pics on FB, first thing I thought was "hey, they found Carmen San Diego!"

 

[YZT580]

No Trudeau mania here...  ;D

Sorry, one doesn't high five with commoners: Canada's PM is left hanging as he attempts an awkward greeting with a VERY unimpressed Prince George at the start of the Royal tour

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3805952/Welcome-Canada-Kate-Wills-George-Charlotte-touch-Victoria-royal-tour-family-four.html#ixzz4LHWRMLZy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

from Reuters:
Prince George just wasn't going to be charmed by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
 
Landing in Canada on Saturday on a weeklong official visit with parents Prince William and Kate Middleton, George, holding his father's hand, ignored Trudeau
Already he shows discernment and he is only three.  He is demonstrating far greater wisdom than most of the press. 

 

[OldSolduer]

LOL!  Just thought of what a crusty old Sgt Major would say about this tie:

Being a somewhat decent human and fully sensitized to some one taking offence, I can I say what it is. Rhymes with Regina?

 

[George Wallace]

I more often heard a less edumacated in medical terminology, four letter word, used in that instance.  [

 

[Edward Campbell]

Does anyone at all really care how anyone above the rank of OCdt knots their tie?

There's a reason the whole "Politics" page needs to be taken down and tossed into the cyber-scrap bin.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Does anyone at all really care how anyone above the rank of OCdt knots their tie?

There's a reason the whole "Politics" page needs to be taken down and tossed into the cyber-scrap bin.

I'm currently on YouTube trying to figure out how to tie a tie....
Do we use the Windsor or half Windsor or something else?

Wholy unrelated but quite important

 

[Old Sweat]

Come on, Edward, you remember how we used to cringe at the prospect of another Subalterns' Couth Lecture based on a wartime Brit book on how to develop OLQs (Officer Like Qualities) in the lower classes dragooned to be junior officers.