• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2017

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bird_Gunner45 said:
I'll concede that the project wasn't cancelled. The fact that the Conservatives announced on 16 Jul 10 that they were going to procure 65 x F35 and reset the process in Dec 2012 for political reasons. That or it was CPC incompetence in not undertaking the proper contracting/procurement steps and following regulations. Either way, the fact that the F35 didn't start delivery is a CPC error.

Then considering success as pointed out by Colin P:
Colin P said:
Under the CPC we got:

C17's
C130J
Leased and then bought Chinooks
Leased and then bought Leopard 2

They waffled on the F35 in line with Martin and the current Liberal government

they had an 80% success ratio with acquiring badly needed equipment for the CAF.  For politicians, an 80% success rate for the grass-roots operators isn't shabby.

1/5th of a decade into the PK deployment promise and how're the Liberals doing?  :crickets:

G2G
 
PuckChaser said:
Review the part where the Liberals campaigned on being different. They don't get a free pass on reneging on promises everytime you need to prove an argument.

I know it's difficult going from PMSH who did a majority of what he said he'd do and nothing his opponents accused him of hiding, to PMJT who will say anything to your face to get a vote or social media like but really mean very little of it, but you're going to have to keep up to what's actually happening.

I don't think at any point was I giving the LPC of today a "free pass" or said that I didn't believe that the LPC had broken promises. That said, the assertion that PMSH kept the majority of his promises is a stretch.

The Conservatives broke or were unable to carry through with many extremely important promises. Included in this is increased military spending outlined in the CFDS, not procuring the F35, promising to not run deficits than running over $100 billion of deficits a couple of months later, senate reform (though not necessarily the fault of the CPC), ending the US-Canada price gap, and lower greenhouse emissions (notably bill C-38) to name a few. There were other issues that they failed on, such as attempting to block the SCC decision on gay marriage and only implementing 29 of the 60 promised reforms in the FAA (of which 7 of the 29 were rolled back after). They also kept many, including lowering the GST, scrapping the gun registry, introducing the parliamentary budget office, and balancing the budget in 2015.

The LPC has 2 years to complete promises, but the out and out change on the election reform is egregious to say the least. They're on pace to be like every other government.

As for the "I know it's difficult..." comment, it's not difficult at all. Just because I criticize parts of the CPC period of leadership doesn't 100% mean that I support the LPC, NDP, or any other party. I agree with parts of the CPC platform and parts of the LPC platforms (heck, even parts of the NDP platform) and make my voting decisions based on which party meets my needs. I have also explicitly stated that I believe that all governments keep some promises and break others. That then informs my voting choices for the next cycle. Some promises are easy to keep and usually get knocked off in the first 100 days. Some are too broad to enact. Some are just taken away. Some are just impossible to enact due to the changing situations. 

I get that many people are partisan and take a "side" but don't believe that 100% of anything is right. The constant "right" vs "left" bickering and comments about how if you think one side has a point you must be fully on the other side (with the associated finger pointing, name calling, etc) is tiresome. For example- I don't think Harper was a bad PM and don't think that Trudeau is a bad PM yet. Both have different styles- Harper was extremely introverted while Trudeau is extroverted.
 
Good2Golf said:
Then considering success as pointed out by Colin P:
they had an 80% success ratio with acquiring badly needed equipment for the CAF.  For politicians, an 80% success rate for the grass-roots operators isn't shabby.

1/5th of a decade into the PK deployment promise and how're the Liberals doing?  :crickets:

G2G

The question was on F35s and Super Hornets correct? When was it stated that the CPC didn't do anything for the military? I don't remember saying that I thought the Liberals were doing a great job with military procurement, so lets stop making everything into some sort of attack on the CPC shall we? Hyper-partisanship isn't the intent here.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
The question was on F35s and Super Hornets correct? When was it stated that the CPC didn't do anything for the military? I don't remember saying that I thought the Liberals were doing a great job with military procurement, so lets stop making everything into some sort of attack on the CPC shall we? Hyper-partisanship isn't the intent here.

Putting things into place the way you'd like to see them, only when you deem them relevant of course, is?
 
https://globalnews.ca/news/3765696/analysis-poll-finds-scheers-tories-ahead-of-trudeaus-liberals-but-can-we-believe-it/

September 24, 2017 1:23 pm

ANALYSIS: Poll finds Scheer’s Tories ahead of Trudeau’s Liberals but can we believe it?

By David Akin

Chief Political Correspondent  Global News

The takeaway from the new poll from Toronto-based Forum Research seems rather remarkable.

If an election were held today, Forum says, 39 per cent of the country would vote for Andrew Scheer’s Conservative Party and 35 per cent would vote for Justin Trudeau’s Liberals.

Forum’s president Lorne Bozinoff doesn’t stop there, though. He then applies his poll result to a seat distribution model and concludes that, if an election were held right now, the result would be a Conservative minority - can you say Prime Minister Andrew Scheer? - where the Tories would have precisely half the seats in the House of Commons. The Tories would win 169, while the Liberals would win 130 seats, the NDP 26, the Bloc Quebecois 12, and the Green Party would keep its single seat.

“Trudeau enters the fall legislative session with his popularity slipping,” Bozinoff said in a statement accompanying the release of the poll on Sunday morning. “The primary beneficiary of Trudeau’s decline is Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives.”

This is just the second poll since early October 2015 that finds anyone but Justin Trudeau’s Liberals in first place.  (The other one, from March, was also from Forum.) So, the question quickly posed on social networks is does this poll represent the reality of Canadian public opinion or is it an outlier?

Rival pollsters and statistics scientists will have their own opinions but the only real answer is that we truly cannot know if this is an outlier or reality unless we had an actual general election and were able to compare Forum’s poll against actual results.

Some pundits and political operatives will dismiss Forum out-of-hand because of some polls it has published in the past, where it tries to track political preference in just one riding. (It swung and missed by a wide margin, for example, during a 2013 by-election in the Manitoba riding of Brandon Souris.)

But when Forum takes the national pulse, its record versus the actual results has been as good as its peers and, in some cases, much better. For example, its final poll before the 2015 general election found 40 per cent support for the Liberals, 30 per cent for the Conservatives and 20 per cent for the NDP. The actual results? A 39.5 per cent lead for the Liberals, 31.9 per cent for the Conservatives and 19.7 per cent for the NDP.

In the 2011 general election, Forum was, by some measures, best among its peers when it came to its final poll of that campaign versus actual results.

But in this case, of course, we will not have actual results with which to compare Forum’s.  The next best thing then is to take a look at several recent polls to see if Forum may have picked up on a trend.

The Forum poll, which was in the field on Sept. 13 and 14, finds the Conservatives up by four points over the Liberals. Meanwhile, the weekly tracking poll from Nanos Research, for the week ending Sept. 15, finds the Liberals with more than a 10-point lead over the Tories. For the week ending Sept. 8, Nanos had the Liberals were up by 12 points on the Tories.

Campaign Research was in the field Sept. 8-11 and it found the Liberals with a 12-point lead. Abacus Data, polling from Sept. 1-3, also found a 12-point Liberal lead . Mainstreet Research, polling Aug. 28-31, found an 11-point Liberal lead.

So you be the judge: One pollster, Forum, finds a four-point Conservative lead while five other polls from four other pollsters done around the same time find the Liberals up by 10 points or more.

Forum, for the record, uses an interactive voice response telephone survey technology and polled 1,350 for its most recent poll. Forum says the margin-of-error is three percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Campaign Research and Abacus cannot calculate a margin-of-error because their survey population is not selected on a truly random basis. (That’s not to say they may not be accurate; it’s just a statement of statistical fact.) Mainstreet, which also uses a telephone survey method and, as a result, can calculate a margin-of-error,  surveyed 2,000 Canadians, reached on both landline and cell phones, and claims it is accurate to within 2.19 percentage points. Similarly, Nanos uses a telephone survey of cellphones and landlines and factors in 1,000 results collected over a four-week rolling sample. It says its margin-of-error is 3.1 percentage points.

And yet, if you take all the polls published since the 2015 election and plotted the results on a graph, as a Wikipedia contributor has done, there appears to be some evidence the spread between Liberals and Conservatives has been tightening somewhat since mid-summer. Still, there’s no denying the big picture that shows Liberal dominance in all polls since the 2015 election.

So what to make it of it all? On social media, the response among political partisans is predictable: Liberals dismiss the Forum poll as an outlier while Conservatives hold it up as proof of how public opinion has swung against the Liberals, likely as a result of their recent misadventures in tax reform.

Outlier or not, thoughtful partisans on either side see it as a reminder that, in politics, odd things can and do often happen. In Canada, we need only point to the circumstances through which B.C. and Alberta ended up with NDP governments or the United States ended up with Donald Trump.

So this Forum poll may remind some Liberals of the dangers of complacency and the damage that may be done to their brand if not enough promises are kept on everything from Indigenous issues to climate change.

For Conservatives who may have privately doubted that new leader Andrew Scheer can topple Trudeau, this Forum poll may give them some heart. The Conservatives have a solid base of support of at least 30-32 per cent no matter the pollster and that party continues to dominate when it comes to political fundraising.

As for the country’s New Democrats, they’re busy wrapping up a leadership race and should have a new permanent leader early next month. That will introduce a new dynamic into the federal political scene and it will be at that point, that all these polls – will start to take on a new importance.

© 2017 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
 
http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017.09.27-federal-issues.pdf

Federal Politics: Trudeau still seen as best PM, but Conservatives ‘best to form government’

Too lengthy to post, and lots of graphs.
 
milnews.ca said:

Saw this in the link.  Perhaps this particular item should also end up in the buttons and bows thread.

In his role as Commander-in-Chief throughout his seven-year mandate, Governor General Johnston, along with Honorary Captain (Navy) Johnston:
•Attended 330 military events and activities
•Visited 12 Canadian Armed Forces bases;
Approved 79 new badges for Canadian Armed Forces Units
•Visited Canadian troops abroad on seven different occasions
•Attended two change of command ceremonies for chiefs of the defence staff
 
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/09/26/little-reason-to-believe-liberal-promises-about-minimal-tax-change-damage

Little reason to believe Liberal promises about minimal tax change damage

By Lorne Gunter , Edmonton Sun
First posted: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 04:34 PM EDT | Updated: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 04:39 PM EDT

The Trudeau Liberals have obviously never heard the old adage, “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”

Despite widespread anger from Canada’s entrepreneurs (about 3.5 million of them), the federal Grits have continued to claim that the vast majority of shopkeepers, small-scale manufacturers, independent fishermen, contractors, restaurateurs, farmers and ranchers, doctors, lawyers and other professionals are duping the tax system.

The government seems determined to forge ahead with significant tax increases on these middle-class Canadians; so determined that since Parliament reconvened more than a week ago, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau have ramped up their rhetorical class warfare against the “rich” and “wealthy” for not paying their “fair share” of taxes.

The Liberals’ latest spin, repeated this week by various spokespeople, is that the majority of small business owners have nothing to fear. The changes will affect only about 10 per cent of them, the government claims.

Yeah, and if you believe that, I’ve got some great beachfront property I’d like to sell you on Baffin Island.

There is no way any government can draft tax rules that are that surgical, that precise; especially when their aim is to suck another $3 billion to $5 billion out of the necks of entrepreneurs.

Besides, here’s another old saying I just invented: “When a government says it’s only going to tax the rich, hold onto your wallet because the middle class is about to get whacked.”

There just aren’t enough “rich” people in Canada to fund more government spending. That means that any free-spending government – like the Trudeau Liberals – is very quickly going to hit up the middle class.

The middle class ain’t rich, but there are more than 10 million of us (versus about a quarter of a million “rich”). We may not have tons of money, but there are tons of us to tax.

That’s why, no matter what a government says, nearly every tax hike falls on the middle class. It’s not because higher-income individuals are cheaters. It’s just simple arithmetic.

Here’s something else to remember about the Liberals’ honesty when you hear them say, “Trust us, taxes will rise on only 10 per cent of small business owners.”

Remember how they promised during the 2015 election to lower taxes on the middle class? The PM even boasted to the UN General Assembly last week that his government had done just that.

Well, that’s hogwash, too.

A new study by Vancouver’s Fraser Institute shows that far from lowering middle-class taxes, the Liberals have raised them on over 80 per cent of families – by an average of nearly $900 a year!

It’s true the Trudeau government lowered the middle-class tax rate from 22 per cent to 20.5 percent. That applies to most families earning $45,000 to $90,000 (roughly).

But they have also ended so many tax credits that eight-in-10 middle-class families will pay nearly $900 more to Ottawa than they did under the Harper Tories.

Fifty-four per cent of middle-class families benefitted from income splitting, but the Liberals took that away. Forty per cent claimed the child fitness credit – whoosh! Many claimed the education tax credit, the tuition, the transit credit and others, now all gone, gone, gone.

The net effect of all these Liberal changes is that while middle class Canadians are paying a lower tax rate, they are actually paying higher taxes.

There is absolutely no reason to believe the Trudeauites won’t do something similar to small business owners, so they can claim not to have raised taxes on 90 per cent of them while simultaneously draining their bank accounts.
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/health-canada-legal-fees-first-nations-girl-dental-coverage-1.4310224

Ottawa spent $110K in legal fees fighting First Nations girl over $6K dental procedure

'As a taxpayer, I'm absolutely floored,' First Nations advocate Cindy Blackstock says

By John Paul Tasker, CBC News Posted: Sep 29, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Sep 29, 2017 3:06 PM ET

The federal Liberal government has spent more than $110,000 fighting a First Nations girl in court to block payment for orthodontic treatment that cost just $6,000, according to documents released under the Access to Information Act and shared with CBC News.

Josey Willier, a Cree teen living in Calgary, had ongoing problems with her teeth that resulted in chronic aching pain in her lower gums.

She took over-the-counter pain medication daily for two years because of extreme discomfort associated with impacted teeth and a severe overbite, among other ailments. A Calgary-based orthodontist, Mark Antosz, recommended braces to avoid invasive jaw surgery in the future.
Stacey Shiner, the child's mother, sought payment for the braces under the First Nations and Inuit health benefit program, but was denied by Health Canada, the department that administers the insurance plan. She appealed three times to no avail, and ultimately took the case to Federal Court.

Between January 2016 and April 2017, the government spent $110,336.51 in legal fees as part of its fight to avoid paying for the procedure. The final cost will likely be higher, as a decision on this case was not handed down until May.

The judge assigned to Willier's case, Sean Harrington, ultimately found in favour of the government.

In his judgment, Harrington said he found it "reasonable" that Willier's treatment was not covered. "The procedure followed was fair.... There is nothing in the record to suggest that any child in Canada, First Nations or not, would have been treated any differently than Josey was." That decision is now being appealed.

Last fall, the Liberals voted to support an NDP motion that called on the government to stop fighting Indigenous families who are seeking access to services covered by Ottawa - but only two days after that vote, government lawyers were back in court fighting Shiner.

"This was an opportunity for this government to show that they were going to make reconciliation real on the ground, and instead it's the same old brass knuckles approach to squashing basic treatment for children," NDP MP Charlie Angus said in an interview.
'As a human being, I think it's immoral'

Cindy Blackstock, the executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society and an advocate for equal treatment of Indigenous children, was an intervener in Shiner's case.

"I think it's atrocious," she told CBC News. "As a human being, I think it's immoral that Canada would not fund services where two concurring pediatric orthodontists agree that without treatment this girl will experience chronic pain and will have difficulty eating and talking.

"As a taxpayer, I'm absolutely floored that Canada would spend $110,000 defending [against] a $6,000 investment to help a child. They could have used that money to buy 18 children in medical need the orthodontic services they needed."

Health services for First Nations people living on reserve are funded almost exclusively by the federal government. While provincial health care plans often exclude dental care, the federal program for First Nations includes regular cleanings, X-rays, root canals and other procedures.

The First Nations health program also covers certain orthodontic treatments, but only when the case is deemed medically necessary. A claimant must have "severe and functionally handicapping malocclusion" (overbite) to be eligible. The department determined Willier's case fell short after it consulted with four orthodontists of its own choosing - but those doctors did not physically examine Willier.

In a statement Thursday, Health Canada defended its decision to deny care, adding in 2014-15 it funded approximately $5 million in orthodontic treatment for other kids.

"In this case, the issue is not about the monetary value or affordability of the claim," the statement said. "The issue is that there is no clinical evidence to support approval of the claim under the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program (NIHB)."

Health Canada also said the program for First Nations children is more generous than what is available to others. "The NIHB program covers the full cost of orthodontic treatment when it is medically necessary ... whereas private plans typically cover only one-quarter to one-third of costs."

Blackstock said she doesn't believe the government should cover orthodontics to fix cosmetic issues, and she is aware of departmental concerns over opening the "floodgates" for orthodontic care.

"But if there are other children out there who can't eat or talk properly without chronic pain, they're welcome to all my tax dollars," she said.

"We are saying, if there's a medical need, and where the alternative is a far more costly intervention [such as surgery], that the government would pay for in any event, why not take the lower-cost item that's actually in the child's best interest?"

Willier is not the first child to be repeatedly denied coverage. In 2015-16, nearly all applications, at all three levels of appeals pertaining to the orthodontics program, were denied by administrators of the benefits program: 99 per cent of first-level appeals, 100 per cent of second-level appeals and 100 per cent of all third-level appeals.

Sarah Clarke, the lawyer representing the girl pro bono, has already filed an appeal to the Federal Court ruling. The government's legal costs will almost certainly go up, she said, because lawyers will have to respond to the latest factum filed in court last week.

Clarke said the health program is fundamentally flawed because departmental approval is not based on the child's level of suffering.

As to why the government is continuing litigation, Clarke said she believes it's all about the bottom line. "My only reasonable hypothesis is to save money on any other case that's coming behind us."

Angus, a candidate for his party's leadership, said Indigenous Services Minister Jane Philpott could have intervened to stop legal proceedings before the court rendered its decision.

He said he has repeatedly raised this particular case with Philpott, who until recently served as health minister. During question period in January 2016, Philpott said she would look into Willier's case and report back. Philpott's office deferred to Health Canada for comment.

"Jane Philpott is a medical doctor, and she goes along with using lawyers to deny services - that's simply perverse, it's bordering on institutional malevolence.

"It's the pattern of denial that has been inflicted on Indigenous children for decades, and this government has to be accountable and has to stop it."
 
Loachman said:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/health-canada-legal-fees-first-nations-girl-dental-coverage-1.4310224

Ottawa spent $110K in legal fees fighting First Nations girl over $6K dental procedure

'As a taxpayer, I'm absolutely floored,' First Nations advocate Cindy Blackstock says

By John Paul Tasker, CBC News Posted: Sep 29, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Sep 29, 2017 3:06 PM ET

The federal Liberal government has spent more than $110,000 fighting a First Nations girl in court to block payment for orthodontic treatment that cost just $6,000, according to documents released under the Access to Information Act and shared with CBC News.

Josey Willier, a Cree teen living in Calgary, had ongoing problems with her teeth that resulted in chronic aching pain in her lower gums.

She took over-the-counter pain medication daily for two years because of extreme discomfort associated with impacted teeth and a severe overbite, among other ailments. A Calgary-based orthodontist, Mark Antosz, recommended braces to avoid invasive jaw surgery in the future.
Stacey Shiner, the child's mother, sought payment for the braces under the First Nations and Inuit health benefit program, but was denied by Health Canada, the department that administers the insurance plan. She appealed three times to no avail, and ultimately took the case to Federal Court.

Between January 2016 and April 2017, the government spent $110,336.51 in legal fees as part of its fight to avoid paying for the procedure. The final cost will likely be higher, as a decision on this case was not handed down until May.

The judge assigned to Willier's case, Sean Harrington, ultimately found in favour of the government.

In his judgment, Harrington said he found it "reasonable" that Willier's treatment was not covered. "The procedure followed was fair.... There is nothing in the record to suggest that any child in Canada,
First Nations or not, would have been treated any differently than Josey was." That decision is now being appealed.

Last fall, the Liberals voted to support an NDP motion that called on the government to stop fighting Indigenous families who are seeking access to services covered by Ottawa - but only two days after that vote, government lawyers were back in court fighting Shiner.

"This was an opportunity for this government to show that they were going to make reconciliation real on the ground, and instead it's the same old brass knuckles approach to squashing basic treatment for children," NDP MP Charlie Angus said in an interview.
'As a human being, I think it's immoral'

Cindy Blackstock, the executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society and an advocate for equal treatment of Indigenous children, was an intervener in Shiner's case.

"I think it's atrocious," she told CBC News. "As a human being, I think it's immoral that Canada would not fund services where two concurring pediatric orthodontists agree that without treatment this girl will experience chronic pain and will have difficulty eating and talking.

"As a taxpayer, I'm absolutely floored that Canada would spend $110,000 defending [against] a $6,000 investment to help a child. They could have used that money to buy 18 children in medical need the orthodontic services they needed."

Health services for First Nations people living on reserve are funded almost exclusively by the federal government. While provincial health care plans often exclude dental care, the federal program for First Nations includes regular cleanings, X-rays, root canals and other procedures.

The First Nations health program also covers certain orthodontic treatments, but only when the case is deemed medically necessary. A claimant must have "severe and functionally handicapping malocclusion" (overbite) to be eligible. The department determined Willier's case fell short after it consulted with four orthodontists of its own choosing - but those doctors did not physically examine Willier.

In a statement Thursday, Health Canada defended its decision to deny care, adding in 2014-15 it funded approximately $5 million in orthodontic treatment for other kids.

"In this case, the issue is not about the monetary value or affordability of the claim," the statement said. "The issue is that there is no clinical evidence to support approval of the claim under the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program (NIHB)."

Health Canada also said the program for First Nations children is more generous than what is available to others. "The NIHB program covers the full cost of orthodontic treatment when it is medically necessary ... whereas private plans typically cover only one-quarter to one-third of costs."

Blackstock said she doesn't believe the government should cover orthodontics to fix cosmetic issues, and she is aware of departmental concerns over opening the "floodgates" for orthodontic care.

"But if there are other children out there who can't eat or talk properly without chronic pain, they're welcome to all my tax dollars," she said.

"We are saying, if there's a medical need, and where the alternative is a far more costly intervention [such as surgery], that the government would pay for in any event, why not take the lower-cost item that's actually in the child's best interest?"

Willier is not the first child to be repeatedly denied coverage. In 2015-16, nearly all applications, at all three levels of appeals pertaining to the orthodontics program, were denied by administrators of the benefits program: 99 per cent of first-level appeals, 100 per cent of second-level appeals and 100 per cent of all third-level appeals.

Sarah Clarke, the lawyer representing the girl pro bono, has already filed an appeal to the Federal Court ruling. The government's legal costs will almost certainly go up, she said, because lawyers will have to respond to the latest factum filed in court last week.

Clarke said the health program is fundamentally flawed because departmental approval is not based on the child's level of suffering.

As to why the government is continuing litigation, Clarke said she believes it's all about the bottom line. "My only reasonable hypothesis is to save money on any other case that's coming behind us."

Angus, a candidate for his party's leadership, said Indigenous Services Minister Jane Philpott could have intervened to stop legal proceedings before the court rendered its decision.

He said he has repeatedly raised this particular case with Philpott, who until recently served as health minister. During question period in January 2016, Philpott said she would look into Willier's case and report back. Philpott's office deferred to Health Canada for comment.

"Jane Philpott is a medical doctor, and she goes along with using lawyers to deny services - that's simply perverse, it's bordering on institutional malevolence.

"It's the pattern of denial that has been inflicted on Indigenous children for decades, and this government has to be accountable and has to stop it."

Much like everyone else I find a problem in that there was government money to the tune of $110k spent on this suit but one has to realistically assign the blame here.

Firstly the judge, after hearing all the evidence, found that the government properly applied the law and properly and fairly assessed the claim before denying it. The fact of the matter is that the federal government does not provide free comprehensive dental care for everyone and in the few cases where it does it does so under limited circumstances. The current case, while unfortunate, simply didn't meet the test and therefore the government (according to the judge) quite rightly denied the claim.

What is the alternative? To give in as soon as someone objects? To give in the moment that they file a lawsuit? Agents of the crown do not have much discretion. They reviewed this case with four orthodontists who reviewed the file and provided opinions that the case did not fall into the circumstances where coverage would be available. The question here isn't whether or not the girl needed braces but whether or not coverage for them was available under the regulations.

Sometimes the problem with pro bono legal representation is that the client does not have a financial stake in the outcome and therefore won't back off a case that has little chance of success. Sometimes pro bono lawyers feel more outrage at the circumstances and keep a case going when common sense dictates that they should back off. The crown (and by that I include all of us taxpayers) has no option but to go along for the ride and now, they'll (we'll) once again have to go along for the ride on the appeal. I think it would have been better for everyone if the lawyer in this case had paid out of her own pocket (or crowd sourced) the money for the braces rather than go to court.

:2c:

:cheers:
 
FJAG said:
They reviewed this case with four orthodontists who reviewed the file and provided opinions that the case did not fall into the circumstances where coverage would be available.

There's the cold, hard law and bureaucratic rules, and then there's basic humanity.

And benefit of the doubt seldom goes to the unfortunate sufferer.

"The First Nations health program also covers certain orthodontic treatments, but only when the case is deemed medically necessary. A claimant must have 'severe and functionally handicapping malocclusion' (overbite) to be eligible."

But

"two concurring pediatric orthodontists agree that without treatment this girl will experience chronic pain and will have difficulty eating and talking" is not sufficient "severe and functionally handicapping malocclusion" (overbite) to be eligible", apparently.

So what is?

Where is the cold, hard line actually drawn? Who determines what constitutes "severe and functionally handicapping"?

"The department determined Willier's case fell short after it consulted with four orthodontists of its own choosing - but those doctors did not physically examine Willier."

Examining Josey Willier prior to consigning her to a lifetime of further misery and dysfunction might be the minimum fair and humane thing to do. How else could they determine that her condition was not sufficiently "severe and functionally handicapping"?

"In 2015-16, nearly all applications, at all three levels of appeals pertaining to the orthodontics program, were denied by administrators of the benefits program: 99 per cent of first-level appeals, 100 per cent of second-level appeals and 100 per cent of all third-level appeals."

So why even bother with an appeal process if it is not even going to give an appearance of a veneer of hope and fairness? Shouldn't an occasional appeal be decided in favour of an appellant just to make it look like he/she had at least a tiny chance?

The process needs some adjustment.

Judges' decisions are occasionally overturned on appeal for various reasons, and I'd hope that this decision is one of them.

"Last fall, the Liberals voted to support an NDP motion that called on the government to stop fighting Indigenous families who are seeking access to services covered by Ottawa - but only two days after that vote, government lawyers were back in court fighting Shiner."

Not good optics for a "sunny ways" prime minister at all - especially one who made Omar Khadr a multi-millionaire to, supposedly, save money on court costs, and also promised an awful lot to First Nations.

The Khadr case should have been fought to the bitter end.

This one should not.
 
Loachman said:
There's the cold, hard law and bureaucratic rules, and then there's basic humanity.

And benefit of the doubt seldom goes to the unfortunate sufferer.

"The First Nations health program also covers certain orthodontic treatments, but only when the case is deemed medically necessary. A claimant must have 'severe and functionally handicapping malocclusion' (overbite) to be eligible."

But

"two concurring pediatric orthodontists agree that without treatment this girl will experience chronic pain and will have difficulty eating and talking" is not sufficient "severe and functionally handicapping malocclusion" (overbite) to be eligible", apparently.

So what is?

Where is the cold, hard line actually drawn? Who determines what constitutes "severe and functionally handicapping"?

"The department determined Willier's case fell short after it consulted with four orthodontists of its own choosing - but those doctors did not physically examine Willier."

Examining Josey Willier prior to consigning her to a lifetime of further misery and dysfunction might be the minimum fair and humane thing to do. How else could they determine that her condition was not sufficiently "severe and functionally handicapping"?

"In 2015-16, nearly all applications, at all three levels of appeals pertaining to the orthodontics program, were denied by administrators of the benefits program: 99 per cent of first-level appeals, 100 per cent of second-level appeals and 100 per cent of all third-level appeals."

So why even bother with an appeal process if it is not even going to give an appearance of a veneer of hope and fairness? Shouldn't an occasional appeal be decided in favour of an appellant just to make it look like he/she had at least a tiny chance?

The process needs some adjustment.

Judges' decisions are occasionally overturned on appeal for various reasons, and I'd hope that this decision is one of them.

"Last fall, the Liberals voted to support an NDP motion that called on the government to stop fighting Indigenous families who are seeking access to services covered by Ottawa - but only two days after that vote, government lawyers were back in court fighting Shiner."

Not good optics for a "sunny ways" prime minister at all - especially one who made Omar Khadr a multi-millionaire to, supposedly, save money on court costs, and also promised an awful lot to First Nations.

The Khadr case should have been fought to the bitter end.

This one should not.

That's my point though, Loachman.

You can't change the process for one case if the department is consistently applying the law (or regulation) as it is written. It's an old legal idiom that "hard cases make bad law". Government agents can't simply ignore their responsibility to apply the law or regulation in the manner that the legislature intended it to be. Nor can one expect the courts to force them to apply the law incorrectly. 

What is necessary is that the matter be addressed at the legislative level or (if the matter is a regulatory one) at the ministerial level. That of course goes beyond looking not just at one case but the overall effect of a change of the regulation. One question is cost and the other question that needs answering is why should the federal government pay for this type of health service for the aboriginal child if the health care system for all other Canadian children doesn't provide for it.

As an aside on the Khadr issue "Sunny Ways" wants you to stay outraged. His cockamamie rationale is found here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/09/28/trudeau-says-he-wants-canadians-to-stay-outraged-about-omar-khadr-deal_a_23226612/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

:cheers:
 
FJAG said:
That's my point though, Loachman.

You can't change the process for one case if the department is consistently applying the law (or regulation) as it is written. It's an old legal idiom that "hard cases make bad law". Government agents can't simply ignore their responsibility to apply the law or regulation in the manner that the legislature intended it to be. Nor can one expect the courts to force them to apply the law incorrectly. 

What is necessary is that the matter be addressed at the legislative level or (if the matter is a regulatory one) at the ministerial level. That of course goes beyond looking not just at one case but the overall effect of a change of the regulation. One question is cost and the other question that needs answering is why should the federal government pay for this type of health service for the aboriginal child if the health care system for all other Canadian children doesn't provide for it.

As an aside on the Khadr issue "Sunny Ways" wants you to stay outraged. His cockamamie rationale is found here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/09/28/trudeau-says-he-wants-canadians-to-stay-outraged-about-omar-khadr-deal_a_23226612/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

:cheers:

I agree with your assessment. While the Liberals have certainly placed a lot of political capital on aboriginal rights, that certainly isn't, nor should be, a carte blanche for "have whatever you want". There needs to be a line in the sand. If the government of the day wants to change where said line is than that is another matter.
 
I advocate 100% dental and medical coverage for all children until the age of 21. And it covers everything. The amount of money we spend for chronic medical issues that could have been nipped at an early age is well worth the cost.
 
I agree - and that is one of the things that pisses me off about this particular case. Josey Willier's condition is likely to worsen over time, causing her more unnecessary suffering and costing more when it does get "bad enough".
 
Agreed.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say.
 
Regardless of the rules being correctly applied or not, the Liberals come off this looking like a bunch of dicks yet again.  I guess there's some silver lining to this.
 
Loachman said:
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/09/26/little-reason-to-believe-liberal-promises-about-minimal-tax-change-damage

Little reason to believe Liberal promises about minimal tax change damage
By Lorne Gunter , Edmonton Sun
First posted: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 04:34 PM EDT | Updated: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 04:39 PM EDT

...

Remember how [the Liberals] promised during the 2015 election to lower taxes on the middle class? The PM even boasted to the UN General Assembly last week that his government had done just that.

Well, that’s hogwash, too.

A new study by Vancouver’s Fraser Institute shows that far from lowering middle-class taxes, the Liberals have raised them on over 80 per cent of families – by an average of nearly $900 a year!

It’s true the Trudeau government lowered the middle-class tax rate from 22 per cent to 20.5 percent. That applies to most families earning $45,000 to $90,000 (roughly).

But they have also ended so many tax credits that eight-in-10 middle-class families will pay nearly $900 more to Ottawa than they did under the Harper Tories.

Fifty-four per cent of middle-class families benefitted from income splitting, but the Liberals took that away. Forty per cent claimed the child fitness credit – whoosh! Many claimed the education tax credit, the tuition, the transit credit and others, now all gone, gone, gone.

The net effect of all these Liberal changes is that while middle class Canadians are paying a lower tax rate, they are actually paying higher taxes.

...

I first saw something on this in the Financial Post, where the report authors submitted an article about thier findings:  http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/what-middle-class-tax-cut-your-family-is-probably-paying-more-under-trudeau

I also noticed that Global found a University of Victory academic to argue that consideration of the Canada Child Benefit might have maybe reversed the findings of the report.  https://globalnews.ca/news/3769136/taxes-middle-class-liberals/

Apparently the PM also made this argument, because the Fraser Institute has published this rebuttal: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/according-to-prime-minister-trudeau-redistribution-is-the-new-tax-relief
According to Prime Minister Trudeau, redistribution is the new ‘tax relief’
Charles Lammam & Hugh MacIntyre
The Fraser Forum
29 Sep 17

Canadians don’t always pay attention to the daily ritual of question period on Parliament Hill. But sometimes the government’s comments can be revealing in unexpected ways.

In an exchange on Tuesday, Opposition leader Andrew Scheer asked Prime Minister Trudeau about a study measuring the federal income tax increases on middle-class families. Trudeau’s response was illuminating, but likely not in the way he intended. It’s now clear that the federal government’s concept of “tax relief” goes far beyond reducing taxes and includes large-scale income redistribution.

To understand Trudeau’s response, first consider the findings of the study in question.

The Trudeau government has repeatedly asserted that it has lowered income taxes on middle-class families. A quick Google search for the terms “Trudeau” and “tax cuts for middle class families” returns more than 185,000 results after less than a second.

While it’s true the Trudeau government reduced the second-lowest personal income tax rate from 22 per cent to 20.5 per cent (which applies to individual incomes between $45,916 and $91,831), the government also eliminated a number of tax credits (provisions in the tax code that reduce a person’s income taxes if they qualify), thereby increasing income taxes for Canadians who previously claimed such credits.

Specifically, the government eliminated the income-splitting tax credit for couples with young children, the children’s fitness tax credit, the public transit tax credit, the education tax credit and the textbook tax credit.

When all the income tax changes are considered, more than 8-in-10 middle-class Canadian families—defined as families with incomes between $77,089 and $107,624—are paying more in personal income taxes because of the Trudeau government’s tax changes.

For these middle-class families, the largest tax increase comes from eliminating income-splitting. This tax hike alone, which averages $949, more than offsets the average $228 tax reduction achieved when the government cut the second lowest tax rate. Once the other eliminated tax credits are accounted for, middle-class families will pay $840 (on average) more in income taxes this year.

Tellingly, when asked about the clear contradiction between the government’s rhetoric (middle-class families paying less in taxes) and the reality of the government’s tax changes (which actually increase the middle-class income tax burden), Prime Minister Trudeau did not deny that middle-class families are paying higher income taxes.

Instead, he said the study ignored the Canada Child Benefit (CCB), a new transfer to qualifying parents with young children that combined several previous programs and increased the payment amount.

Most Canadians understand “tax relief” to mean that we get to keep more of the income we earn. Apparently, when the prime minister and his finance minister talk of tax relief, they mean something different.

In the House of Commons on Tuesday, the prime minister clearly accepted that many middle-class Canadians are now paying more taxes but his justification was that these tax increases were offset by the new, expanded transfer payment.

In other words, he sees tax relief (i.e. keeping more of what we earn) the same as government transfers (i.e. the government taxes us more and decides who receives the new transfer). It’s an extraordinary admission by the government—that middle-class Canadians are better off being more dependent on government transfers than if they get to keep more of their earnings.

Remarkably, in the prime minister’s eyes, redistribution is the new tax relief.

Anyway, those who want to make their own opinion can go read the full report here: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/measuring-the-impact-of-federal-personal-income-tax-changes-on-middle-income-canadian-families.pdf
 
http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/philip-cross-the-rotten-evidence-in-ottawas-evidence-based-tax-crackdown#comments-area

Only thing missing from Ottawa's 'evidence-based' tax crackdown is evidence

Philip Cross: The Department of Finance regularly becomes mesmerized by the shiny object of a more efficient tax system

The federal government’s tax-reform proposals were presented under the academic sheen of evidence-based policy-making. However, very little evidence supports the reforms, while the effect of the existing tax system resembles the consumption tax that evidence-based policy-makers claim to favour. The whole exercise has become a reminder that evidence is quite separate from policy, which requires time-tested judgement in an uncertain world.

The Department of Finance regularly becomes mesmerized by the shiny object of a more efficient tax system. In 1981, it tried to broaden the tax base and lower tax rates. The result was disastrous, a rare failed budget that had to be scrapped. In 1989, it convinced the Mulroney government to tilt the tax system from income to consumption taxes (notably the GST), helping to condemn the Conservatives to the greatest electoral defeat in history. In 2006, Finance repeatedly tried to dissuade the Harper government from its main platform of lowering the GST, which would have crippled his credibility with voters. The latest round targets small business taxes, ignoring the family trusts the prime minister and finance minister use extensively.

Ironically, the current tax system for small businesses operates like a consumption tax, the Holy Grail for Department of Finance tax policy. It is a complete falsehood to say that small-business owners pay less taxes than their salaried employees. Small businesses pay corporate income taxes immediately, and then pay personal income taxes when savings inside their corporation are withdrawn to finance personal consumption (focusing on the first tax payment and overlooking the second is like ignoring half of someone’s tax-instalment payments while claiming they are not paying enough). The current structure spares income from being taxed as long as it is saved, the goal of a consumption tax, but taxes it at the personal income tax system’s progressive rate when withdrawn. The total of the corporate income tax paid now and the personal income tax paid in the future is the real effective tax rate, which is higher than what middle-class employees pay.

The obsession with evidence-based policy-making risks confusing goals with means. The goal should be a smoothly functioning society, not a superficially more-efficient tax system. Finance regularly fails to convince skeptical governments and the broader population to support its tax proposals because it ignores the transition costs of moving too far too fast. When evidence points to policies that encourage society to move from point A to point B, only conservative thought considers the speed of the transition.

The current tax-reform package is very selective about the evidence it deems relevant. There is no evidence that the current tax system harms economic growth, or that there has been excessive savings in the business sector, which actually turned negative over the past two years. How will taxing savings in small businesses impact investment and growth, or impact Canada’s low rate of startups and small-business creation? No evidence is provided to answer these questions.

The whole artifice of evidence-based policy-making is open to question. Facts and policy are completely separate entities. Evidence is almost always nuanced or outright ambiguous and never comes with a definitive policy recommendation. Judgement is always involved, starting with whether government action justifies the inevitable loss of personal freedom, what specific actions best attain the desired result, and how fast government wants to move society to this preferred outcome.

Claims the proposed reforms are an exercise in evidence-based policy-making are contradicted by the avalanche of dogma and class-warfare rhetoric deployed to justify them. Proponents like Michael Wolfson have concluded that the lesson to be learned from the opposition to tax reform was the power of special-interest groups (who apparently control the new NDP government in B.C., which recently voiced its concerns). This childish finger-pointing ignores the federal government’s disingenuous communication strategy and the mendacity of its claim that business owners pay less tax than employees. Most importantly, it does not account for the impotence of the business lobby as governments across the nation proliferate regulations, impose carbon taxes, increase EI premiums, hike CPP contributions, boost minimum wages, raise corporate income taxes and erect more regulatory hurdles to investment.

Ultimately, evidence-based policy-making is almost always impossible because it ignores the most fundamental challenge to human existence: uncertainty. This uncertainty extends to our understanding of how the world works, never mind how it unfolds. In The End of Alchemy, former Bank of England Governor Mervyn King acknowledged the fundamental role of uncertainty by highlighting the primordial role that heuristic plays in how people have always coped with an uncertain world. Rules of thumb are based on thousands of years of human experience with uncertainty. They are preferable for coping compared with rationality bounded by a few years of data or “blind faith in experts who claim certainty.” Uncertainty obliterates the evidence-based view of the world because optimal behaviour and, therefore, ideal policy becomes impossible.

The fundamental problem with the proposed changes to the tax code is they increase uncertainty in a world already rife with unknowns: uncertainty about NAFTA, the unpredictable course of economic and tax policy here and in the U.S., the unknown risks lurking in the global financial system, even the uncertainty about our statistical understanding of the world we live in. The goal of responsible policy-making, often the opposite of evidence-based policy-making, should be to reduce and not increase uncertainty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top