101

Policy alert


 

Stephen Harper has reannounced various measures from last week’s budget and restated his intent to eliminate the per-vote subsidy.

Michael Ignatieff has restated his commitment to family care.

And this morning here in Sudbury, Jack Layton recommitted to funding for doctors, nurses, medical education and medical school infrastructure ($25-million for training, $20-million to repatriate Canadian doctors practicing overseas, $40-million to recruit and support low income, rural and aboriginal students, $80-million for educational infrastructure, student loan forgiveness for family doctors, streamlining credential recognition and establishing a Health Human Resources Centre). The plan is similar to one announced by Mr. Layton in 2008.


 

Policy alert

  1. Summing up the week I guess.

  2. Summing up the week I guess.

  3. Have any of our major parties announced a policy that Feds are actually responsible for and would be implemented soon?

  4. Have any of our major parties announced a policy that Feds are actually responsible for and would be implemented soon?

    • Yes, but I'm sure you don't want to hear Lib policy. LOL

      • LOL indeed! I'd love to hear their policies.

          • When's the official costed platform out? I'll read that.

          • Should be this weekend or Monday

          • Anything in it for me?

            I'm a single white anglophone guy in BC.

          • That's why I gave you the url.

          • Yeah, that's what I thought. I was hoping you knew some other stuff that wasn't on the website, because so far I don't anything getting me too excited.

  5. Yes, but I'm sure you don't want to hear Lib policy. LOL

  6. Good – the elimination of the per-vote subsidy is now out in the open. Let's see who screams the loudest!!!

  7. Good – the elimination of the per-vote subsidy is now out in the open. Let's see who screams the loudest!!!

    • Yeah, cuz we really want to go back to big union and corporate donations, right?

      • Stop agitating for the Liberal party, Nola. You know those have been banned and will continue to be banned.

      • The ones Harper prohibited? Is there some indication he would go back to them?

        • Harper didn't prohibit them….Chretien did.

          And while the Con party is flush right now, they won't always be…and they'll want a change.

          It's the usual short-term election-thinking.

          • You're wrong. Harper banned corporate and union donations in the Federal Accountability Act.

    • How about eliminating the 75% income tax deduction on donations to poilitical parties. That costs us a lot more than the per vote subsidy.

      • A good compromise would be reducing both by some amount and putting restrictions on government advertising like in Ontario. More substance for less money!

      • Or, at the very least treat them the same as you would ANY other charitable donation.

        Why is a donation to the Conservative Party of Canada treated any differently than one to the Canadian Cancer Society?

        I say keep the 1.25, and eliminate the tax kick back.

        • It's funny how you only singled out the Conservatives when it's all parties who are the beneficiaries of the deductions, aren't they?

          Why keep one form of subsidy and not the other? At least with the donation deduction, people have a direct say as to which party gets their money. That is not the case with the per vote measure, is it.

          • Yes it is. You vote for them, they get the subsidy. You don't want them getting the subsidy, don't vote for them.

          • In other words, a vote has turned into a publicly funded contribution scheme. People vote for lots of reasons, yet the subsidy translates all that into a vote for a contribution. That's arbitrary. While the deduction benefits the parties that are directly being contributed to, doesn't it. The latter seems fairer somehow. It doesn't generate public cash out of thin air.

          • Don't see how the 75% tax credit is any better. In one case, your vote triggers a subsidy coming out of my wallet. In the other, your donation triggers a subsidy, still coming out of my wallet.

            You give $100 to the Tories, and I as a taxpayer have to contribute to giving you $75?

            Ban them all, I say. Tax credit, per-vote subsidies, the whole shebang.

          • I didn't single them out, I was commenting on their own policy announcement. It is the Conservative party that is decided to propose this specific component of financing reform, so I do think it is far to ask why they feel that political parties should be given an advantage in a competitive fund raising environment over other charities.

            Had it been the Liberals who were proposing this, I would ask why a donation to the Liberal Party should be treated differently than the Canadian Liver Foundation, if it were a NDP proposal, a similar question could be put forward, why the NDP and not the Canadian Diabetes Association .

            As to your other point, how is with the per vote measure not based on choice?

          • lol, I love it how some people on here will argue that up is down and left is right without second thought. Yes, you did single out the Conservatives, and you did it regarding a measure that applies to all the parties. They don't want to touch the deduction, but you associated them with it, and the church! lol

            Regarding my other point, since when is a vote equivalent to a political donation? If someone wants to make the latter, tax incentive are already in place to encourage that. Now a democratic vote has been turned into a public subsidy for private parties.

            People vote for all kinds of reasons. But the subsidy forces that vote to be transformed into a contribution, too. Again, people can contribute directly to the parties, if that's what they want.

        • Why is a donation to the Conservative Party of Canada treated any differently than one to the Canadian Cancer Society?

          ***

          Because the people who want you to give them money to run political parties also wrote the income tax act, and before the per-vote amount it was the ONLY funding mechanism in place, so they really had to encourage it.

  8. Yeah, cuz we really want to go back to big union and corporate donations, right?

  9. Stop agitating for the Liberal party, Nola. You know those have been banned and will continue to be banned.

  10. How about eliminating the 75% income tax deduction on donations to poilitical parties. That costs us a lot more than the per vote subsidy.

  11. Ahh it's the door-walker again. BAM!

  12. The ones Harper prohibited? Is there some indication he would go back to them?

  13. Harper didn't prohibit them….Chretien did.

    And while the Con party is flush right now, they won't always be…and they'll want a change.

    It's the usual short-term election-thinking.

  14. You're wrong. Harper banned corporate and union donations in the Federal Accountability Act.

  15. Sorry…Chretien banned them long ago…in fact the national president called him a nasty name for doing so.

    Plus, considering Harper's complete lack of accountability it's not a wise thing to remind people of.

  16. A good compromise would be reducing both by some amount and putting restrictions on government advertising like in Ontario. More substance for less money!

  17. Or, at the very least treat them the same as you would ANY other charitable donation.

    Why is a donation to the Conservative Party of Canada treated any differently than one to the Canadian Cancer Society?

    I say keep the 1.25, and eliminate the tax kick back.

  18. Chretien's legislation LIMITED corporate and union donations to a much smaller amount than was previously allowed. He deserves credit for that.

    <a href="http:// (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/political-contributions.html)” target=”_blank”> <a href="http://(http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/political-contributions.html)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/political-contributions.html) "Once the bill came into effect in January 2004, corporations and unions could only give no more than $1,000 annually, with adjustments for inflation."

    Harper's legislation BANNED them outright. He deserves credit for that too.

    <a href="http:// (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2006/12/12/accountability-act.html)” target=”_blank”> <a href="http://(http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2006/12/12/accountability-act.html)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2006/12/12/accountability-act.html) "The legislation includes new ethics regulations and oversight, and places a cap on political donations to candidates or to parties. It also bans union and corporate donations."

  19. Chretien's legislation LIMITED corporate and union donations to a much smaller amount than was previously allowed. He deserves credit for that.

    (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/political-contributions.html) "Once the bill came into effect in January 2004, corporations and unions could only give no more than $1,000 annually, with adjustments for inflation."

    Harper's legislation BANNED them outright. He deserves credit for that too.

    (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2006/12/12/accountability-act.html) "The legislation includes new ethics regulations and oversight, and places a cap on political donations to candidates or to parties. It also bans union and corporate donations."

    • LOL since it was already in place, Harp gets no points for repetition.

      • It WASN'T in place. After Chretien's law was passed, corporations and unions could still give money to political parties and candidates (just less than before). After Harper's law, they couldn't do that anymore. It's not complicated.

    • You're going up against a Liberal party agitator. It doesn't matter what facts or truths you bring out, she will deny them. She will agitate against them. She has to. It's what she is.

  20. The Ontario government runs thinly-veiled partisan ads all the time. Every government does it. And every opposition party promises to stop it, and breaks that promise the second they get into office. One of the perks of being in government is that you get to use its levers to your own advantage. Shall always be this way.

  21. It's funny how you only singled out the Conservatives when it's all parties who are the beneficiaries of the deductions, aren't they?

    Why keep one form of subsidy and not the other? At least with the donation deduction, people have a direct say as to which party gets their money. That is not the case with the per vote measure, is it.

  22. LOL since it was already in place, Harp gets no points for repetition.

  23. It WASN'T in place. After Chretien's law was passed, corporations and unions could still give money to political parties and candidates (just less than before). After Harper's law, they couldn't do that anymore. It's not complicated.

  24. You're going up against a Liberal party agitator. It doesn't matter what facts or truths you bring out, she will deny them. She will agitate against them. She has to. It's what she is.

  25. Is entire campaign going to be this somnolent or is this phoney war stage and proper election going to begin any time now?

  26. Is entire campaign going to be this somnolent or is this phoney war stage and proper election going to begin any time now?

  27. Yes it is. You vote for them, they get the subsidy. You don't want them getting the subsidy, don't vote for them.

  28. I didn't single them out, I was commenting on their own policy announcement. It is the Conservative party that is decided to propose this specific component of financing reform, so I do think it is far to ask why they feel that political parties should be given an advantage in a competitive fund raising environment over other charities.

    Had it been the Liberals who were proposing this, I would ask why a donation to the Liberal Party should be treated differently than the Canadian Liver Foundation, if it were a NDP proposal, a similar question could be put forward, why the NDP and not the Canadian Diabetes Association .

    As to your other point, how is that the per vote measure not based on choice?

  29. Can anybody expand on the " $20-million to repatriate Canadian doctors practicing overseas"?

  30. Can anybody expand on the " $20-million to repatriate Canadian doctors practicing overseas"?

    • 19 million in nets, 1 million for a tugboat for the weekend : )

  31. In other words, a vote has turned into a publicly funded contribution scheme. People vote for lots of reasons, yet the subsidy translates all that into a vote for a contribution. That's arbitrary. While the deduction benefits the parties that are directly being contributed to, doesn't it. The latter seems fairer somehow. It doesn't generate public cash out of thin air.

  32. I see Harper is going straight for the petty wedge issues. Desperate tactic of the day I suppose.

  33. lol, I love it how some people on here will argue that up is down and left is right without second thought. Yes, you did single out the Conservatives, and you did it regarding a measure that applies to all the parties. They don't want to touch the deduction, but you associated them with it, and the church! lol

    Regarding my other point, since when is a vote equivalent to a political donation? If someone wants to make the latter, tax incentive are already in place to encourage that. Now a democratic vote has been turned into a public subsidy for private parties.

    People vote for all kinds of reasons. But the subsidy forces that vote to be transformed into a contribution, too. Again, people can contribute directly to the parties, if that's what they want.

  34. LOL indeed! I'd love to hear their policies.

  35. When's the official costed platform out? I'll read that.

  36. Should be this weekend or Monday

  37. Anything in it for me?

    I'm a single white anglophone guy in BC.

  38. That's why I gave you the url.

  39. Yeah, that's what I thought. I was hoping you knew some other stuff that wasn't on the website, because so far I don't anything getting me too excited.

  40. Sorry, I only know as much as I read in the news, same as everyone else.

    But instead of asking, what's in it for me….you could ask what's in it for the country.

  41. Per vote subsidies is a bit of a yawner for me IMO. It may not be such a bad thing to get rid of them as it reduces the splintering effect of parliament with small parties pulling in different directions. Yes Green Party I am talking about you.

    OTOH isn't that what democracy is about? You hit a certain voter threshold so you get funded. I can see why Harper would not like that. Democracy…elections…open dialogue… it's all messiness that IS a distraction to Dear Leader.

  42. Per vote subsidies is a bit of a yawner for me IMO. It may not be such a bad thing to get rid of them as it reduces the splintering effect of parliament with small parties pulling in different directions. Yes Green Party I am talking about you.

    OTOH isn't that what democracy is about? You hit a certain voter threshold so you get funded. I can see why Harper would not like that. Democracy…elections…open dialogue… it's all messiness that IS a distraction to Dear Leader.

  43. You're no Jack Kennedy.

  44. You're no Jack Kennedy.

    • And you're just wasting time.

  45. And you're just wasting time.

  46. "The Ontario government runs thinly-veiled partisan ads all the time".

    Name one. It's a subject of personal and observational professional – not political – interest, so please do tell.

  47. "The Ontario government runs thinly-veiled partisan ads all the time".

    Name one. It's a subject of personal and observational professional – not political – interest, so please do tell.

    • They've run ads on their full time kindergarten program. They've run ads on their Green Belt implementation. They're run ads on their program to provide jobs education. Like I said, they all do it, but the only time you hear any yelling and screaming is when conservatives do it.

      • Granted those are ads. And ads about stuff they'd like people to know they did and are trying to do. But, and here's a caution, every ad proposed by the Government of Ontario, no matter its stripe, currently has to be reviewed by the provincial AG before it even has a chance of being produced. There are certainly ways of 'tailoring' communication to meet 'the letter' if not 'the law'. But it's actually pretty strictly enforced by the AG in Ontario. Unsure as to how it goes with the Feds outside of a writ, but the Ontario rules are probably more strict.

        • I think those rules are just window dressing. You can't legislate against governments advertising their handpicked programs.

          Speaking of Ontario, never can I remember any government at any level using a budget to specifically attack an opposition, yet that's exactly what the McGuinty Liberals did recently against their Conservative opposition. And not a peep from those who blast Harper for being hyper-partisan and not defending his own agenda positively.

          • Budgets are 'pro forma' political documents. In an election year, even more so. If you're sugesting that the last D.O.A . CPC budget was not a 'political document' – campaign platform , even – it has to be regrettably suggested you're being disingenuous at best

          • The McGuinty Liberals attacked – I repeat, they attacked – their opposition on specific budget provisions. Never have I seen that in politics before. Mind you, the same people who attack Harper for being partisan and attacking the opposition didn't say boo when McGuinty pulled this desperate stunt.

          • "I think those rules are just window dressing."

            Of course you do. You're an unabashed partisan.

            And agreed, you most certainly cannot "legislate against governments advertising their handpicked programs". The EA!P, for example. The Harper Government considers this an achievement. So, to them, it's worth $26 M to make that loud and clear to Canadians with taxpayer's dough. (No other gov't would've done otherwise, one suspects.)

            But the Ontario AG rules – put in place to curb the perceived partisan communication excesses of the Harris Gov't – are, believe it or not, pretty constrictive. Effectively so, one might argue.

            As for budgets, c'mon. Name one political party that has not used a budget as a cudgel – whether sheathed in satin, leather or sharp spiky bits – to not subtly (or otherwise) bludgeon their opposition.

          • No, I'm not an "unabashed" partisan. I think governments of all stripes use advertising for partisan purposes. In fact, you're the one who came on here to sell the bill of goods that Ontario doesn't do this kind of stuff when they clearly do. Yes, budgets are partisan, but never as explicitly so as what I saw in Ontario this week.

          • Fine. You're a non-partisan, then. Or an ashamed partisan, Whatever. Nothing's being sold here, Dennis_F, just facts as experienced. If you can offer otherwise, have at it.

            Next.

  48. They've run ads on their full time kindergarten program. They've run ads on their Green Belt implementation. They're run ads on their program to provide jobs education. Like I said, they all do it, but the only time you hear any yelling and screaming is when conservatives do it.

  49. Granted those are ads. And ads about stuff they'd like people to know they did and are trying to do. But, and here's a caution, every ad proposed by the Government of Ontario, no matter its stripe, currently has to be reviewed by the provincial AG before it even has a chance of being produced. There are certainly ways of 'tailoring' communication to meet 'the letter' if not 'the law'. But it's actually pretty strictly enforced by the AG in Ontario. Unsure as to how it goes with the Feds outside of a writ, but the Ontario rules are probably more strict.

  50. I think those rules are just window dressing. You can't legislate against governments advertising their handpicked programs.

    Speaking of Ontario, never can I remember any government at any level using a budget to specifically attack an opposition, yet that's exactly what the McGuinty Liberals did recently against their Conservative opposition. And not a peep from those who blast Harper for being hyper-partisan and not defending his own agenda positively.

  51. Budgets are 'pro forma' political documents. In an election year, even more so. If you're sugesting that the last D.O.A . CPC budget was not a 'political document' – campaign platform , even – it has to be regrettably suggested you're being disingenuous at best

  52. The McGuinty Liberals attacked – I repeat, they attacked – their opposition on specific budget provisions. Never have I seen that in politics before. Mind you, the same people who attack Harper for being partisan and attacking the opposition didn't say boo when McGuinty pulled this desperate stunt.

  53. Why is a donation to the Conservative Party of Canada treated any differently than one to the Canadian Cancer Society?

    ***

    Because the people who want you to give them money to run political parties also wrote the income tax act, and before the per-vote amount it was the ONLY funding mechanism in place, so they really had to encourage it.

  54. 19 million in nets, 1 million for a tugboat for the weekend : )

  55. Kinda said it before but will lay it out again:

    Iggy should find a reduction in both the per-vote and the tax credit which would save MORE total money than the CPCs plan to just eliminate the per-vote, then position himself as the fairer candidate who will save taxpayers even MORE money. Put some restrictions on government advertising and he can come out ahead of Harper on the issue the CPC wants to hit him with!

  56. Kinda said it before but will lay it out again:

    Iggy should find a reduction in both the per-vote and the tax credit which would save MORE total money than the CPCs plan to just eliminate the per-vote, then position himself as the fairer candidate who will save taxpayers even MORE money. Put some restrictions on government advertising and he can come out ahead of Harper on the issue the CPC wants to hit him with!

  57. "I think those rules are just window dressing."

    Of course you do. You're an unabashed partisan.

    And agreed, you most certainly cannot "legislate against governments advertising their handpicked programs". The EA!P, for example. The Harper Government considers this an achievement. So, to them, it's worth $26 M to make that loud and clear to Canadians with taxpayer's dough. (No other gov't would've done otherwise, one suspects.)

    But the Ontario AG rules – put in place to curb the perceived partisan communication excesses of the Harris Gov't – are, believe it or not, pretty constrictive. Effectively so, one might argue.

    As for budgets, c'mon. Name one political party that has not used a budget as a cudgel – whether sheathed in satin, leather or sharp spiky bits – to not subtly (or otherwise) bludgeon their opposition.

  58. No, I'm not an "unabashed" partisan. I think governments of all stripes use advertising for partisan purposes. In fact, you're the one who came on here to sell the bill of goods that Ontario doesn't do this kind of stuff when they clearly do. Yes, budgets are partisan, but never as explicitly so as what I saw in Ontario this week.

  59. Fine. You're a non-partisan, then. Or an ashamed partisan, Whatever. Nothing's being sold here, Dennis_F, just facts as experienced. If you can offer otherwise, have at it.

    Next.

  60. Don't see how the 75% tax credit is any better. In one case, your vote triggers a subsidy coming out of my wallet. In the other, your donation triggers a subsidy, still coming out of my wallet.

    You give $100 to the Tories, and I as a taxpayer have to contribute to giving you $75?

    Ban them all, I say. Tax credit, per-vote subsidies, the whole shebang.

  61. Nice put up! Maintaining this text about free dating not so short is the important thing to retaining readers. Before I even started studying your opinion about singles, I scrolled right down to see how much time it might have taken me to learn it to completion. Quality advice. I enjoyed studying your articles about dating. This is a fairly superior data and I absolutely love it. Please comment back and thanks for sharing your expertise with us!

  62. Nice put up! Maintaining this text about free dating not so short is the important thing to retaining readers. Before I even started studying your opinion about singles, I scrolled right down to see how much time it might have taken me to learn it to completion. Quality advice. I enjoyed studying your articles about dating. This is a fairly superior data and I absolutely love it. Please comment back and thanks for sharing your expertise with us!

Sign in to comment.