Tag: Conservatives

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: Ontario bashing

The below, partly about equalization, was probably wrong and has likely changed since, but keeping it for the historical record, I guess.

Dalton McGuinty’s been fighting for a more equitable share of federal resources for a long time now—did you know there was a whole, official Ontario government website on this topic? It was informative. For example, while I already knew that Ontarians got considerably less per-person health care funding than other Canadians, I didn’t realize that Ontarians have to work longer to qualify for EI, and are eligible for fewer weeks of payout.

So twisted is the equalization formula, in fact, that even even if Ontario were to become a poor, “have-not” province, its residents would continue to be net contributors to the system. In other words, if Ontario’s economy were to tank to the extent that it qualified for equalization payments, that additional money would actually come in part from — Ontario.

So no wonder some argue that the system makes Ontario the “patsy” of confederation.

Now, much as I’d like to, I can’t really blame all of this on the Conservatives. They didn’t write all these rules, it is a long-standing problem, and I’ll accept that these things are complicated and expensive and can’t necessarily all be fixed in two years.

I’m just not so sure, given their track record, that they’d start fixing them in the next four years, either.

You will recall Flaherty helpfully saying that Ontario is the “last place” that businesses would want to invest, as though he were any kind of example to follow in tax policy.

And you might not recall this, but they’re also trying to pass Bill C-22, which tries give Ontario less representation in Ottawa. The proposal gives BC and Alberta 1 new federal seat for every 100,000 increase in population, while Ontario gets half that—one new seat per 200,000 increase. Hmm. Couldn’t be because the westerners are more inclined to vote Conservative, is it? No, it just means that McGuinty is a “small man of Confederation”, according to Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan.

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: Income trusts?

You know, I wasn’t going to do this one.

Yes, it was a broken promise. The Conservatives promised not to tax income trusts, and then they did it anyway, basically rendering them extinct by 2011.

But see, I’m not against politicians second-guessing themselves once out of the election heat, really researching the issue, getting advice from experts. And if they determine that their promise really isn’t in the country’s best interest—that it could actually be harmful—then I’m all for them breaking it.

And I actually thought this was one of those cases.

An article by the quite conservative Al Coates, in the KW Record, of all places, caused me to reconsider this.

The rational for banning income trusts—the reason I thought it might have been wise—was to avoid two problems:

  1. Tax leakage, because the trusts pay no corporate tax—all profit go directly to investors.
  2. The “hollowing-out” of corporate Canada—great Canadians corporations being converted into trusts.

But as with so many of the Conservative actions, the decision was a complete surprise to the investors and companies involved. Investors were hurt financially (famously, a lot of seniors), and companies counting on funding from them were left vulnerable.

And Coates argues that the widespread, unintended effect of the decision was this:

Many of those trusts have become takeover targets by giant private-equity players. They are being taken off the map and the radar, folded internally into big pension plans, never again to be seen as income-producing opportunities for Canadians.

Al Coates

He gives the example of BCE, one I’m very familiar with, having relatives living through the nightmare of BCE’s takeover by the Teacher’s Pension Plan.

The buyout will be financed through borrowing and BCE will be taken private, dismantled, chopped into pieces and perhaps sold off in parts. Already, thousands of BCE mid-level jobs have been whacked and there will be more to come. [It’s so true!]

BCE is a cash-flow machine and its free cash will be used to finance the debt. The new owners of BCE—teachers and its American partners—will pay no corporate tax because, in the first place, pension plans don’t pay tax, and for the other buyout partners, there also are offsetting cash-flow and debt-service factors at work. Ottawa will be lucky to see a wooden nickel in ongoing corporate tax proceeds.

Al Coates

I’m so far from an expert in this stuff, it’s not funny. But it sounds like, just maybe, this is not a case of “tough but necessary” decision-making, based on sober second thought and analysis; it could be yet another hasty and myopic decision that will only weaken Canada’s economy in the long run.

And that’s a lot worse than just a broken promise.

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: The GST tax cut

Update from 2023: Of course, this lower GST rate remains in place to this day, 8 years into a Liberal government, with no suggestion of change from any party, far as I know.

An easy one for today: Cutting the GST, a policy so bad it actually united right and left [link removed as no longer valid] in opposition to it.

I think Jeffrey Simpson’s “A triumph of politics over economics” [link removed as no longer valid] summarizes the issue best:

Personal and corporate income tax cuts, as every economist knows, tend to stimulate savings and investment, which is what an economy needs to become more productive and competitive, thereby raising overall living standards. Lower consumption taxes stimulate more—wait for it—consumption, some of which leaks out of the economy in the form of purchasing imports and taking trips abroad.

The GST cut is the triumph of base politics over sensible economics.

Thus far, the Harper government’s tax and spending policies have been deeply disappointing for the country’s competitive position.

The government will have drilled a $10-billion hole in federal revenues through the two-point GST cut that will do nothing for productivity and competitiveness when compared with every other available tax cut, as the economists interviewed by the ROB illustrated this week.

Both policies represented the triumph of politics over economics, and short-term political considerations over long-term economic thinking.

Instead of this nonsense, tax policy should involve raising the GST, introducing carbon taxes, and then offsetting these new revenues by reductions in personal and corporate taxes to make Canada more efficient, competitive, fair and green.

Jeffrey Simpson, Globe and Mail

(And as an aside, CBC’s Marketplace did an interesting story this year where they showed that, in many cases, the GST cut was just swallowed up by rounding, giving more money to the seller and less to the consumer. Examples included movie and theatre tickets, whose “price includes GST” didn’t change a whit as the GST rate did. The companies just made more profit on each ticket.)

Sigh. So more’s the pity that we pretty much stuck with this 5% rate now. Though both the Liberals and the NDP argued against the cut, neither will take the political risk of undoing it (despite Conservative ads claiming the contrary). Only the Greens, bless them, are willing to to pledge to raise the GST back to 6% and use the increase to fund mass transit in cities [link removed as no longer valid].

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: Drive-by arts funding cuts

What do the Conservatives have against arts and culture?

Too many naughty words, maybe?

That was the suspicion behind Bill C-10, which gave give the Heritage Minister the power to deny tax credits retroactively to films or television shows that are “contrary to public policy.” The film Young People Fucking was said to be the impetus for it—or rather, the title of the film was, as few had (or have) actually seen this movie. (My favourite quip in response was that if we’re just judging by title, we better ban Dirty Dancing and see something wholesome like Last Tango in Paris.) What was said to be especially chilling was its “retroactive” nature—since hard-won federal grants could be withdrawn, no one would have the confidence to go ahead with any movie projects.

Given how much attention the Bill eventually got, it’s easy to forget now that the Conservatives snuck it into “a lengthy omnibus bill of technical changes to tax law” — where, for an alarmingly long time, no one noticed it.

And it wasn’t exactly the first time they’d tried something like this. In 2006, a $4.6 million reduction in spending on Canadian museums was buried in a much larger announcement. “The news was a shock to the museum community and particularly the Canadian Museums Association, which thought it had an agreement with the Heritage Ministry for a new museums policy that would be more generous with all museums and provide stable funding.”

Then this summer? When the House wasn’t sitting, when you were on vacation, when arts groups were gearing up their programs for the fall? First up was the $13.7 million cut to programs that support artists’ travel. Then the motherlode—$44.8 million in cuts to five arts programs. With promises of more to come.

Now, there may be defensible reasons for these cuts. Maybe the programs were inefficient. Maybe they were outdated. Maybe they were just great, but were frankly sacrificed on the altar of the stupid GST tax cut and an interest in preventing the deficit from getting any bigger.

We just don’t know. Because the Conservatives haven’t bothered to tell us. They didn’t let it go through debate in Parliament, they didn’t hold a press conference on it, they didn’t consult any experts in the field, they didn’t warn anyone whose livelihood was about to be damaged. They just cut it. Surprise!

“The government has departed from its usual consultative process and cut these programs without warning,” said Stephen Ellis, a board member and former chair of the Canadian Film and Television Production Association and president of Toronto-based Ellis Entertainment Group, an independent TV production company.”

Of course, they are campaigning now, so it’s a little harder to avoid the questions. But just a little. In the Globe and Mail this weekend, Harper mumbled something about these being programs “Canadians don’t want” (when did we say that?), while the Heritage Minister told a CBC reporter they would be redeployed to other areas, though she couldn’t say to what, ran away when pressed, and refused to be interviewed formally on the subject.

That’s the best these spin doctors can do? Wow, now I’m comforted that these cuts were so very well-thought and won’t harm this very important sector of our economy one bit. Aren’t you?

The Liberals, the NDP, and the Green Party have all spoken out against these cuts.

Canadian federal election: Stepping back to survey the week

The most interesting, and heartening, event this week was the Green Party being admitted to the leader’s debate after public protests of the initial exclusion. I heard leader Elizabeth May interviewed on CBC’s The House, and the woman is a breath of fresh air. She’s smart and articulate, but doesn’t hide behind that political “bull” filter that all the other leaders do.

The Conservatives have campaigned effectively this week, and this point certainly look to be on a victorious path. I’m not sure any of their gaffes—the infantile Dion cartoon (I’m just not linking to it), insulting the father of a slain soldier[had link here, but it’s no longer valid]—will really stick. But it certainly highlights to me just how mean and nasty significant parts of the Conservative crowd can be. Why so angry, folks? You’re winning!

The Liberals really weren’t very prominent, getting attention mostly for defending themselves against Conservative attacks. A good defence is important, but they need way more offence. It’s not as though the Conservatives haven’t left them plenty of targets. Start shooting at them, already.

The NDP, on the other hand, I’ve seen a surprising amount of. They’ve run an ad that I think isn’t too bad, though it’s a bit low on specifics. [Had link to this also; also no longer valid.]

I’ll end with some favourite comments from others this week:

But the mystery is: Why did the Harper-Layton-media juggernaut back down here? I never expected it. Jeffrey Simpson says they “misread public opinion,” which “insisted Ms. May be heard.” So what? The public wants lots of things. Usually it’s just ignored.

Rick Salutin, Globe and Mail

But increasingly, Mr. Harper himself looks like a deer frozen in the headlights of onrushing economic and environmental change. He insists now is not the time to risk a new course. But what does he propose?

It sounds more and more as if he is seeking a mandate to do nothing.

Ian Porter, letter to the editor

On some August nights, my father, a professor of economics and a rather conservative man, would phone me (during the cheap hours) to try to explain Stéphane Dion’s plan.

“It’s brilliant,” he’d say. “The cheapest way to lower greenhouse gases. It’ll lower income taxes, which slow growth …”

My father said Stephen Harper must know that it’s a good plan. “He can’t not know. He’s an economist. He’ll have an election before someone finds a way to explain it to the likes of you and his party goes down.”

Tabatha Southey, Globe and Mail

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: Cancelling child care program

Being childfree, this isn’t a big issue for me personally, but from living in the world, I know it’s a big issue.

Back in 2006, the Martin Liberals brought in a national child care program.

Upon taking office, the Harper Conservatives promptly cancelled it, amidst protests of the provinces, and individual citizens, who argued that $100 per child tax credit being offered instead wasn’t enough to help, and that the corporate tax credits weren’t enough to generate the predicted 125,000 new daycare spaces.

This proved prophetic, as the program has yet to create a single new daycare space [edit: I had reference for this at the time, but it’s now a dead link], and the OECD now ranks Canada last amongst industrialized nations in spending on early learning and child care programs.

The reasons the Conservatives gave for giving a tax credit instead of honouring the child care deal was “choice” and “fairness”. Creating daycare spaces helps only those who want their preschool children to have quality daycare; it doesn’t help those who make other choices: staying at home, or using a babysitter or nanny.

Isn’t that rather like saying that governments funding new programs in colleges and universities is unfair, because it doesn’t help young people who make other choices, such as getting a job right out high school, or backpacking through Europe?

In fact, isn’t it exactly like that? Universities and colleges provide post-secondary education. Not everyone attends a post-secondary institution. Still, those are largely tax payer funded. Canadians know that having a well-educated population is beneficial to the country in the long run, and therefore worth funding.

Colleges and universities are optional young adult education opportunities; quality daycare provides optional early childhood educational opportunities. The idea of replacing college/university funding with giving all 18-year-olds $100 a month for their “choice” of education options is clearly absurd.

But that’s exactly the policy the PCs are running on, except for preschool children rather than young adults.

There just aren’t enough daycare spaces in Canada to meet the demand. That is the problem government needs to address. Parents are not, currently, “free to choose” quality child care, because too many of them can’t find it at all, or they can’t afford it when they do (yes, it’s typically quite a bit more than $100 a month). The $1200 credit does you no good whatsoever if all available daycare spaces are gone.

The PC’s have been this week try to “scare” Canadians into thinking the Liberals will cancel the child tax credit; the Liberals have been busy denying it. And adding, in small print that I think should be large headlines, “Liberals do intend to replace the Conservative plan to create child care spaces, because their plan didn’t work.”

So I leave this with a few fast facts on child care in Canada [edit: another reference lost to time. This page was previously full of links!]. It’s from 2004, but unfortunately, I don’t think too much has changed.

  • Estimated amount that work-life conflicts cost Canadian organizations each year in time lost due to work absences: $2.7 Billion
  • Percentage of children aged 3 to 5 whose mothers work in the paid labour force: more than 70%
  • Compared to 12-year-old peers in New Zealand who received top-quality early childhood education, difference in Canadian scores on literacy and numeracy tests: 12 percentage points lower
  • In a 2003 poll, percentage of Canadians who:
  • agreed that Canada should have a nationally co-ordinated child care plan: 90%
  • agreed that there can be a publicly funded child care system that makes quality child care available to all Canadian children: 86%

[Edit: I have no idea what today’s stats are. But (writing this in 2023) the Liberals have been rolling out a funded childcare plan in the last few years. I believe a complaint is that demand exceeds the supply.]

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: Obstructing Parliament

We all knew it was just an excuse, but still, that’s what Harper said: that Parliament had become dysfunctional. That’s why we needed this election.

And if anyone should recognize Parliamentary dysfunction, it’s the Conservatives. After all, they wrote the book on it. Literally. A 200-page manual on making sure your representatives in Ottawa cannot get their jobs done.

The handbook, obtained by National Post columnist Don Martin, reportedly advises chairs on how to promote the government’s agenda, select witnesses friendly to the Conservative party and coach them to give favourable testimony. It also reportedly instructs them on how to filibuster and otherwise disrupt committee proceedings and, if all else fails, how to shut committees down entirely.

Reason of yesterday to not vote Conservative: It’s the deficit, stupid

2023 commentary: Well, this argument has not aged well. Certainly some Conservative governments (like Trump’s) continue to run big deficits, but so do a lot of Liberal ones, including a number cited below. Plus, whether this is such a bad thing is more of a debatable point now, especially with interest that until recently were at record lows. I had more links to sources for these points originally, but of course many no longer work, so I removed them.

Why do people just automatically think that Conservatives, right-wingers, are better at economics? How did they earn such undeserved plaudits?

Because it seems to me, based on evidence of recent years, that what’s most notable about the economic record of conservative governments is the size of their deficits.

Bill Clinton turned Bush Sr.’s $300 billion dollar deficit into a $200 billion surplus, only to have Junior Bush tax-cut and “war against terror” into the biggest deficit in the country’s history.

Ontario’s much-maligned NDP government managed to get to a balanced operating budget in recessionary times, only to have the Harris PC’s turn boom times into the biggest provincial deficit ever. Ontario was brought into the black by McGinty’s Liberals.

And federally? Well, yes, there again, the biggest deficit to date was accrued by the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. It was the Liberals, again, who brought Canadians into their current position of budgetary surpluses.

Until… Federal government runs a $157M deficit in April, May (CBC News, July 2008).

So the Conservatives came in with about a $13 billion surplus, and they have squandered it all.

Leaving us with less nothing in reserve to get through the looming economic downturn.

Cost of Conservative tax cuts and spending: $13 billion and change.

Cost of nevertheless having the reputation of being “best for the economy”: Priceless.

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: Lying about gas taxes

This is from 2008. Re-reading in 2023, I had forgotten that the initial Liberal carbon pricing proposal would have exempted gasoline prices.

Well, I’m very pleased at this breaking news that Elizabeth May of the Green Party will be part of the televised Leaders Debate after all. And in honour of that, let’s look at an environmental issue today.

Monday, I received yet another one of those delightful (🤢), taxpayer-subsidized little Conservative polls in the mail.

This one had a headline from the Vancouver Sun on the front, with a graphic of a car fuel tank: “New 2.3 cent carbon tax sends gas price up a dime in places.” Inside, it says “Just imagine how much Stéphane Dion’s carbon tax will raise the price of gas…”

The Conservatives are lying. Knowing what a hot potato it is, the Liberal Green Shift plan is clear on this point: “This won’t include any extra tax on gasoline at the pump.” The justification for this exemption is that there is already a federal excise tax on car gasoline, set at a rate higher than that proposed for the carbon tax.

There is a debate to have here.

Is it good that diesel and natural gas prices will increase, while car gasoline prices do not? Some environmentalists would said no.

Or, what about getting rid of the excise tax and replacing it with a carbon tax? Some might think that would be a beneficial move for consumers, as gas prices might actually go down initially.

Could be an interesting discussion. Too bad we won’t hear it–because the Liberals will be too busy fighting the Conservative lie that the carbon tax includes gas at the pumps.

Why debate the facts when you can just fudge them, eh? The truth is for wimps.

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: Preventing candidates from speaking to the media

First wrote this in September 8, 2008. This tactic has become considerably worse since. Now they don’t talk to media at all, never mind only waiting for “talking points”, and they routinely skip debates.

This is a small point, but still significant, I think.

Can’t find a link, but CBC Radio reported yesterday that they were not able to interview some new Conservative Party candidates in certain Toronto ridings. Reason? The party specifically instructed them not to speak to the media until they’d sufficiently guided by the party in how to do so. And when would that be? “That’s a good question.”

One can appreciate Harper’s desire not to be embarrassed by candidates who run amok, making homophobic or other inappropriate comments, as has happened in past elections.

But one might suggest that the party try to find better-quality candidates, rather than stifling the lot of them.

Because, it doesn’t matter that not everyone cares who their local candidate is. The fact is, that’s who we vote for to represent us. We have a right to know who they are. The only practical way to find that out is through the press.

If my potential MP sincerely believes the world was created in seven days, I want to know!