[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Go west - and don't stop in Alberta.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/british-columbias-resilient-economy/article26549819/?service=mobile

[crazy canuck]

And an interesting criticism of the NDP health spending policy.  Makes Mulcair's promise of balanced budgets seem very dubious.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/ndps-prescription-is-mere-rhetoric-and-poor-policy/article26546244/?service=mobile

[viper37]

Lawyers to me.

The NDP has now promised a law to force the CN to repaint Quebec bridge.

Context: Quebec city has 2 bridges to cross the St-Lawrence, the new one is called Pierre Laporte Bridge (Pont Pierre Laporte), the old one was simply named "Bridge of Quebec" (Pont de Québec).

After the CN went private, the bridge was given to them for 1$ by the Liberals, under the condition that they maintain it.  A few years later, the bridge required repainting, due to apparent rust and a look of generalized neglect.  The CN invested a few million$ to repaint the bridge, the Federal government provided some more money and the Provincial government has a deal with the CN concerning the automobile traffic that uses the bridges to cover some of the repair costs, but independant of the structure itself.

Now, after a couple of years of work, the job went overbudget.  The CN claimed it did its faire share of the work, and the contract is has with the Feds does not force them to repaint the bridge for esthetical purpose, only for security, wich they maintain has been done.

The Cons sued them to force them to repaint the bridge, and they lost.

Now, my question: given that there is a contract in place, given that this contract was interpreted in favour of the CN by the tribunals (I don't know if it was Federal court of Supreme Court...), can such a law, as proposed by the NDP be considered valid?  I.e. to modify the previously signed contract and force them to fully repaint the damn bridge?  Also, there are other CN structures in an apparent state of neglect, although the CN insists they are properly secured and do not pose a risk to public security.

I agree that ethically, the CN should do its job and paint the fucking bridge they got for nothing.  But the law has been on their side for now.  So, will this hold the tribunals test when the CN inevitably contest the application of such a law?

[crazy canuck]

Short answer is yes they could do it but not only in relation to that bridge.  It would have to be a regulation that all rail companies maintain their bridges to meet certain standards.

[crazy canuck]

I think I am getting closer to a decision having read the document the Liberals released today.  They propose creating a new tax bracket starting at 200k which will pay 33%.  Generally I think that is reasonable.  But what concerns me is they will make unspecified changes to how small cap companies are taxed.  I think that will be very bad public policy especially since their stated goal is to increase economic growth.  If a business owner has to pay more taxes through their corporation that will reduce the money available to pay workers and invest in the business.  I would feel better if I knew more details about what they want to do.  It could be a radical change which does nothing more than enrich the tax advisor sector as people restructure to adapt to the new legal framework.

[viper37]

Short answer is yes they could do it but not only in relation to that bridge.  It would have to be a regulation that all rail companies maintain their bridges to meet certain standards.

that's what I thought.

[crazy canuck]

Here is analysis of the Liberal plan from a UBC economics prof.

http://blogs.ubc.ca/kevinmilligan/2015/09/26/liberal-fiscal-plan-and-costing/

[viper37]

Here is analysis of the Liberal plan from a UBC economics prof.

http://blogs.ubc.ca/kevinmilligan/2015/09/26/liberal-fiscal-plan-and-costing/

basically, it tells us their plan is not "funky", i.e. if they say they do a 7 billion deficit per year, they do.

[crazy canuck]

It's more than that.  The surprises will be to the upside since they have not factored in extra revenues that may be realized through the infrastructure spending or taxing legalized pot.

[Josephus]

Taxing pot?


Isn't that a tax on young people and those with lower incomes? 

[crazy canuck]

Taxing pot?


Isn't that a tax on young people and those with lower incomes? 

And everyone else who uses it.

[viper37]

It's more than that.  The surprises will be to the upside since they have not factored in extra revenues that may be realized through the infrastructure spending or taxing legalized pot.

I can see it having an effect in Alberta and Saskatchewan, but elsewhere, we are not so dependant on oil that we are in a recession because of falling oil prices.

In the places where infrastructure plans would really matter, job-wise, there will be no federal money.  The money will be spent for the big cities, Montreal-Toronto & Vancouver mainly, which are already operating at near full capacity.  Montreal has a lot of road projects and lots of other public infrastructure work underway, it's all a matter of whose paying, really, not a matter of increasing job.

[crazy canuck]

I don't agree.  See the link above about the BC economy. Yes our economy is growing but not exactly booming.  Plus a lot of people who had been working in Alberta are looking for work elsewhere.  If the infrastructure being planned here is funded we will be able to absorb many of them.  My concern is whether the funding will be provided over the multiple years it will take to construct these projects.

[Barrister]

Today's Nanos poll gives Conservatives 33.0, Liberals 31.6, NDP 26.9.  Something is definitely afoot out there.

http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/20150927%20Ballot%20TrackingE.pdf

[Grey Fox]

Yes, Josephus is basically a political omen.