[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

Looks like the BC right "Reform" playbook may finish up in time for the next election. The BC Conservatives and the BC United are in talks to merge.

If so, it looks like the effect is simply going to be a harder right faction taking over the the BC Liberals, Reform style. Apparently one of the front runners for leadership is a suburban mayor who is leading with "the left is more interested in pronouns than paycheques." Which, you know, isn't really true in BC but I guess it's the zeitgeist.

[viper37]

former immigration minister talks of unsustainable current policies.

By Chris Alexander.

[crazy canuck]

BB posts a full article and then makes the argument that the headline is click bait.  He should read what he posts.  And he should do further reading a lot said and written about the issue since PP made his speech to the police chiefs.

Since then PP has backed down on his commitment.  Or at least has not repeated it.  It appears there is now a disinformation campaign going into try to deny PP even said it.

I trust (and hope) that our parliamentary democracy is going to serve as a bit of a bulwark against the wave of anti-democratic reactionary populism that is currently on the rise in the West.

Our Parliamentary democracy is actually the reason we have the Notwithstanding Clause.  Canada expressly rejected the American model and maintained parliamentary supremacy over political issues.

What worried people about PP's commitment to the police chiefs is he promised to use it in relation to criminal matters.  That would be a big change.

[crazy canuck]

In Ontario a child under 5 has died because of the measles, four more are hospitalized.  All unvaccinated.

[Jacob]

[crazy canuck]

Here is an opinion piece in the Globe about how ill conceived and already out of date the Liberal AI strategy is

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/519974dc5e28f762a87fb14c1570523f4fb873adfcfcb945043907ccc3c41650/TRJ34XB6JRDUZEGWJXXSY5BVTQ/

[Barrister]

Sort of interesting opinion piece by Tom Mulcair.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/tom-mulcair-with-trudeau-spiralling-mark-carney-waits-in-the-wings-1.6894718

Mulcair, a former leader of the federal NDP (but before that a Liberal cabinet member) pretty clearly has an agenda here.  But that agenda is pretty clearly anti-Trudeau, and pro-Mark Carney.

Trudeau is clearly not going anywhere just because Tom Mulcair said so.  But curious to see if we get more public voices saying the same thing.

(and just to be clear - Mulcair has nothing nice to say about the Conservatives either)

[Grey Fox]

He has nothing nice to say about almost anyone. Carney is a rare breed in Mulcair's mouth.

[crazy canuck]

The link must not have worked for me.  I got an interview in which Mulcair was talking about what Canada is doing in the lead up to the American election.  At the end of the interview he was asked about who might win the next Canadian election. And he says it's PP but he notes a lot can change and that is where he mentions Carney and Freedland as possible changes to the calculus.


So stating the obvious.

[viper37]

Sort of interesting opinion piece by Tom Mulcair.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/tom-mulcair-with-trudeau-spiralling-mark-carney-waits-in-the-wings-1.6894718

Mulcair, a former leader of the federal NDP (but before that a Liberal cabinet member)

Provincial Liberal though.

They often go to the same political assemblies, but the links aren't as strong as in other provinces.  You could see a provincial Liberal going for the NPD or the Conservatives at the Federal level.

[Barrister]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/greg-fergus-speaker-conservatives-1.7211706

Interesting article.  It discusses how the Speaker in the Canadian House of Commons has come under increasing partisan attack.  You can read the article itself to decide how much of it is warranted or not (hint - it is at least partially warranted, but reasonable people can disagree about how much).

But anyways, the article suggests following the UK model - that the Speaker not only is not a member of the party caucus, but will then run as an independent during elections - and major parties will decline to run candidates against the speaker.

I like the idea that the speaker should be an independent figure.  The US model, where the speaker is just the leader of the majority party, seems terrible.

But not sure I like the proposed model either - it feels like it disenfranchises everyone in the speaker's riding.

Anyways - thoughts?

[Sheilbh]

It does disenfranchise voters in the Speaker's constituency. They don't get a choice (Farage once ran against a Speaker and did very badly, even for him). On the other hand in terms of constituency casework I imagine any minister would take a case raised by the Speaker very seriously - and given they're always backbenchers that may be a benefit.

Also in the UK a soft tradition that it should kind of alternate, so it's not unusual for a Speaker to come from the opposition. So Michael Martin (Labour) and John Bercow (Tory) both came from the government parties, in different ways, but Betty Boothroyd and Lindsey Hoyle (both Labour) were elected while there's a Tory government. Since 2009, the Commons votes in a secret ballot (as with chairs of select committees), so while there are preferences from the party leadership they can't really whip.

Edit: And also worth saying Speakers basically carry on until they choose to step down (normally as an MP too). In theory the Commons elects one after each election, but in practice I think they've always re-elected the previous Speaker if they still want the job (which they kind of need to to get all the parties to not run against them). So change of government etc makes no difference.

[crazy canuck]

Viper, here is an updated on the bare trust problem this government created, like most of its policies-well intentioned but terrible in implementation.

Karyn Morris was surprised to learn earlier this year that she would have to file a special tax return for trusts. Until this spring, she had no idea she was a trustee.

But Ms. Morris, a 74-year-old retired teacher in Toronto, and her sister had added their names to their 100-year-old mother's investment account so they could help her with paying bills and other routine financial matters. That arrangement, Ms. Morris learned, is considered a so-called bare trust under common law and, for the first time this tax season, required filing a tax return under new federal rules.

Even more surprising was the $1,511 fee they were charged for filing the trust's paperwork by the large accounting firm that usually does their mother's taxes. But most puzzling of all to Ms. Morris was that, according to news reports, this unprecedented and costly tax headache stemmed from rules Ottawa had rolled out to combat money laundering and tax dodging.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT


"They may be trying to catch some big fish but they're just catching a whole bunch of minnows," she recalled telling her friends.

She was among the many ordinary Canadians who found themselves ensnared in what experts say was a federal push for financial transparency that ran up against the reality that, under common law, a trust and other kinds of legal devices can exist even if people such as Ms. Morris had no intention of creating them.

Over the past six months, Ottawa has taken the rare step of walking back on two separate sets of new tax-filing rules – the bare trust requirements and the equally controversial Underused Housing Tax (UHT). Both contained measures to collect more information on trusts and other legal structures, and both backfired in similar ways.

How did this double tax fiasco come to be?

Critics say the responsibility is widespread. Officials at the Department of Finance failed to adequately consider the possible side effects of the new measures for Canadians who hadn't intentionally set up a trust or other legal devices, and the officials pressed ahead despite warnings from tax practitioners. The potential implementation issues entirely escaped legislators' scrutiny when Parliament debated the two bills that contained the measures. And the Canada Revenue Agency did little to spread the word about the new tax obligations or simplify the paperwork for taxpayers with straightforward situations.

Experts have also lambasted the federal government for waiting far too long to reverse course. In the case of bare trusts, the about-face came after a large share – if not most – of the people who were aware that they needed to file had already done so. On the UHT, Ottawa is scrapping tax-reporting requirements that affect Canadians for 2023 and following tax years, but keeping in place an obligation to file for the year 2022, leaving many tax preparers and their clients perplexed.

The dubious exercise cost millions of dollars and countless hours of work for taxpayers, accountants and the government itself.

[crazy canuck]

It does disenfranchise voters in the Speaker's constituency. They don't get a choice (Farage once ran against a Speaker and did very badly, even for him). On the other hand in terms of constituency casework I imagine any minister would take a case raised by the Speaker very seriously - and given they're always backbenchers that may be a benefit.

Also in the UK a soft tradition that it should kind of alternate, so it's not unusual for a Speaker to come from the opposition. So Michael Martin (Labour) and John Bercow (Tory) both came from the government parties, in different ways, but Betty Boothroyd and Lindsey Hoyle (both Labour) were elected while there's a Tory government. Since 2009, the Commons votes in a secret ballot (as with chairs of select committees), so while there are preferences from the party leadership they can't really whip.

Edit: And also worth saying Speakers basically carry on until they choose to step down (normally as an MP too). In theory the Commons elects one after each election, but in practice I think they've always re-elected the previous Speaker if they still want the job (which they kind of need to to get all the parties to not run against them). So change of government etc makes no difference.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/greg-fergus-speaker-conservatives-1.7211706

Interesting article.  It discusses how the Speaker in the Canadian House of Commons has come under increasing partisan attack.  You can read the article itself to decide how much of it is warranted or not (hint - it is at least partially warranted, but reasonable people can disagree about how much).

But anyways, the article suggests following the UK model - that the Speaker not only is not a member of the party caucus, but will then run as an independent during elections - and major parties will decline to run candidates against the speaker.

I like the idea that the speaker should be an independent figure.  The US model, where the speaker is just the leader of the majority party, seems terrible.

But not sure I like the proposed model either - it feels like it disenfranchises everyone in the speaker's riding.

Anyways - thoughts?

I wouldn't want to create new rules because of this inept Speaker.  Put me on the side that thinks this Speaker should step down.

Normally the Speaker takes their responsibilities seriously AND are able to help their constituents.

With most things it is not the rules regarding the role, it is the person who is in the role.

[viper37]

is considered a so-called bare trust under common law

Thanks for the update!

This is likely why this is all news to me.

I was added to my dad's accounts last year, his girlfriend had been for a while too, but we're not under common law.

I failed to consider this.