Group items tagged

Both leaders are opposed to them, and are promising balanced budgets if elected. But when asked about deficits, separately, on the campaign trail Wednesday, they gave strikingly similar answers. Harper and Mulcair both agreed on the need for stimulus following the Great Recession of 2008-09.

"Back in 2008-2009, we faced two circumstances we do not face today, both of them are important," Harper said in North Bay, Ont., citing the drop in global output and the breakdown in the financial system. "We are nowhere near those kinds of circumstances today," he added. "I do not believe you would run a deficit on purpose if the economy is actually showing growth. Our economy will grow this year and that is why we will keep the budget in balance."

Speaking in Kamloops, B.C., Mulcair said: "We might recall back in 2008 when the worst financial crisis since the 1920s hit, it was obvious then that it was such a true head-on hit to the economy that spending was required and that's what was done." As for the current situation, Mulcair said: "Right now, we are in a recession that's been measured according to the definition accepted here, which is two consecutive quarters of negative growth." Trudeau, meanwhile, said Harper and Mulcair share the same future decision if they have any chance of honouring their balanced budget promises -- budget cuts.

"They want to cut programs and they hope in vain that the same plan that has been in place for the last 10 years will still work and will kick-start the economy," he said in Trois-Rivieres, Que. But the Liberal leader was also forced the defend the budget-cutting that his party undertook in the 1990s when Paul Martin served as former prime minister Jean Chretien's finance minister. Martin made the right decision when he cut provincial transfer payments back then because the Conservatives left the country's books in bad shape, Trudeau said.

"Right now, we have a very different situation where for 10 years, even though we have a very good debt-to-GDP ratio, we can't seem to create growth," Trudeau said. Trudeau said only his plan to run deficits to 2019 and increase infrastructure spending will spur real growth in a slackening economy. "Mr. Harper doesn't understand that in order to grow the economy in the 21st century we need to invest in people and give them the tools they need to succeed," he said.

"Confident, optimistic countries are always willing to invest in their own future rather than believe that cutting is somehow the path to growth and success." Harper and Mulcair disagreed, while still taking shots at each other.

"Proposing a deficit right now with economic growth is a recipe for permanent deficits," Harper said. "It's why we're not going to do it and why I think the country will reject that proposal from the other parties." Mulcair reiterated that the NDP will be able to deliver on its various spending promises by cutting some Conservative initiatives. "We have a plan for investing in infrastructure and housing, but it's all done within the framework of a balanced budget," he said. "Tommy Douglas balanced the budget 17 times in Saskatchewan and still brought in medicare in Canada for the first time."

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair plays street hockey during a federal election campaign stop in Kamloops, B.C.

And what can be said of Mr. Harper's contempt for Canadian scientists? Under his rule, federal expenditures on university research have put Canada near the top of the global rankings for publicly funded research and development. The Conservative Leader clearly believes the state has no place in basic research. Why else would his government give the Canadian Institutes of Health Research $1-billion a year, or provide the Canadian Foundation for Innovation with $1.3-billion to support research infrastructure at postsecondary institutions and hospitals?

Mr. Harper's war on state-funded science includes the $243-million he has promised to fund Canada's participation in the Thirty Meter Telescope project; the extra $45-million awarded this year to the TRIUMF cyclotron particle accelerator; the $105-million committed to enable scientists to collaborate on research through the CANARIE cloud-computing network; and the $15-million promised to the Council of Canadian Academies to conduct "science-based assessments." The GM and Chrysler bailouts set the tone for the Harper government's hard line on corporate welfare. It has been a dry well ever since. Most recently, this unyielding insensitivity toward the pleas of manufacturers has manifested itself in a $300-million loan to Pratt & Whitney Canada to develop jet engines and a $60-million loan to Toyota to upgrade two auto plants in Ontario.

The Harper Tories have shown their disdain toward the Liberal fetish for picking winners by boosting (after renaming) a smorgasbord of industrial policy slush funds, including the $1-billion Strategic Aerospace and Defence Initiative and the Automotive Innovation Fund. The latter's $250-million annual kitty was increased to $500-million a year for two years in the 2014 budget. The Harper government's clean-tech fund, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, has doled out $740-million so far, with hundreds of millions more still to go out the door. No wonder the Liberals and New Democrats have been calling for the state to re-engage with business to boost Canadian innovation. After all, the Tories abdicated their responsibility in this area by conducting the most comprehensive review of federal support for private-sector research in decades and implementing the main recommendations of a 2011 expert panel's report on the matter. The Scientific Research and Experimental Development Tax Credit, which cost $3.5-billion annually and had been subject to much abuse, was scaled back by about $500million - with most of the savings plowed into direct grants to businesses, just as the experts ordered.

It's debatable whether any of this largesse has made Canada's economy more competitive or innovative. No amount of state support can compensate for a lack of vision or guts among businesses. It's not for a lack of trying by Ottawa that innovation policies that seem to work elsewhere aren't replicable here. The state can go only so far to substitute for the private sector's listlessness. To wit, firms in the oil patch are reacting to tough times by cutting R&D, which is exactly the opposite of what they should be doing right now. They should know only innovation can save them.

Now, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is vowing to "invest in Canada" by doubling infrastructure spending, while NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair promises to be a "champion" of manufacturing (subsidies). They have big shoes to fill. Both would be hard-pressed to outdo Mr. Harper, who, if you haven't gleaned by now, has turned out to be as much of a meddler as any Liberal who preceded him.

Under Harper, taxes as a percentage of the economy are at their lowest level in 70 years.

Take public health care, typically at the top of the list of public programs that Canadians deeply value. All seems pretty quiet on the health care front, currently presided over by Rona Ambrose, who previously held other portfolios of little interest to the Harper Conservatives, like the environment, labour and women.

We don’t see much in the way of fireworks over health care these days — no big blow-outs with the premiers, no loud accusations that Stockwell Day and his Canadian Alliance would bring in two-tier medicine. So things must be OK now, right? Well, no.

In reality, two-tier medicine is a virtual certainty if the Conservatives are re-elected

Harper has quietly put in place the mechanism for deep cuts to federal support for public health care. There was, of course, no proclamation pointing that out. His government simply announced, just before Christmas in 2011, that there would be no negotiations to renew the expiring health accord with the provinces.

Harper appears to have figured out how to discreetly undermine and eventually end medicare. This shouldn’t surprise us, since he once headed up the National Citizens Coalition — an organization established in the 1960s with the goal of killing medicare.

Alison Redford struck a cautious tone, saying she always believes that "dialogue really does contribute to the best public policy." However, she added that Alberta was very pleased with the new per-capita funding approach

In an interview with CBC broadcaster Peter Mansbridge, Harper was asked about the premiers' idea of a health innovation fund.

"What I think we all want to see now from the premiers who have the primary responsibility here is what their plan and their vision really is to innovate and to reform and to make sure the health-care system's going to be there for all of us. So I hope that we can put the funding issue aside, and they can concentrate on actually talking about health care."

Pressed by Mansbridge on whether that meant he was saying no, Harper replied: "I'm not looking to spend more money. I think we've been clear what we think is within the capacity of the federal government over a long period of time."

Jean Charest had particularly harsh words for Harper

Charest complained that when medicare was initiated in the 1950s and 1960s, the federal government "drew the provinces in" by picking up 50 per cent of the health-care tab."That was the deal."In 2004, a royal commission led by Roy Romanow proposed that the federal share should be 25 per cent. Currently, it stands at 20 per cent and in a recent report, parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page said that because of Harper's new funding formula, the federal share will continue to slip - perhaps to as low as 11.9 per cent.

"What I think we all want to see now from the premiers, who have the primary responsibility here, is what their plan and their vision really is to innovate and to reform and to make sure the health-care system's going to be there for all of us," Harper said

"So I hope that we can put the funding issue aside, and they can concentrate on actually talking about health care

The idea of a separate fund for the provinces to use for innovation in the delivery of health care got no support from the prime minister.'I'm not looking to spend more money. I think we've been clear what we think is within the capacity of the federal government over a long period of time.'—Prime Minister Stephen Harper"I'm not looking to spend more money. I think we've been clear what we think is within the capacity of the federal government over a long period of time."

as they headed into their talks, none of the premiers ruled out more private, for-profit health care, or the possibility Canadians may not get the same level of service in each and every province.

"The underlying principle is to offer comparable levels of service even if they are different, in such a way that it respects the overall framework of the Canada Health Act," Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger said.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said having room to experiment with health-care delivery isn't a bad thing.

"If it's tied to objectives, where we say we'd like to have everyone having a surgery within three months, and we identify that, in order to do that in the public system, we need to use private clinics, then I think there'll be public support for that," he said.

According to PSAC, the bill authorizes the treasury board to modify collective agreements to remove sick leave and impose a short-and long-term disability plan outside of collective agreements. "This government continues to trample on collective agreements and this will cause irreparable damage to workplaces across this country for generations to come," DeCarolis said. The goal was to make a statement and educate others about Bill C-51's violations to the charter right to collectively bargain. "We're here to show that we will not stand by while our hard-earned charter rights are erased by a stroke of a pen. This bill will set the landmark for union relations in this country."

Other groups like the Windsor Peace Coalition showed resistance to The Anti-Terrorism Act - Bill C-51. "We're here to show that there is broad opposition to a policy of war and aggression abroad with these proposed new laws," said Margaret Villamizar, a spokesperson for the coalition. She said that Canada's involvement in Iraq, Syria and Ukraine doesn't favour Canada and violates the sovereign rights of those nations. A.G. Smith, while bearing a flag for the peace coalition, said there is little difference between how each of these bills will affect Canadians. "There's no security for anyone," Smith said. "You have autoworkers, postal workers - the Harper government is destroying their rights. We will fight until everyone has rights."

The protests come during a two-day visit to Windsor where Harper is expected to name the new international bridge and make an announcement about manufacturing. dwanniarachige@windsorstar.com

Economic Insight Prime Minister Stephen Harper's economic record since taking office in 2006 is at the centre of debate in the current federal election campaign. Arguably his signature achievement is to have radically reduced the fiscal capacity of the federal government, and with it, the broader role of government in advancing the economic and social welfare of Canadians. As labour economists Jim Stanford and Jordan Brennan have shown, the Harper economic record is the worst of any postwar federal government when judged by 16 key macro-economic variables including per capita GDP growth, job creation, unemployment and under-employment, business investment, exports and productivity growth.

Tax cuts have clearly been a much greater priority for the Harper government than investments in programs or services, or balancing the federal budget. Revenues continued to fall after 2008-09 when the government first ran a deficit, mainly as a result of corporate tax cuts. Almost all taxes have been reduced. The general corporate income tax rate has been cut gradually but deeply from 22.1 per cent to 15 per cent, with each one percentage point reduction costing $1.85-billion in lost revenue per year according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The two percentage point cut to the GST introduced in the early days of the government now costs $12.8-billion per year in lost revenues.

With respect to the personal income tax, the government has brought in numerous "boutique" tax credits and deductions, a universal child tax credit, and family income splitting, which mainly benefits more affluent families with children at a cost of $2.2billion a year. While it still costs relatively little, the new system of Tax-Free Savings Accounts now allows for contributions of up to $10,000 a year with no cap on total accumulations. This will eventually all but eliminate taxation of investment income such as capital gains as the assets of the richest Canadians are gradually shifted to tax-free vehicles.

Opinions obviously differ as to the wisdom of specific tax cuts and their impact on economic growth and social justice. The government argues that lower taxes and smaller government underpin a strong economy, while the critics point to the unfair distribution of winners and losers from tax cuts, weak business investment despite corporate tax cuts and the costs of foregone public investments. One thing is clear. A progressive alternative to the Harper government and ambitious investment plans will be possible only if some part of the massively eroded fiscal capacity of the federal government is restored. Andrew Jackson is adjunct research professor in the Institute of Political Economy at Carleton University, and senior policy adviser to the Broadbent Institute.

Harper said the economy is not doing badly and will grow later this year, so the budget must be balanced. "Proposing a deficit right now with economic growth is a recipe for permanent deficits," the prime minister said in North Bay, Ont. "It's why we're not going to do it and why I think the country will reject that proposal from the other parties." But Mulcair insisted his New Democrats won't run deficits either if they win power.

He reiterated that the NDP will be able to deliver on its various spending promises by cutting some Conservative initiatives. "We have a plan for investing in infrastructure and housing, but it's all done within the framework of a balanced budget," Mulcair said in Kamloops, B.C. "Tommy Douglas balanced the budget 17 times in Saskatchewan and still brought in medicare in Canada for the first time." © 2015 Transcontinental Media G.P. All rights reserved. Illustration: • NDP Leader Tom Mulcair plays street hockey during a federal election campaign stop in Kamloops, B.C., on Wednesday.

The average person over 55 enjoys more than $165,000 additional wealth in their homes after inflation compared to 1977. I'm glad my mom accumulated this wealth. But she and I wonder why the federal government prioritized cutting taxes for the aging population. Income splitting for seniors costs $1.1 billion annually. The pension income credit costs $1.1 billion. The "age" tax break for anyone over 65 costs $3 billion.

Then, we must carry larger mortgages, working an extra month to make annual payments compared to a generation ago - even though interest rates are low compared to the 1980s. For many, this crushes dreams of home ownership, while imposing rents driven by higher property prices. The housing market that frustrates younger Canadians has been good for my mom's demographic.

The average cost of housing is up $116,000 after inflation compared to 2005. Housing costs more even as apartments get smaller in our bigger cities. This squeezes younger generations for space, time and money just when we want to start our families. Compared to when Harper began as PM, we must work an extra two to three years to save a 20 per cent down payment.

Not done there, Harper doubled the contribution limit for tax free savings accounts in his election budget. Canadians over 60 are three to five times more likely to max out their TFSAs compared to those 18 to 49. TFSAs shelter deposits from further taxation no matter how well investments pay off.

He also cut $168 million per year in taxes for affluent seniors by changing rules governing registered retirement income funds - at a cost that is greater in one year than the total Harper added to student grants over the next three. Ironically, the opposition accuses Harper of cutting government spending because of his tax cuts. But this isn't accurate. Annual spending on old age security increased by $8 billion after inflation over Harper's decade, and the Canada Health Transfer increased $10 billion. Forty-seven per cent of health-care spending goes to the 16 per cent of the population over 65.

What Harper didn't increase substantially is spending on younger generations. Ottawa contributes to a federal/provincial spending pattern that invests more than $33,000 per person over 65 compared to less than $12,000 per person under 45. This calculation includes the PM's universal child care benefit, and income splitting for one in three families with kids.

Harper's main rivals promise to do better, but don't always budget enough. The NDP talks about $15/day child care. But the $1.9 billion they budget isn't a quarter of what is required. The Liberal platform so far budgets the most of the big three parties for families raising kids. But their promise to extend parental leave by six months is backed by too little money to make a meaningful difference.

By the platform numbers, the national party last in the polls is currently first for proposing more for younger Canadians. The Greens would eliminate tuition for a first post-secondary degree, and reallocate three times more money for child care services than the NDP. The Greens promise more money than other parties for a national housing strategy.

And the Greens are concrete about pricing pollution so that markets ensure younger Canadians aren't primarily left the costs of keeping our air, water, and land clean, while mitigating climate change. No matter which party you prefer, it's time all parties commit Ottawa to reporting how spending breaks down by age, and whether we are leaving at least as much as we inherited.

Although such reporting would cost Ottawa only a little staff time, it is a prerequisite for Canada to work for all generations. Dr. Paul Kershaw is a policy professor at the University of B.C., and Founder of Generation Squeeze (gensqueeze.ca).

Canada's youth faces a precarious financial future thanks to the actions of the federal government, Paul Kershaw writes. • Melissa Renwick/Toronto Star file photo

But ask about the issues that dominate this election, such as the military or fighting terrorists such as ISIS, and Canadians put those in 19th and 20th place - the very bottom! The disconnect between what Canadians prioritize and what politicians emphasize is huge. Simply put, it's syringes, not Syria, that matters most to Canadians. That Canadians put health on top, trumping even defence and terrorism concerns, is no aberration. The pattern consistently holds true in EKOS polls dating back two decades. Any politician clever enough to change gears and campaign on health stands to reap a giant windfall.

Of course, campaigning on health is easier for some parties than others. Ask Canadians who they trust most on health, and they answer the NDP, Liberals and Conservatives in that order - but with each doing a scandalously poor job of articulating their vision for health, the question is somewhat like asking which of Snow White's seven dwarves is the tallest. Only diehard Conservative voters, loyal as always, say that Stephen Harper has improved health care since taking office more than nine years ago. But probe under these knee-jerk, partisan answers by asking about specific actions of the Harper government on health, and a radically different truth emerges.

Canadians of all political stripes - including a majority of Conservatives - disagree with the Harper government's health decisions. Ask Canadians how they feel about the prime minister's refusal to meet with the provincial ministers of health for the last nine years, and they oppose that by a whopping seven-to-one margin. Ask them about cutting funding for the Public Health Agency of Canada, and again the opponents outnumber backers by seven-to-one. Or ask about the Harper government's decision to cut federally funded health research, which is less emotive, and still Canadians deplore this by six-to-one.

These are staggering margins, the sort that pollsters almost never see. That they exist proves the Conservatives have more to lose than gain in a campaign waged on health. Because Conservative voters tend to be older (read: are sicker), a campaign attack that frames the Harper government's actions as the "Death of Medicare" could seismically undermine their base - especially if those long-spurned provincial health ministers piled on.

And Canadians do believe in Medicare, almost as faith. More than three-quarters of those we polled opposed privatization, or letting those with money buy better or faster care. Huge majorities support expanding Medicare to home and community care (81 per cent), psychiatric care (79 per cent) and prescription drugs (77 per cent). The political parties have not wholly ignored these issues, but neither have they dwelled on them.

There are strong electoral lessons here. Certainly any opposition party that wages a negative campaign against the Conservatives' health record has unparalleled room to grow; it is surprising this has not happened already. But the most intriguing result of our poll? By a hair's breadth, most Canadians (50.1 per cent) prefer a coalition to any one party, with a "traffic light coalition" of Reds, Oranges and Greens being the most popular. Astonishingly, those voters feel more comfortable with a coalition running health care than just their preferred party. Could it be ironically true that health is both the most neglected campaign opportunity for each opposition party, and the glue that could bind them in a coalition if none wins? Amir Attaran is a professor in the University of Ottawa's Faculties of Law and Medicine. Frank Graves is a pollster and founder and president of EKOS Research Associates.

The group again blasted the Harper government for not funding abortion-related projects in order to appease its domestic political base.

It reiterated former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's public criticism of that stance during previous visit to Canada, when she said: "You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health, which includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortions."

Unlike Reagan, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has never publicly discussed his "starve-the-beast" plan, but it's pretty clear that that's what he's doing.His former chief of staff, Tom Flanagan, de-scribed it as the prime minister's long-term plan: "First depriving the government of surpluses through cutting taxes . and then it makes it easier to make some expenditure reductions."

Canute, seated at the sea's edge, was making a witty point to flattering courtiers, showing he could do nothing at all to prevent the waters from rising. One might well gain the impression, however, that our present rulers are responsible for making the waters ebb and flow. Take that Economic Action Plan. We taxpayers have forked over well above $100 million just for ads touting the wing of bat and eye of newt that were supposed to work their magic for us and, of course, for the Harper administration as well. But the economy is presently on a serious downturn, largely thanks to the recent precipitous drop in the price of oil, and in the value of our loonie. We shouldn't blame Harper for all that, of course, even if his emphasis on oilsands development has made us somewhat vulnerable to this sort of thing. But let's be consistent. Why should he then reap unqualified praise when the economy is doing well? Not that our leaders are completely helpless, of course. Within limits, they can moderate the harmful effects of downturns, if they so choose. The question really becomes, whose harm should they address? That's what these federal budgets are all about. They aren't mere balance-sheets, but a statement of values and priorities. And here there are real choices to be made.

Reflecting those conflicting moral options, some think-tanks have demanded low corporate taxes, to improve profit margins and encourage investment. Others, currently being audited by the Canada Revenue Agency, want taxes to rise, to pay for quality public services such as food inspection and post-Lac-Mégantic rail safety and a national child care program and the increased demands upon medicare and Canada Pension Plan reform. It's fair to say that this government has chosen its path, and it's not one leading to the door of that "ordinary Canadian." The new budget maintains that direction.

It's a pre-election document, with the flash and dazzle of deficit elimination. But to accomplish that, the government announced spending that won't come fully into force for years, and also made off with two-thirds of the contingency fund - intended for real national emergencies, not political manoeuvring. The much-ballyhooed family income-splitting measure, already making its way through Parliament, stands to benefit the very richest 15 per cent of Canadian families. Now the Tax-Free Savings Account will have the maximum contribution nearly doubled, to $10,000 per year - once again disproportionately benefiting the well-to-do who can afford such contributions, while costing the government billions in revenue losses. Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, we've seen fewer unemployed workers than ever before able to qualify for employment insurance benefits. There is nothing in the budget to remedy this, and no serious job-creation measures to ease unemployment.

Given the current poor health of the economy, the burden of inequality continues to be borne by those Canadians least able to withstand it. The budget, like its predecessors, doesn't even pretend to address that fundamental issue. The "ordinary Canadian," once again, has been left on the sidelines. Nothing new here: move along. John Baglow is an Ottawa writer, researcher and consultant.

The distinction drawn between the procedural advantage now accorded to non-DCO refugee claimants and the disadvantage suffered by DCO refugee claimants ... is discriminatory on its face," wrote Justice Keith M. Boswell in a 118-page decision. "It also serves to further marginalize, prejudice and stereotype refugee claimants from DCO countries which are generally considered safe and 'non-refugee producing.'

"We remain committed to putting the interests of Canadians and the most vulnerable refugees first. Asylum seekers from developed countries such as the European Union or the United States should not benefit from endless appeal processes." The latest court decision means all failed refugee claimants, whether on the list or not, are entitled to appeal negative asylum decisions at the Immigration and Refugee Board's refugee appeal division, better known as the RAD. "This is a very important victory for refugees," said Jared Will, counsel for the refugee lawyers association. "Every refugee deserves to have their claims determined on their own merits."

"This is another Charter loss for the Harper government," noted Lorne Waldman, president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, a party to the legal challenge against the DCO regime. The government said it will appeal the decision and ask the court to set it aside while it is under appeal. "Reforms to our asylum system have been successful resulting in faster decisions and greater protection for those who need it most," said a spokesperson for Immigration Minister Chris Alexander.

This is another example of how the Stephen Harper government "flagrantly" overreaches its authority and disregards the Charter rights, he said, and "the court decision is confirming that." Calling the issues "complex," a spokesperson for the refugee board said it will respect the court ruling and "take the necessary time to examine the decision and its potential impacts." In December 2012, the federal government overhauled the asylum system in order to eliminate the growing backlog and expedite the processing of claims.

Not only do claimants face tighter timelines in filing their claims and scheduling a hearing and removal, those from DCO are ineligible to work for six months, appeal a rejected claim or receive a pre-removal risk assessment within three years after an asylum decision. Three refugee claimants - only identified in court by their initials - challenged the constitutionality of the DCO regime after they were denied asylum and subsequently the opportunity to appeal to the newly established refugee appeal tribunal.

Lawyers for the trio criticized the arbitrariness of the country designation process, arguing the DCO regime subjected some claimants to an "inferior determination process" - and discrimination - by limiting their access to opportunities and benefits that are afforded to others. They also argued that the government's branding of DCO claims as bogus, and the use of refugee statistics to trigger designation, feeds into the stereotype that their fears are less worthy of attention. In its defence, the government contended that it does not draw distinctions among claimants based on their national origin but rather whether they come from regions that are generally safe.

The government said the expedited processing for DCO claims is legitimate and conforms to Canada's international obligation. It explained that it limits the access to an appeal to the RAD only on the basis of a thorough assessment of the country conditions. However, Justice Boswell rejected its arguments: "This is a denial of substantive equality to claimants from DCO countries based upon the national origin of such claimants." He sent all three claims involved in the case to the refugee appeal tribunal for redetermination.