The WAR on Science: Thursday, November 21, 2013, 7:00 pm Room 1900, SFU Harbour Ctr
- Thread starter agentaqua
- Start date
- Status
walleyes
Crew Member
The latest polls put it a little closer for the Libs and Cons,, but it usually is around this time. Mostly left wing media driven. In the end people with go with what they know works I trust we will be in a majority house once again. The Prime Minister himself actualy has a 45% approval rating,, good on him, he's a good man.
Again even in the latest polls it's good to see BC going strong PC.
Again even in the latest polls it's good to see BC going strong PC.
Attachments
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/can...-at-committee-with-few-changes-170742883.html
Bill C-51 wraps up at committee with few changes
.By Laura Beaulne-Stuebing | Canada Politics – Wed, 1 Apr, 2015..
Justice Minister Peter MacKay (left), Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Minister Steven Blaney, CSIS director Michel Coulombe and RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson arrive at the Commons public safety committee hearing witnesses on Bill C-51, Anti-terrorism Act on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Tuesday March 10, 2015. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld
Not one of the more than 100 amendments submitted by opposition parties to try and change the government’s much-criticized anti-terror bill were adopted as a House of Commons committee wrapped up its study of the legislation
During a clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-51 that ran late into Tuesday evening, the public safety and national security committee voted down all the amendments proposed by the NDP, Liberals and Green Party.
The bill on the whole was passed in committee with Conservatives and Liberals voting in favour, and the NDP against.
NDP public safety critic Randall Garrison said the Conservatives used their majority on the committee to block any changes.
“I’m frustrated on behalf of Canadians because 45 out of 49 witnesses called for significant changes of the bill and we didn’t get any,” Garrison tells Yahoo Canada News on Wednesday.
The committee began studying C-51 near the beginning of March and sat through, what may have seemed like to some, a lightning speed round of witness testimony.
MPs adopted three minor amendments — the ones tabled by the Conservatives and leaked late last week. The government amendments included changes to the “lawful protest” aspect of the bill, which clarifies CSIS does not have law enforcement powers and puts limitations on Canada’s public safety minister’s ability to direct airlines in efforts to prevent terrorist activities.
When Green leader Elizabeth May unveiled her party’s 60 amendments to C-51 earlier this week, she said the government wasn’t turning its ear to witnesses at committee, but rather listening to polls and public dissatisfaction and distrust of the bill.
While May isn’t a member of the public safety committee, she did sit through hearings and paid close attention to the whirlwind study, and wasn’t happy with the experience. She noted on Twitter that the hearings were the “most offensive I’ve experienced. Today I was accused of favoring terrorists, but not allowed to reply.”
Michael Geist, a professor at the University of Ottawa and well known commentator on Internet and privacy issues, crunched some numbers and provided a tally of witness appearances at the committee. He noted that of the 49 witnesses, only eight were in support of the bill.
“One of the most striking aspects of the hearings was how difficult it was for the government to find expert supporters of the bill,” Geist writes in his blog.
“The role of these commentators was rarely to discuss specifics on the bill,” he continues. “Instead, those groups were often used by Conservative MPs to avoid asking questions of critics of the bill.”
Randall Garrison noted that the NDP tried to sub-amend the government’s amendments — for example, by trying to state clearly in the bill that CSIS would not have detention or rendition powers — but that these were summarily dismissed.
Bill C-51 will be heading back to the House of Commons for report stage, where the NDP plans to try and delete some provisions they find troubling.
“We’ve said all along the two most dangerous things in the bill are the new criminal offence, which is very broad and vague, and the new disruption powers for CSIS,” Garrison says. “So at report stage we can move to delete those parts of the bill and will be doing so.”
Bill C-51 wraps up at committee with few changes
.By Laura Beaulne-Stuebing | Canada Politics – Wed, 1 Apr, 2015..
Justice Minister Peter MacKay (left), Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Minister Steven Blaney, CSIS director Michel Coulombe and RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson arrive at the Commons public safety committee hearing witnesses on Bill C-51, Anti-terrorism Act on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Tuesday March 10, 2015. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld
Not one of the more than 100 amendments submitted by opposition parties to try and change the government’s much-criticized anti-terror bill were adopted as a House of Commons committee wrapped up its study of the legislation
During a clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-51 that ran late into Tuesday evening, the public safety and national security committee voted down all the amendments proposed by the NDP, Liberals and Green Party.
The bill on the whole was passed in committee with Conservatives and Liberals voting in favour, and the NDP against.
NDP public safety critic Randall Garrison said the Conservatives used their majority on the committee to block any changes.
“I’m frustrated on behalf of Canadians because 45 out of 49 witnesses called for significant changes of the bill and we didn’t get any,” Garrison tells Yahoo Canada News on Wednesday.
The committee began studying C-51 near the beginning of March and sat through, what may have seemed like to some, a lightning speed round of witness testimony.
MPs adopted three minor amendments — the ones tabled by the Conservatives and leaked late last week. The government amendments included changes to the “lawful protest” aspect of the bill, which clarifies CSIS does not have law enforcement powers and puts limitations on Canada’s public safety minister’s ability to direct airlines in efforts to prevent terrorist activities.
When Green leader Elizabeth May unveiled her party’s 60 amendments to C-51 earlier this week, she said the government wasn’t turning its ear to witnesses at committee, but rather listening to polls and public dissatisfaction and distrust of the bill.
While May isn’t a member of the public safety committee, she did sit through hearings and paid close attention to the whirlwind study, and wasn’t happy with the experience. She noted on Twitter that the hearings were the “most offensive I’ve experienced. Today I was accused of favoring terrorists, but not allowed to reply.”
Michael Geist, a professor at the University of Ottawa and well known commentator on Internet and privacy issues, crunched some numbers and provided a tally of witness appearances at the committee. He noted that of the 49 witnesses, only eight were in support of the bill.
“One of the most striking aspects of the hearings was how difficult it was for the government to find expert supporters of the bill,” Geist writes in his blog.
“The role of these commentators was rarely to discuss specifics on the bill,” he continues. “Instead, those groups were often used by Conservative MPs to avoid asking questions of critics of the bill.”
Randall Garrison noted that the NDP tried to sub-amend the government’s amendments — for example, by trying to state clearly in the bill that CSIS would not have detention or rendition powers — but that these were summarily dismissed.
Bill C-51 will be heading back to the House of Commons for report stage, where the NDP plans to try and delete some provisions they find troubling.
“We’ve said all along the two most dangerous things in the bill are the new criminal offence, which is very broad and vague, and the new disruption powers for CSIS,” Garrison says. “So at report stage we can move to delete those parts of the bill and will be doing so.”
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/can...-and-debates-over-child-care-5-183505183.html
By Laura Beaulne-Stuebing | Canada Politics – Thu, 2 Apr, 2015..
For the second time in six months, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has introduced a motion in the House of Commons committing Canada to war with the militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Harper is shown rising to vote in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Monday March 30, 2015. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld
For the second time in six months, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has introduced a motion in the House of Commons …
The rest of the spring sitting is looking to be a busy number of weeks. After MPs take a two week recess from April 3 to April 17, it’s full steam ahead for parliamentarians until the House rises at the end of June. All of this, too, with a federal election on the horizon. Here are a few things to watch over the coming months:
Finally, a budget date
Finance Minister Joe Oliver finally announced the date that the federal budget drops this year: April 21. Ottawa has been waiting, and waiting, for the the budget date, which typically comes in February or March, but was delayed this year on account of slumping oil prices and the damage done to Canada’s economy.
“We needed the time to obtain as much information as possible to make reasoned fiscal decisions and receive current forecasts from our independent economic advisors whose projections we rely on,” Oliver told reporters at a press conference in Toronto on Thursday.
The Conservatives have promised to balance the federal government’s books, a difficult task after the Canadian economy took a hit from faltering oil prices.
"Balanced budgets are important because, to the extent you have a deficit, that means more money has to go to paying off debt instead of going for important social programs that Canadians want and need,” Oliver said.
The Bill C-51 saga continues
The Conservative government’s controversial anti-terror bill made its way through committee stage and will be heading back to the House of Commons for report stage.
The committee process was a frustrating experience for many involved — with only a few amendments proposed by the government passing and all amendments submitted by opposition parties getting shot down by the CPC majority public safety committee. The report stage allows for some changes, depending on how the House votes, and the NDP has promised to try and delete some provisions of the bill they find problematic.
Child care, income splitting
Child care is shaping up to be a major election issue. The federal government introduced legislation in late March that will increase monthly universal child care benefit payments, legislation that also allows for hotly-debated income splitting measures.
Employment minister Pierre Poilievre has accused the NDP and Liberals, who support a national child care program, of dismission stay-at-home parents.
“The problem with the NDP, Liberal plan for government day-care is that if you have a stay-at-home parent, you get nothing. If you use a family member, you get nothing. If you use a neighbourhood private day care, you get nothing. If your kids are too old for day care, you get nothing,” Poilievre said last week.
The NDP is by no means a fan of income splitting, and say such a program will only benefit the richest of Canadians. The party has also rolled out a national childcare strategy as an election plank, to create $15 a day child care across the country.
Senate expense audit
After last year’s Senate expense scandal, auditor general Michael Ferguson embarked on an investigation into Senate expenses. The results of his audit are expected to be released by the end of June — and any negative news from the audit will be a boon for the anti-Senate New Democrats, who’ve made the promise of abolishing the Upper Chamber if they formed government.
Mike Duffy on trial
Speaking of Senators, or former Senators … Mike Duffy’s trial is set to begin next week in Ottawa, while MPs are back home in their ridings. The embattled, suspended Senator is on trial for fraud, accused of claiming expenses he was not entitled to, and accused of accepting a bribe — that infamous $90,000 cheque — from Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff Nigel Wright.
No word yet on whether the prime minister will be called to testify, although that’s considered unlikely by many. However the trial, no doubt, will offer much political fodder for Harper’s opponents in the House of Commons.
By Laura Beaulne-Stuebing | Canada Politics – Thu, 2 Apr, 2015..
For the second time in six months, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has introduced a motion in the House of Commons committing Canada to war with the militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Harper is shown rising to vote in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Monday March 30, 2015. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld
For the second time in six months, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has introduced a motion in the House of Commons …
The rest of the spring sitting is looking to be a busy number of weeks. After MPs take a two week recess from April 3 to April 17, it’s full steam ahead for parliamentarians until the House rises at the end of June. All of this, too, with a federal election on the horizon. Here are a few things to watch over the coming months:
Finally, a budget date
Finance Minister Joe Oliver finally announced the date that the federal budget drops this year: April 21. Ottawa has been waiting, and waiting, for the the budget date, which typically comes in February or March, but was delayed this year on account of slumping oil prices and the damage done to Canada’s economy.
“We needed the time to obtain as much information as possible to make reasoned fiscal decisions and receive current forecasts from our independent economic advisors whose projections we rely on,” Oliver told reporters at a press conference in Toronto on Thursday.
The Conservatives have promised to balance the federal government’s books, a difficult task after the Canadian economy took a hit from faltering oil prices.
"Balanced budgets are important because, to the extent you have a deficit, that means more money has to go to paying off debt instead of going for important social programs that Canadians want and need,” Oliver said.
The Bill C-51 saga continues
The Conservative government’s controversial anti-terror bill made its way through committee stage and will be heading back to the House of Commons for report stage.
The committee process was a frustrating experience for many involved — with only a few amendments proposed by the government passing and all amendments submitted by opposition parties getting shot down by the CPC majority public safety committee. The report stage allows for some changes, depending on how the House votes, and the NDP has promised to try and delete some provisions of the bill they find problematic.
Child care, income splitting
Child care is shaping up to be a major election issue. The federal government introduced legislation in late March that will increase monthly universal child care benefit payments, legislation that also allows for hotly-debated income splitting measures.
Employment minister Pierre Poilievre has accused the NDP and Liberals, who support a national child care program, of dismission stay-at-home parents.
“The problem with the NDP, Liberal plan for government day-care is that if you have a stay-at-home parent, you get nothing. If you use a family member, you get nothing. If you use a neighbourhood private day care, you get nothing. If your kids are too old for day care, you get nothing,” Poilievre said last week.
The NDP is by no means a fan of income splitting, and say such a program will only benefit the richest of Canadians. The party has also rolled out a national childcare strategy as an election plank, to create $15 a day child care across the country.
Senate expense audit
After last year’s Senate expense scandal, auditor general Michael Ferguson embarked on an investigation into Senate expenses. The results of his audit are expected to be released by the end of June — and any negative news from the audit will be a boon for the anti-Senate New Democrats, who’ve made the promise of abolishing the Upper Chamber if they formed government.
Mike Duffy on trial
Speaking of Senators, or former Senators … Mike Duffy’s trial is set to begin next week in Ottawa, while MPs are back home in their ridings. The embattled, suspended Senator is on trial for fraud, accused of claiming expenses he was not entitled to, and accused of accepting a bribe — that infamous $90,000 cheque — from Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff Nigel Wright.
No word yet on whether the prime minister will be called to testify, although that’s considered unlikely by many. However the trial, no doubt, will offer much political fodder for Harper’s opponents in the House of Commons.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Let me guess what will be in the new omnibus budget bill.
Changes to Species at Risk Act and Migratory Birds Convention Act.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/energy-industry-letter-suggested-environmental-law-changes-1.1346258
A letter obtained by Greenpeace through access to information laws and passed on to the CBC reveals the oil and gas industry was granted its request that the federal government change a series of environmental laws to advance "both economic growth and environmental performance."
Within 10 months of the request, the industry had almost everything it wanted.
The letter, dated Dec. 12, 2011, was addressed to Environment Minister Peter Kent and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver. It came from a group called the Energy Framework Initiative (EFI), which is made up of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute (now the Canadian Fuels Association) and the Canadian Gas Association.
"The purpose of our letter is to express our shared views on the near-term opportunities before the government to address regulatory reform for major energy industries in Canada," wrote the EFI.
The letter specifically mentions six laws that relate to the oil and gas industry's ability to do its work:
On April 26, 2012, the government introduced the first of its omnibus budget implementation acts which completely re-wrote the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and made major changes to the Fisheries Act and the National Energy Board Act.
On Oct. 18, 2012, the government tabled its second omnibus budget implementation act, which replaced the Navigable Waters Protection Act (one of the oldest pieces of Canadian legislation) with the Navigation Protection Act.
the rest here....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/energy-industry-letter-suggested-environmental-law-changes-1.1346258
Then again... it's election time and they may not want to put gas on the fire even for there friends that think they are entitled.
Changes to Species at Risk Act and Migratory Birds Convention Act.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/energy-industry-letter-suggested-environmental-law-changes-1.1346258
A letter obtained by Greenpeace through access to information laws and passed on to the CBC reveals the oil and gas industry was granted its request that the federal government change a series of environmental laws to advance "both economic growth and environmental performance."
Within 10 months of the request, the industry had almost everything it wanted.
The letter, dated Dec. 12, 2011, was addressed to Environment Minister Peter Kent and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver. It came from a group called the Energy Framework Initiative (EFI), which is made up of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute (now the Canadian Fuels Association) and the Canadian Gas Association.
"The purpose of our letter is to express our shared views on the near-term opportunities before the government to address regulatory reform for major energy industries in Canada," wrote the EFI.
The letter specifically mentions six laws that relate to the oil and gas industry's ability to do its work:
- National Energy Board Act. - Check
- Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. - Check
- Fisheries Act. - Check
- Navigable Waters Protection Act. - Check
- Species at Risk Act. - needs work
- Migratory Birds Convention Act. - needs work
On April 26, 2012, the government introduced the first of its omnibus budget implementation acts which completely re-wrote the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and made major changes to the Fisheries Act and the National Energy Board Act.
On Oct. 18, 2012, the government tabled its second omnibus budget implementation act, which replaced the Navigable Waters Protection Act (one of the oldest pieces of Canadian legislation) with the Navigation Protection Act.
the rest here....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/energy-industry-letter-suggested-environmental-law-changes-1.1346258
Then again... it's election time and they may not want to put gas on the fire even for there friends that think they are entitled.
walleyes
Crew Member
Two in Three (66%) Canadians Support Extension of Canadian Forces Mission against ISIS in Iraq
Two Thirds (65%) Also Support Use of Canadian Ground Forces against ISIS; Eight in Ten (81%) Already Consider Current Mission to be a Combat Mission
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Toronto, ON – In anticipation of the government introducing legislation to extend the length – and possibly the scope – of the Canadian Forces mission against ISIS, a new Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of Global News has found that two in three (66%) Canadians ‘agree’ (27% strongly/39% somewhat) that they ‘support extending the Canadian Forces mission in Iraq against ISIS past its current end date of April 7, 2015’. Conversely, one in three (34%) Canadians ‘disagrees’ (15% strongly/19% somewhat) with extending the mission.
The government has indicated its intension to extend the end date of the current mission against ISIS. What is not yet clear is whether the extension in length would be accompanied by an extension of scope – either using Canadian Forces in a combat mission or possibly expanding operations into Syria.
On the matter of an expansion in scope, two in three (65%) Canadian ‘agree’ (25% strongly/39% somewhat) that they ‘support the use of Canadian Forces on the ground in a combat mission against ISIS in Iraq, down 4 points since the start of February, while one in three (35%) ‘disagree’ (14% strongly/21% somewhat), up 4 points. Moreover, seven in ten (69%) ‘agree’ (31% strongly/38% somewhat) that ‘we should do everything possible to prevent ISIS from getting its own state, even if it means putting Canadian soldiers on the ground in Iraq’, down 4 points, while three in ten (31%) ‘disagree’ (10% strongly/21% somewhat) with this position, up 4 points.
That a majority of Canadians support the use of Canadian troops on the ground against ISIS is not surprising, considering eight in ten (81%) ‘agree’ (30% strongly/51% somewhat) that based on what they’ve seen, read or heard about the current mission, they’d already ‘consider it to be a combat mission’ (down 2 points), while two in ten (19%) ‘disagree’ (5% strongly/13% somewhat) that the current mission constitutes a combat mission, up 2 points.
Despite the tragic death of Canadian soldier Andrew Joseph Doiron in Iraq, Canadians resolve against ISIS remains strong, even if down slightly: three quarters (74%) ‘agree’ (34% strongly/41% somewhat) that they ‘support the use of Canadian Forces Fighter Jets in the international coalition’s airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq’ (down 2 points), while one quarter (26%) ‘disagree’ (9% strongly/16% somewhat) with the mission, up 2 points.
A similar proportion (73%) ‘agrees’ (27% strongly/46% somewhat) that they ‘believe the coalition of allies can win the war against ISIS’, down 5 points, while 27% ‘disagree’ (9% strongly/18% somewhat) that the war against ISIS can be won, up 5 points.
Extension of Mission Supported by Most Canadians…
Overall, 66% support an extension past the current end date, while 34% oppose. The data reveal that a majority of almost demographic group in Canada studied in the poll supports an extension of the current mission:
A majority of Conservative (86%), Liberal (67%) and NDP (56%) voters support extending the current mission against ISIS, but only 38% of Bloc voters support an extension.
Albertans (79%) are the most likely to support the extension, followed by those living in BC (74%), Ontario (70%), Atlantic Canada (71%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (58%) and Quebec (54%).
Men (71%) are more likely than women (62%) to support the extension.
Those aged 55+ (70%) are slightly more likely than those aged 35 to 54 (66%) and 18 to 34 (62%) to support the extension.
Two in Three Support Ground Combat Mission…
Two in three (65%) support the use of Canadian Forces on the ground in a combat mission, while 35% oppose. But some are more likely to support it than others:
Eight in ten (79%) Conservatives support a ground combat mission, compared to fewer Liberal (62%), NDP (59%) and Bloc (56%) voters.
Men (66%) and women (63%) show similar levels of support for a combat mission, as do Canadians aged 18 to 34 (67%) compared with those aged 35 to 54 (64%) and 55+ (63%).
British Columbians (69%) and Albertans (69%) are most likely to support a ground combat mission, followed by those living in Ontario (67%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (66%), Atlantic Canada (64%) and Quebec (56%).
These are some of the findings of an Ipsos Reid poll conducted between March 16 and March 19, 2015, on behalf of Global News. For this survey, a sample of 1,004 Canadians from Ipsos' online panel was interviewed online. Weighting was then employed to balance demographics to ensure that the sample's composition reflects that of the adult population according to Census data and to provide results intended to approximate the sample universe. The precision of Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll is accurate to within +/ - 3.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, had all Canadian adults been polled. The credibility interval will be wider among subsets of the population. All sample surveys and polls may be subject to other sources of error, including, but not limited to coverage error, and measurement error.
Two Thirds (65%) Also Support Use of Canadian Ground Forces against ISIS; Eight in Ten (81%) Already Consider Current Mission to be a Combat Mission
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Toronto, ON – In anticipation of the government introducing legislation to extend the length – and possibly the scope – of the Canadian Forces mission against ISIS, a new Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of Global News has found that two in three (66%) Canadians ‘agree’ (27% strongly/39% somewhat) that they ‘support extending the Canadian Forces mission in Iraq against ISIS past its current end date of April 7, 2015’. Conversely, one in three (34%) Canadians ‘disagrees’ (15% strongly/19% somewhat) with extending the mission.
The government has indicated its intension to extend the end date of the current mission against ISIS. What is not yet clear is whether the extension in length would be accompanied by an extension of scope – either using Canadian Forces in a combat mission or possibly expanding operations into Syria.
On the matter of an expansion in scope, two in three (65%) Canadian ‘agree’ (25% strongly/39% somewhat) that they ‘support the use of Canadian Forces on the ground in a combat mission against ISIS in Iraq, down 4 points since the start of February, while one in three (35%) ‘disagree’ (14% strongly/21% somewhat), up 4 points. Moreover, seven in ten (69%) ‘agree’ (31% strongly/38% somewhat) that ‘we should do everything possible to prevent ISIS from getting its own state, even if it means putting Canadian soldiers on the ground in Iraq’, down 4 points, while three in ten (31%) ‘disagree’ (10% strongly/21% somewhat) with this position, up 4 points.
That a majority of Canadians support the use of Canadian troops on the ground against ISIS is not surprising, considering eight in ten (81%) ‘agree’ (30% strongly/51% somewhat) that based on what they’ve seen, read or heard about the current mission, they’d already ‘consider it to be a combat mission’ (down 2 points), while two in ten (19%) ‘disagree’ (5% strongly/13% somewhat) that the current mission constitutes a combat mission, up 2 points.
Despite the tragic death of Canadian soldier Andrew Joseph Doiron in Iraq, Canadians resolve against ISIS remains strong, even if down slightly: three quarters (74%) ‘agree’ (34% strongly/41% somewhat) that they ‘support the use of Canadian Forces Fighter Jets in the international coalition’s airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq’ (down 2 points), while one quarter (26%) ‘disagree’ (9% strongly/16% somewhat) with the mission, up 2 points.
A similar proportion (73%) ‘agrees’ (27% strongly/46% somewhat) that they ‘believe the coalition of allies can win the war against ISIS’, down 5 points, while 27% ‘disagree’ (9% strongly/18% somewhat) that the war against ISIS can be won, up 5 points.
Extension of Mission Supported by Most Canadians…
Overall, 66% support an extension past the current end date, while 34% oppose. The data reveal that a majority of almost demographic group in Canada studied in the poll supports an extension of the current mission:
A majority of Conservative (86%), Liberal (67%) and NDP (56%) voters support extending the current mission against ISIS, but only 38% of Bloc voters support an extension.
Albertans (79%) are the most likely to support the extension, followed by those living in BC (74%), Ontario (70%), Atlantic Canada (71%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (58%) and Quebec (54%).
Men (71%) are more likely than women (62%) to support the extension.
Those aged 55+ (70%) are slightly more likely than those aged 35 to 54 (66%) and 18 to 34 (62%) to support the extension.
Two in Three Support Ground Combat Mission…
Two in three (65%) support the use of Canadian Forces on the ground in a combat mission, while 35% oppose. But some are more likely to support it than others:
Eight in ten (79%) Conservatives support a ground combat mission, compared to fewer Liberal (62%), NDP (59%) and Bloc (56%) voters.
Men (66%) and women (63%) show similar levels of support for a combat mission, as do Canadians aged 18 to 34 (67%) compared with those aged 35 to 54 (64%) and 55+ (63%).
British Columbians (69%) and Albertans (69%) are most likely to support a ground combat mission, followed by those living in Ontario (67%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (66%), Atlantic Canada (64%) and Quebec (56%).
These are some of the findings of an Ipsos Reid poll conducted between March 16 and March 19, 2015, on behalf of Global News. For this survey, a sample of 1,004 Canadians from Ipsos' online panel was interviewed online. Weighting was then employed to balance demographics to ensure that the sample's composition reflects that of the adult population according to Census data and to provide results intended to approximate the sample universe. The precision of Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll is accurate to within +/ - 3.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, had all Canadian adults been polled. The credibility interval will be wider among subsets of the population. All sample surveys and polls may be subject to other sources of error, including, but not limited to coverage error, and measurement error.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-trial-your-senate-expenses-primer-1.3016647
Mike Duffy trial: Your Senate expenses primer
Suspended senator's trial starts tomorrow, more than 2 years after first reports of misspending surfaced
By Laura Payton, CBC News Posted: Apr 06, 2015 5:00 AM ET| Last Updated: Apr 06, 2015 5:00 AM ET
Mike Duffy faces charges of fraud, bribery and breach of trust. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)
External Links
■CP interactive: Who's who in the Mike Duffy trial
(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)
The long-awaited trial of suspended senator Mike Duffy starts Tuesday. It's been a long road from the initial reports that raised questions about his living-expense claims — and half a lifetime since his arrival on Parliament Hill as an ambitious journalist fresh from the East Coast.
As Duffy finally gets his chance to clear his well-known name, here are seven facts you need to know as his trial begins.
It starts at home
In December 2012, the Ottawa Citizen reported Duffy had claimed more than $33,000 in living expenses for his home and meals in the National Capital Region, despite having lived in Ottawa since the 1970s. Property records also showed Duffy and his wife had bought their home in Kanata, a suburb west of the city's core, more than five years before he was appointed as a senator from Prince Edward Island.
■Mike Duffy's primary home not P.E.I., unedited Senate report says
Senators and MPs who live more than 100 kilometres outside of the National Capital Region are allowed to claim up to $22,000 to cover their accommodation and meals when they're in Ottawa, since they're also expected to maintain a home in the province from which they are appointed — their primary residence.
■CP interactive: Who's who in the Mike Duffy trial
■Who's who in the Senate expense controversy
Senate Wright 20140619
Nigel Wright, former chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, provided the money Duffy used to pay back improperly claimed expenses. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
A primary residence was determined simply by having the senator check a box and sign a declaration, although the Senate internal economy committee requested proof from all members of the Red Chamber after three senators had their primary residences questioned.
Duffy applied for a Prince Edward Island health card just after the committee requested proof of residency.
The National Capital Region includes Ottawa and Gatineau, Que., which is across the Ottawa River from Parliament Hill.
31 charges
It wasn't clear how much Duffy had inappropriately claimed until he announced he had repaid it: $90,124.27.
The initial internal audit kicked off a series of events that eventually ended the political career of Nigel Wright, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, forced Duffy out of the Conservative caucus and then led to his suspension from the Senate and 31 charges against him. Wright resigned after a media report revealed he provided the cash that Duffy used to repay the expenses he'd claimed since he was appointed.
■Watch Mike Duffy's February 2013 interview
Senate Expenses
Conservative Senator Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, member of the internal economy committee, could be called to testify. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)
Aside from the allegation that Duffy illegally claimed Senate expenses to which he wasn't entitled, the RCMP said in court documents that it believes Duffy wrongly paid his friend Gerald Donohue $65,000 for "little or no apparent work."
The charges include:
■One count each of fraud and breach of trust related to his residency expenses.
■Nine counts of fraud and nine counts of breach of trust for expenses unrelated to Senate business.
■Four counts of fraud and four counts of breach of trust related to the awarding of consulting contracts.
■One count each of bribery, frauds on the government and breach of trust related to the $90,000 payment Duffy received from Wright.
Duffy's lawyer says there was no criminal wrongdoing. Duffy told CBC News last July that Canadians will understand once his story is told in court that he hasn't breached the Criminal Code.
Nigel Wright faces no charges
The RCMP said "the evidence gathered [did] not support criminal charges against Mr. Wright," despite charging Duffy for taking the $90,000 Wright offered him. Lawyers told CBC News that it comes down to whether there was a "corrupt intention."
PMO insiders could testify
Some of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's closest former advisers will appear as Crown witnesses at Duffy's trial, including:
■Nigel Wright, Harper's former chief of staff.
■David van Hemmen, Wright's former executive assistant.
■Benjamin Perrin, who acted as the prime minister's lawyer.
None of the men currently works in the Prime Minister's Office.
A number of Conservative senators could be called to testify, including:
■Marjory LeBreton, then government leader in the Senate.
■David Tkachuk, then chair of the internal economy committee.
■Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, member of the internal economy committee.
The Tories knew Duffy wanted money
Conservative Senator Irving Gerstein told the party's supporters in November 2013 that the party declined to pay Duffy's disputed Senate expenses.
Gerstein chairs the Conservative Fund of Canada, the party's fundraising arm, and at the 2013 Conservative convention he said that he told Wright the party wouldn't give Duffy the money.
RCMP court filings allege Gerstein was discussing the possibility of paying back up to $30,000 of Duffy's expenses, but that was the first time anyone from the party mentioned the discussion. It was Duffy who revealed through a speech in the Senate, later backed up with copies of cheques, that the party covered some of his legal expenses.
Gerstein confirmed in the same speech that the fund covered Duffy's legal fees, which came to $12,000 plus HST.
Trial by judge alone
Duffy has chosen to be tried by judge rather than by jury. That's not unusual for a case with heavy media attention where it's thought to be difficult to find a dozen impartial jurors. There are also bound to be technical arguments regarding the Senate spending rules and reams of documents that could be difficult for a jury to follow.
CANADA-POLITICS/
Lawyer Donald Bayne is representing Duffy. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)
Judge Charles Vaillancourt will preside over the hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice, with Mark Holmes and Jason Neubauer acting for the Crown and Donald Bayne appearing on behalf of Duffy.
The trial could last 41 days ... or more
Vaillancourt scheduled 41 days for the proceeding, which is set to run April 7 to May 12 and June 1 to 19. That doesn't mean it will wrap up automatically by June 19: delays are common during trials, so it's possible the case will stretch beyond then.
A look at some of the less familiar faces to appear in the Mike Duffy trial
Former Prime Minister's Office Staff
Nigel Wright
Benjamin Perrin
David van Hemmen
Chris Woodcock
The Senate
Conservative Sen. Marjory LeBreton
Conservative Sen. David Tkachuk
Conservative Sen. Carolyn Stewart Olsen
Chris Montgomery
Gary O'Brien
Nicole Proulx
Duffy Contractors
Gerald Donahue
Ezra Levant
Mike Croskery
Ontario Justice Charles Vaillancourt
Mark Holmes
Jason Neubauer
Donald Bayne
Nigel Wright
Ex-chief of staff to Stephen Harper. Secretly repaid $90,000 of Duffy's contested Senate living expenses in 2013. Back working now for private equity firm Onex, in London.
The Canadian Press
Mike Duffy trial: Your Senate expenses primer
Suspended senator's trial starts tomorrow, more than 2 years after first reports of misspending surfaced
By Laura Payton, CBC News Posted: Apr 06, 2015 5:00 AM ET| Last Updated: Apr 06, 2015 5:00 AM ET
Mike Duffy faces charges of fraud, bribery and breach of trust. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)
External Links
■CP interactive: Who's who in the Mike Duffy trial
(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)
The long-awaited trial of suspended senator Mike Duffy starts Tuesday. It's been a long road from the initial reports that raised questions about his living-expense claims — and half a lifetime since his arrival on Parliament Hill as an ambitious journalist fresh from the East Coast.
As Duffy finally gets his chance to clear his well-known name, here are seven facts you need to know as his trial begins.
It starts at home
In December 2012, the Ottawa Citizen reported Duffy had claimed more than $33,000 in living expenses for his home and meals in the National Capital Region, despite having lived in Ottawa since the 1970s. Property records also showed Duffy and his wife had bought their home in Kanata, a suburb west of the city's core, more than five years before he was appointed as a senator from Prince Edward Island.
■Mike Duffy's primary home not P.E.I., unedited Senate report says
Senators and MPs who live more than 100 kilometres outside of the National Capital Region are allowed to claim up to $22,000 to cover their accommodation and meals when they're in Ottawa, since they're also expected to maintain a home in the province from which they are appointed — their primary residence.
■CP interactive: Who's who in the Mike Duffy trial
■Who's who in the Senate expense controversy
Senate Wright 20140619
Nigel Wright, former chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, provided the money Duffy used to pay back improperly claimed expenses. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
A primary residence was determined simply by having the senator check a box and sign a declaration, although the Senate internal economy committee requested proof from all members of the Red Chamber after three senators had their primary residences questioned.
Duffy applied for a Prince Edward Island health card just after the committee requested proof of residency.
The National Capital Region includes Ottawa and Gatineau, Que., which is across the Ottawa River from Parliament Hill.
31 charges
It wasn't clear how much Duffy had inappropriately claimed until he announced he had repaid it: $90,124.27.
The initial internal audit kicked off a series of events that eventually ended the political career of Nigel Wright, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, forced Duffy out of the Conservative caucus and then led to his suspension from the Senate and 31 charges against him. Wright resigned after a media report revealed he provided the cash that Duffy used to repay the expenses he'd claimed since he was appointed.
■Watch Mike Duffy's February 2013 interview
Senate Expenses
Conservative Senator Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, member of the internal economy committee, could be called to testify. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)
Aside from the allegation that Duffy illegally claimed Senate expenses to which he wasn't entitled, the RCMP said in court documents that it believes Duffy wrongly paid his friend Gerald Donohue $65,000 for "little or no apparent work."
The charges include:
■One count each of fraud and breach of trust related to his residency expenses.
■Nine counts of fraud and nine counts of breach of trust for expenses unrelated to Senate business.
■Four counts of fraud and four counts of breach of trust related to the awarding of consulting contracts.
■One count each of bribery, frauds on the government and breach of trust related to the $90,000 payment Duffy received from Wright.
Duffy's lawyer says there was no criminal wrongdoing. Duffy told CBC News last July that Canadians will understand once his story is told in court that he hasn't breached the Criminal Code.
Nigel Wright faces no charges
The RCMP said "the evidence gathered [did] not support criminal charges against Mr. Wright," despite charging Duffy for taking the $90,000 Wright offered him. Lawyers told CBC News that it comes down to whether there was a "corrupt intention."
PMO insiders could testify
Some of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's closest former advisers will appear as Crown witnesses at Duffy's trial, including:
■Nigel Wright, Harper's former chief of staff.
■David van Hemmen, Wright's former executive assistant.
■Benjamin Perrin, who acted as the prime minister's lawyer.
None of the men currently works in the Prime Minister's Office.
A number of Conservative senators could be called to testify, including:
■Marjory LeBreton, then government leader in the Senate.
■David Tkachuk, then chair of the internal economy committee.
■Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, member of the internal economy committee.
The Tories knew Duffy wanted money
Conservative Senator Irving Gerstein told the party's supporters in November 2013 that the party declined to pay Duffy's disputed Senate expenses.
Gerstein chairs the Conservative Fund of Canada, the party's fundraising arm, and at the 2013 Conservative convention he said that he told Wright the party wouldn't give Duffy the money.
RCMP court filings allege Gerstein was discussing the possibility of paying back up to $30,000 of Duffy's expenses, but that was the first time anyone from the party mentioned the discussion. It was Duffy who revealed through a speech in the Senate, later backed up with copies of cheques, that the party covered some of his legal expenses.
Gerstein confirmed in the same speech that the fund covered Duffy's legal fees, which came to $12,000 plus HST.
Trial by judge alone
Duffy has chosen to be tried by judge rather than by jury. That's not unusual for a case with heavy media attention where it's thought to be difficult to find a dozen impartial jurors. There are also bound to be technical arguments regarding the Senate spending rules and reams of documents that could be difficult for a jury to follow.
CANADA-POLITICS/
Lawyer Donald Bayne is representing Duffy. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)
Judge Charles Vaillancourt will preside over the hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice, with Mark Holmes and Jason Neubauer acting for the Crown and Donald Bayne appearing on behalf of Duffy.
The trial could last 41 days ... or more
Vaillancourt scheduled 41 days for the proceeding, which is set to run April 7 to May 12 and June 1 to 19. That doesn't mean it will wrap up automatically by June 19: delays are common during trials, so it's possible the case will stretch beyond then.
A look at some of the less familiar faces to appear in the Mike Duffy trial
Former Prime Minister's Office Staff
Nigel Wright
Benjamin Perrin
David van Hemmen
Chris Woodcock
The Senate
Conservative Sen. Marjory LeBreton
Conservative Sen. David Tkachuk
Conservative Sen. Carolyn Stewart Olsen
Chris Montgomery
Gary O'Brien
Nicole Proulx
Duffy Contractors
Gerald Donahue
Ezra Levant
Mike Croskery
Ontario Justice Charles Vaillancourt
Mark Holmes
Jason Neubauer
Donald Bayne
Nigel Wright
Ex-chief of staff to Stephen Harper. Secretly repaid $90,000 of Duffy's contested Senate living expenses in 2013. Back working now for private equity firm Onex, in London.
The Canadian Press
http://wcel.org/resources/environmental-law-alert/smoking-gun-who-was-real-author-2012-omnibus-bills
The Smoking Gun: Who was the real author of the 2012 omnibus bills?
11 January, 2013
Kudos to Greenpeace Canada for finding something of a smoking gun exposing the role of the oil and gas industry in the gutting of Canada’s environmental laws. Greenpeace has released a letter from the Energy Framework Initiative (EFI), representing every major oil and gas industry association, asking that the government undertake a major overhaul of six critical environmental statutes that inconvenienced the industry. Five of the statutes have since been replaced or seen major amendments through the dismantling of our country’s environmental safety net s in omnibus bills C-38 and C-45, and further amendments are expected in the near future.
We’ve written before about how the major amendments in Bill C-38 actually singled out the oil and gas industry – giving it special treatment beyond what any other industry in Canada receives:
t may be useful to list, in one place, just how the oil and gas industry – which is getting a number of perks that are unique to the energy sector – is effectively subsidized by the changes to Canada’s environmental laws, and what the implications are for Canadians hoping for responsible regulation of the industry. The industry has been actively lobbying for many of these changes for years, and now they have what they have advocated for.
Now we have another piece of the answer as to how the oil and gas industry came by such special treatment. Greenpeace has an excellent blog post describing the letter and what it tells us about how the Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 environmental changes may have been written.
Simply put, [the Industry] believed that environmental laws were too focused on protecting the environment and they wanted this changed.
In their letter to the Ministers (obtained by Greenpeace under Access to Information legislation), they wrote:
“[W]e believe that the basic approach embodied in existing legislation is out-dated. At the heart of most existing legislation is a philosophy of prohibiting harm; 'environmental' legislation is almost entirely focused on preventing bad things from happening rather than enabling responsible outcomes. This results in a position of adversarial prohibition, rather than enabling collaborative conservation to achieve agreed common goals.”
The oil industry associations explicitly identified the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Species at Risk Act, [the Fisheries Act], the National Energy Board Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act as part of this “out-dated” approach (for more on their preferred approach, see this earlier blog).
The federal government was quick to concur and respond.
Interestingly, the response from the Energy Framework Initiative, when asked by the media about the letter, has been to emphasize that the letter is one piece of correspondence in a long history of lobbying by the industry.
This has been a long process. That’s one letter, that represents one of many engagements with the federal government that we’ve had on this topic. And many other stakeholders have had similar engagements with the government.
In December 2011, about a week after the EFI letter was sent, coincidentally we wrote a blog post on the many meetings between the oil and gas industry lobbyists and the federal government, and the failure of Canada’s English language-media to cover the huge and disproportionate access that the industry has with the government. Just last November a Polaris Institute report further documented this cozy relationship between the oil and gas industry and federal officials, with government officials meeting with that industry 463% more times than environmental organizations.
Of the six statutes listed in that letter from just over one year ago, five have since been amended and some could soon be the subject of further cuts. Some of the low lights of the changes include:
•The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was replaced in Bill C-38 with CEAA 2012, which eliminates thousands of environmental assessments, reduces public involvement and is affecting how environmental assessment is done on the ground.
•If and when the federal Cabinet brings the ‘second stage’ of amendments to the Fisheries Act passed in Bill C-38 into force, protection for fish habitat will be greatly reduced.
•The Species At Risk Act was changed in Bill C-38 to weaken the permitting process that affects endangered or threatened species and Environment Minister Peter Kent has recently promised more significant amendments in the near future.
•The National Energy Board Act was amended in Bill C-38 to allow the federal cabinet to override the National Energy Board’s recommendations with respect to oil pipeline approvals and to exempt the NEB from considering critical habitat of species at risk and many pipeline waterway crossings;
•The Navigable Waters Protection Act was re-written as the Navigation Protection Act in Bill C-45; instead of protecting all navigable rivers, lakes and oceans the new Act only protects a relatively small number that actually appear on a list. What used to function as not only navigation but also environmental protection for tens of thousands of streams and lakes has been eliminated in favour of protecting navigation only on only a handful of water bodies (by way of example – there is no longer federal protection under this Act for any streams or lakes on Vancouver Island).
We have not received word of whether amendments to the Migratory Bird Convention Act are planned.
As we’ve said before, passing laws to placate one industry is going to mean bad laws that don’t protect Canadians. In the short and long run chopping up Canada’s environmental safety net to placate industry harms our environment and the economy,and in the long run it undercuts the social licence of the industry. In the long run, everybody loses.
By Andrew Gage, Staff Lawyer
Photo by jcoterhals used under Creative Commons Licence(CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).
The Smoking Gun: Who was the real author of the 2012 omnibus bills?
11 January, 2013
Kudos to Greenpeace Canada for finding something of a smoking gun exposing the role of the oil and gas industry in the gutting of Canada’s environmental laws. Greenpeace has released a letter from the Energy Framework Initiative (EFI), representing every major oil and gas industry association, asking that the government undertake a major overhaul of six critical environmental statutes that inconvenienced the industry. Five of the statutes have since been replaced or seen major amendments through the dismantling of our country’s environmental safety net s in omnibus bills C-38 and C-45, and further amendments are expected in the near future.
We’ve written before about how the major amendments in Bill C-38 actually singled out the oil and gas industry – giving it special treatment beyond what any other industry in Canada receives:
t may be useful to list, in one place, just how the oil and gas industry – which is getting a number of perks that are unique to the energy sector – is effectively subsidized by the changes to Canada’s environmental laws, and what the implications are for Canadians hoping for responsible regulation of the industry. The industry has been actively lobbying for many of these changes for years, and now they have what they have advocated for.
Now we have another piece of the answer as to how the oil and gas industry came by such special treatment. Greenpeace has an excellent blog post describing the letter and what it tells us about how the Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 environmental changes may have been written.
Simply put, [the Industry] believed that environmental laws were too focused on protecting the environment and they wanted this changed.
In their letter to the Ministers (obtained by Greenpeace under Access to Information legislation), they wrote:
“[W]e believe that the basic approach embodied in existing legislation is out-dated. At the heart of most existing legislation is a philosophy of prohibiting harm; 'environmental' legislation is almost entirely focused on preventing bad things from happening rather than enabling responsible outcomes. This results in a position of adversarial prohibition, rather than enabling collaborative conservation to achieve agreed common goals.”
The oil industry associations explicitly identified the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Species at Risk Act, [the Fisheries Act], the National Energy Board Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act as part of this “out-dated” approach (for more on their preferred approach, see this earlier blog).
The federal government was quick to concur and respond.
Interestingly, the response from the Energy Framework Initiative, when asked by the media about the letter, has been to emphasize that the letter is one piece of correspondence in a long history of lobbying by the industry.
This has been a long process. That’s one letter, that represents one of many engagements with the federal government that we’ve had on this topic. And many other stakeholders have had similar engagements with the government.
In December 2011, about a week after the EFI letter was sent, coincidentally we wrote a blog post on the many meetings between the oil and gas industry lobbyists and the federal government, and the failure of Canada’s English language-media to cover the huge and disproportionate access that the industry has with the government. Just last November a Polaris Institute report further documented this cozy relationship between the oil and gas industry and federal officials, with government officials meeting with that industry 463% more times than environmental organizations.
Of the six statutes listed in that letter from just over one year ago, five have since been amended and some could soon be the subject of further cuts. Some of the low lights of the changes include:
•The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was replaced in Bill C-38 with CEAA 2012, which eliminates thousands of environmental assessments, reduces public involvement and is affecting how environmental assessment is done on the ground.
•If and when the federal Cabinet brings the ‘second stage’ of amendments to the Fisheries Act passed in Bill C-38 into force, protection for fish habitat will be greatly reduced.
•The Species At Risk Act was changed in Bill C-38 to weaken the permitting process that affects endangered or threatened species and Environment Minister Peter Kent has recently promised more significant amendments in the near future.
•The National Energy Board Act was amended in Bill C-38 to allow the federal cabinet to override the National Energy Board’s recommendations with respect to oil pipeline approvals and to exempt the NEB from considering critical habitat of species at risk and many pipeline waterway crossings;
•The Navigable Waters Protection Act was re-written as the Navigation Protection Act in Bill C-45; instead of protecting all navigable rivers, lakes and oceans the new Act only protects a relatively small number that actually appear on a list. What used to function as not only navigation but also environmental protection for tens of thousands of streams and lakes has been eliminated in favour of protecting navigation only on only a handful of water bodies (by way of example – there is no longer federal protection under this Act for any streams or lakes on Vancouver Island).
We have not received word of whether amendments to the Migratory Bird Convention Act are planned.
As we’ve said before, passing laws to placate one industry is going to mean bad laws that don’t protect Canadians. In the short and long run chopping up Canada’s environmental safety net to placate industry harms our environment and the economy,and in the long run it undercuts the social licence of the industry. In the long run, everybody loses.
By Andrew Gage, Staff Lawyer
Photo by jcoterhals used under Creative Commons Licence(CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).
http://www.dennisbevington.ca/pdfs/...l_Implications_for_Canada's_North_Oct2012.pdf
Omnibus Budget Bill C-38
Implications for Canada’s North
Office of Dennis Bevington,
Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic
"Bill C-38 weakens democratic systems and erodes federal accountability to Northerners in the following ways: Gives sweeping powers to ministers and the cabinet in Ottawa; Eliminates oversight of some government agencies and activities; Gives the government more control over what were previously arms-length agencies; Seeks to prevent non-profit organizations from being able to advocate on important issues; and Eliminates important studies about Northern people and the environment that would help inform decision-making"
"SPEAKING OUT: Kevin Page, Parliamentary Budget Officer12
Kevin Page was appointed in 2008, filling a role created by legislation passed in 2006 to fulfill a Conservative election promise of more accountability in government spending. The PBO quickly became a thorn in the side of the Conservative government. Page exposed the skyrocketing cost of Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan and produced far higher estimates of the cost of F-35 fighter jet purchases than the government had done. Page also forecast that spending and corporate tax cuts would lead to a massive deficit, and criticized the government’s approach to keeping financial records.
Nine months after taking office, Page’s budget was cut by one-third (to $1.8 million per year), despite PBO estimates that the office needed $5 million to do its job properly. Conservative members of Parliament and Senators started complaining that Page was “overstepping his mandate,” and demanded that the PBO lose its independent status. The PBO was told it “is not to provide analysis and opinion to parliamentarians such that could be seen to challenge the government of the day.”13 An external legal opinion found that the role of the PBO had been “systematically undermined” by the Conservative government"
Omnibus Budget Bill C-38
Implications for Canada’s North
Office of Dennis Bevington,
Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic
"Bill C-38 weakens democratic systems and erodes federal accountability to Northerners in the following ways: Gives sweeping powers to ministers and the cabinet in Ottawa; Eliminates oversight of some government agencies and activities; Gives the government more control over what were previously arms-length agencies; Seeks to prevent non-profit organizations from being able to advocate on important issues; and Eliminates important studies about Northern people and the environment that would help inform decision-making"
"SPEAKING OUT: Kevin Page, Parliamentary Budget Officer12
Kevin Page was appointed in 2008, filling a role created by legislation passed in 2006 to fulfill a Conservative election promise of more accountability in government spending. The PBO quickly became a thorn in the side of the Conservative government. Page exposed the skyrocketing cost of Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan and produced far higher estimates of the cost of F-35 fighter jet purchases than the government had done. Page also forecast that spending and corporate tax cuts would lead to a massive deficit, and criticized the government’s approach to keeping financial records.
Nine months after taking office, Page’s budget was cut by one-third (to $1.8 million per year), despite PBO estimates that the office needed $5 million to do its job properly. Conservative members of Parliament and Senators started complaining that Page was “overstepping his mandate,” and demanded that the PBO lose its independent status. The PBO was told it “is not to provide analysis and opinion to parliamentarians such that could be seen to challenge the government of the day.”13 An external legal opinion found that the role of the PBO had been “systematically undermined” by the Conservative government"
Last edited by a moderator:
walleyes
Crew Member
Helping Families Prosper
Keeping Taxes Low
Canadians work hard for their money. That is why the Government of Canada has lowered taxes year after year.
For example, the Government has:
•cut the GST from 7% to 5%;
•created Tax-Free Savings Accounts, which now benefit nearly 11 million Canadians;
•reduced the lowest personal income tax rate and increased the basic personal amount;
•introduced pension income splitting for seniors; and
•brought in the children’s arts and fitness tax credits.
Overall, the federal tax burden is at its lowest level in half a century. With a balanced budget now expected in 2015, the Government is providing greater tax relief and increased benefits for Canadian families through four new measures. These new measures, alongside others introduced by the Government since 2006, will provide tax relief and benefits of up to about $6,600 for an average Canadian family of four.
Tax Relief and Benefits for Canadian Families
Proposed new measures to support families include:
•An enhanced Universal Child Care Benefit that would provide an increased benefit of up to $1,920 per year for children under the age of 6, and a new benefit of up to $720 per year for children aged 6 through 17, effective January 1, 2015.
•A $1,000 increase in the maximum dollar amounts that can be claimed under the Child Care Expense Deduction, effective for the 2015 taxation year.
•The Family Tax Cut, a federal non-refundable tax credit of up to $2,000 for couples with children under the age of 18, effective for the 2014 taxation year.
In addition, the Government has doubled the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit to $1,000 and made it refundable, effective for the 2015 and subsequent taxation years. Parents will be able to take advantage of the new $1,000 maximum limit in the spring of 2015 when they file their tax returns for 2014.
Every Canadian family with children under the age of 18 will benefit from these new measures.
An Enhanced Universal Child Care Benefit
In 2006, the Government introduced the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB), which provides all families with $100 per month for each child under the age of 6. The UCCB currently provides direct federal support to approximately 1.7 million families with young children.
The Government is proposing to enhance the UCCB by increasing the benefit to $160 per month from $100 per month. Parents would receive up to $1,920 per year for each child under the age of 6.
The Government is also proposing a new benefit of $60 per month, or up to $720 per year, for children aged 6 through 17.
The enhanced UCCB would replace the existing Child Tax Credit for the 2015 and subsequent taxation years. By replacing the Child Tax Credit with the enhanced UCCB, all families with incomes too low to be taxable, and who cannot take advantage of the Child Tax Credit, would benefit.
How You Can Benefit
Enhanced payments for the UCCB would take effect as of January 2015 and would begin to be reflected in monthly payments to recipients in July 2015. The July 2015 payment would include up to six months of benefits to cover the January to June 2015 period.
To qualify, parents have to complete the Canada Child Benefits Application form. Parents who have already completed this form to access other child-related benefits do not have to re-submit the form, unless their family situation has changed.
An Increase in the Child Care Expense Deduction
The Child Care Expense Deduction (CCED) allows child care expenses incurred to earn employment or business income, pursue education or perform research to be deducted from income for tax purposes. The Government proposes to increase the dollar limits of the CCED by $1,000—i.e., to $8,000 from $7,000 per child under age 7, to $5,000 from $4,000 for each child aged 7 through 16 (and for infirm dependent children over age 16), and to $11,000 from $10,000 for children who are eligible for the Disability Tax Credit.
These changes would apply for the 2015 and subsequent taxation years.
How You Can Benefit
Parents will be able to take advantage of the increased dollar limits for the Child Care Expense Deduction when they file their tax returns for the 2015 taxation year. Parents may claim the deduction for eligible child care expenses incurred to earn employment or business income, pursue education, or perform research. Generally, only the lower-income spouse can claim the deduction.
A New Family Tax Cut
For couples with children under the age of 18, the new Family Tax Cut would allow a spouse to, in effect, transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to a spouse in a lower tax bracket, providing up to a maximum benefit of $2,000. Tax relief is calculated on the basis of the difference in federal tax before and after the effective transfer of income.
How You Can Benefit
The tax relief provided by the Family Tax Cut will be effective for the 2014 and subsequent taxation years, for couples with children under the age of 18. Couples would see the benefit of this new credit starting in the spring of 2015, when they file their tax returns for 2014.
To benefit from the credit, each spouse must file a tax return. Either spouse may claim the credit.
Doubling of the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit
The Government has doubled the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit (CFTC) to $1,000 per child and made it refundable. Making the tax credit refundable ensures that even those who do not earn enough to pay income taxes can benefit from this credit.
The CFTC was introduced by the Government in 2006 to help promote physical fitness among children by making it more affordable for Canadian families to register their kids in fitness activities. The enhancements to the CFTC fulfill a commitment made by the Government in 2011. The CFTC currently provides benefits to 1.4 million families.
How You Can Benefit
Parents will be able to take advantage of the new $1,000 maximum per child limit in the spring of 2015 when they file their tax returns for 2014. Children must have been under 16 years of age (or under 18 years of age if eligible for the Disability Tax Credit) at the beginning of the year in which an eligible expense was paid. To be eligible, expenses must be for registration fees or membership in a prescribed program of physical activity.
Beginning in the 2015 taxation year, the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit will become refundable, increasing benefits to low-income families.
Quick Facts About New Support for Canadian Families
•Every Canadian family with children under the age of 18 will benefit from these new measures.
•An overwhelming majority of these benefits will go to low- and middle-income families.
•Since 2006, all Canadians have benefited from significant tax relief, including a 2-percentage-point reduction in the Goods and Services Tax, broad-based personal income tax relief, the introduction of the Tax-Free Savings Account to help Canadians save, and the introduction of the Working Income Tax Benefit to help ensure that more low-income Canadians are financially better off as a result of getting a job.
The enhancements to the Universal Child Care Benefit, the increase in the Child Care Expense Deduction limits and the new Family Tax Cut are subject to parliamentary approval.
Find out more at ActionPlan.gc.ca
Date modified: 2015-01-07
Keeping Taxes Low
Canadians work hard for their money. That is why the Government of Canada has lowered taxes year after year.
For example, the Government has:
•cut the GST from 7% to 5%;
•created Tax-Free Savings Accounts, which now benefit nearly 11 million Canadians;
•reduced the lowest personal income tax rate and increased the basic personal amount;
•introduced pension income splitting for seniors; and
•brought in the children’s arts and fitness tax credits.
Overall, the federal tax burden is at its lowest level in half a century. With a balanced budget now expected in 2015, the Government is providing greater tax relief and increased benefits for Canadian families through four new measures. These new measures, alongside others introduced by the Government since 2006, will provide tax relief and benefits of up to about $6,600 for an average Canadian family of four.
Tax Relief and Benefits for Canadian Families
Proposed new measures to support families include:
•An enhanced Universal Child Care Benefit that would provide an increased benefit of up to $1,920 per year for children under the age of 6, and a new benefit of up to $720 per year for children aged 6 through 17, effective January 1, 2015.
•A $1,000 increase in the maximum dollar amounts that can be claimed under the Child Care Expense Deduction, effective for the 2015 taxation year.
•The Family Tax Cut, a federal non-refundable tax credit of up to $2,000 for couples with children under the age of 18, effective for the 2014 taxation year.
In addition, the Government has doubled the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit to $1,000 and made it refundable, effective for the 2015 and subsequent taxation years. Parents will be able to take advantage of the new $1,000 maximum limit in the spring of 2015 when they file their tax returns for 2014.
Every Canadian family with children under the age of 18 will benefit from these new measures.
An Enhanced Universal Child Care Benefit
In 2006, the Government introduced the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB), which provides all families with $100 per month for each child under the age of 6. The UCCB currently provides direct federal support to approximately 1.7 million families with young children.
The Government is proposing to enhance the UCCB by increasing the benefit to $160 per month from $100 per month. Parents would receive up to $1,920 per year for each child under the age of 6.
The Government is also proposing a new benefit of $60 per month, or up to $720 per year, for children aged 6 through 17.
The enhanced UCCB would replace the existing Child Tax Credit for the 2015 and subsequent taxation years. By replacing the Child Tax Credit with the enhanced UCCB, all families with incomes too low to be taxable, and who cannot take advantage of the Child Tax Credit, would benefit.
How You Can Benefit
Enhanced payments for the UCCB would take effect as of January 2015 and would begin to be reflected in monthly payments to recipients in July 2015. The July 2015 payment would include up to six months of benefits to cover the January to June 2015 period.
To qualify, parents have to complete the Canada Child Benefits Application form. Parents who have already completed this form to access other child-related benefits do not have to re-submit the form, unless their family situation has changed.
An Increase in the Child Care Expense Deduction
The Child Care Expense Deduction (CCED) allows child care expenses incurred to earn employment or business income, pursue education or perform research to be deducted from income for tax purposes. The Government proposes to increase the dollar limits of the CCED by $1,000—i.e., to $8,000 from $7,000 per child under age 7, to $5,000 from $4,000 for each child aged 7 through 16 (and for infirm dependent children over age 16), and to $11,000 from $10,000 for children who are eligible for the Disability Tax Credit.
These changes would apply for the 2015 and subsequent taxation years.
How You Can Benefit
Parents will be able to take advantage of the increased dollar limits for the Child Care Expense Deduction when they file their tax returns for the 2015 taxation year. Parents may claim the deduction for eligible child care expenses incurred to earn employment or business income, pursue education, or perform research. Generally, only the lower-income spouse can claim the deduction.
A New Family Tax Cut
For couples with children under the age of 18, the new Family Tax Cut would allow a spouse to, in effect, transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to a spouse in a lower tax bracket, providing up to a maximum benefit of $2,000. Tax relief is calculated on the basis of the difference in federal tax before and after the effective transfer of income.
How You Can Benefit
The tax relief provided by the Family Tax Cut will be effective for the 2014 and subsequent taxation years, for couples with children under the age of 18. Couples would see the benefit of this new credit starting in the spring of 2015, when they file their tax returns for 2014.
To benefit from the credit, each spouse must file a tax return. Either spouse may claim the credit.
Doubling of the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit
The Government has doubled the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit (CFTC) to $1,000 per child and made it refundable. Making the tax credit refundable ensures that even those who do not earn enough to pay income taxes can benefit from this credit.
The CFTC was introduced by the Government in 2006 to help promote physical fitness among children by making it more affordable for Canadian families to register their kids in fitness activities. The enhancements to the CFTC fulfill a commitment made by the Government in 2011. The CFTC currently provides benefits to 1.4 million families.
How You Can Benefit
Parents will be able to take advantage of the new $1,000 maximum per child limit in the spring of 2015 when they file their tax returns for 2014. Children must have been under 16 years of age (or under 18 years of age if eligible for the Disability Tax Credit) at the beginning of the year in which an eligible expense was paid. To be eligible, expenses must be for registration fees or membership in a prescribed program of physical activity.
Beginning in the 2015 taxation year, the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit will become refundable, increasing benefits to low-income families.
Quick Facts About New Support for Canadian Families
•Every Canadian family with children under the age of 18 will benefit from these new measures.
•An overwhelming majority of these benefits will go to low- and middle-income families.
•Since 2006, all Canadians have benefited from significant tax relief, including a 2-percentage-point reduction in the Goods and Services Tax, broad-based personal income tax relief, the introduction of the Tax-Free Savings Account to help Canadians save, and the introduction of the Working Income Tax Benefit to help ensure that more low-income Canadians are financially better off as a result of getting a job.
The enhancements to the Universal Child Care Benefit, the increase in the Child Care Expense Deduction limits and the new Family Tax Cut are subject to parliamentary approval.
Find out more at ActionPlan.gc.ca
Date modified: 2015-01-07
walleyes
Crew Member
Canada ranked 4th best country in which to grow old
Global AgeWatch Index
HelpAge International's 2014 Global AgeWatch Index says Canada is the fourth-best country in which to grow old. (HelpAge International / Adam Jones
Andrea Janus
Andrea Janus, CTVNews.ca
Published Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:57PM EDT
Canada is the fourth-best country in which to grow old, while Afghanistan is the worst, according to a new global index, which warns nations that they must work quickly to address the implications of a rapidly aging global population.
The findings are contained in HelpAge International’s 2014 Global AgeWatch Index, the release of which is timed to coincide with the United Nations International Day of Older Persons. Data from the UN Population Fund contributed to the findings.
The Index ranks 96 countries according to the social and economic wellbeing of its citizens over the age of 60 in four key areas: income security, health, personal capacity, and an enabling environment.
This year’s top-10 list is as follows:
• Norway
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• Canada
• Germany
• the Netherlands
• Iceland
• the United States
• Japan
• New Zealand
Canada earned its number-four ranking because it cracked the top-10 in all four of those categories, the report said, including fourth in health.
• Canada ranked 7th in income security on the strength of its public pension program, which most residents over age 65 can access. The prevalence of both employer-sponsored pension plans and individual registered retirement plans also contribute to the strong income security score.
• Canada ranked 8th in capability due to high rates of post-secondary education. Nearly 84 per cent of older Canadians have higher education, which is a whopping 23 percentage points above the average for the region. Higher education “impacts positively on [Canadians’] working life, as well as on their life expectancy,” the report says. A growing number of Canadians have also continued working into their sixties, the report notes. While some have done so for economic reasons, others have delayed retirement “to stay socially connected and active,” the report notes.
• Canada ranked 9th in the “enabling environment” category, with above-average scores for safety, civic freedom and social connectedness. However, it scored below average on satisfaction with public transport. While larger cities have comprehensive public transport systems and offer seniors discounted rates, “most seniors live in areas where the car is the primary form of transportation,” the report says. Seniors with a valid driver’s licence and access to a car are more likely to participate in social and family activities.
There are an estimated 868 million people over the age of 60 living in the world, representing about 12 per cent of the global population. That is expected to jump to 2.02 billion by the year 2050, the report says.
A country’s strong economic performance or growth are not enough to improve older residents’ wellbeing, the report says. Specific policies must be enacted to help address the “implications of aging,” it says.
“The unprecedented rate and speed of population aging presents policy makers with a challenge,” Toby Porter, chief executive of HelpAge International, said in a statement accompanying the report.
“Only if they act now will they have a chance to meet the needs of their citizens and keep their economies going.”
According to the report, the worst place in the world to be over age 60 is Afghanistan, which ranks dead last at number 96 on the list. Mozambique comes in at 95, the West Bank and Gaza sit at number 94, and Malawi is at number 93.
More than one-third of the countries included in the report trail well behind the top countries, the report notes.
Social pensions
The fastest-growing age group is the 80+ demographic, the report says. Those over 80 currently represent 2 per cent of the global population, a figure that will jump to 4 per cent by 2050.
Population aging is happening around the world, but there is a wide disparity between how many of the world’s senior citizens can expect to live beyond 60 and can expect to remain in good health.
Currently, two-thirds of the world’s residents over the age of 60 live in low- and middle-income countries, the report says. That figure will rise to four-fifths by 2050.
“In many countries, life expectancy at 60 is now at least a third more than what it was in the mid-twentieth century,” reads the executive summary accompanying the report.
“However, people’s experiences of later life varies, depending to a large extent on where they live and their circumstances earlier in life.”
This year’s report focused on pensions, and found that only one-in-four people over age 65 in low- and middle-income countries receive a pension.
It notes the rise of taxpayer-funded “social” pensions, whereby a basic regular income is offered to older citizens.
China, Nepal, Thailand, Mexico and Peru are just some of the countries that have introduced social pensions, recognizing that many of their workers don’t hold jobs with employer-sponsored pensions.
• In China, a social pension introduced in 2009 covers 133 million people over the age of 60.
• In Mexico, the growth of social pension plans over the past decade has resulted in nine out of 10 people over age 65 with coverage.
While social pension systems help reduce poverty and inequality, they have other benefits, the report found. In Bolivia, for example, where the Dignity Pension is offered to all residents at age 60, households with at least one older resident report “dramatic increases in school enrolment and falls in child labour.”
For countries keen to move up on next year’s index, the report concludes, guaranteeing older citizens an “adequate minimum income” would be a good place to start
Global AgeWatch Index
HelpAge International's 2014 Global AgeWatch Index says Canada is the fourth-best country in which to grow old. (HelpAge International / Adam Jones
Andrea Janus
Andrea Janus, CTVNews.ca
Published Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:57PM EDT
Canada is the fourth-best country in which to grow old, while Afghanistan is the worst, according to a new global index, which warns nations that they must work quickly to address the implications of a rapidly aging global population.
The findings are contained in HelpAge International’s 2014 Global AgeWatch Index, the release of which is timed to coincide with the United Nations International Day of Older Persons. Data from the UN Population Fund contributed to the findings.
The Index ranks 96 countries according to the social and economic wellbeing of its citizens over the age of 60 in four key areas: income security, health, personal capacity, and an enabling environment.
This year’s top-10 list is as follows:
• Norway
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• Canada
• Germany
• the Netherlands
• Iceland
• the United States
• Japan
• New Zealand
Canada earned its number-four ranking because it cracked the top-10 in all four of those categories, the report said, including fourth in health.
• Canada ranked 7th in income security on the strength of its public pension program, which most residents over age 65 can access. The prevalence of both employer-sponsored pension plans and individual registered retirement plans also contribute to the strong income security score.
• Canada ranked 8th in capability due to high rates of post-secondary education. Nearly 84 per cent of older Canadians have higher education, which is a whopping 23 percentage points above the average for the region. Higher education “impacts positively on [Canadians’] working life, as well as on their life expectancy,” the report says. A growing number of Canadians have also continued working into their sixties, the report notes. While some have done so for economic reasons, others have delayed retirement “to stay socially connected and active,” the report notes.
• Canada ranked 9th in the “enabling environment” category, with above-average scores for safety, civic freedom and social connectedness. However, it scored below average on satisfaction with public transport. While larger cities have comprehensive public transport systems and offer seniors discounted rates, “most seniors live in areas where the car is the primary form of transportation,” the report says. Seniors with a valid driver’s licence and access to a car are more likely to participate in social and family activities.
There are an estimated 868 million people over the age of 60 living in the world, representing about 12 per cent of the global population. That is expected to jump to 2.02 billion by the year 2050, the report says.
A country’s strong economic performance or growth are not enough to improve older residents’ wellbeing, the report says. Specific policies must be enacted to help address the “implications of aging,” it says.
“The unprecedented rate and speed of population aging presents policy makers with a challenge,” Toby Porter, chief executive of HelpAge International, said in a statement accompanying the report.
“Only if they act now will they have a chance to meet the needs of their citizens and keep their economies going.”
According to the report, the worst place in the world to be over age 60 is Afghanistan, which ranks dead last at number 96 on the list. Mozambique comes in at 95, the West Bank and Gaza sit at number 94, and Malawi is at number 93.
More than one-third of the countries included in the report trail well behind the top countries, the report notes.
Social pensions
The fastest-growing age group is the 80+ demographic, the report says. Those over 80 currently represent 2 per cent of the global population, a figure that will jump to 4 per cent by 2050.
Population aging is happening around the world, but there is a wide disparity between how many of the world’s senior citizens can expect to live beyond 60 and can expect to remain in good health.
Currently, two-thirds of the world’s residents over the age of 60 live in low- and middle-income countries, the report says. That figure will rise to four-fifths by 2050.
“In many countries, life expectancy at 60 is now at least a third more than what it was in the mid-twentieth century,” reads the executive summary accompanying the report.
“However, people’s experiences of later life varies, depending to a large extent on where they live and their circumstances earlier in life.”
This year’s report focused on pensions, and found that only one-in-four people over age 65 in low- and middle-income countries receive a pension.
It notes the rise of taxpayer-funded “social” pensions, whereby a basic regular income is offered to older citizens.
China, Nepal, Thailand, Mexico and Peru are just some of the countries that have introduced social pensions, recognizing that many of their workers don’t hold jobs with employer-sponsored pensions.
• In China, a social pension introduced in 2009 covers 133 million people over the age of 60.
• In Mexico, the growth of social pension plans over the past decade has resulted in nine out of 10 people over age 65 with coverage.
While social pension systems help reduce poverty and inequality, they have other benefits, the report found. In Bolivia, for example, where the Dignity Pension is offered to all residents at age 60, households with at least one older resident report “dramatic increases in school enrolment and falls in child labour.”
For countries keen to move up on next year’s index, the report concludes, guaranteeing older citizens an “adequate minimum income” would be a good place to start
http://www.dennisbevington.ca/pdfs/...l_Implications_for_Canada's_North_Oct2012.pdf
Omnibus Budget Bill C-38
Implications for Canada’s North
Office of Dennis Bevington,
Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic
"First, Bill C-38 gives government ministers and the cabinet much more power to make discretionary decisions. Cabinet decisions are made outside the public eye and the records of their discussions are kept confidential, so the public has no means of finding out why decisions were made.
Elements of C-38 that give new discretionary powers to ministers and cabinet:
Changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act mean that in regions offshore of the NWT (and across most of the rest of Canada), the responsible Minister has wide discretion to decide which projects will require an environmental assessment and which will go to the permitting stage right away.
Cabinet gets new powers to overrule both decisions made by the responsible Minister on environmental assessments and decisions made by the arms-length National Energy Board, which include approvals on pipelines and oil and gas activities in the NWT. Even if a project is expected to cause significant adverse effects, cabinet can now declare that these effects are “justified in the circumstances” (sic). This means decisions on environmental protection may be further politicized, and that the rationale for decision-making may not be made public. It is difficult to challenge Cabinet approvals of NEB projects, since applications must be filed within 15 days of the decision’s publication, and there is no opportunity to appear at a hearing.
The responsible Minister can now adopt regulations with broad exemptions – e.g. exempting projects or bodies of water from protections under the Fisheries Act; exempting certain food products from marketing regulations.
The responsible Minister is now charged with setting the criteria to decide what is “suitable employment” or a “reasonable” job search, before allowing someone to access employment insurance
Cabinet will get more control over NWT borrowing: the cabinet will decide how to define borrowing, and what investments the borrowing limit will apply to. This may limit the ability of the GNWT to invest in public infrastructure and alternative energy systems. In some cases, this will force the GNWT to enter into public-private partnerships (P3s) or allow private development and ownership of infrastructure that may otherwise have served as a source of public revenues (eg. airports)."
Omnibus Budget Bill C-38
Implications for Canada’s North
Office of Dennis Bevington,
Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic
"First, Bill C-38 gives government ministers and the cabinet much more power to make discretionary decisions. Cabinet decisions are made outside the public eye and the records of their discussions are kept confidential, so the public has no means of finding out why decisions were made.
Elements of C-38 that give new discretionary powers to ministers and cabinet:
Changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act mean that in regions offshore of the NWT (and across most of the rest of Canada), the responsible Minister has wide discretion to decide which projects will require an environmental assessment and which will go to the permitting stage right away.
Cabinet gets new powers to overrule both decisions made by the responsible Minister on environmental assessments and decisions made by the arms-length National Energy Board, which include approvals on pipelines and oil and gas activities in the NWT. Even if a project is expected to cause significant adverse effects, cabinet can now declare that these effects are “justified in the circumstances” (sic). This means decisions on environmental protection may be further politicized, and that the rationale for decision-making may not be made public. It is difficult to challenge Cabinet approvals of NEB projects, since applications must be filed within 15 days of the decision’s publication, and there is no opportunity to appear at a hearing.
The responsible Minister can now adopt regulations with broad exemptions – e.g. exempting projects or bodies of water from protections under the Fisheries Act; exempting certain food products from marketing regulations.
The responsible Minister is now charged with setting the criteria to decide what is “suitable employment” or a “reasonable” job search, before allowing someone to access employment insurance
Cabinet will get more control over NWT borrowing: the cabinet will decide how to define borrowing, and what investments the borrowing limit will apply to. This may limit the ability of the GNWT to invest in public infrastructure and alternative energy systems. In some cases, this will force the GNWT to enter into public-private partnerships (P3s) or allow private development and ownership of infrastructure that may otherwise have served as a source of public revenues (eg. airports)."
http://www.dennisbevington.ca/pdfs/...l_Implications_for_Canada's_North_Oct2012.pdf
Omnibus Budget Bill C-38
Implications for Canada’s North
Office of Dennis Bevington,
Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic
"Second, Bill C-38 eliminates several oversight mechanisms that were set up to hold the federal government accountable.
Elements of C-38 that eliminate oversight of government agencies / activities:
Abolishes the office of the Inspector General of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS).
Abolishes the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, which was a way to hold the government accountable on its commitment to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cause climate change.
Dissolves the Public Appointments Commission, which was set up to be a watchdog on patronage appointments."
Omnibus Budget Bill C-38
Implications for Canada’s North
Office of Dennis Bevington,
Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic
"Second, Bill C-38 eliminates several oversight mechanisms that were set up to hold the federal government accountable.
Elements of C-38 that eliminate oversight of government agencies / activities:
Abolishes the office of the Inspector General of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS).
Abolishes the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, which was a way to hold the government accountable on its commitment to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cause climate change.
Dissolves the Public Appointments Commission, which was set up to be a watchdog on patronage appointments."
http://www.dennisbevington.ca/pdfs/...l_Implications_for_Canada's_North_Oct2012.pdf
Omnibus Budget Bill C-38
Implications for Canada’s North
Office of Dennis Bevington,
Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic
"Third, Bill C-38 also gives Cabinet more control over agencies that were previously at arms-length from the government.
Elements of C-38 that give Cabinet more control over arms-length agencies:
Cabinet now has the power to appoint the CEO of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.
PPP Canada (Public-Private Partnerships Canada) becomes an agent of the Crown, rather than an arms-length crown corporation. It is mandated to provide incentives for the privatization of public infrastructure."
Omnibus Budget Bill C-38
Implications for Canada’s North
Office of Dennis Bevington,
Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic
"Third, Bill C-38 also gives Cabinet more control over agencies that were previously at arms-length from the government.
Elements of C-38 that give Cabinet more control over arms-length agencies:
Cabinet now has the power to appoint the CEO of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.
PPP Canada (Public-Private Partnerships Canada) becomes an agent of the Crown, rather than an arms-length crown corporation. It is mandated to provide incentives for the privatization of public infrastructure."
http://www.dennisbevington.ca/pdfs/...l_Implications_for_Canada's_North_Oct2012.pdf
Omnibus Budget Bill C-38
Implications for Canada’s North
Office of Dennis Bevington,
Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic
"Fourth, Bill C-38 makes it more difficult for non-profit organizations to speak out and engage the public in the kinds of policy debates that make democracy meaningful.
Ways that C-38 prevents civil society from doing advocacy:
The new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act could block concerned civil society groups from participating in environmental reviews of projects as they had done before in the public interest; instead, only those who are “directly affected” will be allowed to participate in hearings (this is not defined in the Act).
New limits have been placed on non-profit organizations’ sources of funding if they are doing policy advocacy work.
C-38 contains tougher punishment for charitable organizations that are judged to have spent more than 10% of their activities on advocacy, or those that make mistakes on their tax returns. For."
Omnibus Budget Bill C-38
Implications for Canada’s North
Office of Dennis Bevington,
Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic
"Fourth, Bill C-38 makes it more difficult for non-profit organizations to speak out and engage the public in the kinds of policy debates that make democracy meaningful.
Ways that C-38 prevents civil society from doing advocacy:
The new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act could block concerned civil society groups from participating in environmental reviews of projects as they had done before in the public interest; instead, only those who are “directly affected” will be allowed to participate in hearings (this is not defined in the Act).
New limits have been placed on non-profit organizations’ sources of funding if they are doing policy advocacy work.
C-38 contains tougher punishment for charitable organizations that are judged to have spent more than 10% of their activities on advocacy, or those that make mistakes on their tax returns. For."
http://www.dennisbevington.ca/pdfs/en/2012/C38_Report_Final_Implications_for_Canada's_North_Oct2012.pdf[/url]
Omnibus Budget Bill C-38
Implications for Canada’s North
Office of Dennis Bevington,
Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic
"First, C-38 significantly weakens the Fisheries Act by removing important protection for fish habitat and water resources. This endangers the abundant and largely pristine fresh water resources within the NWT as well as trans-boundary watersheds. The NWT currently has very little capacity to replace those federal protections with its own territorial provisions. There is currently no mention in any NWT legislation of fish or fish habitat.
Removal of protections for fish, fish habitat, and water resources in C-38:
Removes from the Fisheries Act the prohibition against the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat (“HADD”).
Removes from the Fisheries Act the prohibition against obstructing fish passage.
The new Fisheries Act only prohibits “serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery.” Essentially, only those fish that are known to have obvious value to people will be considered for protection under the revised Act. “Serious harm” is defined as killing fish or permanently altering or destroying their habitat. This raises questions like what proof is required to show an action has directly caused the death of fish, and whether “temporary” destruction of habitat can be effectively restored to its previous state.
The Minister of Fisheries can create regulations exempting entire projects or bodies of water from the prohibition against serious harm to fisheries. This makes it easier for lakes (including fishing lakes) to be reclassified as toxic dump sites for industrial projects.43
C-38 allows for the downloading of fisheries responsibilities to provinces and territories. However, the federal government has not yet committed any additional resources to help provinces and territories fill the void created by the new version of the Fisheries Act. The GNWT is likely to be particularly challenged, since it has no current legislative foundation to build upon, a small population and limited resources, and a vast region full of lakes and waterways.""
Omnibus Budget Bill C-38
Implications for Canada’s North
Office of Dennis Bevington,
Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic
"First, C-38 significantly weakens the Fisheries Act by removing important protection for fish habitat and water resources. This endangers the abundant and largely pristine fresh water resources within the NWT as well as trans-boundary watersheds. The NWT currently has very little capacity to replace those federal protections with its own territorial provisions. There is currently no mention in any NWT legislation of fish or fish habitat.
Removal of protections for fish, fish habitat, and water resources in C-38:
Removes from the Fisheries Act the prohibition against the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat (“HADD”).
Removes from the Fisheries Act the prohibition against obstructing fish passage.
The new Fisheries Act only prohibits “serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery.” Essentially, only those fish that are known to have obvious value to people will be considered for protection under the revised Act. “Serious harm” is defined as killing fish or permanently altering or destroying their habitat. This raises questions like what proof is required to show an action has directly caused the death of fish, and whether “temporary” destruction of habitat can be effectively restored to its previous state.
The Minister of Fisheries can create regulations exempting entire projects or bodies of water from the prohibition against serious harm to fisheries. This makes it easier for lakes (including fishing lakes) to be reclassified as toxic dump sites for industrial projects.43
C-38 allows for the downloading of fisheries responsibilities to provinces and territories. However, the federal government has not yet committed any additional resources to help provinces and territories fill the void created by the new version of the Fisheries Act. The GNWT is likely to be particularly challenged, since it has no current legislative foundation to build upon, a small population and limited resources, and a vast region full of lakes and waterways.""
http://www.dennisbevington.ca/pdfs/en/2012/C38_Report_Final_Implications_for_Canada's_North_Oct2012.pdf[/url]
Omnibus Budget Bill C-38
Implications for Canada’s North
Office of Dennis Bevington,
Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic
"Second, the federal government has responsibility for ocean health and navigable waterways within the NWT. Bill C-38 removes many of these protections.
Removal of protections for waterways and ocean/coastal health in C-38:
Removes environmental screening for all offshore projects that are not on a “designated project” list (issued in July 2012). Projects that will no longer be checked for environmental impacts include offshore oil and gas exploration and offshore pipelines that are within an area that was previously studied by a review panel (such as the Mackenzie Gas Project Joint Review Panel).
The present one-year limit on permits for disposing of waste at sea can now be renewed four times, as a result of amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
The Coasting Trade Act is changed to allow for more seismic testing, which may result in increased off-shore drilling.
Pipelines and power lines will be exempt from the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This Act regulates the deposit of waste or tailings into waterways as well as infilling and dredging, and protects public access to navigable waterways (e.g. the Mackenzie River).""
Omnibus Budget Bill C-38
Implications for Canada’s North
Office of Dennis Bevington,
Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic
"Second, the federal government has responsibility for ocean health and navigable waterways within the NWT. Bill C-38 removes many of these protections.
Removal of protections for waterways and ocean/coastal health in C-38:
Removes environmental screening for all offshore projects that are not on a “designated project” list (issued in July 2012). Projects that will no longer be checked for environmental impacts include offshore oil and gas exploration and offshore pipelines that are within an area that was previously studied by a review panel (such as the Mackenzie Gas Project Joint Review Panel).
The present one-year limit on permits for disposing of waste at sea can now be renewed four times, as a result of amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
The Coasting Trade Act is changed to allow for more seismic testing, which may result in increased off-shore drilling.
Pipelines and power lines will be exempt from the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This Act regulates the deposit of waste or tailings into waterways as well as infilling and dredging, and protects public access to navigable waterways (e.g. the Mackenzie River).""
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.dennisbevington.ca/pdfs/en/2012/C38_Report_Final_Implications_for_Canada's_North_Oct2012.pdf[/url]
Omnibus Budget Bill C-38
Implications for Canada’s North
Office of Dennis Bevington,
Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic
" Third, C-38 severely weakens the federal Species At Risk Act (SARA). Species found in the NWT that are listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the federal Act include: boreal woodland caribou, wood bison, the peregrine falcon, and the whooping crane.48
Removal of protections for species at risk in C-38:
Changes to the Species At Risk Act mean pipeline projects are specifically exempted from having to protect species at risk (such as boreal caribou) and their habitat.
Species At Risk Act amendments also mean permits on projects threatening critical habitat for species at risk (such as boreal caribou) will be open-ended, instead of having to apply for renewal every three or five years. This means that even if there is a dangerous decline in status of a species at risk, there will be no way to review a permit already granted for a project that may be threatening the species.""
Omnibus Budget Bill C-38
Implications for Canada’s North
Office of Dennis Bevington,
Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic
" Third, C-38 severely weakens the federal Species At Risk Act (SARA). Species found in the NWT that are listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the federal Act include: boreal woodland caribou, wood bison, the peregrine falcon, and the whooping crane.48
Removal of protections for species at risk in C-38:
Changes to the Species At Risk Act mean pipeline projects are specifically exempted from having to protect species at risk (such as boreal caribou) and their habitat.
Species At Risk Act amendments also mean permits on projects threatening critical habitat for species at risk (such as boreal caribou) will be open-ended, instead of having to apply for renewal every three or five years. This means that even if there is a dangerous decline in status of a species at risk, there will be no way to review a permit already granted for a project that may be threatening the species.""
http://www.dennisbevington.ca/pdfs/en/2013/Bill_C-45_Final_Report_English.pdf
Bill C-45: Jobs and Growth Act
(Omnibus Budget Bill)
Implication for Canada’s North
Office of Dennis Bevington, Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic
March 2013
" In 1994, Stephen Harper asked that the Liberal government’s 21-page
omnibus budget bill be thrown out on a point of order. He said that the bill
was “so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in
conflict with their own principles.” He contended that the House committee
charged with evaluating budget bills would lack sufficient time and expertise
to properly assess all of the measures contained in the bill. He urged the
Speaker to carefully consider “this issue of democracy.”3 Eight years later, as
Prime Minister, Stephen Harper shows disdain for Canadian democracy by
pushing two omnibus budget bills through Parliament totalling more than 800
pages and changes to more than 120 laws and regulations..""
Bill C-45: Jobs and Growth Act
(Omnibus Budget Bill)
Implication for Canada’s North
Office of Dennis Bevington, Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic
March 2013
" In 1994, Stephen Harper asked that the Liberal government’s 21-page
omnibus budget bill be thrown out on a point of order. He said that the bill
was “so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in
conflict with their own principles.” He contended that the House committee
charged with evaluating budget bills would lack sufficient time and expertise
to properly assess all of the measures contained in the bill. He urged the
Speaker to carefully consider “this issue of democracy.”3 Eight years later, as
Prime Minister, Stephen Harper shows disdain for Canadian democracy by
pushing two omnibus budget bills through Parliament totalling more than 800
pages and changes to more than 120 laws and regulations..""
- Status