Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

It seems really odd to be bickering on the hardships that a homeless could be facing by talking about GST of all things. Most basic groceries and necessities have GST exempt status.

You know what taxes we have that homeless or addicts use as escapism? Smokes, alcohol. Sin taxes are much more oppressive to the poor yet are the ones who use it the most. Look at the breakdown of taxes.

https://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/taxrates.pdf

Impact of GST on those at the bottom of the poverty line that may not think to file a tax return to get a GST rebate is such an odd virtue signaling grandstanding position to try to make an argument on when there are so many other things that could be done with a far better and direct benefit on their hardships. It's just so inconsequential.

Well if CP’s expert grandstanding virtue signaller says I’m guilty of doing so then it must be true.

Just out of curiosity, in your day to day life do you notice more homeless people buying GST exempt items at the grocery store or buying non exempt food items at a convenience store?

Your argument that it would be more helpful to make booze and cigarettes cheaper for the homeless and addicts is noted.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1649189954801778688

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t even think Dong ever files an actual suit let alone gets to trial even if the last article overreached (which I think you are making a incorrect conclusion from what the G+M said the person in the government said)

Depending on how much you believe he knowingly help students circumvent election law in making him the liberal nominee. It sounds like this was reported to the government. Unless you believe that is also false. Then you need to ask why Vincent Ke isn’t or at least hasnt announced a defamation suit.

Ot why the globe and mail also has published a lot of specific information from the same sources just not the Michael’s part.

So unless Dong wants to under oath testify he didn’t have a role in getting himself nominated then he can never be put under oath.

https://polleyfaith.sharefile.com/sh...tiveCheck=true

To the surprise of nobody Han Dong’s legal team filed their statement of claim today.

[Doctorfever]

Really unfortunate that the low income earners may be impacted hard by the strike.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...ians-newcomers


“Filing taxes is required to access many federal and provincial programs such as carbon tax and GST rebates, income supports and the Alberta Affordability program. According to Vibrant Communities Calgary, up to 40 per cent of income for families living on social assistance is received through benefits accessed through tax returns.

Reid said many low-income families rely on benefits just to pay bills or make rent, and even a one-month interruption could have a major effect. The MNP Consumer Debt Index shows 47 per cent of Alberta households are within $200 of not being able to meet financial obligations each month.”

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Really unfortunate that the low income earners may be impacted hard by the strike.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...ians-newcomers


“Filing taxes is required to access many federal and provincial programs such as carbon tax and GST rebates, income supports and the Alberta Affordability program. According to Vibrant Communities Calgary, up to 40 per cent of income for families living on social assistance is received through benefits accessed through tax returns.

Reid said many low-income families rely on benefits just to pay bills or make rent, and even a one-month interruption could have a major effect. The MNP Consumer Debt Index shows 47 per cent of Alberta households are within $200 of not being able to meet financial obligations each month.”

Yeah.

The thing is, a lot of low-income individuals use free local tax-filing programs, whether its through their Community associations or other community or Seniors facilities.

And thats fine for the most part, those are generally easy tax returns, etc. But those organizations tend to prepare those taxes and then....mail them in.

In my community I've sent out information that I'm trying to help, because I can send the returns in through my electronic registration which means they're processed automatically, whereas if they're mailed in then an actual human needs to deal with it.

And at the moment there are no actual humans dealing with it.

[Superflyer]

Twitter removes ‘government funded’ labels on CBC and other news organizations

Guess it was not as big of a deal as originally thought.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

https://polleyfaith.sharefile.com/sh...tiveCheck=true

To the surprise of nobody Han Dong’s legal team filed their statement of claim today.

I think a key thing to note here is it’s for both the February 23rd election interference article and the March two Michael’s articles.

I still doubt he ever goes under oath.

[opendoor]

Even if everything in the articles is true, the reporting was pretty sloppy. For one, they never clarified whether their sources had actually seen a transcript (or heard the recording) or whether it was just 2nd hand information. Since they didn't say either way, I'm assuming the latter.

The busing foreign students in from outside the riding to vote claim also didn't seem to garner much critical analysis by the journalists either. As the Statement of Claim lays out, the process for voting in a party nomination election is that you have to register with the party at least a week before the vote while providing your address, registrants can then be scrutinized by candidates' teams to check for irregularities, and then when you vote you need to have ID showing that you live at the address you provided. It's pretty unclear to me how busloads of students from out of the riding could achieve that without being noticed, but the reporters don't even address that.

And then there's the big thing where Dong is alleged to have suggested that releasing Kovrig and Spavor sooner would help the Conservatives. But none of the articles ever address how little sense that makes.


Also interesting is how he's responding to the specific allegations. He admits that his campaign provided bus transportation for seniors to vote for him and that because they largely don't speak or read English, that they were told where his name would appear on the ballot. But he says that's a normal procedure for campaigns. Maybe that's true, and it doesn't take a leap of logic to think that some may have written his name down so they'd recognize it. Maybe a little sketchy, but I'm not sure that implies some kind of Chinese government involvement.

For the call, he says that it took place in a "specific cultural context and in Mandarin" which intelligence sources could easily misinterpret. I've seen some speculation that Dong thinks that a mistranslation could be behind it. For instance "absolutely necessary" in Dong's southern dialect would sound a lot like "unnecessary" in a northern dialect (which a translator would likely be more familiar with). Now that's just speculation, but it seems like that's the kind of thing he's getting at. Or perhaps he did say what is alleged, but is trying to suggest that there's some cultural factor going on that would put those words in a better light (though that doesn't seem particularly convincing on its face).

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah.

The thing is, a lot of low-income individuals use free local tax-filing programs, whether its through their Community associations or other community or Seniors facilities.

And thats fine for the most part, those are generally easy tax returns, etc. But those organizations tend to prepare those taxes and then....mail them in.

In my community I've sent out information that I'm trying to help, because I can send the returns in through my electronic registration which means they're processed automatically, whereas if they're mailed in then an actual human needs to deal with it.

And at the moment there are no actual humans dealing with it.

Many very low income people do the early file and get their cheques from tax place immediately (at some ridiculous fee).

That said - i'm sure a lot of seniors do wait and use the free volunteers

[Firebot]

Sounds to me based on the statement of claim like the lawyers (and Dong) are well aware that many allegations being true or appearing to to be true, but are using technicalities and lack of evidence to cast doubt on the nature of the events, as is par for the course.

Yes the buses happened. So what? It's just an innocent bus with people so happy to vote for Dong they put their names on their hands just in case they forget.

Yes the secret meeting happened. So what? We were talking mandarin and you translated it wrong. And Dong was in New York state to practice Buddhism.

Again, at this point we don't know what CSIS has in terms of recordings, and we do know that Global does not have it. But Dong does know what happened and has to be prepared that most information can be corroborated, he's banking on the ones that are harder to provde.

That said, it takes quite a bit to win a defamation case and it doesn't appear that there is anything here.

Some of these claims seem umm...not even close to true?

Dong did not bring seniors into his riding who did not live there, nor did he force them
from their retirement residences onto the buses and coerce them to vote for him, as the
defendants’ reporting suggests.

This is the Global article which includes the broadcast

https://globalnews.ca/news/9504291/l...-interference/

“CSIS reporting indicates that, during a political party nomination vote prior to the 2019 General Election in Canada, two busloads of Chinese Canadian seniors were brought in to support a specific candidate,” the report says.

It adds that the seniors had the name of the candidate they were told to vote for concealed under their sleeves.

Quite different.

Many of the defamation claims in the statement of claim is made up and seem to be there solely to confuse and muddy the waters.

[opendoor]

The article wasn't the only reporting though. I imagine the bigger issue with that is what they were saying on TV where they alleged that the Chinese consulate sent the seniors on buses and told them who to vote for (which would likely require some kind of coercion or incentive):

Farah, after an 8-month investigation intelligence sources have told Global News that current Liberal MP Han Dong is alleged to have been supported by Beijing in 2019 and the Prime Minister’s senior staff were warned about it. Reliably red since 1993, scoring the Liberal nomination in Don Valley North has been harder than winning a general election recently, but instead of leaning on his connections as a former Ontario MPP, sources say Han Dong had help from the Chinese Consulate in Toronto to become the 2019 Liberal candidate in the riding. Through a combination of CSIS documents and intelligence sources, Global News has learned the Consulate allegedly sent two busloads of Chinese Canadian seniors to the Don Valley Liberal nomination meeting and those seniors knew who to vote for because Dong’s name was written on their arm. Sources also say CSIS suspected that Chinese international students with faked addresses were bussed in and told by the PRC consulate to support their preferred candidate if they wanted to maintain their student visa status.

If it was Dong's campaign who bused the seniors in and they were there of their own volition, then it's not really an issue unless there's evidence of a link to the Chinese consulate.

[GGG]

But based on that reporting the word “allegedly” appears. So as long as they can demonstrate that CSIS believed this they may have cover provided they followed reasonable journalistic standards.

This is likely why paragraph 5 is worded the way it is. Rather than saying that CSIS didn’t allege these things to global it’s saying global was irresponsible in reporting them.

One thing is clear is his defense isn’t all these things are false.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GGG

But based on that reporting the word “allegedly” appears. So as long as they can demonstrate that CSIS believed this they may have cover provided they followed reasonable journalistic standards.

This is likely why paragraph 5 is worded the way it is. Rather than saying that CSIS didn’t allege these things to global it’s saying global was irresponsible in reporting them.

One thing is clear is his defense isn’t all these things are false.

He does not need a defence, Global does. That is Defamation 101. He has already proved beyond a shadow of doubt that they have defamed him.

Maybe truthiness is a defence that Global wants to try.

And for Firebot he has a slam dunk defamation case. Comments made that were about a person, that were defamatory and that were told to more than one person.

Over to you Global to justify it.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

He does not need a defence, Global does. That is Defamation 101. He has already proved beyond a shadow of doubt that they have defamed him.

Maybe truthiness is a defence that Global wants to try.

And for Firebot he has a slam dunk defamation case. Comments made that were about a person, that were defamatory and that were told to more than one person.

Over to you Global to justify it.

This is quite the “choose your own adventure” that you also have no proof of.

According to the story Dong defamed himself, if the document to support have to come out in court so be it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

He does not need a defence, Global does. That is Defamation 101. He has already proved beyond a shadow of doubt that they have defamed him.

Maybe truthiness is a defence that Global wants to try.

And for Firebot he has a slam dunk defamation case. Comments made that were about a person, that were defamatory and that were told to more than one person.

Over to you Global to justify it.

Global will state that these are “responsible communication in the public interest” which as long as they followed their journalistic standards they will be fine.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

When it comes to things like this I think the problem goes beyond a lack of understanding by two sides on a made up spectrum. The biggest problem is that the overwhelming majority of people on either “side” don’t understand poverty because they’ve never actually been in it or have really seen it.

Your conclusions aren’t unreasonable based on the calculations you’ve used and I don’t disagree with a lot of what you’re saying but some of the examples you’re using for numbers like rent don’t really accurately reflect the situation for those living in poverty. While $500/month rent seems like a low figure it’s really not for people in poverty who may be living in low income housing for less, people living shelters, etc so to say with certainty that it would be higher isn’t an accurate assessment.

I’m not trying to nitpick or pointing that out to be critical of your arguments or position, I’m pointing it out because I think that it’s very relevant and I know you to be a poster who is typically very analytical and who when presented with facts you may have unintentionally overlooked will actually take the time to reconsider your position.

Also, as you stated and proved, using your figures having the one child reduces the overall benefit of GST rebates. That’s despite a 75% increase from $467 to $821 to the GST rebate. Had you continued to look further you’d see that if that same person has a second child, then despite receiving double in child tax benefits they only see a 20% increase from $821 to $992 in GST rebate.

So while the increase to non GST exempt spending on items needed to raise that child would be consistent with the increase for the first child, the GST credit isn’t as high. Meanwhile life is getting far more challenging for that person who is now living in a far more precarious situation where the likelihood of a random unexpected expense arising, doubling the tax that person has to pay at that moment when they are already broke, even if they know they’ll get it back later, can be devastating if they simply don’t have it.

Like you said $200 is a lot of money for a low income earner, and so is the additional 5% in tax they’d have to pay in an emergency on a non GST exempt item that costs the same.

On paper it looks great and in most situations the GST rebates work, but for the most at risk in society it’s not always practical as is and doubling it will make things more difficult for those already falling through the cracks. That number is certainly higher than the 10 Fuzz tried to downplay it as.

We haven’t even brought up the vulnerable people who still have to buy things they pay taxes on but may not have the ability to file their taxes and therefore don’t receive a rebate. I would hope we can all(even Slava) at least agree that those people aren’t going to benefiting by doubling the amount of GST that they pay.

Community based housing in Alberta is at 30% of income. For the hypothetical single parent with one kid example we worked through that would work out to $625/month. So even if they could get into community supported housing by my calculation they'd be paying more (non gst attracting) rent. Market rent would be at least that. Shelters would be less, but hopefully that wouldn't be necessary at this income level.

You're correct that adding more kids moves the numbers, although I'd comment that there are some practical limits to how many kids under 6 one single parent is likely to end up with at a time, and kids over 6 get a much smaller child benefit so they move the numbers the other way. Without running the numbers again I concur that 3 kids under 6 and a maximum non-taxable income in a single parent family would be better off under the current system than a double gst/double credits system. However, as part of the change you could increase the gst credit slightly for kids to eliminate this edge case.

I also want to be clear that I understand being poor sucks. This wouldn't fix that. I'm not poor, so while I sympathize I probably can't truly empathize. However I do think this change would help low income people.

I dont think it would help the homeless, because they mostly have problems that aren't the type that tax policy can solve. Someone who has mental illness, addictions, etc doesn't have a problem that the CRA can fix. We have a thread on that already, but basically I don't think taxes moves the needle there either way. And hopefully the extra couple hundred dollars this would give low income folks helps keep them off the streets and in safe housing.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GGG

Global will state that these are “responsible communication in the public interest” which as long as they followed their journalistic standards they will be fine.

It is a shame that the Globe and Mail had the exact same story and refused to go to print because it did not meet journalistic standards. Really diminishes Global’s defence.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

He does not need a defence, Global does. That is Defamation 101. He has already proved beyond a shadow of doubt that they have defamed him.

Maybe truthiness is a defence that Global wants to try.

And for Firebot he has a slam dunk defamation case. Comments made that were about a person, that were defamatory and that were told to more than one person.

Over to you Global to justify it.

The onus is still largely on the plaintiff, not the defendant in defamation cases to prove damages. While the 3 elements can justify the case to go ahead, the plaintiff still needs to prove that damages occurred and that the defamation was malicious. All the defense needs to prove is that they were not defamatory (i.e. true) allegations or did so under one of the criteria below which really not that difficult to do.

http://www.isthatlegal.ca/index.php?...20words%20were

https://dialalaw.peopleslawschool.ca/defamation/

Truth, also known as justification, if the defamatory statement is substantially true and you can prove it.
Absolute privilege, if the statement is made in certain proceedings (like a lawsuit).
Qualified privilege, if the statement is made in performing a public or private duty.
Fair comment, if it’s a statement of opinion, based on stated and true facts, on a matter of public interest.
Responsible communication on matters of public interest, if the statement concerns a matter of public interest and was made responsibly. This includes being diligent in trying to verify the statement and seeking the other party’s side of the story before circulating it.
Innocent dissemination, if the person distributed the defamatory statement unknowingly, and wasn't negligent in not knowing. And they must have immediately removed the statement on learning of the defamation.

The bolded is the most likely to be the main defense should it go to court but Global could also easily defend using other parts. The case isn't going to get anywhere, and I also doubt Global will settle this one unless they truly messed up and fabricated the story, but there is no indication they did.

[Firebot]

Trump sued CNN, does it mean he has a slam dunk case because he can prove 3 elements and CNN must be shaking in fear?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-...0against%20him.

On the other side of the coin, Dominion and Fox news settle for 787 million dollars because Fox News did in fact defame Dominion with zero truth to the allegations and would assuredly not only lose the case, but likely could be penalized much harder.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...mation-lawsuit

Such a settlement isn't happening between Dong and Global (again unless Global made things up on their own which does not appear to be the case)

CBC was sued for defamation and lost recently (for good reason, elements of the story was fabricated and without merit).

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...case-1.6296600

WE also sued CBC, I expect that case that not go anywhere.

https://www.newswire.ca/news-release...840188570.html

Just because the 3 elements for the claim of the plaintiff case for defamation may be met, sure as heck doesn't make it a slam dunk case just because you claim it does. You most certainly can claim defamation, meet all 3 elements to make such claim, and still lose.

Heck I mean Must literally called someone a pedo guy on twitter and still won the defamation case against him.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50695593

[JohnnyB]

I am not a lawyer (thank god), but my understanding has been that Canadian and US law are pretty substantially different in terms of defamation. It's obvious that Global's reporting meets the standards of defamation in Canada, and AFAIK the burden of proof is then on the party that did the defaming to defend themselves and I don't think Canada requires that it was malicious either. Trump's cases or other situations in the US aren't relevant because the law in the states doesn't work the same way as it does in Canada for defamation.