Forgot about this, but good on the G&M for bringing it to light again. Completely undermines any conversation Harper tries to have about human rights when he's selling arms to one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet.
Ottawa is contractually obliged to keep secret the details of a controversial $15-billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia – a transaction that Stephen Harper personally assured the country’s monarch will be guaranteed by the Canadian government, documents say.
Foreign Affairs e-mails obtained by The Globe and Mail under access-to-information law indicate the Saudis have made excess publicity about the sale of armoured fighting vehicles a deal-breaker.
Officials were scrambling behind the scenes in January, after media coverage of the arms deal, to determine the consequences of publicly releasing the terms of the Saudi contract.
Aliya Mawani, a Canadian diplomat based in Riyadh, the capital, told Foreign Affairs colleagues on Jan. 21 that “we [the government] would be breaking the terms of the contract” with Saudi Arabia if details were made public.
“The contract is under a Canadian government guarantee in terms of fulfilment,” Ms. Mawani wrote in a Jan. 21 exchange with colleagues on why Ottawa couldn’t make the terms public.
“This was confirmed in writing by our Prime Minister in his letters to the King,” she said, speaking of Mr. Harper and the late Saudi King Abdullah.
A cloak of secrecy surrounds this agreement, first announced in 2014, with Ottawa refusing to divulge any substantial information on the vehicles Canada is selling to the Saudi regime – or how it justifies the sale to a nation known for human-rights abuses.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
There's a pretty big difference though between teachers spending out of their own pocket to help educate kids vs you spending out of your own pocket to further your private business in someway. You (presumably) get benefit from doing that as it will help your business. Teachers see no benefit from spending their own money on other people's kids.
OK, fair enough, but there are a lot of civil servants in a lot of industries who are likely in a similar position. Why else would it matter to teachers specifically?
I've been on record, seemingly forever, saying that these boutique tax credits are stupid and misguided. This one is no different than the volunteer fire fighter credit from a few years ago, IMO. If the governments want to reduce the tax burden, just lower taxes. Don't get all cute about it, and make people save $1000 worth of receipts for the better part of a decade. Just reduce the tax bill for everyone and call it a day.
Forgot about this, but good on the G&M for bringing it to light again. Completely undermines any conversation Harper tries to have about human rights when he's selling arms to one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet.
Disgusting, we're selling weapons to one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism on the planet and we can't even know any details about the deal. How can anyone honestly vote for Harper and feel good about it?
Disgusting, we're selling weapons to one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism on the planet and we can't even know any details about the deal. How can anyone honestly vote for Harper and feel good about it?
Exactly. Harper is sure tough on terrorism.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
OK, fair enough, but there are a lot of civil servants in a lot of industries who are likely in a similar position. Why else would it matter to teachers specifically?
I've been on record, seemingly forever, saying that these boutique tax credits are stupid and misguided. This one is no different than the volunteer fire fighter credit from a few years ago, IMO. If the governments want to reduce the tax burden, just lower taxes. Don't get all cute about it, and make people save $1000 worth of receipts for the better part of a decade. Just reduce the tax bill for everyone and call it a day.
Yeah I don't disagree. When looking at the teacher's situation specifically, I think the idea is that if you just plain lower taxes, yes we all have more income, but the teacher is still spending part of their income on the education of the kids, which isn't really their responsibility (outside of specialty things), and there is really no incentive to use any of that extra tax money for this purpose either, if you're a teacher that doesn't need to/doesn't care enough to. I would rather just see the taxes that would be allotted to this credit go straight to improving education overall, rather than leaving it in the teachers hands (although I'm sure there are teachers here who would argue that it's easier for them to purchase what they need than to lobby to the board to have something instituted).
Personally, I'd much rather have this type of a credit going to useful things like education than pretty much any other sector, but that's my own view.
OK, fair enough, but there are a lot of civil servants in a lot of industries who are likely in a similar position. Why else would it matter to teachers specifically?
I've been on record, seemingly forever, saying that these boutique tax credits are stupid and misguided. This one is no different than the volunteer fire fighter credit from a few years ago, IMO. If the governments want to reduce the tax burden, just lower taxes. Don't get all cute about it, and make people save $1000 worth of receipts for the better part of a decade. Just reduce the tax bill for everyone and call it a day.
I'm not a fan of boutique credits either, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find 'a lot of civil servants' that are in the same boat. It's pretty common knowledge that classrooms are generally underfunded and teachers do take on additional costs. As education is a provincial responsibility this is all the feds could do as targeted relief. I can understand the thinking, but like you have railed against the Harper targeting approach and have to admit this is the same.
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
Yeah I don't disagree. When looking at the teacher's situation specifically, I think the idea is that if you just plain lower taxes, yes we all have more income, but the teacher is still spending part of their income on the education of the kids, which isn't really their responsibility (outside of specialty things), and there is really no incentive to use any of that extra tax money for this purpose either, if you're a teacher that doesn't need to/doesn't care enough to. I would rather just see the taxes that would be allotted to this credit go straight to improving education overall, rather than leaving it in the teachers hands (although I'm sure there are teachers here who would argue that it's easier for them to purchase what they need than to lobby to the board to have something instituted).
Personally, I'd much rather have this type of a credit going to useful things like education than pretty much any other sector, but that's my own view.
The thing is we probably agree that teachers shouldn't be spending their own money to run their classrooms. So, assuming that, this policy just encourages them to do it, and if they aren't spending that $1000 to actually increase their spending that we would rather the, not do. Its counter-productive in that sense.
The thing is we probably agree that teachers shouldn't be spending their own money to run their classrooms. So, assuming that, this policy just encourages them to do it, and if they aren't spending that $1000 to actually increase their spending that we would rather the, not do. Its counter-productive in that sense.
Yeah I agree. I'd rather they just put $1000/teacher into the entire pool of education funds and maybe give that amount per teacher back to each school for discretionary spending.
At the same time, I think my point about teachers wanting to avoid what I'm sure is a slow and asinine approval process to get new materials is a valid one. A credit like this allows them to run to a store quickly to grab something, or prepare the night before, without jumping through hoops for something that might be minor. From that angle, it makes sense. I don't think we should be guiding policy based on the (hopefully) few people that may abuse it.
Yeah I agree. I'd rather they just put $1000/teacher into the entire pool of education funds and maybe give that amount per teacher back to each school for discretionary spending.
At the same time, I think my point about teachers wanting to avoid what I'm sure is a slow and asinine approval process to get new materials is a valid one. A credit like this allows them to run to a store quickly to grab something, or prepare the night before, without jumping through hoops for something that might be minor. From that angle, it makes sense. I don't think we should be guiding policy based on the (hopefully) few people that may abuse it.
Problem is education is provincial. The tax code is the only lever the Feds have
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
Just a thought for CP policy analysts and economists, but shouldn't we expect the largest and most populace province to be a Have province? I always thought that Ontario being a Have Not province was something that the Ontario Province government should be ashamed of. I understand that the manufacturing collapse took out their economic might, but it always struck me as the smaller province holding up the larger and more popular provinces in Canada.
My 2 Cents
LChoy
Ontario taxpayers contribute $6.7 billion dollars to the equalization payments and they expect to get back $2.4 billion according to that article. Basically looks like everyone is paying Quebec.
Its not like Alberta is a have province because they are spectacularly managed. They just hit the resource goldmine.
Equalization payments, total and per capita in 2012-13
Code:
Province Population Total Equalization 2012-2013
(millions of $) Eq per capita
Quebec 7,979,700 $7,391 $926
Ontario 13,373,000 $3,261 $243
Manitoba 1,250,600 $1,671 $1,338
New Brunswick 755,000 $1,495 $1,980
Nova Scotia 945,500 $1,268 $1,342
PEI 146,000 $337 $2,308
Every taxpayer in Canada pays in, money goes out to provinces based on the formula in effort to 'maintain a similar level of service for a similar tax burden' throughout the country.
Ontario is therefore a have not province.
I think he was pretty much right on. That war's leaders didn't give a hoot for the common soldier and wasted lives like they were playing a chess game. Of course our soldiers were brave and did a good job which helped form our country but it was mostly a senseless war to inflate the egos of the European aristocrats.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vulcan For This Useful Post:
Disgusting, we're selling weapons to one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism on the planet and we can't even know any details about the deal. How can anyone honestly vote for Harper and feel good about it?
Most people I talk too seem to have the same problem, but Trudeau isn't a good enough candidate to get them to vote Liberal.
Which is actually annoying, because of the Liberals would have gotten their ducks in order and not elected Trudeau to be party leader, they would have this election won already.
Harper is a terrible choice on every single front.
“Public servants have the same democratic rights as every other Canadian. To imply that [Mr. Turner] doesn’t have the right to express himself through a folk song as a private citizen is really what’s at issue here,” she said. “It’s our belief that Mr. Turner hasn’t infracted any laws or policies – and certainly is not in a conflict.”
But Tony Dean, the former head of the Ontario Public Service, said the song could be perceived as a violation of the non-political nature of public service, particularly in the context of an election.
“It would appear in this case that the line has been well and truly crossed,” he said.
If you can make it through all 5+ minutes, you are a better person than I!
I could see if he had used any government logos or anything like that, but this was a private citizen doing something on his own time. What's next, government workers all have to put Conservative lawn signs out to support their "boss"? Ridiculous.
I could see if he had used any government logos or anything like that, but this was a private citizen doing something on his own time. What's next, government workers all have to put Conservative lawn signs out to support their "boss"? Ridiculous.
The 'song' is ridiculously terrible, though not entirely devoid of humour.
The rest, not really ridiculous.
There is a 'non political' code of conduct as part of employment agreement.
One can't argue this is not political. One can argue if it should apply here.
But, if I did it in private industry - slammed my 'CEO' in a satirical video that went viral - I'd be in some trouble there too, I am sure. It just wouldn't likely be a news story.
The 'song' is ridiculously terrible, though not entirely devoid of humour.
The rest, not really ridiculous.
There is a 'non political' code of conduct as part of employment agreement.
One can't argue this is not political. One can argue if it should apply here.
But, if I did it in private industry - slammed my 'CEO' in a satirical video that went viral - I'd be in some trouble there too, I am sure. It just wouldn't likely be a news story.
He's not in private industry and there is no "CEO" of Canada.
Anyway, mission accomplished. This guy is getting the Streisand Effect. Maybe that was the point? I found the song unlistenable myself, but suddenly this story is all over the place.
Just a personal gear grinder, but it comes up constantly (so not attacking any particular poster).
Government and private enterprise are two seperate creatures. Government has immensely greater powers and abilities than any company, but frequently voters, and to an increasing amount politicians, seem to view them as equal in function.
I'm sure all three candidates would make wonderful ceos (particularly Harper), but the problem I am having is that none of them seem capable of good governance.
Different skillset.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
The Following User Says Thank You to Harry Lime For This Useful Post:
The 'song' is ridiculously terrible, though not entirely devoid of humour.
The rest, not really ridiculous.
There is a 'non political' code of conduct as part of employment agreement.
One can't argue this is not political. One can argue if it should apply here.
But, if I did it in private industry - slammed my 'CEO' in a satirical video that went viral - I'd be in some trouble there too, I am sure. It just wouldn't likely be a news story.
The quality or enjoy-ability of the song is irrelevant though. Government limiting democratic freedoms(which include right to protest) must be avoided at all costs. This man's freedoms are being limited and infringed upon because he doesn't agree with the government of the day. Do you find that acceptable?
