Are duelling ads a sucker punch to Keystone XL?
The Conservative government has a lot riding on the U.S. government's coming decision on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, so it's been pitching the project with Ottawa's "Go With Canada" ad campaign blitz in D.C.'s metro system.
First Canada sends freezing air, now this is plastered all over Washington's metro. # Keystone #pipeline pic.twitter.com/tBcBw0w885
— The Globalist (@theglobalist) January 17, 2014
Too bad the facts don't help the government's case. The GoWithCanada.com pitch boasts that the "province of Alberta is the first North American jurisdiction with mandatory GHG reduction targets for large industrial GHG emitters, including the oil sands."
What it doesn't say is emissions are rising in Alberta. Historical emissions jumped from 166 megatonnes in 1990 to 228 in 2005 to 242 in 2011, and the stated 2020 target is 11.7% above the 2005 baseline.
Alberta is projected to miss this 2020 target by producing 285 megatonnes that year, not the target of 255. This information is found in government documents. Take a look at this graph in a June 2013 memo to the Deputy Environment Minister, released under Access to Information law.
Now, the federal government will have to contend with a new television ad as a counterpoint to its Go With Canada campaign, timed to air on Tuesday night during Barack Obama's State of the Union address.
The ad, produced by billionaire environmentalist's NextGen Climate Group, plays up China's involvement in Canada's tar sands, calling it a "sucker punch to America's heartland."
Watch:
//www.youtube.com/embed/gGRETZfTKP4
Photo: YouTube
Conservative income splitting plan is tax gift for wealthiest families: study
The Conservative government's plan to extend income splitting to families is skewed heavily in favour of the wealthiest, with the vast majority of families receiving no benefit at all, a new study has found.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives analysed the Conservative plan to allow parents with children under 18 to split up to $50,000 of income with their partner.
Senior economist David Macdonald found that 86 per cent all families would gain no benefit at all from the tax loophole, expected to be the centrepiece of the Conservative Party's re-election campaign in 2015, after the federal budget is balanced.
Other key findings include:
-
"The bottom 60% of families (those making $56,000 or less) would receive, on average, $50. Most families in this group would receive no benefit whatsoever.
-
In contrast, the richest 5% of Canadian families — those making over $147,000 — would see an average benefit of $1,100, with one in 10 of this elite group gaining more than $5,000 from this loophole.
-
The top 5% of families would see more benefit than the bottom 60% of families.
-
In fact, none of the bottom six deciles would receive anywhere near 10%, its equal share; whereas each of the top four deciles receives far more than 10% of the total benefit, or far more than their equal share....
-
4% of families would gain less than $500.
-
1% of all families would get more than $6,500. Most of those $6,500 gainers are already among Canada’s richest."
"Income splitting creates a tax loophole big enough to drive a Rolls Royce through. It’s pitched as a program for the middle class but in reality it’s an expensive tax gift for the rich," said Macdonald.
He added: "Income splitting is a policy choice that would purposely exacerbate already high income inequality in Canada. This is inequality by design, not by accident."
The program would cost the federal government $3 billion in lost revenue to implement, the study found. This does not include an additional $1.9 billion in lost revenue provincially.
Macdonald analysed the pension income splitting program already in place, and found a similar pattern. Seven out of 10 families get no benefit at all from pension income splitting while the richest 10% of senior families receive more than the bottom 70% combined.
By 2015, the cost of the pension income splitting program is expected to reach $1.2 billion federally and $500 million provincially. "In contrast, it would cost $1.5 billion a year to lift all Canadian seniors out of poverty," the study states.
Photo: merelyrachel. Used under a Creative Commons BY 2.0 licence.
Canada: meet our smug and belligerent Immigration Minister
Immigration Minister Chris Alexander is on a roll, attacking anyone who challenges the Conservative government's decision to cut refugee health care.
Cuts to the Interim Federal Health Program in 2012 reduced access to health care for most refugees, and some lost all health coverage except for treatment of conditions classified as a threat to public health or safety.
On Monday, Toronto Star columnist Carol Goar bore the brunt of Alexander's snark. The minister didn't like Goar's most recent column about Alexander's "callous side," so he went on the attack.
Carol Goar still can't admit pre-reform asylum system was plagued by abuse, penalizing genuine refugees. Sad, but for her - typical. #cdnimm
— Chris Alexander (@calxandr) January 27, 2014
Canada's top medical journal better be careful. The Canadian Medical Journal's latest editorial, authored by deputy editor Matthew Stanbrook, lays out the problem with the policy.
In addition to being medically irrational and essentially unfair, these cuts are economically irresponsible, because refugees are presenting to emergency departments with acute conditions that could have been prevented or treated in primary care at an earlier stage and at a lower cost.
Ontario's Health Minister, who said the province will be treating people in need and sending Ottawa the bill, already got a "scolding" from Alexander last week. Listen here.
To all you health groups that disagree with the refugee health cuts: be careful. You may be next on Alexander's list.
Photo: YouTube
Welcome back, Harper
1. Stephen Harper's bagman
Will Senator Irving Gerstein stay on Harper's good side, despite being knee-deep in the Senate spending scandal and cover-up in the Prime Minister's Office? The RCMP allege Gerstein agreed to have the party pay off Senator Mike Duffy’s bogus expenses, but withdrew the offer when he found out the bill topped $90,000.
The Mounties also allege Gerstein tried to influence an external audit into the Senate expense scandal by calling up a buddy at Deloitte to encourage the auditing firm to drop Duffy, a Harper appointee, from its probe. Did we mention Gerstein is the Conservative Party's chief fundraiser?
That may be why he's still standing, but watch to see how Harper defends the indefensible.
2. The loyal soldiers
3. Mr. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Clear
Speaking of the Senate mess, will Harper keep MP Paul Calandra front and centre in Question Period as the PM's point man on scandal-related questions? If he does, it won't be pretty. Watch Calandra repeat how "very clear" he's being 24 times in under an hour, and you'll see why Calandra’s broken record line quickly became meme-worthy. A website popped up, mocking his go-to lines to deflect from the Senate scandal, including the one about his dad's pizza shop and two young daughters.
4. The Minister for seniors fitness and rail disasters