Flaherty says Charest can use equalization cash for tax cuts

[bizorky]

Since we have arrived at a new "year zero" on the politics section of this forum, I thought I'd be cruel and start out with this little number from our dear government. If you accept the logic of equalization, then you realize that your tax dollars (as you reside in a "have" province) are going to provide a tax cut in another province - all in the name of providing better services. Don't be too surprised if in a few years the Quebec government is back demanding more money from the federal government because it is being short-changed in terms of cash for programs and services.

Flaherty says Charest can use equalization cash for tax cuts
Canadian Press

MONTREAL — Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says it's OK for Premier Jean Charest to use equalization money from Ottawa to cut income taxes in Quebec.

Mr. Flaherty said in Montreal today there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents Mr. Charest from doing this.

Mr. Charest said during the Quebec election campaign he would use $700-million in recently announced federal money to cut income taxes in the province.

But the fate of Mr. Charest's promise is up in the air because the Action démocratique du Québec now holds the balance of power after the election and has said it won't support the plan.

On the subject of the Quebec vote, Mr. Flaherty says it's positive the parties that campaigned against a sovereignty referendum finished first and second.

Mr. Flaherty also says now that the federal budget has passed, the Conservative government wants to work on environment and justice bills.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Re: Flaherty says Charest can use equalization cash for tax

The whole collaberation between Harper and Charest really ****ing pisses me off. Too start with it is ironic that Harper, who in part got into office by holding the Liberals to account for the sponsorship scandal, is now engaging in the same corrupt activities of funneling money into Quebec. Add too that Harpers meddling in trying to help Charest gain points in the election (which luckily did not really help Charest). I can only hope this all gets turned on the Conservatives.

Charest is no better. This nonsense could not happen without him. As someone who seems to want to make Quebec work and participate within the federation, all he has done is create an image of Quebec being a province that takes from the federal government. It is somewhat ironic that Charest, a federalist, will have managed too create such an unfortunate picture of Quebec in the eyes of the rest of Canada.

Harper and Charest should both rot for the backroom political bullshit they have been engaging in.

 

[cacruden]

Re: Flaherty says Charest can use equalization cash for tax

The fact that the Liberal diversion of funds was to private individuals through fraudulant activities that then funnelled that money back into Liberal coffers is not really in the same ballpark.

If I remember right the tax rate to support social programs tops out around 24%, as compared to 14% in Ontario. My elder sister got a $7,000 dollar raise, at the same time she moved to Quebec (before she ran back to Ontario in a few years), and her net take-home pay was actually less. I don't know if things have changed in the last 5 - 10 years. Now do I know if it is efficiently spent? No Do I know if the current formula is reasonable or not? No Do I know that Quebec's only other major social program, Day Care is the reason for this vast difference? No. But I doubt most of the individuals that are complaining, actually have crunched the numbers to see if it is just sour grapes or valid complaints.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Re: Flaherty says Charest can use equalization cash for tax

The fact that the Liberal diversion of funds was to private individuals through fraudulant activities that then funnelled that money back into Liberal coffers is not really in the same ballpark.

The only difference are the methods used. The Liberals sent money to private individuals for the purpose of gaining further political support. The Conservatives sent money to another government, a public institution, for the purpose of gaining political support. Not too mention their meddling in a provincial election comes very close, if not crosses the line, of what is acceptable behaviour for a federal government.

But at the end of the day, both their intents where the same, the use of public money for the sole purpose of political gain. That they chose different methods is really unimportant.

 

[cacruden]

Re: Flaherty says Charest can use equalization cash for tax

Every time the government uses public money it is for political gain, generally they try not to use money to get less votes.

I actually agree with you this movement of money between governments is unseemly, but unfortunately equalization payments are part of the constitution.

The fact that you fail to distingish between taking government money to put in your own pockets (liberals) through fraudulant means and equalization payments -- is to say the least interesting.

 

[cacruden]

Re: Flaherty says Charest can use equalization cash for tax

As far as interference in Quebec democratic processes.... that is something every federal political party has done before, and always in an attempt to prop up the Quebec Liberals.

I am quite happy that this failed this time though.

 

[bizorky]

Re: Flaherty says Charest can use equalization cash for tax

Every time the government uses public money it is for political gain, generally they try not to use money to get less votes.

This might work for some people in Quebec, but it might backfire outside of that province. It's hard to argue that federal taxpayers owe Quebecers a provincial tax break.

 

[cacruden]

Re: Flaherty says Charest can use equalization cash for tax

^ And yet the majority in Quebec feel that they are short-changed, and the majority out of Quebec feel that they are spoiled brats. You can substitute "Quebec" for every province in Canada. Who is right, most do not crunch the numbers, so it can only be described as sibling rivalry.

Everyone CAN take advantage of this money, you can move to Quebec, but personally -- I don't want to -- because of tax rates.

 

[bizorky]

Re: Flaherty says Charest can use equalization cash for tax

Thanks, I lived in Quebec for far too long. There is/was a huge untaxed underground economy, which might be one reason that explains why the Quebec government was/is so short of extra cash.

You speak of "crunching the numbers," have you crunched them? I've read a number of "crunching" articles in the past from economists who know more than me who concluded that Quebec gets its share, and then some. Contrary to popular belief, it ain't as poor as advertised.

 

[BrianHawkins1]

Re: Flaherty says Charest can use equalization cash for tax

Antiloop33rpm:

"...it is ironic that Harper, who in part got into office by holding the Liberals to account for the sponsorship scandal, is now engaging in the same corrupt activities of funneling money into Quebec."

No. There is no actual comparison to be found here. Fire-hosing fed money into Quebec is something that ALL fed gov'ts have done for decades. It's a major irritant to the entire country outside Quebec's borders (and quite justifiably so), but it cannot accurately be described as a "corrupt" activity, unless one uses that word in its most stretched form. What the Libs did, on the other hand, *was* inarguably "corrupt", and a hugely more serious subversion of democracy than anything Harper's done (yet) - far more serious than it seems to me is broadly grasped. Diverting public funds to party coffers is entirely unacceptable, and a gross abuse of power - the fact that the Libs managed to slither out of it with little more in the way of consequences than an electoral smack on the wrist is really quite disturbing.

cacruden:

"The fact that you fail to distingish between taking government money to put in your own pockets (liberals) through fraudulant means and equalization payments -- is to say the least interesting."

Indeed.

Antiloop33rpm:

"The only difference are the methods used. The Liberals sent money to private individuals for the purpose of gaining further political support. The Conservatives sent money to another government, a public institution, for the purpose of gaining political support."

Again, no. One is a clear violation of acceptable procedures and the other simply is not. By your reasoning, if I were to rob a bank of a million dollars, there would be no meaningful difference between that and winning a million in the lottery. I mean, "the only difference are the methods used", right?

"That they chose different methods is really unimportant."

No, it is not. The only way this would make sense is if the end result in question itself were deemed unacceptable in any case, which it is not.

"Charest is no better. This nonsense could not happen without him. As someone who seems to want to make Quebec work and participate within the federation, all he has done is create an image of Quebec being a province that takes from the federal government. It is somewhat ironic that Charest, a federalist, will have managed too create such an unfortunate picture of Quebec in the eyes of the rest of Canada."

If you honestly believe that Charest, of all people, is responsible for 'creating' (har!, har!) "an image of Quebec being a province that takes from the federal government", then there's probably not much more that can be said on the matter. It is decidedly not an "image", and it is not exactly a new phenomenon.

"Not too mention their meddling in a provincial election comes very close, if not crosses the line, of what is acceptable behaviour for a federal government."

And again, no. For better or worse, this shit is standard.

I've wondered on several occasions in the past where you got your, shall we say, idiosyncratic interpretations of Quebec's history and its current status. Much of the above fuels more wonder. For someone who sees most everything else with what seems to me to be an exceptionally clear and rigorous eye, you border on being irrational, if not outright delusional - and passionately so - when it comes to this one subject.

On that note, are you still in Russia?

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Re: Flaherty says Charest can use equalization cash for tax

I will admit that everyone has made some very fair points and if I am going to take such a stance then I should at least take the time to clearly make my points and not just make lazy, rhetorical remarks. I also tend to forget that when discussing Quebec in English Canada you better be certain that any pro-Quebec stance needs to be that much more refined and carefully considered.

The first point is on Federal interference in Quebec. Yes, this is nothing new, but, that this is nothing new does make the fact that is done right. Perhaps there is an argument that makes the case for Federal governments right to do so in the name of 'unity' or such an ideal. But I have yet too see one (at least that is convincing in any sort of way). At the very least they are actions that are in bad faith of the ideals of the Canadian vision of Federalism and slowly help to reaffirm Quebecers mistrust in Ottawa. It also creates resentment towards what could be useful federalist provincial parties in the province. I am not saying that it is wrong just because the current governments did it, it is wrong no matter who does it and whenever meddling like this takes place it can only undermine trust and belief in democratic processes.

The next point I would make is on equalization. Yes, equalization is an important part of creating a Canada where equality of wealth can at least be achieved in a somewhat fairer manner than if regions where left to fend for themselves. I have nothing against this principle and see it as central to a socially responsible Canada. What I don't agree with is how it is currently being dealt with (or has been for that matter since I have started really follow politics). I can say that I pay rather close attention to politics in Canada (at all levels) and even then rarely have I seen articles or persons able to clearly explain what are the central issues and problems with equalization, and more specifically, the fiscal imbalance, in Quebec are. The term is used with such force and frequency without ever being accompanied by an understanding of what is meant by it.

The only exception too this I can think of off hand is the case of the premiers who want to exclude resource revenues from equalization calculations. It is one of the few cases where both sides have clearly expressed their opinions and concerns over the issue. But what took place in Quebec was not even remotely close to that. On the provincial side plenty of rhetoric was shouted about how the province gets short changed and how Ottawa needs to address the imbalance without ever really making its case. In Ottawa, they seemed to have actually taken these demands seriously and bent over backwards too accommodate them without ever making a case as for why they felt it was fair. Now, perhaps this was totally legitimate and both sides were justified in their demands and actions and with a some committed research I am sure this could be shown to be the case or not. But right now there are a great deal of questions that people should be asking about this agreement.

Now, as far as whether this action is more corrupt than what the Liberals did, I will just agree with everyone and say that it isn't as corrupt. But, I would also add that part of the reason I say that is just because I do not have explicit proof that what Harper and Charest did was not justified. However, my own personal intuition at this point does tell me that the deal Harper and Charest made was based on erroneous claims by Quebec (as represented by Charest) and made against the best interest of the Federal government and not in the name of the principals that equalization is supposed to represent. If that were the case, and the fact that all this was done just days before the Quebec election with the intent of helping a federalist party win more votes, than that is still nonetheless, a corrupt action on the part of the Conservative government. Corrupt in the same way as the Liberals? No. But corrupt nonetheless because it intentionally undermines democracy through the use of public money.

I would also add that pre-election budgets, choreographed spending announcements, well timed agreements and treaties, all those actions are what makes politics what it is. I would expect nothing less. But there is a difference between say the Ontario Liberals rolling out minimum wage increases and spending initiatives too help low wage earners in an election year, and the Federal Conservatives signing questionable agreements in the hopes of influencing a provincial election in a manner it prefers.

One other very recent example of this kind of meddling is the case of the Ottawa municipal election where Federal funding for the O-Train project was at the last minute thrown up into the air and volleyed around by various participants. I admit that during that week I became totally confused as too what exactly was going on but I do hope that someone, somewhere is looking into this whole affair because it is also another case where the initial impression seems to be some rather questionable political tactics on the part of a number of people. If no wrong was done in the end, which is entirely possible as well, that should at least be clarified in the publics interest.

As for my comment on Charest. I certainly did not intend to put all of Quebec's image problems on his shoulders. There are no doubt many other political actors from Quebec's past that have done a great deal of damage. I won't list them all either because I am sure our lists are probably pretty similar. But Charest, as a federalist of all people, has hardly acted in the best interest of Quebec in terms of its position in Canada. The Liberal scandal left a rather sour taste in the mouths of people in the Rest of Canada and his pre-election deal with Harper is not only going to fail to help build a better image of Quebec in the rest of Canada (something that should be important to a federalist) it is going to do just that much more damage to it. He is by no means Parizeau, but his actions have not done Quebec a service either.

Hopefully that is somewhat clearer and less painted in rhetorical flourishes. I make no apologies for my passion and interest in this subject either. People are entitled to dismiss the issue of Quebec if they feel inclined too but from my own perspective I see it as something that is still a fundamental and serious issue lingering in slumber (I wont go into detail on this point since it would require more typing than I want to do right now and the subject just usually falls on deaf ears, though if someone really wanted to have that discussion I could elaborate). There is still a great deal more I want to study and learn about this issue and if I make mistakes in my arguments along the way then thats fine since I can just go back and correct them, though hopefully they become less frequent over time. I know it is a subject which almost immediately causes people to think emotionally rather than rationally, something I am guilty of myself often enough. It has also made it harder to sort through arguments and discussions so that one can really understand the issues.

And yes I am still in Russia (and hoping the next election doesn't happen until I get back, though they seem to be happening often enough at the moment it wouldn't be much of a wait until the next one).

 

[cacruden]

Re: Flaherty says Charest can use equalization cash for tax

You speak of "crunching the numbers," have you crunched them?

Thought that I was very clear from the very first post on this thread that I have not gone through the numbers, and I don't think most other people have either.

Just mentioning Quebec turns any arguement into a hot-topic. One person saying "Hey Quebec..... unfair" you would have a mass of people reacting and saying -- yah, Quebec.... that is no fair (does not matter what the content of the conversation was). I noticed that when listening to others debate Meech Lake accord, and it was amazing all the misinformation of what was and what was in Meech Lake. Basically people were making their decision -- with no real understanding of what they were or were not voting for or against.

Even if you were to crunch just the numbers for equalization payments, it would still not give you the full picture. Things like government subsidies to corporations, are given to those that are politically connected -- which more than likely favours Ontario and Quebec over other provinces. EI rules favour Newfoundland. etc. etc. etc. So even if their is an unfairness to equalization payments, and you fixed that, that does not mean the overall system is fair. That will continue to happen in a system where the massive amounts of money is raised by one level of government, then transferred to other levels of government where it is spent. I think you will also find that money spent in ridings that are "in play" is higher than money spent in ridings that are "safe" seats.

 

[SD2]

Re: Flaherty says Charest can use equalization cash for tax

The whole collaberation between Harper and Charest really ****ing pisses me off. Too start with it is ironic that Harper, who in part got into office by holding the Liberals to account for the sponsorship scandal, is now engaging in the same corrupt activities of funneling money into Quebec. Add too that Harpers meddling in trying to help Charest gain points in the election (which luckily did not really help Charest). I can only hope this all gets turned on the Conservatives.

I'd have to agree. It may not be the same as what the Liberals did with the sponsorship scandal, but for a government that campaigned on cleaning up Federal politics they sure do engage in a lot of questionable activity.