Joe Oliver announced cuts to EI premiums for small businesses yesterday – but it’s not quite as easy as it sounds. It’s actually more of a tax credit only on the employer side, and only for two years, which Oliver insists is not a sign of worry, but “confidence” that they’re on the right path. Um, okay. Economist Stephen Gordon, meanwhile, shows that this kind of tax credit is actually more counterproductive because it encourages these businesses to stay small for tax reasons, and that by not actually cutting payroll taxes, they are not actually creating the right conditions for all small businesses to hire.
Tag Archives: First Nations
Roundup: Dubious slogan at the ready!
Unveiled during their caucus retreat – err, “strategy session” – in Edmonton, the NDP’s election-ready slogan is “Change that’s ready.” While grammatically it sounds like the change itself is ready, the message is that they’re ready to form government – never mind that they have never formed government federally, and that few members of their caucus has any government experience provincially. They are largely trying to position themselves as the party with substance as opposed to style (à la Justin Trudeau) – but they nevertheless continue to speak in generalities about things like how they want to build more refineries. The captain of the Edmonton Oilers also spoke to caucus, so cue everyone swooning about hockey and politics.
Roundup: Witnesses that don’t fit the narrative
The Senate is conducting pre-study hearings on Bill C-36 this week – seeing as the government wants it passed quickly and are doing everything possible aside from imposing actual closure to ram it through – and among the witnesses they’ll be hearing from is a male escort who has exclusively female clientele. You know, someone who will completely mess with the narratives that the government has been pushing with this bill about “protecting vulnerable women,” since the Senate tends to be good about that. I can imagine that the other sex workers will probably get a better hearing at the Senate committee than they did at the Commons justice committee, seeing as there is less of a vested interest in pushing the government agenda.
Roundup: A modest contribution
The NATO Summit is underway in Wales, and Canada is contributing a modest $4 million to assist against Russian aggression – $1 million to helping Ukraine build up its command and control capacity, and the rest to be distributed among three NATO trusts to help strengthen capacities in the Baltic region. Aside from that, it remains unclear what kind of a role Canada will play in the region, and if we will contribute troops to a rapid response force in the area. As for the ISIS threat, the US and UK are discussing potential bombing campaigns, but we’ll see what comes from discussions, though word has it we may be offering military advisors to help Iraqis counter ISIS. The end of the Afghan mission has also been under discussion at the summit.
Roundup: A surprise trip to Iraq
John Baird quietly took a trip to Iraq along with is opposition critics, Paul Dewar and Marc Garneau, to meet with officials there and to pledge aid. James Cudmore looks at what Canada could contribute if we take the fight to ISIS, which could include special forces or aerial reconnaissance and support, but unlikely boots on the ground, as it’s politically unpalatable in an election year. Whatever we do, Harper has stated that it’ll be done on a tight budget because we really want to be cheap about fighting the kinds of grave threats that Harper is making them out to be.
Roundup: Return of the fiscal imbalance
Well, the premiers have met and have spoken and they think the federal government should pony up some more money – try to act surprised, everyone! Not only that, but they’re trying to revive the term “fiscal imbalance,” because it seemed to work the last time. In particular, they want more money for health to deal with an aging population (despite being guaranteed increases for the next decade) and reliable infrastructure funding (which is a bit more of a legitimate gripe considering the way the government back-loaded the Building Canada Fund). There was some talk about trade and labour mobility agreements, but nothing earth shattering on the interprovincial trade barrier file. Christy Clark noted that the topic of the constitution was not up for discussion – not even to bring Quebec into the fold at long last. Getting in his two cents, New Brunswick premier David Alward (who may not be premier for much longer, as his province is in an election) took the opportunity to lash out at Justin Trudeau for his saying that they should put a hold on more fracking until more studies of its impacts can be done. Alward says that New Brunswick can’t wait because it needs the jobs now.
Roundup: MacKay’s t-shirt choices
Peter MacKay’s judgement is once again being called into question after he showed up at a party fundraiser wearing a t-shirt with the logo of the National Firearms Association on it. He later said it was because he was showing support for an Afghan veteran, but one readily suspects that if an Afghan veteran asked him to wear a t-shirt with a pot leaf on it, say to show support for medical marijuana being used to treat an operational stress injury, I doubt MacKay would go for it. The NFA meanwhile declares that MacKay “believes in freedom!” by which they mean less restrictive gun laws. I’m not sure that MacKay’s explanation will quite get him out of declaring that tacit support.
Roundup: A drunken intrusion, NBD
In a bizarre twist, a nineteen year-old has come forward as the intruder in Justin Trudeau’s home, and claimed that it was all a drunken mistake – that he was trying to find his friend’s place with similar entry instructions, and that when he realized he was in the wrong place he briefly considered stealing the knives and some electronics in the kitchen before changing his mind and writing the note, intending it as an apology. And because he was drunk and didn’t mean any harm, the police have opted not to lay charges, but rather issue him a formal caution – because apparently drunkenness excuses trespassing, and the vaguely threatening note on a row of butcher knives.
Roundup: Protectionism panic!
Panic! Burger King may be looking to buy Tim Horton’s in order to move their combined headquarters to Canada in order to take advantage of a lower tax rate! But let’s all be concerned about the loss of a national treasure – um, which has only just returned its headquarters to Canada after it spun off from American owners Wendy’s. The NDP were immediately out front, concern trolling about the loss of small town Tim Horton’s outlets and Canadian jobs when in fact the bigger story is that Burger King wants to move their headquarters here, meaning money in government coffers – while the practice of “tax inversion” (where a larger company buys a smaller one in a lower-tax jurisdiction and moves their joint headquarters to the lower tax jurisdiction) angers American Congressmen. Canadian Business wonders what’s in it for each partner of the takeover, while Jason Kirby wonders if the merger is trying to mask each other’s weaknesses. Here’s a look at the activist investor who was behind the previous move, and who is helping to drive the current one. Here’s a history of Tim Horton’s ownership, and a history of the less-than-optimal past partnership with Wendy’s. If you’re concerned about brand nationalism – which companies are still “Canadian” – it may be a dying trend in a globalized future, but here are five that are still ours. And Stephen Gordon leaves us with this:
“I just don’t feel right about the BK-Tim Horton’s deal” is not a reason to demand govt intervention to stop it.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) August 26, 2014
Consider any other transaction: “I just don’t feel right about my neighbour selling his house to an immigrant family.” So what?
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) August 26, 2014
Roundup: The threat of Twitter pabulum
The Language Commissioner’s look into whether or not John Baird’s personal Twitter Machine account constitutes government business and thus possessing a greater emphasis on bilingualism is opening a can of worms, especially because it invites little more than scripted tweets that bureaucrats go through approvals to write rather than the kinds of spontaneous communications that we can now get with ministers that we otherwise can’t. If we clamp down on this medium, we really are dooming ourselves into a political discourse full of nothing but bland pabulum for all time.