The SNC-Lavalin Scandal - Jody Wilson-Raybould Refuses to leave Office

[Warhippy]

2 hours ago, Lionized27 said:

"When Trudeau took office in 1968 Canada had a debt of $18 billion (24% of GDP) which was largely left over from World War II, when he left office in 1984, that debt stood at $200 billion (46% of GDP), an increase of 83% in real terms. However, these trends were present in most western countries at the time, including the United States." 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau

Ummm, he did quite a bit more damage than "double the debt". Your understanding of  "the most simple of mathematics" should show you this.

Since you're so handy with figures, you can break down the PDF document included in the wiki article. I simply can't be bothered. If you're really ambitious, you could even translate those figures into today's numbers and give us all a clearer picture of how Trudeau Sr. wasn't fiscally irresponsible. 

I'm going to guess you're either too young to remember the '70's and '80's or are willfully forgetting them. Either way, they weren't particularly easy times. I do understand that things were tough all over, which is why I included the last sentence of the quote. 

 

I hope you have a great day!

Explain how 157 billion becomes 200 billion.  As well, explain how 2 recessions, 20% interest rates and almost 16 years in office is comparable to Mulroney or Harper who both exceeded 150 billion in less than a decade.

 

You claimed he had the highest debt/spending.  The numbers don't agree

[Warhippy]

50 minutes ago, Shift-4 said:

you guys suck at staying on topic

Ya?  Well... parkland was a hoax!! Wait, isn't this the new tv thread?

[Lionized27]

54 minutes ago, Shift-4 said:

you guys suck at staying on topic

I apologize for the derailment.

[Ryan Strome]

16 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Explain how 157 billion becomes 200 billion.  As well, explain how 2 recessions, 20% interest rates and almost 16 years in office is comparable to Mulroney or Harper who both exceeded 150 billion in less than a decade.

 

You claimed he had the highest debt/spending.  The numbers don't agree

Did you just use a recession as an excuse for PET but not Harper?

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Shift-4 said:

you guys suck at staying on topic

its kinda related. If you think  Justin committed a crime, you probably are a PET hater too. If you liked PET you're probably giving Justin the benefit of the doubt.

[JM_]

8 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Did you just use a recession as an excuse for PET but not Harper?

this is why the Fraser Institute study we talked about above is so good, it takes the reality of things like recessions into account. Both PET and Harper had their reasons. Personally I like Paul Martins approach, he's the only one in 50 years to actually work to lower our debt. We need more of that type of PM.

[Ryan Strome]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

this is why the Fraser Institute study we talked about above is so good, it takes the reality of things like recessions into account. Both PET and Harper had their reasons. Personally I like Paul Martins approach, he's the only one in 50 years to actually work to lower our debt. We need more of that type of PM.

I agree.

[JM_]

This is what I've been wondering. Was JWR simply not prepared for the realities of the political part of her job? 

 

___

 

The N.W.T.'s Liberal MP says former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould may have been ill-prepared for the sort of pressure she was subject to in the SNC-Lavalin affair.

 

Michael McLeod, a former cabinet minister in the Northwest Territories government, said "lobbying happens" when you're in power.  

"It happens non-stop, and it happens from many different directions. I've been in a position where the premier has pressured me to do certain things — so I know it happens.

 

"I think maybe if you never experienced that before, you might consider it unduly hard."

• As RCMP lies in wait, legal minds ponder whether SNC-Lavalin scandal warrants criminal probe 

• CBC EXPLAINS
  What you need to know about the SNC-Lavalin affair

At the same time, though, McLeod acknowledged he has never been the attorney general, doesn't know all the rules, and so it's hard to say "what the attorney general should be putting up with." 

 

McLeod also had strong words of support for Wilson-Raybould, calling her a strong voice and an important person in the Liberal Party. He also said her testimony before the justice committee on Wednesday was credible.

 

"After listening to her, I think most of us had no doubt that she felt that she was inappropriately pressured by the Prime Minister," McLeod said.

He said Wilson-Raybould's testimony answered some key questions for him.

 

"I wanted to hear if there was actually any actual firm direction provided by the Prime Minister's Office, and I wanted to also know if it was illegal what was going on. And in both cases I heard no. 

 

"The issue is certainly not black and white."

 

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/northern-mps-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-1.5038380

 

[Gurn]

14 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

"I wanted to hear if there was actually any actual firm direction provided by the Prime Minister's Office, and I wanted to also know if it was illegal what was going on. And in both cases I heard no. 

so what is all the fuss about then?

[JM_]

Just now, gurn said:

so what is all the fuss about then?

cuz PET?

 

well it is something that needs exploring, how much pressure is too much? the idea that its illegal is a joke, the PM has full discretion to change cabinet members for any reason, she was in cabinet which comes with national responsibilities and confidential discussion (which are confidential because they are often contentious) and sec 715 of the law allows them to discuss remediation for things like shareholders and pensioner impact.

 

I just wonder why she felt the need to throw her PM and party under the bus, she knew the rules going into this and how much the rest of cabinet wanted her to consider other options. It couldn't have come as a surprise. If you're not prepared to compromise then you shouldn't take a cabinet job imo. 

 

Its too bad, this is likely going to help Scheer get elected, and shes going to get to watch him tear down a lot of the good work she did. 

[Lockout Casualty]

20 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think that could work, you would still need to have programs for lower income people and make sure the top 1/2% don't claim they make $1 per year, but a flat tax on its own doesn't negate that. There's a lot of weaselling that goes on with taxation. 

I would be very interested in how you think that would work, if you have the time to waste. As I understand it, biggest building blocks of this country were implemented during much higher marginal tax rates than today. This was also before out tax code got overly complicated. And before all the tax breaks and boutique tax credits that have been building up for decades. Meaning that the marginal rate was more representative of the real tax paid then than it is today. As well, our infrastructure is in dire need of upgrading, and continues to fall behind, requiring large financial investment just to bring it up to date. Not to mention the fairness aspect of a flat tax rate.

 

To put it bluntly, I would love to read you square this peg into a round hole. 

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, Lockout Casualty said:

I would be very interested in how you think that would work, if you have the time to waste. As I understand it, biggest building blocks of this country were implemented during much higher marginal tax rates than today. This was also before out tax code got overly complicated. And before all the tax breaks and boutique tax credits that have been building up for decades. Meaning that the marginal rate was more representative of the real tax paid then than it is today. As well, our infrastructure is in dire need of upgrading, and continues to fall behind, requiring large financial investment just to bring it up to date. Not to mention the fairness aspect of a flat tax rate.

 

To put it bluntly, I would love to read you square this peg into a round hole. 

on tax stuff I have to trust people a lot smarter than me on the issue. This is a good article on it: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/FlatTaxTxt.pdf

[Lockout Casualty]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

on tax stuff I have to trust people a lot smarter than me on the issue. This is a good article on it: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/FlatTaxTxt.pdf

Fair enough. I tend to take anything from the Fraser Institute with a heaping pile of salt, but I'll check it out. Thank you.

 

Flat tax rate instantly makes me think of this guy,

 

 

 

[Lockout Casualty]

Must say I'm entirely unimpressed with the Fraser Institute's take on the matter. From using Hong Kong and Channel Islands as examples, to complete lack of citation of contradicting studies, to its conclusions that in nearly every case study lower incomes' tax burden goes up, while higher incomes' burden is reduced. In only one case does the lowest earners pay less tax than today, however in the same study the highest income earners also pay less. And only one other study shows a drop across every income range. Most cases show highest income earners' tax burden drop by ~33% (give or take another 5%, in one case more than halving their burden), while lowest earners see their burden increase by as much as 5000% (Case 1), and on average by about 40%.

 

To me, it clearly shows a shift of tax burden from individuals earning 40-50k and up to individuals earning 30-40k and less. 

 

Also, being a big proponent of VAT, I wonder what GST rate would need to be set to account of the shortfall in tax revenue from income taxes (and I suppose corporate taxes, capital gains, etc.) Would Canadian society be willing to pay 30% GST to have a lower, flat tax rate?

 

I didn't read thoroughly through the paper, so maybe I am mistaken, but my kid is up from her nap and I can't dedicate any more time to it at the moment. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[BPA]

This should have gone through renumeration.  Charge SNC a hefty fine and put them on a red flag list for current and future government contracts.

 

That would have probably been the best compromise. 

 

The former Attorney General (JWR) is wanting to uphold the "Rule of Law" but forgets that as a Federal Government employee (politician), they also have to do what's in the best interests of Canada.

[JM_]

3 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said:

Must say I'm entirely unimpressed with the Fraser Institute's take on the matter. From using Hong Kong and Channel Islands as examples, to complete lack of citation of contradicting studies, to its conclusions that in nearly every case study lower incomes' tax burden goes up, while higher incomes' burden is reduced. In only one case does the lowest earners pay less tax than today, however in the same study the highest income earners also pay less. And only one other study shows a drop across every income range. Most cases show highest income earners' tax burden drop by ~33% (give or take another 5%, in one case more than halving their burden), while lowest earners see their burden increase by as much as 5000% (Case 1), and on average by about 40%.

 

To me, it clearly shows a shift of tax burden from individuals earning 40-50k and up to individuals earning 30-40k and less. 

 

Also, being a big proponent of VAT, I wonder what GST rate would need to be set to account of the shortfall in tax revenue from income taxes (and I suppose corporate taxes, capital gains, etc.) Would Canadian society be willing to pay 30% GST to have a lower, flat tax rate?

 

I didn't read thoroughly through the paper, so maybe I am mistaken, but my kid is up from her nap and I can't dedicate any more time to it at the moment. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

the concept does shift the tax burden more to consumption, which in many ways is a fairer system. E.g., rich people who buy more stuff, end up paying a lot more of the tax burden. I don't think you'd need anything like a 30% GST. 

 

I do think there is some calculation where low income people aren't hurt by it, and people that consume more pay more. 

 

Another way to ensure that the 1% don't take advantage of it is to make sure that capital gains are taxed appropriately. 

 

But, I need to see it worked out as well. 

 

 

 

[JM_]

3 hours ago, BPA said:

This should have gone through renumeration.  Charge SNC a hefty fine and put them on a red flag list for current and future government contracts.

 

That would have probably been the best compromise. 

 

The former Attorney General (JWR) is wanting to uphold the "Rule of Law" but forgets that as a Federal Government employee (politician), they also have to do what's in the best interests of Canada.

it was an option she should have picked, imo. 

 

When you look at one side - the jobs, impact on shareholders, the fines, blowing up her gov't in an election year weighed against something that she wasn't happy about but she herself said wasn't illegal, I can't see how she's justified in her move. 

 

Thinking about this over the last few days I think it comes down to ego, her's and Trudeau's. Both of them too blinded by what they wanted to see the consequences. 

[Lockout Casualty]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the concept does shift the tax burden more to consumption, which in many ways is a fairer system. E.g., rich people who buy more stuff, end up paying a lot more of the tax burden. I don't think you'd need anything like a 30% GST. 

 

I do think there is some calculation where low income people aren't hurt by it, and people that consume more pay more. 

 

Another way to ensure that the 1% don't take advantage of it is to make sure that capital gains are taxed appropriately. 

 

But, I need to see it worked out as well. 

 

 

 

Considering every point of GST is worth about 3 billion (last I recall reading, after Harper cut GST twice, maybe a little more now), 30% may not be exact, but it may not be far off from the truth. If you look at the options presented by FI, either everyone pays less or lower income Canadians make up the shortfall by paying more tax under the new scheme, which I find unpalatable. I'm unclear if the Libertarian party would change corporate taxes or capital gains, so maybe increasing those would make up the shortfall. Doubtful, but I can't rule it out. Also, I am not in favor of raising corporate tax either.

 

I just don't see the math working out without either a drastic increase in real wages across the board, a progressive tax rate that taxes high income earners more, or a very high VAT. One thing is for sure, this country needs more tax revenue, not less. Efficiency would alleviate some of this need, but I think we're too far gone to make up the shortfall by firing redundant bureaucrats. 

[JM_]

39 minutes ago, Lockout Casualty said:

Considering every point of GST is worth about 3 billion (last I recall reading, after Harper cut GST twice, maybe a little more now), 30% may not be exact, but it may not be far off from the truth. If you look at the options presented by FI, either everyone pays less or lower income Canadians make up the shortfall by paying more tax under the new scheme, which I find unpalatable. I'm unclear if the Libertarian party would change corporate taxes or capital gains, so maybe increasing those would make up the shortfall. Doubtful, but I can't rule it out. Also, I am not in favor of raising corporate tax either.

 

I just don't see the math working out without either a drastic increase in real wages across the board, a progressive tax rate that taxes high income earners more, or a very high VAT. One thing is for sure, this country needs more tax revenue, not less. Efficiency would alleviate some of this need, but I think we're too far gone to make up the shortfall by firing redundant bureaucrats. 

if you could make the math work one thing that is good about it is it would be a lot harder to raise taxes, given how transparent the system would be. 

[JM_]

Good story here on deferred prosecution agreements and why Trudeau was pushing hard for one. 

 

A DPA is not a way to get a crooked company off the hook: It is a way to make sure it is rehabilitated, watched, and financially punished for what it did. All of that must be judicially approved and monitored. Should one of the long list of conditions be not respected, then criminal prosecution would continue, since it is only deferred as long as the terms are complied with. Individuals involved in any scheme, too, are personally prosecuted in a criminal court. In other words, DPAs aren’t soft on corruption – they’re ways to ensure a company has cleaned up and pays the public for its misdeeds.

The dominant narrative outside Quebec is that the Liberals are trying to save a corrupt Quebec company for partisan reasons. Granted, the fact that the Prime Minister is an MP for a Quebec riding, as he himself allegedly noted, is not a legal argument. But being from Montreal does give Mr. Trudeau a better sense of what SNC-Lavalin represents to this country, just as Stephen Harper did with our oil and gas industry. But more importantly, most of SNC-Lavalin’s Canadian staff, which had nothing to do with the alleged misdeeds from its executives, actually work and live outside Quebec. Trying to use legal tools to protect strategic economic corporations from bankruptcy or foreign takeover, especially one that’s woven into cities across the country, is not in itself unprincipled.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-a-deferred-prosecution-agreement-is-not-what-you-think-it-is/