CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

I'm still recovering from the overwhelming shittiness of that million day election so forgive me if I don't effortpost for the next few years.

e: also good OP and way to poo poo up the thread everybody it feels like home already

# ¿ Oct 27, 2015 04:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:18

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

We need a title for the thread anyway, why not just make it weedwatch?

Canadian Politics Megathread: No, weed isn't legal yet :420:

# ¿ Oct 27, 2015 13:18

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Wow Chris Alexander is still in campaign mode and doesn't get that the party was just totally clobbered because they kept saying exactly the same stuff he's still saying now. What a moron.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2015 20:06

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

"We failed to better communicate the nature of second class citizenship."

# ¿ Oct 27, 2015 20:21

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

McGavin posted:

The Prime Minister should live in a million dollar condo that will finish building five years from now like a true Canadian.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2015 00:11

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

The rich are running scared.

quote:

Justin, no new taxes!

Rather than raising taxes on the affluent, Trudeau should cut taxes on the middle and lower class

If there is one plank in the Liberal economic platform that may make for good pre-election populist policy but is terrible economic policy, it is this goal of boosting top personal marginal tax rates to 33 per cent from 29 per cent.

When you tack on what the provincial Liberals are doing in Ontario at the same time, the top combined top marginal tax rate will go from 49.53 per cent in 2015 to 53.53 per cent in 2016 (including the Ontario surtax, a tax layered on top of a tax) � it has not been this high in nearly 30 years.

And the threshold is $200,000! The federal government is going to take this $3-billion tax grab from the high-end to pay for a $3-billion tax reduction for the lower- and middle-end household sector.

Let me be blunt. This is reckless economic policy.

Canada came off of a first-half economic contraction, the recovery we are seeing is fragile, as it is everywhere in the world.

There is no need to close any fiscal gap like there was in the early 1990s. There is no economic justification for raising taxes on anyone in the current fragile economic environment.

I mean, the last time we had a federal tax rate this high was back in 1987 when the code was changed and simplified.

The federal government in Canada does not have a fiscal problem to address nor does it have anywhere near the societal gaps that exist in the United States.

It is abundantly clear that last Monday�s vote was a referendum on the Harper regime, but it did not appear to me that the typical Canadian is yearning for anyone to face an extra tax bill.

Note: a poll from April of this year found that 64% of Canadians are willing to pay more taxes to protect social services and 83% of Canadians are in favour of raising taxes on the rich.

quote:

If this is a matter of �fairness,� then address it by cutting taxes even more for the lower- and middle-class than the feeble amounts being pledged � and Prime Minister Trudeau, you can borrow 30-year money at 2.25 per cent to fund that move in the bond market, without purposefully dampening the economy.

After all, there are a whole lot of retailers out there that rely on wealthy people�s spending behaviour.

It is nothing but a complete embarrassment for Canada to be risking being ranked as having the fifth highest top marginal tax rate out of 147 countries posted in Wikipedia at a time when we also have among the lowest government debt ratios.

Note: there is clearly no correlation between our high tax rates and our low government debt.

quote:

It makes no sense � research shows that taxing work above a 50 per cent top marginal rate means that people are going to be incentivized to work less, especially at that $200,000 threshold, which as I said above, is not exactly upper-class in many parts of the country. In Toronto, I would venture to say this level of income is distinctly middle-class (one example: the average price of a home in Toronto now tops one million dollars or five times (!) what the government considers the income cut-off to be between middle-class and all other tiers above that subjective threshold).

The proposed hike on those making more than $200,000 drains $3 billion annually from personal income that would ordinarily go to spending and creating jobs � instead it gets siphoned off into the coffers of a government that is already very close to a balanced budget as it is.

This is not the early 1990s when these top marginal rates were being boosted to prevent further erosion in our credit rating and cap the run up in market interest rates at the time.

That was a sacrifice aimed at preventing a fiscal crisis.

What is the point of this tax hike, outside of the fact that it will act as an unnecessary dampener on economic activity?

Of all the fiscal measures being contemplated, this is the one I am still scratching my head over.

The federal Liberal plan would take the top marginal rate in Ontario to the highest it has been since 1981, but back then in today�s dollars, the threshold exceeded $300,000, not $200,000.

So not only will the top rate move to levels that academic research has shown create major work disincentives, but the threshold is so low it defies explanation.

Basic economics, you tax something in this case it is income, and you risk getting less of it.

I am all for cutting taxes for the lower and middle class and even more should be done � but why do this while penalizing the most successful part of society, it�s a bit weird.

If Justin Trudeau stands for fairness, he will not play the role of Robin Hood; he will play the role of benefactor and simply cut tax rates at the lower- and middle-income classes and leave them for everyone else.

This also holds true for the infrastructure spending package � there is room for much more here.

The Liberals plan to finance this plan via deficits and that still takes the federal debt-to-GDP ratio down from 31 per cent now to 27 per cent by 2020. The government can actually run deficits of $24 billion per year out to 2020 and all that would do would leave the debt-to-GDP ratio at today�s level, which is still less than half the average for the OECD.

Roughly half of the proposed new spending is on infrastructure � more needs to be done, the fiscal flexibility is there to be even bolder without sacrificing the coveted �AAA� credit rating, and again, Ottawa can borrow 30-year money today at 2.25 per cent.

Trudeau, don�t fall into President Obama�s trap of coming into office and erring on the small-ball side when it comes to productivity enhancing investment � especially since most estimates that I have seen point to an infrastructure deficit exceeding $700 billion.

My advice is no new taxes on anyone. Use our fiscal flexibility with more authority and get more aggressive on the capital spending plan.

The cupboard is full � but is the willingness there?

David Rosenberg is Gluskin Sheff + Associates Inc.�s chief economist and strategist.

I skimmed some of the article but I'm 90% sure he doesn't even mention the tax cut for slightly less wealthy people.

tl;dr: "Don't tax me bro!! :qq:

" - a rich guy

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/justin-no-new-taxes

# ¿ Oct 28, 2015 01:57

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

JohnnyCanuck posted:

Also, it was a $10M repair job 10 years ago. It's gonna be way more now, but fuckit. The place needs it.

If Trudeau is smart, this is already the perfect spin for the story. "This is something Harper should have done ten years ago, but he didn't, and now we have to clean up his mess."

# ¿ Oct 28, 2015 04:09

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Melian Dialogue posted:

I can't find any actual sources on this other than a couple articles on the CBC citing that the Crown admitting that the defense's allegations of bombing this site are true. I would much rather accept an actual ruling on this rather than hearsay.

I feel like if a major part of the defence's argument is "Actually, my client did not bomb this building and the reason why is because actually the RCMP bombed it instead" and the Crown responds "Well yeah, that's true", that seems pretty damning.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2015 04:40

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Melian Dialogue posted:

Courts didn't seem to think its a problem that they blew up, with the companies permission, a shed in order to build up the credentials of an informant. This isnt some ~~**~~FALSE FLAG~*~*~ attack or something here.

They didnt bomb the site in order to make the suspect look bad or to pin it on him.

quote:

The RCMP's original plan was to blow up one of AEC's trucks. The company convinced the police to change the operation even though AEC had already given its approval, offered up a truck to be bombed and said it would pay for any major damages. Company officials were having second thoughts.

According to the RCMP's own files, the head of AEC's northern operations met with the police to say his bosses were concerned that bombing a vehicle would cause 'undue stress and fear' for employees driving company trucks.

So the company offered an alternative, a shed covering one of its "out of service" well sites not far from the suspects' property.

The bomb was set off Oct. 14, one week before AEC hosted two tense and emotional town hall meetings. Worried residents who turned out, were told by an expert, who was flown in by AEC, that they were the victims of 'eco-terrorists'.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/more-details-of-rcmp-dirty-tricks-revealed-1.168362

Still pretty bad to intentionally terrorize the public imo.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2015 05:00

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Melian Dialogue posted:

The fact that AEC used it as an opportunity to scare the community about eco-terrorists wasnt the doing of the RCMP.

What would you expect AEC to do, tell the people at these town halls that it was a fake bomb that they set themselves with the help of the RCMP? If you're planting a bomb in order to build fake credentials for someone as an eco-terrorist, the whole point is that you publicize it as eco-terrorism. Whether it's the company or the police doing it doesn't really matter. This is especially true when you consider that they already decided against bombing a truck because they knew it would frighten their drivers, so clearly the two organizations involved had prior planning about the public fallout of their fake bombing.

You honestly don't see any problems with the RCMP committing a fake terrorist attack in order to try and get an informant to get someone else to confess to other crimes? If they couldn't build a good enough case to put away someone who was apparently such a threat to public safety without literally staging a terrorist attack on Canadian soil, I feel like they probably didn't have a very solid case to begin with.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2015 05:15

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

flakeloaf posted:

Serious question, at what point does the Sun run so far afoul of basic journalistic standards that someone holds them to account?

Never.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2015 15:57

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Rime posted:

Whoa guys, whoa, I've just had a crazy drunk idea:

What if we made it mandatory that parties fully dissolve after two consecutive campaigns, that party names are banned from reuse for twenty years, and all parties are handed equal funding from a federally controlled "trust fund".

Sounds like a great way to ensure the public forgets about the bad things the Conservatives did when after two elections they disband and run identical candidates with an identical backroom team but a different name and different colours.

# ¿ Oct 29, 2015 02:24

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

RBC posted:

The unions needs to and should have a real strike, there's no question. All these shenanigans from Wynne are because they've shown they're unwilling to do it. Work to rule isn't enough. They should have done it the first week of back in September.

Problem is teachers unions have lost the war over optics when it comes to striking. Back when they were fighting Harris et al there were a significant number of people on their side, but nowadays the government has been so good at painting them as entitled overpaid spoiled brats who are harming the children when they strike that teachers know if they strike, they lose. And when that happens it gives the government license to make cuts in their next contract since they won.

# ¿ Oct 29, 2015 16:09

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

jm20 posted:

This is the Nordic model

Well, sort of. By European standards Nordic corporate taxes are low. Sweden's is 22%, Norway's is 27%, Finland's is 20%, and Denmark's is 23.5%, which is slightly lower than other European countries but it's not like they're charging corporations 12.5% like in tax havens like Ireland.

# ¿ Oct 29, 2015 23:25

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

PT6A posted:

Exactly why I don't much care for MMP. I don't see why we can't have STV as it seems like the best compromise, and it very much limits the ability of lunatics to be in parliament. It's also very simple to understand if you aren't a complete moron.

You're putting a lot of faith in the average Canadian voter here, PT6A.

# ¿ Oct 30, 2015 04:05

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Isentropy posted:

I'm pretty sure you can find most if not all of these same behaviours in many of the police forces across Canada. New Glasgow's police force (seriously, who thought that would be a good idea) left a gay guy to bleed on the street after he was attacked by a local while walking with his partner and responded hours later to the original call for help. And way out in Winnipeg (I think) they were picking up aboriginals and driving them out to freeze to death in the 90s.

Of course, lovely suburban and rural police forces don't compare to a provincial police force.

e: although coming to think about it the problem probably comes from the same place. Think about the sort of people who are attracted to the police force AND who really want to spend their time in all white rural towns...

It was Saskatoon that was famous for the "starlight tours" aka. murdering aboriginal people by driving them out of the city in the middle of night in the middle of winter and then just leaving them there.

# ¿ Oct 30, 2015 13:16

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Somebody else posted something bad yesterday so I fully expect I'll get targeted today. It's cool though, it's a justified response because how else will they keep order around here?

# ¿ Oct 30, 2015 16:05

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

MBAs are ruining the planet and the healthcare industry is no exception. Administrative bloat is not just an issue in healthcare, it's an issue in tons of industries (academia :negative:

). imo we should expand the number of people allowed into dental and medical schools and severely restrict the number of people allowed into business schools.

# ¿ Oct 30, 2015 22:20

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

L

M

A

O

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...-canadian-teams

quote:

Liberal tax hike on high-income earners could affect star athletes signing with Canadian teams

"Wait, poo poo, you mean everyone hates the rich and wants them to pay more taxes? gently caress, gently caress, how do we sell opposition to this? I know! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE POOR ATHLETES :qq:

# ¿ Oct 30, 2015 22:30

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

BGrifter posted:

Oh no! My Leafs might not win the cup.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2015 00:24

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Pinterest Mom posted:

Oh my god.

The Senate Liberal Caucus is threatening to withhold support for legislation unless JT agrees to name one of them Government Senate Leader and put them in Cabinet.

lmao

Aren't there like 50 empty vacancies? He should just appoint everyone who's ever run for the Radical Marijuana Party to the Senate immediately.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2015 00:30

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

The Butcher posted:

Sorry didn't mean that of course. But it was a 49% vote, and there's the spokesperson saying they lost due to "ethnics", on national TV. That's a hell of a thing to say in public if you don't have wide support, as there is some serious baggage attached to saying a thing like that. He obviously wasn't just neutrally and objectively stating statistics.

Well, he also resigned the next day and was probably drinking, so he clearly didn't give a gently caress.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2015 02:58

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

flakeloaf posted:

The "gently caress millionaire athletes" stance is stupid because the tax increase likely won't affect them any more than the tax rates between individual states do (which is to say, basically not at all), so everyone crying for them probably shouldn't be. It could very well hurt the teams who might lose spending power if they have to make up for the taxes over an entire roster, which they probably won't, but it's not a realistic threat to most of them and even if it were that's still not a good reason to seriously reconsider doing it. Hike baby hike.

The National Post doesn't give a poo poo about athletes or Canadian sports teams. The only thing they care about is throwing anti-tax poo poo at the wall until something sticks, and if it's "Think of the Jays!!" that does the trick then that's what they'll do.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2015 05:43

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Dallan Invictus posted:

"Professional corporations paying dividends to doctors and their family are a huge tax dodge and all doctors should go against the wall!"
"Actually, the tax rate on dividends for corporations of that size is such that you save only minor amounts of money over the same amount as salary, here is a chart that specifically highlights this"
"Yes, but when you add INCOME SPLITTING* to that they become a huge tax dodge!"

Never change, CanPol.

*_{that program that nobody mentioned today until someone got called on their shitpost and that the incoming government has specifically promised to kill}

Actually cowofwar and others have been very consistent in their criticism on this issue. For example, the post you're talking about had this line:

quote:

Bullshit corporations of one where they pay their family members with shareholder dividends to avoid taxes.

which is exactly the problem. Income splitting here is not done via the Cons' tax scheme but by creating a corporation for your doctoring practice, giving equal shares to all your family members, then paying 100% of your income as dividends equally to everyone. That means a family of six can each claim $50,000 (well, technically around $43,300 after small business corporate tax) as their net taxable income rather than one person claiming $300,000, which saves them a shitload of money in personal income taxes, as illustrated in RBC's chart.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2015 21:19

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

The Duggler posted:

Why does everyone think that a referendum would fail?

Wouldn't people who vote care enough about voting and elections to want to change the system?

I think I am being naive here

Because there have been multiple referendums on electoral reform in Canadian provinces and they all failed by healthy margins.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2015 23:33

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

BattleMaster posted:

Harper was an incredibly effective politician and understood a lot of what it takes to win in politics, I won't deny that in the slightest. I just think that putting the man himself front and center in the campaign wouldn't be a great idea, and would only have been an improvement over what happened because the campaign they did do went full-throttle with the insane stuff that he had kept a lid on for over a decade.

There's also the fact that a big part of the Conservatives' problem was Harper's personal unpopularity with everyone except the Conservative base. I think they were smart to not focus on him at all during the election. If they had been constantly running ads putting Harper front and centre I expect they could have lost even more seats.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2015 04:41

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Canada's consumption taxes are also less regressive than many other places because they don't apply to some necessities like groceries and there's regular sales tax rebates to low income individuals. Compared to places in the US where sales tax is just applied on everything with no exceptions or refunds it's downright progressive. In any case, cutting the GST into a deficit before the recession even hit was a bad move by the Conservatives and just because CI said it doesn't mean it isn't true.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2015 04:33

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

I hope Scott Brison is the Minister Of Unpaid Internships

# ¿ Nov 4, 2015 16:16

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Trudeau is being his own intergov't affairs minister, and also his own youth minister.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2015 16:57

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

The full list of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's new 31-member cabinet, being sworn in today at Rideau Hall in Ottawa:

Justin Trudeau - Prime Minister.
Ralph Goodale - Public Safety.
St�phane Dion - Foreign Affairs.
John McCallum - Citizenship and Immigration.
Carolyn Bennett - Indigenous and Northern Affairs.
Scott Brison - Treasury Board President.
Bill Morneau - Finance Minister.
Jody Wilson-Raybould - Justice.
Harjit Sajjan - National Defence.
Chrystia Freeland - International Trade.
Jane Philpott - Health.
Patricia Hajda - Status of Women.
Jean-Yves Duclos - Families, Children and Social Development.
Marc Garneau - Transport.
James Carr - Natural Resources.
M�lanie Jolie - Heritage.
Kent Hehr - Veterans Affairs, and Associate Minister of National Defence.
Catherine McKenna - Environment and Climate Change.
Maryam Monsef - Democratic Institutions.
Carla Qualtrough - Sport, and Persons with Disabilities.
Hunter Tootoo - Fisheries and Oceans, and Canadian Coastguard.
Kirsty Duncan - Science.
Lawrence MacAulay - Agriculture.
Navdeep Bains - Innovation, Science and Economic Development.
Judy Foote - Public Services and Procurement.
Dominic Leblanc - Government House Leader
Marie-Claude Bibeau - International Development and La francophonie.
Dianne Lebouthillier - National Revenue.
Maryam Mihychuck - Employment Workforce Development and Labour
Amarjeet Sohi - Infrastructure and Communities.
Bardish Chagger - Small Business and Tourism.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2015 16:59

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

First time MP Harjit Sajjan as defence minister is an interesting pick but he does have army experience so there you go.

Unsurprising to see that men still take most of the important jobs but at least women get Justice, Trade, Health, Environment, and Science.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2015 17:01

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Jordan7hm posted:

Biggest snubs? I'm thinking Blair and Leslie.

Good. gently caress Bill Blair.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2015 17:03

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

flakeloaf posted:

Harjit Sajjan has a pretty impressive biography

This is pretty cool (though of course it's his official page so not necessarily objective) and he seems like a good pick as a result.

I expect Dion wanted something more influential than Environment as his pick. He's one of the party's elder statesmen now and it makes sense that he would want to be in the thick of it instead of off in what's still a secondary portfolio.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2015 17:08

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Brannock posted:

These five posts seem very important to me, actually among some of the most important positions in the cabinet. What positions do you think are missing?

Science is not actually a first tier position, and environment in the past hasn't been either. We'll see how it is in the Trudeau government, but as others have said I would expect Foreign Minister Dion to play a sizable role in any international agreements. Health is one that is a more traditionally female portfolio (the last two Health Ministers were Rona Ambrose and Leona Aglukkaq, for reference) so it's not surprising that that continues. That leaves Justice and Trade which are legitimately good first-tier nontraditional roles for women to fill.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2015 17:18

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Interesting that Joyce Murray didn't get a spot considering she's one of the most high profile Liberal women, came second in the leadership race, and was the party's defence critic. I would've loved to see her in democratic reform since she's on record as a big supporter of PR.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2015 17:32

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Funkdreamer posted:

So a C.D. Howe acolyte got appointed to the Finance portfolio? Sad, but not surprising.

This is my biggest criticism of the Trudeau cabinet. So far most of the picks seem fine but Marneau being an MBA Bay Street CEO from the C. D. Howe Institute is a disappointing return to Liberal form. On the bright side maybe it means CPP expansion since he was on Wynne's ORPP planning team.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2015 23:02

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Harjit Sajjan, our new Minister of Defence, everybody:

# ¿ Nov 5, 2015 14:31

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

TPP's words on expropriation actually sound reasonable to me, but IANAL so who knows.

quote:

Article 9.7: Expropriation and Compensation16
1. No Party shall expropriate or nationalise a covered investment either directly or indirectly through measures equivalent to expropriation or nationalisation (expropriation), except:
(a) for a public purpose17, 18;
(b) in a non-discriminatory manner;
(c) on payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation in accordance with paragraphs 2, 3 and 4; and
(d) in accordance with due process of law.
2. Compensation shall:
(a) be paid without delay;
(b) be equivalent to the fair market value of the expropriated investment immediately before the expropriation took place (the date of expropriation);
(c) not reflect any change in value occurring because the intended expropriation had become known earlier; and
(d) be fully realisable and freely transferable.
3. If the fair market value is denominated in a freely usable currency, the compensation paid shall be no less than the fair market value on the date of expropriation, plus interest at a commercially reasonable rate for that currency, accrued from the date of expropriation until the date of payment.
4. If the fair market value is denominated in a currency that is not freely usable, the compensation paid, converted into the currency of payment at the market rate of exchange prevailing on the date of payment, shall be no less than:
(a) the fair market value on the date of expropriation, converted into a freely usable currency at the market rate of exchange prevailing on that date; plus
(b) interest, at a commercially reasonable rate for that freely usable currency, accrued from the date of expropriation until the date of payment.
5. This Article shall not apply to the issuance of compulsory licences granted in relation to intellectual property rights in accordance with the TRIPS Agreement, or to the revocation, limitation or creation of intellectual property rights, to the extent that the issuance, revocation, limitation or creation is consistent with Chapter 18 (Intellectual Property) and the TRIPS Agreement.19
6. For greater certainty, a Party�s decision not to issue, renew or maintain a subsidy or grant, or decision to modify or reduce a subsidy or grant,
(a) in the absence of any specific commitment under law or contract to issue, renew or maintain that subsidy or grant; or
(b) in accordance with any terms or conditions attached to the issuance, renewal, modification, reduction and maintenance of that subsidy or grant, standing alone, does not constitute an expropriation.

Annex 9-B
Expropriation
The Parties confirm their shared understanding that:
1. An action or a series of actions by a Party cannot constitute an expropriation unless it interferes with a tangible or intangible property right or property interest in an investment.
2. Article 9.7.1 (Expropriation and Compensation) addresses two situations. The first is direct expropriation, in which an investment is nationalised or otherwise directly expropriated through formal transfer of title or outright seizure.
3. The second situation addressed by Article 9.7.1 (Expropriation and Compensation) is indirect expropriation, in which an action or series of actions by a Party has an effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure.
(a) The determination of whether an action or series of actions by a Party, in a specific fact situation, constitutes an indirect expropriation, requires a case-bycase, fact-based inquiry that considers, among other factors:
(i) the economic impact of the government action, although the fact that an action or series of actions by a Party has an adverse effect on the economic value of an investment, standing alone, does not establish that an indirect expropriation has occurred;
(ii) the extent to which the government action interferes with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations; 36 and
(iii) the character of the government action.
(b) Non-discriminatory regulatory actions by a Party that are designed and applied to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health,37 safety and the environment, do not constitute indirect expropriations, except in rare circumstances.

"Tantamount to expropriation" was the big NAFTA clause that allowed ISDS mechanisms to gently caress over Canada and Mexico so maybe the TPP will actually be an upgrade on that.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2015 17:52

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

I'm down to get rid of the royalty but only because I don't want Charles' face on Canadian money.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2015 18:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:18

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

bunnyofdoom posted:

So, yeah, we're bringing back the Long Form Census

A Good Policy

# ¿ Nov 5, 2015 18:35

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

«‹›55 »