Are Rona's Days in Cabinet Numbered

geoffrey · December 16, 2006

I heard ex Liberal president Steven Ladrew say that harper likes it when eople talk so he might keep on Ambrose after all because of all the publicity she's getting. He said that Harper likes that.

Harper may like publicity but he doesn't like negative publicity. He is going to keep Rona of course (he can't toss her out of the party like Garth for example because she's been loyal like a dog) but she will definitely end up far away from the environmental portfolio. Maybe minister of sport or parliamentary secretary to the minister of culture of something of this sort or he may create a whole new ministry for her - minister of silly walks, etc.

Minister of Health. Wait and see. Unless Tony has a plan, but it doesn't seem like he's done anything. Rona is going to be the pretty face on all the CPC's plans. It's brilliant really. The rest of them are too scary looking to present something, none of them are personable... except Rona.

Saturn · December 16, 2006

Minister of Health. Wait and see. Unless Tony has a plan, but it doesn't seem like he's done anything. Rona is going to be the pretty face on all the CPC's plans. It's brilliant really. The rest of them are too scary looking to present something, none of them are personable... except Rona.

Tony was a complete failure as minister of health in Ontario. Harper was dumb to appoint him minister of health in the first place. The same goes for Flaherty. As I said Harper will keep Rona in cabinet, she looks great on TV and let's face it - he doesn't have much to choose from - his caucus is full of losers. She would make a great poster girl for Health but I somehow doubt that that's where she is going. It will be a difficult decision for Harper. On one hand she has to be far from anything even remotely linked to environment - she cannot be the face of his huge shift on environmental policy before the election. On the other he doesn't have many PMs with functioning brains and don't make asses of themselves in public.

So who will be the new environment minister?

mikedavid00 · December 16, 2006

Minister of Health. Wait and see. Unless Tony has a plan, but it doesn't seem like he's done anything. Rona is going to be the pretty face on all the CPC's plans. It's brilliant really. The rest of them are too scary looking to present something, none of them are personable... except Rona.

I heard that having a womans pretty face in politics takes away from credibility and works against women in politics.

That's just what I heard from a pundit on the radio.

Saturn · December 16, 2006

Minister of Health. Wait and see. Unless Tony has a plan, but it doesn't seem like he's done anything. Rona is going to be the pretty face on all the CPC's plans. It's brilliant really. The rest of them are too scary looking to present something, none of them are personable... except Rona.

I heard that having a womans pretty face in politics takes away from credibility and works against women in politics.

That's just what I heard from a pundit on the radio.

You heard that from some ugly conservative pundit, so it must be true, eh?

B. Max · December 16, 2006

Are Rona's Days in Cabinet Numbered

It is the entire federal environment department whos days that need to be numbered. There is no constitutional bases for it and has become another political foot ball.

geoffrey · December 17, 2006

Minister of Health. Wait and see. Unless Tony has a plan, but it doesn't seem like he's done anything. Rona is going to be the pretty face on all the CPC's plans. It's brilliant really. The rest of them are too scary looking to present something, none of them are personable... except Rona.

Tony was a complete failure as minister of health in Ontario. Harper was dumb to appoint him minister of health in the first place. The same goes for Flaherty. As I said Harper will keep Rona in cabinet, she looks great on TV and let's face it - he doesn't have much to choose from - his caucus is full of losers. She would make a great poster girl for Health but I somehow doubt that that's where she is going. It will be a difficult decision for Harper. On one hand she has to be far from anything even remotely linked to environment - she cannot be the face of his huge shift on environmental policy before the election. On the other he doesn't have many PMs with functioning brains and don't make asses of themselves in public.

So who will be the new environment minister?

I don't know. Prentice would be a choice, but he's the ideal Indian guru so why move him?

Will Flaherty stay Finance minister? I'd like to see Bernier in that spot myself, but we'll see. Not that I'm suggesting he'd then move Flaherty to environment.

Saturn · December 17, 2006

So who will be the new environment minister?

I don't know. Prentice would be a choice, but he's the ideal Indian guru so why move him?

Will Flaherty stay Finance minister? I'd like to see Bernier in that spot myself, but we'll see. Not that I'm suggesting he'd then move Flaherty to environment.

I hope not - he's proven to be a pretty incompetent finance minister. I'm thinking Monte for finance, Flaherty for industry and Bernier for environment. Quebeckers will like Bernier and environment, Harper is very concerned about his image in Quebec. I guess that leaves citizenship for Rona. Of course this is all wishful thinking on my behalf because Harper will probably keep Flaherty in finance. But he might move Monte, Bernier and Rona.

Ricki Bobbi · December 17, 2006

I hope not - he's proven to be a pretty incompetent finance minister. I'm thinking Monte for finance, Flaherty for industry and Bernier for environment. Quebeckers will like Bernier and environment, Harper is very concerned about his image in Quebec. I guess that leaves citizenship for Rona. Of course this is all wishful thinking on my behalf because Harper will probably keep Flaherty in finance. But he might move Monte, Bernier and Rona.

Incompetent in Finance? That's a very unique view. Flaherty is seen by many. including the Toronto Star, as one of the brighter lights of the Cabinet.

Saturn · December 17, 2006

I hope not - he's proven to be a pretty incompetent finance minister. I'm thinking Monte for finance, Flaherty for industry and Bernier for environment. Quebeckers will like Bernier and environment, Harper is very concerned about his image in Quebec. I guess that leaves citizenship for Rona. Of course this is all wishful thinking on my behalf because Harper will probably keep Flaherty in finance. But he might move Monte, Bernier and Rona.

Incompetent in Finance? That's a very unique view. Flaherty is seen by many. including the Toronto Star, as one of the brighter lights of the Cabinet.

In Harper's Cabinet, he may be indeed.

geoffrey · December 17, 2006

Flaherty has no long-term vision... Martin did... Goodale also did not.

We need a finance minister that wants to setup the framework for Canada over the next 10-15 years, not until next election. That means complete tax reform to the point where all of us accountants will have to return to school to learn the new system as it'd be so different. It means completely changing equalisation and creating a reward system instead that balances regional disparity.

Flaherty only makes good numbers in the short term and does so by significantly raising the tax burden on Canadians. 10% increase in income tax collected this year... in a conservative government? That's simply not acceptable.

blueblood · December 17, 2006

Flaherty has no long-term vision... Martin did... Goodale also did not.
We need a finance minister that wants to setup the framework for Canada over the next 10-15 years, not until next election. That means complete tax reform to the point where all of us accountants will have to return to school to learn the new system as it'd be so different. It means completely changing equalisation and creating a reward system instead that balances regional disparity.

Flaherty only makes good numbers in the short term and does so by significantly raising the tax burden on Canadians. 10% increase in income tax collected this year... in a conservative government? That's simply not acceptable.

Would they be wanting to hoard all that money for their adventure in Afghanistan as that's all I can see them wanting to spend money on. I heard that somehow they spend a lot of the surplus, but I'm not sure on what.

Saturn · December 17, 2006

Would they be wanting to hoard all that money for their adventure in Afghanistan as that's all I can see them wanting to spend money on. I heard that somehow they spend a lot of the surplus, but I'm not sure on what.

They will need it for pre-election presents for every interest group you can imagine. So far they've taken on a lot of spending initiatives but many will occur in years from now (like massive military equipment purchases) so the surplus (appears) to be safe for now. I say "appears" because I haven't seen their pre-election budget and given who the minister of finance is, you can never be sure that there is a surplus even if he says so. He is good with creative accounting and creative new concepts like the "net debt", which do nothing aside from misrepresenting reality. Really, I have to see his next budget before I can comment but I have rather low expectations of him keeping us in the black and paying down the debt (which is something I really want to see happening).

Ricki Bobbi · December 17, 2006

I say "appears" because I haven't seen their pre-election budget and given who the minister of finance is, you can never be sure that there is a surplus even if he says so. He is good with creative accounting and creative new concepts like the "net debt", which do nothing aside from misrepresenting reality.

Why can you never be sure? Other than your unfounded disdain for the Conservatives? Net debt isn't really a creative new concept. You are making it sound like a deceptive move on Flaherty's part when he is just setting a target for reducing our debt.

Saturn · December 17, 2006

I say "appears" because I haven't seen their pre-election budget and given who the minister of finance is, you can never be sure that there is a surplus even if he says so. He is good with creative accounting and creative new concepts like the "net debt", which do nothing aside from misrepresenting reality.

Why can you never be sure? Other than your unfounded disdain for the Conservatives?

His record shows it.

Net debt isn't really a creative new concept. You are making it sound like a deceptive move on Flaherty's part when he is just setting a target for reducing our debt.

I'm not "making it sound" deceptive - it is deceptive: Even if his "net debt" goes down the real debt can go up. Reducing his "net debt" doesn't mean anything it's just another advertising tool.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/23/...bt.html?ref=rss

Critics puzzled by Flaherty's 'net debt'
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's ambitious plan to eliminate "total government net debt" in 15 years was the subject of much speculation on Thursday, with many puzzled by the little-used measurement.

The term had rarely been heard by anyone other than some economists, and the Conservative government did not provide the current net debt figure.

Net debt involves a calculation that includes all federal and provincial government debt, minus government assets like the Canada Pension Plan. The federal government's total debt is approximately $480 billion.

Economists from some of the major Canadian banks also found Flaherty's use of net debt curious.

"It's almost as if they've found another measure of debt that will actually be zero fairly soon, but it doesn't really change anything in what they intend to do," said Doug Porter, a senior economist with BMO Financial.

The inclusion of pension plan assets was one of the most contentious aspects of the calculation. They are expected to grow quickly as more people retire in the coming years.

"You can't start adding the Canadian Pension Plan money into the overall debt figure," said Bill Robson, president of the C.D. Howe Institute. "There is a big liability out there for the Canadian Pension Plan to pay those pensions. That's what that money is for. It's not available for other uses."

Ricki Bobbi · December 17, 2006

His record shows it.

Do provide an example of Flaherty's record proving your point?

Hmmm, the CD Howe institute quoted in a CBC piece that doesn't support your argument for deception. The Government is still moving in the right direction on debt reduction. It gives the Government a tangible target to shoot for. People need targets or it becomes very easy to lose course.

But that doesn't support your knee-jerk attack on the Conservatives. Does it?

geoffrey · December 19, 2006

Actually if net-debt is going down and real debt is going up... we're doing absolutely superb at managing this country.

Higgly · December 19, 2006

I cannot help but compare Ambrose to Flaherty.

Ambrose had to stand up for Harper's environmental plan - not an about face from pre-election strategy, but taking a lot of flack. Now the chattering classes are saying she might be history.

Flaherty had to stand up for Harper's about face on income trusts, and is taking a lot of flack. Nobody is talking about good ol' lyin' Jim being dumped from cabinet.

So...... what's up with that?

Saturn · December 19, 2006

Actually if net-debt is going down and real debt is going up... we're doing absolutely superb at managing this country.

The issue here is that we are not talking about net debt at all here. It is the "Total Government Net Debt" (which I call Flaherty's net debt) that Flaherty is talking about eliminating by 2021.

From his Economic and Fiscal Update: http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2006/ec/ecc2e.html
Federal debt, referred to in the budget documents and in the Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada, is the accumulated deficit. It is the federal government’s main measure of debt, as annual changes in this measure correspond to the budgetary balance.

The Total Government Net Debt includes not only the federal government’s debt, but also debt of provincial-territorial and local governments, and the assets of the Canada Pension Plan and Quebec Pension Plan.

This goal of eliminating total government net debt can be achieved by 2021 if provincial-territorial governments maintain balanced budgets and the Canada Pension Plan/Quebec Pension Plan continue to build assets as currently projected. For its part, Canada’s New Government will continue to plan for an annual debt reduction of $3 billion. Any surpluses recorded by provincial-territorial governments and federal surpluses in excess of $3 billion will contribute to accelerate the elimination of Canada’s total government net debt.

So we have:

-current federal government debt: $480 B, projected in 2021: $403 B

-current federal government net debt: $353 B, projected in 2021: $275 B

-current provincial government net debt: $154 B, projected in 2021: $135 B

-current local government net debt: $17 B, projected in 2021: $17 B

-current Total Government Net Debt: $524 B, projected in 2021 $427 B.

So how will the net debt be eliminated by 2021 when it will still be sitting at $427 B (even if the feds decrease theirs by $78 B and the provinces decrease theirs by $19 B )? Well, the assets fo the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan are projected to grow from $110 B to $427 B in 2021. Ain't that nice? We'll just offset the net debt by those assets and get $0. The fact that these assets are not available to reduce the debt in any way shape or form (unless the government passes a bill in 2021 to say that it will not pay CPP/QPP to pensioners anymore and that it will be keeping the money instead), is our little secret and nobody will get it.

In short: Mr. Flaherty looks great "eliminating" the debt by 2021.

In reality, in 2021 the federal debt will be $400 B, the federal net debt will be $275 B, provincial debt will be around $150 B and the Total blah blah will be $0. And that's provided that economy keeps going as it is for the next 15 years and that the provinces experience some improvement in their fiscal situation, both of which seem rather optimistic to me.

mikedavid00 · December 19, 2006

In short: Mr. Flaherty looks great "eliminating" the debt by 2021.
In reality, in 2021 the federal debt will be $400 B, the federal net debt will be $275 B, provincial debt will be around $150 B and the Total blah blah will be $0. And that's provided that economy keeps going as it is for the next 15 years and that the provinces experience some improvement in their fiscal situation, both of which seem rather optimistic to me.

And dict. Dion is going to solve our debt by increasing the number of people here to 500,000 a year? laughable. Just laughable.

We can only reduce our debt by the gov't spending less and paying off the debt.

The gov't spends way too much on services.

Too many people are using services in a disproportianite amount.

The gov't spends 60% more on social services than on healthcare.

This needs to be reduced.

Topaz · December 19, 2006

Well, I just heard on the radio news, that Rona is going and is probably going to be replaced by the now Minister of Indian Affairs, so is Rona going to be ahead of the First Nation?

Higgly · December 19, 2006

Looks like Steve has just become a Liberal

jdobbin · December 19, 2006

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061219/...cabinet_shuffle

Here is the CP story on Ambrose possibly being dumped from cabinet.

Ricki Bobbi · December 20, 2006

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061219/...cabinet_shuffle
Here is the CP story on Ambrose possibly being dumped from cabinet.

Hmmm, the story you linked to says she is going to be moved to Intergovernmental affairs.

How do you consider that "dumping" her from cabinet? :rolleyes:

jdobbin · December 20, 2006

CP Has updated their story that Ambrose might be moving to Intergovernmental Affairs. This is a portfolio that Harper usually handles himself.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061219/...cabinet_shuffle

Ricki Bobbi · December 20, 2006

CP Has updated their story that Ambrose might be moving to Intergovernmental Affairs. This is a portfolio that Harper usually handles himself.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061219/...cabinet_shuffle

So the story was updated? So I guess that means you didn't misrepresent the story...

Hmmm, but wasn't Mike Chong named the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs when the Cabinet was announced? Didn't Peter Van Loan take over the portfolio the day Chong resigned from Cabinet?