Tyrone Benskin Suspended From Duties as NDP Critic

Unionist, I know you feel that Benskin was raked over the coals, but doesn't this decision by the Ethics Commissioner today show that Mulcair may have been right?

If Mulcair hadn't have removed Benskin from his Critic's position in May, he would have had to do so today when this decision came out tonight.  Now when Mulcair is asked about it by the media he can respond by saying he took action in May.  If Mulcair hadn't of done so, he would be critized tonight for still having an MP in the shadow cabinet who was found to have broken the ethics rules.

Unionist, no. Benskin is an MP, he has been for 2 years, and an MP makes a hell of a lot more than regular tax payers. There is absolutely no excuse for him to have not acted on this and made steps to correct the situation by now. Most Canadians who end up in tax trouble can have their lives turned upside down and taken through the wringer, but once you become an elected official the rules no longer apply to you. That's the cynicism that alienates the working classes from politics, the working classes you seem to be so concerned about.

And what real personal hardship has he experienced as a result of the Ethic's Comissioner's ruling anyways? He still gets to keep his job as an MP, and I'm sure he will come out of this pretty well. Much better than most of us could expect if we ended up with a tax bill in excess of $50 000, and as cco said upthread, if he owes that much in back taxes, then he was probably much more economically secure than most people, including most readers of this board.

Unionist wrote:

So A24, why hasn't he been tossed from caucus? Don't we need to send a message to Canadians that tax avoiders will never prosper? Why are we consorting with wealthy cheaters? I need an explanation.

I wouldn't quite view the matter that strongly, but as of now, these are the rules. As someone who is struggling financially right now, I find it very frustrating to have these expectations that I am supposed to follow, and yet when the people in charge (business leaders and politicians) don't follow them, I get angry. Many other people do as well. Especially since politicians like Benskin have a role in making decisions about how much tax I have to pay and what governmental supports are there for me. I might be cutting him some slack if he were freshly elected, but honestly, what excuse is there for someone who has made six figures for the past 2 years and still has an outstanding tax bill of over 50 thousand dollars, which is more than I can expect to make gross income?

Despite all that, Benskin still keeps his job and his salary as an MP. If that constitutes being thrown under the bus, sign me up. He has a great deal more resources at his disposal to meet his needs than many of us do.

Unionist wrote:

Oh, my deepest apologies. I almost forgot the NDP's new improved philosophy on income tax:

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/17/tom-mulcair-linda-mcquaig-tax-ri... Mulcair Says NDP Won't Tax Super-Rich, But Toronto Candidate Linda McQuaig Favours Idea[/url]

Tell ya what. I'm on Benskin's side, not Bay Street.

Complete non-sequitor. I have criticized Mulcair's stance on income taxes elsewhere on these boards, and you know it. Bay Street has nothing to do with the tax issues of a Member of Parliament.

Unionist wrote:

If Mulcair had a courageous and loyal bone in his body, he would be defending Benskin, explaining how he got into this mess. Because partisanship means knowing which side you're on. He is ambiguous.

What's to explain? Benskin got into this mess all on his own. It's not Mulcair's fault or anyone else. It was Benskin's responsibility when he ran to make sure he knew what the rules were and that he followed them. When you make a mess for yourself, you take responsibility and you fix it. I understand there are systemic issues and extenuating circumstances that come into play, but if at the end of the day people are responsible for their own actions and how they respond to their situations.

cco wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Tell ya what. I'm on Benskin's side, not Bay Street.

That sounds like one hell of a false dichotomy to me. I'd say that the super-rich need to pay their taxes (and more taxes, in fact), and that elected officials also need to pay their taxes. [...] Are you seriously saying that Bay Street is going to bat to make Tyrone Benskin pay up?

Umm, no. I'm saying that Mulcair has taken two stands of interest: 1) Strip Benskin of his critic portfolio because he had some trouble with his income tax. 2) Pledge publicly that he will never increase personal income taxes for the very rich (I called them Bay Street above, mostly for alliterative effect). I oppose both #1 and #2. There are people here who support both. Where do you stand?

Support #1, oppose #2.