Tag Archives: Budget 2015

QP: Taking Paul Martin’s name in vain

Posted on by

In the wake of the Auditor General’s report, and with all of the leaders present, it looked like we might have a decent Question Period for a change. One could hope, anyway. Thomas Mulcair led off, saying that the AG considered the government bad managers, particularly around tax expenditures. Stephen Harper disputed the interpretation of the report, said they would report more, and then slammed the NDP regarding their own high tax plans. Mulcair tied those into the budget and the “giveaways to the wealthy few,” and wondered if Harper thought he was Paul Martin. Harper hit back, saying that if he was Paul Martin, the NDP would be supporting him, before giving praise to his budget measures. Mulcair mumbled something else about Paul Martin before changing the topping to a declaration Mike Duffy may or may not have signed before he was appointed. Harper ignored the question, and praised the TFSA changes. Mulcair quipped “Mike who?” before asking about the appointment of Caroyln Stewart Olsen to the Senate, to which Harper insisted that the Duffy issues were before the court. Mulcair then brought up the Senate invoking privilege to block the release of an internal audit — something the PM has nothing to do with. Harper repeated the response about the matter being before the courts. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the money spent on advertising rather than on young entrepreneurs. Harper insisted that an entrepreneurial group was pleased with measures in the budget, and said that the Liberals would take them away. Trudeau repeated it in French, with the twist of job creation for youth, and Harper asserted that the Liberals hate benefits and tax cuts. For his final question, Trudeau accused Harper had changed with his decision to pour so much money into advertising. Harper listed things he claimed the Liberals opposed (but not really).

Continue reading →

QP: Assistance for Nepal

Posted on by

As Mondays are the new Fridays, there were no major leaders in the Commons for QP, leaving the more unusual choice of Hélène Laverdière to lead off, asking about the humanitarian assistance for Nepal, and asked if the government would match donations as they have done with disasters past. Christian Paradis assured her that there was, and noted the $5 million fund they just announced. Megan Leslie was up next, and asked for a further update on assistance being provided to Canadians in the region. Paradis repeated his previous response, but didn’t tough on the actual questions. Leslie then turned to the budget, and the lack of action for climate change therein. Pierre Poilievre insisted that the NDP considered anyone making less than $60,000 per year are wealthy. Nathan Cullen then asked about tax breaks for the wealthy, to which Poilievre repeated the same answer. Cullen gave a rambling repeat of the question, and got the same answer. David McGuinty led off for the Liberals, asking about partisan advertising — not coincidentally, the subject of his opposition day motion. Poilievre insisted that they were informant families of tax decreases and benefits available to them. McGuinty pressed, wanting all government ads to be submitted to a third-party vetting. Poilievre instead plugged the benefits to parents who were not yet signed up to them. McGuinty then moved onto the lack of job creation figures from the budget, but this time Kevin Sorenson stood up to deliver the good news talking points on all the jobs the government allegedly created.

Continue reading →

QP: Pierre Poilievre, de facto finance minister

Posted on by

While it was only Thursday, only two leaders were present — Thomas Mulcair and Elizabeth May, with Stephen Harper off in Winnipeg and Justin Trudeau, well, elsewhere. After interminable members’ statements on how great/terrible the budget is, Mulcair finally got up to lead off, pointing out that the NDP had proposed the small business tax cut that was being gradually rolled out in the budget, and it was voted down, so why should Canadians believe the government about it now. Pierre Poilievre boasted about the low-tax plan in response. Mulcair returned to yesterday’s lead about the problems for their grandchildren that the TFSA increase would create, but Poilievre insisted that TFSAs were great. Mulcair then wondered about Jason Kenney and other Conservatives insisting that the contingency fund wasn’t being touched when it was, and wondered where the finance minister was — as Oliver was once again absent. Poilievre ignored it, and continued to praise TFSAs. Charlie Angus was up next, and returned to the issue of Mike Duffy’s residency regarding his appointment to the Senate, to which Paul Calandra insisted that the practice was clear, and that the NDP was trying to make a victim of Duffy, and oh, they owe for those satellite offices. Angus then asked about entries in Duffy’s diary about meetings on Enbridge that weren’t reported to the Lobbying Commissioner, to which repeated his answer. Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, returning to the problems with the TFSA boost and its inherent inequality. Poilievre insisted that the Liberals would raise taxes. Ralph Goodale was up next, bringing up the changes to the OAS in relation to the TFSA changes. Poilievre insisted that seniors were taking full advantage of TFSAs, and another round gave just the same.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Of gaffes and grandchildren

Posted on by

I think by this point we can pretty much acknowledge that Joe Oliver is not anyone’s best choice to communicate a message – he wasn’t as Natural Resources minister, with his “foreign-funded radicals” warnings about environmentalists, and certainly not as finance minister given his Tuesday night gaffe with CBC’s Amanda Lang. There, he said that any problems with raising the TFSA limit might not happen until 2080, and that he’d leave it for “Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s granddaughter to solve that problem.” Not only did he admit that there was a problem with it, but he decided it’s best to leave it to the next generation – not to mention his prediction that the Harper family will become some kind of dynastic rules of Canada – because we’ve seen so many of those. When opposition parties made hay of it, Harper came out to defend Oliver’s comments, but we have heard this warning before, from the PBO who drafted a report looking at the hole in future budgets that this kind of measure would create, and it’s not inconsiderable, so no, the question being put to Oliver by Lang was more than reasonable, and it would have been irresponsible for her not to ask it. In other post-budget news, here are the opposition positions on many of the pieces therein. There was mention in the budget about “expanding and modernising” the Honours system, but there are almost no details about what that means other than a new website. Pierre Poilievre said the money being given to the Ottawa police is for “fighting jihadis” – except it’s not, but rather for things like demonstrations or visits by foreign dignitaries. Oops. Mike Moffatt looks at the very optimistic budget projections on the price of oil. The budget nearly doubles what it gives to SIRC, but we’ll see if they’ll be expected to do more with it, given that they are already under-resourced. Paul Wells puts absolutely everybody to shame and writes about the budget as political document, and it’s so on point I want to weep.

Continue reading →

QP: Problems for our grandchildren

Posted on by

Following yesterday’s budget, all of the leaders were on hand in the Commons to ask about it. It was also caucus day, which meant the benches were nearly full, usually guaranteeing a good day. Thomas Mulair led off, by asking about Joe Oliver’s statement about leaving the worry about future fiscal woes to “the prime minister’s granddaughter,” and then lamented future for his own grandchildren. Harper hit back, insisting that Oliver said it because it was a ridiculous supposition that the TFSA would create a problem. Mulcair worried about the environmental debt being left to their grandchildren, to which Harper claimed that his was the only government that reduced emissions (err, except the provinces made the reductions). Mulcair changed topics, and asked why Harper would have appointed Mike Duffy to the Senate if he didn’t live in PEI. Harper said it was established practice, and wouldn’t comment on the case befor the courts. Mulcair read out the eligibility requirements in the constitution, and got the same answer from Harper. Mulcair read out the inscription on that photo saying that Duffy was his best appointment, to which Harper demanded the NDP pay back their satellite office expenses. Justin Trudeau was up next, and asked again about paying for TFSAs with the next generation of taxpayers. Harper repeated his assertion that lowering taxes was good for everyone, then repeated a distortion about Trudeau’s comments about small business tax cuts. Trudeau insisted that Harper was paying for the OAS age increase with his cuts, to which Harper insisted forcefully that he hadn’t cut a penny from seniors. Trudeau repeated the question in French, and Harper insisted that the Liberals were the only ones who wanted to raise taxes on the middle class.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sort of balanced

Posted on by

So, that was the budget. Woo. They say it’s balanced, but only by virtue of the asset sales and raiding both the EI and the contingency funds, which in reality means it’s still actually in deficit. Oh, and the normally $3 billion contingency will only be $1 billion next year and $2 billion the year after that, never mind that it’s a time of a “fragile global economy” and extremely slow growth. But! Balanced! (More or less). For analysis, here are nine takeaways from the budget, the bottom line for most people, and for the low- and middle-income Canadians. And yes, it’s not too surprising that the opposition calls it a budget for the rich (and more to the point, rich seniors). There is mention of the plans for reforming public servants’ sick days, money for the Iraq mission, and promises to boost defence spending (but less than what is actually needed to maintain capabilities). Stephen Gordon writes about the fiscal discipline of the government’s five-year plan to slay the deficit, while Mike Moffatt writes about the budget’s effect on manufacturing and internal trade. And in case you’re curious, Rosemary Barton gives you a look inside the lockup.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not expecting many budget surprises

Posted on by

It’s Budget Day – err, I mean Economic Action Plan 2015™ Day, and all of the big stuff has pretty much leaked already – because apparently there are no penalties for this kind of thing anymore when that it used to be a serious issue that was investigated by the RCMP. Suffice to say, Joe Oliver promises it’ll be balanced (and got some New Balance shoes as the most dad joke of Budget Day gimmicks ever), and we hear there will be things like some more money for security agencies, and more compassionate caregiver leave (but that’s coming out of the EI fund, which is already artificially high and being used to pay down the deficit), and they keep hinting about raising the limit on TFSA, and finally giving that adult fitness tax credit. And then there’s the fact that the government has been putting out all kinds of advertising to ensure that people don’t forget to sign up for the new child benefits – after all, they want to ensure that they’re in people’s bank accounts before the election so that they can warn that those awful Liberals (and NDP) will take them away. So there’s that. I guess I’ll see you after the lock-up with the rest of the details.

Continue reading →

QP: Wait for tomorrow’s budget

Posted on by

The first day back from the Easter break, and the day before the budget, and attendance was pretty depressed, and none of the major leaders were present. Megan Leslie led off, demanding the government table a budget that helps families. Kevin Sorensen said she’d have to wait for tomorrow to get the details, but they were going to fulfil their provinces including tax breaks for families. Leslie insisted regular Canadians would face cuts, but Sorenson was not deterred from his good news talking points. Leslie then changed topics to the constitutionality of Mike Duffy’s Senate appointment, to which Paul Calandra reminded the NDP of their satellite offices and demanded they repay them. Peter Julian repeated the question in French, got much the same response, and for his final question, Peter Julian decried cuts to marine safety as demonstrated by the fuel leak in English Bay. Lisa Raitt responded by commending the Coast Guard on their actions, and reminded them that the ship transiting Canadian waters who is solely responsible for their pollution. Scott Brison led for the Liberals, decrying the planned balanced budget legislation, and asked the government to make the law retroactive to repay the five percent penalty for the years that we weren’t in recession. Sorenson praised balanced budgets, and didn’t take Brison’s bait. Brison then decried the doubling of the TFSA limit as helping only the wealthy, and Sorenson responded with some non sequitur past quote of Brison. Brison wanted more help for students instead of advertising (Poilievre: You would raise taxes on students).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Arctic Council changing hands

Posted on by

It’s the end of Leona Aglukkaq’s two years as Chair of the Arctic Council on Canada’s behalf, and well, there’s not a lot to show for it. That’s not much of a surprise considering what we’ve seen of Aglukkaq in any of her roles so far. As the Americans prepare to head up their turn as Chair, we’re hearing a lot about their priorities, much of it having to do with climate change – you know, that thing at Aglukkaq likes to scold provincial governments about while doing next to nothing on the file herself, while simultaneously taking credit for the reductions that Ontario achieved by shuttering their coal-fired electricity plants. Aglukkaq instead pats herself on the back for encouraging private sector investment in the Arctic, but we haven’t really heard much in the way of good economic news in the North – instead, we’ve heard much more about the skyrocketing food prices and the lack of political will to do much about Nutrition North, or even for the government to acknowledge that problems exist with it. Like so many things during her time in federal politics, Algukkaq seems absent even from the conversation, so you can’t even say that she’s more talk than action. I’m not sure why anyone might have expected this to go any differently.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A possible return to deficits

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer gave his pre-budget analysis, and said that while the books look balanced this year, the government’s continued focus on tax breaks, spending announcements and the low oil price environment could mean heading back into deficit in two years – not too surprising really if you’ve been paying attention. Part of the fiscal breathing room the government is using right now is coming from their decision to freeze EI rates rather than let them fall to a level that reflects the actual unemployment rate, which sounds a lot like the kinds of things they used to curse Paul Martin for doing. And then there are the asset sales, such as all of those GM shares – possibly sold at a loss – that just pad the books in the short term. But hey, they can claim to balance the budget without raising taxes (err, except for all of those tariffs that they raised this year) and try and sell that as sound economic management going into the election. The actual numbers tell a different story, as we’ve seen, but hey, why mess with a narrative?

Continue reading →