Monday after a constituency week, and the PM was in Toronto to play with a pandas and talk to Huffington Post readers in a video town hall. Rona Ambrose led off, asking about the possibility of the Afghanistan war memorial being cancelled. Kent Hehr responded that the Veterans Affairs was working with Heritage Canada, with more to come in a few months. Ambrose changed topics, asking about Trudeau meeting with the Centre for American Progress, repeating some of their statements about the oil sands. Catherine McKenna reminded Ambrose that they believe that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. Ambrose then changed to the TD Economics projection for ballooning deficits, but Scott Brison was having none of it, reminding her of the debt legacy of the previous government and stated that they would not cut ideologically. Denis Lebel was up next, after a long absence from the Chamber, during which he repeated the Centre for American Progress question in French, and he got the same answer from McKenna in French. For the final question, Lebel repeated the TD question in French, and Brison repeated his own answer in French. Thomas Mulcair next, asking about the upcoming vote on their EI motion. MaryAnn Mihychuk reminded him that they are working hard to reform the EI system to help workers, which was coming shortly. Mulcair repeated the question with some additional notes about EI vote the Liberals made in the previous parliament, but got the same answer. Mulcair changed topics to the softwood lumber negotiations, asking if the PM would take a stand in Washington. David Lametti responded that they were working to maintain stable access in the US market. Mulcair then lamented the lack of new targets or timelines from the Vancouver meeting. McKenna insisted that carbon pricing mechanisms were on the way.
Tag Archives: CETA
Roundup: Boutique tax credits for everyone!
The very first Private Members’ Bill up on the docket to be debated is one that give me a real headache, and it’s one that should be disallowed from being voteable, all because of a wee little loophole in the rules. The bill, from Conservative MP Ted Falk, aims to increase the tax rebate which charities receive to match the same level that one gets for political donations. The problem? That this is really an expenditure, and private members’ bills are forbidden to spend money without a royal recommendation (though MPs have gone to increasingly ridiculous lengths in recent years to try and contort logic to pretend that those bills don’t spend money when in fact they do). The even bigger problem? That a loophole currently exists in the rules that makes it technically possible for these bills asking for a tax credit to bypass the spending rules because technically (and under the way that procedure is interpreted) the bill seeks to reduce tax paid, not increase or expend taxes. That’s not actually true, mind you – ask the Auditor General or any decent economist and they’ll tell you in no uncertain terms that tax credits are actually expenditures, and unfortunately there is precedent on Falk’s side, particularly with a certain PMB from Dan McTeague several parliaments ago where he got a tax deduction in under that technicality and it was deemed to be in order. The government repealed the measure in their next budget, but the bill got though when really it shouldn’t have. Unfortunately it opened the door to these kinds of bills that are looking to create new boutique tax credits, and that’s a problem. Our tax code is already thousands of pages, and far too complex. Boutique tax credits are actually terrible policy, but governments have decided that they’re good politics because they feel like they’re rewarding certain groups for certain behaviours, and damn the consequences. The Auditor General has sounded the alarm that these measures aren’t being properly tracked because they’re not deemed expenditures (even though they are), which means that they’re not being given proper parliamentary oversight to ensure that it’s money that’s being well spent – and he found many cases where it’s not. But as Falk is demonstrating, the floodgates are opening, and it won’t be long before the Order Paper is replete with these PMBs demanding new boutique tax credits for everything under the sun, to encourage all manner of behaviour that they deem a social good, under the rubric that they’re not spending any money and thus within the rules. It’s a loophole that Parliament needs to set upon itself to close for the sake of the tax code and parliament’s ability to hold these kinds of spending measures to account. Sadly, one suspects that in their self-interest, MPs won’t make the needed rule change and we can expect this situation to get worse with every passing parliamentary session.
https://twitter.com/avelshi/status/704465684797915136
Roundup: De-Canadianizing the Crown
A decision from the Quebec Superior Court came down yesterday which will have grave constitutional implications for Canada, yet few people actually know or understand it. The case challenged the royal succession law that the previous government passed as part of the series of reforms passed in all of the realms that share Queen Elizabeth II as their respective monarch, and by most reckonings, the Canadian law was a complete sham, simply assenting to UK legislation, in essence subordinating the Canadian Crown to a subset of the UK crown, despite the fact that they became separate entities after the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The Quebec Superior Court, however, sided with the Department of Justice, that the monarch was the same per the preamble of the constitution as opposed to a separate legal entity, and essentially reducing Canada back to a subordinate British colony, all because the Harper government didn’t want to go through the necessary steps of doing a proper constitutional amendment to change the Office of the Queen to match the aims of reform. So long, Queen of Canada. We hardly knew you.
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699675727185256448
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699676140714258434
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699677275999113218
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678028784410624
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678843540545536
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678990441848832
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686628005179392
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686740714463234
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686958084288512
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699687878658494465
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699689056171597824
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699689344253173761
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699691519066947588
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699691722750742529
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699811121620889600
Roundup: Cauliflower concerns
The NDP put out a press release yesterday, which was essentially an object lesson in precisely what not to do when trying to make hay out of a political issue. The issue – rising food prices, and in particular, the rising cost of fruits and vegetables, and the lament that cauliflower is now a “luxury item.” Err, except that it’s not. And worse, that its “inexplicable” rise in price is entirely explicable – there’s a drought in California, and then there was a frost, which reduced the supply, and the increased demand lately (because it’s a trendy food right now) means that, thanks to the basic laws of supply and demand, the price spiked for a few weeks. And lo, it’s come back down again. And let us not forget that fresh fruits and vegetables in the winter is actually a luxury that our parents pretty much never had. They attempted to use the release to highlight inequality – Mulcair put out a release a couple of days previous, lamenting that Trudeau didn’t bring up inequality during his speech at Davos – but most of the claims in the cauliflower release were spurious. Transportation costs are not increasing – the crashing price of oil means that the cost of fuel is coming down by quite a lot. And the lament that the December rate of inflation was 1.6 percent? Um, target inflation is two percent, so unless they have another target in mind, that might be a policy they want to put out there. Rising food costs also have a lot to do with the lower dollar, and if memory serves, the NDP were lamenting that the dollar was too high (no doubt because they felt it was depressing the manufacturing sector, never mind that there are deeper structural issues than just the dollar alone), and that’s the thing about a low dollar – that it reduces your purchasing power, particularly if the fresh fruits and vegetables that don’t grow in this country in the winter have to be imported. To cap it off, the release offers no actual suggestions for what they’d like to see – only a vague statement that the upcoming budget is an opportunity to do something about inequality. So what, pray tell, is up for offer? Socialist wealth redistribution? The government is already raising taxes on the wealthiest one percent and offering more transfers to poorer families. So in totality, one has to ask if there as any adult supervision in putting out this hot mess of a press release, because the evidence before us makes that assertion unlikely in the extreme.
This NDP release about cauliflower is utter nonsense. IT’S EXPENSIVE BECAUSE THERE WAS A DROUGHT! Seriously! pic.twitter.com/hWJK4GRB6U
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 22, 2016
The return of "ZAP! You're frozen." anyone? https://t.co/zSwdxWX5UF
— Luke Kawa (@LJKawa) January 22, 2016
Roundup: Appointment board terms
The Order in Council relating to the new Senate appointment board was made public yesterday, and some of the details were tweeted out (as below, with commentary). Of note for me when you read the terms was that this interim process for the first five appointments will be done by engaging with civil society groups of various distinctions. The permanent process going forward will be the one that invites people to nominate others (or themselves) as vacancies come open.
And here's the mandate for the Senate appointments board. https://t.co/cwc6kocSUQ
— Glen McGregor (@glen_mcgregor) January 21, 2016
Board members who select new senators will earn $375-$450 per diems, plus travel costs. Not even lawyer money. https://t.co/aFdwzBbZC5
— Glen McGregor (@glen_mcgregor) January 21, 2016
Here are the detailed terms for the Senate appointments board. https://t.co/EXgFpxGraa
— Glen McGregor (@glen_mcgregor) January 21, 2016
Because of Responsible Government and the Constitution. It’s a Thing. https://t.co/mPh828058x
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 21, 2016
Pretty safe bet that one of the first five new senators appointed will be aboriginal. I will bet my house on this. https://t.co/6LqSLZ6JIm
— Glen McGregor (@glen_mcgregor) January 21, 2016
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/690289470709563392
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/690289727677829121
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/690290163809959937
Roundup: Wai Young, Conservative fabulist
Yesterday it was revealed that Conservative MP Wai Young spoke at a church congregation to tell them that Harper was doing things in the same vein as Jesus, and used Bill C-51 as an example. Because Jesus was really concerned about giving inordinate powers to intelligence agencies without any kind of oversight, and about preventing terrorist attacks – oh, wait. No he wasn’t. While Young’s terrible theology sparked the usual ridicule over the Twitter Machine, it was her other statement that was perhaps most alarming, which was her claim that CSIS knew there was a bomb on the Air India flight 30 years ago, but were forbidden from sharing that information with the RCMP, and 400 people died as a result. Except no, none of that is true, they didn’t know and they could share information. Oops. Young later claimed that she “misspoke,” but that seems to be code amongst Conservative MPs for making stuff up. You know, like when that other Conservative backbencher apologised to the House for “misspeaking” when he claimed that he has directly witnessed people taking voter identification cards out of the recycling bin with the intention of casting fraudulent ballots. Turns out that one wasn’t true either. But hey, political fabulism is apparently okay so long as you apologise for “misspeaking” when you get caught. Truth and debating on the strength of your ideas doesn’t matter – no, you can just invent things out of whole cloth, repeat complete fabrications against your opponents (income splitting for seniors, anyone?) and say it often enough in the hopes that people will start believing it’s true (Hello, 2011 election). Why wouldn’t a backbencher like Young think it’s okay if this is the behaviour that she’s watching get rewarded by everyone else around her? It’s a sad indictment of the state of our political discourse.
Roundup: Good questions about Trudeau’s proposals
There have been a few good responses to Trudeau’s big announcement on Tuesday, including by Emmett Macfarlane and to an extent Andrew Coyne (though I have some respectful disagreements on points he’s made). But two of the best came in the form of Twitter essays, so I’m just going to post them here for your benefit, because they were that good.
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611170331756138497
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611170765392642048
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611171120985706496
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611171784683991041
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172117275521025
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172270812205056
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172430577471489
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172648702193664
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172838297329665
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611173239570608128
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611173399008706560
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611173665888010240
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611187983883083776
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611188306441842689
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611188371168305152
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611193729186156544
QP: Gross mischaracterizations and repetition
The second-last Monday QP of the 41st parliament, and it looked like it was going to be a bit of a sleeper. Thomas Mulcair showed up on a Monday, which was unusual, and possibly because he’ll be at Jacques Parizeau’s funeral tomorrow. None of the other leaders were here either, however, so it was going to be pretty weak sauce. Mulcair led off by grossly mischaracterizing the AG revelation on Senate Speaker’s spending, saying that Speaker Housakos has a “spending problem.” Paul Calandra said that the Speaker had answer the question for itself. Mulcair demanded to know if the PMO was orchestrating the response to the recent Senate scandal, to which Calandra responded that the Senate invited the AG in and would answer for themselves. Mulcair asked again in French, got the same answer also in French, and then he moved onto the G7 communique on climate change. Colin Carrie got to respond to this one, reading that the G7 came up with a strong and unanimous statement on climate change. Mulcair demanded action on climate change,and got another talking point about our “clear” record. David McGuinty led off for the Liberals, asking in French about contradictory statements the government has made about infrastructure spending at the G7. Denis Lebel insisted that the facts were wrong, and that they were making record investments. Adam Vaughan blasted the government for their false assurances at the Federation of Canadian Munipalities meeting, to which Lebel insisted that the former Liberal government didn’t live up to promises. Vaughan hammered on the government and their messaging, to which Joe Oliver got up to insist that money would be available when projects needed them.
It's a good thing that Mulcair is protected by privilege, because that characterization of Speaker Housakos was likely libelous. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 8, 2015
QP: CPP consultations and fictitious allegations
Even though the king and queen of the Netherlands were visiting, all of the leaders actually showed up for QP for a change. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking for the declaration of Mike Duffy’s residence. Stephen Harper responded that Duffy’s actions were before the courts. Mulcair threatened that if Harper didn’t answer now, he would at the debates, and then demanded that the full Duffy audit be released. Mulcair gave some vaguely coherent muttering about the PMO covering up the cover-up in the Senate, to which Harper reminded them that the NDP faces their own repayment problem for their satellite offices. Mulcair moved onto the retirement age, demanding it be lowered to 65 (not that it actually changed — just OAS), to which Harper listed off their other measures for seniors. Mulcair closed with a quote from Jim Flaherty regarding CPP, to which Harper insisted the NDP would raise taxes on seniors. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and wondered why the government made their CPP announcement with no consultation by the provinces. Harper said that their record of supporting voluntary options was clear, while the Liberals would raise taxes. Trudeau reminded Harper of his record of statements on breaking up the CPP. Harper said that was false, and touted the options they created to help Canadians save. When Trudeau insisted that experts agreed with them, Harper said that Trudeau’s experts were imaginary, and that Trudeau would show leadership in raising taxes.
QP: Talking points on a list
Monday in the Commons, and true to form, none of the leaders were present — never mind that there are a mere four weeks left. Megan Leslie led off, asking about the GHG emissions targets announced by the government. Leona Aglukkaq got up and read a statement about their sector-by-sector approach, and that they wouldn’t implement a carbon tax. Leslie raised the use of offset credits, which the government used to decry, and Aglukkaq simply read the next non sequitur talking point on her list. Leslie then moved onto the PMO interference in the audit of Mike Duffy, to which Paul Calandra reminded her that it was before the courts. Peter Julian asked the same again in French, and got the same response from Calandra in English, and brought up the NDP satellite offices. Julian tried to bring the rest of the Senate into the mix, but Calandra gave a pro forma response about cooperation, and reminded them about the satellite offices. Emmanuel Dubourg led for the Liberals, and asked another youth unemployment as a way of touting the Liberal plan. Pierre Poilievre touted the government’s plan in response. Ralph Goodale was up next, and slammed the government’s growth record, to which Poilievre repeated his Tax Cuts, Training and Trade™ talking point. For his final question, Goodale decried the government’s child tax plans, to which Poilievre insisted that he was wrong, and that even the PBO said the government plan was okay.