Tag Archives: Estimates

Roundup: The ricochet into Canada

Posted on by

I had idly wondered how long the Trump victory in the United States would take to start showing ricochets in Canada, and apparently it was minutes, as in the middle of the night, Kellie Leitch’s campaign was already putting out fundraising emails drawing comparisons, particularly around their mutual bashing of “elites.” Because Leitch, you see, apparently isn’t an elite, never mind the fact that she’s a paediatric orthopaedic surgeon in Muskoka, a university professor, and former cabinet minister whose was the protégé of the finance minister. No sir, nothing elite about that, because she had to compete with the “biggest old boys’ club” out there, being surgeons, so there. Um, okay. (Incidentally, Leitch previously didn’t want to be compared to Trump, which she kept vacillating over during last night’s leadership debate). And that elite-bashing was quickly picked up by bother other leadership candidates, and others in the party like Tony Clement (who apparently also doesn’t think he’s an elite, despite all evidence to the contrary).

Michael Chong, however, rejected Leitch’s move as being antithetical to the “big tent” Conservative movement that the party is trying to become. Chris Alexander also sounded a cautious note, for what it’s worth, but Lisa Raitt’s tone is less decisive.

Michelle Rempel, however, seems cognisant enough about the trap of demagoguery when it comes to dealing with difficult issues and cautions against importing that ethos to Canada. Rempel also relayed some of her experiences of what she saw during her recent visit to the States, and the alarming levels of discontent among the populace.

Meanwhile, here’s Justin Trudeau’s statement on working together with a Trump presidency. Thomas Mulcair, on the other hand, wants Trudeau to call out Trump. And over in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn is taking on that message of public anger about the “governing elite” and trying to make hay of it, so no, this kind of rhetoric is not endemic to the right.

In terms of fallout, we hear from prominent Canadian women like Kim Campbell, Elizabeth May and Michelle Rempel. Shannon Proudfoot writes about how brutally appropriate the end of the campaign ended up being. Bob Fife notes how the Trudeau PMO has had to scramble to adjust to this new reality. Robyn Urback looks at how the Democrats bungled the election, while the Guardian features a column about how liberals helped Trump’s victory. Anne Kingston writes about Trump winning his war against the media. Paul Wells writes about next steps for Trudeau, while Chantal Hébert wonders how much of Trudeau’s agenda is affected by this change, particularly in areas like climate change, or foreign policy (per John Geddes). Both Paul McLeod and Susan Delacourt saw similarities in the way Trump and Trudeau ran their campaigns. Here’s a look at how pundits and pollsters got things wrong, and Andrew Coyne writes a particularly poignant piece about how Trump’s ability to throw out the rules has vindicated some of the worst elements and impulses, and worries what this signals going forward.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The fiscal update’s hidden gem

Posted on by

The fall fiscal update was delivered yesterday – in the House of Commons, it must be noted – and not unsurprisingly there are deeper deficits projected while the government pledges funds to kickstart an infrastructure bank in the hopes of attracting foreign investment. Oh, and “no path back to balance” is the phrase you’re going to hear an awful lot in the coming weeks. Probably ad nauseum. Oh, and “privatization,” as the NDP now consider the infrastructure banks (because hey, we might have to start paying for the roads and bridges that this bank might fund and we couldn’t have that). That having been said, the debt-to-GDP ratio will be the government’s saving grace when it comes to the size of the deficit, as it should remain relatively stable, while still coming in at the lowest in the G7 by a significant margin. So there’s that.

This all having been said, there were other elements in the update that bear mentioning, and which should not be overlooked, which are some of the changes to the way that Parliament operates. They’re going to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a full Officer of Parliament (which I have mixed feelings about because this solidifies his status as an unaccountable officer for MPs to fob their homework off onto while hiding behind his analyses as “objective proof” of their partisan accusation), they’re adding new independence to Statistics Canada, and they’re going to open up the Board of Internal Economy. But more important than any of that is they’re going to do something about the Estimates cycle.

Why does this matter? Because MPs are supposed to hold the government to account by controlling the public purse, but over succeeding decades, the ways in which they do that – the Estimates and supply cycle – have become so corrupted that they no longer follow the budget cycle, their accounting methods no longer match the Public Accounts so that they can’t track spending, and in many cases, MPs just vote on the Estimates in a series of votes with zero scrutiny (leaving that job up to the Senate – naturally). So if this government is promising to put the Estimates and Budget cycle back in sync, and to clean up the discrepancies between the Estimates and the Public Accounts, that is a Very Big Deal. It means that it will let MPs do their jobs like they’re supposed to do. (We’ll see if any of them do, especially with an empowered PBO for them to fob that homework off onto, but this will certainly help him too). It’s restoring some of the proper functioning of our parliamentary democracy, and we shouldn’t ignore it.

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/793611413419880448

Continue reading →

Roundup: The expanded deficit

Posted on by

The big news yesterday was of course Bill Morneau’s fiscal update, in which he said that the deficit was slated to rise to $18.4 billion – and then everyone freaked out. But if you take a breath, you’ll see that in there is about $6 billion of wiggle room (or “fudge” as Andrew Coyne called it) when they adjusted down the growth projections of private sector economists – which have been particularly optimistic. As well, much of the current-year deficit is driven by lower revenues rather than new spending, despite what the Conservatives say, which is why the Liberals thought it clever to remark in QP yesterday in response to questions about the deficit that the Conservatives and NDP would be cutting all over the place in order to keep a balanced budget (to which Lisa Raitt, on the evening politics shows, rather indignantly replied “You don’t know that.”)

https://twitter.com/stephen_tapp/status/701799653826813952

As part of the changed fiscal picture, the “savings” the previous government booked for changing public service sick leave is now back in books (not that it would have actually achieved savings in the first place). Stephen Gordon wonders if spending to spur growth is the right policy when this period of low growth may not actually be temporary, but rather might be the new normal. Kevin Milligan on the other hand notes that because it’s so cheap to borrow right now that going into deficit won’t really cost as much in the future, as we are not in the same situation as we were 25 years ago. Maclean’s charts the worsening fiscal situation. Kevin Page has questions about the “holes” in the fiscal update. Morneau also hired Dominic Barton as a growth consultant, which likely means a focus on Asia.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/701796830795931648

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/701797622537986049

Continue reading →

Roundup: The needed reforms to the Estimates

Posted on by

Democratic reforms remain the topic of discussion on the Hill, following Dominc LeBlanc’s appearance at the Procedure and House Affairs committee on Thursday, and some of what he’s talking about is necessary – most importantly, reform to the Estimates process. The Liberals had promised during the election that they would reform the process so that the Estimates were a) readable, and b) resembled the Public Accounts, so that the latter could be used to check over the former. There is probably no greater reform that needs to happen than this, because it’s the job of MPs to hold government to account by means of controlling the public purse. The Estimates are how they plan to spend the money, and the Public Accounts are the accounting of how it was spent. When both are reported using different accounting methods, and with the Estimates currently being largely unreadable to the layperson, it makes that accountability nigh impossible to do. It’s no wonder that the process has largely devolved to voting them through at all stages with no actual discussion or scrutiny (as they did in December, only for the Senate to catch their mistakes when they ballsed it up in their haste). It’s also why MPs have been consistently fobbing off that homework to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Auditor General, and increasingly the Senate, while ministerial visits to committee to discuss the Estimates for their departments are spent answering questions on issues of the day rather than the Estimates they were there to talk about. Add to that, there’s the “deemed” rule, whereby Estimates are deemed to be agreed to and passed after a certain date, so MPs couldn’t even hold them up if they wanted to. It’s so entirely broken, which is why the Liberal promise to fix this system is so damned important. Of course, with the good comes the bad – talk of eliminating Friday sittings, possibly with longer days on Tuesdays and Wednesdays to compensate (but what about the “family friendly” elimination of evening sittings so that MPs can have dinner with their families?), and assurances that they wouldn’t actually be getting Fridays off, but working in their constituencies. The problem there is that constituency work is not actually part of an MP’s job – the ombudsman role they play on behalf of their constituents’ interactions with the civil service has grown over the years until it’s metastasised into this beast now where there are stories that the immigration department won’t touch files until they are forwarded by the MP’s office (so far down the slippery slope to corruption it’s alarming), and MPs continue to spend their resources doing this work rather than their actual jobs of scrutinizing the Estimates or legislation. In other words, eliminating Friday sittings makes this problem worse, not better. LeBlanc also did agree that a proposal to ban applause in the Commons may be something else worth considering to help improve decorum, and I would agree that even more than the constant sanctimonious tut-tutting about heckling, applause and scripts are the bigger problems that should be tackled if we want to be serious about making changes to the way our MPs do business.

Continue reading →

QP: National security and painting a bridge 

Posted on by

Despite it being Wednesday, the Prime Minister was absent from QP, meeting with Bill Gates instead. So when Thomas Mulcair led off asking about how much time the public safety committee would get to study C-51, Stephen Blaney responded by hoping they wouldn’t engage in any dilatory actions at said committee. Mulcair wondered if the PM was trying to hide the bill from scrutiny, to which Blaney accused Mulcair of attacking the credibility of CSIS. Mulcair then listed instances of where the RCMP were in the wrong when he meant to give examples of where CSIS broke the law, before asking about the right of dissent in the bill. Mulcair then moved onto the issue of a Quebec City rail bridge, at which point Lisa Raitt reminded him of CN Rail’s responsibilities. Mulcair then moved onto the topic of a funding cut at Marine Atlantic, to which Raitt pointed out that they were returning to their base level of funding after years of increases for revitalisation. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking what the government intended to do on the doctor-assisted dying issue, to which Robert Goguen moaned about how emotional of an issue it was. Trudeau then moved onto the issue of Keystone XL, and if the PM would put a price on carbon to convince the Americans that we are serious about the climate issue. Greg Rickford gave a couple of non sequiturs to slam Trudeau, and insisted it was not an international issue but a domestic American one. Trudeau called it a diplomatic failure, to which Rickford listed off the size of our energy trade.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hurry or not

Posted on by

It’s a curious thing, this notion of political expediency. When it comes to the issue of national security changes, for which you would think the government would want to take the time to get it right considering not only the Charter implications, but also the potential for major embarrassment to a government should things go wrong *cough*Maher Arar*cough* there should be an impetus for some due diligence. Instead, we’re getting word that they want to limit committee study to three days, because gods forbid that they might have to schedule a few extra committee meetings or sit into July to ensure that things happen. Meanwhile, on an issue such as doctor-assisted dying, where there is a ticking clock looming over them, the government instead prefers to push it off to the next parliament, insisting there’s “plenty of time” and don’t worry, they’re “consulting with Canadians” on the subject, which gives one the sense that they’re going to put pretty much as much effort as they did into the recent prostitution law, which is to say that it was a fairly sham process designed to give them a result that they could use to justify a solution that is unlikely to pass a second Charter challenge. Oh, and because they’ll be in a time crunch when they do get around to presenting a bill, it would allow them to insist that they need to use time allocation to ram though a bill without a lot of actual consultation with experts (assuming that the Conservatives form government again). This method of issues management makes no sense, but they apparently are under the impression that it works for them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reassigning Fantino

Posted on by

In some ways, it was a big surprise because it’s almost – almost – like Stephen Harper was admitting he made a mistake with regards to his choice for veterans affairs minister. But it wasn’t entirely that – just a bit of a shuffling of the deck. Without really summoning press to Rideau Hall yesterday, the PM shuffled Julian Fantino out of Veterans Affairs, and put newcomer Erin O’Toole in his place. But lest you think that Fantino has had his day in cabinet and he can quietly disappear into the backbenches, no – Harper found him a new home. Technically it’s his old home as Associate Minister of Defence, but instead of being on the procurement file, as he was previously, now he’s been charged with Arctic sovereignty, cyber-defence and foreign intelligence. Let’s remember that when Fantino was previously on that job, he had the F-35 fiasco blowing up around him. Then Veterans Affairs fell apart around him when he was in that portfolio. And if his lack of interpersonal skills was a big part of the failure at Veterans Affairs, he’s going to be in charge of a fairly diplomacy-heavy role with Arctic Sovereignty? Really? Same thing with foreign intelligence and CSE. You want a notoriously poor communicator to deal with those questions? Really? (My other thought is about what this says about confidence in the abilities of Rob Nicholson if the PM need to split off some of his duties to hand them over to an Associate Minister). As for the veterans file, it’s going to be an uphill battle for O’Toole, who is an immeasurably better communicator than Fantino or his parliamentary secretary, Parm Gill, ever were, but he’s still constrained by the policy of the day, and the spending restraints that the government has imposed across the board. Sure, he may be able to communicate better and maybe not alienate his stakeholders to the same extent that Fantino did, but if he can’t really change what’s really ailing the department, it is likely to just be a fresh coat of paint and little else. Paul Wells shares a few thoughts about what the PM might have been thinking.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exit Flaherty

Posted on by

Out of the blue, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced his resignation from cabinet yesterday, but not his seat (just yet). This after Flaherty promised that he was going to run again, while simultaneously dropping hints that he was ready to wind down his political career. And it looks like Joe Oliver will be tapped to replace him as Finance minister, but no word on who would then take over the Natural Resources file. Here are some facts about Flaherty and his career, and a look back at his best ties, which were pretty much all green, which was kind of his shtick. Here’s Paul Wells’ profile of Flaherty from a couple of months ago.

Continue reading →

QP: In the shadow of a Quebec election call

Posted on by

With the election called in Quebec, which will no doubt consume the news cycle for the next six weeks, things carried on here in the Nation’s Capital unabated, despite the added media attention to Quebec MPs and any role that they’ll play. When QP got underway, Thomas Mulcair led off by asking whether Canada would be sending observers to Ukraine along with the Americans and others, to which Harper said that we were, as well as freezing some Russian assets and suspending more bilateral operations. Mulcair asked if Harper had reached out to the IMF, to which Harper said that they had. Mulcair changed topics, and asked about the consultations on the elections bill. Harper expressed his disappointment in the NDP’s opposition to the bill (err, kind of their job, you know). Mulcair said that the partisan tactics around the bill were unprecedented (um, not sure about that), to which Harper reminded him that they opposed the bill without reading it. For his last question, Mulcair asked about the lack of sanctions against Brad Butt for his “mis-speaking,” but Harper shrugged it off, saying that Butt had apologised of his own volition. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, and asked if elections observers would, be sent to Ukraine, and Baird indicated that we would be. LeBlanc turned to the decrease in funding from the Building Canada Fund, to which Denis Lebel insisted that the fund was $70 billion over ten years.

Continue reading →

QP: Sombre questions about Ukraine

Posted on by

After an abbreviated number of members’ statements, thanks to a vote on closure regarding that prima facie breach of privilege around MP Brad Butt “mis-speaking” on voter fraud, QP got underway in a somewhat strange manner. While most everyone was present for the vote, the benches suddenly emptied and Harper, who was there for the vote was nowhere to be seen. Undaunted, Thomas Mulcair led off, mentioning his meeting with the Ukrainian ambassador and asked about news that Russia tested an intercontinental ballistic missile. Peter MacKay responded with the government’s concerns, and when Mulcair asked about the troops in Ukraine that Putin denied sending, MacKay reiterated the government’s concerns. When Mulcair asked about engagements with Putin, John Baird gave a quick statement about his efforts to date. Harper returned to the House, (as had most of those MPs who fled) and Mulcair asked again about what the government was doing about the situation, Harper told him that Canada was suspending bilateral activities with Russia. For his final question, Mulcair asked about the discussions among G7 partners, to which Harper told him that they were discussing the possibility of a meeting in a few weeks. Ralph Goodale was up for the Liberals, and asked about the status of our embassy in Kyiv. Harper noted that the embassy was closed because of the violence during the protests, and that it wouldn’t be reopened until the threat of violence had passed. Goodale asked about the status of our embassy in Moscow, to which Harper assured him that our recalled ambassador had just returned and would be meeting with Baird later in the day, and that bilateral activities remained suspended. Goodale closed the round asking about the statement made by China with regards to respecting Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, and Harper noted that this kind of activity hadn’t been seen since the Second World War (to which one of my gallery colleagues muttered “What about Georgia?”)

Continue reading →