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.
Tag Archives: MIke Duffy
Roundup: Sort of balanced
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.
I nominate @AdrianWyld's photo as the iconic moment of Budget Day 2015: pic.twitter.com/wdxjuf6X4K
— Leslie Stojsic (@LeslieStojsic) April 21, 2015
Roundup: Not expecting many budget surprises
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.
The comms genius in Oliver's office who thought "New Balance" was clever should probably rethink some life choices. pic.twitter.com/KozgCIQ7I6
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 20, 2015
QP: Wait for tomorrow’s budget
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).
Roundup: Arctic Council changing hands
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.
Roundup: A possible return to deficits
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?
Roundup: Cabinet confidences for slogans
In case you wanted to know why the government has chosen the slogan “Strong Proud Free” on their new ad campaigns that blur the partisan line, well, good luck, You see, they’ve been declared a cabinet confidence, which means that they’ll be sealed for twenty years. Ladies and gentlemen, the most open and transparent government in the history of ever! It’s one of those cases where one hopes that The Canadian Press will file a complaint with the Information Commissioner, because then there’s a chance that she’ll be able to actually examine the file (eventually – she’s a bit overloaded and has little operating budget left) to test whether it really should be a cabinet confidence, and if not, she can work what powers she does possess to get it released (though that is likely to mean going to court given the current sad state of Access to Information legislation). Elsewhere, a court case involving misconduct of the RCMP protection detail of the Prime Minister is looking to get the records in question sealed, apparently using clauses from terrorism trials, to keep information about the PM’s family private. While there is likely some reason to keep certain details private, and We The Media are generally reluctant to drag a politician’s family though the mud, RCMP misconduct is serious business and probably shouldn’t be kept behind closed doors for the very reasons why there have been problems in the Force for so long. Sunlight, generally, is the best disinfectant. But it’s not all bad news for Access to Information – a Federal Court judge ruled that government departments can’t charge fees for requested electronic documents, as they have been trying to do, as that undermines the very point of the Access laws in the first place, which are supposed to cost no more than $5, and it’s not like you’re photocopying or printing these documents – they’re already electronic. In all, however, it points to the genuine need to modernise the system, and this government just voted down a chance to do just that when they killed Justin Trudeau’s private member’s bill on doing just that.
Roundup: Justin Trudeau and the division of powers
From the sounds of it, Justin Trudeau is apparently setting back the cause of federalism in Canada, as he is getting blamed for an increasing number of provincial woes. It’s been happening for a few weeks with some federal Conservatives like Parm Gill, who are agitating against the provincial Liberals’ new sex ed curriculum, but because Gill and others just refer to the programme as the Liberals’ – not specifying that it’s Kathleen Wynne’s government in Ontario – the implication is that they’re one and the same as Gill shills for federal votes on a provincial issue (that is being torqued by provincial Progressive Conservatives and others, one might add). Moving out east, Trudeau is being blamed for complicity in the provincial Liberals in Nova Scotia proposing to reform film and television tax credits in their provincial budget – apparently Trudeau not saying anything about that change, and a number of other provincial budgetary items, makes him complicit in the whole affair. (During his visit to Halifax yesterday, Trudeau did say he was supportive of arts and culture, but reminded them that he’s a Quebec MP and respects provincial jurisdictions). Yesterday took the cake, as the federal NDP put out a press release blasting Trudeau because the provincial Liberals in PEI remain, well, a little backward on the whole issue of funding abortions in that province. This isn’t the first time that the federal NDP have been trying to ride the provincial parties for their benefit, as they keep hauling out this study that shows that provincial NDP governments have better fiscal records than provincial Liberal or Conservative parties in order to somehow prove they’d be great economic managers – never mind that the various provincial parties are largely divorced from the federal ones (with a couple of minor exceptions in a couple of provinces) and that in many cases the only thing they share is a name, though the NDP like to claim that they’re all one party, federally and provincially. It also means that if you stretch that logic, that Thomas Mulcair is responsible for raising the HST in Manitoba, that province’s appalling state of child welfare cases, and the myriad of problems that the provincial NDP in Nova Scotia left behind when they were defeated (prompting the provincial Liberals to table the budget they just did). It’s actually pretty alarming that people don’t seem to understand the division of powers between the provinces and the federal government – particularly when it’s political parties fuelling this nonsense, and they really need to stop.
Wait, so the NDP are attacking Trudeau over the PEI Liberals? They know there are jurisdiction issues, right? pic.twitter.com/p3CGtIKYx0
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 15, 2015
Roundup: Legalism and homework monitors
Another day, another dissection of the rules of the Senate, this time with the revelation that nobody in Senate administration ensured that work got done when they paid out contractors that senators drew up. The defence maintained the legalistic hammering, to the point that lawyer Donald Bayne omitted one key phrase from the guidelines for Senators expenses: “Likewise, individual Senators must be conscious of the requirement to expend public monies prudently.” And really, that’s what’s at the heart of this trial – even if the rules themselves were loose, it doesn’t mean that it’s permission to go well beyond their intended use and purpose. It makes me wonder who should be checking in on the work of senators when they contract out services – should it be Senate Administration checking that speeches were written, and that research was conducted? Do they become the babysitters and homework monitors of the Senate? It’s a hard question to ask because you can only infantilise them so far before you start getting into problems. It’s even more problematic when senators’ policy work can take a wide variety of forms. This isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be some form of oversight to ensure that there isn’t abuse, but we need to keep in mind that these aren’t civil servants or functionaries. They’re parliamentarians, with all of the attendant privileges that comes with that, and that means something. It’s also one of the reasons why pundits opining that this is really a “trial about the Senate” bothers me, and that these “entitled” senators have “free reign to spend public money,” which is obviously not true. Questions were raised, particularly about Wallin but also Duffy, and things were coming to light, though it there may have been the intent to take care of it more quietly. None of it excuses what Duffy did, and the fact that he appears to have deliberately misled Senate Administration with the contracts he drew up, as he certainly appears to have done with his various and sundry claims. Is it the Senate’s fault, or do we blame them to absolve him of the personal responsibility? That should be kept top of mind as the pundit class makes their pronouncements. The Senate didn’t make Duffy do anything – he made all of his choices himself. Meanwhile, the daily behind-the-scenes look notes Duffy’s exit strategy, and here’s a profile of the courtroom sketch artist.
Roundup: Dodgy contracts and sophomoric pranks
The start of week two in the big trail, and Crown apparently regained some ground –getting the Senate’s HR clerk to note all of the things Duffy either tried to charge for and was rebuffed, or did end up charging for by means of the apparent clearing house that his former camera man started on his behalf, and all kinds of non-Senate related things were paid for that way, be it photo framing or personal training. No doubt Duffy’s lawyer will try to argue that in the absence of enough rules or controls, it should be treated as acceptable, but perhaps I’m getting pessimistic. Here is Nicholas Köhler’s piece of the kinds of nostalgia that the trial is evoking. Meanwhile, the NDP have been trying to have their juvenile fun at the expense of the Senate over the course of the trial to date. Last week it was small boxes with pieces of Camembert and crackers, and this week it was handing out their “Senate hall of shame” hockey cards, with the new addition of Senator Nancy Ruth – because apparently making a deadpan joke is a scandal. But hey, whatever distracts them from having to justify their own expenses scandals with those improper mailings and satellite offices, right? Imagine what they could accomplish if they put their energy to productive use rather than the sophomoric pranks and snarky press releases that they seem to be so heavily invested in as they chase the impossible dream of Senate abolition (which, I remind you, will never, ever happen ever).