Tag Archives: MIke Duffy

Roundup: The hinted appointment process

Posted on by

Programming note: I really have nothing to offer on the situation in Paris, so I’ll leave that to those better suited to comment, which is better for all involved.

Look up there – it’s the Senate bat-signal, with news that we may have an idea what the new appointment process is likely to look like. According to the Citizen:

  • An independent advisory body will be created that is composed of Canadians who are people of “stature” and who have public credibility. It will consider people who would be good senators and then refer the names to the prime minister, who keeps the ultimate authority (in accordance with the Constitution) to make the appointments.
  • There will be a public input component to the process, so that Canadians have a way of recommending themselves, or others, as future senators.
  • There will be a consultative role for the provinces, given that Trudeau wants the Senate to regain credibility as a representative of the regions.

If you said that this looks a fair bit like the vice-regal appointments committee, you’d be right, not that the article stated that anywhere. In fact, it went to great lengths to talk about what the House of Lords Appointments Commission in the UK, and meanders to the boneheaded suggestion by Greg Sorbara that we get members of the Order of Canada to choose senators. Also, nowhere in the piece does it seem to acknowledge that the new Canadian process could let these new senators chosen by an independent process choose which Senate caucus they want to sit in or remain independent, with a full understanding of the additional pressures that independent senators actually face. So while it’s good to get some more hints on what we’re likely to see, it might be great if we had reporters who could actually uses useful Canadian comparisons, and who actually understood how the Senate operates rather than engaging in more of the pointless speculation about the supposed chaos that we’re supposed to see in there in the brave new era.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A technical recession

Posted on by

So there we have it – StatsCan says two quarters of negative growth, which means a “technical” or “statutory” recession. And in case you were wondering, manufacturing was also shrinking, so it’s not just confined to the energy sector (though a lot of Ontario’s manufacturing is now geared to the energy sector). Stephen Harper and Joe Oliver tried to keep the spin on the positive – growth in June, that surplus in the Fiscal Monitor (that may prove illusory). See! Things are on the rebound! Of course, things aren’t so simple, what with some increased consumer spending and employment, and there is a great deal of debate about what it all means (or even if it is a “real” recession, rather than one that meets the statutory definition, which always brings me back to Mike Moffatt’s term “pornographic recession” – knowing one when you see it). Regardless, it’s going to keep things interesting on the campaign trail as parties sharpen their messages over the data. BuzzFeed has a simple guide to what the recession means, while here is a roundup of what the leaders said about it on the campaign trail.

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/638702391005589505

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/638714053142179841

Continue reading →

Roundup: First quarter results

Posted on by

The Fiscal Monitor was released yesterday, and Stephen Harper was quick to don his Prime Minister hat to tout that it showed that the government posted a $5 billion surplus for the first quarter of the fiscal year. Better than expected, he proclaimed. On track to a balanced budget! Err, except maybe not. Much of that revenue had to do with the sale of those GM shares that they used to show that the budget was in balance, and it doesn’t fully take into account the plummeting oil prices or the GDP contraction that our economy has been facing. (We’ll find out on Tuesday if we saw a second quarter of negative growth, officially putting us into a technical recession). Not unsurprisingly, the Liberals called the surplus “phony,” and pointed out things like the GM shares as proof. Here’s Stephen Gordon to put the numbers into context:

Continue reading →

Roundup: Honesty in deficits?

Posted on by

Balanced budgets and deficits continued to be a topic of discussion on the campaign yesterday, and it will continue to be so today as Justin Trudeau is set to unveil his infrastructure plan to boost the economy, which seems set to include some deficit financing for another year or two as the economy appears stagnant. Stephen Harper warns the other parties are looking at “permanent deficits,” but it bears reminding that according to the previous Parliamentary Budget Officer, the only way that Harper killed off is own structural deficit was in changing the health transfer escalator, leaving him with only a cyclical deficit (which persists, no matter how much they shuffle money around on paper to cover over it). The NDP continue to insist they won’t run a deficit, but they also seem to dispute that they would need to continue austerity and they would even do things like restore the health transfer escalator, which starts to boggle the mind. The Liberals seem to be looking to score points for honesty in that a) they don’t know the true state of the books, and b) the global economic situation, but one might also add that our debt-to-GDP ratio is in a good place now (as opposed to the eighties and nineties), so small deficits won’t affect our economic health that much. To that end, Mike Moffatt says it’s important to ask parties how they would manage deficits, because they are inevitable in the current economic climate, while Andrew Coyne says that we should be paying attention to the signals being sent by the leaders when it comes to deficits.

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/636646713005076480

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/636647037992337408

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/636647310450139136

Continue reading →

Roundup: Balanced budgets are magic

Posted on by

Balanced budgets became word of the day on the campaign – Harper warning of permanent deficits if either opposition party gets in, Mulcair promising a balanced budget in 2016-17, and Trudeau hedging by not promising it immediately, given he doesn’t know the real state of the country’s books and we have some global economic turbulence going on. And then things started getting bizarre, with fiscal hawks praising NDP restraint (with no idea how they plan to achieve balance), and the Liberals attacking the NDP as promising more austerity to achieve said balance at a time of recession. And yes, the NDP’s new “star candidate” of the former finance minister of Saskatchewan said they would cut things, but some of the clues the party has dropped – things like “corporate tax giveaways” – are small change, and they even included the Senate on their list of things to cut, which makes me laugh uproariously because a) abolition will never happen, b) you’re not going to cut the Senate’s budget without either starting a war between the two chambers or starving them of the resources necessary to study and pass the legislation the Commons wants passed, and c) any savings they think they’re going to book from Senate abolition would be eaten up and then some with court challenges of flawed bills and Royal Commissions for policy work the Senate did at a cost-effective manner. But keep dreaming. I tackled the subject of party spending promises in my column here, but in the meantime, here are some economists smarter than I, who are similarly doubtful about these balanced budget pledges, for very good reason.

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/636170339878174720

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/636355620640133120

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/636355876203429888

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/636357120372379648

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/636357255332536320

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/636357563399938048

Continue reading →

Roundup: An questionable call to the Governor

Posted on by

While I often cringe about the media’s reluctance to refer to Stephen Harper as prime minister during the writ period (as he remains prime minister and will until he offers the Governor General his resignation) out of an exaggerated sense of fairness, there was an incident yesterday where Harper himself blurred that line between being prime minister, and being the Conservative leader campaigning for his own ends. For the first time that I can recall, we got a press release that mentioned that the Prime Minister called up the Governor of the Bank of Canada. While the text was pretty banal, talking about “ongoing developments” in the global economy and the recent declines in the markets, it was still unusual because we never get these kinds of releases. Ever. There is a very clear separation between government fiscal policy and the monetary policy set by the Bank of Canada, and the two should never meet – in fact, there is an issue in Canadian history where the Prime Minister tried to interfere with the Bank of Canada, and the Governor of the day ended up resigning in protest as a result. While the purpose of Harper’s call to Governor Poloz is not mentioned, the fact that it came on the day where Harper’s campaign message was all about how only his party could be trusted to weather this global economic turbulence, well, it’s pretty icky. Harper subtly politicizes Poloz by using him as a campaign prop – look at my economic credentials! I’m talking to the Bank of Canada Governor, like an economic boss! For all we know, Harper and Poloz have a weekly call where they talk trends and forecasts, and so on, but if that’s the case, we never hear about it. This time, Harper made sure that we knew about it. I’m having a hard time trying to see how this is acceptable in any way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Scaling back on tax promises

Posted on by

With a boatload of spending promises but almost no details in how he plans to pay for the, Thomas Mulcair appears to be scaling back on how much of that shortfall he plans to make up by raising corporate income taxes because as he’s quickly learning, that’s not going to raise all that much money. He also likes to use the phrase “making different choices like cancelling income splitting,” but that’s also maybe a couple of billion, which isn’t going to pay for a whole lot. It also seems to me that by pushing back a number of promises, like the childcare spaces, to full implementation some eight years down the road, it seems to indicate a theory that economic growth is on the way, and soon there will be plenty to fill the coffers. That ignores the fact that a) the projected surpluses depend on continued austerity, which the NDP keep promising to reverse, and b) economists are starting to warn that this slow growth may be the new normal and not just a hangover from the last financial crisis. With no plans to create economic growth coming from any of the parties, it’s going to be uncomfortable trying to come up with promises for major spending plans while maintaining balanced budgets, like they also plan. (And yes, the Liberals still have their own costing figures to produce as well). What the corporate tax piece doesn’t mention are the NDP plans to tax stock options, which economist Kevin Milligan has questions about:

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/635570314882125824

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/635570827103047680

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/635571426313945088

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/635571982348644352

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/635581074584682497

On the campaign:

  • Stephen Harper announced yet another boutique tax credit, this time for membership dues of service organizations. Also, he’s not changing his limited questions policy.
  • Justin Trudeau sent a letter to Quebec premier Philippe Couillard outlining his desire to be a “true partner” of the provinces.
  • The Liberals are expected to announce a major policy around veterans’ benefits today.
  • Here’s a recap of last week on the campaign.

Good reads:

  • The Ontario government disputes Mulcair’s claim that they support his childcare policy because they don’t have enough information about how it will be funded.
  • Apparently we rank fairly low among OECD countries for public pensions.
  • Here’s a video comparison of the three parties’ childcare benefit promises.
  • Here’s a fact-check of Trudeau’s flexible work hours announcement (spoiler: It won’t amount to much).
  • Christopher Curtis offers a portrait of Trudeau on the campaign trail.
  • Aaron Wherry muses about the issues of control and how that erupted into the ClusterDuff mess.

Odds and ends:

As part of their announcement to protect BC salmon, the Conservatives used a picture of an Atlantic salmon. *slow clap*

Here’s a bit of Ottawa history related to our first general election.

Scott Feschuk gives us his take on the election to date.

Roundup: The anti-intellectual warning shot

Posted on by

The markets are crashing, the dollar continues to plummet and the price of oil seems to be in free-fall, but what is it that has the Canadian commentariat entranced – well, aside from the latest Duffy minutiae? The fact that Doug Ford may be contemplating the federal Conservative leadership if Stephen Harper fails to win the upcoming election. It kind of makes me want to weep. “Oh, it’ll be hilarious!” the Twitter Machine keeps relaying, but no, it wouldn’t. It would be heartbreaking for what it means to democracy. As we saw with the Rob Ford years in Toronto, and as we’re seeing play out with the Donald Trump primary race in the States, what more rational people see as hilarious and unbelievable is being embraced by a share of the electorate who are disengaged and who believe that all politicians are liars, so they would rather someone who stands up there and “tells it like it is,” never mind that what they’re telling them is completely divorced from reality and also generally false. We are already dealing with an overload of anti-intellectualism in the Canadian discourse (and no, not just from the right-leaning populists – you should see the abuse heaped on the economists who dared to debunk the NDP’s minimum wage proposal earlier in the week). Do we need it compounded on the federal scene by such an individual? While people may treat it like a joke, it’s a legitimate threat. Remember that Rob Ford got elected mayor because the very people who dismiss the Ford brothers can’t seem to grasp that they do strike a chord with voters, and I can’t think of anything more terrifying for the future of federal politics.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Constitutionally untenable declarations

Posted on by

One of those tangential sub-plots in the whole ClusterDuff affair reared its head in the testimony of Ben Perrin yesterday, which is the issue of the test of residency for a senator. Given that the issue had blown up during Perrin’s time in PMO, thanks to Stephen Harper’s panic appointments in 2008 where he named senators to provinces where those individuals did not currently reside but rather had originated from, they found themselves in trouble when a certain Senator Duffy was found to have been treating his long-time Ottawa home as a secondary residence that he could claim per diems with while his summer cottage in PEI was being treated as a primary residence, never mind that he rarely spent any time there, none of it in the winter. Perrin’s advice was to come up with several indicators, but that ultimately it would be up to the Senate to come up with those indicators for themselves. Stephen Harper disagreed, and said that as far as he was concerned, they were resident if they owned $4000 in real property in said province – a position Perrin found to be constitutionally and legally untenable. But the constitutionally untenable has become Harper’s stock in trade, particularly where the Senate is concerned, first with his unconstitutional reform bills, to his present policy of not making any appointments in defiance of his constitutional obligation to do so. (And no, Thomas Mulcair is no better with is own promise not to appoint any senators either). And we also know from the Duffy documents that Harper blocked an attempt by the Senate to strike a committee that would deal with the residency issue once and for all – because Harper wanted to protect those improper appointments he made. The rather sad thing is that if hadn’t made those appointments in haste, he could have ensured that they had their ducks in a row before they got appointed, to show that they had enough proof of residency to pass a smell test. He didn’t, constitution be damned – or at least be subverted on bogus “plain reading” arguments that don’t hold water the moment you think critically about them. And yet We The Media aren’t driving this point home to the voters, that the constitution does and should matter. (Aaron Wherry delves more into the residency issue here).

Continue reading →

Roundup: In danger of losing the plot

Posted on by

As Nigel Wright’s testimony wrapped up in the Duffy trial yesterday, I am going to confess that I have pretty much lost the plot at this point. I’m having a hard time seeing what the point of Donald Bayne’s cross-examination was, and how anything Wright did somehow excused Duffy either claiming those expenses, or accepting the cheque in the end. Trying to establish a broad conspiracy that may or may not include the prime minister’s current chief of staff is salacious political gossip, which may or may not go to the prime minister’s judgement in the people he surrounds himself with, but for the life of me, I can’t see how this is relevant to the trial. Yes, people lied and covered up what happened – politically relevant, perhaps, but legally? I’m still having a hard time following where Bayne is going in this. Meanwhile, Aaron Wherry offers some ideas about what may constitute political scandal in the whole ClusterDuff affair – seeing as some are starting to express doubts that there is one – while Andrew Coyne expresses faux sympathy for Harper, who has been deceived by those closest to him for so long.

Continue reading →