Tag Archives: Northern Gateway

Roundup: Handwaving about tax loopholes

Posted on by

The narratives about “closing tax loopholes” never really die, and lo, they have come back yet again on the campaign, as Jagmeet Singh hopes to use this as a campaign plank, and to basically start extracting a dollar figure from them. The problem? Well, that’s basically misunderstanding the problem with these “loopholes” – they’re a game of whack-a-mole. It doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t tackle them, because you should, and successive governments have been doing that for decades, but as soon as you close one, the well-funded tax preparation industry finds another that they can exploit, and all of that money that a government may have been hoping to recoup doesn’t appear.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1432361687361933312

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1432362354314993667

Additionally, Singh alleged that Justin Trudeau was somehow directing the CRA to not go after large corporations, and that he isn’t charging the “super rich” tax evaders. But again, this distorts reality – the CRA is an arm’s length agency from government, and free from political direction, and don’t direct audits or collection activities. Yes, the current government has provided more funds for CRA to undertake those activities, but they can’t tell them who to audit. Additionally, when CRA finds a file that they deem suspicious, they forward it to the RCMP, and if they feel that there is criminality, they forward it to the Public Prosecution Service – which, again, is arm’s length and not subject to political direction – and they decide whether or not to lay charges. Thus far, they have not with some of the high profile investigations into the Panama Papers, or other such leaks, likely because they know their chances of a successful prosecution are slim because these particular practices wind up being legal in the long run, no matter how often governments try to crack down on them. Regardless, Singh trying to portray this as either cronyism or a lack of political will is not reflective of reality.

Also not reflective of reality – some of the hand-waving he’s been doing in other interviews, such as this one where he says he’ll “get it done” on ending the deferral period for blood donations for men who have sex with men – never mind that Canadian Blood Services is arm’s length from government and not subject to their orders. You can’t Green Lantern your way through government. Implementation of your ideas matters – a lot.

Continue reading →

QP: Talking to the folks at home

Posted on by

Caucus day, and the benches were full, with all of the leaders present. Andrew Scheer led off, and he decided to re-litigate the cancellation of Northern Gateway, and demanded that it be revived. Justin Trudeau responded by reading quotes from the Federal Court of Appeal decision, and saying that the Conservatives treat the Duty to Consult as a suggestion. Scheer insisted that Indigenous communities would benefit from Northern Gateway, and Trudeau repeated that they didn’t understand that they need to work with Indigenous communities and scientists to ensure that projects get built in the right way. Scheer switched to French to demand the full guest list for the India trip, to which Trudeau congratulated the members of NSICOP for their work and that they accepted their recommendations. Scheer switched to English to raise the allegations around Navdeep Bains and the Brampton land deal — despite Bains’ repeated denials. Trudeau took the opportunity to tell the folks at home that parliamentary privilege means Scheer can say anything he wants inside the House without fear of prosecution, but the real test was if he repeated it outside. Scheer piled on the list of Liberal ethical lapses, and Trudeau again addressed the people at home to say that while the role of the opposition is to hold government to account, the current party across the way was more content with smears and innuendo. Guy Caron was up next, and demanded action for missing and murdered Indigenous women, to which Trudeau listed the measures they have taken to date. Caron demanded a national action plan, and Trudeau said that while there was work to do, they were continuing make progress. Sheri Benson wanted the PM to meet with petitioners around the MMIW inquiry, to which Trudeau read a statement about the Inquiry’s mandate and listed some of the investments made. Benson asked again, and Trudeau noted the extension of the Inquiry’s time, mandate and added funding.

Continue reading →

QP: Didn’t request any redactions

Posted on by

Both Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer were present for a change, and Scheer led off by concern trolling Trudeau’s comments about the negative impacts on rural and remote communities when large numbers of construction workers come in, and demanded gender-based analyses of the cancellation of Northern Gateway and importing oil from Saudi Arabia. Trudeau responded with a list of projects the government approved before adding that some projects can have different impacts. Scheer railed about the jobs lost when Northern Gateway didn’t go ahead, to which Trudeau reminded him of the record unemployment but stated that they were looking to help Alberta to do well. Scheer demanded Northern Gateway be reinstated, to which Trudeau read quotes from the Federal Court of Appeal decision on why it wasn’t approved. Scheer demanded again that Northern Gateway be reinstated, and Trudeau called them out for bluster that wouldn’t help Alberta, reminding them that even if the project was acceptable, it would be years before it would get resources to markets. Scheer then changed gears and put on his tinfoil hat about the UN global compact on migration, to which Trudeau accused him of quoting Rebel Media, and praised Canada’s diversity. Guy Caron was up next, and railed about the redactions in the NSICOP report, to which Trudeau told him that neither he nor his office was involved in the redaction, but they took the advice of security officials. Caron then tried to wedge in the Raj Grewal investigation as an excuse for redaction, and Trudeau repeated his answer. Charlie Angus tried again in English and Trudeau called out his sanctimony before repeating the answer. Nathan Cullen then gave a torqued concern that Raj Grewal’s parliamentary privilege protected him from investigation — which isn’t true — and Trudeau raised Dean Del Mastro as an example of an MP under investigation whose privilege didn’t shield him.

Continue reading →

QP: The Goldilocks of pipelines

Posted on by

In the wake of yesterday’s big pipeline announcement, it remained to be seen if that would finally knock the fundraising questions off of the agenda. Rona Ambrose led off, lamenting that saying no to the Northern Gateway robbed hope and opportunity from 31 Aboriginal communities who had an equity stake in the project. Justin Trudeau noted that his government did what the previous one could not, and they would protect the environment while still growing the economy. Ambrose went or another round of the same, and Trudeau shot back that they we flailing about for something to talk about. Ambrose worried that Trudeau didn’t have a plan to deal with the Trumpocalyse (not her word) particularly with their tax plans, and Trudeau reminded her that they would engage constructively while working to diversify Canada’s trade markets. Ambrose then wondered when Trudeau would head to BC to get pipeline opponents onside, and Trudeau insisted that he was going about things the right way. Ambrose pivoted to CBC’s proposal to go ad-free for a bigger subsidy, and Trudeau replied that her party didn’t understand cultural industries and their importance. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and raised the issue of 59 First Nations opposed Kinder Morgan. Trudeau said that there were groups on all sides and that the balanced the various interests to make a decision. Mulcair switched to French to lament that the decision was done with Stephen Harper’s process, and Trudeau reminded him of their work with the provinces, particularly with new climate plans. Mulcair moved onto the appeal of a Manitoba case involving First Nations survivors, and Trudeau mouthed some platitudes about working together to move ahead in the relationship. Mulcair’s final question was on electoral reform, demanding that Trudeau keep his election promise, and Trudeau replied that he awaited the committee report and the consultations with Canadians.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Two yays and a nay

Posted on by

The government announced its decisions on three pipelines yesterday – no to Northern Gateway (and a tanker ban on the north coast of BC was also reaffirmed), but yes to Kinder Morgan expansion and Line 3 to the United States. There are a lot of people not happy on either side – the Conservatives are upset that Northern Gateway also didn’t get approved, saying this was just a political decision, and the NDP and Greens (and the mayor of Vancouver) unhappy about the Kinder Morgan announcement, Elizabeth May going so far as to say that she’s willing to go to jail for protesting it.

None of this should be a surprise to anyone, as Trudeau has pretty much telegraphed these plans for weeks, if not months. And as for the critics, well, Robyn Urback makes the point that I do believe that Trudeau was going for:

In fact, Trudeau said as much yesterday in QP when he noted that they were sitting between a party demanding blanket approvals on everything, and another party opposed to approving anything, so that was where he preferred to be. He’s spending some political capital on this decision, including with some of his own caucus members who are not fans of the Kinder Morgan expansion, but he has some to spare, so we’ll see whether he’s picked up any support in the west, or lost any on the west coast when this all blows over.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Senate theatre a distraction

Posted on by

In the event that you haven’t been paying attention to the Senate this past week, some Conservative senators took it upon themselves to amend the government’s legislation regarding their much-vaunted “middle-class tax cut,” and changes the various tax brackets therein to deliver bigger savings to some, less to others, and supposedly closes the $1.7 billion gap that kept the Liberal bill from being “revenue neutral.” It’s an unusual move, and one that may be beyond the Senate’s powers given that the Senate is not allowed to initiate money bills, and this might qualify as treading up on that restriction, though they claim an early twentieth-century precedent that would allow it. While this is interesting in and of itself, what it demonstrates is the way in which the Conservatives are using this manoeuvre to try and take one last partisan kick at the can to try and “prove” the worth of organised opposition in the Upper Chamber as “government representative” Senator Peter Harder is manoeuvring to try and eliminate the official opposition designation in order to do away with parties in their entirely in the Upper Chamber.

While John Ivison rightly calls this a bit of convoluted political theatre, what the calculation the Conservatives in the Senate are likely going for is for those amendments to be defeated in the Senate as a whole (as all amendments get reported back from the committee in the form of a report that the full Senate then votes to either adopt or not in the aptly-named Report Stage vote) with the strength of the new independent senators. At this point, they can go “Aha! See! I told you these new ‘independent’ senators were all just Liberal stooges!” and pat themselves on the back for being oh, so clever. Unfortunately, while there is a lot of merit in the pushback against Harder and company’s attempts to eliminate the role of parties in the Senate as part of modernisation, the Conservatives insist on shooting themselves in the foot and undermining their own efforts by trying to prove that the new independent appointments are all closet Liberals. Instead, they should work with the Senate Liberals to expose Harder’s ambitions and efforts to build a personal power base out of the independents, and maybe they’d catch the attention of the rest of my journalist colleagues, who dismiss this as partisan antics and turf protection while they continue to dwell on the non-issue of committee assignments (that can’t be reconstituted until a prorogation happens anyway). This petty theatre is distracting from the actual issues and dangers of undermining the role of the Senate, and proves that the Conservatives haven’t learned enough lessons from the last election.

Meanwhile, the trans rights bill is headed to the Senate, and all eyes are turning to see what kinds of shenanigans that Conservative Senator Don Plett will get up to in order to slow or hamper the bill’s progress. Of course, because it’s now a government bill and not a private members’ bill, his avenues for obstruction are much diminished, and the political climate has changed meaning that he won’t likely find too many allies to back him up, and Harder will have tools to shut down any obstructing tactics if they carry on too long, so I doubt it will be much of an issue, but it’s another last kick at a can that won’t get too much more traction.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bernier’s Bay Street catnip

Posted on by

Maxime Bernier gave a speech at the Economic Club of Toronto yesterday that was largely catnip for the audience there, saying that he wants to eliminate the capital gains tax, reducing corporate income taxes to 10 percent, making the accelerated capital cost allowance (ACCA) permanent, and eliminating corporate subsidies. While economics can point to the thinking behind some of Bernier’s plans (like below), others will point to the flaws in it, such as the ability to disguise salary as stock options that would no longer be taxed as capital gains, or the longer-term problems with the ACCA (like a new building being worthless for tax reasons in two years). It shouldn’t be too much of a surprise that Bernier’s ideas are largely slogans without a deep analysis of the real-world implications of them – kind of like how his plan to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers is just a gift to litigators rather than doing the hard political lifting necessary on such a file. Bernier has this kind of libertarian fanboy sense about him, that all of the problems can be solved by brandishing a copy of the constitution and shouting “freedom” will be all that’s necessary to kick-start a sluggish global economy, and that this will all be politically saleable to large swaths of the economy that have come to depend on government support in one way or another. And while yes, Bernier is indeed trying to bring some ideas to the table in this leadership contest while some of his competitors are trying to force the debate onto grounds of “values” and stoking national security fears, but it does remain true that it’s not really the point of leadership hopefuls to try and bring policy to the table that will change the direction of the party – that should be coming from the grassroots membership in a bottom-up and not a top-down process. But just remember – freedom! It’ll solve everything!

Continue reading →

Roundup: Approval voting and numbers with meaning

Posted on by

While everyone has been enthralled with the electoral reform debate (no, not really), and been gripped with substance over process (no, not really), there was an op-ed in the Citizen last week that I never really had a chance to talk about amidst a number of other things going on, so I thought I’d take a moment now to address it. The issue: the electoral system known as “approval voting.”

So what is it? Basically you take the same ballot you have now, and you mark it for as many people as you want to. Supposedly this discourages strategic voting because you can vote more than once and can vote for both the person your heart wants to vote for, as well as the one you hope to defeat the person in there now. And okay, sure, it’s simple, and sure, it gives you that emotional thrill about being able to vote for more than one person (which I don’t think is that big of a concern for most people, but maybe I’m wrong), and if you do something silly like vote for everyone on the ballot (because they’re all winners for participating?), then it basically cancels out the vote and doesn’t come out any worse off. But I keep going back to the basic question: what problem is this trying to solve?

If that problem is the emotional dissatisfaction with electoral outcomes, then I’m not sure that this is the problem that we should be addressing, and I also have to wonder about the unintended consequences of picking such a system. And what could those be? Really, the quality of the data that an election produces, and what that data tells us about the election. Because believe it or not, that actually matters. What percentage a candidate received matters a lot. It gauges support, it sends a message about how solid or tenuous their support is, and about how much support their rivals have, which could mean clues for them as to how to better organise in the following election, and who to target. If the number of votes cast is divorced from the number of electors, what kind of message are we able to send? That would seem to be a pretty important consideration to me, and to a lot of people running, I would imagine.

I also have an issue with how this portrays what a vote means. In our system currently – and yes, this electoral system purports to keep the system otherwise intact, along the lines of “one simple trick to make the system more emotionally satisfying!” – when you cast a ballot it is to decide who will sit in the seat that represents your geographic area. And this is where a lot of electoral reform nonsense falls apart – it becomes about feelings rather than the fact that there is one seat and you have to help decide who fills it. How casting votes for multiple people to fill that one seat seems to defeat the purpose in many ways, and admission that it’s too difficult to make a decision so let’s cop out and muddle it so that I don’t feel so bad when I do it. But democracy is about making choices, and we should make it clear that it’s what it is, and just what that choice is (i.e.: Who is filling this one seat, rather than who is going to form a government, because that is decided once a parliament has been assembled). We’re not making that clear, and we’re constantly talking in terms of horse race numbers and leadership politics, and not about the actual choice that faces people, and I think this is something we should be paying more attention to, and being more vocal and precise about, so that we don’t wind up with yet more pie-eyed schemes that are designed to make us feel better while not actually doing what we’re supposed to. And this isn’t something that I’m seeing in the discussions on electoral reform – just a lot of pouting about “fairness” based on made-up numbers that don’t actually mean anything, and approval voting would make the numbers that do mean something, mean even less.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Happy Dominion Day!

Posted on by

Happy Dominion Day! In lieu of the usual rant, today I leave you with a few items for your perusal: a look at ten animals that helped shaped Canada, a look back at the creation of the flag, 40 famous Canadians giving their memories of childhood summers, and Maclean’s has 111 stories from Canadians. Now go enjoy the day, to the sounds of my July 1st theme song.

Continue reading →