Day after day in Question Period, we are being subjected to this constant narrative by the Conservative questions that the government – and more specifically Justin Trudeau – is just one big vanity project. Apparently there isn’t a day that goes by that Trudeau or one of his ministers isn’t trying to burnish their own profile, apparently, and the facts aren’t going to dissuade them from this narrative. The State Dinner in Washington? Apparently the president inviting Trudeau’s mother and in-laws was vanity. Trudeau stopping by that boxing gym in New York while already there on business, and seeing disadvantaged youth there? Vanity. Chrystia Freeland’s appearance on Bill Maher’s show while in LA to talk trade with local officials? Vanity. And now it’s the Destination Canada video that Trudeau appears in (never mind that it’s not about him)? Vanity. You can see where this is going. And the new word that Candice Bergen has been dropping to complete this narrative? That all of this supposed self-promotion proves that Trudeau is like a Kardashian. Oh, it’s not an insult, she suggests disingenuously, because the Kardashians work hard at promoting their brand, so obviously that’s what Trudeau is trying to do. So the obvious question to the Conservatives is that if Trudeau is simply busy with all manner of vanity projects, then what the hell was Stephen Harper’s web show 24/Seven? How is that not his own personal reality show à la Keeping Up With the Kardashians? While Trudeau has a personal photographer (Harper had at least two), he isn’t filming his exploits to promote himself under the guise of “a day in the life of a prime minister” or using taxpayer dollars to do it. But the Conservatives haven’t gotten past this notion that because Trudeau is photogenic and charismatic – something that Stephen Harper was not – it must mean that he’s not a Very Serious Person™. The problem is that the electorate didn’t buy that narrative during the election, and Trudeau has proven that he’s got the chops to do the heavy lifting for the job, he’s in the House of Commons more than Stephen Harper ever was when he was PM, he’s taking questions from the media, he’s made himself available, he’s answering questions, and I daresay he’s been more focused on the Canadian brand than his own personal one, but hey – it’s all self-promotion and “vanity.” It’s completely tiresome. That’s not to say that there isn’t a problem with the way Trudeau is using his popularity within his own party to turn it into a cult of personality, and there is a very big problem brewing as he is looking to reshape his party’s constitution to solidify that. That’s a huge problem. But it’s not something that the Conservatives can go after him in QP, and rather than try and find something of substance that they can hammer him on, we are subjected to this inanity instead.
Tag Archives: Patrick Brazeau
Roundup: Anticipating the road trip
With the First Ministers’ meeting now out of the way, attention is turning to Justin Trudeau’s trip to Washington DC next week, and what will happen there, and naturally, what it all means. At least five ministers will accompany him on the trip – though not necessarily to the state dinner, which is going to apparently be quite the event. Obama is apparently looking to Trudeau to be a partner for green initiatives, and indeed Trudeau will be hosted by an environmental group with a known anti-oilsands agenda (to the protests of Conservative MPs). Trudeau, for his part, is being introduced to the Americans first by appearing on 60 Minutes where he will be seen in a more serious light than his appearance in Vogue, and part of his message is that he wants Americans to be a little more outward looking and pay attention to other countries. Of course, the one topic that must not be spoken of is the presidential nomination process, for which Trudeau cannot (and indeed must not) make any kind of pronouncements on other than that he won’t comment on the internal politics of another country. Not that it won’t stop everyone from asking while he’s down there (because you know they all will, Canadian and American media alike), but he’s savvy enough of a politician not to say anything. Instead it’ll likely be a litany of platitudes about trade, trying to thin the border, and thanks for Canada’s renewed contribution in the conflict with ISIS in Iraq and Syria. And the requisite celebrity questions and requests for selfies, of course.
Roundup: Mindless populism leading the way
As Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall has made his voice heard in recent weeks in the lead-up to his re-election campaign, and the Conservatives in Ottawa have taken up his banner on all manner of topics, it is the issue of carbon pricing that is driving home a few truths about both Wall and the Conservative Party. While there is talk about setting a baseline $15/tonne carbon price nationally, which can be implemented either by carbon tax (per BC) or cap-and-trade (per Ontario and Quebec), Wall is adamant that he doesn’t want it imposed on his province, and is going so far as to suggest that any “national carbon tax” (which, let’s be clear, it is not what is being discussed) would be exempt from SaskPower because it’s a provincial Crown corporation. And in the House of Commons, former Speaker Andrew Scheer gave a ridiculous and gobsmackingly boneheaded Members’ Statement on Monday which mocked the notion of a “carbon tax” (which, again, not on the table) as a market mechanism, and tried to apply it to other forms of taxation, generally making a fool out of himself in the process. But if you listen to what both Wall and Conservatives like Scheer are saying, it becomes obvious that intelligent, principled conservatism in this country has pretty much gone the way of the Dodo, and that we are left with right-flavoured populism in its wake. Because seriously, an actual conservative thinker would look at a carbon price, and using whichever mechanism (but likely an actual carbon tax), use that in order to encourage the market to find their own ways to reduce their carbon emissions. In fact, it’s what the oil sector has been demanding for years now, and they’ve even built carbon pricing into their books while they waited for some kind of direction as to just how much it would be and by what mechanism it would be applied. But rather than having an actual conservative government that would take this tool to and use the market to innovate and achieve the desired end (being lower carbon emissions), you have a bunch of populists in both Saskatchewan and Ottawa who howled instead about a fictional “job-killing carbon tax” and who held their breath and stamped their feet rather than dealing with the problem of carbon emissions for an entire decade. So while the Conservative Party starts to re-examine itself in advance of its leadership contest, perhaps this is something that they should consider – a return to actual conservative principles rather than this populist noise, which resulted in a decade of poor economic decisions (like lowering the GST), incoherent policy decisions, and as we can see here, childish tantrums to what should be an actual conservative approach to solving problems.
Roundup: An appointment panel is named
The government announced the composition of the permanent members of the Senate appointment advisory board, along with the ad hoc members of the three provincial members for the Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba seats that they plan to fill immediately. The federal members are headed by Huguette Labelle, a former senior civil servant and chancellor of Ottawa University, along with Indira Samarasekera, the former president of U of A who comes from a physical sciences background, and Daniel Jutras, a dean of law from McGill University. The provincial members have more varied backgrounds, including one Manitoba member who is a folk singer who also dabbles in pseudoscience around past lives, so oops there. They expect to make their first round of recommendations by the end of February – later than would have been hoped, but it’s only about three sitting weeks, so not too long to delay processes in the Senate, particularly as one of those first five appointments is to be the government’s new “coordinator” in the Senate (which remains a boneheaded suggestion if you ask me, considering that they will have no Senate experience whatsoever). And then come the complaints, mostly from the Conservatives (though the NDP did their share of tutting and shaking their heads about the “undemocratic” nature of the Senate). The problem with the complaints, largely coming out of Conservative Senate Leader Claude Carignan’s office, is that they’re grasping at straws – two of the academics were Trudeau Foundation scholars, so that obviously means they’re Liberals and can’t possibly be independent, right? No, seriously, that was Carignan’s argument. Also, that they were too elitist to pick “ordinary” Canadians to sit in the Senate, which actually isn’t their mandate. They are supposed to look for people with distinguished public service or who have some legislative experience. While I have my particular issues with the notion that the new Senators appointed through this process will all be independent (no, that’s not a guarantee, and nothing can stop them from joining whichever caucus they choose), there is this endemic chattering amongst Conservative senators that they’ll just all be Liberals by any other name, and as a result, they denounce the whole process. Never mind that the process by which some of those same senators got appointed was not particularly well run (the panic appointments of 2008 produced a number of senators of dubious merit), it makes their objections to this process to seem a bit precious. The other complaints – that because the appointment panel was not chosen by all-party consensus, that their deliberations are secret, that the short-lists are similarly kept secret, that the PM isn’t bound by the list – are all frankly out of step with the practice of Responsible Government and the constitution, and make no sense. Scott Reid’s complaint that it’s a process insulting to Albertans and their “elected” senators is also farcical considering the sham election process and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Senate reference case. And while there is plenty of things that could be criticised about the way this process is happening, the fact that the Conservatives are choosing the most ridiculous and specious arguments is a sign of that they’re not taking this seriously, which blunts the effectiveness of their role as official opposition.
Add MP Scott Reid to the list of people who apparently can’t grasp Responsible Government. #SenCA #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/7l0DVzOMjI
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 19, 2016
Roundup: Another reboot report
Yesterday saw the release of yet another expert report bemoaning all of our democratic woes, and proposed a handful of would-be solutions – or would be, if they actually bothered to correctly diagnose the problems they bemoaned. This time, it was the Public Policy Forum, and they have a pretty eminent list of people who compiled the piece. The problem was, while enumerating their grievances with our parliamentary system, they didn’t look at causes, and hence plan to treat symptoms rather than causes. “Restore cabinet governance” you say? Great! But no look at why the centralisation got more pronounced and how to fix the underlying reasons why. While their solutions regarding the public service and ministerial staffers are all well and good, their discussions around the committee system in the Commons stuck in my craw a bit. According to the report, we have too many committees, which is absurd considering that some of the busier committees don’t have the time to actually study a lot of bills with a reasonable number of witnesses getting reasonable turns to answer questions. So give them more work? Hmm. They want the whole Commons to vote on committee chairs instead of the committees themselves, like with the Speaker, but neglect to mention that this has bred its own particular set of problems in the UK, where this is the norm, where those chairs are becoming problematic personalities who have become somewhat untouchable when they start breaking rules. Their particular suggestions that committees not be bound by the parliamentary calendar is also a bit specious considering that they already have the power to meet when Parliament isn’t sitting, but those MPs tend to see the value in being in their constituencies during said periods when the House isn’t sitting. Give them more resources and staff? Certainly – they could do that tomorrow if they wanted, but it’s not because there are too many committees to do it adequately. And despite all of these suggestions, not one of them touches the underlying problem that the vast majority of MPs get elected without knowing what exactly their job is or how to do it, and what their responsibilities are once they get a committee assignment. But does this report once talk about better educating and equipping MPs themselves? Nope. So while it’s a valiant effort, perhaps they need to actually look at the forest for the trees.
Roundup: The dream of tax simplification
With the big economic debate coming up tomorrow, it’s with no small bit of amusement that noted economist Jack Mintz dropped a bomb in the middle of the election, and blowing open the pledges of most of the parties. In particular, Mintz says that the corporate tax rate should be lowered so as to keep those companies from shifting the burden in the form or lower wages or higher prices; raising the small business tax rate because it’s largely used by the wealthy to pay lower taxes; and eliminate a suite of investment tax credits to make the whole system simpler and fairer. In other words, doing pretty much the opposite of what the NDP has promised, and to a degree what the Conservatives have promised with their small business tax rate promises and more boutique tax credits than anyone knows what to do with. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find an economist who thinks that boutique tax credits are a good idea – particularly as Harper promised yet another bunch, this time for single and widowed seniors, and as Kevin Milligan explained, it’s pretty useless considering that a) it’s non-refundable and a lot of those seniors already don’t pay taxes, and b) we have a number of other income supports for seniors. (Also, I think this means that Harper is officially trolling singletons and childless couples, who are now the great pariahs of tax credits). The consensus would be that it’s better to eliminate the boutique tax credits and simply lower the overall tax rate – but how would parties be seen as rewarding “deserving” Canadians of those tax credits. (Again, it would seem that singletons and childless couples are not deserving.) Harper claimed that his boutique tax credits haven’t made tax forms too complicated. That sound you hear is every accountant in the country laughing, because it’s simply not true. We need major tax reform in this country, overhauling the system from top to bottom. (Same with the Criminal Code, incidentally). Too bad nobody is going to campaign on that.
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/643841869735006208
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/643842726228680704
Roundup: Uncomfortable tax truths
It’s one of those funny things that happen during campaigns, when one leader tells an uncomfortable truth about an issue, and the other leaders rush to condemn him or her about it. In this particular incidence, it was Justin Trudeau telling Peter Manbridge that he was less keen on a blanket reduction in small business taxes than he was in tweaking the system, because a “large percentage” of those small businesses are wealthy Canadians using those businesses to pay less tax. And he’s absolutely right about it – particularly after changes were made to the system a few years ago that basically turned it into an income-splitting mechanism for some particularly wealthy Canadians. The Conservatives and NDP, however, are outraged, as they are promising small business tax cuts, the NDP going so far as to demand that Trudeau apologise for “smearing” small businesses – except that they don’t have the facts on their side. The Canadian Press’ Baloney Meter™ checked out Trudeau’s statement, and found it to be true, with minor quibbles about the meaning of “large percentage.” (Trudeau seems to be relying on the studies that say that up to 60 percent of small business filers are problematic). There is also the added contention that another good percentage of these filers aren’t actually job creators, like the Conservatives and NDP keep saying – mom and pop shops aren’t, for example. Economist Kevin Milligan delves further into the issue, and notes that Quebec has been making changes to their small business tax laws to ensure that companies have at least three full-time employees to be eligible – thus ensuring that it’s a “ job creator” and not a couple splitting income or a mom-and-pop shop that has no intention of hiring someone else. It is a problem that needs fixing and not platitudes, and it’s good that at least one leader sees fit to recognise that fact, and has so far stood up for it despite the heat he’s taking.
Roundup: The Economist Party fact-checks
With the Liberals casting the NDP federal minimum wage proposal as a mirage, and the NDP insisting that they haven’t deceived anyone (never mind that the Huffington Post did a piece asking ordinary people about what they thought of the pledge, only to learn it applies to federally-regulated industries, which won’t affect most people, and lo and behold, the people asked felt deceived. Imagine that!) While the NDP claim it will affect over 100,000 people, the Economist Party crunched the numbers, and found them lacking.
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632627804119547904
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632627978648731648
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632629540762685440
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632629836889001984
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/632640839819264000
From the @MacleansMag archives: "Want to help the poor? Don’t waste your time with the minimum wage" http://t.co/rogvAGqQLx
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) August 15, 2015
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/632641381207404544
This Canadian study finds that an increase in the minwage *increases* the incidence of poverty http://t.co/1GkNK9s7NW pic.twitter.com/q5LcYmjaEL
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) August 15, 2015
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632642099620376576
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/632642436439736320
In case you're wondering how a higher minwage worsens poverty, here's a plausible explanation http://t.co/yEdqEfoJHz pic.twitter.com/ToaoPvFxN0
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) August 15, 2015
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/632645758894735360
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632654353233383424
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632654456883036160
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632942778721284096
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632943035039420417
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632951157674086401
Roundup: Disappointed or not, the Senate did its job
With Bill C-377 now passed thanks to procedural strong-arming that sets terrible precedent, the Senate has now adjourned for the summer. In the wake of the bill passing, there we are yet again being bombarded by the howls that the Senate didn’t do its job because it didn’t defeat a bill that clearly has some questionable constitutional merits. Never mind that if the Senate had voted to defeat the bill, they would have equally been lambasted for not having the democratic legitimacy to do so. As an institution, they are forever damned if they do and damned if they don’t. But even though the bill has passed, the Senate did its job. Agree with it or not, former Supreme Court justice Michel Bastarache did testify at committee that he thought the bill was constitutional, and that’s not meaningless. As well, the fact that the bill got far more debate and scrutiny than it got in the Commons means something. Remember that in the Commons, private members’ bills are limited to a mere two hours of debate at each stage, and rarely get more than that at committee. Because the Senate took far longer with this bill, all of the problems are on the record. That will mean a whole lot when this goes to the courts, and it will – several unions are already promising immediate challenges. The courts will go over the records of debate at the Senate and see all of the problems laid out for them, and it will inform the decision. The courts will be well within their power to strike the statute down if they continue to believe that it’s unconstitutional, or they may strike down certain parts of it if they feel that only part of it is problematic. None of this means that the Senate was asleep on the job. They gave it thorough debate and scrutiny. While many will be disappointed that the bill ultimately passed (because the PMO was using this bill as a government bill in sheep’s clothing), they did their jobs. And hey, a bunch of other terrible PMBs died on the Order Paper, so it’s not all bad news.
Senators Nancy Ruth, Wallace and Bellemare voting against 3rd reading. Senator Black abstains. #C377 #SenCA
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 30, 2015
#C377 passes 35-22, 1 abstension. #SenCA
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 30, 2015
The Senate has adjourned to Tuesday, September 22, 2015. pic.twitter.com/a54sWW8vpi
— Senate of Canada (@SenateCA) June 30, 2015
Roundup: Truth and Reconciliation report due
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission makes its first report on Tuesday, wrapping up the commission itself, and after hosting a number of Reconciliation events around the country, the last of them here in Ottawa over the weekend. They found that at least 6,000 children died in residential schools as a result of a policy of “aggressive assimilation” or cultural genocide, a term that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court made at a speech lat week (which may prove problematic, as Emmett Macfarlane explains). Part of the Reconciliation events in the past few weeks have been to try and bring an understanding on both sides of the cultural divide, so as to bring healing in symbolic ways. One such is the bentwood box that has collected some 1300 items since the Commission began, which created a sacred space to bring forward the promise of reconciliation. One hopes that the chapters will turn to something more positive, but I also have a sinking feeling that this will become politicised over the coming weeks, and possibly even over the course of the campaign in the fall.