It was a black morning on the Hill with two MPs suspended for allegations of harassment, and Stephen Harper was absent, headed off to China, making the mood on odd one. While Thomas Mulcair was present, QP was actually led off by Megan Leslie, who raised the Governor of the Bank of Canada’s comments about the job market. Joe Oliver praised the 1.1 million net new jobs since the recession. Leslie asked if the government agreed with Poloz’s (torqued, selective) statement that young people should be willing to live at home and work for free if they can’t get a job. Oliver praised their measures for young people, and that a growing economy would help youth. After another round in the other official language, Libby Davies asked about more childcare spaces, to which Jason Kenney insisted that their tax credit measures and the universal child benefit were better than spaces. When asked again, Candice Bergen praised increased transfers to the provinces, whose jurisdiction childcare belongs to. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and he asked about the income splitting tax credit, to which Jason Kenney called the premise “rubbish” and said that it would benefit half of families and that their other measures would help more low income families. Trudeau called them out for avoiding income splitting in their responses, and raised something from Scott Brison’s 2003 Progressive Conservative leadership platform. Trudeau retorted with Brison’s line about his misguided time as a Conservative before asking the question again in French. Jason Kenney responded by accusing the Liberals of wanting to take away money from families.
Author Archives: Dale
Roundup: What to do about Dean?
The question of what to do about Dean Del Mastro has seized the Commons, and the government seems amenable to going along with the NDP motion to suspend him without pay immediately, and further send the matter to the Procedure and House Affairs committee for further study, particularly for what it means for his staff and his constituents. This is a bit of a change from the government’s original position of wanting the committee to rule before they did, but apparently they’re going with the flow of public opinion on the matter. (The NDP’s unwillingness to let debate collapse so that the vote can proceed on its own accord, however, means that the government will likely invoke closure to ensure a vote later today). There is also a battle raging over Del Mastro’s pension benefits, while the NDP used a committee hearing on John Williamson’s private member’s bill to try to lay a trap. The bill would see MPs lose their pension if convicted of an indictable offence, and the NDP moved an amendment to specifically include elections expenses, which the government defeated because it wasn’t necessary, and wouldn’t apply to the Del Mastro case anyway – not that it stopped Mulcair and the NDP of using Question Period to say the government was trying to protect Mulcair. Because apparently they’re not yet too clever for their own good.
QP: The morality of Del Mastro
With Harper off to China tomorrow, today is the only day that all of the leaders would be present this week, and it was hoped that they could make it count. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about an amendment put forward by the Conservatives at committee that would exclude those who had been convicted of elections expenses from a bill that would strip the pensions of MPs who had been convicted of a crime, and whether it was “moral.” Harper noted that the amendment had nothing to do with Del Mastro, and that the NDP opposed previous legislation to punish MPs for malfeasance. Mulcair noted that the question wasn’t answered and gave a vague accusation about voter fraud — not government business, to which Harper reminded him that the NDP has not repaid for their illegal mailings or satellite offices. Mulcair brought up Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin, to which Harper repeated his answer. Mulcair brought up a statement Harper made up previously in Del Mastro’s defence, and Harper reminded him that Del Mastro had not been in caucus for some time. For his final question, Mulcair brought up job losses, but Harper replied by noting the million net new job figures. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and asked about the unfairness of the income splitting proposal. Harper said that he was wrong and the measures announced last week would help every family and accused the Liberals of wanting to take the measures away. While Trudeau focused on the income splitting portion only in both languages, Harper wrapped it in the larger package of tax credits.
Roundup: PBO declares the cupboard bare
The Parliamentary Budget Officer appeared before the Commons finance committee yesterday, and said that after the new sorta-income-splitting Family Tax Credit rollout that there won’t be any fiscal room for any further permanent tax cuts or spending measures. In other words, the cupboard is bare (and still reliant on further austerity to keep the budget in balance). Kevin Milligan gives a more detailed breakdown of what all of the family tax credits mean, while Stephen Gordon once again says what needs to be said, especially with what this means for the next election:
Beast. Starved. MT @davidakin: Latest from @PBO_DPB post-FTC. Short version: Fiscal cupboard cleaned out by PMSH: http://t.co/2DwOxNDiBx
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) November 3, 2014
If oppo wants to campaign on more spending, oppo will also have to campaign on tax increases. And not just on corps and/or the 1%, either.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) November 3, 2014
QP: Cautioned questions on Del Mastro
While the Chamber was full for François Hollande’s speech earlier this morning, it was much emptier by the time QP rolled around, the staffers acting as room meat no longer sitting at the desks to the fill the room. None of the major leaders were present for the grand exercise in accountability, leaving Peter Julian to lead off, to which he asked about Dean Del Mastro and election fraud — not government business. Paul Calandra stood up to say that the Procedure and House Affairs committee was looking into it, as they did the issue of the NDP satellite offices. When Julian asked again in French, the Speaker cautioned him that it was not about the administrative responsibility of the government, but Calandra repeated his response anyway. Julian got up and said that it was about the PM’s judgement, but Calandra kept up his own response to turn it back to the NDP, adding in the illegal union contributions. Charlie Angus tried again, got cautioned by the Speaker, asked again, and got Calandra to repeat his answers, while Angus sarcastically catcalled “Good job there, Speaker!” Ralph Goodale stood up to ask about the income splitting tax credit, and how it went agains Flaherty’s advice. Kevin Sorenson praised Flaherty as a response. Goodale noted that single parents were being punished for being single, but Sorenson just delivered praise for the programme. Emmanuel Dubourg asked again in French, to which Sorenson claimed that middle class Canadians were better off since the Conservatives came to power.
Roundup: Hollande pays a visit
French President François Hollande landed in Calgary and met with Harper and the Governor General in Banff as the start of his state visit yesterday. He’ll arrive in Ottawa today to address a joint session of Parliament.
Candice Bergen admits that the “family tax credit” aka sorta-income-splitting, won’t benefit single parents because they’re generally too low-income, which again raises the utility of giving tax credits to those who are less likely to need them – as in wealthier two-parent families, never mind that it’s the kind of pandering to the social conservative base that it represents.
Roundup: Del Mastro found guilty
Conservative-turned-Independent Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro has been found guilty, along with his official agent, of election overspending in 2008, and Del Mastro faces the possibility of three years in jail plus $6000 in fines. Del Mastro, obstinately, believes that the conviction is just the judge’s opinion, and that it’s not over, though there’s no indication on what grounds he would appeal. He told CBC that there’s more evidence of his innocence that wasn’t introduced at trial, but if he thinks he can introduce that at the appeal stage, well, good luck, because they almost never allow that. The question of his fate comes next, because there is some ambiguity as to whether he will be forced to vacate his seat and lose the ability to run in another election for five years – as stipulated by the Elections Act – or if they plan to wait until he is out of appeals, which could be a lengthy process. Del Mastro says he plans to be at work on Monday (sentencing isn’t until near the end of November), but the Government House Leader has recommended that the matter be referred to the Procedure and House Affairs committee, where a determination could be made there. It appears that Del Mastro had been offered a plea deal earlier that would have had him pay a fine, probably enter into a compliance agreement, and have it be over with. Instead, he went to court, and had the judge call out his credibility, which is going to be very, very difficult to recover from. And while the former Law Clerk of the Commons, Rob Walsh, said that it would be in Del Mastro’s best interest to resign to minimise the damage, Del Mastro’s behaviour to date would seem to indicate someone who doesn’t know when to quit, and who will likely obstinately push this to the bitter end.
Roundup: Income splitting – sort of
As expected, Stephen Harper announced a scaled back version of his income splitting proposal, but structured as a tax credit and not actual income splitting, paired it with a number of other measures like increasing the universal child benefit payments, and childcare tax credits so as to try to blunt the criticisms that income splitting mostly benefits the most wealthy of families and doesn’t benefit those who need it most – single parent families and those of lower incomes. Jennifer Robson takes the proposal apart, and notes the real winners are lawyers and tax professionals. Economist Stephen Gordon adds a few notes, which need to be said.
Not yet, no RT @davidakin: In #elxn41, PMSH promised Income splitting when budget was balanced. Is budget balanced? pic.twitter.com/PZ91hL4zLk
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 30, 2014
Again, the surpluses that govt and PBO are projecting are based on scenario of spending cuts baked into 2014 budgethttp://t.co/j4TuHl16kP
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 30, 2014
So what PMSH is promising today is to cut spending (where? on what?) in order to finance those tax credits.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 30, 2014
For that matter, NDP's daycare plan is also based on cutting spending (where? on what?) to finance subsidised daycare.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 30, 2014
And if the LPC ever gets around to making a spending proposal, it will surely be financed by cuts in spending (where? on what?)
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 31, 2014
QP: Waiting on income splitting
Despite it being only Thursday, most leaders were absent from the Chamber today, Harper off in Vaughan to deliver his income splitting announcement, and Justin Trudeau campaigning for the by-election in Whitby. Thomas Mulcair did show up, and started off bringing up the request from three esteemed former Justices who warned against knee-jerk legislation after last week’s attacks. Stephen Blaney assured him that the new CSIS was balanced. Mulcair didn’t want this to be a partisan issue and wanted a multi-party committee to study the issue (never mind that all Commons committees are multi-party), to which Blaney said that all parties were being offered technical briefings. Mulcair brought up Stockwell Day’s endorsement of the creation of a parliamentary oversight committee for national security, but Blaney said that SIRC was robust enough. Mulcair sniped about Deborah Grey’s interim leadership of SIRC, before turning to the issue of income splitting. Kevin Sorenson told him to stay tuned for the announcement, and proclaimed that income splitting was good policy. Mulcair and Sorensen took another round at it, before Scott Brison led for the Liberals, recalling Jim Flaherty’s opposition to income splitting. Sorenson quoted an old Brison line about how income splitting was a good thing. Brison quipped that he said a lot of stupid things when he was a Conservative, and the House roared. Sorenson repeated the praise for the plan, before Emmanuel Dubourg asked about the plan in French, Sorenson not varying the substance of his response.
Brison: "I said a few stupid things when I was a Conservative. That was one of them." #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 30, 2014
Sorenson "He still says stupid things." #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 30, 2014
Roundup: Oversight versus good enough
Divisions are forming in the Commons about what happened with last week’s attack, with the Liberals now accepting that the shooter was a terrorist as that is what the RCMP have concluded, while the NDP are steadfastly refusing that label, saying that there’s not enough evidence to use it (contrary to what the RCMP Commissioner has said). But before anyone thinks that this is a signal that the Liberals are going to simply follow any anti-terror legislation that the government brings down, it’s important to note that they have also been the sharpest critics on the lack of civilian oversight mechanisms and the need for parliamentary oversight for national security agencies, as have long been recommended by a number of sources. Harper dismissed those calls and said the current oversight is enough (never mind that his government reduced oversight already by eliminating the post of Inspector General at CSIS a couple of years ago), while privacy commissioners around the country sounded the alarm. Of course, in the debate over whether the shooter was a terrorist or mentally ill, there are probably elements of both present, as the Ottawa Citizen editorial points out.