At the “Three Amigos” summit in Mexico, things indeed seemed a bit frosty heading into it, as Harper refuses to lift the visa restrictions on Mexicans, and Obama won’t speed along the Keystone XL decision – a decision which got a whole lot trickier as a judge in Nebraska has struck down the Governor’s approved route for the pipeline, which could mean yet more delays for the project. It does, however, sound like common standards on greenhouse gas emissions may be on the way for Canada and the US. Also agreed to at the summit were a continental transportation plan, more joint research, more security agreements, and a working group to ensure the conservation of the monarch butterfly.
Author Archives: Dale
Roundup: Emoting about the economy
The Liberals put out a YouTube video wherein Justin Trudeau narrated their concerns about the economy, which was a lot of angst about the middle class. Because apparently facts and figures can be displaced with talking about feelings. Suffice to say, reaction among economists has been mixed – while some like the format, they are quick to point out some of the inherent problems with the message. Things like the political nonsense that Prime Ministers directly run economies, or the assertion that the middle class “lives off their incomes and not their assets.” (Do you know which is the class that lives off of their assets? Retirees). And then there’s the assertion that middle class incomes have stagnated over thirty years, when they haven’t – they fell drastically and have recovered over that thirty-year period, so it’s not exactly an accurate description. And as Stephen Gordon points out, the recipe Trudeau offers is largely wishful thinking. But why should we let actual facts get in the way of emoting about the economy?
Roundup: Nicholson doubles down
The issue of retired General Andrew Leslie’s moving benefit payment continued on Monday, and perhaps even gained some steam as Rob Nicholson decided to double down on the partisanship, saying that it was indicative of a “Liberal sense of entitlement,” and claimed that Leslie was wrong when he said that he wasn’t aware of how much they totalled. Never mind that Leslie said that it was a private company that dealt with everything, and that the expenses were almost entirely due to real estate fees (which, on a million dollar house, would be close to that $72,000). Oh, and Nicholson also called it moving from “mansion to mansion,” which none of the photos really showed any house too mansion-like. The Auditor General assessed the programme from which he gained this benefit a few years ago, and that if Rob Nicholson wants to turn the blame to anyone, it may be the real estate companies that his department contracts out to. (Also, that if Nicholson thinks that every departing soldier who avails himself of the programme needs to do an independent assessment, he’s asking a lot of said veterans). Thirteen retired generals have made similar intra-city moves in the past few years, which may be prompting the review, but it would take away from the universality of the benefit. One former general used this benefit to move to the UAE – even though he was disgraced and tossed out for having sex with a subordinate. (This is the same former general currently in an Afghan jail over an issue with the private security company he works for). Andrew Cohen dissects the partisan tenor of the attack, and wonders why anyone would want to serve the public if this is the suspicion and abuse they are subjected to.
Roundup: Partisan questions over a move
The partisan machinery got ramped into full gear over the weekend after CTV aired a story saying that retired General Andrew Leslie legitimately claimed $72, 000 in moving expenses upon his retirement when he bought a new house in Ottawa. Most of that was apparently real estate fees, which the expenses are allowed to cover. But apparently after the years of service he put in, this figure is “shocking” for critics. Sackcloth and ashes, everyone! What wasn’t aired or put in the web version was Leslie’s explanation, which is not only the universality of that programme, its rationale, and the fact that he didn’t know the figure because it was handled by a private company. All of which raises questions as to why that number found its way into CTV’s hands. Not able to resist making a partisan swipe, as Leslie is now an advisor to Justin Trudeau, Defence minister Rob Nicholson announced that he was going to take a look into the expenses, while Leslie explained himself by way of Facebook. Even the head of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation decided to get in on the game and said that Leslie was an embarrassment to his ancestors and compared him to Mike Duffy. Because he’s classy like that, I guess. I am also struck by the fact that everyone is blaming Leslie for bilking the system, when he made it clear that he wasn’t involved – a private company was. Perhaps they are the one who should be answering the questions, not Leslie.
Roundup: Checking in with the props
With all of the talk about the future of the income splitting promise in doubt, Jennifer Ditchburn checks in with the family that was used as the prop for the announcement during the last election. She found that they’re not really Conservative party members, and they’re waiting to see what else gets proposed instead of income splitting before they make up their minds. Stephen Maher notes Kenney’s intrusion into the file, and how he continues to stoke the social conservative base, which may be in support of his likely leadership bid.
Roundup: Kenney makes things awkward
Those questions of the government position on income splitting dominated the headlines again today, with some new added dimensions as Jason Kenney popped into the controversy. As Harper conspicuously avoided assuring reporters that the proposal was still on the table, Jason Kenney insisted that they keep their campaign promises – something that may be a signal and a warning. If it’s not an official government policy, then disagreement is certainly interesting, but if it is, then a split in cabinet means that cabinet solidarity is being ruptured, and someone is going to have to resign (unless we’re really keen to throw out the rules around Responsible Government). Michael Den Tandt believes that the government should step away from the policy, and the sooner the better.
QP: Dodging and weaving around promises
With a Team Canada hockey game going on, the members were distracted as QP got underway, and there were a great many empty seats dotting the chamber. Even more, only Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May were the only leaders present. Megan Leslie led off for the NDP, and wondered if income splitting was to be abandoned. Jim Flaherty rose to assure her that they were committed to tax relief for families, and that the opposition voted against income splitting for seniors. Leslie pressed, and Flaherty hit back about how only the Conservatives lowered taxes. Leslie turned to the elections bill and wondered why the government was reluctant to allow cross-country consultations. Pierre Poilievre insisted that he consulted outside of Ottawa and heard their complaints. David Christopherson shouted the same question again in English, to which Poilievre insisted that the opposition simply needed to submit a list of witnesses to the committee, and they would be bring them in. Trudeau returned to the issue of income splitting, and how Kenney rebuked his own caucus members by saying they always keep their promises. With that established, Trudeau wondered what happened to the patient wait time guarantee. After some hesitation, Rona Ambrose rose to assure him that billions had been invested in the problem. Trudeau then wondered about the promise to lower the price of diesel fuel, to which Flaherty dodged by insisted that they lowered all kinds of taxes. For his final question, Trudeau wondered about the promised oil and gas regulations, but Leona Aglukkaq skated and tried to accuse the Liberals of letting the infrastructure in national parks lapse.
Roundup: Hysteria over a difference of opinion
All of the tongues were wagging yesterday as it appeared that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty started backing away from the government’s promise to implement income splitting for families once the budget gets balanced. Unfortunately, this also resulted in a number of hyperbolic lines of copy, with things like “split in the caucus,” because there can’t be disagreement without it being a major issue, which in turn makes the tendency for rigid message control all the more prevalent (although, it is a bigger issue when it’s the PM and finance minister who can’t agree, but let’s keep things within reason). Or all the musings about Flaherty “being in the doghouse” because Harper himself was answering questions in QP – which people started complaining about. Seriously – Harper was answering questions! Like a Prime Minister! This is a good thing, people! John Geddes puts Flaherty’s musings in with the context of his broader freelancing from the party line of late, while Kevin Milligan offers an overview on the research into income splitting. Andrew Coyne writes that the rift between Harper and Flaherty on clear party policy shows that perhaps Flaherty should think about stepping down.
QP: Budget reaction PMQ
With everybody digesting the yesterday’s budget, it was likely to be a day of round condemnation, punctuated by fulsome backbench praise. With all of the leaders and the finance minister in the House, it had the potential to be a good day. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking if it was true that the finance minister no longer believed in the promise of income splitting. Harper responded that they brought it in for seniors, whereas the NDP wanted to raise taxes. Mulcair wondered why the Conservatives had fired 300 food inspectors only to re-hire them in the budget, to which Harper insisted that they had increased the number of inspectors, before reading a list of groups who liked the budget. Mulcair moved to the Elections Act, and wondered why the Elections Commissioner would be reporting to the justice minister. Harper said the Commissioner would be independent, and by the way, in the NDP leadership race, they didn’t count fundraising expenses either. Mulcair wondered why they wanted investigation suspects warned but not the general public when it comes to voter fraud, but Harper responded with accusations of the NDP using union funds. For his final question, Mulcair asked about using the EI fund to balance the budget, but Harper insisted there would be a long-term balance in the fund. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals and wondered why the minister didn’t ask for more funds for veterans, but Harper hit back with a comment that Trudeau made about budgets balancing themselves. Trudeau wondered about a plan for economic growth, to which Harper assured him that the record of Economic Action Plans™ spoke for themselves.
Roundup: Budget day highlights
So that was the budget – so close to being balanced, but apparently in a position to run a surplus next year – and just in time for an election, wouldn’t you know? Maclean’s gives you the highlights, like half a billion dollars for the auto sector, departmental freeze, money for bridges in Windsor and Montreal, $1.5 billion over ten years for research, internships and extending student loans to skilled trades, and vague promises to sic the Competition Bureau on those who perpetuate the price gap with the US (as problematic a promise as that is). Mike Moffatt points out how much more complicated the tax credits are getting in this budget, which increases the red tape and regulatory burden that they claim to want to be rid of, as well as nine changes in the budget that are likely to fly under the radar. Stephen Gordon shows how the Conservatives are aggressively reducing the size of government. Kevin Page wishes Jim Flaherty well if he reaches surplus next year and has to figure out what to do with it. And here are Maclean’s five key points from the budget.