Talk of expanding the Canada Pension Plan was dominating the discussion yesterday, but much of it seemed to be in a bit of a vacuum. To recap, the Conservatives, having largely eschewed any talk of CPP expansion as “job-killing payroll taxes” to date (despite some positive noises having been made by Jim Flaherty at one point), say they’re going to consult on voluntary expansion, but haven’t approached any of the provinces, which they need to do. The Liberals are moving in the direction of making an expansion mandatory, which the NDP have already largely been in favour of. For some context, Maclean’s spoke to a pension expert about the situation, and they reposted an piece from Kevin Milligan about what different expansion models could look like (and it’s also a reminder that none of this is about poor seniors, who are already taken care of by other programmes). The Ottawa Citizen also has a Q&A about the discussion as well. What should also bear mentioning is that voluntary increased contributions, if not done in a certain way, could dramatically increase the administration costs of CPP since it will require individual management of accounts – something that the current system does not currently need. Dramatically increasing costs will make CPP a less efficient vehicle for retirement savings, and may start to look like a commercial pension instead. If the government is insistent on a voluntary expansion as one of a number of options (like TFSAs and pooled registered plans), then this cost factor could be an important determiner in what that could look like.
Tag Archives: Auditor General
Roundup: An arbiter and a process in place
The Auditor General was making the media rounds yesterday, largely combating the cheap outrage journalism about the supposed spending issues of his office (which wasn’t a story but hey), and confirmed that about 30 senators would be facing some kind of repayment, fewer than 10 serious enough to merit being forwarded to the RCMP – but of course, ten became the headline number when he said it would be fewer, and the number of five to eight has been suggested by other media outlets, which seems more in line with what he claims. The total number of senators examined was 117 current and former, and it certainly sounds like the majority of cases will be fairly minor in terms of repayments. The Senate announced that they are retaining former Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie as the independent arbiter on expenses, so that they have a process by which to dispute the AG’s findings if they so choose, and that may be necessary considering the complaints emerging about the lack of knowledge on the part of auditors as to parliamentary functions. This raises the question of fairness – is it fair that these senators will have a process in place, whereas Senators Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin did not, and were suspended without any kind of due process? The answer of course is that no, it’s probably not fair, but this was a fairly consuming crisis at the time, and they were sacrificed on the altar of expediency. Politics is messy business, particularly when you were high-profile appointments and had become a political liability. I’m not sure that it should be reason to forgo having a process going forward, but if all three are found guilty on the charges laid by the RCMP, then will it really matter in the end?
Roundup: Cheap outrage against the AG
The Auditor General is in the news for a couple of reasons, both of which start bordering on the ridiculous. The first is the news about the price tag of the Senate audit, which is said to be approaching $21 million. The AG himself didn’t want to start talking numbers out of context, and to wait for the final report, but this likely has to do with the fact that a number of outside contract staff were brought in to do the audit – which is also what a lot of the process complaints are, particularly since these outside auditors have no idea about what constitutes parliamentary functions, or the bounds of propriety in some cases. (Incidentally, the numbers of senators affected being leaked in this story is far less than those in other reports). The other story is more egregious, but not for the reason you might think. CTV reported that the AG’s office has spent $23,000 over four years on team-building exercises. Mind you, that’s over 600 staff, which basically amounts to an annual pizza lunch, and it’s in the context of a $90 million annual budget, but look – a big number with little context! Scandal! And thus we get to the egregiousness of the cheap outrage that apparently fuels out political media in this country. Who doesn’t love a story where a big number gets presented with inadequate context, and calling it a scandal? Why can’t we be a country that is so cheap and flinty that we are the Ritz-crackers-and-ginger ale crowd? Why should we spend money on anything at all? But no, it’s all OH NOES PIZZA LUNCH and lighting our hair on fire. And then of course, the perennial bugaboo of the Challenger jets, where every time the GG flies somewhere we need to get the CTF on the line to decry how terrible it is that we go and do diplomacy. Sometimes I wonder if we’re really a grown-up country after all.
@robert_hiltz I worked it out to $38 per employee over four years on team building.
— Paul Vieira (@paulvieira) May 26, 2015
Roundup: Trudeau makes a move
After months of anticipation, the Liberals unveiled the first real plank of their policy book yesterday, being their tax plan as it relates to middle class families. By restructuring the current universal childcare benefit, eliminating income splitting, and introducing a new tax bracket on those earning over $200,000 per year, Trudeau has proposed a income tax cut for the “middle class,” along with childcare benefits that will be more means tested than the current system, all under the banner of “fairness.” Immediately the government was apoplectic, and Pierre Poilievre, incredulously, tried to spin it as the Trudeau Tax™ and that somehow eliminating the doubling of TFSAs was a “tax hike” on those earning more than $60,000 per year (never mind that that income was already taxed, and that bracket got the income tax cut). The NDP insisted that the plan wouldn’t give a tax cut to “two-thirds” of Canadians, but when challenged on how they would cut those taxes, they instead pivoted to “childcare!” Emmett Macfarlane is glad there are now concrete proposals to debate, while John Geddes has three questions about the proposal. Kevin Milligan and Lindsay Tedds give more of the economic details and analysis.
Roundup: Hiding behind the top brass
It has not gone unnoticed that the government has not been putting themselves out in front of the release of the Deschamps Report into sexual misconduct in the military, and the opposition is rightly pointing out that there is such a thing as ministerial responsibility, which means that the minister needs to be out in front of this – but he’s not. He’s instead left it up to his parliamentary secretary to deliver some talking points that aren’t actually demonstrating responsibility, and worse yet, they’re almost self-congratulatory as the lines being delivered about how the Chief of Defence Staff ordered the report. Err, so what? The CDS is already pushing back on some of the recommendations by agreeing with eight of the ten “in principle” only, and there is still some level of denial at the top, where they describe that the endemic sexualised culture in the report as simply being the perception of those that Justice Deschamps interviewed. In other words, there needs to be more leadership at the top saying that no, you can’t just shrug this off and do a few things for show – you actually need to push and work at this until there is a genuine culture change. CBC Radio interviewed Major-General Christine Whitecross, who is heading up the response to the report, and she echoed some of that same reluctance, but she did relent on the point that the independent centres for reporting incidents was probably the way to go, but they want to study it some more, both in terms of what our allies have put into place in their own countries, and what resources are available here in Canada, and she is not dismissing it outright, which is at least something.
QP: Vintage Calandra
With the King of Jordan in town, the PM was absent for QP, which is a rarity for a Wednesday. That Justin Trudeau was also absent was unusual and disappointing. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the constitutional requirements for Senate appointments, and why he thought Mike Duffy could be counted as a resident of PEI. Paul Calandra insisted that the NDP were trying to make a victim of Duffy, and it was his actions that were on trial. Mulcair pressed, bringing in Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen, but Calandra brought up the NDP satellite offices. Mulcair accused the government of a cover-up of fraudulent expenses in the Senate — not sure that it was in bounds — but Calandra repeated his response. Mulcair invited Calandra to repeat the utterances outside — which he has, repeated — before asking about the “typical family” example in the budget. Kevin Sorenson decried that the NDP seems to think that anyone making under $60,000 per year is wealthy and needs to pay more taxes. For his last question, Mulcair brought up the Auditor General’s report on First Nation’s healthcare, and Rona Ambrose rose to assure him that action was being taken. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, returning to Duffy’s constitutional eligibility, to which Calandra repeated the “making a victim” line and then attacked the NDP. In another round in English, Paul Calandra brought in Mac Harb, and Scott Brison closed the round by asking about ad spending versus the Canada Summer Jobs programme. Pierre Poilievre insisted they were creating jobs with “tax cuts, training and trade.”
Um, Calandra has repeated those very utterances *on TV.* Haven't seen any libel suits launched yet. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 29, 2015
Roundup: An implicit repudiation
It was Auditor General day yesterday, and as usual, there were some stories that didn’t get a lot of attention, like CBSA’s computer systems, and some which are somewhat alarming, like the fact that twenty years later, Health Canada still doesn’t have a real plan to deal with superbugs, that there are some serious deficiencies when it comes to nursing stations with remote First Nations, or that the Royal Canadian Mint and the Office of the Canadian Forces Ombudsman had some spending issues. But the most interesting bits were in two chapters – one on tax expenditures, the other on the release of male offenders from corrections. In essence, both are repudiations of the way that this government has been managing things. Tax expenditures has a lot to do with the mass proliferation of those boutique tax credits that this government likes to throw around in order to target voters, but as the AG points out, it’s done with little scrutiny, and not enough information on them gets back to Parliamentarians to hold that spending to account. (Couple this with the report on Monday about the growth in tax complexity, and it should be a big red flag). As for offenders, too many low-risk offenders are not getting parole when they are eligible, and that makes reintegration harder, and recidivism more likely because they don’t get the monitoring that comes with parole. Add to that, the squeeze on programming resources within prisons and the removal of incentives to do the programming means that too many offenders are being released without having completed their rehabilitation programmes, which is also alarming. It’s also the direct fault of this government and their tough-on-crime policies what have made a virtue of trying to keep people in prisons longer, and then justifying it by saying that they won’t be on the streets to re-offend (never mind that in the vast majority of cases, keeping them in prison longer does more harm than good). And as the AG pointed out, it’s more costly to keep them in prison longer and without gradual release and programming, they get released with a higher chance to re-offend. In other words, we’re paying more to get poorer results because it’s easier to try and get votes by appealing to the sense of retribution rather than rehabilitation. Well done, guys. Slow clap.
The Auditor General is here, and he doesn't look impressed. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/xNLz029D1z
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 28, 2015
QP: Taking Paul Martin’s name in vain
In the wake of the Auditor General’s report, and with all of the leaders present, it looked like we might have a decent Question Period for a change. One could hope, anyway. Thomas Mulcair led off, saying that the AG considered the government bad managers, particularly around tax expenditures. Stephen Harper disputed the interpretation of the report, said they would report more, and then slammed the NDP regarding their own high tax plans. Mulcair tied those into the budget and the “giveaways to the wealthy few,” and wondered if Harper thought he was Paul Martin. Harper hit back, saying that if he was Paul Martin, the NDP would be supporting him, before giving praise to his budget measures. Mulcair mumbled something else about Paul Martin before changing the topping to a declaration Mike Duffy may or may not have signed before he was appointed. Harper ignored the question, and praised the TFSA changes. Mulcair quipped “Mike who?” before asking about the appointment of Caroyln Stewart Olsen to the Senate, to which Harper insisted that the Duffy issues were before the court. Mulcair then brought up the Senate invoking privilege to block the release of an internal audit — something the PM has nothing to do with. Harper repeated the response about the matter being before the courts. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the money spent on advertising rather than on young entrepreneurs. Harper insisted that an entrepreneurial group was pleased with measures in the budget, and said that the Liberals would take them away. Trudeau repeated it in French, with the twist of job creation for youth, and Harper asserted that the Liberals hate benefits and tax cuts. For his final question, Trudeau accused Harper had changed with his decision to pour so much money into advertising. Harper listed things he claimed the Liberals opposed (but not really).
The Senate invoking privilege has ZERO to do with the PM. The chambers are independent. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 28, 2015
Roundup: Kenney’s fading credibility
It was no surprised that the motion to support the Iraq mission passed, but what was perhaps unexpected was the bit of verbal sparring between Jason Kenney and Justin Trudeau, and the issue of Kenney’s credibility came up. It has come up several times, having been called out repeatedly by journalists for posting misleading photos on his Twitter account, or his statements that were not true about things like Russian planes buzzing our frigate in the Black Sea, but this weekend, things got even more escalated when the Chief of Defence Staff had to come out and make a statement to both back up and correct the record with regards to Kenney’s statements about how Canada and the US were the only countries engaged in Syria and Iraq using precision bombs. That’s blatantly not true, and General Lawson had to use some careful language to not embarrass his minister but at the same time correct the record, and Kenney treated it as though Lawson backed up his statement – which he didn’t. And Trudeau used that during the question-and-answer portion of his speech on the Iraq motion, that the minister doesn’t have the credibility behind his words when it comes to the motion to extend the mission and the Liberals can’t trust him as a result. Will that be enough political cover for Trudeau given the disgruntled members of his own party who would see us join the mission? I guess we’ll wait and see. Meanwhile, the government’s fudging on the reality of our combat operations is a sign that Canadians really don’t have the stomach for another war.
Roundup: The unspoken morale problem
As the results of the Senate audit draw closer, and senators are complaining anonymously about the way in which it’s being handled by the Auditor General’s office (and those that they’ve subcontracted to), what has been missing from the reporting is the blow to morale that has taken place in the institution. The constant air of suspicion, the questioning of expenses that should be no problem (like stamps for Xmas cards being sent to the States, or as the article describes, single phone calls and sandwiches) has made not only for some unhappy senators and staff, but it’s sucked the life out of the place, and their focus on the grown-up policy work of parliament – which we should expect from the Commons but don’t end up getting – is being completely sidetracked by the way this audit is being handled, and the time that it is consuming. It’s also to the point of invasive, where one senator mentioned that she had been asked for her personal journals by auditors. And the problem has become that because of the actions of those couple of bad apples – Duffy, Wallin, Brazeau, and Harb – that all senators are under a cloud of suspicion and are unable to push back without it looking like they have something to hide, rather than the fact that there is a genuine feeling like they are being abused by auditors who don’t understand the role of the Senate. One does have to wonder if there won’t be any long-term damage to what is going on, especially as blame is being laid on the institution, and not on the person who made appointments without due diligence.