While everyone’s attention was on the election south of the border, things got underway in the House of Commons for our own (superior) system of democracy. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern and quoted Pierre Elliott Trudeau about the importance of free speech, to which Justin Trudeau rebutted that Canada always stands up for freedom of expression. O’Toole demanded to know if the PM stands up for freedom of speech, and Trudeau responded that nothing justifies violence or terrorism. O’Toole tried again, and Trudeau was even more forceful in his defence of free speech than the previous two times, without any of the equivocation that was being called out after this comments last week. O’Toole switched to French and recounted how the French president called the Quebec premier, and chided Trudeau on not getting a similar call, to which Trudeau repeated that they always stand up for free speech and will stand against terrorism and violence. O’Toole again brought up Trudeau’s father, and Trudeau reiterated for the fifth time that they unequivocally defend free expression and denounce terrorism. Yves-François Blanchet led off for the Bloc and he carried on with the same question, accusing Trudeau of twisting himself into knots over it, to which Trudeau again reiterated that they will always defend freedom of expression. Blanchet was not mollified, and they went for another round of the same. Jagmeet Singh was up next and in French, asked about flu vaccine supplies — orders for which is once again a provincial responsibility. Trudeau responded that they ordered more than usual, and it was good that more people were getting it. Singh tried again in English, to which Trudeau reiterated that they preordered more than usual, and that they would work with the provinces to get more.
Tag Archives: CRA
Roundup: Self-harm by way of platitude
I try not to make a habit of re-litigating my Twitter disputes in this space, but in this particular case, I find it’s a perfect illustration of how this government’s inability to communicate its way out of a wet paper bag, and why that harms them. To wit: A Global News piece declares that Trudeau won’t commit to ending boil-water advisories on First Nations by 2021 as is the current promise. It uses the recent evacuation at Neskatanga First Nation as an illustration of problems with boil-water advisories. It quotes Trudeau giving a bland talking point about “more work to do,” and way down at the bottom of the story is reference to the fact that in Neskatanga, not only has money been approved and delivered, but the new water treatment facility is nearly completed construction.
Headline: Trudeau is breaking his promise!
Bottom of the story: The money had not only been allocated, but the project is under construction now and nearly complete.
Come on, guys. https://t.co/rkgLri0Jzc pic.twitter.com/yBJaepOviD— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 24, 2020
So why is this a problem for the government? Because if they had the slightest bit of candour, they could have explained that capital projects like these take time, particularly in the kinds of remote and fly-in communities like these particular First Nations. Twitter is filled with people who are seriously asking why the government hasn’t solved these issues if they’re showering money around, without having the slightest clue about what he actual problems with these boil water advisories are, and accustomed to situations where they can simply throw money at a problem and it will go away. That’s not the case, and not understanding the logistical and capacity issues at play means that we get this ongoing confusion. For example, many of these reserves are only accessible to bring equipment up with ice roads for a couple of months of the year, which slows the ability to make timely solutions. (This is also an issue with housing on many reserves – small windows by which to bring in building supplies, and those windows are getting ever shorter because of climate change). This has been made even worse in the pandemic, because many communities won’t let the people who are building these new facilities into the community in an attempt to keep COVID out (which Trudeau made vague reference to, but folded it into his platitude so it gets lost). In some communities, it’s not a question of the equipment but of maintenance – as soon as they find and train someone local to do the work, they get headhunted and given a better offer, and the community has to start over again, as the equipment once again breaks down. And it would be great if Trudeau or one of his ministers could actually articulate these challenges, but they won’t. Instead, they fall back on their platitudes about “doing better,” and not giving people a clue about what the actual challenges are.
The government also assumes that these reporters will do the work to find out what the challenges are, but they won’t. Pressed for time, and under the constant pressure to produce, most of them will only both-sides the quotes and move on (as happened in this particular case). Most don’t understand the background or the actual challenges, so it doesn’t get reported – only the platitudes in face of the complaints. Actual candour from Trudeau and the Cabinet would fix this – easily! But they won’t do it. It’s maddening, and they’re just shooting themselves in the foot, over, and over, and over again.
QP: Chest-thumping over confidence and committees
On a day of high drama, both the prime minister and opposition leader were ready to square off. Erin O’Toole led off, and based on a torqued CBC story, accused the government of having political interference in judicial appointments. Justin Trudeau responded that they reformed the process when they formed government, and that they we focusing diverse, merit-based appointments after the Conservatives politicised the process. O’Toole switched to a French to repeat the question, and got much the same answer. O’Toole was back to English to intimate that the vacancies in Atlantic judicial vacancies must be because they can’t find enough Liberal donors in the region, and Trudeau responded that they appointed the first Supreme Court of Canada justice from Newfoundland and Labrador, and all of their appointments were made based on merit. O’Toole changed tacks and blustered about the WE Imbroglio and got a reminder about the work they were doing. O’Toole intimated that the government was protecting a powerful name under all of the redactions in the WE documents, to which Trudeau stated that tomorrow would be a vote as to whether Parliament still has confidence in the government. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc and point blank asked if there would be an election, and Trudeau insisted they were focusing on Canadians. When Blanchet tried again, Trudeau said the Bloc has been the ones clamouring for an election, whereas he would rather they work together to deliver for Canadians. Alexandre Boulerice led off for the NDP, and he too worried about the threat of an election in the middle of a pandemic, to which Trudeau reminded him that they proposed their own committee on pandemic spending, and he would rather they work together. Charlie Angus was up next, and somewhat ironically said the government was behaving immaturely, to which Trudeau reminded him that the Conservative motion clearly expressed a loss of confidence in the government.
O’Toole intimate the government is hiding some powerful name under redactions. Trudeau says tomorrow will be a vote as to whether the government still has the confidence of Parliament. #QP pic.twitter.com/ENy2QRdrm2
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 20, 2020
Roundup: O’Toole’s “cancel culture” performance
Conservative leader Erin O’Toole is making obligatory right-flavoured populist noises, decrying “cancel culture” because Queen’s University’s board voted to consider changing the name of their John A. Macdonald building, as is much the flavour of the day. It’s this juvenile, performative noise, but this is the kind of thing that O’Toole built his leadership around, without any critical thinking whatsoever, so here’s @moebius_strip to point out the sheer absurdity of it all.
https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1316454539596234753
https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1316465701100552192
https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1316465838468198401
Meanwhile, there is consternation because the Library and Archives websites haven’t yet updated their biographies of prime ministers like Macdonald and Laurier to adequately convey that they had racist policies, and lo, cookie-cutter journalism gets the same four voices to decry this that appear in every other story. Never mind that Library and Archives says that they are doing consultations in order to do the work of reconciliation, and that there will be updated versions coming – it’s not good enough because this all needed to be done yesterday.
Part of the problem here, however, is that it will take time to get a properly nuanced version of history that both acknowledges their contributions to building the country while also acknowledging the racism of the era – particularly because it’s not simply black-and-white, and anyone who has read Macdonald’s biography will find it hard to simply pigeon-hole him as some kind of cartoon racist, which is certainly what some of the online dialogue would have us do. Yes, he’s a complex and problematic figure, but he was also a moderating influence, and his racist policies were actually the less-bad ones that were being demanded by a lot of voices of the era, which I doubt is going to be acknowledged to the satisfaction of his modern-day critics. It’s not a simple conversation, but that seems to be what is being demanded.
Roundup: Budget cuts and accountability for advice
There was an interesting piece in the Globe and Mail yesterday where a couple of former top doctors enumerated some of the problems at the Public Health Agency of Canada that have been festering for years in spite of repeated warnings, which started creeping in with the budget cuts that started in 2011, and which were compounded with the loss of scientific capacity to the point where the president who just resigned had no scientific background at all. Which isn’t to say that you necessarily need someone with a science background in an administrative position like that (as opposed to the Chief Public Health Officer, which is a different kettle of fish entirely), but it points to some of the ways in which the civil service in this country has been losing capacity for a while. Suffice to say, it would appear to point to the fact that the current government wasn’t paying enough attention to what was going on at PHAC, though to be fair, there has been a fair bit on their plates, as they were dealing with medically assisted dying, legalised cannabis, and completely restructuring First Nations and Inuit healthcare delivery, which were all health-related files. The fact that emergency stockpiles weren’t being properly managed has come up repeatedly, but this does start with the cuts made under the Harper government.
Meanwhile in Queen’s Park (where premier Doug Ford made cuts to public health before the pandemic began), there is a piece in the Star that starts to ascertain just who is as the premier’s “health command table,” and ascertains that it’s Ford pulling all the strings and making all of the decisions. Which is as it should be – any “command table” should be merely advisory, because in our system of government, Cabinet makes the decisions, and Cabinet gets to wear them. I worry that trying to expose who is at this table will try to blame them for the advice they’re giving to Ford, rather than Ford making decisions on that advice – particularly when we’ve seen him ignore advice on things like school re-openings. There is a debate to be had about the transparency around the advice being given, so that we can ascertain whether or not Ford is actually following it, which I get, but I also wonder if there isn’t also a need for that table to be a place of frank discussion without it all coming out in the press – like why we have Cabinet confidentiality. And it’s a fair debate to be had, but again, let me reiterate that this is 100 percent on Ford, no matter what advice he may or may not be getting. That’s how Responsible Government works, and we need to quit finding ways to give Ford a pass, or an out on his shite decision-making.
Roundup: A Thanksgiving stunt
The Conservatives decided to use Thanksgiving Monday for their latest political stunt, which is to demand the creation of an “anti-corruption committee” that they intend to use to get to the bottom of the WE Imbroglio, and they’re ready to use every tool available to them in order to get there.
What makes this a stunt in particular is the abuse of the term “corruption,” which is overly loaded in the context of what happened in the penny-ante nonsense that surrounds the WE Imbroglio. They’ve already extracted more than the usual amount of blood that something like this would engender, both seeing the finance minister resign, and WE Charity’s Canadian operations themselves have largely folded (though not their international footprint) as a result of the spotlight that this put on them. The notion that there is something to hide because of the refusal to turn over the speaking fees collected by members of the Trudeau family, despite their being private citizens, is bordering on witch-hunt territory. And because the Conservatives are calling this an “anti-corruption committee,” any refusal to play along lets them shriek that those people are allowing corruption to happen.
The problem here is that this is nothing like actual corruption that happens in other countries. Hell, there is some pretty damning corruption that happens in some provinces in this country, where specific industries have bought and controlled provincial governments for decades. And by trying to posit that what happened with WE is capital-c corruption both demeans actual corruption that happens, but it imparts false narratives onto the kinds of wrongdoing that took place here, which was about recusals as opposed to shovelling funds to friends, family members, and business associates. But then again, the Conservative playbook has long-since left spin and torque behind in favour of bald-faced lies, so here is where we are.
QP: The Bloc let their motives be known
While he had initially stated that he would not be in QP today, things changed and prime minister Justin Trudeau did show up after all. Erin O’Toole led off in French with a script in front of him, accusing the prime minister letting the pandemic alert system get sidelined because he preferred Chinese data, to which Trudeau disputed it, saying that the funding was stable and they we investigating to know what happened with the system. O’Toole doubled down and accused the prime minister of ideologically preferring information out of China, and Trudeau disputed this more vigorously. O’Toole switched to English to accuse the government of ignoring warnings about Huawei, to which Trudeau insisted that they were aware of the reports and were working to keep Canadians safe. O’Toole tried again, for which Trudeau reiterated his response. O’Toole then moved onto a potential refinery closure in Newfoundland, accusing the government of doing nothing about it, to which Trudeau declared that they were engaged and listed consultations they have undertaken. Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he returned to the accusations of the government consorting with an alleged Chinese gangster, to which Trudeau offered a curt no in response. Therrien listed more apparent meetings that the government had with this alleged gangster, and Trudeau reminded him that the Liberals’ fundraising activities were the most transparent of any party. Jagmeet Singh was up to lead for the NDP, and in French, he demanded a tax on “excessive profits” companies made in the pandemic, to which Trudeau recited his worn talking point that they raised the taxes on the one percent when they formed government and the NDP voted against it. Singh changed to English to name poor workers to put faces on the same question, and Trudeau responded that they recognised front-line workers and that was why they stepped up to supports for businesses, before repeating his line about raising taxes.
QP: Energy workers and omitted automation
The prime minister was away, having attended the state funereal of Rt.Hon. John Turner, but his deputy was again present, which was worth something. Erin O’Toole led off, with his script on the mini-lectern in front of him, and in French he accused government of dragging their feet on the procurement of ventilators, citing one contract in particular. Chrystia Freeland assured him they were taking the pandemic seriously, and thanked industrial partners for stepping up. O’Toole tried again, and this time Freeland stated that his assertion wasn’t true, that they had sourced enough ventilators across the country, and were still procuring necessary equipment and medication. O’Toole switched to English to reiterate the question with added bombast, to which Freeland calmly assured him that they were confident they have the ventilators they need, and they have acquired so much PPE that they are acquiring additional warehouse space. O’Toole then switched to the topic of a possible refinery closure in Newfoundland, to which Freeland too exception to his characterisation, and reminded him that they just transferred millions of dollars to the government of Newfoundland and Labrador for the benefit of energy workers. O’Toole then raised Suncor job losses — studiously omitting that those losses were as a result of increased automation— and Freeland disabused him of the notion that the government doesn’t care about Albertans and listed the benefits delivered to the province. Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he made the usual demand for increased health transfers, to which Freeland reminded him of the increased supports they have already provided. Luc Thériault repeated the plea, and Freeland repeated that they have given the provinces additional funds. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and in French, he complained that some people made profits off the pandemic and they needed to be taxed, to which Freeland listed that they were working to combat tax evasion. Singh switched to English to complain that private clinics were giving COVID tests for a fee, and Freeland agreed that everyone should be treated the same, and that Health Canada just approved an antigen test.
O’Toole studiously omits that the Suncor job losses were as a result of increased automation. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 6, 2020
Roundup: The coded language of “social experiments”
There was an analysis piece published over the weekend that wondered about why Erin O’Toole is talking about “social experiments” as part of his rejection of the Throne Speech, but while the piece went on to look at polling data and so on, it merely said that O’Toole didn’t exactly say which part of it was the “social experiment.” Of course, you’d have to have been living under a rock to not realise that small-c conservatives have been using this language for a while, particularly when it comes to things like gender equality.
Much of the thinking around this language is that the “social experiment” is the disruption of the so-called “natural” state of family life – that women in the workforce and childcare outside of the home is going to be some kind of sociological destabilizing force – and much of that line of reasoning also goes hand-in-hand with some garden-variety homophobic nonsense about same-sex marriage somehow “devaluing” regular marriage (as though straight people weren’t already doing that on their own). And let’s face it – the Throne Speech was heavy on inclusive growth and the need for childcare as part of its main themes. Of course, this isn’t really “experimental” at this point either – we have plenty of data to show the economic benefits of women in the workforce and what subsidised childcare can do to facilitate it. And if O’Toole is really that concerned about the deficit and economic growth, you’d think that he would be enthusiastically supporting plans to expand subsidised childcare and early learning because it’s been proven to have far greater economic returns than what it costs a government.
But we also need to remember that O’Toole is beholden to the social conservatives in his party for his leadership win, and he’s spent his time as leader trying to play both sides on a lot of issues – talking about the importance of free trade while promoting protectionist “Canada First” policies, or saying he’ll go to Pride – but only if they allow uniformed police to march, or that he opposes conversion therapy but won’t support that particular bill because of hand-wavey discredited reasoning. I am not unconvinced that this isn’t more of the same – O’Toole winking to his social conservatives using their own coded language about “social experiments” without actually saying what it is out loud so that he can’t be called out on it by those who know that things like enhancing childcare is sound economic policy, and that this recession, which has disproportionately affected women and minorities, won’t be solved by the same tired bro-recovery that provides stimulus for bro-jobs. To dismiss the kinds of inclusive policies that this economic recovery demands as “social experiments” gives a clue as to who O’Toole is pandering to.
Roundup: The importance of automatic filing
The Throne Speech commitment about automatic tax filings continues to make waves, particularly because it’s such an important component about ensuring that government benefits go to those who need them, and how it’s not happening currently. With that in mind, here’s Dr. Jennifer Robson with some additional context as to why this is a problem and why it’s a good thing the government is finally proposing to act on it.
In a paper out now in @canpublicpolicy, @saulschwartz & I estimate the share of Canadians who don't file a tax return, describe who they are and add up the benefits left on the table by non-filers. This builds on earlier work, i.e. this for @prospercan: https://t.co/kOUN3MvM6S pic.twitter.com/hhsw0YArtY
— Dr. J Robson (@JenniferRobson8) September 27, 2020
StatCan uses tax data to fill in income values in most surveys now. We deem someone a non-filer if that matching fails. There will be error (person filed but gave bad matching info on the survey; no SIN found so no match possible). Note: if no SIN, how likely is it they file?
— Dr. J Robson (@JenniferRobson8) September 27, 2020
Non-filing is more frequent for people below the poverty line. pic.twitter.com/PY5yAiFWPm
— Dr. J Robson (@JenniferRobson8) September 27, 2020
Next, we look at the $ values of cash benefits that non-filers would be missing. Note: we look at just 3 groups of benefits (GST credit, child credits, CWB) and using the 2015 benefit values. These benefits have increased in value since (esp child benefits). pic.twitter.com/nOhjV6SYd4
— Dr. J Robson (@JenniferRobson8) September 27, 2020
But even small amounts add up. We give a conservative estimate of $1.7B in benefits unpaid due to non-filing. We also talk about potential implications for accuracy of admin data that sets poverty lines, models policy impacts, etc..
— Dr. J Robson (@JenniferRobson8) September 27, 2020
If $4,200 isn't enough to induce someone to file, then maybe we have a broader problem that information alone isn't going to fix.
Anyway, here's a link to the full paper: https://t.co/Z58uYu7BTQ— Dr. J Robson (@JenniferRobson8) September 27, 2020