Tag Archives: CRA

Roundup: Not an election issue to fight over

Posted on by

The leader of the Independent Senators Group seems to have inserted himself into the political discussion by demanding to know where parties stand on the issue of Senate appointments in advance of the next election. Senator Woo’s concerns seem to be that he doesn’t want people to “unwittingly” vote for a party that doesn’t conform to their views on the Senate. I’m going to go ahead and say that this was probably a mistake because it’s very easy to construe that he’s looking to shill for the Liberals since they are the only ones to are half-arsing the issue of Senate modernization, at least in this particular bastardized vision of a completely “independent” Chamber that is more likely to be problematic than anything.

In case you were wondering, the Conservatives say they don’t have a firm position yet, but their democratic institutions critic says she prefers the Harper system of appointing candidates voted on in “consultative elections” – you know, the ones that the Supreme Court of Canada said were unconstitutional because they were attempting to do through the backdoor what they couldn’t to through the front door. Oh, and they support a partisan Senate because they have a “very strong Senate group.” And the NDP, well, they’re still insisting that they want to abolish the Senate, never mind that they will never, ever, get the unanimous support of the provinces to do so. That leaves Senator Woo holding the bag for the Liberals by default, which isn’t a good look if he wants to keep insisting that he’s independent from the Liberals.

And those of us who think that maybe the Senate is better off with Liberals, Conservatives and a group of crossbenchers in roughly equal numbers? Who are we supposed to vote for? I suspect we’re SOL, unless the Liberals decide to change their tune after their “experiment” in a totally independent Senate starts to blow up in their faces and they can’t get bills passed (in part because their Government Leader – err “representative” – doesn’t want to do his job), but yeah. I’m not sure this is an election issue to fight over because nobody knows what they’re doing and we’re going to find ourselves cleaning up the mess made in this institution for a generation to come.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Compromising positions vs oversight

Posted on by

As the fallout from his sexting “scandal” continued, MP Tony Clement was booted from caucus yesterday, which shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone. First thing in the morning, Andrew Scheer said that he was assured that it was a one-off so Clement would be allowed to stay, but by Question Period, Clement was out, meaning that more stuff has come to light (possibly the raft of women over social media describing their creepy encounters with Clement online).

While Cabinet ministers including Ralph Goodale don’t believe that this incident with Clement actually breached national security, the bigger worry by experts in the field is the fact that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is still nascent and building trust, and the fact that Clement was a member of that team and obviously ignored the training he was provided about not putting himself in compromising positions could shake the domestic trust of this new committee, especially given that this level of parliamentary oversight of our national security is new and largely untested.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1060246150266138625

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060245758123753472

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060246898810867712

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060248352011431936

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060250149736202240

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060251763486257152

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060254722823618560

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060258407968473089

Susan Delacourt notes the three ways in which Clement has damaged himself, and possibly his party as well. John Ivison ponders the security implications of this whole sordid affair. And on Power Play, Stephanie Carvin explains why this is an issue with national security considerations.

Continue reading →

QP: Pushing back a little against mendacity

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in Montreal to meet with business leaders, Andrew Scheer was also absent, which is becoming increasingly common of late. Candice Bergen led off, concern trolling that the Statistics Canada plan to gather transaction data could endanger trade with Europe (which I am dubious of). Navdeep Bains thanked her for the thoughtful question, and reminded her that this was a pilot project that had not yet started, and they were working with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure it was done properly. Bergen tried again, and this time, Bains called out her mischaracterisation and read the portion of the Statistics Act that spelled out that nobody could compel the release of that personal information. Alain Rayes took over to ask the same question in French, and Bains reiterated the point about pilot project. Rayes then switched topics to inquire about what the “secret mission” assigned to missing MP Nicola Di Iorio was, and Bardish Chagger read that the member is responsible to his constituents and he is reflecting on his work. Bergen got back up to ask the same question in English, and Chagger read the same in English. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and demanded that Canada follow Mexico’s suit in order to refuse to sign the New NAFTA until the steel and aluminium tariffs were lifted. Marc Garneau stood up to express come confusion that the NDP were praising the deal in some venues, but attacking it in others. Caron changed topics to ask about the star of the Paradise Papers, but Garneau ignored the question in order to read more of the NDP’s praise for the agreement. Tracey Ramsey reiterated the Paradis Papers question in English, and Mélanie Joly a stood up to praise the reinvestment in CRA’s resources. Ramsey then repeated the demand to not sign the new NAFTA as long as the tariffs were in place, and Garneau repeated his confusion about the NDP’s position in English.

Continue reading →

QP: “Soviet” StatsCan

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau off to Churchill and Vancouver, Andrew Scheer also decided to be elsewhere. That left Gérard Deltell to lead off, and he immediately launched into an attack on the Statistics Canada plan to use financial transaction data. François-Philippe Champagne responded with a script about how StatsCan already deals with Canadians’ personal data appropriately, that the Privacy Commissioner was working with them, and that the Conservatives were fear-mongering. Deltell tried again, got the same answer, and when Mark Strahl took over in English, Champagne repeated his spiel in English. Strahl railed about how often there have been personal data beaches by the government, and Champagne responded by reading his points with more vigour. Strahl angrily made a point about consent, and Champagne angrily repeated his own points. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and demanded a GHG reduction plan. Dominic LeBlanc responded that hot air about climate change wasn’t coming from his side of the chamber, that they did have a plan that they were implementing. Caron repeated the question in French, and LeBlanc reiterated that they took the issue seriously, unlike the Conservatives. Linda Duncan trolled for support for her motion about tougher GHG targets, but LeBlanc wouldn’t indicate support, but pumped up his own party’s plan instead. Alexandre Boulerice returned Caron’s first question and Quebeckers threatening to take the government to court over climate change, and LeBlanc responded that Quebec has been a leader on climate change.

Continue reading →

QP: Mendacious privacy concerns

Posted on by

For the first time this week, all of the leaders were present for QP, and Andrew Scheer led off, and he decried the “intrusions” of StatsCan collecting financial transaction data. Justin Trudeau, as he did the last two days, read a script to assure Canadians that the data is anonymised, and that they are working with the Privacy Commissioner. Scheer insisted that this was an extraordinary, and Trudeau dropped the script, and insisted that privacy was being protected. Scheer tried again, ignoring that the data was anonymised, and Trudeau hit back by decrying the Conservatives’ quest to eliminate data and evidence that they find to be inconvenient. Scheer went yet again, and this time Trudeau called it an attempt to sow fear and division. Scheer raised the number of government privacy breaches that resulted in a class-action lawsuit, to which Trudeau paid had his respect for the work of the Privacy Commissioner while the Conservatives continued to play politics over it. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, demanding web giants be taxed like is happening in the UK and Spain. Trudeau read a script about how they were reviewing the Broadcasting Act and to point out how much they have invested in the cultural sector. Caron switched tracks to complain that CRA was only after going the little guys and not major tax evaders, to which Trudeau read about the investments they’ve made in CRA to combat tax evasion. Nathan Cullen was up next to demand that outstanding by-elections be called, and Trudeau assured him that he would call those by-elections soon. Cullen tried again, and this time, Trudeau praised their new elections legislation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Proposing a debate commissioner

Posted on by

Yesterday the government unveiled their plan to establish an election debate commissioner, who would set about coordinating leaders’ debates during the next election, along with proposed around which party leaders could participate – rules that would give Elizabeth May an in, but could exclude Maxime Bernier unless he gets an awful lot of candidates in place, and his polling numbers start to rise. The proposed Commissioner is to be former Governor General, His Excellency the Rt. Hon. David Johnston, who is a choice that nobody is going to want to dispute.

Of course, that hasn’t eliminating the grumbling and complaints. The NDP are complaining that they weren’t consulted before Johnston was nominated (not that they’re complaining it’s him), and the Conservatives are calling this a giant affront to democracy and add this onto their pile of complaints that Justin Trudeau is trying to rig the election in his favour. (Not sure how this does that, and it seems pretty cheeky to make these claims when their own unilateral changes to election rules in the previous parliament were panned by pretty much everyone). And Elizabeth May is overjoyed because the proposed rules would include her. Of course, Johnston still needs to be approved by Parliament, and he will appear before the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, but all of this having been said and done, there remain questions as to why this is all necessary. Gould went around saying that this was because Harper didn’t want to do debates in 2015, except that he did debates – he simply didn’t want to do the same “consortium” debates that are usually done and decided by the TV broadcasters, and he most certainly didn’t want to have anything to do with the CBC. The key point they seem to be making is that the 2015 formats saw far fewer viewers than the consortium debates typically attract, for what it’s worth. Is this a reason to implement a new system, that neither compels leaders to participate or broadcasters to air? Maybe, and people will point to the debate commission in the United States.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1057344603861397506

To that end, here’s Chris Selley asking some of those very questions, looking at some of the problematic behaviour from broadcasters in response to the changed formats from the 2015 debates, and offering some suggestions as to how this all could be avoided.

Continue reading →

QP: StatsCan surveillance?

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau was again in Question Period today, while Andrew Scheer was off to Queen’s Park to meet with Doug Ford, sans media availability. That left Lisa Raitt to lead off, worrying about the Statistics Canada plan to access financial information for their purposes. Trudeau took up a script to read that the data was anonymised and that it was for statistical purposes only, and that they were working with the Privacy Commissioner. Raitt equated this to another issue related to a credit monitoring agency being asked to turn over data. Trudeau took up a second script to read about the sins of the Conservatives when it comes to StatsCan, and assured her that privacy was being protected. Raitt pressed, and Trudeau snarked that the Conservatives remained the party of Stephen Harper. Alain Rayes took over in French, got the same scripted reply, and on a follow-up, Trudeau dropped the script to make the Harper digs. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he asked about the lack of CRA’s progress in going after anyone from the Panama Papers. Trudeau read a script about CRA doing a great job. Caron raised the court case regarding charities before doubling back to lack of progress, and Trudeau dropped the script this time to praise the investment his government made in CRA to recover evaded taxes. Peter Julian took over in English, with added invective, and Trudeau read the English version of his script, and for his final question, Julian demanded by-elections be called, and Trudeau picked up another script to read more about the CRA.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Stuck on the Norman questions

Posted on by

Yesterday’s somewhat bizarre Question Period, with the Conservatives focusing on a single question around Vice Admiral Mark Norman, certainly got the attention of media outlets, but it wasn’t all positive news, given how they it was also pointed out how they were lacking in any kind of prosecutorial style or killer instinct around it. It was just repetitive. Many of the points they made also didn’t seem to land – such as saying the PM had already “tried and convicted” Norman when he remarked that the courts would sort it out before Norman had even been charged – something that they are trying to use to insinuate that the whole affair is politically motivated.

As a reminder, Norman’s lawyers are looking for records from PMO, PCP, DND, the Department of Public Services and Procurement Canada, the Department of Justice, the Treasury Board, and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and that the documents being demanded include cabinet minutes, briefing materials and memos, and some ask for all forms of communication including emails and Blackberry messages. Those have all been deemed Cabinet confidence, which the Canada Evidence Actallows government to keep secret – the danger there, however, being that the court could decide that if the government doesn’t turn them over that the trial isn’t a fair one, and they could dismiss the case. As I remarked in my QP recap, I think the possibilities exist that some form of access could be negotiated that could mean a court-appointed officer could examine them to determine what is relevant as they do in cases of national security-related secrecy (like terrorism trials or people being held on security certificates), because the laundry list being demanded by Norman’s defence could very well be a fishing expedition and they want as broad a swath as possible to try and find something, anything, of use. (It’s also likely that the information is not only Cabinet confidence, but also commercially sensitive, which adds new layers of complication).

The other interesting fact that is still playing out is the fact that another public servant has been named as an alleged leaker, but he has yet to be charged, and this fact is making the Conservative suspicious that this is making Norman out to be a political scapegoat. Or rather, that’s the claim they’re making as they put on their dog and pony show about trying to make this into some kind of a cover-up, but we have nothing to point to this one way or another – just innuendo, which is enough to make political hay out of.

Continue reading →

QP: Getting better terms – really!

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was off in Toronto meeting business leaders, Andrew Scheer was present in QP, fresh off the plane from his trip to India. Sheer led off, reading his concerns about Canadian ISIS fighters being caught by Kurdish forces, and demanded that they be brought to justice. Bill Blair responded saying that they were taking the issue seriously, and were gathering evidence to ensure that they can be prosecuted. Scheer got up and lied about the government offering poetry classes to returning foreign fighters, to which Blair retorted that the previous government brought no returning fighters to justice either. Scheer switched to French to rail about the terms of the New NAFTA, to which Chrystia Freeland assured him that they got a good deal for Canada and listed people who praised the deal. Scheer insisted that the government capitulated on a number of fronts but didn’t get movement on steel and aluminium tariffs, and Freeland replied that this was Monday morning courage, and that they said she was being too tough in negotiations. Scheer retorted that they had a case of Sunday night panic and capitulated, to which Freeland said that the party opposite now wanted to capitulate on steel and aluminium tariffs, which they would not do. Guy Caron was up next and demanded faster action on climate change and to stop using half-measures, to which Dominic LeBlanc said that they had a coherent plan to fight climate change and to grow the economy. After another round of the same, before Rachel Blaney reiterated the question in English, and LeBlanc repeated his assurances in English. Blaney tried one more time, and LeBlanc gave his assurances with a little more punctuation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Shifting the blame upstream

Posted on by

Have you seen that Internet meme going around about 100 corporations being responsible for 71 percent of the world’s GHG emissions? Congratulations, you’re fooling yourself as to what this really means! There’s an interesting piece in the National Postright now that breaks down what that study actually shows, and it’s not what you may think. The problem with the report that shows this statistic is that it shifts the blame for the emissions upstream to producers rather than downstream to consumers – so Exxon is being blamed for emissions from cars, when it’s consumers who are driving demand for their gasoline by, well, driving. And when you sort out upstream and downstream emissions, it turns out that those 100 corporations are really only responsible for about seven percent of those emissions – the rest are really the responsibility of consumers.

Why is this important? Because by presenting the problem as being driven by those 100 companies, it gives the impression that they can be dealt with as corporate bad apples who can be regulated into reducing that tremendous chunk of emissions. More importantly, it tells consumers that they’re not the ones responsible, it’s the fault of evil corporations – never mind that they’re responding to consumer demand. And this takes us back to the conversation around carbon pricing. When hucksters like Jason Kenney and Andrew Scheer insist that they can meaningfully reduce carbon emissions without carbon taxes (note: Kenney’s carbon tax plans only target large emitters that pay into a “technology fund”), it once again leaves consumers off the hook, which defeats the purpose.

Consumers drive demand, which drive emissions. If you target consumer behaviour by putting a price on the emissions they’re causing, you’re working to change demand, whether it’s through better fuel economy, insulation in housing, or making different choices about what it is they’re consuming and how carbon intensive their consumption is, you’re dealing with the problem where it starts. Carbon taxes are a transparent way for consumers to see what it is they’re using, and allows them to make choices. When you target companies instead, you’re simply passing along the costs to them in the form of higher prices in a non-transparent way, and in a costlier way because regulation is a far less cost-effective way of driving emissions reductions. So indeed, rather than trying to ensure that consumers aren’t being hit by the costs of carbon pricing, you’re actually ensuring that they’re hit even more (particularly because the costs of doing nothing will be even greater still). You can’t pretend that this problem can’t be solved without a focus on consumers, and that starts with recognizing that consumers are the problem, not corporations.

Continue reading →