Following meetings with the prime minister of Portugal, Justin Trudeau was in Question Period, while Andrew Scheer was absent yet again. Lisa Raitt led off, worrying about the high price of gasoline in BC, which was being “compounded” by the carbon tax. Trudeau reminded her that BC has had a price on pollution for over ten years, and that carbon pricing allows people to make better choices. Raitt went for incredulous, raising the story that Trudeau has meals prepared at 24 Sussex and messengered to Rideau Cottage, to which Trudeau noted that the Conservatives were only interested in political attacks but not action on the environment. Gérard Deltell took over in French, noting that GHG emissions went down under ten Conservatives without a carbon tax — once again, omitting that it was because Ontario shuttered their coal-fired plants and the economic downturn, rather than anything that the then-Conservative government did. Trudeau reiterated that the Conservatives have no plan so they attack. Deltell asked again, and got the same answer. Raitt got back up, mentioned that the question was originally written by Gord Brown and had planned to ask it later in the week, and raised the issue of compensation for thalidomide survivors. Trudeau picked up a script to first give condolences for Brown’s death, and then added that they would have an announcement for those survivors soon. Guy Caron led off for the NDP, raising the problem of web giants creating the demise of advertising in newspapers which impacted press freedom. Trudeau took up another script to read about their support for a free press on World Press Freedom Day. Caron asked again in English, demanding those web giants be taxed, and Trudeau, sans script, reiterated his response and added that they are supporting local media via transition funding and CBC. Matthew Dubé worried about attempting to apply the Safe Third Country Agreement to the entire border, to which Trudeau said that they apply all of the rules and laws including our international obligations. Jenny Kwan asked the same in English, and got much the same answer with a slight admonishment that they were trying to create fear and conspiracy.
Tag Archives: First Nations
Roundup: Another cry for technocracy
After Ontario’s Financial Accountability Office weighed in on the government’s figures in advance of the election, he too finds that the province’s deficit is probably bigger than reported, as will its debt figures be. The accounting dispute between the government and its Auditor General remains in the air, while there are doubts being raised as to whether there are really surpluses in the pension funds in a meaningful sense. And it’s all done Andrew Coyne’s head in, because now he thinks that it’s time to simply take away any financial reporting away from a government, and turn it all over to a neutral, arm’s length, third-party body because the alternative is to let governments and other political parties spin and manipulate about what’s in the books. In his estimation, Auditors-General and Parliamentary Budget Officers/Fiscal Accountability Officers are of little use because their reports and opinions are not binding, who can pretend that they’re related to matters of opinion and accounting disputes, while opposition parties aren’t doing the job of accountability because they use the same torqued figures for their own purposes.
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/991864500360921088
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/991851857692655617
But I think that Coyne is completely off the mark here, because he places too much faith in the words of the current watchdogs. We’ve seen examples where the Auditor General has been wrong – the Senate audit being a prime example where he was out of his depth, based a number of findings on opinion that were later overturned by a former Supreme Court of Canada justice hired to adjudicate the findings, and further legal analysis of his findings poked yet more holes in his analysis. We also see numerous examples of where the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s methodology is suspect (to say the least), but we rarely see these challenge being made public in the media because the media takes the words of these watchdogs as gospel, which should be alarming to anyone who engages in the slightest bit of critical thinking. To turn even more of our government’s fiscal processes over to yet another unaccountable technocratic body strikes fear into my heart because the people we keep demanding we turn this power over to are not infallible, and there are no ways for us to hold them to account – especially if the media refuses to do so responsibly either.
So while I can sympathise with Coyne’s frustration – and the situation in Ontario is particularly egregious, with all three parties guilty of playing along – the answer is never technocracy. We may get the governments that we deserve, but that also means that we, the voting public, need to do a better job of doing our own due diligence and demanding better, and we’re not – we’re just shrugging our way toward oblivion, which is part of the problem.
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/991854807794135041
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/991855272565002241
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/991857510712672256
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/991857997889523712
Roundup: Detailed spending or slush fund?
The Parliamentary Budget Officer weighed in yesterday on the government’s desire to create a $7 billion fund as part of the Estimates to get a jump start on budget promises before those spending plans can be finalized with departments and voted on in the Supplementary Estimates later in the year. The verdict? That enabling this would make it more difficult for MPs to do their duty of controlling government spending, because in their estimation, nothing obliges the government to spend that $7 billion on what is outlined in the budget annex. Government officials (on background) dispute this because they say that if they were to spend it on something other than what is laid out in the budget annex that it would constitute an unauthorized use of public funds.
“See! It’s a slush fund!” The Conservatives immediately cried and gave their little song and dance about how it’ll mean the Liberals can spend it willy-nilly on anything they want. And perhaps they should know – after all, they created a $3 billion “emergency fund” to deal with the 2008 financial crisis and wound up spending it on things like the gazebos in Tony Clement’s riding for the G8/G20 meeting when those funds were supposed to be used for border infrastructure. So is this the voice of experience talking? Good luck getting them to admit it. The NDP line, meanwhile, is that this is the Liberals trying to “suppress Parliament,” which I think you’ll have a hard time trying to find evidence for given how few actual strongarm tactics they’ve managed to engage in so far (a couple of ham-fisted moves that they’ve had to walk back from aside).
While on the one hand, I think the PBO has a point, on the other hand, it’s not a $7 billion black box, and the spending is outlined in the budget, and they can be held to account for it, which is also Parliament’s role. And given that the Estimates are basically unreadable currently and the fact that most MPs don’t pay the slightest bit of attention to them, the cynic in me wonders why they really care (other than it’s a convenient bludgeon to bash the government with). After all, I’ve watched enough times when the Commons has passed the Estimates at all stages with no actual debate or scrutiny on several occasions, leaving the actual hard work up to the Senate. Add to that, watching the Conservatives on their vote-a-thon vote against line items in the Estimates that they probably shouldn’t have shows how little attention they actually pay to the process and the contents. So would this $7 billion fund matter in the long run? Probably not. If nothing else, it’s more impetus for why we need to fix the Estimates process, to realign it with the budget and the Public Accounts, and ensure that they’re readable once again. And until that happens, I find myself having a hard time caring about this item given that there has been an attempt at due diligence that is otherwise so often lacking.
Senate QP: Carolyn Bennett meanders a bit
This week for ministerial QP in the Senate, the special guest star was Dr. Carolyn Bennett, minister for Crown-Indigenous relations, her first time since the Indigenous and Northern Affairs portfolio was split into two. Senator Larry Smith started off, worrying that Northern and Indigenous groups said that they had not been consulted at all when it came to marijuana legalization. Bennett responded that every minister was supposed to build capacity in their own departments to do consultations with Indigenous communities. Smith asked if she had heard anything from Northern communities regarding the legalization of marijuana, particularly around mental health supports. Bennett noted that she was aware that some substance abuse stems from trauma related to things like residential schools, which is why they had a trauma-informed approach and that they were looking at healing and dignity moving forward.
QP: Memories of $5 fill-ups
While Justin Trudeau was present today, Andrew Scheer was absent again. That left Lisa Raitt to lead off, who worried that the widows and single parents would be adversely affected by carbon prices. Trudeau called out the falsehoods of the Conservatives, and reminded her that Canadians expect meaningful action on the environment, which contrasted to the Conservatives. Raitt cast her mind back to when a person could put $5 in the tank and get to work, but Trudeau insisted that the Harper Conservatives didn’t get it. Raitt tried a third time, but got no different answer. Gérard Deltell took over in French, citing that the Conservative track record was to lower emissions while the was economic growth — blatantly ignoring that those reductions came from Ontario shuttering their coal-fired plants. Trudeau offered some platitudes about action versus inaction, and when Deltell repeated his “facts,” Trudeau noted that the economic growth Deltell mentioned was the worst in the G7. Guy Caron was up next, and demanded documents that proved that the government rigged the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain approval. Trudeau took up a script to read that the Federal Court of Appeal denounced the previous consultation process, and he noted their enhanced consultations and their agreements with 43 First Nations along the route. Caron tried again in English, and got the same answer. Hélène Laverdière asked if the government was attempting to renegotiate the Safe Third Country Agreement with the Americans, and Trudeau took up a script to read that they have been having conversations with Americans for months, and that the Agreement helps to manage the flow of asylum seekers. Jenny Kwan asked the same in English, and Trudeau reiterated his same response.
Lisa Raitt remembers when $5 bucks in the tank got you to work.
She knows about inflation, right? #QP— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 1, 2018
Deltell’s “facts” ignore that the GHG reductions came from Ontario shuttered their coal-fired plants, not any action of the Harper government. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 1, 2018
QP: Applauding the ghosts of the Harper government
While the PM was off in Vancouver to announce a new investment by Amazon, and Andrew Scheer…elsewhere (I believe Toronto), it was up to Candice Bergen to lead off today, concern trolling about the loss of foreign direct investment in Canada, and tying that to the coming federal carbon tax, demanding to know how much it would cost families. Bill Morneau replied, offering some pabulum about how great economy has been doing. Bergen sarcastically suggested that the Liberals are saying that the carbon tax will fix everything wrong with the world, to which Jim Carr noted that they have taken action through the oceans protection plan, strengthening environmental assessments, and their carbon pricing plans were all taking action, unlike the previous government. Bergen accused the government of covering up those costs, and Jim Carr read some stats about how much carbon would be reduced with their plan. Gérard Deltell took over to ask the same again in French, and Carr noted that the opposition had no plan, nor did they while they were in government. Deltell made the “cover-up” accusations in French, and Morneau stood up to offer some pabulum in French. Guy Caron was up for the NDP, and demanded to know if the government denied ordering the Kinder Morgan approval to be fixed. Carr said that he did refute it, and when Caron asked again in French, Carr pointed to all of the materials available on the website. Romeo Saganash asked the same again in French, and Carr listed consultations and engagement including the monitoring panel co-developed with Indigenous communities. Saganashed tried again in French, and Carr noted that they had made accommodations and that the conversations were meaningful.
Deltell just offered a whopper about the previous government’s emissions reductions record (hint: Those réductions came from Ontario).
Did the government refute it? No. Morneau simply offered some pabulum instead. Cripes. #QP— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 30, 2018
Roundup: Yes, the Conservatives did it too
Amidst the faux drama in QP this week about the apparent discrepancy between the Dogwood Initiative getting funding for an anti-Kinder Morgan activist while the government refuses to give funding to groups that use such summer jobs grants to pay for students to distribute fliers of aborted foetuses, or to groups that refuse to hire LGBT students, I find myself losing patience with the constant refrains that if the Conservatives engaged in this kind of behaviour, there would be riots in the streets.
I hate these “flip it around” suppositions because they all happened already. Remember when the Conservative government defunded pretty much every women’s advocacy group? The howls didn’t amount to much. https://t.co/GlgID3Vas5 pic.twitter.com/e1t2U89kML
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 27, 2018
Reminder: the Conservatives did engage in that kind of behaviour. They wantonly defunded all manner of organizations, whether they ensured that women in developing countries could access safe abortions, whether they advocated for women’s equality here in Canada, or if they were ecumenical social justice organizations that engaged in education and outreach at home and abroad. They defunded the Court Challenges Programme which helped ensure that minority groups like the LGBT community could do the work of bringing their challenges to the Supreme Court of Canada (because it’s expensive and law firms can’t do it all pro bono). They cut funding to HIV and AIDS services organizations and diverted all manner of funding to a vaccine initiative that they then flaked out on and frittered away millions of dollars so that they had no impact (and the results of those cuts are still being felt today as the current government wants to shift funding priorities to prevention). They prioritized refugee resettlement for Christians in the Middle East over Muslims. They engaged in abusive auditing over charitable organizations that opposed them ideologically. All of this happened, in the most petty and mean-spirited manner at that, and there weren’t riots in the streets. There were a handful of protests, and the media barely mentioned a number of these cuts.
Is the way that the government handled this attestation on the Summer Jobs Grants heavy-handed? Yes. Was the wording clumsy? Probably. But groups aren’t being denied funding because they’re faith-based – they’re being denied funding because they’re refusing to either sign the attestation, or they’ve tried to rewrite it to suit themselves, despite the fact that the government has said repeatedly that “core mandate” refers not to values or beliefs, but daily activities. In all of the rhetoric and pearl-clutching, the actual facts are being distorted and need to be called back into focus. We also need to focus on the fact that the real problem here is that MPs get to sign off on those grants, which is a violation of their roles as guardians of the public purse, and instead makes them agents of the government in distributing spending (clouding their accountability role). But sweet Rhea, mother of Zeus, this constant invocation that “if the Conservatives did it…” is bogus and amnesiac. They did it. All the time.
QP: Springing a lame trap
On a rainy day in the nation’s capital, the benches in the Commons were full, and all of the leaders were present. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and in French, read the simple question about whether the government was using all of the tools at its disposal to get the Trans Mountain pipeline built. Trudeau stood up and expounded upon the fact that it goes hand in hand with getting a carbon price and an oceans protection plan, so that growing the economy and protecting the environment. Scheer asked again in English, got the same answer, and then he sprung his “trap,” accusing the government of giving a grant to an environmental group that hired an activist to protest this very pipeline (that group apparently being the Dogwood Initiative). Trudeau noted that they believe in free speech, and noted that this particular advocacy group was also funded by the Harper government. Scheer read the job description for that position, and Trudeau noted that they won’t brand people eco-terrorists or cut off funding if they don’t agree with them. Scheer noted that they obviously don’t believe in free speech given how they punished Scott Simms, and Trudeau hit back with his commitment to ensure that women’s rights and reproductive rights were protected. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, railing that the Trans Mountain pipeline approval process was “rigged,” to which Trudeau noted that they extended the consultation process to ensure that they were meeting or exceeding their obligations toward First Nations. Caron asked again in French, and got much the same reply. Alexandre Boulerice then asked the very same question, and Trudeau noted that Boulerice had already stated that no matter the facts, he would oppose the project, even when his leader said he might be open to approving it. Nathan Cullen then asked the very same question yet again, pouring on the unctions sanctimony, and Trudeau asked him to explain to those Indigenous communities who support the pipeline why he wants to deny them jobs and revenue.
Trudeau says the Conservatives are treating Canadians like children by using fear and demonisation. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 25, 2018
Senate QP: Philpott talks Indigenous concerns
This week’s ministerial Senate QP feature special guest star Jane Philpott, minister of Indigenous services. Senator Larry Smith led off, and worried that there wasn’t a cultural appropriate campaign to raise awareness about the dangers of marijuana for Indigenous youth. Philpott first noted that while it was her fourth appearance it at Senate QP, it was her first in her new role, and then noted that they had funded a task force that was engaging Indigenous communities on the topic, so that they had programmes that were led by Indigenous communities. Smith wanted some more details on this in the interests that there is some transparency, and wondered what elements it included. Philpott took note of the request for details and promised to follow-up before giving some more context about the meetings she has with Indigenous communities around their public health campaigns.
Roundup: Carbon tax figures in context
The Parliamentary Budget Officer released his latest economic and fiscal outlook yesterday, which included some not unexpected things like warnings that the deficit might be larger than anticipated, or that debt servicing charges might start to increase, or that some government programmes may wind up costing more than stated in the budget. All fair game. But it was his analysis of the federal carbon price that really go the Conservatives (and their mouthpieces) excited – and as usual, it was an exercise in cherry-picked numbers that ignored the context of what was actually said.
Parliamentary Budget Officer calculates the Liberal carbon tax will reduce GDP by $10 billion/year by 2022. https://t.co/FUsaUKmZMF
— Pierre Poilievre (@PierrePoilievre) April 23, 2018
In this particular case, the headline number was that by 2022, when the full $50/tonne price is implemented, the price could – and one has to stress could– cost the economy 0.5 percent of GDP, or $10 billion. And this had the Conservatives, and Pierre Polievere in particular, whooping at the government about how this was going to kill the economy. The problem is that the report goes on to say that if provincial governments actually recycle those revenues through reducing corporate or personal income taxes, for example, it would nullify that effect. Not that things like context or nuance, or even truth will dissuade a political talking point. University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe explains more here:
Also, the effect on GDP of using regulations and technology subsidies to achieve an equivalent emissions reduction will come at a *larger* cost. If CPC opposes pricing, they're implicitly preferring more than 0.45% in costs since they agree with the target.
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) April 23, 2018
Paging @kirst_nicole. Despite the #kirstengraphs nature of this graph, the absolute gap is also larger than most other estimates I've seen. Wonder what's different. @enviroeconomics? pic.twitter.com/GvhAKKhRCO
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) April 23, 2018
Yes, seeing that now. I first read it as 0.5% lower gdp growth, which led me to believe maybe they weren't recycling revenues or something. Thanks.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) April 23, 2018
Digging deeper into the footnotes, the PBO didn't construct their own estimates, they just used the results in 'Choose Wisely' and scaled up the effect of moving to $50.
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) April 23, 2018
Also in the PBO report: recycling carbon revenues by reducing income taxes "would essentially offset the impact of the carbon levy on the Canadian economy in 2022." #cdnpoli
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) April 23, 2018
1) They're using estimates from @EcofiscalCanada. So, not new.
2) Using CTax rev to lower income taxes, "would essentially offset the impact on #cdnecon". To ~0.1% instead of 0.45%.
3) Regulations and tech subsidies (your preferred tools) tend to have *higher* costs. https://t.co/5tpoVSYfcI
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) April 23, 2018
Tombe also found this bit of the report overlooked by other media reports:
PBO also releasing updated estimate of TPP+CETA https://t.co/k2Qg8fpcuw Fully phased-in, the two deals are a ~$1.8-1.9 billion tax cut affecting 23% of #cdnecon imports.
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) April 23, 2018