Tag Archives: Fiscal Austerity

QP: Sanctimony and escalators

Posted on by

With none of the leaders were present, Denis Lebel led off, railing about the non-existent negotiations for an extradition treaty with China. Harjit Sajjan responded that it was a high-level security and rule-of-law dialogue, which included talk of extradition. Lebel asked again in English, got the same response, then moved on to the moving expenses of one of Dion’s staff. Bardish Chagger noted that they were committed to changing the rules. Candice Bergen got up to deliver some unctuous sanctimony about moving expenses, but Chagger stuck to her prepared lines. Brigitte Sansoucy was up for the NDP, decrying the fact that the government won’t increase the healthcare transfer escalator. Jane Philpott said that they would be making investments in priority areas like home care and mental health care. Sansoucy went another round, got the same answer, before Don Davies went up to ask the same again in English. Philpott chided him that the NDP platform would have been hard pressed to use the old escalators and still balance the budget, then they went one more round of the same.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A few more partial concessions

Posted on by

I’m about at the end of my patience with stories about moving expenses, just as news comes down that two more senior ministerial staffers have offered to partially reimburse their own expenses. This while we continue the smarmy remarks by the Conservatives who can’t decide if the perpetrators are cronies or millionaire BFFs, and the NDP perch on their sanctimony, and pundits across the nation clutch their pearls about how it doesn’t actually matter that all of these expenses were within the rules, that it’s all a matter of perception (which they incidentally are fuelling by the way in which these stories and columns are framed). Indeed, we have moralising columns mentioning entitlement, corruption, and how this puts things back on a “war footing.”

About the only salient bit of analysis that has been Robyn Urback’s (otherwise sarcastic) look at the Liberal damage control strategy pattern, which tends to be “ignore, defend, project, concede partial defeat.” And we did see elements of all of these, including the final two simultaneously as they not only had the partial concession of the repayments, but also the projection of looking at similar expenses within the Harper PMO, which they obviously spent Thursday night digging up from PCO records. And let’s be honest – as her first test, Bardish Chagger didn’t do much to help her cause when she would try to deflect with protestations that they were trying to help the middle class or building a strong team. (I will add that it may have been unfair for We The Media to castigate Trudeau for not giving the names of who the staffers were, given privacy considerations).

There was plenty of evidence or fact that Chagger could have used, from being more specific in pointing out the policies, or contextualising them as being a reflection of policies collectively negotiated with senior public servants (where changing policies could affect them), and most especially when the Conservatives were making cheap shots about the “personalised cash payments,” noting what those referred to precisely, which is not a payment in a brown envelope.

But no, we didn’t get that, and instead of having a discussion based on fact, we got pabulum, and it feeds into this ugly and petty narrative that We The Media love to perpetuate, where we must reflect a nation that is so cheap that we must be mean-spirited about it (and I deeply suspect is part of our collective tendency toward tall poppy syndrome). I defy you find a single person who wouldn’t claim moving expenses that they were legitimately entitled to. But instead, I’m getting people barking at me over the Twitter Machine that these staffers should be volunteers, and that it’s some kind of awful crime that they get reasonably well compensated for doing a damned difficult job that most people wouldn’t want to go anywhere near. This is the kind of nonsense that we shouldn’t be feeding, and yet we can’t help ourselves because cheap outrage is such a quick and easy high, but like most highs, it leaves us empty and worse off in the long run.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A questionable path forward

Posted on by

Two former senators, Michael Kirby and Hugh Segal, got together to write a report on how they see a move to a more independent Senate should go, and offered a number of suggestions along the way. (They summarise the report in an op-ed here, as does Susan Delacourt in her column here). The highlights of the report are that they feel that the Parliament of Canada Act be amended so that the Senate is no longer dependent on recognized party lines to organise themselves, that they instead be organised into four regional caucuses (Newfoundland and Labrador apparently being lumped in with the Maritime region, and the territories being given a choice as to which region they want to sit with) that would form a “senior council” to decide things like committee selection. They also suggest changes to Senate Question Period, that the absolute veto be self-limited to a six-month suspensive veto, and that the minimum age of 30 be dropped as with the net worth qualification of $4000 (but not property, as it helps to determine residency requirement).

While I will no doubt discuss these recommendations in more depth elsewhere, I will first preface my comments by saying that the Senate Modernisation Committee will have their own report out in a few weeks, and we will likely get a better sense of how things are headed on the ground from there. As for these recommendations, while changes to the Parliament of Canada Act need to happen in order to break the party oligopoly now in place, I fail to see the value-added of regional caucuses. Current committee selection already looks at regional as well as gender balance, so creating a “council” to determine this seems frivolous, and the current seat allocation on committees will rebalance as more unaffiliated senators are appointed and start feeling comfortable enough to take on committee work. I’m not sure that enforcing regional lines is really what the Fathers of Confederation had in mind (as Segal and Kirby keep going back to) because I think it has the potential to create balkanization. Breaking the oligopoly and giving the unaligned senators more of a voice in organization and logistics can happen without needing to completely freeze out parties. The post-2008 excesses were not necessarily the fault of partisanship per se as it was an overly controlling PMO manipulating new senators, who didn’t know any better, to get their way. The suggested changes to Senate QP (like asking questions of committee chairs) make no sense as there is little accountability to be had from them, which is the point of QP. The change to a suspensive veto I am wary of because the point of the Senate is to be able to check the powers of a prime minister with a majority, and saying that the Lords in the UK has been like this since 1911 ignores the history or temperament of that chamber as it differs from our Senate. As for dropping the minimum age, if I had my druthers I would raise it a decade if not two, but if we can’t do that, then leave it as is. We have no need to appoint twentysomethings to be there until age 75. Sorry.

Continue reading →

QP: Overwrought cheap outrage

Posted on by

The Prime Minister having met with the Chinese Premier earlier in the day, he and the other leaders were now ready to go. Rona Ambrose, mini-lectern on desk, gave an overwrought tale of a single mother worried about losing her house and reading about the moving expenses of PMO staffers. Justin Trudeau noted that the rules were followed, and the PMO overall was smaller than in the Conservatives’ day. Ambrose launched into a somewhat misleading tirade about all of the things they government cancelled for families (conveniently ignoring the enhanced benefits that they replaced those programs with), and Trudeau thanked her for reminding Canadians about their helping the middle class. Ambrose went again another round in French, got the same answer, and Jason Kenney took over to lament policy changes in Alberta to denounce a “job-killing carbon tax.” Trudeau reminded him that he’s in Ottawa, not Alberta, and that farmers were pleased with the settlement of the canola issue with China. Kenney then gave one last go at trying to declare ISIS to be a genocide, and Trudeau chided him for political grandstanding on such an important issue. Thomas Mulcair got up next, and accused Trudeau of being a dictatorship apologist with respect to an extradition treaty with China. Trudeau noted that this was about a dialogue that allows them to bring up difficult cases, and they would not bend their principles for anyone. Mulcair went another round in French, got the same answer, and then moved onto the Site C Dam in BC. Trudeau noted the commitment to a renewed relationship with Indigenous communities, and when Mulcair pressed, Trudeau kept insisting that they were respecting and consulting.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Accountability that never was

Posted on by

It feels like a while since I’ve had to go to bat for the existence of the Senate, so Robyn Urback’s column in the National Post yesterday was pretty much the bat-signal shining in the sky. To wit, Urback somewhat lazily trades on the established tropes of the Senate, and takes what was a joke on the part of Senator Nancy Ruth about airplane food (cold camembert and broken crackers was a joke, people! Senators are allowed to have a dry sense of humour, last I checked) to clutch her pearls about how terribly elitist and entitled our senators allegedly are (when really, the vast majority are very much not).

Urback’s big complaint however is that despite Justin Trudeau’s promises of change to the institution, giving it more independence is apparently all a sham. There are a few problems with this hypothesis, however, and most can pretty much be chalked up to the run-of-the-mill ignorance of the institution, its history, and its proper function in our parliamentary system. Her complaints that the rules that allowed Senator Mike Duffy to claim all of those expenses is wrong, because rules have tightened since, and the fact that he can still claim for his Ottawa residence is the reality that comes with what we are asking of Senators. The problem with Duffy is that he never should have been appointed as a senator for PEI, and he was shameless enough to claim the expenses for his Ottawa residence without actually making a legitimate point of having an actual full-time residence on the island and a small condo or apartment in Ottawa for when the Senate was in session. Complaints that the Senate Liberals are simply declared to be independents while still remaining partisans ignores the substance of how they have behaved in the time since Trudeau made the declaration, and the fact that they have been kicking the government just as hard, if not harder, than the Conservatives in the Senate since Trudeau came to power. This is not an insignificant thing. But then there is Urback’s ultimate complaint, revolving around a canard about who senators are accountable to.

https://twitter.com/scott_gilmore/status/778683110376431618

The Senate was never made to be accountable to parties or party leaders. The whole point of the institution, and the very reason it was constructed with the institutional independence that it has (non-renewable appointments to age 75 with extremely difficult conditions for removal) is so that the Senate can act on a check for a prime minister with a majority government, and they have numerous times since confederation. It needs to have the ability to tell truth to power without fear of reprisal, and that includes the power to kill bad bills – because they do get through the Commons more often than you’d like to think. They have never been accountable to a party or leader, and that’s a good thing. Sure, they can act in lockstep with a party out of sentimentality (or ignorance, if you look at the batches appointed post-2008), but this was never a formal check on their powers, nor should it be. If Urback or anyone else can tell me how you get an effective check on a majority prime minister any other way, I’m all ears, but the chamber has a purpose in the way it was constructed. Getting the vapours over a more formal independence is ignorant of the 149 years of history of the chamber and its operations.

Where Urback does have a point is in noting that the independent appointments board made their recommendations on the short-list without having conducted any interviews or face-to-face meetings. That is a problem that undermines the whole point of the appointment process, because it leaves the final vetting up to the PMO. One hopes that this will be corrected in the new permanent process that is being undertaken now, but there are still worrying signs about how that is being conducted. Self-nominations and people getting letters of recommendation seems like a poor way to get quality people who aren’t driven by ego and status, and we can hope that this isn’t all they’re replying on.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/778418872185675776

Continue reading →

QP: Doomsaying and expense obsession

Posted on by

Caucus day, and with Trudeau back from the UN, we had a full leadership deck today (minus Elizabeth May, who is travelling with the electoral reform committee). Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, doomsaying the economy and the looming catastrophes of a carbon tax and a CPP increase. Trudeau reminded her that they have lowered taxes for the middle class and noted that the previous record of not raising them on the wealthy didn’t work. Ambrose moved to the possible extradition treaty with China and that country’s human rights record. Trudeau noted that the dialogue they have established means they can raise difficult questions as well as investment opportunities, while they won’t lower the standards on extraditions. Ambrose worried about Chinese cyber-attacks, and Trudeau noted again that the dialogue allows them to raise difficult issues. Ambrose asked about the extradition treaty again in French, got the same answer, and ended her round asking about a peacekeeping missing in sub-Saharan Africa. Trudeau noted the responsibility that Canada has to the world, and said that they were considering the mission carefully in order to determine what the mission would be, but assured her they would be transparent. Thomas Mulcair was up next and demanded a vote on a peacekeeping mission. Trudeau noted this appreciation for the capacity of parliamentarians to raise issues, but didn’t deliver the necessary civics lesson about why a vote would undermine the role of the opposition. Mulcair touched on the extradition treaty with China, got the same answer that Ambrose got, and Mulcair moved onto a pair of questions about the climate targets not being more robust than those of the Conservatives. In both cases, Trudeau reminded him of their commitment to working with the provinces as they agreed to price carbon.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bernier’s Bay Street catnip

Posted on by

Maxime Bernier gave a speech at the Economic Club of Toronto yesterday that was largely catnip for the audience there, saying that he wants to eliminate the capital gains tax, reducing corporate income taxes to 10 percent, making the accelerated capital cost allowance (ACCA) permanent, and eliminating corporate subsidies. While economics can point to the thinking behind some of Bernier’s plans (like below), others will point to the flaws in it, such as the ability to disguise salary as stock options that would no longer be taxed as capital gains, or the longer-term problems with the ACCA (like a new building being worthless for tax reasons in two years). It shouldn’t be too much of a surprise that Bernier’s ideas are largely slogans without a deep analysis of the real-world implications of them – kind of like how his plan to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers is just a gift to litigators rather than doing the hard political lifting necessary on such a file. Bernier has this kind of libertarian fanboy sense about him, that all of the problems can be solved by brandishing a copy of the constitution and shouting “freedom” will be all that’s necessary to kick-start a sluggish global economy, and that this will all be politically saleable to large swaths of the economy that have come to depend on government support in one way or another. And while yes, Bernier is indeed trying to bring some ideas to the table in this leadership contest while some of his competitors are trying to force the debate onto grounds of “values” and stoking national security fears, but it does remain true that it’s not really the point of leadership hopefuls to try and bring policy to the table that will change the direction of the party – that should be coming from the grassroots membership in a bottom-up and not a top-down process. But just remember – freedom! It’ll solve everything!

Continue reading →

QP: Pawns on a chessboard

Posted on by

While Trudeau and a good number of ministers remained at the UN General Assembly, things carried on back in Ottawa. Rona Ambrose led off, reiterating her line from yesterday about our troops not being pawns on the political chessboard of getting a UN Security Council seat. Harjit Sajjan reminded her that nothing was decided about where they would be deployed and they were still gathering information, and then patted himself on the back for how transparent they were being about it all. Ambrose asked a pair of questions about why there was a sudden change of heart on an extradition treaty with China while they still have the dealt penalty, Sajjan said that they were pushing China on that issue. Ambrose then changed topics to the planned CPP increase, and Bill Morneau said that they still planned on keeping TFSAs and that the rate would increase with the Consumer Price Index, and then they went one more round in French. Thomas Mulcair concerned trolled about the Liberals still using Stephen Harper’s GHG targets, and Jim Carr said that they were planning to increase the targets as they went along. Mulcair went another round in French, and Carr reminded him of the pan-Canadian targets being negotiated. Hélène Laverdière asked if the government would repeal the ministerial directive that allows information obtained by torture to be used. Ralph Goodale didn’t make a firm commitment, only noted that they were giving the whole national security apparatus a thorough review and that legislation on a parliamentary oversight body was before the House. Laverdière then returned to the issue of the extradition treaty with China, but got much the same response from Sajjan that he gave before.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Precious conformity

Posted on by

Conservative MP Garnett Genuis penned an analysis piece for Policy Options that tried to explain why MPs vote in lockstep, and it’s just so precious you can barely stand it. Genuis dismisses the talk of heavy-handed PMO and whips offices, and after some lengthy discussion, concludes that it’s the human nature of conformity that’s at play. His mode of analysis was the voting record on C-14, the highly contentious medical assistance in dying bill.

It’s not that Genuis doesn’t have some good – if somewhat infuriating points – in the piece, talking about how MPs are so busy with their constituency work that they just don’t have the time to sit down and study the legislation that they were elected to be considering. That one nearly made me blow a gasket, considering that constituency work isn’t actually part of an MP’s job description and its growing importance has come at the expense of their actual jobs of holding government to account. That Genuis uses it as an excuse for having MPs let the “experts” in their leaders’ offices tell them how to vote is utterly galling. I can see why they would use this excuse, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a good one or one that we should let them get away with (but then again, almost nobody knows what an MP’s actual job description is, least of all the MPs themselves, and yes, that is a Very Big Problem. His better points, however, included that sometimes it’s good for local nominations to see that an MP will be willing to break ranks from time to time, but it’s a mixed bag when they also need to be seen to have a united front with the party. It is a tension that he doesn’t delve deeply enough into.

But so much of his thinking is flawed, in part because he relies on the data of votes on a single contentious bill rather than a broader sample, which would produce a more thoughtful discussion, and also because he ignores the other incentives for why MPs will vote in lock-step. For some parties, like the NDP, the need for solidarity in all things means a much more conformist voting pattern in all things, and there is an internal culture of bullying to keep MPs in line so as not to be unseemly with dissent. With government backbenchers, there is the hope that toeing the line enough will earn you a post in cabinet or as a parliamentary secretary, because the ratio of cabinet-to-backbench seats is still too low in Canada to encourage a culture of more independent backbenchers in safer seats willing to do their job of holding government to account. There is also the pressure – which We The Media shamefully perpetuate – that you don’t want to be seen as breaking ranks lest it reflect poorly on the leader (though this seems to be a bit less so under Trudeau who has been vocal about encouraging more free votes). There is no discussion about the blackmail of a leader that can withhold their signature from an MP’s nomination papers during the next election (or whatever the mechanism is post-Reform Act, because there is no actual clarity in law there any longer). So yes, while there is a human tendency to conformity, it is informed by a whole lot of other factors that Genuis ignores, and that taints his analysis to a pretty fatal degree.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/776734642225475584

https://twitter.com/e_tolley/status/776768733922471937

https://twitter.com/e_tolley/status/776769078878883841

Continue reading →

Roundup: An important disavowal

Posted on by

Oh, hey – the author of a study on ranked ballots that relied on survey data from the last election has admitted that it wasn’t really a good study because the behaviours of voters would be different using a different ballot system. Gosh, you think? This is the same study and survey data that people have been citing in the blind panic that “OMG it will be first-past-the-post on steroids so obviously the Liberals want it!” because somehow it would give the Liberals 205 seats, based on that singular poll about second choices in the last election. It ignores that the selling feature of a ranked ballot – other than ensuring that a winner will always have more than 50 percent of the vote (no matter that you need to keep redistributing votes until you reach it) is that it eliminates the need for strategic voting, and in Australia it has given the Green and other minor parties a few seats of their own in the House of Representatives, plus allowed their National Party to remain independent of the Liberal (read: conservative) Party. Considering that they have largely relied on coalitions in the last few parliaments has shown that it’s not just geared toward majoritarianism, the way that people have been freaking out about in Canada. That said, why this particular study was allowed to stand considering its obvious design flaw is a bit galling, and this walking back from the results should have come much sooner rather than this committee hearing after months and months of false and misleading media stories proclaiming that ranked ballots would exacerbate the “distortions” of the current system, which have poisoned the well when it comes to having a reasoned discussion on the various systems that are out there. (Note: Those distortions are not real but a result of misreading the results based on a logical fallacy. Also note that I am not actually a proponent of ranked ballots, merely of proper and informed debate on electoral reform, which we have not been getting).

Continue reading →