Tag Archives: Pensions

Roundup: Disingenuous threats to national unity

Posted on by

As bullshit political theatre goes, Jason Kenney continues to exercise it to its fullest as he released an “urgent letter” to the federal government yesterday, co-signed by five other premiers (four of them conservative, one of them without ostensible party affiliation) to demand that both bills C-48 and C-69 be withdrawn, and warns of consequences to “national unity” if they are not. And it’s a bit galling to play the national unity card, considering that it’s both groundless and petulant – like a tantrum where a child threatens to hold his breath until he turns blue to teach his parents “a lesson.”

Nobody is going to pretend that these are perfect bills, but for the purposes of what is being argued, neither can do the harm that Kenney and his allies are claiming. For example, C-48 will not landlock their resources, and there has been expert testimony to say that it would have a negligible impact on the oil and gas sector because there are no pipelines along that route, nor are there any planned (thanks in large part to how badly the Conservatives botched the Indigenous consultations on the Northern Gateway project). And C-69 is not going to make major infrastructure projects impossible – if anything, it would have a better chance of streamlining environmental assessments by ensuring clearer lines and better scoping of those assessments, so that there can be more focused work with the assessments. But the status quo is simply a path of more litigation because the current system is badly flawed. The branding it as the “no more pipelines bill” is and always has been disingenuous and an outright lie, but that’s what this all boils down to.

Kenney and company have lied repeatedly about the current government’s environmental programme – abetted by the fact that this government can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag, and they somehow refuse to call Kenney, Scheer, and company, on their bullshit. And given that Kenney managed to win an election by whipping his electorate into a state of irrational anger with a diet of lies and snake oil – anger that won’t abate now that he’s in charge – the attempt to export that technique to the rest of Canada is dangerous, but they don’t seem to care. That is the real threat to national unity, and it’s Kenny and company who are stirring it up, and they should be called out for it.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding tough talk on China

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau at an auto announcement in Cambridge, Ontario, and Andrew Scheer, well, elsewhere, Candice Bergen led off after a moment of silence for the victims of the bombings in Sri Lanka, and she asked for an update on the flooding situations across the country. Ralph Goodale first noted that front line responses are the jurisdiction of the provinces, and that when the federal government is asked, they have stepped up. Bergen then moved on to read some criticism about the prime minister’s response on the canola file. Marie-Claude Bibeau stated that they are standing with farmers, and they are working with Chinese officials to resolve it. Bergen claimed that Scheer’s proposals would solve the issue, and Bibeau claimed that she has been working on the file since day one, while the Conservatives were asking questions on other things. Luc Berthold took over in French to demand they act on Scheer’s proposals, to which Bibeau repeated that the Conservatives were the ones asleep on the file. Berthold disputed her characterisation, and repeated his demand, to which Bibeau listed actions she has been taking to resolve the issue. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and he railed about evil corporations, demanding the Liberals implement the NDP’s pharmacare proposal (which, reminder, handwaves through all the actual implementation details). Jim Carr reminded him that they are working on implementation through the 2019 budget. Singh then demanded the government implement the NDP’s home retrofit plans to reduce GHG emissions, and Jonathan Wilkinson reminded him that he was a CEO in the green tech space for ten years and he knows the government’s plan is working. Singh then demanded an end to fossil fuel subsidies in a French, to which Wilkinson reiterated that the government’s plan was working. Singh then railed about corporations in French, and wanted the $12 million Loblaws got (after a competitive process) to go to “families,” and Wilkinson largely reiterated that the government’s plan is working.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cluelessly demanding reforms

Posted on by

Over the long weekend, Independent Senator Tony Dean posted an op-ed over on iPolitics to decry the supposed partisan attempts to block reform in the Senate – but it’s a dog’s breakfast that betrays a complete lack of understanding about the institution. It’s indicative of the attitude of a cohort of the new senators who think that they know best, despite not having a working knowledge of Parliament as a whole, or the Senate in particular, and yet they feel as though they know definitively how it needs to change. And more dangerously, Dean brings up that recent poll to show how Canadians apparently love the “new” Senate as a means of bashing Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives, who have no intention to continue the new appointment process – in effect campaigning for the Liberals, which should be uncomfortable for “independent” senators.

The core of Dean’s argument is that the Senate needs a business committee in order to get things done – which is both wrong, and wrong-headed. He complains that individual senators can delay bills, which he fails to grasp is the whole point. The Senate does not exist to rubber-stamp government bills, and yet Dean seems to miss that point. It’s not just that the Conservatives are partisan and therefore Bad – it’s because the Senate has a constitutional role to fill, and a business committee won’t stop delays. All it does is institute time allocation on all legislation before the Chamber – and it’s ironic that he’s pushing for that notion because in the very same piece he complains that the Conservatives were draconian about time allocation when they were in charge. He complains that there is no “TV Guide” for the Senate because debates aren’t organised, which is another wrong notion because the whole point about the way in which the Chamber has operated, where there are days between speeches between proponents and critics on bills is because it allows for thoughtful responses rather than the canned speechifying that happens in the House of Commons. And “organising” debates for the sake of TV is just time allocation in disguise. Which he fails to grasp.

Pointing to the programming motions on the assisted dying or cannabis legislation are not necessarily good examples of programmed debate in the Senate, because those were extraordinary bills, which the majority of Senate business is not. Dean was also known for insisting that the Conservatives would refuse to let those bills go to a vote when the Conservatives were proposing timetables for negotiation (and we all know that neither the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Peter Harder, nor the Independent Senators Group, seem to believe in negotiation or horse-trading to get things done in the Senate, because they mistakenly believe it to be “partisan,” which it’s not – it’s how stuff gets done). A business committee is a bad move for the Senate, and Dean needs to get a clue about that. It won’t stop the Conservatives from being partisan, and simply time allocating all business could set a bad precedent for when the Conservatives get back into power – which they will one day – and the impulse to return to some of the “draconian” measures of the Harper era come back, and suddenly they may feel differently about time allocating everything. But this cohort of new senators doesn’t get that because they’re not familiar with how parliament works, and they need to get on that because change for the sake of change may sound like a good idea in the moment, but can have lasting, damaging consequences for the institution as a whole.

Continue reading →

QP: Bringing in Anne McLellan

Posted on by

The news broke just before Question Period that Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick was retiring, and before things got underway, new MPs were shown in to take their places, including Jagmeet Singh, so now the NDP questions would no longer have to wedge his name into them. When things got underway, Andrew Scheer led off by first giving the prime minister the opportunity to address the shootings in New Zealand, auto which Justin Trudeau read a statement of sorrow, and made mention of the shooting in Utrecht earlier this morning. Scheer then switched to French to start up with question on the Double-Hyphen Affair, and wondered when the prime minister would “allow” the former Attorney General to speak at committee. Trudeau responded that because of the questions raised by this incident, he has appointed Anne McLellan as a special advisor to provide recommendations to the government. After the same question again in English, Scheer then raised Wernick’s retirement, and again demanded that Wilson-Raybould be allowed to speak. Trudeau read that he took responsibility for the erosion of trust between her and Butts, and that they already granted an unprecedented waiver, but the decision around prosecutions were always hers. Scheer tried one last time, and got the same response. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and after a brief statement about New Zealand, Singh demanded a commitment to building half a million new affordable homes. Trudeau first congratulated him on his election, before reading about the things they were doing to help Canadians and hoped he could count on the NDP’s support. Singh then switched to climate change and demanded an end to carbon tax exclusions for big emitters — shoeing he doesn’t understand the system. Trudeau responded with a memorised platitude about supporting the Middle Class™ while protecting the environment. Singh switched to French to worry about the OECD warning around SNC-Lavalin, to which Trudeau recited his lines about standing up for jobs. Singh repeated the question in English, and got much the same answer. 

Continue reading →

QP: Chagger’s randomized responses

Posted on by

Tuesday in the Commons, and while Justin Trudeau was in the building, he was not in Question Period for some unknown reason. Andrew Scheer was, however (for a change), and he led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he wanted to know why the prime minister didn’t take no for an answer when it came to the remediation agreement for SNC-Lavalin, and Bardish Chagger read some lines about protecting jobs and the whole point of remediation agreements. Scheer tried again, and this time Chagger read about the respect they have for committees before pivoting to good news economic talking points. Scheer insisted this wasn’t true, before asking if anyone in the government gave assurances to SNC-Lavalin, and Chagger reminded him that they had confidence in the committee before pivoting go a point about Conservative austerity. Alain Rayes took over in French, and repeated the question about assurances to SNC-Lavalin, and Chagger read French talking points about opposition leaders meeting with SNC-Lavalin representatives, and respecting committees. Rayes tried again, and Chagger repeated that they respect the work of the committee. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he was concerned about the number of meetings with SNC-Lavalin representatives, and Chagger reminded him that both opposition leaders also had meetings, and they respected committees. Caron tried again, and this time Chagger read the talking point where the Director of Public Prosecutions disavowed any political interference in her work. Charlie Angus was up next, and he sanctimoniously demanded that PMO staff also appear at committee, to which Chagger repeated that they need to respect the work of committees. Angus wondered when no means no with regarding the DPA, and Chagger repeated her response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On those marginal tax rates

Posted on by

Given the debate that his happening south of the border when it comes to agitation for a 70 percent marginal tax rate on high earners, it’s only a matter of time before the left-leaning contingent of Twitter starts agitating for the same here. The problem, of course, is that you can’t simply import the same concepts between the US and Canada and expect it to be analogous, or at the very least analogous at one tenth the figures in the US. To demonstrate, economist Kevin Milligan took the Canadian data and mapped out what that would mean here. And lo, it’s not an analogous situation (though I suspect it won’t stop left-leaning Twitter from repeating these American talking points one bit).

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1082383660857225217

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1082385072718635008

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1082386430175862784

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1082387490319683584

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1082411856315084805

Continue reading →

QP: A narrative of doom

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was in Montreal to pre-meet with some premiers in advance of the first ministers’ conference, Andrew Scheer was present, fresh from being booed by the chiefs at the Assembly of First Nations, and he led off with the false notion that premiers had to resort to threats before the oil and gas sector was on the agenda at the first ministers’ meeting, and surprisingly, Diane Lebouthillier got up to read that they were taking measures to help the workers. Scheer then worried that the Crown lawyers were trying to block the Canadian Taxpayers Federation from intervening at the Saskatchewan carbon tax court challenge, to which Amarjeet Sohi replier that they were trying to fix a broken pipeline system that we inherited from the Harper government — which wasn’t the question. Scheer railed that the government was trying to phase out the energy sector and demanded that Bill C-69 be withdrawn, to which Sohi replied that when the government tried to extend EI supports for laid off workers, the Conservatives voted against it and funding for orphan oil wells. Gérard Deltell worried about the economic turbulence meaning higher interest rates — which, actually, would be a sign of a good economy — and Scott Brison reminded him that when they took office, the country was in a technical recession and the current government turned it around. Deltell tried again, and got the same answer. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and raising the Trans Mountain pipeline, wondered when ten government would take its responsibilities to Indigenous communities seriously. Sohi said that they were taking the renewed consultations seriously. Caron worried that Trudeau was dismissive of a First Nations Chief yesterday, to which Philpott got up to defend the PM’s honour. Rachel Blaney took over to rail about “free, prior and informed consent,” and Sohi repeated their renewed consultations. When Blaney repeated the demand that Trudeau apologise to that BC Chief, Philpott again defended the PM.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Bland assurances from Morneau (part eleventy)

Posted on by

Things got underway a few minutes early, as finance minister Bill Morneau arrived in the Senate for what promised to be a day full of pointed questions and pabulum answers – Morneau’s particular specialty. Senator Larry Smith led off, asking about the $9.5 billion budgeted in the fiscal update for “non-announced measures,” and Morneau responded with bland assurances about getting the right balance in the budget. Smith noted that he didn’t actually answer the question and that they needed to hold government to account, to which Morneau said quite right, but again didn’t answer, and offered more pabulum talking points about dealing with challenges while still trending the deficit downward.

Senator Batters was up next, and brought up the PM’s comments on social impacts of male construction workers to rural areas, citing that she only sees benefits. Morneau first cited that they look at employment on projects, and then noted gender-based lens for impacts, but didn’t elaborate on the construction worker issue.

Continue reading →

QP: A bizarre question to Trump

Posted on by

The prime minister was present today, the third day this week, but Andrew Scheer was elsewhere. That left Gérard Deltell to lead off, asking about the announced job losses at Bombardier, and he worried about the federal loan extended to the company. Justin Trudeau took up a script to say that their thoughts were with those affected, before reading praise about the Canadian aerospace sector. Deltell moved onto Di Iorio’s planned resignation, and worried it would be too late for a by-election. Trudeau read that the member intended to resign. Deltell asked about Di Iorio’s “special mission,” and Trudeau read a similar script about how MPs are expected to work on behalf of there constituents. Mark Strahl got up next to rail about Tori Stafford’s killer, and demanded an apology to Stafford’s family for forcing them to fight the government. Trudeau read that they reviewed the medium security transfer policies and they made improvements. Strahl railed about how that was an admission that they had the power to transfer her beforehand, and Trudeau didn’t use a script this time to reiterate the same response, with added empathy to the family. Guy Caron was up next, returning to the topic of Bombardier, but was particularly concerned about its executive bonuses. Trudeau picked his script back up to read about their thoughts with the workers and yay aerospace. Caron switched to English to Rae the question again, and Trudeau responded by reading the English version of his own script. Tracey Ramsey was incredulous that the prime minister said he wouldn’t have his photo taken signing the new NAFTA so long as the steel and aluminium tariffs were in place. Trudeau quipped that Ramsey’s region was in favour of the agreement before reading about his support for the industries affected. Alexandre Boulerice got up to repeat the question in French, to which Trudeau read Boulerice’s praise for the agreement.

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 →