Caucus day, and all of the leaders were present for the only time this week, Trudeau heading to New York for the rest of the week after things wrapped up. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, and quoted the PBO’s report yesterday, accusing the PM of misleading Canadians on basic facts. Trudeau thanked the PBO for his report, and noted their commitments to things like a larger tax-free child benefit for nine out of ten Canadians. Ambrose wondered how Canadians could have confidence that the government could protect their jobs, and Trudeau reeled off his list of promises of investments. Ambrose then wondered why the BC LNG projects weren’t moving forward. Trudeau reminded her that they couldn’t get the job done because they didn’t care about the environment at the same time as the economy. Denis Lebel got up to repeat the PBO questions in French, got much the same answer in French as before. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and raised the problem of veterans who have to fill out forms every year to prove that their limbs have not grown back. Trudeau reminded him of the promise to make record investments in veterans. Mulcair snidely called out the talking points and demanded an answer for this particular case. Trudeau reminded him of the mandate letter to his minister on the sacred obligation to veterans and that they were cleaning up the mess left by the previous government. Mulcair demanded marijuana decriminalisation immediately in the lead-up to legalisation, and Trudeau first remarked that it was always a surprise which position Mulcair held on marijuana on every given day, and noted that decriminalisation was a pipeline to profits for criminal gangs. Mulcair thundered about it one last time, and Trudeau repeated that legalisation was all about protecting children and starving criminal gangs.
Tag Archives: Pensions
Roundup: McQuaig’s “lessons learned”
Former NDP star candidate Linda McQuaig penned a column in the Toronto Star about her “lessons learned” after two unsuccessful attempts at running for office (and no plans to run again), and as one could expect, it’s a little self-serving. In it, she bemoans her loss of freedom to discuss topics thanks to party discipline and central messaging, and the fact that she knowingly walked into a trap about oil sands staying in the ground despite the fact that it went against the party line. Her takeaway: that the rush to avoid complexity and controversy infantilises voters, and somehow the NDP’s apparently popularity over their position on C-51 (despite the fact that it too was facile and unworkable, according to the very same security experts they cited over the bill’s problems) must somehow be an indication of they’re actually hungry to be treated like citizens. It’s a bit of a leap in logic because part of what the issue was when she went against the party line was that after it happened, she went into lockdown and didn’t really talk her way out of what she said, and the spin machine of “you want to destroy the energy industry” filled that silence. It was a self-inflicted wound that could have been managed, but wasn’t. As for her contention that voters are looking for adult conversations on issues, that may very well be true, but the NDP weren’t offering it while the Liberals certainly were better suited for it with their comprehensive platform. What we got from the NDP were some platitudes about “competent public administration” and promises to balance the budget based on fuzzy numbers (and recall that their first “costed” platform document was little more than buzz-words with dollar figures attached that meant nothing). So really, if you think that voters want an adult conversation then provide them with one, not what the disingenuous platitudes being offered (that C-51 could be repealed wholesale, that the NDP “only needed 35 more seats,” word games over the “federal minimum wage,” the aforementioned fuzzy costing documents). Voters aren’t as stupid as the campaign was treating them. Michelle Rempel responds to McQuaig here, while Rob Silver had a few other comments over the Twitter Machine.
1. She started as a reporter 42-years ago. How is it possible that she didn't pick up how elections work (for better or worse) in that time?
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) March 18, 2016
2. Is her argument that if Mulcair had "let" her say what she really believed (party platform be damned) the NDP would have done better?
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) March 18, 2016
3. If the answer to #2 is yes, does she have any evidence for that beyond "the NDP was doing well in the summer…because C51" because…
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) March 18, 2016
4. If her personal views are political winners (per her), what would have happened to her if she had expressed herself freely all campaign?
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) March 18, 2016
5. Given that she knew that "party discipline" is a thing (again, for better or worse), why did she decide to run not once but twice?
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) March 18, 2016
6. It's not like Mulcair kept it a secret that he was running on a platform that diverged pretty clearly from her lifetime of writing.
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) March 18, 2016
QP: Bélanger presides for a moment
Today was the day that MP Mauril Bélanger was given the role of honorary Speaker, his plans to have run for the post cut short by his ALS diagnosis. Bélanger has since lost the ability to Speak, but thanks to modern technology, he has been using an iPad with a speech emulator, and it was this that allowed him to preside over the Commons after a slow procession to the Chamber. Bélanger oversaw some rather well-behaved (though still somewhat partisan) Members’ Statements, and the first couple of questions. Rona Ambrose led off and recalled the Ice Bucket Challenge, and asked the PM for research dollars for ALS. Justin Trudeau saluted Bélanger first, and urged Canadians to give time and support in finding a cure. Normally Ambrose would get four more questions, but instead Mulcair was up next, and asked about minority francophone rights — a passion of Bélanger’s. Trudeau paid tribute to Bélanger’s efforts over the year. Bélanger then made a statement of thanks through his voice emulator, before Speaker Regan resumed the chair, while the Chamber thundered applause.
Roundup: Boutique tax credits for everyone!
The very first Private Members’ Bill up on the docket to be debated is one that give me a real headache, and it’s one that should be disallowed from being voteable, all because of a wee little loophole in the rules. The bill, from Conservative MP Ted Falk, aims to increase the tax rebate which charities receive to match the same level that one gets for political donations. The problem? That this is really an expenditure, and private members’ bills are forbidden to spend money without a royal recommendation (though MPs have gone to increasingly ridiculous lengths in recent years to try and contort logic to pretend that those bills don’t spend money when in fact they do). The even bigger problem? That a loophole currently exists in the rules that makes it technically possible for these bills asking for a tax credit to bypass the spending rules because technically (and under the way that procedure is interpreted) the bill seeks to reduce tax paid, not increase or expend taxes. That’s not actually true, mind you – ask the Auditor General or any decent economist and they’ll tell you in no uncertain terms that tax credits are actually expenditures, and unfortunately there is precedent on Falk’s side, particularly with a certain PMB from Dan McTeague several parliaments ago where he got a tax deduction in under that technicality and it was deemed to be in order. The government repealed the measure in their next budget, but the bill got though when really it shouldn’t have. Unfortunately it opened the door to these kinds of bills that are looking to create new boutique tax credits, and that’s a problem. Our tax code is already thousands of pages, and far too complex. Boutique tax credits are actually terrible policy, but governments have decided that they’re good politics because they feel like they’re rewarding certain groups for certain behaviours, and damn the consequences. The Auditor General has sounded the alarm that these measures aren’t being properly tracked because they’re not deemed expenditures (even though they are), which means that they’re not being given proper parliamentary oversight to ensure that it’s money that’s being well spent – and he found many cases where it’s not. But as Falk is demonstrating, the floodgates are opening, and it won’t be long before the Order Paper is replete with these PMBs demanding new boutique tax credits for everything under the sun, to encourage all manner of behaviour that they deem a social good, under the rubric that they’re not spending any money and thus within the rules. It’s a loophole that Parliament needs to set upon itself to close for the sake of the tax code and parliament’s ability to hold these kinds of spending measures to account. Sadly, one suspects that in their self-interest, MPs won’t make the needed rule change and we can expect this situation to get worse with every passing parliamentary session.
https://twitter.com/avelshi/status/704465684797915136
QP: In advance of the deployment motion
As Ottawa dug itself out from a record snowfall, everyone was ready to go in advance of the debate on the new ISIS mission that would happen after QP. Rona Ambrose had her mini-lectern ready to go, and she read a question about how the PM could possibly withdraw our CF-18s from the fight against ISIS. Justin Trudeau noted that one opposition party wanted them to do more and the other wanted them to do it less, and they had a comprehensive plan. Ambrose accused him of stepping back against the fight against terror, to which Trudeau assured her that our allies were happy with our stepping up our efforts. Ambrose accused Trudeau of picking and choosing Canadian values, to which Trudeau reminded her about what people voted for. Ambrose then accused the government of burning through the surplus her government left — eliciting laughs from the government benches — and wondered how much deficit they would pile on. Trudeau reminded her that they actually left a deficit, and they were committed to delivering growth. Ambrose lamented job losses, to which Trudeau again noted committing to growth. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and blasted the government for not preventing job losses at Bombardier. Trudeau insisted that they would grow the economy in responsible ways. Mulcair demanded again in English, and Trudeau repeated his answer with an added lament about shouting about problems. Mulcair then changed topics and demanded to know if the new mission was a combat mission. Trudeau said that they were doing what was most effective. Mulcair gave another go, and got pretty much the same answer.
Roundup: De-Canadianizing the Crown
A decision from the Quebec Superior Court came down yesterday which will have grave constitutional implications for Canada, yet few people actually know or understand it. The case challenged the royal succession law that the previous government passed as part of the series of reforms passed in all of the realms that share Queen Elizabeth II as their respective monarch, and by most reckonings, the Canadian law was a complete sham, simply assenting to UK legislation, in essence subordinating the Canadian Crown to a subset of the UK crown, despite the fact that they became separate entities after the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The Quebec Superior Court, however, sided with the Department of Justice, that the monarch was the same per the preamble of the constitution as opposed to a separate legal entity, and essentially reducing Canada back to a subordinate British colony, all because the Harper government didn’t want to go through the necessary steps of doing a proper constitutional amendment to change the Office of the Queen to match the aims of reform. So long, Queen of Canada. We hardly knew you.
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699675727185256448
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699676140714258434
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699677275999113218
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678028784410624
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678843540545536
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678990441848832
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686628005179392
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686740714463234
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686958084288512
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699687878658494465
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699689056171597824
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699689344253173761
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699691519066947588
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699691722750742529
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699811121620889600
QP: Second verse, same as the first
A very blustery day on Parliament Hill, and all three main leaders made it through the rapidly accumulating snowfall in order to make it to QP on time. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, reading a question about pulling the fighters out of Iraq, insisting that it means that Canada is not fighting terrorism. Justin Trudeau said that they consulted with allies and came up with a robust new plan to do what was needed. Ambrose insisted that military action and fighting was necessary, to which Trudeau quoted to her the US coalition leader saying that they couldn’t bomb their way out of the crisis, and that they needed training. Ambrose switched to the issue of new funding for UNRWA, which was found to be linked to Hamas. Trudeau noted his meeting with Ban Ki-moon, and the commitment to re-engaging with the world. Stephen Blaney was outraged that some of our aid money could find its way to terrorists groups, at which Karina Gould reminded him that our aid money was neutral. Blaney then called the decision to send Griffon helicopters with the new trainers “bungling,” but Harjit Sajjan merely confirmed that yes, the helicopters would be deployed. Thomas Mulcair was up next, outraged that more trainers over in Iraq would mean more risk. Trudeau reminded him that Canadians always stand up to do their duty when called upon. Mulcair asked again in French, and got the same answer in French. Mulcair mentioned his trip to Saskatchewan, and demanded EI reforms to help people in the oil price drop. Trudeau said that they were working hard to meet that demand. Mulcair decried a $6.5 billion shortfall for grain farmers without the Canadian Wheat Board. Lawrence MacAulay noted that government no longer had ties to the former Board.
QP: Concern for jobs and Iran
While it was caucus day, and all of the leaders were present, but things got off to a late start for a rather unfashionable reason. When QP started, Rona Ambrose started, mini-lectern on desk, reading a question about the lack of concern by the government over mounting job losses in Alberta. Justin Trudeau reassured her that he was preoccupied with the issue, and that measures were coming in the budget. Ambrose repeated the question in French, got much the same response, and then turned to the lifting of sanctions on Iran but tied it into the Syria mission. Trudeau said that the world was safer with a nuclear deal with Iran, and that Canada needed to engage in a responsible way with that country. Tony Clement railed against Iran in French, to which Trudeau repeated his previous answer about engaging responsibly, and then went for another round in English on the topic. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and demanded action on restoring home mail delivery. Trudeau reminded him that they campaigned on a moratorium, which they did, and they were now engaging with Canadians on the issue. Mulcair then demanded that OAS be restored to people at 65 immediately, to which Trudeau reminded him that it’s already the case. Mulcair read the same question again in French, got the very same answer, that they age increase wasn’t going to happen until 2023, and suggested that Mulcair check his facts first. Mulcair asked about provincial pension enrichments, to which Trudeau reminded him that the finance minister is currently engaging with provinces.
Roundup: Unrest without modernization
Oh, look – it’s the Senate bat-signal, shining one last time for me this year. Here we go: Senators Greene and Massicotte, who have been trying to organise some internal reforms to the Chamber, are warning that if modernisations don’t happen within the caucuses that they may see more defections from frustrated Senators, and swelling the ranks of Independents – particularly relevant with more senators on the way chosen by this new process (though nothing says that all of these new senators will sit as Independents, or that they won’t opt to sit in one of the two existing caucuses). Many of the reforms that the two are proposing are pretty modest – electing chairs and vice-chairs of standing committees, replacing Question Period with “Issues Period,” electing caucus officers, televising Senate proceedings; larger communications budgets to promote the Senate and its work (particularly committee reports); and electing the Speaker. Some of these are already in the works, like televising/webcasting procedures, which will happen in a year or two, once they get the technology sorted. Similarly, work to reform Senate Communications has been ongoing, and will continue, and I’m sure no one will argue that more money would help. Some of them – electing caucus officers – already happens in the Senate Liberal caucus, and sounds like is starting to happen in the Conservative ranks. The issue of committee membership is a topic that is currently being debated, and no doubt work will be undertaken on this in the Senate Rules committee, where it will start getting hammered out because the growing number of Independents does make this a priority issue for them. Some of the ideas, however, are more problematic, such as electing the Senate Speaker. Why? Because the Senate Speaker is actually the titular Head of Parliament; it makes sense for this to be a government appointee as a result, and because of this titular position, it comes with diplomatic and protocol responsibilities. Having the Senate elect their own that could be in opposition to the government of the day would be a serious problem, which few people seem to be grasping. As for “Issues Period,” I find it to be the weakest suggestion, particularly as asking questions of committee chairs a) is already possible, and b) doesn’t happen often because there’s not a lot to ask of them. As I explained in my piece in the National Post last week, Senate Question Period is about holding government to account, and with there being no Conservative Atlantic Canadian MPs in the Commons, it gives those Atlantic senators an opportunity to play that role. Or rather, it would if they had someone to hold account. In the absence of that, the Senate loses out on one of its functions, which will become a problem, and it’s something that “Issues Period” won’t solve.
Roundup: Questionable speaking fees
Following testimony at the Mike Duffy trial, Glen McGregor went back through the records of Duffy’s speaking engagements and what he was paid for them. Why? Because at trial, it came to light that he paid a speechwriter for a last-minute speech to one group, made a couple of tiny changes to it, paid for said speech through his “clearing fund” run by Gerald Donohue as though it were an expense related to his Senate duties, and then collected the $15,000 fee. Senate ethics guidelines state that they are not to collect speaking fees if it’s related to their Senate duties – and to be clear, there are plenty of parliamentarians in both Chambers for whom it’s entirely appropriate to have a Speaker’s bureau arrange and charge for speeches based on their previous experiences, because it’s not part of their parliamentary duties and it ensures that their expenses are covered and not charged to the taxpayer. Duffy, however, seems to have breached this particular rule, which could be yet another wrinkle in his attempt to prove his innocence, or to show that the “clearing fund” was only for legitimate parliamentary expenses. Meanwhile, looking back at the trial, we see recollections of his memorable phrases, and the petulance of his testimony.