With Harper off in Europe, and both Mulcair and Trudeau at Parizeau’s funeral in Montreal, it was going to be a mediocre day. Megan Leslie led off listing some expenses flagged in the Senate AG report, and asked if the PMO had contact with any of those senators before it was tabled. Paul Calandra responded that the senators were responsible for their own spending. Leslie tried to draw links to PMO involvement — the evidence around it sketchy at best — but Calandra wouldn’t budge. Leslie pressed again, and Calandra noted that the NDP were looking to re-open the constitution before reminding them of their satellite offices. Alexandre Boulerice gave another try in French, got the same answer, and for his final question, demanded an oversight body for the Senate, to which Calandra said he expected the Senate to follow the AG’s recommendations. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, asking about inadequate pensions. Pierre Poilievre insisted that the Liberals would just raise payroll taxes. Ralph Goodale asked the same again in English, to which he got the same reply from Poilievre. Goodale quoted the finance minister in refuting that pension payments are income taxes, but Joe Oliver didn’t take the bait, and Poilieve repeated his same talking points.
Tag Archives: Pensions
QP: Scripts on reconciliation
It was all leaders present for one of the few remaining Question Periods of the 41st parliament where we’ll see them all together. Thomas Mulcair led off, acknowledging that they were on unceded Algonquin territory, and noted the Conservatives voting against an NDP bill to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Mulcair wondered if the government would adopt it, to which Stephen Harper reminded him that Aboriginals are already included in the constitution and that the UN Declaration is an “aspirational document.” Mulcair repeated “aspirational” with a vitriolic tone, then demanded a nation-to-nation relationship between First Nations and Canada. Harper reminded him that they established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and they were working to improve the living conditions of all Aboriginals. Mulcair noted that at least 6000 children died in residential schools, and wanted Harper to acknowledge that they were “cultural genocide.” Harper insisted that he addressed the damage of forced assimilation seven years ago, and that the NDP consisted voted against the concrete steps the government was taking. Mulcair then noted poor education outcomes for First Nations currently, to which Harper reminded him of measures in the budget. Mulcair demanded that the funding gap for First Nations students be closed, to which Harper said that they were trying to reform the system and that the NDP vigorously opposed them. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about unfinished Reconciliation action for Métis and Inuit, and wanted nation-to-nation engagement. Harper reiterated the various achievements they’ve made, and encouraged the Liberals to stand with when. Trudeau said that his party accepted and pledged to adopt the TRC Reports recommendations and wanted the same pledge from the government. Harper said that they would study the report, before returning to his slap that the Liberals voted against concrete measures. Trudeau gave it one last attempt, to which Harper said that there was no ideal relationship in our history and they were working to improve the living conditions of First Nations.
QP: Committing to reconciliation
Monday, and none of the leaders were present for QP, as is usual now. In fact, the Prime Minister had planned a photo op at the very same time, because this is apparently how he shows respect for the institution. Megan Leslie led off, noting the a forthcoming Truth and Reconciliation report, and asked if the PM would heed the call of the First Nations. Bernard Valcourt responded by reminding the House of the government’s apology to Residential Schools survivors, and that it was important to support the work of the commission. Leslie asked again for engagement on the file, and Valcourt said they were encouraging reconciliation. Leslie noted the legacy of the Residential Schools, such as poverty and crime, and wanted a commitment to honour the findings of the report. Valcourt thanked the commission and looked forward to receiving the report. Romeo Saganash expressed his dismay at the government’s actions following the apology, to which Valcourt reiterated the commitment to reconciliation on the part of the government. Saganash brought up the underfunding of on-reserve First Nations, to which Valcourt noted they had taken significant steps to improve the situation of Aboriginals across Canada. Carolyn Bennett also brought up the forthcoming report, and wanted a commitment to concrete actions to promote healing and reconciliation. Valcourt repeated their thanks to the commissioners and survivors, and their commitment to work with a First Nations to address the challenges they inherited. John McCallum was up next, and asked about pension insecurity in the private sector, and wanted an admission that voluntary programmes were not enough. Kevin Sorenson stood up to deliver the half-truth talking points about Trudeau’s comments on Ontario’s plan. McCallum gave it another go in English, and got the same answer.
Roundup: Establishing a wedge narrative
It really was a little bit embarrassing – or would be, if he had even a millilitre of shame. Pierre Poilievre rushed everyone to a microphone yesterday morning to announce the “next part” of the Trudeau Tax™ that he’s trying to push as a talking point – that Justin Trudeau said that he would impose a new mandatory “payroll tax” for pensions like is happening in Ontario, with a dollar figure attached and everything. Which, of course, is a complete fabrication as Trudeau said no such thing. I know, because I was there sitting in front of him when he talked about CPP enhancement in his Wednesday press conference. And throughout Members’ Statements and Question Period, as many Conservatives as possible tried to make this very same claim – Harper going so far as to call it a “$1000 pay cut” – even repeating it in response to NDP questions. Way to make them feel relevant! Much in the way that Trudeau’s supposed “gaffe” about fairness was a legitimate point of philosophical difference that is being turned into an attack line, this hint at a policy discussion yet-to-come, which would need to be discussed with the provinces in any eventuality, is being morphed into something sinister and being associated with specific dollar figures where no pronouncement has been made – not that facts have ever mattered to the Conservative attack machine. (Witness “budgets balance themselves” which actually followed the phrase “when the economy grows,” which is true and the Conservatives have said so themselves on numerous occasions). So while we again have an area of legitimate philosophical difference – whether Canadians are saving enough, whether a mandatory plan is the best vehicle to fund retirements – it’s being turned into this dumbed-down populist talking point that obliterates nuance or the truth about what was actually said. But apparently veracity doesn’t matter because election. Or something. (But if you want to discuss nuance and policy, Jennifer Robson is glad we’re talking CPP expansion again.)
QP: He was talking about Greece
Thursday, and wouldn’t you know it, and to my great surprise, Stephen Harper was actually present for a change. Neither Thomas Mulcair nor Justin Trudeau were present to face off against him, however, so make of that what you will. That left Peter Julian to lead off, and wouldn’t you know it, he started off with yet another Mike Duffy question, on the altered audit report. Harper, of course, rejected the premise of the question and noted that Duffy was before the court for his own actions. Julian moved to the pro forma question about Duffy’s residency, and Harper responded with a pro forma response about the NDP satellite offices. Julian moved onto the Senate invoking privilege to keep their internal audit from the court — not actually government business — and Harper responded again with the satellite offices. Niki Ashton was up next, and asked about the lack of response to the First Nations housing fund, and Bernard Valcourt read a statement about significant resources being allocated to meeting housing needs. A second round was much the same. Scott Brison led off for the Liberals, asking about relaxing labour laws that would make it easier to fire Canadians, which Joe Oliver supported. Harper insisted that Oliver was talking about Greece, not Canada, and slammed the Liberal record. Brison pushed on the issue, and Harper read the latest Conservative attack line about how Trudeau apparently wants a new mandatory payroll tax. Marc Garneau closed the round, asking about the same issue in French, and got the same answer about it being a discussion about Greece, and that the Liberals would raise payroll taxes.
Harper shrugs at Julian's mention of the Duffy Diaries. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 28, 2015
IT'S NICE TO SEE LIBERAL LEADER SCOTT BRISON IN THE HOUSE FOR #QP. FOR SOME REASON, THEY USUALLY HAVE HIS MEDIOCRE DEPUTY FILL IN.
— RealChangeBot (@RealChangeBot) May 28, 2015
Roundup: Re-starting the CPP debate
Talk of expanding the Canada Pension Plan was dominating the discussion yesterday, but much of it seemed to be in a bit of a vacuum. To recap, the Conservatives, having largely eschewed any talk of CPP expansion as “job-killing payroll taxes” to date (despite some positive noises having been made by Jim Flaherty at one point), say they’re going to consult on voluntary expansion, but haven’t approached any of the provinces, which they need to do. The Liberals are moving in the direction of making an expansion mandatory, which the NDP have already largely been in favour of. For some context, Maclean’s spoke to a pension expert about the situation, and they reposted an piece from Kevin Milligan about what different expansion models could look like (and it’s also a reminder that none of this is about poor seniors, who are already taken care of by other programmes). The Ottawa Citizen also has a Q&A about the discussion as well. What should also bear mentioning is that voluntary increased contributions, if not done in a certain way, could dramatically increase the administration costs of CPP since it will require individual management of accounts – something that the current system does not currently need. Dramatically increasing costs will make CPP a less efficient vehicle for retirement savings, and may start to look like a commercial pension instead. If the government is insistent on a voluntary expansion as one of a number of options (like TFSAs and pooled registered plans), then this cost factor could be an important determiner in what that could look like.
QP: CPP consultations and fictitious allegations
Even though the king and queen of the Netherlands were visiting, all of the leaders actually showed up for QP for a change. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking for the declaration of Mike Duffy’s residence. Stephen Harper responded that Duffy’s actions were before the courts. Mulcair threatened that if Harper didn’t answer now, he would at the debates, and then demanded that the full Duffy audit be released. Mulcair gave some vaguely coherent muttering about the PMO covering up the cover-up in the Senate, to which Harper reminded them that the NDP faces their own repayment problem for their satellite offices. Mulcair moved onto the retirement age, demanding it be lowered to 65 (not that it actually changed — just OAS), to which Harper listed off their other measures for seniors. Mulcair closed with a quote from Jim Flaherty regarding CPP, to which Harper insisted the NDP would raise taxes on seniors. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and wondered why the government made their CPP announcement with no consultation by the provinces. Harper said that their record of supporting voluntary options was clear, while the Liberals would raise taxes. Trudeau reminded Harper of his record of statements on breaking up the CPP. Harper said that was false, and touted the options they created to help Canadians save. When Trudeau insisted that experts agreed with them, Harper said that Trudeau’s experts were imaginary, and that Trudeau would show leadership in raising taxes.
Roundup: An arbiter and a process in place
The Auditor General was making the media rounds yesterday, largely combating the cheap outrage journalism about the supposed spending issues of his office (which wasn’t a story but hey), and confirmed that about 30 senators would be facing some kind of repayment, fewer than 10 serious enough to merit being forwarded to the RCMP – but of course, ten became the headline number when he said it would be fewer, and the number of five to eight has been suggested by other media outlets, which seems more in line with what he claims. The total number of senators examined was 117 current and former, and it certainly sounds like the majority of cases will be fairly minor in terms of repayments. The Senate announced that they are retaining former Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie as the independent arbiter on expenses, so that they have a process by which to dispute the AG’s findings if they so choose, and that may be necessary considering the complaints emerging about the lack of knowledge on the part of auditors as to parliamentary functions. This raises the question of fairness – is it fair that these senators will have a process in place, whereas Senators Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin did not, and were suspended without any kind of due process? The answer of course is that no, it’s probably not fair, but this was a fairly consuming crisis at the time, and they were sacrificed on the altar of expediency. Politics is messy business, particularly when you were high-profile appointments and had become a political liability. I’m not sure that it should be reason to forgo having a process going forward, but if all three are found guilty on the charges laid by the RCMP, then will it really matter in the end?
QP: Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.
Despite it only being a Thursday, the major leaders were elsewhere in the country, busy campaiging instead of doing their jobs. Megan Leslie led off, bringing up job losses at Bombardier and wondered why the government wasn’t doing more for manufacturing. Pierre Poilievre gave a pro forma expression of sympathy before touting the government’s job creation record. Leslie asked again in English twice again, got the same answer, and then Alexandre Boulerice took another kick at it in French. Poilievre was just as adept in repeating the good news talking points in French. Marc Garneau led for the Liberals, also asking about the job losses, and Poilievre put a “Liberals would raise taxes” spin on his same talking points. Judy Sgro took a kick at it, naming some of the other closing plants and job losses, but Poilievre kept insisting the Liberals would raise taxes and kill more jobs.
QP: Carry on the middle-class talking points
As Monday is the new Friday, none of the main leaders were in the House — Harper in Europe, Mulcair in Quebec City, and Trudeau across the river in Gatineau, having just laid out his party’s new tax plan. When QP kicked off, Megan Leslie led off, asking about job losses in the manufacturing sector. Pierre Poilievre took the question, and listed off some talking points about how great their family tax cuts were. Leslie noted the media reports that Conservative MPs will personally benefit more from income splitting than others, but Poilievre was undaunted from his talking points. Leslie then changed to the topics of coalition air strikes in Syria hitting civilians. Rob Nicholson noted that they had a 12-month commitment. Jack Harris then asked about Harper’s comments that they were not sure how effective the bombing campaign was. Nicholson noted it was a precision campaign, and wanted the NDP to thank the men and women in uniform. Harris then asked about reports about allegations of mistreatment of Taliban by military police. James Bezan insisted that they were taking the allegations seriously. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, praising their recent announcement and wondered why the government wouldn’t adopt it (Poilievre: Yay our plan), and Ralph Goodale got increasingly critical of that plan Poilievre was touting (Poilievre: You just said you want to raise taxes on people making $60,000 — blatantly untrue).
Pierre Poilievre is sticking to his talking points. #QP pic.twitter.com/lxQCieojfm
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 4, 2015