Tag Archives: Pensions

Roundup: A promise to waste millions of dollars

Posted on by

There are a lot of stupid, performative things being said right now, particularly in those three provincial elections, but one of the dumbest yesterday was courtesy of incumbent New Brunswick premier Blaine Higgs, who promised that if re-elected, he will mount a new legal challenge of the federal carbon levy. And to make that worse, several Conservative MPs picked that up and declared during Question Period that the challenge was already underway (it’s not), as though it were a devastating argument for their demands to “axe the tax” or to call an election.

Higgs’ promise is premised entirely on bullshit. There is no basis for him to mount a new challenge because nothing about the programme has changed since the Supreme Court of Canada already ruled that it’s constitutional and within the powers of the federal government, particularly because of the existential challenge that climate change poses to Canadians. The fact that the price is increasing or that we have been though a bout of higher inflation—which has already stabilised and returned to target, and for which the carbon levy did not actually cause any of said inflation because that’s not how inflation works—don’t change any of the legal bases or arguments around the levy. And because the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled, any lower court that Higgs tries to mount a new challenge in is going to tell him to go pound sand.

Higgs is essentially promising to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, because you know that when the courts tell him to go pound sand, they’ll also tell him to reimburse the legal costs of the federal government because they wasted everyone’s time and money in bringing such a frivolous suit in the first place. But there is a political calculus, particularly on the right, where they are prepared to waste millions of dollars in doomed legal challenges because they think that it’s good electoral calculus to show that you’re fighting. Federally, Conservatives have made this argument a number of times when the government didn’t pursue doomed appeals and just made changes, and no doubt Higgs figures that this will work the same way for him. But then again, I guess they’re not bothered by the cognitive dissonance of “we need to balance the budget” and “we need to waste millions of dollars on a doomed legal crusade,” because that might require introspection or self-awareness, both of which are in incredibly short supply in politics these days.

Pretty much all of #cdnpoli. It's really hard to be optimistic about any of it right now.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-10-01T14:21:44.377Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Six civilians were killed and more wounded when Russian artillery struck a bus stop in Kherson. Russian troops have also reached the centre of Vuhledar, a Ukrainian bastion in the strategic high ground of the Donbas region, which is significant because of where it borders and the supply routes it controls. Ukraine is also investigating an apparent shooting of sixteen POWS by Russian troops.

Continue reading →

QP: Fighting to claim who loves seniors most

Posted on by

The first day back after an extended weekend, and the prime minister was in town but absent, while his deputy was there. Most of the other leaders were also away, and this was the Bloc’s Supply Day and the Conservatives were about to have the vote of their latest non-confidence motion, so that was going to set the stage for what was to come. Before things got underway the Bloc’s newest MP got introduced to the Chamber to take his seat. Speaker Fergus then gave another admonishment for MPs to behave, as though that was going to do anything.

Once things got started, Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and rattled off some slogans that claimed to be in the defence of seniors. Chrystia Freeland said that seniors remember that Stephen Harper went off to Davos to raise the age of retirement, and that they government introduced child care for the benefit of their grandchildren. Poilievre then took a swipe at the Bloc before demanding an election. Jean-Yves Duclos pointed out that Poilievre picked fights with municipalities. Poilievre switched to English to spin a tall tale about Mark Carney, calling him a walking conflict of interest. Freeland said that they are glad to get advice from former central bankers like Carney and Stephen Poloz, while the Conservatives get their advice from Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson. Poilievre then raised Blaine Higgs’ doomed promise to try and challenge the carbon levy in the courts again (who will promptly tell him to pound sand), and demanded an election. Freeland pointed out their announcement from this morning about the small business carbon levy. Poilievre then switched topics again, this time other Israel’s right to defend itself. Mélanie Joly says that they condemn Iran’s attacks, which will only further escalate the region, that she contacted her Israeli counterpart this morning and other regional counterparts, and that the war needs to stop.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and listed seniors groups on the Hill before demanding support for their OAS changes. Steve MacKinnon listed all of the measures for seniors that they voted against, saying their hypocrisy was shocking. Therrien made the demand again, pointing out it’s International Seniors Day, and MacKinnon prevaricated by wishing seniors well on this day, before returning to the his points about what the Bloc voted against.

Lori Idlout appeared by video to demand more funding for First Nations, particularly things like fire services. Patty Hajdu says they have invested $136 million for First Nations self-determined fire safety priorities. Leah Gazan demanded better healthcare access for First Nations. Hajdu says that there were $2 billion in the recent transfers earmarked for Indigenous self-determined priorities.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A double standard on barring speeches

Posted on by

There was a story in the Star yesterday that I hadn’t actually noticed happening, which is that Liberal MP Yvan Baker has been barred from speaking in the House of Commons until he apologises for saying that the “Putin wing” had taken over the Conservative Party on March 20th. Baker says he has no intention of apologising for what he considers to be the truth, and the Speaker, as usual, makes little tut-tut noises about what Baker said, never mind that there is a giant double-standard at play.

If Fergus is concerned about MPs alleging that their colleagues “stand four-square behind dictators,” it’s funny that the consequences only seem to apply to Baker. After all, Conservatives on a frequent basis have said that Trudeau is in the pocket of dictators, and that he allowed foreign interference on their behalf because it benefitted his party. (There is absolutely no public evidence of this). And most egregious was that Conservative MP Rachael Thomas has said on the floor of the Commons that Justin Trudeau is a “dictator,” and she faced absolutely no censure for saying it, which makes it really hard to see why Baker is being singled out for being hyperbolic—the point was about which elements of the party’s base that Poilievre is pandering to as opposed to saying that Poilievre is under Putin’s sway—when nobody else is. (I will note that Conservative MP Mark Strahl was barred from speaking for several weeks because he refused to withdraw the remarks that someone was lying, which is a big no-no under the rules of Parliament—rules which are now being absolutely abused—but he did eventually do so).

What is perhaps the most galling in all of his was the statement that Andrew Scheer gave to the Star, in which he says “Liberals should not whine and complain because they were caught spreading disinformation and lies to divide Canadians and cover for their own total failures on Ukraine.” Erm, serial liar and promoter of conspiracy theories Andrew Scheer is lecturing Liberals on the subject, when he faces zero consequences for lying in the House of Commons on a daily basis. We already knew he had absolutely no sense of shame, but it definitely extends to a complete lack of self-awareness as well. Just utterly ridiculous.

Ukraine Dispatch

It was another bloody weekend in Ukraine which saw waves of drone attacks targeting Kyiv last night, the pounding of Zaporizhzhia with guided bombs earlier, the death of a top judge after an attack on Kharkiv, and an attack on a hospital in Sumy that killed ten. President Zelenskyy says that the front lines are “very, very difficult” as autumn descends on the conflict.

Continue reading →

QP: It wasn’t about sex!

Posted on by

The prime minister was on his way to Montreal with Emanuel Macron, and his deputy was elsewhere, while the Conservatives were mid-Supply Day, moving yet another confidence motion that was doomed to fail (not that it matters because the whole point is to get clips for social media). Before things got started, Speaker Fergus said that per his ruling earlier, he offered the leader of the opposition an opportunity to withdraw words he spoke last week, and because he didn’t get such an offer to do so, he would remove three questions from him in the opening round. Poilievre got up and in French, read off their non-confidence motion, and asked the government to support it. Jean-Yves Duclos responded by chiding Poilievre for not even reading the first chapter of an Economics 101 textbook about the independence of the central bank. Poilievre read the slogan-filled motion again in English, and Karina Gould said the simple answer as to who was opposed to the motion was Canadians.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and wondered how the government could be opposed to increased support for seniors. Steve MacKinnon said that it was funny that the Bloc opposed all other measures to help seniors, including dental care. Therrien said that if the government didn’t want to fall, they should support that bill, and Duclos got back up to point out the supports the government has provided and wondered if they really wanted to support the Conservatives. 

Alexandre Boulerice read a letter purportedly to be from a constituent about the housing crisis, to which Duclos reminded him of how damaging Poilievre’s would be. Blake Desjarlais railed about the delay in providing promised Indigenous housing, and Patty Hajdu pointed to the millions of dollars that have flowed to communities.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Why the Bloc’s two-bill demand is actually impossible

Posted on by

In advance of yesterday’s confidence votes, Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet laid out his new conditions for support ongoing—government support for Bills C-282 and C-319, and for them to pass by October 29th. The problem? These are both private members’ bills, and the government has little control over when either can pass, and you would think that as parliamentarians who know the system and who like to pretend that they are the adults in the room would know that such a deadline is an impossible ask, but we are unfortunately in the stupidest timeline.

For starters, Bill C-282, which seeks to protect Supply Management in future trade negotiations, has already passed the House of Commons and is in the Senate, but senators don’t seem keen on passing it with any alacrity because they want a better sense of how this will tie the government in the future. The truth is that it can’t—you cannot actually bind a future government with legislation, so this is little more than a handwavey gesture that a future government can repeal at any point, making this a giant waste of everyone’s time and resources. But more to the point, as a private member’s bill, there is no mechanism in the Senate to speed it along, and certainly not one that the Government Leader in the Senate possesses. In fact, when the Conservatives tried to change the rules of the Senate on this in the Harper years, there was tremendous pushback and the attempt was dropped.

The other bill, C-319, is the bill to increase the OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74, for which there is no reasonable justification for (there are other mechanisms to deal with the needs of low-income seniors), and would cost something in the order of $3 billion per year. It passed the House of Commons at report stage yesterday, but again, it’s unlikely to pass third reading by October 29th even if it gets a royal recommendation, which it needs to spend money (which PMBs are normally forbidden to do). So if the government gives it the royal recommendation, and if they get it passed the House of Commons before the 29th, once again, there is no mechanism to speed its passage in the Senate. None, for very good reason. The Bloc made a big show yesterday of insisting that their demands were reasonable and that the bills were sufficiently advanced to make the deadline reasonable (when it’s really chosen so that an election could theoretically be held before Xmas), but they are in fact impossible, and nobody actually pointed that fact out yesterday.

Meanwhile, the Star has gamed out other demands from both the Bloc and the NDP for potential support going forward, and how feasible or how costly they are, and most of it remains in the domain of fantasyland. Price controls? Giving Quebec full immigration powers? Nope and nope.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian guided bombs struck Kramatorsk in the east, killing at least two and injuring twelve more. As well, 28 out of 32 Russian drones were downed overnight. Also in east Ukraine, Russian forces claim to have captured two more villages on the path to attacking the town of Vuhledar, considered a stronghold.

Continue reading →

QP: Spiralling into a cavalcade of bullshit

Posted on by

The prime minister was back from New York and in Question Period for his proto-PMQ day, and his deputy was then along with him, in advance of the confidence vote that was to happen right after. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and rattled off some slogans to demand an election. Justin Trudeau said that they only thing they have to offer are cuts and austerity, while the government was investing in Canadians and Quebeckers. Poilievre trotted out the lines about people in poverty already living in austerity, made claims about when he was “housing minister,” and demanded an election. Trudeau said that if Poilievre was so concerned about single mothers, he shouldn’t have voted against child care or the Child Benefit. Poilievre switched to English to rattle off his slogans again to preface the confidence vote. Trudeau dismissed this as a “clever little slogan” that disguises his self-interest rather than help for Canadians, before saying they would have an election “in the right time,” but the rest got drowned out by competing applause. Poilievre said that if he wants an election if he would call it today. Trudeau said that today, they would see that the House doesn’t have confidence in the leader of the opposition, before mouthing pabulum talking points. Poilievre again called for an election and made some swipes about politicians versus people deciding, while Trudeau rattled off the lines about eight out of ten families getting more back, before saying that Poilievre doesn’t understand science, math, or economics, and and that they can arrange briefings for him that won’t require a security clearance. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and asked if the government would agree to their demands on the OAS and Supply Management bills. Trudeau said that they have already shown a commitment to seniors and to protecting Supply Management. Blanchet again wanted assurances, but Trudeau took this as an opportunity to plug dental care, which the Bloc didn’t support.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and Jagmeet Singh complained that Trudeau wasn’t standing up to Danielle Smith on healthcare. Trudeau said that they stand up for universal healthcare, and that in those provinces, the NDP couldn’t stand up to conservatives in those provinces to protect healthcare. Singh demanded Trudeau use his powers to stop Smith (HOW?!), and Trudeau talked up their agreements to get accountability from provinces for the money that gets sent to them.

Continue reading →

QP: Griping about the Colbert appearance

Posted on by

The prime minister was still in New York, but his deputy was present once again, while the Conservatives were revved up because this was their Supply Day, and they were busy gathering clips from their prepared speeches in favour of their non-confidence motion. With that in mind, Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he immediately demanded that the Bloc vote against the government. The Speaker warned him about questions being related to administrative responsibilities of government, but Jean-Yves Duclos stood up anyway to denounce that Poilievre told people dental care doesn’t exist. Poilievre again listed the government’s supposed failures to demand the Bloc vote against them, and Soraya Martinez Ferrada decried that Conservative MP Jeremy Patzer got a trip paid for to Florida from a pro-life church. Poilievre switched to English to recite slogans and demand an election, and Mark Holland listed things the Conservatives would cut. Poilievre accused Holland of coming unglued before saying completely untrue things about pharmacare and demanded an election. Holland pointed out his scare-mongering before saying that free diabetes medication and contraceptions are actually freedom. Poilievre again claimed that pharmacare would “ban women” from using their existing drug plans before trotting out the “nuclear winter” line to demand an election. Karina Gould got up to say that freedom doesn’t look like trips to Florida to meet with anti-abortion groups.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and demanded “justice” for seniors via enhancing OAS, and Steve MacKinnon listed efforts to help seniors and that the Bloc voted against it. Therrien declared that seniors deserve better than partisanship, and again demanded the OAS enhancement. MacKinnon again noted that the Bloc has always voted against more help for seniors, including dental care.

Jagmeet Singh demanded the Liberals stand up to Doug Ford around private health care, and Mark Holland said that if he wants to talk courage, the NDP capitulated to the Conservatives when bullied. Singh switched to French, and swapped François Legault for Ford, but asked the same thing. Holland urged parliamentarians to stand up to what the Conservatives would do to the healthcare system.

Continue reading →

QP: The Bloc have demands—or else!

Posted on by

The prime minister was off at the UN in New York, leaving his deputy to attend QP in his stead, and only some of the other leaders were present as a result. Speaker Greg Fergus started off with a warning about behaviour and questions that relate to the administration of government, and said that he would have more to say on it later, but he hoped for better from MPs. Andrew Scheer led off by rattling off a list of slogans, before concern trolling about tent cities and food banks, and claimed that the government’s solution was for people to pay more taxes, which is juvenile in the extreme. Chrystia Freeland praised the fact that inflation is coming down, and interest rates along with it, which makes the Conservatives mad because they can’t use it as a wedge. Scheer insisted that it was cold comfort that prices weren’t coming down (which is generally how inflation works), and took a swipe at the NDP before demanding an election. Freeland noted that the Conservatives have a hidden austerity agenda, and wondered aloud what exactly they planned to cut. Scheer then raised the capital gains tax changes, and claimed this would affect housing (extremely unlikely), and Freeland took the opportunity to praise their mortgage rule changes from last week. Luc Berthold took over in French to decry students using food banks, and demanded the carbon levy be cut. Jean-Yves Duclos called this nonsense, and called out the belief that school food programmes are “bureaucratic.” Berthold took a swipe at the Bloc, and demanded an end to the government. Duclos kept on the points about the depiction of the school food programme.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and demanded an enrichment to OAS, or face an election. Steve MacKinnon pointed out the Bloc’s record  voting against returning the retirement age to 65 and enriching the GIS, as well as dental care. Therrien thundered that the government could afford this instead of funding oil companies, and made his threat again. MacKinnon reiterate that they have never cut help for seniors, only ever increased it even when the Bloc voted against it.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and complained that Loblaws wants to charge people $100 for a doctor’s appointment, which is provincial jurisdiction and he should take that up with Doug Ford. Mark Holland called him out for caving to a bully. Singh repeated the accusation in French, and Holland kept on his tear about the NDP caving not only on the agreement, but also on the carbon levy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hoping it won’t be that bad (but it will be)

Posted on by

Because we’re in the middle of re-litigating the carbon levy yet again ahead of the Conservatives’ planned confidence vote, some familiar patterns are emerging, some of which are from the Elder Pundits who are, yet again, playing the “It won’t be that bad!” card, when in fact, yes it will be. Case in point was John Ivison reaching out to Ken Boessenkool, former Conservative advisor, to talk about the industrial carbon price, and Boessenkool (whose post-political career involves a lot of validating the Elder Pundits’ belief that it won’t be that bad) told him that the majority of those prices are provincially regulated, so they should remain intact. Which is not an assumption I would make because we have several provinces who believe that they can reach their reduction targets without any price (which is stupid), and they want to keep attracting investment, particularly in oil and gas, so they are likely to either greatly reduce their industrial price, or kill it altogether. This will in turn trigger a race to the bottom among other provinces, so the prices become useless. This is the whole reason why a federal benchmark and backstop were created—so that provinces couldn’t do that, and why the Supreme Court validated this as a legitimate exercise of federal powers. (Incidentally, Jenni Byrne disavowed Boessenkool after that piece went to print, which pretty much validates my point).

Meanwhile, other Elder Pundits are trying to write about the alternatives the Conservatives will use instead of the carbon levy, but even there, as they assert that while the levy is the best mechanism but there are others (because remember, they want to keep insisting it won’t be that bad), but that is a misread of what the Conservatives are actually promising, which is to tear up everything the Liberals have done, and rely on magic (in part because they don’t want to do anything, excuse themselves from doing anything by insisting that we’re only two percent of emission so what we do doesn’t matter, and any action they do take will only be “aspirational.”) For what it’s worth, the NDP also believe in the magic that they can only price carbon for corporations and it won’t be passed along to consumers, or that consumers won’t have to change any behaviour because corporations are evil. And it’s really, really depressing because the actions are having a difference, we have bent our emissions curve downward, and this is going to just upend everything for the sake of authoritarian populism, while the gods damned Elder Pundits tut-tut that the carbon levy must be bad because it’s unpopular, never mind that their refusal to understand of communicate it, or to refute the lies about it, have contributed to this situation. Good job, everyone. Enjoy your summers of wildfire smoke, and your melting icecaps.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians struck an apartment building in Kharkiv, wounding 21 civilians, as Ukraine destroyed 71 out of 80 attack drones overnight. There were also air strikes on Zaporizhzhia that injured 13 civilians. President Zelenskyy is hoping for faster action from the Americans, ahead of his visit to the White House, given that Ukrainian drone strikes have hit Russian arms depots, destroying thousands of tonnes of weaponry.

Continue reading →

Roundup: What the Bloc are demanding

Posted on by

As part of their demands in order to support the government, the Bloc Québécois have been making enriching pensions one of their main demands, and the government has (rightfully) been pushing back, and I’m not sure that everyone understands the issue. Certainly, there are columnists who have missed the details of this, which are actually long-standing, and think that there is enough fuzziness that the government can negotiate around it. No. This has been a specific Bloc demand since the Liberals first put in the policy of enriching OAS for seniors over the age of 75, because those seniors have greater needs and many have depleted their savings. The Bloc even have a private member’s bill that they are currently debating, but naturally this bill is out of order because PMBs can’t spend money, and that’s exactly what this bill is directing them to do. So, they are very specifically demanding a royal recommendation for this bill in order for it to actually be in order, voteable, and that it can do what they want.

It’s not going to happen. It shouldn’t happen, because the whole rationale is off. But they’re going to make life uncomfortable for the government soon enough if they don’t get their way, which is why this issue has taken over the spotlight over the past week.

Here’s Tyler Meredith to explain the proposal and the financial costs, and why it’s not something the government wants to sign onto.

https://twitter.com/tylermeredith/status/1836962451264327962

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians made three strikes on Kharkiv, injuring 15. Residents of Kyiv are being told to stay indoors because of smoke from nearby fires. Ukraine has banned officials using the Telegram app because they fear that Russians can access their conversations. President Zelenskyy says that top officials have discussed and come to an agreement around the need for more domestic arms production on faster timelines.

Continue reading →