The news of the day yesterday was the revelation that the PMO ordered a halt to government-sponsored Syrian refugee processing for several weeks in the spring so that they could review the programme. There are some serious concerns that they had access to the personal files of those refugees, and other concerns that they were trying to pick and choose which refugees they would accept in terms of religious or ethnic minorities – screening out some Muslim claimants, much as they admitted to doing earlier in the year when they insisted they were taking “the most vulnerable.” Harper came out mid-day to insist that political staffers didn’t take part in making any decisions, and that they didn’t change any results – but neither he nor Chris Alexander refuted the facts of the story. There are curious elements, such as why they had reason to suspect that the UNHCR – which this government has offloaded the responsibility for vetting refugee claimants onto – would not be forwarding the most vulnerable cases to them already (that’s what they do), and why the government had a Danish Christian group do the audit. What’s even more curious is that only government sponsored refugees had their files halted, but privately sponsored refugees – most of those by family members or church groups in Canada – were left untouched. If there were concerns about security, would they not also be affected? Apparently not. And then comes Bob Fife’s story – that the “right communities” the government was looking to ensure the refugees came from would be those that have connections in Canada that could be exploited for votes. It’s a cynical answer, but fits the pattern that we’ve grown accustomed to seeing over the past number of years of this government.
Tag Archives: Terrorism
Roundup: Free-ish trade deal with TPP
So, the TPP got signed, in case you missed the entirety of the news cycle yesterday. The Supply Management system was almost entirely left intact, and what tiny bit of market access that TPP countries gained will be more than compensated to the dairy farmers with very generous subsidies, and thus the Dairy Cartel was sated. Also, the auto parts content rules were kept largely intact as well, not that Unifor seems to care, as they’re going full-on protectionist and crying doom. Harper of course was touting the deal, while the Liberals sounded broadly supportive but wanted more details plus a full discussion in parliament when it comes to enabling legislation. The NDP, however, are still warning doom and taking the tactic of “Nobody trusts Stephen Harper” and latched onto Unifor’s claims that 20,000 jobs were imperilled. So there’s that. Economist Trevor Tombe takes us through why the deal is good for the country, while Andrew Coyne laments the timidity of maintaining the barriers we did.
https://twitter.com/stephaniecarvin/status/651093562784923648
I'm confused by @RalphGoodale's focus on trade deficits on @PnPCBC. Don't we have a flexible currency? I think we do. #cdnecon #elxn42
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) October 5, 2015
Pro tip: If you're using the trade balance to argue for or against a trade agreement, pull your head out of your butt.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 5, 2015
Roundup: TPP a Caretaker conundrum
The Trans-Pacific Partnership talks are taking place right now, with the possibility that a deal could be struck with Canada while we’re in a writ period. The optics of this are a bit fraught, because if the government gets the deal signed, then they can crow about their prowess on the campaign trail, and how they’re signing deals to boost our economy. But the flip side of that coin is that a really big deal may be a kind of violation of the Caretaker Conventions that govern how an incumbent government operates during a writ period. Remember that we can never be without a government even when Parliament is dissolved – they just need to exercise restraint, and can’t implement major policy changes or make appointments during that period. This time around, however, the government released the Convention guidelines publicly while adding specific exemptions about negotiating trade deals. On the one hand, there is a certain amount of sense – do we really want to hold up the eleven other countries while we are in an extra-long election period? (Note that there seems to be a desire to conclude the deal before the American election gears up to full-on insanity mode). One of the arguments is that there should at least be some kind of consultation with opposition leaders if the negotiations continue during the writ period, and there are complaints that the TPP negotiations are unprecedented in their secrecy. What is not mentioned is that secrecy is deliberate considering how game changing this pact could be, particularly when it comes to weakening some of the tough subsidized markets in several member countries. And if you look at the reactions that rumours of deals around weakening Supply Management or auto parts content rules, and promises by other party leaders to maintain those protectionist policies, it’s hard not to see why they want to keep a lid on things until they’re finalised – particularly if the goal is actual trade liberalisation rather than just lip-service. It’s a delicate balance, and arguments can be made on both sides of the propriety of the government’s negotiations under the Caretaker Conventions. For example, Susan Delacourt argues the government is going beyond the Conventions. I’m not sure I have any answers, but I guess we’ll see what gets decided, and let the chips fall where they may.
Roundup: A baffling public service pledge
In a bid to win over the public service vote in the Ottawa region, the NDP have pledged a “code of conduct” for ministers and their staff, as well as an end to cuts to the public service, a Public Appointments Commission to end patronage appointments, a restoration of collective bargaining rights, and putting an end to contract staff. Oh, and an end to muzzling “scientists and other public service employees.” And that sends off my alarm bells because it’s a massive reorientation of the role of the public service. While the NDP thinks that they’re trying to remove the politicization around the public service that has been developing, empowering public servants to speak against the governments that they are supposed to serve is mind-boggling. The issue of just what we’re muzzling in terms of scientists was thoroughly hashed out a few months ago when Andrew Leach went against the countervailing wisdom and challenged the “white coat” privilege that these kinds of pronouncements assume, that it’s all a bunch of benevolent climate scientists who can’t speak about their work. What it ignores is that there are other kinds of scientists – like economists in the Department of Finance – for whom this is not even a consideration. Just because it’s politically convenient to think that we want these white coats to denounce the government’s environmental policies, does that mean it should be okay for government economists to denounce fiscal policy? Or government lawyers to denounce the government’s justice policies? (It’s also why their candidate, Emilie Taman was denied a leave to run – the Public Prosecution Service was created to remove the perception of political bias from Crown prosecutions, and having one of your prosecutors running for office defeats that purpose). Public Servants serve the Queen and carry out their duties in a neutral fashion. Making it easier for them to start denouncing the government is a mystifying promise. Also, the promise to bar temps is short-sighted and makes it harder for young people to get civil service jobs. Those temp jobs are often the best way to get one’s foot in the door in the public service and get some experience that can translate into a job, considering how byzantine and nigh-impossible the outside competition process is if one wasn’t lucky enough to get bridged in through a school programme. Conversely, getting new staff in a timely manner or for a specific project is also a ridiculous process for managers. Banning temps makes no actual sense.
Roundup: French debate, the first
So, the first French debate, and the only one where we’ll see five leaders all on the same stage. It wasn’t a dumpster fire, but it had its trying moments. Not twenty minutes into it, they got into the tiresome niqab debate, of which Justin Trudeau had the clearest and probably best statement, saying that we don’t accept it when men tell women what they can and can’t wear. There was also a ridiculous segment about the Senate, when it got compared to a vestige of our British colonial past (it’s not – the Senate of Canada is actually a wholly unique institution in the world), and Gilles Duceppe dropped the republican gauntlet in calling for an end to the monarchy, and saying an independent Quebec would do so. (Never mind that Quebec’s foundations are actually pro-monarchy, in part because it was the Quebec Act and Royal Proclamation that protected their language, culture and post-France turning the colony over to the British). Harper was pretty laid back in this debate, Mulcair easily nettled – particularly when Trudeau went after him on the bulk water exports issue. Trudeau was more evenly paced and not frantic this time around, Elizabeth May not overly memorable other than calling out the niqab debate as a distraction, and Gilles Duceppe, was as wily as a fox as ever. Here’s Kady O’Malley’s liveblog, while here’s the CBC recap. The Ottawa Citizen gathered four experts to react to the debate.
@journo_dale @stephenfgordon Either 6 or 8%. Been on a declining trend under Harper, if I recall .
— Jen Gerson (@jengerson) September 25, 2015
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/647212971484033024
Why does nobody ever say: "We put all our eggs in the manufacturing basket. When manufacturing declined, look what we were left with?"
— Jen Gerson (@jengerson) September 25, 2015
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/647215818904743936
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/647215942712193024
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/647215943102271488
Roundup: About that “costed” plan
The NDP released their “costed” fiscal plan yesterday, which was not in fact the full costing that they had promised, but rather a broad-strokes framework, full of vague line item names like “Helping Families Get Ahead” and “Help Where It’s Needed Most” rather than actually talking about their childcare plan, and their promises around the healthcare escalator. (That escalator, incidentally, has confused a lot of reporters in the room). It’s kind of ironic that after a week spent baiting the Liberals on releasing their costed platform, the NDP didn’t actually deliver theirs. Suffice to say, the analysis to date seems to be that the NDP platform relies on the Budget 2015 numbers – numbers which are no longer relevant as the price of oil has crashed even further, and GDP growth is nowhere near what was projected and likely won’t be anytime soon, which blows a hole of several billion dollars into the assumptions. It also relies on the same austerity that the Conservative budget is built upon, despite what the NDP insists. The Conservatives and Liberals immediately panned the document, but that’s not a surprise. Being as I’m not an economist, I’ll leave the comments for those who are, and they have plenty to say (with some background on how to read these kinds of documents from Kevin Milligan here):
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644266217994215424
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644266726171869184
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644267141714149376
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644267656929918976
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644268654381563904
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644269099938283520
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644269679876288512
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644270215551848448
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/644258642158596096
@acoyne If full employment wages fall with CIT increase. My estimate based on disequilibrium GE model with bigger job impact.
— Dr. Jack Mintz (@jackmintz) September 16, 2015
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/644306950700724224
Anyone looking at that list of NDP revenue measures is almost certainly going to say "No skin off my nose"
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 17, 2015
NDP program is not a rebellion against anti-tax sentiment; it's buying into it.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 17, 2015
No-one is going to vote NDP saying to themselves, "Okay, I'll pay more in taxes, but I'm willing to pay the price"
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 17, 2015
The NDP is selling a free lunch: We will raise taxes you don't have to pay, and we'll use them to buy you these goodies
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 17, 2015
So any narrative that sells support for the NDP as a rejection of the CPC has got it wrong. NDP is appealing to the same anti-tax sentiment
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 17, 2015
https://twitter.com/rolandparis/status/644332078855815168
NDP detail on daycare? @RosieBarton asks @thomson_ndp for the numbers (with @MichelleRempel & @JohnMcCallumLPC too) http://t.co/OszzPVZqs4
— Leslie Stojsic (@LeslieStojsic) September 16, 2015
Note to self: memorize all line by line expenditures before next @PnPCBC. FYI # is $595M in Y1 rising to $2.5B in Y4 @LeslieCBC @RosieBarton
— Andrew Thomson (@Thomson416) September 17, 2015
Roundup: May’s magical thinking
It was Elizabeth May’s turn to go before Peter Mansbridge last night, and as with all other leaders, she too got the basics of government formation wrong – but unlike the others, May just got it wrong in a different way. She insisted that if Harper got a minority government, the opposition parties should be able to call the Governor General to insist that they get a chance to form government before Harper. Nope, that’s not how it works, because the incumbent remains the Prime Minister until he or she resigns. That’s because the position can never be vacant. Ever. Her Majesty must always have a government in place, and it’s the GG’s job to ensure that happens. So really, no matter the result on election night, the leader whose party wins the most seats isn’t invited to form government – the incumbent is still the government until they choose to resign, which may or may not involve testing the confidence of the Chamber first. May also revealed that she has the GG’s number and will make that call herself, as though he is obligated to take it. Remember of course that May has also previously written the Queen about issues, and treated form letter responses as vindication. It’s part of her particular problem of over-reading her mandate – she’s hugely conflated her role as an MP with that of being in government in the past, and it’s a problem with how she interacts with the system. It’s also part of her curious insistence that somehow, a handful of Green MPs sitting in opposition and not in a coalition cabinet would magically make a minority parliament a less fractious place. How, exactly? Did none of the proponents of more minority governments learn any lessons from the three minority parliaments prior to 2011? Apparently not, because the magical thinking prevails.
Roundup: Delving into Wright’s emails
Nothing too explosive in the Duffy trial yesterday, but more those emails from Monday are certainly creating a bit of a stir, showing the PMO ignored the scandal for the first while, how Harper’s lawyer ended up disagreeing with Harper on the residency questions, and how Duffy didn’t want to repay anything because it would have made him look guilty, which he certainly didn’t think he was. Most of those players in the emails are still around Harper today. Incidentally, Pamela Wallin’s travel claims also come up in the emails. Andrew Coyne meanwhile has sorted through them and come to a conclusion on his own, so I’ll let him:
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631986747455471616
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631986757727334400
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631986770817732608
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631986779369902080
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631987013223325696
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631987971177058304
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631988803641716736
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631990423058284544
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631994776401903616
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631994906102374408
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631996316156063745
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631996679747731460
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631997695675211777
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631997702117703680
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631997707570311169
https://twitter.com/jenditchburn/status/631888561139286016
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631998561178161152
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631999339955666944
Roundup: Challenging Responsible Government
Last week, a group of lawyers wrote an op-ed in the Globe and Mail, calling for a constitutional challenge to judicial appointments, bemoaning the political process and concern trolling over an apparent declining lack of public confidence in the system – never mind the fact that no such lack of confidence is being expressed anywhere. Leonid Sirota writes an excellent takedown of the proposal here, but there is another concept that this group of lawyers ignores entirely, which is that of Responsible Government. Under our system, a prime minister and cabinet can legitimately make appointments so long as they enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. Being as we’re a democracy and not a technocracy, it’s a system that allows the government to carry on its necessary business while having a mechanism to be held to account, not only at the ballot box but at any time, the House can withdraw its confidence if they feel the government has abused its powers. It cannot be understated that the whole reason we gained Responsible Government in the colonies pre-confederation is that we wanted control over our patronage appointments, so that they weren’t coming from London. It’s one of the foundational cornerstones of our whole democratic system. That this group of lawyers wants to undermine it with no actual evidence that there’s a problem – rather, what seems to be some fairly partisan sour grapes because they don’t agree ideologically with a small minority of appointments – is troubling. They should know how our system of government works. That they apparently don’t is a very big problem.
Roundup: Dubious travel bans
As a new policy announcement yesterday, Stephen Harper said that if the Conservatives were to continue to form government after the election, they would introduce legislation to curb “terrorist tourism,” all of which is an entirely ridiculous plan, whether it’s as an issue of mobility rights, of letting the RCMP or CSIS determine who is a “professional journalist” or humanitarian organisation, or the fact that this betrays any shred of libertarianism that the Conservatives profess to hold. (But then again, we already knew that they’re not an ideological party, but rather right-flavoured populists, right?) Justin Trudeau says this is just a distration from economic issues and that Harper has to answer more questions about limiting rights, while Thomas Mulcair doubted the move’s efficacy (while continually repeating that they’re not going to be against any move that reduces terrorism). Anyway, Paul Wells demolished the whole thing in a series of tweets.
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630499372606877696
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630499578689814529
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630500563919204352
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630502075395346433
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630503234944241664
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630505023206752256
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630509157045661700
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630509646487359488