While the Prime Minister was off to the APEC Summit, the rest of the leaders were present in the Commons for what was likely to be a repeat of yesterday’s gong show. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and in French, he read a condemnation of the prime minister’s silence on tax havens, demanding to know when he knew about his fundraiser’s offshore holdings (which said fundraiser disputed). Diane Lebouthillier listed off the measures that the government has taken to combat tax evasion — a billion dollar investment in the CRA, which has led to 980 investigations, 42 criminal investigations of structures abroad, a list of pending criminal charges, and billions in potential recoveries. Scheer reiterated it in English, got the same answer, and when Scheer gave his standard disingenuous talking points about the government going after small businesses while leaving their wealthy friends alone, Lebouthillier reminded them that when they were in power, they didn’t treat tax evasion as a priority. Alain Rayes took over, gave some hand-waving about the Sponsorship Scandal (no, seriously), and Lebouthillier reiterated her list. Rayes complained that CRA wouldn’t publish the tax gap data, and Lebouthillier listed even more facts about combatting tax evasion. Guy Caron was up next, demanding the government stop defending the CRA. Lebouthillier made a quip that she had more expertise than Caron did about fishing (which I’m not sure translated as well in English), and gave her usual rebuttal. Alexandre Boulerice demanded action against tax havens, and Lebouthillier reminded him that it was a priority in her mandate letter, which is why they hired auditors to tackle four jurisdictions per year. Boulerice demanded renegotiated tax treaties, and Lebouthillier listed more actions yielding results. Caron got back up to repeat the demand for renegotiations in English, and Lebouthillier stuck to her guns — and talking points.
Tag Archives: Trade
Roundup: Let’s not lobotomize the GG
There have been so, so many bad takes on the whole issue of Her Excellency Julie Payette’s speech to scientists last week, but there’s one published by the National Post yesterday that was so terrible, that Paul Wells’ incredulous reaction is something that matches my own. Fraser Valley University history professor Barbara Messamore writes that Julie Payette should be a scripted automaton because that’s the role that Governors General are expected to be.
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/927609104054370304
No. Absolutely not.
This is the kind of thing that drives me completely insane. This constant need to keep politics as tightly scripted and lifeless as possible is part of what is killing our democracy, and it’s telling that so many people flocked to the unscripted (and unhinged) Donald Trump because of his “authenticity.” And to demand this of a vice-regal position is completely overkill. I also continue to boggle at the number of pundits who think that Payette somehow was commenting on live issues under debate. I’ve asked, and yet no one can point to where any of our mainstream parties are denying climate change, or who support creationism in our school curricula. They don’t exist in Canada, which is why the insistence that these are somehow issues under debate is baffling.
But beyond that, I find it unfathomable that we would want brilliant and accomplished individuals for the role, given the immense power at their disposal (should they choose to set off a constitutional crisis to exercise most of it), or the tough decisions that may be asked of them in any number of post-election scenarios, while we simultaneously demand that they be utterly vacuous so as not to cause problems. But while Payette may have rankled the delicate sensibilities of some, she also did not cross a partisan line which is what matters in this situation. Why we should force her to lobotomise herself for the sake of smiling and waving and mouthing beige platitudes makes no sense. If that’s what we want, then why not simply put some bilingual starlet in the role so that she can look good in photos and can smile and wave to her heart’s content? Why bother looking for someone accomplished if we’re not going to let them speak or exercise the judgment that we ask of them when it counts? If we let Payette continue to go unscripted, could she make a mistake? Maybe. She’s human. But it keeps her authentic and the reflection of her true self and intellect, and that to me is far more important than the fact that she may bruise a few feelings from time to time. We’re grown-ups. We should be able to handle the odd bump, and it’s far better than the alternative.
Meanwhile, Michael Coren defends Her Excellency’s “mocking” of religion from his own religious perspective, and he calls out the Conservatives’ attempts to make political hay out of this, which he deems akin to “prayer abuse” – something refreshing amidst days of fainting couches and clutched pearls.
Roundup: Trying to score dangerous points
In amidst all of the really bad takes on Governor General Julie Payette’s commentary the other night, I find myself more than a little horrified that the Conservatives have decided to play political games around this. More specifically, they are attacking Payette obliquely by directing their comments at the prime minister, who didn’t leave well enough alone when he said it was great that the GG stood up for science. And great that she did, but this was also in the context of there being a willingness to torque the comments into a bit of a scandal, and to blow them completely out of proportion.
So what did the Conservatives do? It started with a Members’ Statement before QP, where MP Ziad Aboultaif denounced the supposed attack by the PM on people of faith (which isn’t what happened), and was followed up by a Facebook post by Andrew Scheer who said much the same thing – entirely ignoring that Trudeau is a practicing Catholic who has been public about the value that he places on his faith.
But what irks me the most about all of this is that it’s an example where our elected officials keep being cute about our most vital institutions – the Crown – and politicising them in subtle ways. When the Conservatives were in power, it was aggressively giving things a royal re-brand (which, don’t get me wrong, I’m in favour of), but the manner in which it was handled, along with the abdication on the opposition benches of similarly owning the fact that this country is a constitutional monarchy, allowed the media to paint the exercise as a Conservative nostalgia for the days of colonialism, and to tar the whole of our monarchical institutions with a partisan taint. And I fear that Scheer is going down the same path here in trying to stir up controversy around these largely innocuous statements by the GG in order to try and whip up his base. It’s a very dangerous game, especially because Scheer and his entourage have proven themselves to be ham-fisted in pretty much everything that they do, and that increases the chances of this blowing up in everyone’s faces, and the very last thing we need to do is try to politicize the Crown or the GG in this country. So seriously – knock it the hell off. This is not something that’s worth scoring a few cheap partisan points off of. You’ll only hurt everyone in the process.
Meanwhile, Colby Cosh has made one of the only reasonable takes on the Payette comments in noting that we don’t have rulebooks for Governors General, so they should stick to principles about appearing to arbitrate impartially, particularly because of the powers she possesses. And he’s right. And I would also add that it’s why I find the furore overblown – the existence of climate change and evolution are not partisan issues in Canada, so she’s not actually crossing any partisan lines in her comments. My own weekend column delves further into that aspect, as well as the reminder that she’s not actually a figurehead like so many of the pearl clutchers seem to be demanding from their fainting couches.
Roundup: One is less than five
As the whole Bill Morneau issue continues to run on outrage fumes, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s office has been unhelpful in the least when it comes to trying to put this issue to bed. Two days ago her office said that “fewer than five” ministers held assets indirectly, and when this came up in QP on Wednesday, Trudeau confirmed what certain journalists had noted from the public disclosures – that it was Morneau and Jody Wilson-Raybould, who had since divested those shares. End of story. But no, then Dawson’s office responded to reports in the Globe and Mail that they were somehow “at odds” with the PM over just how many ministers were in such a situation (The Globe? Sensationalize something? Unbelievable!), and that one – Monreau – qualified as “less than five.” And that set the Twitter Machine ablaze, and turned QP in the gong show that it was of demanding to know which five ministers it was, despite the fact that this had already been answered on numerous occasions.
https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/926118857814704129
https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/926121460640468992
Yes, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics legislation is a mess that MPs refuse on a continual basis to do anything about when the issues are pointed out. Yes, Mary Dawson herself has largely been seen as unhelpful because she has had a tendency to read her mandate so narrowly that issues brought before her are deemed out of her purview. But as I’ve stated before, it’s rapidly turning into a job that nobody else wants, and given the very narrow criteria for a new one, it’s no wonder that the government is having a hard time filling the post, and we may be stuck with Dawson forever as a result.
Roundup: Share sales and the sputtering outrage cycle
As the full-blown moral panic into what financial assets cabinet ministers own continues, we see the news that Bill Morneau has indeed sold off his shares in Morneau Shepell, for what it’s worth. Not that it will stop any of the chatter at this point – the outrage cycle continues to exhaust itself, and until some new outrage crops up, we’ll continue hearing about this as it sputters and runs on fumes.
Somebody sold a pile of Morneau Shepell shares yesterday, after dividend was paid. Busiest trading day in more than a year. pic.twitter.com/QqVxAuNgIb
— Glen McGregor (@glen_mcgregor) October 31, 2017
Can confirm. These are Bill Morneau's shares being sold off yesterday (and today–trade volumes way up again, close to 300,000 shares sold) https://t.co/Poefhr71Vp
— Glen McGregor (@glen_mcgregor) October 31, 2017
Morneau is donating proceeds from difference in share price vs. Oct 19 (~$5 million); the rest goes into a blind trust. https://t.co/1pafeA3nkO
— Glen McGregor (@glen_mcgregor) October 31, 2017
All this to say, we can now refer to Bill Morneau as the *former* owner of shares in his family HR company. https://t.co/rhdKGxj9EB
— Glen McGregor (@glen_mcgregor) October 31, 2017
And hey, why not find out what every other cabinet minister owns? The Star did, and I’m not really sure how edifying this whole exercise was in the end. Never mind that once again we’re reaching the point of absurdity with all of this. Are there problems with the ethics and conflict of interest legislation? Probably. Were loopholes identified previously? Yup. Did MPs do anything about it then? Nope. Do they really have an interest in closing any of them now? Probably not (and no, the NDP motion that the government voted down was not indicative of anything because it also contained a bunch of other stuff, as these things so often do, that was designed to embarrass Morneau and the government had they voted for it. Because in politics, we can’t have nice things). And once you add in all of the tall poppy nonsense, we’re left with the same tiresome moralizing that we’re always left with when it comes to “perceived” conflicts that aren’t actually there but which were invented out of whole cloth with the convenient lining up of “facts” that don’t pass the bullshit filter. And then we complain that nobody wants to get involved in politics.
Every single MP should take a vow of poverty along with their oath of office. Boom, problem solved.
— ishmael n. daro (@iD4RO) October 31, 2017
https://twitter.com/cfhorgan/status/925393091086786560
Meanwhile, the Liberals are pointing out that Andrew Scheer has assets in Real Estate Limited Partnerships that are really only for the wealthy. Predictably, the Conservatives cite that he’s worth only a fraction of Morneau, and then cries of hypocrisy flew from both sides, and the outrage cycle continues to chug along.
https://twitter.com/cfhorgan/status/925377206351564800
In 10 years there will be no actual issues. Political platforms will contain nothing but accusations of hypocrisy in other tribes. https://t.co/OEOvamU9m6
— Chris Selley (@cselley) October 31, 2017
Roundup: Abandoning a fiscal anchor
In yesterday’s National Post, economist Stephen Gordon cast a critical eye on the fall economic update and the government’s excuse for running deficits, and the decision to abandon the fiscal anchor of balanced budgets in favour of a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. And rather than worrying about the non-existent debt-bomb, Gordon is mostly looking for answers why the policy shifted post-election. Fair enough. (He also does the math on how much more a government can spend by shifting the fiscal anchors like the government did here).
Enter fellow economist Kevin Milligan, who digs through and finds an answer. Enjoy.
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/925024898388389888
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/925026096898129922
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/925028185174970369
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/925029751072235520
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/925098340303347712
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/925099179298373632
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/925110355491041280
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/925110707498000384
Roundup: Harper unhappy with NAFTA talks
Stephen Harper has apparently written an angry memo to his clients about the governmetn’s handling of the NAFTA negotiations, accusing them of bungling them by not evaluating American demands seriously (err, you have seen how many of their demands are literal impossibilities, right?) and of ignoring a softwood deal (which officials say was never on the table), and of aligning themselves too much with Mexico when they were the targets of America’s ire. Canadian officials are none too pleased, and consider it a gift to the Trump administration.
Alex Panetta, the Canadian Press reporter who broke the story, has more commentary below.
2/ Trump is increasingly explicit that he sees 2205 as a useful gun-to-the-temple strategy, to scare countries into making concessions
— Alexander Panetta (@Alex_Panetta) October 27, 2017
4/ Namely: You can scream, you can threaten, you can stomp, we're not going anywhere.If you want to really pull out, explain it to Americans
— Alexander Panetta (@Alex_Panetta) October 27, 2017
6/ Weekes: “As tempting as it might be to say, ‘Well, screw you, we’re gonna walk away,’ it would be better to just keep negotiating"
— Alexander Panetta (@Alex_Panetta) October 27, 2017
8/ are attending a pro-NAFTA event at the US chamber next week. 87 agriculture groups, mostly from GOP states, signed this letter pic.twitter.com/WrMsnbTHq1
— Alexander Panetta (@Alex_Panetta) October 27, 2017
9/9 Long story short: The stay-at-the-table contingent believes that if Trump tries the sword-of-Damocles strategy, this sword has two edges
— Alexander Panetta (@Alex_Panetta) October 27, 2017
2/ Ex-PM Harper suggests Libs have made about 4 significant errors on NAFTA. One is tethering Canada too closely, in his opinion, to Mexico
— Alexander Panetta (@Alex_Panetta) October 27, 2017
4) Trudeau government's reaction: Why is the former PM of Canada negotiating in public against the gov't of Canada, urging concessions?
— Alexander Panetta (@Alex_Panetta) October 27, 2017
5/ Other complaint about Harper memo: they say the softwood allegation is factually wrong. Okay, have a great weekend debating, #cdnpoli !
— Alexander Panetta (@Alex_Panetta) October 27, 2017
Paul Wells offered a few thoughts of his own on the news.
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/924052193673543680
https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/924052610776055808
Incidentally, the PM has also vocally disagreed with former Conservative minister James Moore’s assertion that trade talks with China are hurting our talks with the Americans.
Roundup: Not headed for a debt bomb
In light of the fall economic update, and the myriad of concerns about the level of the deficit and lack of a plan to get to balance in the near term, economist Kevin Milligan took us all to school over Twitter yesterday. The main message – that it’s not 1995, and we can’t keep talking about the deficit as though it were.
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/923561573112676352
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/923563137504182273
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/923574040979111936
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/923576280439652353
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/923577255216812032
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/923578485875941376
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/923697772120834048
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/923700203118456832
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/923701106324135937
Later on, Milligan took exception to the notion that the government has backtracked on their tax reform promises and made the situation worse. Not so, he tells us.
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/923595730928803842
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/923596091060137984
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/923596559270293504
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/923597545548365824
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/923598656967557120
So there you have it. Armchair punditry on deficits or tax changes (even from some economists) doesn’t necessarily stack up.
QP: Deflect to the economy
In the lead-up to the fall economic update, Bill Morneau was absent, instead in the lock-ups to do the media rounds there. Justin Trudeau was present, however, and that meant he got to take the fire that has been sent Morneau’s way for the past few days, but hopefully he wouldn’t just do as Morneau did and respond with pabulum. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and raised about the concerns around diabetics being denied the disability tax credit, alleging that it was only to pay for out of control spending (as though the rounding error of dollars it would bring in would do that). Trudeau reminded him that they wanted to ensure that all Canadians have access to the credits that they are entitled to, and that they were rehiring nurses that the previous government fired in order to better process claims from the beginning. Scheer repeated in English, got the same question, and Scheer asked if raising taxes on vulnerable diabetics was fair. Trudeau reminded him what people voted for in the last election, and that the upcoming economic statement would demonstrate their success. Scheer lamented the cancellation of their assorted tax credits, and Trudeau reminded him that the by-election results in Lac Saint-Jean demonstrated who Canadians believe on the economic. Scheer switched to English to conspicuously read a Morneau Shepell question, but Trudeau listed all of their kept promises on the economy. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and railed about the Morneau Shepell/Bill C-27 conspiracy theory. Trudeau insisted that the accusation was false and that there was no conflict, as all the rules were followed. Caron listed previous resignations as proof that Morneau was in the wrong ethically, and Trudeau said that the opposition was torquing up accusations with no basis. Alexandre Boulerice asked the same again, got the same answer, and then some blanket condemnation. Trudeau retorted with the Lac-Saint Jean results.
Hey, Nate Erskine-Smith has a toddler with him at his desk.
This is a literal toddler, not another MP. #QP— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 24, 2017
Roundup: A surprise by-election win
In the two federal by-elections that took place last night, it was no surprise that the Conservatives won handily in Sturgeon River–Parkland riding that Rona Ambrose used to hold. Mind you, the newly elected MP there, Dane Lloyd, may prove to be uncomfortable given his past history of saying some fairly controversial things, but that’s now Andrew Scheer’s problem to manage. The real surprise, however, was that the Liberals won the Quebec riding of Lac Saint-Jean, the former riding of Denis Lebel. Why is it so surprising? Because for a Conservative riding where the NDP were a close second in the 2015 election, this time around it was a Liberal victory, with the Conservatives barely managing second place, the Bloc in a close third, and the NDP a distant fourth. And this was the Liberals’ weakest Quebec showing in 2015 and a riding that they haven’t held since 1980.
In Lucien Bouchard’s former riding, where LPC hasn’t won since 1980. https://t.co/BwvZPhvTxa
— Dr. J Robson (@JenniferRobson8) October 24, 2017
A few numbers to consider. Lac Saint Jean was worst riding for Liberals in Quebec last election. Worst riding east of Sask actually.
— Dan Arnold (@calgarygrit) October 24, 2017
Was that Lebel effect? Maybe. But last time LSJ went Liberal was 1980. 3-in-4 voters there voted Oui in 1995. It’s not fertile Lib ground.
— Dan Arnold (@calgarygrit) October 24, 2017
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/922658054897897472
So can we draw any conclusion from these results? Probably not yet – it’ll probably take a few days to suss out the data and get a sense of what happened on the ground, but it does bear mentioning that the of the three opposition parties, all of them had new leaders, and each of them spent a fair bit of time in the riding over the past couple of weeks, hoping to drum up support. That the Conservatives lost the riding may simply be indicative that the riding was more loyal to Lebel himself than the party he ran for (remember that he was a former mayor from the region), but it can’t be a ringing endorsement of Scheer either. And while the pollsters are all out in force talking about the Liberals’ fall from grace in their polling numbers lately, the fact that the Liberals still managed to win a seat that the Conservatives held, even amidst weeks of headlines about tax changes and Bill Morneau’s assets, in a region where they didn’t have any historic strength, probably still says something about the party’s appeal nationally. Maybe it’s about the collapse of the NDP vote in Quebec, which could possibly be a harbinger of things to come under Jagmeet Singh? Maybe it’s the appeal of sock diplomacy and selfies? Suffice to say, it’s going to be an interesting few days for all of the parties as they figure out what happened, and prepare for the next round of by-elections.