Let us now debate the difference between user fees and taxes

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 5:50 PM - 43 Comments

John Baird says the government will increase the airport security fee charged to air travelers, the opposition critics say this is a tax and this is perhaps relevant because the Prime Minister once said, “I give you my word, as long as I will be Prime Minister … there will be no new taxes.” (In fairness, he said “no new taxes,” which wouldn’t, one supposes, necessarily preclude him from increasing taxes that already exist.)

Here, for the sake of argument, is how the distinction was explained in a 1987 New York Times story about the Reagan administration’s attempt to navigate this discussion.

Joseph A. Pechman, a leading tax authority and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, thinks there can be a distinction. A user fee – such as the admission fee to national parks – is, he said, ”imposed on individuals who use certain services provided by the Government and is proportional to the use of the service.” By contrast, he defines a tax as a ”mandatory assessment on an individual family based on certain characteristics, such as income or consumption.”

But Mr. Pechman adds that a user fee is sometimes not very different from an ”excise tax,” which is a tax imposed on particular commodities, such as gasoline, cigarettes and alcohol.

The Commons: The cause of, and solution to, all life’s problems

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 10:04 PM - 81 Comments

Ideas are such mysterious and troublesome things.

Yesterday, for instance, the Prime Minister, penning an op-ed for the flagship newspaper of Canada’s liberal media elite, explained that, as part of hosting the G8 summit later this year, Canada will “champion a major initiative to improve the health of women and children in the world’s poorest regions.”

This seemed almost impossible to quibble with. And yet, soon enough, people were asking questions, namely about what precisely the Prime Minister was talking about. How will he go about this? How much will it cost? What about Haiti? What about the deficit? Does this have something to do with abortion?

A reporter today asked Bev Oda, the minister for international development, which countries this country had so far discussed this proposal with. Ms. Oda declined to divulge specifics, but did assure that, in general, there was some interest in pursuing maternal and infant health in “conceptual terms.” “I can report with confidence that generally, all countries and all organizations we discussed with recognize the need and recognize that something can actually be done that will show results,” she reported.

So perhaps this is less an idea than a general notion. Still, it was enough of a concept for the nightly news to conclude this was somehow a setback for the Liberal side: the primary concern in any discussion of the world’s impoverished women and children being, of course, ‘how does this affect Michael Ignatieff’s chances of getting to be Prime Minister?’ Continue…

The Commons: Lights on, nobody home

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, January 25, 2010 at 7:46 PM - 43 Comments

For the record, the doors were, in fact, locked. The House of Commons, all lit up, was empty and quiet. At worst, a betrayal of our democracy, a grievous symbol of Parliament’s decline. At best, a minor waste of electricity.

In the morning, the Liberal and NDP caucuses had taken turns standing in front of the Commons in order to demonstrate their similar frustrations. Michael Ignatieff took the opportunity to propose a number of reforms that might ensure we never have to witness these sorts of photo ops again. The press gallery took that opportunity to express its confusion and impatience with infinitely debatable complications of constitutional law.

By the afternoon, things had quieted down some. Continue…

What was known

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 4:04 PM - 80 Comments

The Torch unearths and translates an April 2007 story from La Presse.

Canadian diplomats stationed in Kabul warned the former Liberal government in 2003, 2004 and 2005 that torture was commonplace in Afghan prisons. In spite of these warnings, the Martin government signed an agreement with the Karzai government in December 2005 to hand over all Canadian-captured prisoners to Afghan authorities, Foreign Affairs documents obtained by La Presse reveal.

From 2002 to 2005, the Canadian practice regarding Afghan detainees suspected of Taliban ties was to hand them over to US military authorities. Ottawa decided to shift its transfers to Afghan authorities, however, in response to abuse allegations at the Guantánamo Bay internment center and the controversy that erupted over revelations of torture and degradation at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq ["An Afghan ghost of Abu Ghraib?"].

La Presse likens the documents in its possession to annual report disclosed by the Globe two days earlier. The Prime Minister responded to the Globe’s story that afternoon in Question Period. Here is some of that. Continue…

Former Parliamentarians gather with future former Parliamentarians

By Mitchel Raphael - Friday, November 20, 2009 at 6:54 PM - 14 Comments

The Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians held a dinner in the Fairmont Château Laurier ballroom. Below, former Reform MP Deb Grey.

Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent (right) and NDP MP Yvon Godin.

Continue…

What we have here is a failure to communicate

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 12:02 PM - 31 Comments

Before departing the scene, Gordon Landon helpfully clarifies what you thought he was saying when you thought you heard him say there was something partisan about the way federal funding was distributed.

“The facts on this matter are however, quite clear,” Mr. Landon added. “The Town of Markham applied for financial stimulus funds for 14 projects, and each of those 14 projects were approved for joint federal and provincial stimulus support. The remarks I made last week were critical of the inadequate representation, and lack of personal action, received by Markham-Unionville from the Liberal MP in this riding, and not of the federal government.”

So that’s the official press release. In a separate interview, he appears to contradict a previous account of his own account and says he was not asked to step aside, but repeats his assertion that PMO control was the primary motivating force for his exit.

Gordon Landon Maverick Watch

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, September 24, 2009 at 11:57 AM - 4 Comments

As Liberals are now delightedly pointing out, our friends at CityTV reported last night on a Conservative candidate who suggests the riding of Markham-Unionville isn’t seeing stimulus funds because it is held by John McCallum, who is, coincidentally, a Liberal.

Richard Madan’s report is here.

Mind trap of the day

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, September 17, 2009 at 4:33 PM - 38 Comments

From Question Period this afternoon.

Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the finance minister. Does the increase in employment insurance premiums beginning in 2011 constitute a tax increase, yes or no?

Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to that is no. Let me remind Canadians what happened to the notional surplus that was in the EI fund years ago. It is gone. Those people who paid into it never got it back. We provided an arm’s-length board to manage that, so that can never happen again.

Forestell v. The World

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, September 3, 2009 at 8:46 PM - 31 Comments

The CBC’s Harry Forestell interviews Jack Layton, John McCallum and Jason Kenney with increasing frustration. Nearly gets mad as hell, unwilling to take it any further.

Conservatives do love a parade

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, July 29, 2009 at 12:10 PM - 5 Comments

The bureau was abuzz this morning with debate over the merits of John McCallum’s letter to Jim Flaherty this morning. Granted, it doesn’t take much in the middle of summer to excite us. Canadian Press and Canwest explain.

Sadly lost in the debate over Stockwell Day’s economic analysis is due recognition for the rhetorical flare with which he ends his dispatch to constituents.

As the drum beat of economic growth picks up around the world we’ll continue to do all we can to keep Canada at the front of the parade.

You gotta fight for your right to leak

By Paul Wells - Monday, July 13, 2009 at 8:15 AM - 54 Comments

I know you’ll be as surprised as I was — i.e., not in the slightest — to discover it was the Liberals who leaked the latest report from Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, that being the first report he provided to MPs before releasing it to the general public.

Page has argued since he took up this job, barely a year ago, that he must not release his reports to MPs exclusively because that would make it easier for them to use his work as partisan fodder. Page knew from the outset that any independent and empowered observer of the fiscal picture will, eventually, be seen as antagonistic to any government, at least to the most thin-skinned members of that government. He really didn’t want to speed that process along by volunteering to be MPs’ partisan shill. Since it’s part of his mandate to answer questions put by opposition MPs, it would be all too easy for one to ask him a question and then stand up in the House one Question Period and say, “Mr. Speaker, the government is doing so-and-so — and I have here in my hand a report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer proving it!!!” And the rest of us wouldn’t be able to judge whether the PBO report actually said such a thing.

Now, it’s possible to argue that that’s too bad, and Page can just lump it. It’s also possible to argue that Page’s institution is valuable and new, and he needs support as he defines his role in a way that will benefit public good instead of Parliament Hill jousting and assorted other baloney. But you really need to be the Michael Ignatieff Liberals to argue both sides, at length, for months on end. Continue…

It is sometimes worth paying QP some attention

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, June 16, 2009 at 12:13 AM - 5 Comments

There is apparently some lament—from no less than the Prime Minister even— that the Liberals didn’t use Question Period this afternoon to follow up Michael Ignatieff’s announcement this morning. Funny thing is, they did.

Indeed, between Michael Ignatieff, John McCallum and Michael Savage they managed to broach the isotope shortage, wonder about the latest deficit projections, claim confusion over government spending on infrastructure and ask if the government might be interested in fixing employment insurance. They moved on then to other concerns.

Funnier thing, they’ve been asking the same sorts of things for awhile now. Months, even. Continue…

Sign language

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, June 15, 2009 at 4:09 PM - 10 Comments

Scrumming after QP, Denis Coderre, John McCallum and reporters debate the Prime Minister’s disposition. Continue…

The Commons: And so Stephen Harper finds himself in agreement with the Toronto Star

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 28, 2009 at 6:18 PM - 25 Comments

The Scene. Relaxing in the moments before Question Period, Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper looked across the aisle and nodded at each other—the Prime Minister no doubt recognizing the man opposite as the guy in all those bootlegged VHS tapes he’s been watching.

A short while later, Chuck Strahl, the Indian Affairs Minister, strolled across the aisle and engaged the leader of the opposition in what seemed a friendly conversation. Though the substance of the discussion was unclear, by all appearances Mr. Strahl understood clearly the words that were coming out of Mr. Ignatieff’s mouth.

As demonstrations of bipartisan collegiality, these were heartening scenes. As demonstrations of human ability, they were important clarifiers. Indeed, if these moments are any example, let there be no question that government and opposition do acknowledge and, at least passably, comprehend each other, whatever misconceptions today’s asking of questions and airing of accusations may have left you with. Continue…

The Commons: The roasting of Jim Flaherty

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 27, 2009 at 6:18 PM - 15 Comments

The Scene. For awhile before Question Period, the front row seat between Tony Clement and Lawrence Cannon, normally occupied by the Finance Minister, remained unfilled. No doubt, Jim Flaherty might’ve been forgiven for staying home. The weather outside was frightful, rainy and cold. And the mood inside was foul, accusatory and scornful.

But with minutes to spare before the Speaker called for oral questions, Mr. Flaherty arrived. And for the next 45 minutes he was treated to a fine show. A dramatically staged tale about a $16-billion rounding error. A harrowing story in which he was both the central character and principal villain.

First to take the stage was Michael Ignatieff.

“Mr. Speaker, in September the government said there would be no recession. In October, no deficits,” he said, rising up a bit on his toes with each point, nearly singing his disappointment. “In November it promised a surplus, but in January it brought down a $34 billion deficit. Yesterday it ballooned to $50 billion, all this in a breathtaking six months, and still the money has not gotten out the door. This is incompetence on a historic scale.”

Then, finally, a question.

“How can the Prime Minister or any other Canadian,” he said, “still have confidence in the Minister of Finance?”

So challenged, Stephen Harper did the honourable thing. He bragged about the great deal he was getting from his bank. Continue…

John and Jim go way back

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 27, 2009 at 1:38 PM - 18 Comments

John McCallum, Apr. 26, 2006. Mr. Speaker, he has confirmed that he is both incompetent and fleecing the poor. I have a question concerning a more immediate issue with regard to the budget information just released by the member for Halton. The Minister of Finance has two choices: either he will tell the House that this information is wrong or he will admit that his budget is seriously flawed and immediately resign. Which will it be?

John McCallum, Nov. 1, 2006. Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the House what the Minister of Finance offers. He offers a gross failure to manage the economy, a betrayal of investors who mistakenly took the minister and the government at their word, the single biggest blow to the wealth of Canadians ever dealt by a finance minister and a banana republic process, bringing disrepute to Canadian capital markets. It is obvious that the minister has been a disaster on this file. When will the Prime Minister fire him?

The Commons: It's all fun and games until someone else does it

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 5:26 PM - 53 Comments

The Scene. In a return to routine, the Conservative chorus sang dutifully from the hymn book this afternoon in the 15 minutes before Question Period. A trio of otherwise silent backbenchers were sent up to lend their democratically elected voices to the cause.

“The leader of the Liberal Party recently said, ‘We will have to raise taxes.’ How does the leader of the Liberal Party suppose that a tax increase will benefit hard-working Canadian families?” begged Red Deer’s Earl Dreeshen with his solo. “The leader of the Liberal Party should stand up in the House today, come clean with Canadians and tell them which taxes he will raise, by how much he will raise them and who will be forced to pay these higher taxes.”

It is a song that has been sung so often that only a few pay notice when another member of the government side gets up to sing. On this day, with little fury, the House proceeded directly to Question Period, Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper engaging in an altogether calm exchange of views on the sufficiency of the nation’s employment insurance formulas.

Alas, the peace would not hold. Continue…

The Commons: Shovel-ready answers

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, May 25, 2009 at 6:41 PM - 39 Comments

The Scene. At each MP’s desk, a red box had been placed with a gift package of sporting equipment intended to celebrated the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver. While he waited for Question Period to begin, Peter MacKay removed the swimming goggles, put them on his head, then put one of the socks on his nose. 

Class resuming after a week off, the mood was relatively light. The 15 minutes before Question Period included just one shouted denunciation of the Liberal leader. The Speaker advised that he would be looking into a report of unparliamentary language made before the break. Then Michael Ignatieff stood in an attempt to be serious.

“Mr. Speaker, the country is facing record unemployment, record bankruptcies, record hardship for small businesses, especially auto dealers,” he began, congratulating the government on its acheivements. “And still the stimulus is not flowing. It is nearly June. Cities and municipalities are still waiting for the infrastructure funding that was promised in the budget. The government has already missed the June construction season. Why has only six per cent of the stimulus gotten out of the door?”

The Human Resources Minister was in Oshawa, reannouncing something from January’s budget. The Finance Minister was in Quebec, warning that the wild guesses on which that budget was based now seem “substantially” off the mark. The Prime Minister was unaccounted for. So the day would belong to John Baird.

“Mr. Speaker, we are working co-operatively with provinces and municipalities,” the Transport Minister said. “We are getting the job done. That non-partisan work is really paying dividends.”

Having not said a single thing of any consequence, he proceeded to read into the record something Mr. Ignatieff had said that seemed to be only vaguely related. Continue…

John McCallum's secret shame (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, April 17, 2009 at 3:25 PM - 8 Comments

Chris Selley considers John McCallum’s car-related confusion.

That a Volkswagen- or Audi- or Subaru-driving politician might hesitate for even a split second when asked his automotive preference before answering truthfully, or declaring it none of anyone’s business, tells you just about everything you need to know about his chosen profession.

To be fair, it also probably tells you a fair bit about Windsor, a place where the most popular bumper sticker reads: “Out of a job yet? Keep buying foreign.” You could make the case that Windsor has long enjoyed a strange relationship with the rest of the country, but in the present circumstance—the highest unemployment of any Canadian city, still profoundly dependent on an industry the rest of the country couldn’t care less about—it is a particularly unique, and disenfranchised, place.

And I say this as someone who regularly returns there and is presently agonizing over the Windsor Spitfires’ playoff run.

John McCallum's secret shame

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 15, 2009 at 11:27 PM - 39 Comments

He drives a foreign automobile.

The Commons: Greg Gutfeld, and other less important matters

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 23, 2009 at 6:37 PM - 19 Comments

The Scene. The Conservatives have identified a loophole in the Speaker’s recent ruling against the use of Parliament’s time to launch personal attacks against political rivals—namely that it’s not a personal attack if you don’t immediately identify the individual you are defaming.

So it was that Mike Wallace, another of the government’s enthusiastically obedient, if relatively interchangeable, backbenchers, was sent up before Question Period to air various allegations against “someone.” Only at the final moment did he reveal that this “someone” was, in fact, the Liberal leader. Suffice it to say, the Prime Minister found this quite hilarious.

In related news today, this first day back for Parliament after a week off, the Conservatives also made use of another gap in the Speaker’s prohibition—namely that it does not cover little-known and generally irrelevant late-night television hosts who say rude things about us on American cable news network shows that are watched by fewer people than live in Windsor, Ontario.

So it was that two Conservatives were sent up before Question Period to bemoan the besmirchment of this country’s honour done by one Greg Gutfeld, an American TV personality who once apparently edited the erudite current affairs journal, Maxim. Continue…

The Commons: Shadowboxing the ghosts

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 11, 2009 at 6:49 PM - 27 Comments

The Scene. Michael Ignatieff opened with a joke. Of sorts.

“Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government tabled its first budget report, as required by the House, and what is remarkable is what is missing. There is no mention of the 190,000 jobs the government promised to create in its budget just six weeks ago,” he said.

The Conservative laughed uproariously, apparently assuming Ignatieff expected to see those jobs already created. The Liberal leader threw up his arms.

“I fail to see what is amusing, Mr. Speaker,” he said.

The Speaker called for order.

“Let me put this in a way the Conservatives can understand,” Ignatieff continued. “They promised to create 190,000 jobs six weeks ago. There is no mention of that figure in the current report. Why is the government backing down from its own projections?”

The Liberals stood and yelled. The Prime Minister stood and reviewed the latest analysis of the International Monetary Fund, including some generally positive remarks for the government’s stimulus package. “The focus now is appropriately on implementing that package,” Harper reprimanded, so I would encourage the party opposite, rather than always trying to find the negative in everything, to simply get on with passing this and doing something positive for the Canadian economy.”

Ignatieff deemed this not much of an answer. Continue…

The Commons: What shall we call this crisis of ours?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 3, 2009 at 5:13 PM - 30 Comments

The Scene. Stephen Harper arrived at his seat, sat down and nodded across the aisle. Michael Ignatieff nodded back.

A short while later, one of Mr. Harper’s dutiful backbenchers stood to impugn the Liberal leader’s good name.

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader is out of touch with real Canadians. More specifically, he is out of touch with rural Canadians,” exclaimed Chris Warkentin, apparently unaware of Mr. Ignatieff’s childhood years spent rolling around in the manure of his uncle’s dairy farm in Richmond, Quebec. “The Liberal leader does not support rural Canadians. I would ask the Liberal leader when he will quit his assault on rural Canadians.”

Ignatieff laughed, then stood to begin his questioning of the Prime Minister with a novel suggestion.

“Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve a clear message from their Prime Minister about this economic crisis,” he said. “Sometimes he says we are in a recession, sometimes it is a depression. In September it was not going to happen at all. This weekend on CNN the Prime Minister called it ‘a cyclical downturn but nothing that requires major government intervention.’ We supported $40 billion worth of stimulus because we believe this is a serious economic crisis. Does the Prime Minister now feel a little differently?”

Ignatieff leaned forward on this bit and raised his voice an octave or two to better enunciate the mockery. Continue…

PBOWatch: Okay, maybe the Liberals are putting some thought into the coming budget report card.

By kadyomalley - Tuesday, March 3, 2009 at 10:17 AM - 8 Comments

Enough, at least, to realize that it’s worth paying attention to the recommendations that the Parliamentary Budget Office released last week. Looks like that spreadsheet y’all worked so hard on may end up being useful after all, guys! From yesterday’s post-QP scrum with John McCallum:

Question:                       On the issue of accountability, what do you want to see in the March 11th report by the Finance Minister to Parliament?  What should it contain?

John McCallum:          Well, we want to see a clear statement of not money out the door because money will not have gone out the door before April 1st but plans and something that will reassure Canadians that money is indeed imminently likely to go out the door.  We would want to see as much evidence as they can muster, that for example, the infrastructure money will flow quickly after April the 1st, will not sit under a mattress in Ottawa and we will also be guided by the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s accountability framework which will also be a part of the probation process.

It’s worth noting, of course, that we still haven’t heard a peep from the government on how it plans to meet the still somewhat ephemeral reporting requirements, although in fairness, since this wasn’t their idea, perhaps the finance minister is waiting for the Liberals to fill them in on exactly what they’re expecting to see.