Roundup: Judging Question Period the Toronto Star way

Posted on by

The Toronto Star released a package of stories yesterday on Question Period, and because this is the way we do journalism these days, it was full of data analysis that looks shiny, and hey, they got some investigative reporters to count questions and responses. Absent from that? A hell of a lot of context. So while you got some backbenchers who don’t participate to gripe about it being scripted (which it is), and some counting up of the talking points (without any context as to why these developed), or a surface-level look at the political theatre of it all (again, absent a lot of context or history, or bigger-picture look at the ways in which the messaging has changed and how it is currently being used to gather social media clips). It’s inch-deep stuff that, for someone who covers QP every single day, is mighty disappointing. (Additional point – most of the writers of these pieces have not attended QP, which is a problem because watching it from your desk in Toronto is not the same thing as being there in person. At all).

What is the most disappointing of all, however, is their “Question Period fact check” piece, which takes a sampling of questions and answers, and assesses the veracity of the questions being posited and the responses. Why it’s a problem is because they fell into the problem of how questions are framed – surface truths that are stripped of context to say something that it doesn’t. An example is when the Conservatives railed that the PBO said that carbon taxes would take $10 billion out of the economy. Which isn’t actually what he said – he said that it would take $10 billion out of the economy if the revenues weren’t recycled through tax cuts or other measures but were just given directly back to taxpayers. That’s a whopping difference in the message, because using only the $10 billion figure is a disingenuous attack line. And what did the “fact checkers” rate it? “True!” even though it wasn’t actually. And the piece was full of problematic fact-checks like that, which makes it infuriating for someone who actually pays attention to what is being said and how. So while everyone pats themselves on the back for the piece, I’m really unimpressed with the package as a whole.

Equalisation reform

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe released his plan to reform equalisation yesterday and it’s…not equalisation. It’s like he doesn’t get the concept at all. Which at this point should not surprise anyone, because it’s been so badly reported on for decades and has been the tool of demagogues to bash Quebec rather than understanding how the system actually works – paid for by federal income tax out of general revenues to a province that doesn’t have the fiscal capacity to offer comparable services. It’s not one province writing a cheque to another one. For provinces that pay into it more than they get out, it’s because they have high incomes, thus they pay more income tax. It’s not that mysterious (and yet most reporters simply write “it’s complicated” and leave it at that). And Quebec has structural issues related to their fiscal capacity (and yes, their tax rates are already high relative to other provinces) but the per capita equalization they receive is actually low, not that the shock-and-awe figure of the total amount isn’t constantly being weaponized.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1009498701151158272

And what does Moe suggest? Basically taking money from Quebec’s share and giving it to all provinces whether they need it or not. It’s bullshit that fortunately a number of economists called out – not that it’ll matter, because the audience that Moe is speaking to dismisses what economists have to say. Sigh.

Good reads:

  • The big news of the day is that the date for legal cannabis is October 17th. And yes, it still remains illegal until then, as driving while high is already a crime.
  • It took him almost 48 hours, but Justin Trudeau finally denounced the child detentions in the US. (Here’s how the system works in Canada).
  • Speaking of those detentions, there are concerns that Canada is turning its back on Central American refugees.
  • At of his end-of-sitting press conference, Trudeau encouraged people to vacation in Canada and not the States, and to buy Canadian during the trade dispute.
  • Trudeau also defended his approach to dealing with the Trumpocalypse.
  • The US Trade ambassador admitted that no, Canadian steel is not really a national security concern, and this is really a NAFTA tactic. You think?
  • The Senate passed the impaired driving bill with the random alcohol testing provisions intact after the government rejected their amendments.
  • The latest SIRC report is out, and it says that CSIS stopped monitoring right-wing extremism in Canada months before the Quebec City mosque shooting. Oops.
  • SIRC also says that CSIS is still improperly capturing Canadians’ data and not necessarily dealing with it properly. That should change after C-59 passes.
  • Jane Philpott spoke about the problem of child removals from Indigenous parents, and her attempts to reform the system.
  • There are concerns that the Justice Department’s internal review into the case of Hassan Diab has been tainted by a conflict of interest.
  • Also it’s been determined that France did not share key evidence that would clear Diab when they demanded his extradition.
  • The government announced their pharmacare advisory council yesterday.
  • Trudeau appointed former Quebec broadcaster Julie Miville-Dechene to the Senate.
  • Senator Pratte is concerned that the government isn’t taking Senate amendments seriously, even though they accepted a number of them.
  • There is more procedural drama in the Senate over the bill to ban keeping whales and cetaceans in captivity, as deals were apparently cut to keep delaying it.
  • The source of yesterday’s cheap outrage was the revelation of the costs of Trudeau’s India trip, which he pointed out was for more days at less cost than Harper’s trip.
  • Because they are that shameless, the Liberals are already using the passage of cannabis legislation as part of their fundraising drive.
  • While welcoming his newest MP to caucus, Andrew Scheer says the byelection win is proof that the Conservatives can win anywhere. (I’m not sure that’s the lesson).
  • On his way out the door, Thomas Mulcair said that the NDP should be worried about its future, and intimated that their new leader isn’t connecting.
  • John Geddes sees the cannabis bill passing as a win the government needs while many of its promises flounder and get increasingly delayed.
  • David Reevely looks into the problem with the green renovation programme being cancelled in Ontario despite the fact that the transition hasn’t happened yet.
  • Andrew Coyne suspects that if we suspended the Safe Third Country Agreement, the influx of migrants would severely test our tolerance for them.
  • Chris Selley makes the point that the government hasn’t gotten serious about the irregular border-crosser problem as it is.

Help Routine Proceedings expand. Support my Patreon.

2 thoughts on “Roundup: Judging Question Period the Toronto Star way”

  2. Dale, just a thought…Mr Scheer all outraged about ‘Justin’s cottage’ ..
    has he forgotten that he had Mackenzie King’s Gatineau farm for a good ten years? I’ll bet the NCC ran that one too.

Comments are closed.