Tag Archives: Andrew Scheer

Roundup: Another candidate distraction

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was making campaign stops in Quebec, with no announcements or stump speeches, the Liberals did release a new campaign ad voiced by Chrystia Freeland to talk about how they fought “tooth and nail” for Canadian workers in New NAFTA talks and got a good deal from the Americans.

Andrew Scheer was treating yesterday as the campaign’s “down day” (which is normally Sunday), but he did stop at an Ottawa-area event by one of his local candidates, and was confronted with questions about her past comments about Francophones, and her friendship with noted white supremacist Faith Goldy. (Said candidate apologised for the comments but said nothing about Goldy). She fled from reporters, and Scheer said the Liberals were simply trying to distract from their record, and another Conservative claim of Liberal anti-Semitism was circulated (though apparently the courts have stated that it wasn’t anti-Semitism regarding that case). Nevertheless, that’s the fourth candidate that the Liberals have found damaging information on when Scheer has visited their ridings.

As for Jagmeet Singh, he went to Oshawa to accuse the Liberals of not standing up for auto workers, which is a curious charge given how much they’ve given to the industry to date, but there we are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reviving a failed tax credit

Posted on by

Day three of the campaign, and in the post-debate glow, there was some damage control on a part of a couple of leaders. Justin Trudeau was in Trois-Rivières, Quebec, to promise new measures to help small business, including the “swipe fees” that those businesses are charged for transactions.

Andrew Scheer was in the GTA, and he announced his plan to revive the Harper-era transit tax credit, but to rebrand it as “Green.” The problem, of course, was that it’s a nigh useless measure that disproportionately benefits the wealthy. (Fact check here to show that Scheer’s rhetoric is misleading, plus a thread from economist Lindsay Tedds). He also had to defend himself and do damage control over his meltdown during the debate on Indigenous issues and his contention that they hold major projects “hostage,” but he nevertheless refused to back down from the basic contention even if he tried to say that he didn’t mean to use those exact words. So that’s something.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1172519241918099459

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1172548996570734592

Jagmeet Singh was in downtown Toronto to promise to cap cellphone bills – a policy that has no actual specifics as to how he would do it and what the impacts would be – before giving a speech to the Canadian Club to tell them that if he forms government, it won’t be “business as usual” in Ottawa.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hostile territory and the first debate

Posted on by

While it was a quieter day on the campaign because of the Maclean’s debate during the evening, there were still a few events to set the tone of the day. Jagmeet Singh was first up by staging a photo op in Brampton near the local hospital, where he had a bunch of candidates and supporters line up, and someone held up a sign that said “waiting for healthcare” before he talked about…building a new hospital in the city. Which is provincial jurisdiction. And then he claimed that it was about offering the provincial government money to build one, which again, isn’t how this works.

Andrew Scheer went to re-announce his policy on a tax credit for parental leave, falsely billing it as making those benefits “tax-free” (which it absolutely does not do, and here’s tax economist Lindsay Tedds to break it down), before he got sidelined because the candidate in the riding he was making the re-announcement was outed as being an anti-abortion activist who wants to build a “monument to the unborn,” and he had to again address the issue – and she talked about how great it was that Scheer would allow free votes on the subject.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1172224257142611968

As for Trudeau, things were already off to a bit of a rough start after the media bus managed to damage the wing of his campaign plane on Wednesday night after they landed in Victoria, forcing them to get a new, un-branded plane for their day’s travels to Victoria – where he announced tweaks to the first-time home-buyers plan that was announced in the budget, but with new measures to assist those in hot housing markets along with a national speculators tax. His campaign later went to Kamloops, and then to Edmonton for a rally. There, he framed everything around his team, and minimized the talk about himself, but he also acknowledged the economic anxiety in the province, saying that the rest of Canada would be there for them, saying that he was holding to his promise never to pit regions against each other. I’m sure that will be disputed by some, but it was interesting. Also interesting was the tactical choice for Trudeau to campaign in Edmonton – specifically the vacant riding of Edmonton Strathcona, which the NDP held – on day two of the campaign, in a province whose premier is working hard to try and topple the government. It does send a message that Trudeau chose to be there rather than the debate – but we’ll see if that message resonates.

And then the debate. It was…not all that illuminating. While Elizabeth May was Elizabeth May – speaking extemporaneously on all things, and some of those things made sense and other things were complete lunacy – it was the first test of Scheer and Singh in that kind of a format. Singh turned to the others to make his interventions, and kept bring up people that he met who expressed concerns about whatever the topic was, while Scheer kept looking straight at the camera, and trying to wedge in his memorized talking points about Trudeau at every opportunity, no matter how inopportune or inappropriate to the discussion. Both Singh and Scheer stuck to scripted points, but a couple of more robust discussion did break out, and Paul Wells managed to get each of the leaders to expound on their tepid responses to Bill 21 in Quebec. The biggest…surprise of the night was when Scheer had a complete meltdown on the subject of UNDRIP and Indigenous consultation with resource projects, which could very well work against him as those communities mobilize to vote.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Agenda-setting out of the gate

Posted on by

With the proclamation signed by the Governor General to dissolve parliament, the 43rdgeneral election started, with Justin Trudeau emerging from Rideau Hall to have a ready-made human backdrop assembled for him. After a mention of the anniversary of 9/11, he launched into his election pitch about the record of economic growth because they rejected the austerity of the Conservative years, and yay Middle Class™ And Those Working Hard To Join It®. He listed accomplishments, and the choice of investing in Canadians, and the choice to move forward or go back to the “Harper years.” The questions afterward were dominated by two themes – the latest SNC-Lavalin news from the Globe and Mail, and Bill 21 in Quebec, and the linguistic duality on the two questions was quite evident. On the former, Trudeau simply said that he trusted the Clerk of the Privy Council’s judgment with regard to the cabinet confidences, and on the latter, he said that he opposed the bill but that now wasn’t the time for the federal government to interfere legally.

Jagmeet Singh held his launch minutes later in London, Ontario – one of the regions where they are looking to save the seats they have. Singh spoke about his personal connection to London, as he lived there when he attended Western, then launched into the tales of woe he heard from people there about pharmacare and healthcare costs – and lo, he has a pitch about expanding coverage around them. He then said that what his party had was the “courage” to take on lobbyists, corporations, money launderers, speculators, Big telecom, big polluters, and “fossil fuel subsidies” – a long list to be sure. He then moved on to claiming that “Trudeau charmed us with pretty words and empty promises”, and that Scheer was not the answer, then turned to the human backdrop and said “These are the people I’m in it for.” Like his slogan. In the questions, he was asked a local question about the General Dynamics plant which is building those LAVs going to Saudi Arabia, and have basically saved the local economy. Singh insisted that they could still have those jobs selling equipment to the Canadian Forces and to “non-oppressive regimes.” Err, except they have their own local suppliers, so he clearly has no idea what he’s referring to.

The Bloc’s launch in Quebec City was largely a laundry lists of exaggerated grievances and talk of a renewed Quebec nationalism, and one of the phrases that leapt out at me was talking about “people who will be like you,” which seems like a dog whistle, but perhaps it was a translation issue.

Next up was Elizabeth may in Victoria, where she brought local “climate striking” children on stage, and then launched into a speech about holding the line on climate change, decrying the Trans Mountain pipeline, and touting her “Mission: Possible” climate plan. She also demanded that parties “jettison partisanship” to solve climate change – never mind that she herself is partisan, and it’s become a Green tendency to pretend that sanctimony is non-partisanship. When faced with questions about vote splitting, she asserted that “Greens don’t split votes, Greens grow votes,” and when pressed about Pierre Nantel’s declaration of separatist sentiments, she prevaricated and assured us that “we’re all Earthlings.”

Finally we had Andrew Scheer, from Trois-Rivières, Quebec – one of those seats he’d love to gain. His 9/11 mentions included the plot of Come From Away as an example of why he loves the country. Using the Harper-esque prefacing of all statements with “friends,” his pitch was that it was time to elect a government that would elect a party that would improve peoples’ daily lives, while he claimed that Trudeau would raise their taxes (err, except that the record is the opposite). And then it was a laundry list of lies and disingenuous framing of issues, hammering on the Globe story about SNC-Lavalin – again, exaggerating what the story actually said. His message to Trudeau was that “starting today, recess is over” – part of his constant attempts to infantilising Trudeau (remember the constant claims that Trudeau is busy colouring in the House of Commons, or that he “wrote” a colouring book). For his Quebec audience, he added a few references about “open federalism” and Quebec being a nation within Canada, while slamming the Bloc as being ineffective in Ottawa.

This all having been said, I did want to touch on that Globe and Mail story for one other aspect, which is the fact that they deliberately published the story about “sources saying” the RCMP has been asking questions about “possible obstruction of justice” in the SNC-Lavalin case – which is not an investigation – on the eve of the election, because they are trying to set the agenda. Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t ask these questions, but agenda-setting – particularly where your stories are thinly sourced and with torqued headlines that give a misleading impression of what the story actually says – is of dubious ethical practice, and it’s something we should be cognisant of and think critically about.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cheap outrage over MPs’ spouses

Posted on by

Long-time readers will know that one of my pet peeves is the propensity for my media colleagues to push cheap outrage stories, to trigger the hairshirt parsimony and tall poppy syndrome of the Canadian public, and lo, they did it again with the screaming headline that taxpayers footed the bill for $4.5 million in MP spousal travel over four years. Which is actually not a lot, particularly when you consider that we’re a big country, and that airfare is expensive here because of our duopolistic air carriers and lack of population density.

Of course, when I tweeted this out, I had all kinds of people yelling at me that Bill Morneau’s millionaire wife shouldn’t be eligible for sponsored spousal travel. The problem with this kind of qualifier is that it when you start qualifying who is and isn’t eligible for the benefits based on personal circumstances, you start running into the mentality that plagued the UK for centuries – that MPs were poorly compensated and essentially needed to be independently wealthy before they stood for office. We’ve seen enough people suggest that the Canadian Senate be run this way, with the ludicrous suggestion that it be a volunteer position. I would also add that the divorce rate for MPs is several times above the national average – if we start begrudging their ability to travel with their spouses to Ottawa and back, particularly if the distances are fairly large ones – we’d see even more divorces, or a pervasive belief that people with families shouldn’t run for office. I’m not sure who that would benefit.

Throughout this bit of cheap outrage, Jody Wilson-Raybould’s spousal flights were singled out in a separate piece about cabinet ministers and their spouses’ travel costs. That a Vancouver MP’s costs would be higher should be no surprise, and it could very well be that they are higher because they may have been booked last-minute rather than in advance (given that they are simply treated by the MP and their spouse as points rather than being given a dollar figure as their expenses limit). Suffice to say, these kinds of stories are pretty gross when you stop and think about it, and the performative outrage over taxpayer dollars that are packaged in a way to look big and without sufficient context is one of the biggest problems we have in Canadian politics, and why we make the lives of our MPs so miserable.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney’s McCarthy-esque quest

Posted on by

Over in Alberta, Jason Kenney’s McCarthy-esque Committee on un-Albertan Activities received its terms of reference and will begin taking submissions, and just like the MacKinnon Report, it was gamed to specifically look at anything that was being mean to the oil and gas sector while studiously avoiding any falsehoods used by the oil and gas lobby to state their own case. And it’s all going into feeding their “war room” to “fight back” against those un-Albertan activities. Because this is totally normal for a democratic government in the western world.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Campaign launch and promises

Posted on by

As we wait for the writs to be drawn up – and I wouldn’t hold my breath on it happening until at least Wednesday, because they want to ensure that the Manitoba election is over first – we’re ready to start seeing the official campaign launches. The NDP were supposed to have theirs on Sunday, but cancelled it out of respect for Hurricane Dorian hitting Nova Scotia and PEI, only to turn around and then do a “bus unveiling” in Toronto and then head to Ottawa to “open” the campaign headquarters – which was essentially launching the “official” campaign anyway. All of which is a bit of a fiction because the campaign has really been going on for months, because fixed election dates are garbage. (Side note: in the week following the point being made that Singh has not yet visited New Brunswick, and the high-profile defections, that he still hasn’t bothered to make a stop in that province).

Meanwhile, because the NDP have already released their platform, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is starting to cost some of their promises, and the first one was released regarding their pledge to eliminate interest charges on current and future federal student loans.

https://twitter.com/twitscotty/status/1170671191629037569

Continue reading →

Roundup: An expedited process

Posted on by

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that of the twelve challengers to the government’s decision to approve the Trans Mountain pipeline a second time, that they would grant leave to hear from six of them, on an expedited basis, and on the very narrow question of whether or not the government has actually complied with the previous FCA ruling, particularly when it comes to the issue of appropriate consultation with Indigenous communities as it pertains to Section 35 of the Constitution. Immediately there was a bunch of wailing and gnashing of teeth that this would be some kind of delay, and others demanded that the government start using magic wands apparently hidden in the text of the constitution (never mind that they don’t actually exist). Worth noting as well – there is no injunction against continued construction, so that will continue to ramp up in the weeks ahead as this expedited hearing gets underway.

This having been all said, there were a number of questions as to why the federal government didn’t file any materials in defence regarding those leave applications in eleven of the twelve files (though, curiously, the Alberta government did even though they’re not the defence). We didn’t get much of an answer – Amarjeet Sohi (who is not the justice minister) saying that they would mount a defence at the right time, but I have to wonder if this was simply about giving the appearance that they weren’t trying to constantly take Indigenous communities to court. Or, they may have simply felt confident that their position was self-evident, that they fulfilled the conditions from the previous FCA ruling and filing something to repeat exactly that wasn’t worth the time or energy because they didn’t think the Court would grant leave on that basis. Either way, it’s not the “rolling over” that certain opposition MPs have railed in the media about because this is a leave application, and not the actual defence.

https://twitter.com/Honickman/status/1169324576960122881

Meanwhile, energy economist Andrew Leach debunks the myths about what is holding back investment in the oilsands, and lays out the four real reasons, which are very different from what industry lobbyists and Jason Kenney are trying to sell to Canadians. Some of the big takeaways are that corporate tax cuts won’t help, and carbon pricing isn’t hurting it, never mind that those are the kinds of things that Kenney is focusing on, and it’s all snake oil – none of it will make investment come flooding back to the sector because the reasons are bigger and more complex.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Equalization and Spending

Posted on by

Over the long weekend, one of the best things that I read was an exploration by economist Trevor Tombe about Alberta’s misplaced anger over the so-called “unfairness” of equalization, as the real issue is the fact that they have disproportionately higher salaries (and fiscal capacity) than everyone else in the country. Meanwhile, Tombe also has a good thread on the history of federal transfers to and from Alberta, and it’s interesting to get some of that perspective.

Meanwhile in Alberta, the McKinnon Report on public expenses was released yesterday, detailing that there needs to be some $600 million in cuts if the budget is to be balanced between 2022-23, and while it notes that it the province needs more stable revenues (*cough*sales tax*cough*), though it didn’t get into their revenue problems, as it wasn’t their mandate. That means that there are going to need to be cuts to healthcare and education. Here are three surprising tidbits from the report (but also ones that I think need to be drilled down into – for example high public servant salaries are not because of cost of living, but competition with the private sector, and high college drop-out rates are likely to do with jobs in the oil patch). More in this thread from Lindsay Tedds.

In reaction, Jason Markusoff points to the fact that the report’s conclusions were predetermined, given that it was created specifically to find cuts as raising revenues was not an option they were allowed to present, and it bears reminding once again that Alberta is in deficit because it chooses to be so – they could raise their revenues and not rely solely on oil royalties anytime they wanted, but they don’t want to (so all of those pundits taking this report as proof that the province has a spending problem are being a bit too cute about it). On a broader perspective, Max Fawcett argues that if Alberta wants to send a message that if they really want to have their issues taken seriously, they need to stop voting Conservative – and then enumerates all of the ways in which the federal Conservatives have taken the province’s votes for granted as they did things that disadvantaged them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Profiles in courage

Posted on by

After avoiding the media for over a week while questions about his personal positions on abortion and LGBT rights were being debated, Andrew Scheer called a press conference yesterday to say that Justin Trudeau was lacking in courage for not agreeing to the Maclean’s and Munk debates (well, he hasn’t agreed yet, but he also hasn’t said no). Mind you, the guy talking about courage and showing up has been avoiding the media for the past week, so that’s no small amount of irony. Oh, and he also accused the Liberals of trying to deflect from their record by dredging up Scheer’s statements on “divisive social issues.” That said, Scheer hewed strictly to talking points that continued to make cute distinctions between a hypothetical future Conservative government and backbenchers, and essentially said that they could put forward any bill they wanted and he wouldn’t stop them – only he wouldn’t say so in as many words. To that end, it’s also worth reminding people that as Speaker, Scheer went out of his way to ensure that anti-abortion MPs got speaking slots when the Conservative leadership was trying to keep them under wraps, so that might be a clue as to how he’d treat possible future private members’ bills.

This having been said, I now wonder if the strategy for the Liberals isn’t to just bring social progressives and Red Tories to their side, but to try and goad Scheer into painting himself in enough of a corner with trying to assure Canadians that no, he would squelch any anti-abortion or anti-GLBT private members’ bills – really! – in the hopes that it would discourage the social conservatives in Scheer’s base into staying home, thus driving down their voter turnout. It would be novel if that’s what it was, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives put out a fundraising video yesterday featuring Stephen Harper, which is kind of ironic considering that they keep accusing the Liberals of dredging up Harper, only for them to do the very same thing. And with this in mind, I will often note that political parties these days have pretty much all hollowed themselves out into personality cults for their leaders, but with the Conservatives, they remain a personality cult for their former leader, Harper – that Scheer has had such a lack of personality or willpower to change the party to reflect him (though he did campaign on being Harper with a smile in the leadership, so that’s not too unsurprising). Nevertheless, bringing out the old leader in advance of the election is an odd bit of strategy that can’t speak too highly of the current leader.

Continue reading →