Tag Archives: Election 2015

Roundup: The Economist Party fact-checks

Posted on by

With the Liberals casting the NDP federal minimum wage proposal as a mirage, and the NDP insisting that they haven’t deceived anyone (never mind that the Huffington Post did a piece asking ordinary people about what they thought of the pledge, only to learn it applies to federally-regulated industries, which won’t affect most people, and lo and behold, the people asked felt deceived. Imagine that!) While the NDP claim it will affect over 100,000 people, the Economist Party crunched the numbers, and found them lacking.

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632627804119547904

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632627978648731648

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632629540762685440

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632629836889001984

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/632640839819264000

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/632641381207404544

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632642099620376576

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/632642436439736320

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/632645758894735360

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632654353233383424

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632654456883036160

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632942778721284096

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632943035039420417

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632951157674086401

Continue reading →

Roundup: Tolerating Ray Novak’s deception

Posted on by

If there was one exchange on the campaign trail yesterday that speaks volumes for the way the current government is operating, particularly the lying about who knew about the cheque as opposed to Duffy himself repaying, it was between Hannah Thibedeau and Stephen Harper while in Hay River, and it goes thus: “You just mentioned in that answer a vast majority of staff believed that, but there were staff and very high profile staff that knew otherwise. For a few days, you have been evading that question about the deception done by many of your senior staff in the Duffy case including Mr. Ray Novak – he’s your current chief of staff, and he was told about Mr. Wright’s cheque in emails directly with Mr. Wright. So why have you tolerated Mr. Novak’s lying and even promoted him to current chief of staff who’s travelling with you right now?” Harper, predictably, rejected the premise of the question and insisted that only Wright and Duffy were responsible and they were being held accountable, which is clearly not the case. This was the party that rode into government on the white horse of accountability. It’s funny how that horse is nowhere to be seen these days.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Delving into Wright’s emails

Posted on by

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/631987013223325696

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631988803641716736

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631990423058284544

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631996316156063745

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631996679747731460

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631997702117703680

https://twitter.com/jenditchburn/status/631888561139286016

Continue reading →

Roundup: The PMO’s invisible levers in the Senate

Posted on by

One of the big things that emerged from the Duffy trial yesterday was a raft of new emails released from Nigel Wright, along with Wright’s testimony. While none of it was particularly damning to the prime minister, a number of pundits and journalists were baying over the Twitterverse and elsewhere that “this proves that the PMO is controlling the Senate! Where’s the independence?” and so on, I’m going to get everyone to take a deep breath and calm down. Yes, the PMO has been playing the Senate leadership – not the Senate itself – like its own private pawn. I’m not going to dispute that fact. But I am going to offer some context. First of all, Stephen Harper broke the Senate with his petulant refusal to make appointments from 2006 to 2008, and then made mass appointments, which damaged the chamber. (Refresher read here). He had a Senate leader who did his bidding without question, which is a problem. Because said Senate leader had so many newbie senators under her wing who did her bidding without question, it set up a power dynamic that allowed the PMO to exercise power levers that don’t actually exist. Wright complained about this lack of levers at times in his correspondence, and we also know that the Senate staff, including committee clerks, were pushing back against this PMO control, even to the point of threatening legal action. (And to that point, this BuzzFeed headline is wrong – they weren’t “rogue staffers,” they were Senate staffers instead of political ones). This makes it a problem of actors instead of institutions. As it is designed, the Senate is already a bastion of institutional independence – appointed Senators have absolutely nothing preventing them from speaking truth to power, because they are protected right up to a retirement age of 75, which in turn protects them from needing to curry favour with the PM to get a post-Senate appointment to a board or tribunal. The system is designed to ensure that they can be fully independent – the problem is that the current crop of Conservative senators has chosen not to be, whether it’s out of ignorance of their role, sentimentality for the prime minister who appointed them, or the fact that they sincerely believe he knows what’s best, so they’ll do what he asks. I can’t think of any way to tinker with the system to prevent that. As a rule, senators get better with age, and when a party leadership changes, they tend to get really independent in a hurry, but until that point, this remains a problem of political actors instead of institutions.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A marginal, ineffective drug announcement

Posted on by

A pattern is quickly emerging from the Conservatives as they roll out policy in this election – it’s all marginal, and it’s all populist, with little to no actual sense in the real world. First it was peanuts worth of tax credits for home renos (with zero economic justification), then a promise to ban “terror tourism” (with no real workable way to do it that would meet the Charter test). Yesterday was little different, with a lame announcement about tough-on-drugs, claiming that their anti-drug strategy is “working” (Really? How?), misrepresenting the issue of legalisation (with rhetoric that suggested that if they criminalise smoking that’ll help stop the problem), and throwing a bit or money at a fairly useless measure while ignoring proven steps like safe-injection sites, which not only reduce harm but do help get addicts into treatment. So with that, I’ll leave it to Dan Gardner to eviscerate this proposal:

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631237498203561984

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631238055802736640

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631243919854964745

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631244615224569857

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631245901890199552

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631246164130566145

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631247495054671872

Continue reading →

Roundup: Challenging Responsible Government

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Dubious travel bans

Posted on by

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

Continue reading →

Roundup: Expanding spending limits

Posted on by

Shortly before Joe Oliver put a stake in the constant early election speculation by announcing an April budget, Pundit’s Guide posted a particularly adept analysis of measures in the Fair Elections Act that demonstrate that while there is a fixed election date and a minimum length for campaigns, there is no maximum length, meaning that the writs could drop earlier than six weeks before the election. What is new is that it would mean that the spending limits would be higher, because the new law allows the limit to stretch, whereas it used to be fixed, no matter if the campaign was six weeks or eight. Higher spending limits mean more for certain parties, more flush with cash than others, can spend on advertising and so on, and overall be used to both financially exhaust some parties, or to really backload their ad spending into the last two or three weeks and carpet bomb things in a very American fashion. She also noted that the federal Conservatives have no interest in stepping on a likely spring election in Alberta and the Ontario PC leadership contest. (See her on Power Play here). It’s certainly food for thought, and gives us one more thing to look at, to guess as to when the writs will drop for the October election rather than this pointless speculation about a spring election.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Happy 200th birthday, Sir John A!

Posted on by

Tomorrow marks the 200th birthday of Sir John A Macdonald, our first prime minister and the man who made us. Unfortunately, because we don’t do a good job of recognising him, we’re not seeing too many celebrations around the country, which is a shame. And more recently, we’re seeing a rash of spiteful editorials, like this one, that declare that we should not celebrate him at all because he was a horrible racist drunk, or what have you. Never mind that everyone in the 19th century was pretty terrible, never mind that he was far more enlightened and moderate than most of his peers, never mind context or nuance as we read history – let’s grind some modern day axes on the backs of historical figures who can’t defend themselves! (Macdonald’s biographer, Richard Gwyn, offers a pretty good response to these kinds of articles here). In the meantime, Stephen Harper pens an op-ed in Macdonald’s praise, while Mark Kennedy wonders if any politician today could survive the scandals that Macdonald did (spoiler: probably not), and Aaron Wherry gets a roundtable of experts together to discuss Macdonald’s legacy. In the meantime, celebrate his birthday by watching the CBC film about the first steps toward confederation (online here), listen to some of his speeches as read by other former prime ministers, and certainly have a drink in his honour. Note that his favourite tipple was actually champagne, and not scotch, as so many people like to claim.

Continue reading →