Tag Archives: Thomas Mulcair

QP: No, you’re the ultra-wealthy!

Posted on by

Wednesday post-budget, and both the prime minister and his deputy were present, as were all of the other leaders who wanted their camera time decrying the budget, Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and gave a direct-to-camera appeal of “who will pay for this orgy of spending” and claimed it wouldn’t be the wealthy, but “you, the ones who are paying too much taxes. The Speaker warned him that comments need to be directed through the chair. Trudeau insisted that Poilievre was defending the wealthy, while he was defending the Middle Class™. Poilievre insisted that after nine deficits, it was not a fair county for young people. Trudeau insisted that they made the choice to invest to build a stronger economy while the Conservatives only wanted austerity. Poilievre switched to English and repeated the talking directly to the camera appeal, and got a second gentle caution from the Speaker. Trudeau repeated that Poilievre was defending the wealthiest 0.1 percent. Poilievre railed that Trudeau was blaming the rest of the world for his failures that raised inflation (erm…) and repeated the same line about the government repeating the same mistakes and hoping for a different outcome. Trudeau repeated that Poilievre is only looking out for the ultra-wealthy, to which Poilievre insisted that Trudeau was the ultra-wealthy. (No, he’s really not). Trudeau said not on a tear about the people that they are standing up for and the Conservatives were standing against.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and said that the prime minister was so enamoured with areas of provincial jurisdiction, and wondered if he would run in his preferred province—Ontario. Trudeau noted he as a proud Quebecker and praised the investments they were making to enhance programmes in provinces like Quebec. Blanchet shot back that he was such a proud Quebecker that he wanted them to be their own country, and demanded unconditional transfers. Trudeau went on a paean about his pride in Quebec being secure in Canada, and praised Quebec for being ahead of the rest of the country with their programmes, and that the government was there to help Quebec advance those programmes. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP and started shouting about “corporate greed” and that the government was not clamping down on it in the budget. Trudeau praised the measures in the budget to help younger generations. Singh repeated the question in French, and Trudeau spoke about asking the wealthiest to pay a little more to help the next generations. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: It’s Cabinet Shuffle Day!

Posted on by

We are now well into Cabinet leak territory, and right now the news is that Chrystia Freeland will indeed be moving – but we don’t know where. We do know that François-Philippe Champagne will replace her at Foreign Affairs, that Pablo Rodriguez will be the new Government House Leader (after we already heard that Steven Guilbeault will take over Canadian Heritage), plus Seamus O’Regan moving to Natural Resources, that Jonathan Wilkinson is taking over Environment and Catherine McKenna will take over Infrastructure. We’re also hearing from Quebec media that Jean-Yves Duclos will take over Treasury Board, and that Mélanie Joly is due for a promotion – but no hint as to what it means otherwise. Still no word on Public Safety, which is a huge portfolio that will need a very skilled hand to deal with in the absence of Ralph Goodale.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1196922355181924352

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1196922357073489920

https://twitter.com/JenniferRobson8/status/1196959319994056705

Meanwhile, some of the other roles that Trudeau needs to decide who are not in Cabinet will include the whip, parliamentary secretaries, and considerations for committee chairs (though he won’t have the final say on those as they are ostensibly elected by the committees themselves, and it’s the whips who largely determine who will sit on which committee). Committees are especially important in a hung parliament, so this could mean big roles for those who didn’t make it into Cabinet.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Concern trolling and dual citizenship

Posted on by

It was a quieter day on the campaign, and Justin Trudeau remained in Montreal to just hold a media availability rather than make any new announcements, and he reiterated the point from the debate on Wednesday that if his government would look to improve the medical assistance in dying legislation per the Quebec court decision. He also again defended using two campaign planes by pointing to the use of carbon offsets (never mind that this is a clear case of concern trolling by those who don’t actually care about climate change).

Andrew Scheer was in Kingsclear, New Brunswick, to promise an expansion of the volunteer firefighters tax credit (or “volunteer heroes,” as their press release stated because it was apparently written by a nine-year-old). He also finally stopped dancing around the abortion question to state – again – that he is personally “pro-life” but wouldn’t re-open the debate. Shortly thereafter, the story broke that Scheer holds dual-citizenship with the US, and within an hour stated that he had already started the process of revocation, but it remains exceedingly curious given that Scheer personally questioned Michëlle Jean’s dual-citizenship before she became Governor General, and the Conservative attacks on Stéphane Dion and Thomas Mulcair about their own dual-citizenships. Scheer also stated that he had never been asked about it which was why he never talked about it, which is unconvincing at best.

Jagmeet Singh headed to Toronto to hold another media availability to reiterate his same platform proposals.

And just to put another giant bomb in the election, a potential strike by school support workers could shutter schools in major school districts in Ontario by Monday, which could send the Ford government scrambling, and further cause blowback against Scheer as the lines between federal and provincial governments continue to blur.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The C-69 battle begins

Posted on by

The Senate’s Energy and Environment committee is slated to begin their examination of Bill C-69 today, which promises to be a right gong show as the Conservatives have been pledging to do everything they can to kill the bill, which could mean attempting to delay things as long as possible – which is one reason why they have been aggressively pushing for the committee to hold cross-country hearings. This is being pushed back against by the government whip – err, “liaison,” and the leader of the Independent Senators Group, but that hasn’t stopped the agitation. Conservative Senator Michael MacDonald went so far as to pen an op-ed in the National Post that says the prime minister is trying to “keep the Senate from the people,” which is absurd on its face considering that Trudeau’s hands-off policy on the Senate is one reason why the Chamber is in a bit of disarray at the moment.

Meanwhile, there will be an effort from non-Conservative senators to see amendments to the bill, which could create its own delays as the debates and votes on those amendments could get drawn out for weeks, while the parliamentary calendar ticks down. (For reference, I wrote this piece last week, talking to lawyers on both the environmental and proponent sides of the issue about the kinds of amendments they would like to see). The bill has its issues, no doubt, but the rhetoric around it has reached hyperbolic proportions, and much of the opposition we hear has become based on myth rather than fact or analysis. That’s going to make the Senate’s deliberations more difficult in the weeks ahead, as people will be howling about non-existent segments of the bill, and we’ll hear the daily demands in QP that the bill be withdrawn, never mind that the current system isn’t working and has been the subject of numerous court challenges. I suspect this will become a very nasty fight before the end of spring.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Backbench lessons

Posted on by

Backbench Liberal MP Greg Fergus is learning the tough political lessons that just because the prime minister says something, it doesn’t mean that changes are necessarily happening. In this case, it’s the declaration by Justin Trudeau a year ago that the government would start to address the systemic barriers faced by Black Canadians, including anti-Black racism, but there has been negligible progress in the meantime, other than a commitment of funds. Fergus’ lesson – that lobbying can’t be a one-time thing, but an ongoing effort.

It’s certainly true, and he’s learning that the hard way – it’s easy to make a declaration, but you need to hold the government’s feet to the fire in order to ensure that things happen, particularly a sclerotic bureaucracy that doesn’t like to change the way it does things (and to be fair, you can’t just turn the way a bureaucracy does anything on a dime – it takes time, and it takes capacity-building, which can’t be done overnight). If anything, Fergus is getting a lesson in being a backbencher – that it’s his job to hold government to account, especially when it’s his own party in power. They can promise a lot of things, but you need to ensure that they actually do it, which is part of why Parliament exists, and why we need good backbenchers who want to do their jobs, and not just suck up to the prime minister in order to get into Cabinet. Hopefully we’ll see an invigoration in the way Fergus and others agitate to ensure that the government keeps its promises, because seeing the backbenchers doing their jobs is always a good thing in any parliament.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sixty-nine day countdown

Posted on by

The House of Commons comes back on Monday, in the new chamber in West Block, and with an election on the horizon. That means it will soon be a frantic scramble to get bills passed before June arrives, and there are a lot of constituency weeks between now and then. The count is sixty-nine sitting days officially left on the calendar, but from that you need to remove a prescribed number of opposition-controlled Supply Days, plus the budget. Add to that, more days will need to be subtracted for bills that the Senate will send back to the Commons – and there will be bills they will send back, and that will eat into the calendar – especially in the final days of the sitting in June, when everyone wants to go home.

The agenda still has a number of big items on it, with Bardish Chagger having identified their poverty reduction bill, the reform of the Divorce Act, and the bill to eliminate solitary confinement in federal penitentiaries – and that could prove the most difficult because there have already been judges weighing in on what they’ve read and they’re not impressed. That could set up for more back-and-forth from the Senate if they don’t make enough of the big fixes to that in the Commons sooner than later.

And the Senate really is going to wind up being the spoiler or the wildcard in all of this. They’re already underwater on their Order Paper, and the Chamber will be late in returning from the break because of the construction delays, and there has been very little movement from most of the committees on getting back up and running now, in order to make progress on the bills that are before them. (In one case, where the bill is highly contentious, the Conservatives have not been cooperating because the Independent senator who chairs the committee has basically been doing the bidding of the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, so they wanted to send a message). The national security reform bill, sat at second reading for the entire fall sitting when it should have spent far more time at committee given how extensive and far-reaching the bill is. They need some serious adult supervision to get them back on track, and I’m not sure where that’s going to come from, so we’ll see how this plays out over the next few weeks.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Feelings over civics

Posted on by

Over the course of the weekend, I’ve been giving a great deal of thought to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Frank v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 1 – the decision about expat voting rights – and I still can’t bring myself to conclude that they the majority got it right. I’ve read over the decision and found myself greatly annoyed by the fact that majority simply shrugged off the very real issue of constituencies and local elections, and that in his concurring reasons, Justice Rowe mentioned them but shrugged them off. And while people will criticise the reasoning and analysis employed by the dissent from Justices Coté and Brown, they at least did pay particular and necessary attention to the issue of constituencies as it relates to our system – and the rationale for the five-year limit (in that it is the constitutional maximum length of a single parliament). And I can’t let this go, because five of seven justices of the Supreme Court failed to properly understand the importance of constituency-based democracy (and I think the Attorney General’s office also bears a particular amount of responsibility for not making the case adequately either).

To reiterate – we vote for local representatives. We don’t vote for parties, or party leaders, no matter what we may have in mind when we go into the ballot box – we mark the X for the local candidate, end of story. For an expat, it’s not the connection to Canada that should be at issue – it’s the connection to the riding, because that’s how we allocate our votes. The dissenting judges got that, but the majority and virtually all of the commentary I’ve seen on the matter ignored it, despite it being the first principle of our electoral system. The Attorney General focused on the “social contract,” which the majority decision hewed to, and there was a lot of talk about feelings and “progressive enfranchisement,” but feelings are not how we allocate votes in this country. Ridings are, and as warm and fuzzy as you feel about Canada, it’s the riding that ultimately matters. I feel like we’re rewarding civic illiteracy on a grand scale with this decision.

To that end, here’s Leonid Sirota offering his analysis of the decision, and University of Ottawa law professor Mike Pal’s thoughts in this thread. And here’s Emmett Macfarlane to pick apart the decision further (though we will disagree on the outcome).

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1083740974008815617

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1083743192225177601

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1083744829278871552

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1083745335044755456

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1083747918736023552

Continue reading →

Roundup: A subdued oil price shock

Posted on by

The Bank of Canada decided to hold on raising interest rates yesterday, but there were some very interesting things in the accompanying Monetary Policy Report that haven’t been widely reported on, and much of that was the whole section in the report on the state of the oil industry in Canada. (It’s pages 9 and 10 of the report – PDF here). Essentially, for all of the talk about economic doom for the current state of oil prices and the price differential, this current price shock is affecting the Canadian economy at a quarter of what it did in the 2014-2016 price shock, and there are a couple of reasons for that. One of them is that the oil sector is no longer as big of a part of the Canadian economy as it was then – it’s currently worth 3.5 percent of our GDP, while it was six percent just a few years ago. That’s fairly significant. As well, after the previous price shock, most energy firms are better equipped to handle the low-price environment thanks to innovation, improved efficiency and the fact that they already cut overhead costs. Add to that, our low dollar is providing a buffer effect because it supports non-energy exports and employment. In other words, while it’s softened the economy a little over the past quarter and the current one, this is projected to be shrugged off as the rest of the economy continues to pick up steam, and we’re likely to continue growing at a greater pace, because the rest of the economy continues to be running close to capacity. Even some of the areas of potential slack that have been identified, such as lower-than-expected wage growth, are mostly because the situation in Alberta is dragging down the national average. So perhaps it’s not all doom after all.

One other particular note from the morning was that Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz made a couple of remarks around his hometown of Oshawa, and how it’s managed to weather previous plant closures and how its resilience means it will likely weather the pending closure of the GM plant as well as it did previously.

Meanwhile, Kevin Carmichael walks us through the morning’s decision, and some of the reaction to it.

Continue reading →

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another useless voting marathon

Posted on by

Unless a miracle happens and someone buckles, MPs will still be voting when this post goes live, because the Conservatives decided to demand another marathon vote session on the Estimates in order to prove a point. The point was that they want the government to table a document prepared by the public service about carbon pricing, which allegedly shows the fiscal impact – but it was redacted when released. The Conservatives see this as the smoking gun they need to “prove” that the federal carbon price backstop is a cash grab. Err, except the federal government isn’t keeping the revenues, and the provinces have until this fall to announce how they will be recycling the revenues, whether through tax cuts or whatnot, and lo, the government last month tabled a report that basically showed the efficacy of carbon pricing and that they’re waiting for the provinces to announce what their systems will be.

The Conservatives decided that their pressure tactic would be another round of line-by-line Estimates – because that worked so well the last time when they tried to force a meeting on the Atwal Affair™, only to buckle before votes could go into the weekend, and then they blamed the government for creating their own discomfort. Kind of like blaming someone else for when you hit yourself in the face on purpose to get attention. “You made me do this!” they cried. No, they didn’t, and worse, it was not only tactically incompetent (the votes had nothing to do with the demand then, and it doesn’t this time either), but by overplaying their hand, they voted against line items in the Estimates for things like funding veterans pensions or public services, all of which went into attack lines. And this time, because the government scheduled the vote for 10:30 PM, the fact that the Conservatives forced the 200 votes rather than the single vote means that Liberal MPs can complain that the Conservatives were keeping them from attending Eid celebrations in their ridings at dawn (some of them going so far as to cry Islamophobia). It’s a reach, and both sides are self-righteous about this, but come on.

As for the Conservatives’ demand, well, it’s a lot of disingenuous nonsense because the costs will be determined by how the revenues are recycled, which the federal government has no control over. Poilievre has been trying the semantic arguments that because it’s a federally-imposed tax that they need to know what the impact will be, focusing only on the cost before revenues are recycled, which is again, disingenuous and the precursor to misinformation. And if they were so concerned, they can do the analysis themselves – as Andrew Leach points out. But they don’t want to do that – this is all cheap theatre, performative outrage that the government is “covering up” information that they’re characterising as something it’s not. But as truth and context have become strangers in this parliament, none of this is unexpected.

Continue reading →