Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

QP: Shouting about layoffs

Posted on by

Thursday, and already the absences started being noticed, as none of the major leaders were present. That left David Christopherson to shout a condemnation about layoffs at Tim Horton’s, to which James Moore expressed his sorrow but noted that the foreign investment was going to allow Tim Horton’s to expand, along with the new jobs coming from Burger King moving their headquarters here. Christopherson kept up, increasing in volume, and Moore responded with economic good news about investments in Canada. Christopherson changed topics — but not volume — as he decried the Prime Minister not meeting with the Council of the Federation. Paul Calandra insisted that the PM and cabinet meet with their provincial counterparts on a regular basis. Nycole Turmel read out the same again in French, got much the same answer from Calandra, and Turmel gave the Tim Horton’s layoffs question yet again in French. Moore repeated his previous answer in French. Stéphane Dion led off for the Liberals, demanding that the PM meet with the premiers in light of falling oil prices, not that Paul Calandra’s response changed. Ralph Goodale wondered why the snub if the fiscal issues were so severe as to delay the budget — Calandra repeated his talking points. Goodale brought up the delays in infrastructure funding and suggested the income splitting funds be put those investments instead. Peter Braid got to take this question, insisting that they have done more for infrastructure funding than anyone else in history.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cheap outrage and bad design

Posted on by

An op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen caught my eye yesterday, which talked about the reason why we get so much bad architecture here in the Nation’s Capital. Much of the government’s real estate is controlled by the department of Public Works, and there is a legitimate fear that anytime there’s good design, they’ll be criticised for spending money. And this is where I get both sad and angry (or “sangry,” as one fellow journo has dubbed). We have developed a culture of cheap outrage in this country, thanks to groups like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and media outlets keen on cashing in on the cheap headlines that a high dollar figure out of context will generate. One of the worst offenders was Greg Weston, formerly of Sun News and later CBC (since retired from journalism). Anytime money was spent, well, he’d be all over how awful it was. New “temporary” committee rooms for Parliamentarians that have *gasp!* wood panelling! Millions of dollars! We can’t have that! (Never mind that “temporary” means something on the order of 20 years). The renovations to the West Block which includes the glassed-in courtyard that will house the temporary House of Commons? Millions of dollars! Outrageous! (Never mind that that same glassed-in courtyard will find new life as committee rooms after the Commons moves back to the Centre Block). Apparently it’s terrible if parliamentarians are not made to sit in portables during renovations, or that the context of those high dollar figures is something akin to them being halfway reasonable considering what has to go into that kind of work. How much do you expect a glass roof in keeping with the neo-Gothic architecture is supposed to cost anyway? It’s the same with the government selling off diplomatic residences and insisting that our ambassadors serve Ritz crackers and ginger ale at functions. Gods forbid that we actually put on a good face for stakeholders or visiting dignitaries, or even other Canadians to show a hint of prestige, that this is the national capital. No, anything that even hints at costing money must be treated as heresy. It’s sad that we perpetuate this mindset, and not reserve the outrage for legitimate boondoggles and wastes of money. No, instead we make it so that nobody can have nice things, and we all suffer as a result.

Continue reading →

QP: Blame for job losses

Posted on by

With the benches (more or less) full and all of the leaders present, it was looking to be a fired up day. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the lower job numbers from StatsCan, and called youth unemployment “scandalous.” Stephen Harper got up and insisted that the trends were clear and that they created some 1.2 net million jobs. Mulcair turned to income splitting, and demanded to see the budget. Harper repeated his job figure, and said that lower-income households would benefit from their family tax cuts. Mulcair then pivoted to Iraq and insisted that our Special Forces were in combat and that the Americans weren’t. Harper didn’t argue the specifics, but just insisted that the NDP and Liberals opposed the mission and that our forces were just firing back when fired upon. Mulcair demanded to know when it was that our forces were authorized to enter into a combat mission. Harper lashed back, impugning that the NDP were sympathetic to jihadis instead of our troops. Mulcair then brought up a case of a soldier’s suicide, to which Harper offered condolences before listing programmes that he claimed the NDP didn’t support. Justin Trudeau was up next, and noted the income splitting plan benefitting the most wealthy families. Harper made a dig about Trudeau’s trust fund, and insisted that working families needed their priorities. Trudeau repeated the question in French, Harper repeated the dig in French, and for his final question, Trudeau brought up the government spending $700,000 in legal fees to fight a court battle against a veteran. Harper tried to cast the blame against the former Liberal government for the problems with the New Veterans Charter.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Recycled economic planks

Posted on by

Thomas Mulcair spent the noon hour yesterday laying out three of his party’s economic planks for the coming election. (A reminder: it’s still nine months away). To that end, Mulcair promised a cut to small business taxes, an extension of the capital gains cost allowances for companies buying new equipment, and an innovation tax credit for businesses. The first of those is not new – the NDP have been going in this direction since the previous election, and the second is current government policy that is set to expire, but one wonders how much it has been taken up as the government already extended it, and we still hear that Canadian companies didn’t spend the high dollar years investing in this equipment to boost productivity at a time when it was advantageous for them to do so, and now the dollar is much lower and it’s more costly for these businesses to buy this new equipment. The third, geared toward research and development, again sounds suspiciously like what the current government has been trying to do as they retooled the National Research Council to help with commercialisation of technologies. There is, of course, debate on some of the utility of these points as well, with certain experts saying that those small businesses that would benefit from this kind of tax cut are already well off. (Also, small businesses are not the biggest job creators in the country – sorry, but that doesn’t make any mathematical sense). The final point is geared toward revitalising the manufacturing sector, but it’s pocket change in terms of dollars, and the sector has much more entrenched structural problems. Of course, there is no mention of how this is costed, on top of promises for their childcare spaces, restoring the much higher healthcare transfer escalator, and returning OAS eligibility to 65 – and no, raising corporate income taxes won’t get you that much, nor will going after offshore tax havens. Mulcair also added that the NDP would move to protect pensions from bankruptcy proceedings, which again is not new policy, for what it’s worth.

Continue reading →

QP: Avoiding the questions on contradictions

Posted on by

Unlike yesterday, it was all leaders on deck in the Commons, which would hopefully make it a more exciting day. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about ground forces targeting for air strikes in Iraq and how it is a combat role. Harper, in his first appearance of 2015, accused the NDP of not supporting the mission and noted his support for the mission — not actually an answer. Mulcair insisted that Harper misled the public — earning him a caution from the Speaker — and Harper insisted that the troops were executing the mission that they were given and good for them for shooting back. Mulcair gave a retort about the truth, then pivoted to the question of when they would see a budget. Harper stuck to the point about Canadians seeing need to fight ISIS. Mulcair noted his speech about plans to help the manufacturing sector, to which Harper praised his own plan for balanced budgets and low taxes, in contrast to the higher taxes the NDP would impose. Mulcair then accused the government of not responding when the Bank of Canada was in their decision to lower interest rates. Harper explained to him that the Bank of Canada’s policies are announced quarterly, while budgets are annual, not every month. Justin Trudeau was up next, and spelled out the government’s contradictions when it comes to “advise and assist” and “accompany” when it comes to the Iraq mission. Harper didn’t offer clarity, but battered the Liberals on their lack of support for the mission and praising the troops for firing back. Trudeau didn’t press, but switched to the size of the hole in the budget based on lower oil prices. Harper insisted that they would balance the budget, and even the PBO agreed. Trudeau wondered then why, if nothing had changed, why they would delay the budget. Harper insisted their plan was working, but again didn’t answer the question.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Economic bluster

Posted on by

The mood of the moment on the Hill is economic bluster in the light of falling oil prices and a delayed budget – not that there wasn’t some bluster around the Iraq mission to go around either. The NDP announced early on that they want an immediate fiscal update, the subject of today’s opposition day motion – along with the demand to create a budget that suits their particular terms, naturally. The government, however, spent the day playing as if nothing is really wrong. Sure, they’ve lost some manoeuvring room, but they insisted that they will a) balance the budget, b) deliver on all of their promises, and c) not make any more cuts, though one presumes that means any more cuts on top of the continued austerity programme that their whole “surplus” was built on. They can’t really explain how this will happen, other than to use the $3 billion contingency fund, to which Oliver has started talking about how it’s there to be spent and it’ll just go on the bottom line (i.e. national debt payments) otherwise. I will make the additional observations that the NDP were trying to roll the Target layoffs into their lamentations of economic doom and demands for a “jobs programme,” the Liberals were more focused on getting the actual figures for the hole in the budget that the drop in oil prices created and pointed out that Oliver has the information and wasn’t sharing it. It was a noticeable distinction.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/559804485556781058

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/559804578800357376

Continue reading →

QP: Dusting off the cobwebs

Posted on by

The first Question Period of 2015 took place on a cold day in the Nation’s Capital, with more than a few empty desks still dotting the chamber as MPs make their way back. The PM was absent, at that RCMP funeral in St. Albert, Alberta, but the rest of the leaders were present, which has become unusual for a Monday. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the our Special Forces painting targets for the bombing mission in Iraq. Rob Nicholson insisted that they were doing what was stated — advising and assisting. Mulcair noted that this was ruled out by the Chief of Defence Staff back in September, but Nicholson offered some bafflegab about shooting back when fired upon. Mulcair insisted that they never should have been put in harm’s way in the first place, but Immediately changed topics to demand the budget that will reflect falling oil prices. Joe Oliver insisted that other projections were more generous than the ones the government made, and that they would honour their promises to the provinces and families while balancing the budget. For his final question, Mulcair gave the demonstrably false “all of our eggs in the oil basket” meme, threw in the job losses from Target, and demanded a jobs plan. Oliver repeated the substance of his answer. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the government’s wrong projections about the price of oil and wondered what kind of a hole that put in the budget. Oliver said there was an adjustment of $2.5 billion, and they would base budget projections on private sector economists’. Trudeau insisted that Oliver was not sharing the figure that his officials gave him, and asked him whether they would use the contingency fund to balance the budget, based on contradictory statements. Oliver repeated his line about private sector economists, and then accused Trudeau of talking down the manufacturing sector. Trudeau then changed to the issue of Special Forces on front lines, to which Nicholson said that they need to be with Iraqi forces to assist and train them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A look at the weeks ahead

Posted on by

Parliament is back today, and to set the stage, Stephen Harper delivered a speech to supporters in Ottawa to announce that he would balance the budget, deliver new anti-terror legislation by Friday, and generally set the pre-election stage that this sitting is going to consist of. Because if there’s anything Canadians are really looking forward to, it’s a nine-month-long campaign. Meanwhile, can someone please point out to me where exactly a Liberal government dramatically hiked taxes, as Harper claimed? Because I’m drawing a blank on that one.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, it’s not media apathy

Posted on by

The prime minister’s former director of communications writes that it’s perfectly natural that the government wants to create their own communications channels that bypass the media because We The Media are apparently “apathetic” to what the want to tell us. You will forgive me for saying, but I’m not sure there are words enough to express how big of a load of utter horseshit that this justification actually is. His definition of “apathy” is that the media won’t act as transcriptionists for their feel-good stories, which forces them to go around us. Fair enough – it’s not our jobs to retype your press releases and make you look good. But what is utterly galling is for him to turn around and declare that the media has a challenge function that’s important for democracy and that’s why they’re needed, when the very same government that he served is doing their level best to kneecap journalists from fulfilling that role. Whether it’s frustrating Access to Information laws, closing off all avenues of communication with ministers, not returning phone calls and delivering bland statements in lieu of answers to questions being asked, or simply dragging out responding to media requests until it’s well past deadline, it all amounts to choking off necessary information from the media because it fulfils its challenge function, and that challenge function makes the government look bad. When the media does write about the government’s use of their own distribution channels, it’s not because we’re sulking that we’re not the privileged distributors of information – it’s that we’re being denied the ability to do our jobs as we’re shut out of events, not allowed to ask questions at announcements, and that our independent photographers are not allowed to even capture those events and are instead being handed a staged photo to run instead that shows what the government wants us to see instead. That’s not giving us the space to perform our necessary challenge function – it’s trying to turn us into organs of propaganda. That he ignores those legitimate complaints and frames them as “sweating over” trivialities is part of what makes his whole construction utterly farcical.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hedging the messages

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau continued his tour of southwestern Ontario over the past couple of days, meeting with local mayors and touring a Ford plant, and so on. But while he was talking about moving away from traditional manufacturing while in London, his stop in Windsor spoke about the need to support the auto sector as a pillar to diversify around, which seems to me to be a fairly big hedge since much of the problem with the auto sector is that it pretty much requires the government to keep feeding the beast with ever larger cash subsidies lest those manufacturers relocate elsewhere, which they generally end up doing anyway, while not enough is being done to transition those communities away from the expectation that they’ll get a decent paying job at the auto plant with a pension and benefits. Also, he needs to stop saying that the government put all of their eggs in the oil basket, because it’s like four percent of GDP, so it’s just not true. Another curious statement Trudeau made was that carbon pricing should be up to the provinces, which seems like a fairly fraught proposition because one can rather easily imagine the headaches that having a patchwork of pricing schemes around the country will create – carbon tax in one province, a technology levy in another, and cap-and-trade in yet another, while the federal government tries to book the overall reductions with no real commonality between them.

Continue reading →