Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

Roundup: No information on the cuts

Posted on by

Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page can’t get any information on government cuts, and feels the government is deliberately keeping people in the dark. Pat Martin says that the government should provide the PBO with the information so that MPs know what they’re voting on. Or, you know, MPs could compel the production of papers using the powers they already have and demand to know for themselves rather than involving a middleman like the PBO.

The NDP have agreed to wrap up the committee hearings into the Auditor General’s report on the F-35 procurement process because they heard from the witnesses they wanted to during their Potemkin committee hearing in the summer. You know, the one that’s not official, and not on the record? Good job.

Continue reading →

Lord and Smith Commission, Episode 10

Posted on by

My friend Destine Lord and I have a new video up, in which we talk about the framing device around faux “carbon taxes,” and the political games with MP pensions.

QP: Clawbacks and disincentives

Posted on by

Thomas Mulcair led off QP by wondering if the Prime Minister was in agreement with Peter Van Loan’s characterisation the day before that EI was a disincentive for people to find work. Harper stuck to defending his record of job creation. Mulcair’s last question was the topic of his party’s opposition day motion on whether Harper would meet with the premiers. Harper said that he’d met or called premiers over 250 times. Peggy Nash was up next, and in light of Nexen’s shareholders agreeing to be bought out by CNOOC, wondered if the government was aware of CNOOC’s environmental and human rights record. Mike Lake responded by saying that the investment review process was sound and that the minister was taking a close look at this case. Denis Coderre was up for the Liberals, asking about those EI clawbacks. Diane Finley rose instead of Harper, despite it being the leaders’ round, and responded with the wise words “workers are better off when they work.” That’s, like, deep.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Framing the faux-debate

Posted on by

As the whole carbon tax faux-debate continues to rage unabated, it turns out that the Conservatives’ sector-by-sector regulatory approach has a lot of hidden costs to it. Bruce Cheadle delves into how the faux-debate is all about framing the issue, no matter how true or false it actually may be.

Changes to MP pensions may mean lifting the freeze on their salaries. The Liberals are demanding that the changes be in a separate bill, so that they can support it. Of course, the likely calculation is that the changes will be put into an otherwise unpalatable omnibus bill so that the Conservatives can accuse them of trying to protect their pensions.

Plans to allow American law enforcement agents to pursue suspects across land borders are “on hold” while they sort out legal issues.

Continue reading →

A note on this week’s opposition day

Posted on by

According to O’Brien and Bosc, the authority on parliamentary rules and procedure, the purpose of supply days is so that the opposition has a chance to demonstrate why supply should be refused. After all, it’s the role of the opposition to oppose the government, and they hold said government to account by controlling supply – the public purse. They are allotted so many days with which to demonstrate why the government should be refused supply.

This is the supply day motion that the NDP have proposed, and which will be debated in the Commons on Thursday:

“That this House acknowledge that the Canadian economy is facing unprecedented risk and uncertainty; recognize that many regions and industries across Canada have already suffered significant job losses in recent years; urge all levels of government to work together to build a balanced, 21st century Canadian economy; and insist that Canada’s Prime Minister meet with his counterparts in Halifax this November at the National Economic Summit being held by the Council of the Federation.”

Could somebody please tell me where in this is an ability to demonstrate why the government should be denied supply? Anyone? Helpful suggestions and attempts to legislate – or even “insist” – from the opposition benches are not the job of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

QP: Temporary foreign workers vs unemployment

Posted on by

Despite it being Wednesday and a caucus day, when MPs are normally riled up, QP was a bit more staid today. It may have been because Harper was absent from the House, out entertaining Olympic and Paralympic athletes that he had just awarded Diamond Jubilee medals to. Thomas Mulcair led off by wondering how hiring more temporary foreign workers would help the unemployed in this country, leaving Peter Van Loan to act as designated back-up PM du jour, during which he recited talking points about how the government was creating jobs. All while folding his notes constantly. Mulcair went on to read further variations on that question, eventually wondering about rules changes that demanded that people take pay cuts or lose their EI, to which Van Loan recited that it was always better to have a job than to be on EI. For the Liberals, Dominic LeBlanc asked about EI clawbacks, income inequality and youth unemployment, but Van Loan simply listed off the tax cuts his government had offered to showcase all of the work they’ve done for Canadians.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another omnibus?

Posted on by

Here’s a look at what a new omnibus budget bill might contain – things like changes to science and research policies, or minor tax changes. Apparently there is some debate within the caucus about what the changes to pensions should entail, especially around the age of eligibility.

The opposition is concerned that a crackdown on “absentee” permanent residents could negatively impact the investment climate in the country.

We’re signing a nuclear deal with the United Arab Emirates in order to provide uranium to their reactors, and to set an example to Iran, apparently.

Continue reading →

QP: Scary trade deficits!

Posted on by

Yesterday, everyone was up in arms about a fictional carbon tax. Today, it was that trade deficits sound scary. Thomas Mulcair started off QP by reading off a questions premised on the fact that when Harper took office there was a trade surplus (for which the Liberals applauded themselves), and now there was a trade deficit caused by an “artificially high dollar.” Harper shrugged and said that such a deficit existed for “complex reasons,” but hey, they didn’t want an NDP carbon tax! And after Mulcair hammered after the trade deficit, he then read off questions about unemployment, for which Harper touted his government’s job creation record and listed a number of programmes they implemented.  Nowhere in this did anybody mention that we have a trade deficit largely because of weak global demand due to Eurozone uncertainty and slowing growth in the Chinese economy, coupled by a high dollar – but hey, the word “deficit” sounds bad, so we must capitalise on that rather than realising that a trade deficit isn’t actually what you think it is. Onward, Marc Garneau was up for the Liberals, asking about youth unemployment rather than the government trying to change the channel. Harper repeated his line about job creation. And when Garneau asked specific questions on making tax credits refundable and rolling back new payroll taxes? Harper answered with the accusation that the Liberals didn’t support their plans to lower taxes (which they loudly denied), and that the father of the carbon tax, Stéphane Dion, was sitting right behind him.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fictional carbon taxes

Posted on by

The first day back in the Commons, and all anyone can talk about is whether or not the NDP was proposing a carbon tax. Which they weren’t. But hey, why not use this hysteria as a distraction from actual debate? Van Loan laid out what the plans were for the fall – new budget implementation bill, which will likely include changes to MP pensions, RCMP bill, more tough on crime measures – but the Lawful Access bill was notably absent. Amidst the whole Conservative/NDP carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade punch and counter-punch, economist Stephen Gordon lays out the economic differences between the two.

Oh noes! Government backbenchers are showing a bit of backbone and having independent thought. We The Media must immediately crush this by writing “IS STEPHEN HAPRER LOSING CONTROL OF HIS CAUCUS?” stories.

Continue reading →

QP: First day of school

Posted on by

After an all-too predictable joking statement on the government legislating and end to the NHL lockout, and numerous Conservative statements on the fictional NDP “carbon tax,” Thomas Mulcair started off Question Period by citing things like the trade deficit while wondering if Harper would change his economic strategy. Harper spoke about the uncertain global economy, but gave no indication that he was willing to make any changes. Mulcair asked about the government cutting services during times of such high unemployment. Harper countered with the figure of three-quarters of a million net new jobs. Mulcair cited all of the instability in the European and American economies. Harper reminded him that Canada wasn’t the cause of that uncertainty, and hey, we’re the stable ones. Oh, Mulcair said, don’t get too caught up in “Fortress Canuck” when you should be protecting Canadian jobs. Better us than your tax hikes, Harper retorted, which was pretty much the same reply when Mulcair asked about whether or not he would meet with the premiers. Ralph Goodale was up for the Liberals, first asking about programmes to help young Canadians, to which Harper chided that while the NDP have bad ideas, at least they have some, unlike the Liberals. Goodale then asked a technical questions about financing cooperatives, but Harper ignored it and gave a rote talking point about the economy and lower taxes. Goodale closed off by asking about income inequality, to which Harper reminded him that they lowered the GST by two points for all Canadians.

Continue reading →