While we may be past the halfway mark in this campaign, we’re also well into the territory when things start getting a bit…surreal. Or utterly nonsensical. Take your pick. All of it done in the breathless hyperbolizing that parties do in order to try and make their rivals look bad. If you take a look at any Conservative press release, the sections comparing “Justin and Mulcair” are full of ridiculous non sequiturs that have little or nothing to do with the topic at hand. The Liberals are trotting out Jean Chrétien to say that Stephen Harper has “shamed” Canada (never mind that the rest of the world really doesn’t care). And the NDP have been taking the cake for some of their criticisms, which are starting to sound more like grasping at straws. They held a news conference with Charlie Angus to decry Justin Trudeau for “smearing” small businesses when he pointed out that wealthy people self-incorporate to pay lower taxes. And then Angus admitted that it’s a problem and they need to “tweak” the system, but still tried to insist Trudeau was smearing. Their line of attack about not being able to trust the Liberals not to make cuts is predicated on the 1990s, never mind the fact that the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio is nowhere near what it was the. And now Thomas Mulcair is brushing off the concerns of the premiers for his plans, whether it’s Senate abolition (which most don’t support), or childcare (which the provinces are expected to pay 40 percent of), or even their balanced budget pledge, of which provincial transfers are an issue. But he’ll have a “mandate” he says. Never mind that he sounds like he’s already over-reading it when he hasn’t even been given one. Suffice to say, the talking points from all sides are getting ridiculous. And we still have a month to go.
Tag Archives: Elections Canada
Roundup: First quarter results
The Fiscal Monitor was released yesterday, and Stephen Harper was quick to don his Prime Minister hat to tout that it showed that the government posted a $5 billion surplus for the first quarter of the fiscal year. Better than expected, he proclaimed. On track to a balanced budget! Err, except maybe not. Much of that revenue had to do with the sale of those GM shares that they used to show that the budget was in balance, and it doesn’t fully take into account the plummeting oil prices or the GDP contraction that our economy has been facing. (We’ll find out on Tuesday if we saw a second quarter of negative growth, officially putting us into a technical recession). Not unsurprisingly, the Liberals called the surplus “phony,” and pointed out things like the GM shares as proof. Here’s Stephen Gordon to put the numbers into context:
The 12-month budget balance has been in surplus since April pic.twitter.com/CUPprE6f0g
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) August 28, 2015
Revenues – you see the jump from the GM sale in April /4 pic.twitter.com/2l4vISrOJ0
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) August 28, 2015
Transfers to provinces have been growing steadily /6 pic.twitter.com/4JP0lYV0n1
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) August 28, 2015
The EI balance is about $2b above what it was before the CPC arrived /8 pic.twitter.com/PpEIOyVQ11
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) August 28, 2015
Especially cuts outside defense /10 pic.twitter.com/pLxfwTqIiV
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) August 28, 2015
Zooming in on revenues. Here are personal income tax revenues (PIT) /12 pic.twitter.com/Hm7HVZkGTd
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) August 28, 2015
And finally GST revenues. /14 pic.twitter.com/Z6zt7GWbMJ
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) August 28, 2015
Roundup: The anti-intellectual warning shot
The markets are crashing, the dollar continues to plummet and the price of oil seems to be in free-fall, but what is it that has the Canadian commentariat entranced – well, aside from the latest Duffy minutiae? The fact that Doug Ford may be contemplating the federal Conservative leadership if Stephen Harper fails to win the upcoming election. It kind of makes me want to weep. “Oh, it’ll be hilarious!” the Twitter Machine keeps relaying, but no, it wouldn’t. It would be heartbreaking for what it means to democracy. As we saw with the Rob Ford years in Toronto, and as we’re seeing play out with the Donald Trump primary race in the States, what more rational people see as hilarious and unbelievable is being embraced by a share of the electorate who are disengaged and who believe that all politicians are liars, so they would rather someone who stands up there and “tells it like it is,” never mind that what they’re telling them is completely divorced from reality and also generally false. We are already dealing with an overload of anti-intellectualism in the Canadian discourse (and no, not just from the right-leaning populists – you should see the abuse heaped on the economists who dared to debunk the NDP’s minimum wage proposal earlier in the week). Do we need it compounded on the federal scene by such an individual? While people may treat it like a joke, it’s a legitimate threat. Remember that Rob Ford got elected mayor because the very people who dismiss the Ford brothers can’t seem to grasp that they do strike a chord with voters, and I can’t think of anything more terrifying for the future of federal politics.
Roundup: The PMO’s invisible levers in the Senate
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.
Roundup: Crossing the line with a golf shirt
The official date of the new child benefit cheques going out saw the Conservative government at its most ham-handed yesterday, starting with a “leaked” letter to caucus about just how historic this event was as the “single biggest one-time direct payment in Canadian history.” Funny, it seems to me that an actual conservative government would rather just lower taxes across the board rather than bribe people with their own money, but oh, wait – this is a right-flavoured populist government and not a real Conservative one. As ministers and MPs went around the country to tout the benefit, and social media sites were bombarded with blaring ads, some of which were branded as “Christmas in July,” Pierre Poilievre was the most egregious of all, hosting a press event in Halifax that was arranged by his department, and yet featured him wearing a Conservative-branded golf shirt, as though this were a partisan event, or that it was somehow the Conservatives doling out this largesse rather than the Government of Canada. It was utterly crass, and yet the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner decreed that no, it wasn’t actually in contravention of the rules, though one cannot deny that it was in poor taste and poor judgement. Mind you, this bit of vote-buying is going to blow a big hole in the government’s budget, given that growth projections are down and we are pretty much certainly back into a deficit position (not that the budget was actually balanced – simply papered over by raiding the contingency reserve and the EI fund). But then again, the NDP have declared that the child benefit would remain under their plan on top of their plans to have this universal childcare programme (well, years down the road at a great cost to the provinces) and the Liberals planning to revamp the whole system that will also cost at least an extra couple of billion more than this programme does. Watching this play out in the election while each touts fiscal responsibility will be an interesting exercise.
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/623101132664127488
https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/623280296646057984
https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/623280700016472064
Roundup: Stacking the panel
The government has unveiled how they’re going to respond to the Supreme Court’s ruling on doctor-assisted dying, and it could not be any more spineless if they tried. Having first ignored the issue in Parliament for decades, they waited for the courts to tell them to do something, and by something, they decided to appoint a three-person panel to hold more consultations and come up with recommendations. In other words, outsourcing their response. But wait – it gets better. Two of the three members of this panel are opponents to doctor-assisted dying, and testified on the government’s behalf during the court cases. The third member, a former Quebec cabinet minister, is vested in the issue of provincial jurisdiction. In other words, the government has decided on the outcome they want, and stacked the panel in such a way as to deliver it. We shouldn’t be surprised by this response, considering how closely it mirrors what happened with the Bedford decision on prostitution. Rather than actually heed the decision and what it said about safety and security for sex workers, the government stacked their consultations in favour of opponents and religious institutions, dismissed as much expert testimony as they could in committee hearings, and drafted a bill that substantively does not change the situation for those sex workers when it comes to their safety, and will in fact just drive the industry further underground by criminalising buyers, and all the while touting that they were listening to the responses from their consultations. Watching them do the same with the assisted dying issue is proof positive that this is a government that refuses to make any hard decisions. (On a related note, here’s an interesting analysis of the Court’s decision in the case from Michael Plaxton and Carissima Mathen).
The government has announced their panel to deal with the Carter decision. #SCC #AssistedDying #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/n3KyOaKc3L
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 17, 2015
Roundup: Wai Young, Conservative fabulist
Yesterday it was revealed that Conservative MP Wai Young spoke at a church congregation to tell them that Harper was doing things in the same vein as Jesus, and used Bill C-51 as an example. Because Jesus was really concerned about giving inordinate powers to intelligence agencies without any kind of oversight, and about preventing terrorist attacks – oh, wait. No he wasn’t. While Young’s terrible theology sparked the usual ridicule over the Twitter Machine, it was her other statement that was perhaps most alarming, which was her claim that CSIS knew there was a bomb on the Air India flight 30 years ago, but were forbidden from sharing that information with the RCMP, and 400 people died as a result. Except no, none of that is true, they didn’t know and they could share information. Oops. Young later claimed that she “misspoke,” but that seems to be code amongst Conservative MPs for making stuff up. You know, like when that other Conservative backbencher apologised to the House for “misspeaking” when he claimed that he has directly witnessed people taking voter identification cards out of the recycling bin with the intention of casting fraudulent ballots. Turns out that one wasn’t true either. But hey, political fabulism is apparently okay so long as you apologise for “misspeaking” when you get caught. Truth and debating on the strength of your ideas doesn’t matter – no, you can just invent things out of whole cloth, repeat complete fabrications against your opponents (income splitting for seniors, anyone?) and say it often enough in the hopes that people will start believing it’s true (Hello, 2011 election). Why wouldn’t a backbencher like Young think it’s okay if this is the behaviour that she’s watching get rewarded by everyone else around her? It’s a sad indictment of the state of our political discourse.
Roundup: Making the AFN pitch
The Assembly of First Nations has been holding their General Assembly in Montreal, and both of the two main opposition leaders addressed them yesterday. As First Nations leaders try to convince their people to start flexing their political muscles, with some 51 ridings they say that they can influence, both Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau made their pitches to the assembled chiefs. For Mulcair, it was largely a recapping of pledges he had made previously, while Trudeau unveiled a much more comprehensive policy plank for the party’s election platform. The fact that the parties are making this kind of a pitch – probably the most high-profile of such pitches in recent electoral memory – is a sign to the seriousness to which Canadians are taking these issues now, where they would have been considered far more niche in elections past.
NDP Promise #1: A cabinet level committee, chaired by Mulcair, ensuring all federal decisions respect UNDRIP, section 35. #AFNAGA
— Hayden King (@Hayden_King) July 7, 2015
NDP Promise #3: #MMIW Inquiry within 100 days of being in office, #4: Funding for environmental assessments, #5: Repeal C-51.
— Hayden King (@Hayden_King) July 7, 2015
Trudeau invoking the Two-Row Wampum (a first?). Now onto the crushed Kelowna Accord, which would have saved us all, if it just had a chance.
— Hayden King (@Hayden_King) July 7, 2015
And another surprise, JT invoking "creation and the creator."
— Hayden King (@Hayden_King) July 7, 2015
Promise #2: Liberals will amend C-51 in regard to First Nations being seen as terrorists. #AFNAGA
— Hayden King (@Hayden_King) July 7, 2015
Liberal promise #6: Changing CPC Election Act, #7: Meeting with Chiefs annually, #8: Work on implementing TRC rec's, starting with UNDRIP.
— Hayden King (@Hayden_King) July 7, 2015
Liberal promise #10 (or thereabouts): Immediately end the 2% cap and create a "new fiscal relationship." #AFNAGA
— Hayden King (@Hayden_King) July 7, 2015
Other LPC funding commitments are for child services (@cblackst getting a shout out) and support for language revitalization.
— Hayden King (@Hayden_King) July 7, 2015
Finally, Trudeau making a commitment to an inquiry into #MMIW.
— Hayden King (@Hayden_King) July 7, 2015
Roundup: Stability versus change
As Stephen Harper made his big annual Stampede speech to the party faithful over the weekend, a couple of familiar themes emerged – security and stability, versus a shambolic European-style economic calamity and open season by “jihadist terrorists.” Because there’s nothing like cartoonish hyperbole to get people all excited, or a slogan like “choose security over risk.” The problem would seem to be that Harper might not have been paying too much attention to his own record, or the expert opinion on what he has done. You know, like pretending that the economy is going just fine, thanks, and that oil prices are going to rebound sooner than later. Or the expert commentary from his own security agencies who said that all of the new powers that they were given weren’t actually necessary or able to stop lone-wolf attacks like we saw in October, nor does he give them the resources they’re asking for, but rather letting them just reassign all of their people from combating organised crime to fighting terrorism instead. How is that working out for everyone? All of which to say is that it makes the case for four more years of the same to be one where people should be asking him some tougher questions – that is, assuming that he’ll take questions from the media, and that they won’t waste their questions asking about hockey. Again. Of course, the competing visions are “good competent public administration” and “Real Change™,” so we’ll see which message takes hold among the public imagination, but changing up governments every decade or so is a good and necessary thing in our political system, which makes the case for another mandate to be tougher to ask for and probably drives the cartoonish hyperbole. Will people buy it remains the question.
Roundup: Stampede politics
It’s Stampede time in Calgary, and all of the party leaders are headed out there to play the part. Curiously, all of them will be there at the same time rather than spacing their presence out a bit as they have in previous years, and both Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau are putting in appearances in the Stampede Parade. Speaking as a former Calgarian, Stampede is a peculiar kind of phenomenon – long-time Calgarians will try to flee the city for it because it’s so much insanity (much of it alcohol-induced. It’s no secret that post-Stampede you see a spike in sexually transmitted infections, and a baby boom nine months later). But because Calgary is one of those cities with a large in-migration population, it becomes this exercise in conformity, where people will shell out hundreds of dollars in order to get the right wardrobe to participate, and subject themselves to awful country music in order to fit in and show that they’re really Calgarians. It makes for a very interesting political contrast as well – last weekend you most of the party leaders in the Toronto Pride Parade, which is all about diversity and difference (and congratulations to the Conservatives for finally opting to participate this year); this weekend they’re at Stampede, which is about looking the part in order to fit in. Both are seen as necessary stops in order to show themselves off to those different political bases. That each leader gets judged on how well they can dress for Stampede is also an interesting exercise (and a far less forgiving one than the suits that they normally wear). It shows how strange the Canadian political landscape can be, and the summer barbecue circuit – particularly during an election campaign.