When asked about why his concern over the “stagnating” middle class and how it doesn’t fit with the trend lines in the data, Justin Trudeau said that he’s looking at the data since the 1980s – just before two massive recessions – and cited that ESDC report that said that the middle class dream is “more myth than reality.” It certainly raises questions about the supposed commitment to evidence-based policy when it doesn’t fit with the narrative that they’ve decided to fight the next election on.
Tag Archives: Elections Canada
QP: If a comedy show can do it…
A couple of hours after the speech in the Commons by the Aga Khan, things had quieted down considerably, and most of the leaders had fled. Thomas Mulcair was still around, and he led off by by asking about the elimination of vouching at the polls. Pierre Poilievre responded that in some 40 percent of cases of vouching, there was no way to contact the voucher to ensure there was no fraud. Mulcair wondered about cases where fraud by vouching was prosecuted and why not fix the system. Poilievre said that the Neufeld report showed that even when they tried to fix the vouching system and better monitoring it, there were still irregularities in more than 20 percent off cases. When Mulcair pressed, Poilievre reminded him that there were documented case of someone using the voter ID cards to vote more than once in his own hometown. Mulcair accused them of trying to make it harder for people who don’t vote Conservative, but Poilievre stuck to the facts around those documented cases, as part of a comedy show or not. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, and thrice asked about the cuts to infrastructure spending and called their announcements little more than “creative accounting.” Peter Braid responded, and insisted that they’ve tripled investments in infrastructure.
QP: Trying to resurrect questions of the Senate
With much of the media’s attention turned to Rob Ford’s visit to Ottawa, all party leaders were in the House, ready to scrap. Thomas Mulcair led off by pointing out that a certain Senator headlined a fundraiser for Pierre Poilievre — actually not government business — not that Harper took the bait and praised the elections bill instead. Mulcair brought up the Deloitte audit and tried to insinuate that Senator Tkachuk was passing information to the PMO. Harper reminded him that it wasn’t a question for him to answer. Mulcair then asked why it was that the previous draft of the election bill was rejected by the Conservative caucus, but Harper insisted that Muclair’s information was wrong. Justin Trudeau was up next, and brought up slowing growth figures and wondered why the Building Canada Fund was losing money, but Harper hit back by saying that Trudeau didn’t understand the economy. And on it went for two more supplementals.
QP: No, you ducked out the back door!
With all of the leaders in the House today, it was hopeful that there would be some excitement. Thomas Mulcair led off by bringing up Brad Butt’s “misspoken” voter card story and wondered if there were any real stories about this kind of fraud. Stephen Harper insisted that there were thirty-nine different options for ID available, and left it at that. Mulcair asked about seniors who don’t have most kinds of ID, but Harper reiterated his answer. Mulcair tried to press about Conservatives being charged for voter fraud, but Harper insisted that it was a question for investigators, and hey, your party was forced to pay back union donations. For his final question, Mulcair wondered if there was any investigation into fraud by way of vouching, but Harper merely praised the bill. Justin Trudeau got up and asked about Harper’s promise about income splitting, and if he ever intended to keep the promise. Harper insisted that the budget was not yet balanced, and that they did not balance themselves. Trudeau pressed, but it wound up being a back-and-forth on who was ducking out of back doors instead of facing the press.
Roundup: Ridiculous paranoia and shameless misspeaking
The Fair Elections Act was back front and centre in the House yesterday, with the NDP’s opposition day motion to hold cross-country hearings on the bill. Aaron Wherry heard back from Pierre Poilievre on the problems with vouching, and from the former BC Chief Electoral Officer who wrote a report on said issue, who doesn’t think it should be eliminated by simply streamlined. There are concerns that the changes in the Act could prevent the Chief Electoral Officer from reporting to Parliament on the investigation into the fraudulent robocalls (Poilievre insists it won’t be the case). The provision that both chambers of Parliament would need to sign off on future online voting experiments is bringing out the paranoia that the Conservative-dominated Senate will kill all future attempts, out of spite or something (because the Senate has never been dominated by an opposition party before apparently – and seriously, grow up). And then, to top it all off, Conservative MP Brad Butt decided that no, he didn’t actually witness voter fraud by people taking discarded voter identification cards and then using them illicitly – he just “misspoke.” Multiple times. In the House and in committee. Oh, but now he considers the matter to be “closed,” so stop asking. Yes, apparently he is that shameless.
QP: The post-Olympic high
With the Olympics now over, and MPs giving glowing statements about our medal winners, and the Liberals revved up after their weekend convention, one could almost hope for a punchy QP. Sadly, with a large number of empty seats in the chamber and only one major leader present, it wasn’t going to really be an exiting day. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking for an update on the Ukrainian situation, to which Chris Alexander read a pro-forma statement. Mulcair segued to the elections bill, and demanded to know why Senate committees could hold consultative hearings across the country, but not the committee charged with the bill. Pierre Poilievre insisted that they were listening to Canadians and that the NDP didn’t bother to read the bill. Mulcair and Poilievre had a couple of back-and-forths , after which Speaker Scheer cautioned Mulcair to stop using the word “cheating.” Mulcair stood up and declared that the Conservatives were trying to pre-cheat the next election, and sat down, no question. Scheer said nothing, and moved on. Ralph Goodale was up for the Liberals and asked about that report on the foundering middle class and noted the ways in which the government raised taxes. Kevin Sorensen insisted rather vigorously that his government had cut taxes, and wouldn’t be dissuaded otherwise. Marc Garneau asked the same in French, not that Sorensen’s answer changed.
Roundup: Trying to court the retired general
A few hours before his speech at the convention, it was revealed that retired General Andrew Leslie would let it be known that the Conservatives tried to recruit him. He was vague about it in the speech, however, saying that he had discussions with several parties (to which both the Conservatives and NDP denied it, Pierre Poilievre trying to dismiss it that they didn’t want him anyway) and danced around it when asked during the press scrum afterward. Leslie did get quite a dig in at Rob Nicholson during said scrum, so there’s that. Later in the day, Leslie produced a series of emails in which he was talking to very senior Conservative staffers about various positions, including running for them in a couple of different Ottawa-area ridings, so those denials were all the more suspect, not that the Liberals minded that he was shopping around – they were glad that he wound up a Liberal. Aaron Wherry had a conversation with Leslie, in which he defended the $72,000 benefit, as part of the conditions of service.
Roundup: Commence the convention
The Liberals’ policy convention is now underway in Montreal, and while things started off with a bit of an oops – the feed from the main stage was live to the reporters’ room while Trudeau was practicing his speech, giving it away before he could make it, and it included his camera directions. He delivered his rah-rah partisan speech to kick things off, which included a couple of digs at Pauline Marois, and to Harper and Mulcair in which he said he wasn’t going to play their game of trying to make Canadians angry, and ended it with a Skype call to his family (as they stayed in Ottawa, his wife due to give birth any day now). A few Senate Liberals, but not many, are in attendance, for which the NDP are trying to get a social media shaming going. Mike Moffatt offers three questions for the Liberals to look at as they try to formulate economic policy during this weekend’s convention. Kate Heartfield notes the implicit populist tones in Trudeau’s economics video, and how it still creates an Us and Them in order to play that populist card, while still trying to look like he’s above tribalism. Michael Den Tandt writes that the broad strokes economic policy will be looking at ways to bring the Red Tories and Blue Liberals back into the fold and away from the Conservative coalition. Paul Wells writes about the Conservatives hoping that the convention will prove to be a gaffe-fest for Trudeau (and along the way, coins the best descriptor for the Fair Elections Act as being “Conservative-fair”).
Roundup: Hints and small measures from Mexico
At the “Three Amigos” summit in Mexico, things indeed seemed a bit frosty heading into it, as Harper refuses to lift the visa restrictions on Mexicans, and Obama won’t speed along the Keystone XL decision – a decision which got a whole lot trickier as a judge in Nebraska has struck down the Governor’s approved route for the pipeline, which could mean yet more delays for the project. It does, however, sound like common standards on greenhouse gas emissions may be on the way for Canada and the US. Also agreed to at the summit were a continental transportation plan, more joint research, more security agreements, and a working group to ensure the conservation of the monarch butterfly.
Roundup: Emoting about the economy
The Liberals put out a YouTube video wherein Justin Trudeau narrated their concerns about the economy, which was a lot of angst about the middle class. Because apparently facts and figures can be displaced with talking about feelings. Suffice to say, reaction among economists has been mixed – while some like the format, they are quick to point out some of the inherent problems with the message. Things like the political nonsense that Prime Ministers directly run economies, or the assertion that the middle class “lives off their incomes and not their assets.” (Do you know which is the class that lives off of their assets? Retirees). And then there’s the assertion that middle class incomes have stagnated over thirty years, when they haven’t – they fell drastically and have recovered over that thirty-year period, so it’s not exactly an accurate description. And as Stephen Gordon points out, the recipe Trudeau offers is largely wishful thinking. But why should we let actual facts get in the way of emoting about the economy?