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?
Tag Archives: Environment
Roundup: Checking in with the props
With all of the talk about the future of the income splitting promise in doubt, Jennifer Ditchburn checks in with the family that was used as the prop for the announcement during the last election. She found that they’re not really Conservative party members, and they’re waiting to see what else gets proposed instead of income splitting before they make up their minds. Stephen Maher notes Kenney’s intrusion into the file, and how he continues to stoke the social conservative base, which may be in support of his likely leadership bid.
Roundup: Kenney makes things awkward
Those questions of the government position on income splitting dominated the headlines again today, with some new added dimensions as Jason Kenney popped into the controversy. As Harper conspicuously avoided assuring reporters that the proposal was still on the table, Jason Kenney insisted that they keep their campaign promises – something that may be a signal and a warning. If it’s not an official government policy, then disagreement is certainly interesting, but if it is, then a split in cabinet means that cabinet solidarity is being ruptured, and someone is going to have to resign (unless we’re really keen to throw out the rules around Responsible Government). Michael Den Tandt believes that the government should step away from the policy, and the sooner the better.
QP: Dodging and weaving around promises
With a Team Canada hockey game going on, the members were distracted as QP got underway, and there were a great many empty seats dotting the chamber. Even more, only Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May were the only leaders present. Megan Leslie led off for the NDP, and wondered if income splitting was to be abandoned. Jim Flaherty rose to assure her that they were committed to tax relief for families, and that the opposition voted against income splitting for seniors. Leslie pressed, and Flaherty hit back about how only the Conservatives lowered taxes. Leslie turned to the elections bill and wondered why the government was reluctant to allow cross-country consultations. Pierre Poilievre insisted that he consulted outside of Ottawa and heard their complaints. David Christopherson shouted the same question again in English, to which Poilievre insisted that the opposition simply needed to submit a list of witnesses to the committee, and they would be bring them in. Trudeau returned to the issue of income splitting, and how Kenney rebuked his own caucus members by saying they always keep their promises. With that established, Trudeau wondered what happened to the patient wait time guarantee. After some hesitation, Rona Ambrose rose to assure him that billions had been invested in the problem. Trudeau then wondered about the promise to lower the price of diesel fuel, to which Flaherty dodged by insisted that they lowered all kinds of taxes. For his final question, Trudeau wondered about the promised oil and gas regulations, but Leona Aglukkaq skated and tried to accuse the Liberals of letting the infrastructure in national parks lapse.
Roundup: More concerns about the elections bill
By day two of examining the Fair Elections Act, more of the flaws have become apparent – limiting the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to speak publicly, leaving the job of promoting elections to parties – who tend to only target likely voters and would be in danger of entrenching disenfranchisement, the end of the “vouching” system likely to disenfranchise more marginalised voters, and no real oversight of parties themselves during elections. Even more concerning – even to former CEO Jean-Pierre Kingsley, who has been otherwise in favour of the bill – is the provision that exempts the party from counting fundraising expenses for anyone who has donated over $20 to the party over the past year. In other words, it’s a backdoor loophole to keep an increasingly costly practice from counting against spending limits. Oh, and after a whole two hours of debate, the government moved time allocation. Because we apparently can’t have too much democracy. Canadian Dissensus finds even more problems with moving the Commissioner of Elections over to the Director of Public Prosecution’s desk. Kady O’Malley writes how the provisions on limiting bequests will likely disadvantage the NDP the most.
Roundup: Charges laid against Brazeau and Harb
It has finally happened – charges laid against errant senators. In this case, one count each of fraud and breach of trust against retired senator Mac Harb and suspended senator Patrick Brazeau. (The RCMP said that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Harb with mortgage fraud, for what it’s worth). Both will appear in court at a later date, and each professes their innocence. And yes, the RCMP are continuing their investigations into the dealings of Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin, so we may yet hear about future charges being laid.
QP: Fantino not going anywhere
It was a busy news day, with the Fair Elections Act tabled and charges laid against both Senator Patrick Brazeau and former senator Mac Harb. It was a question of which would happen first — denunciations of the bill, or attempting to make a Mac Harb question sound like government business. When QP got underway, Thomas Mulcair first demanded the resignation of Julian Fantino, not that Stephen Harper was going to bite on that one. When he insisted that the veterans service centres be restored, Harper insisted that they had increased services, not cuts. Mulcair moved onto the issue of CSE’s monitoring of airport WiFi and asked who authorised it, Harper assured him that CSE acted within the law. Justin Trudeau was up next, and brought up the elections bill and called it an attack on Elections Canada. Harper insisted that this was simply about ensuring proper independence of the Commissioner of Elections. When Trudeau brought up Elections Canada’s request to have the powers to compel testimony, Harper retreated to the same talking points.
QP: Sedate questions sans Fantino
Monday in the House, and the benches slowly filled up before QP was about to get started, but Elizabeth May was the only leader present. As well, it was Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin in the Chair, and the Wooden Mace on the table. That left it up to Megan Leslie to lead off for the NDP, wondering about Julian Fantino’s union-bashing rather than supporting veterans. Parm Gill, Fantino’s parliamentary secretary, insisted that veterans would be better off with the new system as there would be more home delivery of service. Leslie moved onto the topic of CSE using airport Wifi to track travellers, to which Rob Nicholson repeated the talking point that the CSE Commissioner found their activities to be within the law. Jack Harris repeated the same again in English, not that he got a different answer. For the Liberals, Wayne Easter carried on with the questions of CSE’s activities, but Nicholson’s answers didn’t change. When Easter brought up the Commissioner’s report in which he stated that some of the activities may have been directed at Canadians in contravention of the law, Nicholson’s answers didn’t budge from their script. Marc Garneau have one last attempt at the question in French, but Nicholson insisted that CSE was in the business of protecting Canadians, and that should have the support of the Liberals.
Roundup: Reorganizing Elections Canada?
It sounds like the election reform bill will be tabled soon – possibly this week – and sources are saying that it will reorganize Elections Canada, removing the Commissioner of Elections from the organisation into its own standalone office. It also sounds like the Chief Electoral Officer has not thus far been consulted on the bill, so we’ll see just how problematic that actually ends up being.
QP: Fantino gives assurances
With things having calmed down on the Hill somewhat after yesterday’s excitement, and only one major leader in the House, it was certainly a much more sedate day in the Chamber. Mulcair opened with a series of questions about the closures of veteran service centres, and wanted to know if the Conservatives would be allowed a free vote on their opposition day motion. Julian Fantino, in his robotic monotone, insisted that there were over 600 points of service that were nearby these veterans, even when it was pointed out that one the nearest Service Canada centre to one the closed veterans centre in Newfoundland is eight hours away. Stéphane Dion led off for the Liberals, and asked about the recent job numbers. Andrew Saxton touted the government’s job creation record. Scott Brison got up to demand a real plan for jobs, but Saxton disputed his figures, and on the supplemental, Saxton read off a list of programmes the government brought in.