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: First Nations
Roundup: Hysteria over a difference of opinion
All of the tongues were wagging yesterday as it appeared that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty started backing away from the government’s promise to implement income splitting for families once the budget gets balanced. Unfortunately, this also resulted in a number of hyperbolic lines of copy, with things like “split in the caucus,” because there can’t be disagreement without it being a major issue, which in turn makes the tendency for rigid message control all the more prevalent (although, it is a bigger issue when it’s the PM and finance minister who can’t agree, but let’s keep things within reason). Or all the musings about Flaherty “being in the doghouse” because Harper himself was answering questions in QP – which people started complaining about. Seriously – Harper was answering questions! Like a Prime Minister! This is a good thing, people! John Geddes puts Flaherty’s musings in with the context of his broader freelancing from the party line of late, while Kevin Milligan offers an overview on the research into income splitting. Andrew Coyne writes that the rift between Harper and Flaherty on clear party policy shows that perhaps Flaherty should think about stepping down.
QP: Budget reaction PMQ
With everybody digesting the yesterday’s budget, it was likely to be a day of round condemnation, punctuated by fulsome backbench praise. With all of the leaders and the finance minister in the House, it had the potential to be a good day. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking if it was true that the finance minister no longer believed in the promise of income splitting. Harper responded that they brought it in for seniors, whereas the NDP wanted to raise taxes. Mulcair wondered why the Conservatives had fired 300 food inspectors only to re-hire them in the budget, to which Harper insisted that they had increased the number of inspectors, before reading a list of groups who liked the budget. Mulcair moved to the Elections Act, and wondered why the Elections Commissioner would be reporting to the justice minister. Harper said the Commissioner would be independent, and by the way, in the NDP leadership race, they didn’t count fundraising expenses either. Mulcair wondered why they wanted investigation suspects warned but not the general public when it comes to voter fraud, but Harper responded with accusations of the NDP using union funds. For his final question, Mulcair asked about using the EI fund to balance the budget, but Harper insisted there would be a long-term balance in the fund. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals and wondered why the minister didn’t ask for more funds for veterans, but Harper hit back with a comment that Trudeau made about budgets balancing themselves. Trudeau wondered about a plan for economic growth, to which Harper assured him that the record of Economic Action Plans™ spoke for themselves.
QP: Budget Day eve
As the Olympics distract the masses, the Grand Inquest of the Nation carries on. Well, minus most of the party leaders anyway. Thomas Mulcair was present, and started off by asking about the newly reported debt figures, and demanded action on ATM fees and credit card interest rates. Kevin Sorensen accused the NDP of wanting to “pick the pockets of Canadians,” and that they were encouraging Canadians to be careful with their debts. Mulcair rambled on about budget shoes and slippers, and returned to the same demand, to which Sorensen touted tax cuts that the government had made. Mulcair moved onto the elections bill and the topic of voter identification cards. Poilievre insisted that there was a mistake in one out of six of those cards, meaning that they weren’t secure but there were 39 other form of acceptable identification. Mulcair dropped a non sequitur Olympic reference before returning to the bill and the issue of democracy promotion. Poilievre spoke about more advanced voting days. For his last question of the round, Mulcair decried the gagging of the Chief Electoral Officer, to which Poilievre quoted other sections of the act to disprove Mulcair’s point. John McCallum led off for the Liberals, asking about the tariff changes and Canada Job Grant out of last year’s budget, and if they would be corrected in this year’s. Sorensen touted all the wonderful things their government had done. Ralph Goodale asked about other budget items like job training and infrastructure funds, but Sorensen recited good news talking points.
Roundup: A new hope for leadership debts
One of the aspects of the new electoral reform bill that I was always wondering about – leadership fundraising – is being changed. Once it comes into force, contributions to leadership campaigns can be annual instead of lifetime, so that means that some of those former leadership candidates can start to fundraise from the same donors again. The bill doesn’t change the enforcement of those old debts, which was basically unenforceable. Meanwhile, Jason Kenney has said that the government would consider amending the bill at committee to include a ban on veiled voting, after a question by the Bloc about this. While David Christopherson may warn that it’s a dangerous game to find a wedge issue like this, he seems to forget that his party was also in favour of banning veiled voting when it was an issue in the Commons a couple of years ago. Stephen Maher points to the various flaws in the bill that require correcting – and all party support to make the whole endeavour legitimate. Andrew Coyne wonders just what problems the bill was intending to solve, because the provisions in the bill seem to be reflecting problems that aren’t actually there.
Roundup: Mayrand hits back
Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand hit back against Pierre Poilievre’s slam against him that he is somehow wearing team jersey. Mayrand says the only jersey he is wearing are the black and white stripes – the referee – and the changes in the new Fair Elections Act will mean that he’s no longer on the ice. With time allocation on the elections bill looming, the NDP decided to spend the first half of the sitting day yesterday engaged in procedural warfare, trying to delay the debate on time allocation, with a series of votes that eventually delayed QP itself. With those hurdles now cleared, they are proposing a motion in Procedure and House Affairs committee that they travel around all regions of the country to consult with Canadians on the bill, though I have some concerns about some of the groups they want to hear from. After all, Fair Vote Canada is the largest voter suppression organisation in the country (who else goes around telling everyone that their vote doesn’t count?), and Democracy Watch is pretty much run by a crank that doesn’t have a clue about civic literacy. But hey, consultations!
QP: Late out of the gate
Votes at the end of a series of procedural tactics given the NDP’s opposition to time allocation on the elections bill delayed the start of QP today, and when it did get started, Thomas Mulcair was the only leader in the House — Harper off in Quebec City and Justin Trudeau in Montreal. Mulcair started off , somewhat surprisingly, with a question about the funding gap for children on First Nations reserves, and if it would be addressed in the budget. Bernard Valcourt said that funding would come with reform of the system, which has been ongoing. Mulcair moved onto the morning’s PBO report that said that public servants don’t take any more sick days than private sector employees. Tony Clement said that if one added paid and unpaid sick days, public servants were still higher than the private sector. Mulcair brought up elections bill and the fact that it gave a veto to testing new election measures to the Senate. Poilievre assured him that it was to ensure parliamentary approval for experiments, and when the NDP tried electronic voting at their convention, it didn’t work. New MP Emmanuel Dubourg led off for the Liberals, and asked about the cuts to the Building Canada infrastructure fund, and would the shortfall be restored in the budget. Kevin Sorensen waxed poetically about a brighter future for everyone in Canada. Ralph Goodale repeated the same in English, but this time Peter Braid answered, who assured him that investments in infrastructure tripled. For his final question, Goodale hammered on consumer debt levels, but Sorensen gave some “stay the course” talking points.
QP: Questioning the elections bill
Despite it being caucus day, the Conservative benches were surprisingly sparse as QP got underway, but given that all leaders were present, we would at least have some excitement. Thomas Mulcair started off by asking if impersonating an elections official to suppress votes was not already a crime. Harper instead talked up his new elections bill, and all the great things that were in it. Mulcair hit back by accusing the bill of being a cover for an attack on Elections Canada given the various investigations, but Harper insisted that the courts cleared them of any wrongdoing, which wasn’t entirely the case if memory serves. Mulcair turned to the provisions around voter IDs and the vouching system, but Harper rejected the claim that this was discouraging people from voting. Justin Trudeau was up next, and brought up the tariff hikes from the last election, and noted that the lower dollar would make things even more expensive. Harper rejected the claim, and said that it was about levelling the playing field. Trudeau brought up the IMF’s projections regarding anaemic growth, to which Harper insisted that Canada came out of the recession with some of the strongest growth in the world.
QP: A dig about veterans’ mental health
With all of the leaders in the House, it promised to be an exciting QP, but first, there were many Members’ Statements touching on the topic of Bell Let’s Talk Day. Thomas Mulcair began by asking about keeping the veterans service centres open, to which Stephen Harper assured him that they increased the number of centres — the over 600 Service Canada centres across the country. Mulcair brought up the eight recent military suicides to drive home the point, and Harper insisted that the centres being closed were hardly being used. Mulcair hit back by saying that Harper’s commitment to Bell Let’s Talk Day was cutting mental health services for veterans, before asking about his “affordability” proposals. Harper was not amused, and amid cries of “Shame,” pointed out the support they were giving to mental illness which was one of the reasons why he appointed Denise Batters to the Senate, given her advocacy work. Mulcair tried to ask about Senator Mac Harb’s alleged mortgage fraud, but the Speaker rightfully pointed out that it was not a question related to government business and shut it down. For his last question, Mulcair demanded that Harper ask the Government of Brunei to order their former diplomat to cooperate with the RCMP about Harb’s mortgage — because he apparently doesn’t recognise diplomatic immunity. Harper assured him that he had confidence in the RCMP to do their jobs. Justin Trudeau brought up a First Nations youth training centre in Whitehorse that is funded by the Labour Market Agreement that the government proposes to cut in favour of the Canada Job Grant. Harper insisted that youth unemployment was lower now than the average under the whole of the last Liberal government. Trudeau brought up a similar centre in Sudbury, but Harper said that they were making provincial transfers that benefitted these trainees. Trudeau closed by up the PM’s previous statements about provincial responsibility in this area, to which Harper responded that they recognised that job creation was the responsibility of the federal government.
Roundup: Rail safety recommendations released
The Transportation Safety Board released their recommendations following the Lac-Mégantic disaster, which not only includes phasing out the DOT-111 tanker cars (though there is no mandated timeline), but also choosing the safest routes, better emergency measures along those routes, and limiting train speeds along the routes that carry dangerous goods. Routes should also be inspected twice a year. The government accepts the recommendations, but because things are complicated and the systems integrated across North America, talks continue between governments.