Tag Archives: Gun Control

QP: Insufficiently tough about softwood lumber

Posted on by

A single day after the prime minister took all of the questions, he was too busy with “private meetings” to return for a second day in a row, but his deputy was present, so hopefully it would be okay after all. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and he moaned about the higher softwood lumber tariffs and called the prime ministers a “pushover.” Chrystia a Freeland read that she was extremely disappointed by the unfair and unwarranted decision by the US, that Trudeau did raise it in Washington last week, as did she, and that it was fuelling America’s inflation. O’Toole accused the Liberals of selling out workers, for which Freeland reminded the Commons that O’Toole publicly called on the government to drop retaliatory measures against other American tariffs, which Canada won. O’Toole then raised the threats over PEI potato exports, and Freeland said she would leave it up to Canadians to judge their successes with the New NAFTA and the 232 tariffs, before she pivoted to addressing PEI farmers, reminding them that she grew up on a farm too, and she was working to resolve the situation. O’Toole then switched to French, and said the government was racking up failures, for which Freeland reiterated that they have been trying to resolve the softwood lumber situation. O’Toole raised the issue of inflation, and Freeland reminded him that this is a global phenomenon as a result of economies restarting, and the government was working to help Canadians.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and demanded that all health transfers be given to provinces without strings, and Freeland assured him that they wanted to work with Quebec. Therrien demanded a public summit with premiers, for which Freeland reminded him of the support they sent to Quebec during the pandemic.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he demanded immediate action on the climate crisis and an end to fossil fuel subsidies, and Freeland stated that she agreed that climate action as urgent and essential and that those subsidies would be phased out next year, and that a raft of independent experts judged the Liberal plan the best. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Casting doubt as a smoke bomb

Posted on by

As I was just saying about Canadian political leaders focusing on American issues and culture wars, we are seeing yet another instance in this country – this time over the upcoming riding redistribution hearings. The Conservatives have decided that they want to go all-in on American culture wars and are fundraising to fight these redistributions, citing that they don’t trust the Liberals to run the process fairly – never mind that the process is arm’s length, and the fact that the Speaker of the House is involved in the process is supposed to ensure neutrality. The fact that he was elected as a Liberals should not be a factor – and it’s especially rich from the Conservatives, seeing as it was their votes that ensured that Rota got into the post during Tuesday’s election (and I know enough about where votes were going for certain candidates that the maths work out that the Conservatives were voting for Rota).

We really, really do not want to go down this path of making a partisan issue of riding redistribution, because only madness lies this way. Aside from outright partisan lunacy in thinking that this is an effective way of fundraising never mind the corrosive effect that this has on our political system, it’s also a simple admission of sore loserism. If they think they’ve been losing because of riding redistribution (with “rurban” seats largely being split up into actual rural and urban seats), the most recent redistribution happened under their watch, and frankly, “rurban” seats were pure gerrymandering because they didn’t make sense and were trying to use rural votes to outweigh urban ones and never made sense in terms of “communities” like they are so concerned that ridings encompass. If they think that they won’t get a fair shake this time around, it’s pure projection.

Of course, this isn’t actually about riding redistribution – it’s about throwing another smoke bomb into the mix in order to distract from the party’s internal problems and the challenges to Erin O’Toole’s leadership. The fact that they are trying to discredit a process that is meant to be removed from political considerations and partisan gamesmanship is pretty gross, especially because that is meant to be a pure distraction (and fundraising grab). This process is important to our democracy, and for them to cast doubt for selfish reasons is a sign of the party’s continued moral decline.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Substance-free gong show, English debate edition

Posted on by

The English debate, with its much higher stakes, was no better than the French. It too lacked substance or any meaningful exchanges because they had a schedule of topics to get through, and wouldn’t you know it, they weren’t going to let exchanges get interesting or involved – they just wanted to move on. Justin Trudeau tried to paint Erin O’Toole as weak, Singh tried to paint Trudeau as unable to fulfil promises. Trudeau warned that Singh was trying to instil cynicism among progressives because he refused to acknowledge any work done. Annamie Paul kept insisting that the key to everything was to work together. And Yves-François Blanchet and moderator Shachi Kurl started getting into it, and that gave Blanchet the victim card he was looking for in the Quebec media, particularly around Bill 21.

https://twitter.com/ChrisGNardi/status/1436172199430328323

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1436142521118334983

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1436154327169581083

The fact that they are still moaning the fact that we’re in an election is getting really tiresome – but not quite as tiresome as the fact that Trudeau still can’t make a convincing case for it. He keeps trying to go hard on insisting there are huge and sharp divisions between the different parties, which is why he needs the electoral support to carry on making tough choices about the pandemic. What he won’t spell out is that he needs that support because the spring session was a toxic swamp that stalled virtually all bills for months, including the budget implementation bill for the fall economic update and all of the pandemic supports therein. The fact that he refuses to say that, for whatever “happy warrior” shtick he thinks is going to win him points, just gives the other parties a pass for their petty bullshit in the spring, and the campaign of dishonesty that accompanied it, and it just keeps him from making an actual case. I don’t get it, but clearly this hasn’t blown over.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1436137253504536581

If you need lists of takeaways, you have plenty to choose from – CTV, Maclean’s, the Star, and CBC. The CBC also has a half-assed fact-check of things mentioned during the debate.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The PBO’s dubious stamp of approval strikes again

Posted on by

With less than two weeks to go in the campaign, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says he has returned 75 of 100 costing requests, but the Conservatives have not authorised release of any of theirs yet. The Liberals appear to have released most of theirs, and the NDP have only released two so far – but theirs are both fairly problematic.

Their first costing was for their pharmacare plan, basing it on Quebec’s 2016 formulary, and drawing their assumptions out from there for five years, and presumes that they could get a national plan up and running by next year using that formulary as an example. That’s a virtual impossibility, and a national formulary still needs to be negotiated (which the Canadian Drug Agency Transition Office is set up to coordinate once more provinces sign on), but hey, they got the PBO’s stamp of approval. Their costing for their wealth tax is also loaded with plenty of poor assumptions, has a huge uncertainty around a behavioural response – tax avoidance is a whack-a-mole problem – and most importantly, the base assumption is for a tax on “economic families,” when our tax system is built around individual filers. They would need to create a whole new tax system to capture this one percent of net wealth. And as Lindsay Tedds points out, there is no way this could be administered to get revenues for the current taxation year, but hey, the PBO put his stamp of approval on that one too.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1435346365228400643

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1435349658805624834

The notion that the PBO should do platform costing because he’s “neutral” is a poor move, because costing is an inherently political exercise. It requires implementation decisions that have huge effects on what is being projected, and those are decisions that he should be far away from.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Evidence-based dumping a promise

Posted on by

Because we’re going to re-litigate this issue yet again over the course of the campaign, I’m going to remind you all that Trudeau’s decision to abandon electoral reform was a result of evidence-based policy as opposed to a lie or false promise. The issue was studied. They engaged in polling that was output-based, meaning what people wanted for outcomes rather than simply asking them which system they preferred, because that conditions people who are rote in their responses about what system they think they prefer, without necessarily understanding their outcomes. And the outcomes they were looking for had a lot more to do with status quo than most people like to believe.

Beyond that, the special committee that studied the issue in the House of Commons returned a report that was hot garbage. Its conclusions were to call on the government to design a bespoke version of proportional representation that fell below a certain threshold of what they consider vote percentages to seat allocations which would require a massive number of new seats to be even remotely possible, that also had to have a simple ballot and retained the ability to elect individual MPs who had a connection to the riding as opposed to choosing MPs from party lists. Such a thing is a virtual impossibility. The common talking point is that Trudeau killed it because it didn’t advance ranked ballots, which he preferred (never mind that the Liberals on the committee didn’t advance study of this system in any meaningful way), and both the committee and the media were caught up in one bullshit analysis that relied on a single poll of second choices that declared that the Liberals would have won more seats under such a system, where there is actually no evidence of that. (Seriously, look at how politics works in Australia’s House of Representatives, which is elected by ranked ballot). That was the dominant narrative, which made it poisonous for Trudeau to advance.

But we’re going to get a bunch of people continue to moan about that in this election, including some ridiculous assertions that if the Conservatives form government that it’s because Trudeau didn’t implement proportional representation. (Seriously, if you favour a voting system because you think it’ll keep a certain party out, then you’re a sore loser, not actually interested in democratic outcomes). And no doubt, we’ll see some more garbage journalism like this CBC piece which is obtuse about things like the Conservative platform, and getting comment from a single political scientist who favours reform. Seriously? That’s not how you do your job.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another day, another position on gun control

Posted on by

Another day, and Erin O’Toole has yet another position on gun control. In the face of more questions on just where he stands, O’Toole now says that he’ll keep the existing prohibitions in place – but remains cagey on just what those are, never mind that his platform says he’ll repeal them. Also, never mind that his own candidates are saying they’ll repeal the measures the current government put into place.

What is fascinating as well is to watch certain small-c conservative columnists report on this about-face, saying things like this might save O’Toole’s campaign, rather than, oh, this is yet another example of him swallowing himself whole, reversing his positions when it suits him, saying one thing to one group and another thing to another group if he thinks he can get away with it, and generally being a naked opportunist. And these tend to be the same talking heads who spend days if the Liberals “flip-flop” on a position. I expect we’ll see a few more days of questions to O’Toole on his changing positions, and whether they change again in another day or two.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Promising to take credit for work already accomplished

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole released his plan yesterday to ensure that the country would reach 90 percent vaccination rates – voluntarily! The centrepiece of this campaign? A series of mail-outs that would appeal to Canadians’ patriotism in order to get vaccinated. Because appealing to “personal responsibility” has worked so well in Alberta. O’Toole’s plan has some additional tinkering around the edges, such as free Uber and Lyft rides to vaccine appointments, or reimbursing employers for the time off to get it done – things that should not be the responsibility of the federal government, quite frankly.

One of the more galling aspects of his “plan,” however, is around booster shots, and insisting that they will “prioritize the signing of contracts” for booster shots – erm, except that the Liberals already did that. They have a contract with Pfizer to provide additional doses through 2024 if need be, which O’Toole is either lying by omission about, or he’s making a somewhat sexist attack against Anita Anand and slighting her work on this file – while literally promising to take credit for the work that she did. Either way, it’s both misleading and a bit gross, but when has it been anything but over the course of this campaign. (Oh, and his promise to “accelerate homegrown development and production of vaccines” pretty much ignores how vaccine development and production works, but hey, this is also the election where leaders keep promising a Green Lantern Ring to solve all of their problems).

Meanwhile, I can’t help but roll my eyes as Conservatives are clutching their pearls that the Liberals are releasing “negative” ads about them. The party has spent the past number of years going on a strategy of shitposting at every opportunity, and of giving their MPs free reign to proffer conspiracy theories like saying that the Liberals want to “normalise sexual relations with children,” and they get the vapours when the Liberals put out attack ads? Girl, please.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1434194410263220225

Continue reading →

Roundup: Grading the parties’ sincerity on climate

Posted on by

One of the great things about the policy landscape in Canada are the number of professors out there who are willing to devote their time and energy to providing advice to political parties, or who will be willing to evaluate their proposals. We had an example of this as professor Mark Jaccard at Simon Fraser University went and checked over the parties’ environmental platforms and did the modelling on them, and then graded them – and the Liberals came out ahead by quite a margin (and in the interest of trying to look “balanced,” the CBC declared that the Conservatives were “not far behind,” though it was literally the difference between an A- and a D).

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1433770709730344962

The full study not only evaluates the targets, but the policies and costs as well – because there are economic costs to some of these plans. Interestingly, he also tests the sincerity of those plans, which is not only a sense of how feasible they are, but also their history as a party of a willingness to do the heavy lifting, and that’s a pretty important measure. “Beware of politicians who promise big but have not subjected their promises and plans to assessment by independent climate policy modellers. In this regard, the NDP and Greens are suspect,” Jaccard writes, and it’s worth reading through why he gives them the scores he does. The economic damage that the NDP plan promises to do would never be agreed to by their union base, and the fact that it would require a police state for them to set the kinds of binding carbon budgets that they propose are demonstrations about how unserious the policies are.

What is disappointing in this is that the NDP in particular started making personal attacks against Jaccard, and trying to build lame conspiracy theories that he is somehow being paid off to pump up the Liberals and talk down the NDP, which is both ridiculous and is the kinds of sore loser tactics that we’ve come to expect. (Seriously, my reply column on a daily basis is full of Dippers with hurt feelings because I have the temerity to point out the reality of things like jurisdiction or the fact that you can’t willpower things into existence). Elizabeth May was among those who took swipes at Jaccard, for the temerity of being an economist and not a climate scientist – which is also ridiculous because economics is literally the science of allocating scare resources, and the fact that climate scientists are not offering policy solutions. Science is not policy, and that’s why it’s important to understand the difference between the two and how they complement one another – providing that you’re willing to listen and not get in a huff because someone pointed out that your implementation plans don’t belong in the real world.

https://twitter.com/MarkJaccard/status/1433891783524720641

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unnecessary panic about inflation

Posted on by

It was predictable that it would happen – yesterday was the day when the Consumer Price Index figures are publicly released, and for the past few months, this has turned into a political gong show. Why? Because the Conservatives have decided to misconstrue what the data shows and to light their hair on fire about the top-line figure and wail that we’re in a “cost of living crisis.” Which is false – inflation is running hot for everyone right now, not just Canada, as a result of economies re-opening and global supply chains being disrupted by the pandemic, which affects prices, on top of the fact that there is some distortion in the year-over-year figures as a result of last year’s price crash. And to add to that, much of what is driving the July numbers are higher gas prices – which is a global issue, and good for Alberta’s economy – and higher housing prices, which is a driven by a lot of different factors. And hey, clothing and food prices were down, so there are upsides, right?

The problem, of course, is that this is being politicised – wildly so. When it came up on the campaign trail, Trudeau said that he was going to let the Bank of Canada do their job and worry about monetary policy while he worried about families, but this was truncated in the reporting, and which also got trimmed into Conservative shitposts, and O’Toole was given fresh cause to decry the “crisis.”

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1428104169009909763

Of course, O’Toole isn’t proposing any solutions that actually deal with inflation (and his plans will actually make it worse), but if he wants to start banging on about it and monetary policy, then he needs to start talking about what he thinks the Bank of Canada’s mandate should be – especially as that mandate is coming up for renewal. Should they continue to target inflation between one and three percent? He seems to sound like he wants them to target deflation, so good luck with letting the economy grow under that kind of mandate. Parliament should have this kind of discussion, but they need to actually have it – not just talking points and shots taken that assume people are ignorant about what it means. And the reporters on O’Toole’s campaign need to step up and start asking him these questions rather than just typing up his talking points.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1428094182531510282

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1428096342342213637

Continue reading →

Roundup: On JWR’s Globe interview

Posted on by

On a slow news weekend, about the only thing of interest was an interview that Jody Wilson-Raybould did with the Globe and Mail about her upcoming book, which everyone seems to be hoping will have some kind of explosive revelations that will reverberate on the campaign trail (and rest assured, the publisher is timing the release to coincide with the election because they want the sales).

I’m not sure that there was anything too new in this interview, but I would make a couple of observations. One of them is that she never got Trudeau’s cell phone number, but had to deal with either Gerry Butts or the PMO switchboard to reach him, which is interesting from a way of how Trudeau views his Cabinet. Another is that she notes that in the beginning, there did seem to be a true attempt at “Cabinet government,” where ministers were given their files and left alone to deal with them, and only later did PMO start interfering, leaving Wilson-Raybould to believe it was all a sham. I’m less convinced it was a sham – my own conversations with various and sundry people have tended to indicate that PMO only started to handle those ministers who were less than competent at their jobs, but this being a Canadian Cabinet, stay in for various reasons (largely around representation) – certainly not every minister is being handled by PMO. It also fits with what I heard about Wilson-Raybould’s performance as minister, which was largely that it wasn’t terribly competent (and the fact that there were bills that were continually abandoned and absorbed into larger omnibus bills is certainly one indication of this). As well, she seems particularly sore that her ideas for advancing Indigenous self-governance weren’t necessarily being followed, and there seems to be a bit of ego in that she feels hers was the way to go, though given the particularly fractious nature of Indigenous politics, one can bet that her ideas weren’t necessarily being universally agreed to by other Indigenous leaders.

This being said, I don’t doubt that she feels she as being tokenized by this government, and she’s not the only one. That’s a problem, but I’m not sure it would be any better in any other party, and it may require another generational change within all of the parties to start improving. I do think there is plenty of blame to go around for her experiences in federal politics (and she is neither blameless nor a victim), and it’s too bad that we are losing her perspective from Parliament.

Continue reading →