Tag Archives: Jagmeet Singh

Roundup: Another candidate distraction

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was making campaign stops in Quebec, with no announcements or stump speeches, the Liberals did release a new campaign ad voiced by Chrystia Freeland to talk about how they fought “tooth and nail” for Canadian workers in New NAFTA talks and got a good deal from the Americans.

Andrew Scheer was treating yesterday as the campaign’s “down day” (which is normally Sunday), but he did stop at an Ottawa-area event by one of his local candidates, and was confronted with questions about her past comments about Francophones, and her friendship with noted white supremacist Faith Goldy. (Said candidate apologised for the comments but said nothing about Goldy). She fled from reporters, and Scheer said the Liberals were simply trying to distract from their record, and another Conservative claim of Liberal anti-Semitism was circulated (though apparently the courts have stated that it wasn’t anti-Semitism regarding that case). Nevertheless, that’s the fourth candidate that the Liberals have found damaging information on when Scheer has visited their ridings.

https://twitter.com/AndersonBooz/status/1173022235931447296

As for Jagmeet Singh, he went to Oshawa to accuse the Liberals of not standing up for auto workers, which is a curious charge given how much they’ve given to the industry to date, but there we are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reviving a failed tax credit

Posted on by

Day three of the campaign, and in the post-debate glow, there was some damage control on a part of a couple of leaders. Justin Trudeau was in Trois-Rivières, Quebec, to promise new measures to help small business, including the “swipe fees” that those businesses are charged for transactions.

Andrew Scheer was in the GTA, and he announced his plan to revive the Harper-era transit tax credit, but to rebrand it as “Green.” The problem, of course, was that it’s a nigh useless measure that disproportionately benefits the wealthy. (Fact check here to show that Scheer’s rhetoric is misleading, plus a thread from economist Lindsay Tedds). He also had to defend himself and do damage control over his meltdown during the debate on Indigenous issues and his contention that they hold major projects “hostage,” but he nevertheless refused to back down from the basic contention even if he tried to say that he didn’t mean to use those exact words. So that’s something.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1172519241918099459

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1172548996570734592

Jagmeet Singh was in downtown Toronto to promise to cap cellphone bills – a policy that has no actual specifics as to how he would do it and what the impacts would be – before giving a speech to the Canadian Club to tell them that if he forms government, it won’t be “business as usual” in Ottawa.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hostile territory and the first debate

Posted on by

While it was a quieter day on the campaign because of the Maclean’s debate during the evening, there were still a few events to set the tone of the day. Jagmeet Singh was first up by staging a photo op in Brampton near the local hospital, where he had a bunch of candidates and supporters line up, and someone held up a sign that said “waiting for healthcare” before he talked about…building a new hospital in the city. Which is provincial jurisdiction. And then he claimed that it was about offering the provincial government money to build one, which again, isn’t how this works.

Andrew Scheer went to re-announce his policy on a tax credit for parental leave, falsely billing it as making those benefits “tax-free” (which it absolutely does not do, and here’s tax economist Lindsay Tedds to break it down), before he got sidelined because the candidate in the riding he was making the re-announcement was outed as being an anti-abortion activist who wants to build a “monument to the unborn,” and he had to again address the issue – and she talked about how great it was that Scheer would allow free votes on the subject.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1172224257142611968

As for Trudeau, things were already off to a bit of a rough start after the media bus managed to damage the wing of his campaign plane on Wednesday night after they landed in Victoria, forcing them to get a new, un-branded plane for their day’s travels to Victoria – where he announced tweaks to the first-time home-buyers plan that was announced in the budget, but with new measures to assist those in hot housing markets along with a national speculators tax. His campaign later went to Kamloops, and then to Edmonton for a rally. There, he framed everything around his team, and minimized the talk about himself, but he also acknowledged the economic anxiety in the province, saying that the rest of Canada would be there for them, saying that he was holding to his promise never to pit regions against each other. I’m sure that will be disputed by some, but it was interesting. Also interesting was the tactical choice for Trudeau to campaign in Edmonton – specifically the vacant riding of Edmonton Strathcona, which the NDP held – on day two of the campaign, in a province whose premier is working hard to try and topple the government. It does send a message that Trudeau chose to be there rather than the debate – but we’ll see if that message resonates.

And then the debate. It was…not all that illuminating. While Elizabeth May was Elizabeth May – speaking extemporaneously on all things, and some of those things made sense and other things were complete lunacy – it was the first test of Scheer and Singh in that kind of a format. Singh turned to the others to make his interventions, and kept bring up people that he met who expressed concerns about whatever the topic was, while Scheer kept looking straight at the camera, and trying to wedge in his memorized talking points about Trudeau at every opportunity, no matter how inopportune or inappropriate to the discussion. Both Singh and Scheer stuck to scripted points, but a couple of more robust discussion did break out, and Paul Wells managed to get each of the leaders to expound on their tepid responses to Bill 21 in Quebec. The biggest…surprise of the night was when Scheer had a complete meltdown on the subject of UNDRIP and Indigenous consultation with resource projects, which could very well work against him as those communities mobilize to vote.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Agenda-setting out of the gate

Posted on by

With the proclamation signed by the Governor General to dissolve parliament, the 43rdgeneral election started, with Justin Trudeau emerging from Rideau Hall to have a ready-made human backdrop assembled for him. After a mention of the anniversary of 9/11, he launched into his election pitch about the record of economic growth because they rejected the austerity of the Conservative years, and yay Middle Class™ And Those Working Hard To Join It®. He listed accomplishments, and the choice of investing in Canadians, and the choice to move forward or go back to the “Harper years.” The questions afterward were dominated by two themes – the latest SNC-Lavalin news from the Globe and Mail, and Bill 21 in Quebec, and the linguistic duality on the two questions was quite evident. On the former, Trudeau simply said that he trusted the Clerk of the Privy Council’s judgment with regard to the cabinet confidences, and on the latter, he said that he opposed the bill but that now wasn’t the time for the federal government to interfere legally.

Jagmeet Singh held his launch minutes later in London, Ontario – one of the regions where they are looking to save the seats they have. Singh spoke about his personal connection to London, as he lived there when he attended Western, then launched into the tales of woe he heard from people there about pharmacare and healthcare costs – and lo, he has a pitch about expanding coverage around them. He then said that what his party had was the “courage” to take on lobbyists, corporations, money launderers, speculators, Big telecom, big polluters, and “fossil fuel subsidies” – a long list to be sure. He then moved on to claiming that “Trudeau charmed us with pretty words and empty promises”, and that Scheer was not the answer, then turned to the human backdrop and said “These are the people I’m in it for.” Like his slogan. In the questions, he was asked a local question about the General Dynamics plant which is building those LAVs going to Saudi Arabia, and have basically saved the local economy. Singh insisted that they could still have those jobs selling equipment to the Canadian Forces and to “non-oppressive regimes.” Err, except they have their own local suppliers, so he clearly has no idea what he’s referring to.

The Bloc’s launch in Quebec City was largely a laundry lists of exaggerated grievances and talk of a renewed Quebec nationalism, and one of the phrases that leapt out at me was talking about “people who will be like you,” which seems like a dog whistle, but perhaps it was a translation issue.

Next up was Elizabeth may in Victoria, where she brought local “climate striking” children on stage, and then launched into a speech about holding the line on climate change, decrying the Trans Mountain pipeline, and touting her “Mission: Possible” climate plan. She also demanded that parties “jettison partisanship” to solve climate change – never mind that she herself is partisan, and it’s become a Green tendency to pretend that sanctimony is non-partisanship. When faced with questions about vote splitting, she asserted that “Greens don’t split votes, Greens grow votes,” and when pressed about Pierre Nantel’s declaration of separatist sentiments, she prevaricated and assured us that “we’re all Earthlings.”

Finally we had Andrew Scheer, from Trois-Rivières, Quebec – one of those seats he’d love to gain. His 9/11 mentions included the plot of Come From Away as an example of why he loves the country. Using the Harper-esque prefacing of all statements with “friends,” his pitch was that it was time to elect a government that would elect a party that would improve peoples’ daily lives, while he claimed that Trudeau would raise their taxes (err, except that the record is the opposite). And then it was a laundry list of lies and disingenuous framing of issues, hammering on the Globe story about SNC-Lavalin – again, exaggerating what the story actually said. His message to Trudeau was that “starting today, recess is over” – part of his constant attempts to infantilising Trudeau (remember the constant claims that Trudeau is busy colouring in the House of Commons, or that he “wrote” a colouring book). For his Quebec audience, he added a few references about “open federalism” and Quebec being a nation within Canada, while slamming the Bloc as being ineffective in Ottawa.

This all having been said, I did want to touch on that Globe and Mail story for one other aspect, which is the fact that they deliberately published the story about “sources saying” the RCMP has been asking questions about “possible obstruction of justice” in the SNC-Lavalin case – which is not an investigation – on the eve of the election, because they are trying to set the agenda. Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t ask these questions, but agenda-setting – particularly where your stories are thinly sourced and with torqued headlines that give a misleading impression of what the story actually says – is of dubious ethical practice, and it’s something we should be cognisant of and think critically about.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cheap outrage over MPs’ spouses

Posted on by

Long-time readers will know that one of my pet peeves is the propensity for my media colleagues to push cheap outrage stories, to trigger the hairshirt parsimony and tall poppy syndrome of the Canadian public, and lo, they did it again with the screaming headline that taxpayers footed the bill for $4.5 million in MP spousal travel over four years. Which is actually not a lot, particularly when you consider that we’re a big country, and that airfare is expensive here because of our duopolistic air carriers and lack of population density.

Of course, when I tweeted this out, I had all kinds of people yelling at me that Bill Morneau’s millionaire wife shouldn’t be eligible for sponsored spousal travel. The problem with this kind of qualifier is that it when you start qualifying who is and isn’t eligible for the benefits based on personal circumstances, you start running into the mentality that plagued the UK for centuries – that MPs were poorly compensated and essentially needed to be independently wealthy before they stood for office. We’ve seen enough people suggest that the Canadian Senate be run this way, with the ludicrous suggestion that it be a volunteer position. I would also add that the divorce rate for MPs is several times above the national average – if we start begrudging their ability to travel with their spouses to Ottawa and back, particularly if the distances are fairly large ones – we’d see even more divorces, or a pervasive belief that people with families shouldn’t run for office. I’m not sure who that would benefit.

Throughout this bit of cheap outrage, Jody Wilson-Raybould’s spousal flights were singled out in a separate piece about cabinet ministers and their spouses’ travel costs. That a Vancouver MP’s costs would be higher should be no surprise, and it could very well be that they are higher because they may have been booked last-minute rather than in advance (given that they are simply treated by the MP and their spouse as points rather than being given a dollar figure as their expenses limit). Suffice to say, these kinds of stories are pretty gross when you stop and think about it, and the performative outrage over taxpayer dollars that are packaged in a way to look big and without sufficient context is one of the biggest problems we have in Canadian politics, and why we make the lives of our MPs so miserable.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Campaign launch and promises

Posted on by

As we wait for the writs to be drawn up – and I wouldn’t hold my breath on it happening until at least Wednesday, because they want to ensure that the Manitoba election is over first – we’re ready to start seeing the official campaign launches. The NDP were supposed to have theirs on Sunday, but cancelled it out of respect for Hurricane Dorian hitting Nova Scotia and PEI, only to turn around and then do a “bus unveiling” in Toronto and then head to Ottawa to “open” the campaign headquarters – which was essentially launching the “official” campaign anyway. All of which is a bit of a fiction because the campaign has really been going on for months, because fixed election dates are garbage. (Side note: in the week following the point being made that Singh has not yet visited New Brunswick, and the high-profile defections, that he still hasn’t bothered to make a stop in that province).

Meanwhile, because the NDP have already released their platform, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is starting to cost some of their promises, and the first one was released regarding their pledge to eliminate interest charges on current and future federal student loans.

https://twitter.com/twitscotty/status/1170671191629037569

Continue reading →

Roundup: New Brunswick dust-up

Posted on by

The situation in New Brunswick has turned to complete melodrama as it turns out that maybe it wasn’t fourteen former provincial NDP candidates who defected to the Greens, and that maybe it was only eight. Some said they were surprised to see their names on the list, others said that they were under the impression that this was really a discussion about merging with the Greens provincially to form a more progressive alternative party (given that the NDP were wiped out provincially, and it doesn’t help that their former leader crossed over to the provincial Progressive Conservatives and is now sitting as a cabinet minister). All the while, Elizabeth May is taking swipes at Jagmeet Singh for not visiting the province, while she also alleges that the NDP engaged in strong-arm tactics to force some of those former candidates to recant their cross to the Greens (which some deny). Amidst all of this are the allegations that some of this was because these NDP candidates felt that there are people in the province – singling out the Acadiens on the North Shore – would react poorly to Singh, and the howling that this is all about racism.

And it is possible that there is an element of racism in here, and we shouldn’t deny that it does exist in Canadian politics, even if it’s not overt. To that end, Andray Domise writes in Maclean’s that leftist parties in Canada don’t critically engage with issues of race because bigotry can be useful politically and economically, and it’s the kind of thing they should be engaging with but don’t. It’s a fairly damning condemnation of the state of leftist politics in this country, and nobody comes out looking good as a result (though, it should also be noted, that the Greens are not really a leftist party in most respects, and the NDP have turned themselves into left-flavoured populists over successive elections and leaders, so perhaps that makes the point even more trenchant).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Misleading his recruits

Posted on by

After some confusion in the Conservative ranks, Andrew Scheer’s Quebec lieutenant, Alain Rayes, is apologising for misleading candidates in the province when he insisted to them that the party considered abortion a settled matter and that they wouldn’t allow any attempt to change the laws. Not so – Scheer’s actual pledge is that the government – meaning Cabinet – would not bring forward any bills, but the backbenches are free to do so, which is why anti-abortion groups have been busy trying to get their supporters nominated as candidates. And now the party and Rayes are saying that he just misheard Scheer’s pledge, which could put some of those Quebec candidates that Rayes recruited in a sticky position because some of them are saying that they decided to run for the Conservatives because they were assured that they weren’t going to touch abortion. Oops.

And this dichotomy of a hypothetical Conservative Cabinet pledges versus its backbenchers is one of those cute ways that Scheer can try to mollify the Canadian public while at the same time assuring his social conservative base that yes, he’s still the party for them, and he’s going to ensure that they have space to put forward legislation. From there, depending on whether or not they have a majority government and if so, how large it is, it comes down to counting votes to see if these kinds of bills have a chance of making it – and the current move in anti-abortion circles is to use backdoor attempts at criminalization through means like trying to create jurisprudence by means of laws that give a foetus personhood status through bills that treat them as such when a pregnant woman is murdered, for example, which they then plan to slowly extend to abortion services. It’s a long-term plan, but one that begins with getting enough anti-abortion candidates nominated and elected, so even though Scheer says his Cabinet won’t introduce these bills, as private members’ bills, they are unlikely to be whipped, and that leaves him to free his caucus to “vote their conscience.”

Of course, if he’s planning to be like Stephen Harper and assert pressure to ensure that these kinds of bills don’t make it through, then his courting of the anti-abortion community is hollow, and he’s lying to them, which will also be something that his base will have to contend with. But the clarification that only a hypothetical Cabinet wouldn’t introduce any anti-abortion measures is too cute by half, and relies on the fact that not enough people appreciate the difference between Cabinet and the backbenches, and why that distinction matters.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Importing the culture war

Posted on by

We’re not even in the writ period, and the imported culture war bullshit is already at a fever pitch. In order to capitalize on it being Ottawa Pride this weekend, the Liberals started passing around a video of Andrew Scheer’s 2005 speech denouncing same-sex marriage, under the rubric of Ralph Goodale calling on Scheer to attend his hometown Pride in Ottawa this weekend. (Note: We’ll see if Trudeau makes it to Ottawa Pride this year, as he may not be back from the G7 meeting in France. Trudeau has only ever appeared at Ottawa’s Pride parade once). And off they were to the races. Scheer’s director of communications said that Scheer “supports same-sex marriage as defined in law,” and would uphold it as prime minister – and then proceeded to name Liberals who previously voted against it.

What’s particularly cute about this defence of Scheer is that it does not say that Scheer’s views have evolved, and the use of “as defined in law” is that the law was a result of a Supreme Court of Canada reference, so there is no way that any government could try to repeal it without invoking the Notwithstanding Clause to escape a Charter challenge. But beyond that, Scheer’s people have not offered any kind of defence that he voted against the trans rights bill in 2016, which is more current and pressing of a rights issue than where we are with same-sex marriage. But it’s not really about same-sex marriage at all – it’s all about our political class being high on the fumes of the American culture war that they’ve been inhaling, and are trying desperately to recreate here because they all think it’ll be a political winner for them, rather than the fact that it will simply burn the house down around them.

In amidst this, Jagmeet Singh decided that he wanted to get in on the culture war action and declared that he wouldn’t prop up a Conservative government in a hung parliament based on this (fourteen-year-old) homophobia – which essentially means that he’s conceded that he’s not running to be the prime minister in the election, but is content to stay as the third party. There’s realism, and then there’s bad strategy. Singh then went on to list all of the Liberal failures on the LGBT file – except most of the ones he listed are in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Oops. This election is already so, so very stupid.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A carbon reality check

Posted on by

A couple of weeks ago, Paul Wells did one of his CPAC interviews with Elizabeth May, the transcript of which is now available, and she talked a lot about how she thinks Canada can transition to a cleaner economy, and said a bunch of things about the oil and gas industry as part of that. The problem, of course, was that she was wrong about pretty much all of it, as energy economist Andrew Leach demonstrates.

Leach, meanwhile, also takes Jason Kenney’s rhetoric about carbon pricing to task in this Policy Options piece, and lays out the danger of that rhetoric, which has a high probability of blowing up in Kenney’s face. And as a bonus, he proposed a tool for conservatives to check their policy instincts against.

Continue reading →