Tag Archives: Trade

Roundup: Defining recession

Posted on by

While I fear this may becoming a quasi-economics blog over the course of the campaign, it’s numbers yet again in the national consciousness as we learn today whether or not we’re in a technical recession, though there’s a bunch of political dispute over what a recession means. Jason Kenney was on Power & Politics on Sunday trying to broaden the definition to say that it would need to be over a number of sectors rather than just the energy sector as we seem to be seeing in Canada, and while that may be a perfectly reasonable explanation if it was anyone else, it was however his own government who put the definition of two quarters of shrinking GDP into their “balanced budget” legislation just a couple of months ago. Oops. To that end, Rosemary Barton writes about deficit and recession politics on the campaign trail, while Mike Moffatt calculates the projected federal deficits for the next few years based on current economic indicators. And Stephen Gordon gives us some food for thought:

Continue reading →

Roundup: Spinning deficit financing

Posted on by

It should be no surprise that a government that likes to re-announce the same funds over and over again are now re-spinning old funds with a new purpose. As previously discussed, they’re going full-speed ahead on rebranding their childcare benefits as economic stimulus – because apparently only families with children should be stimulating the economy. (Singletons, we’re being shafted – again). As well, Scott Brison noted that these cheques are essentially being deficit financed, after the budget raided both the contingency reserve and the EI fund to pay for them while still claiming balance (not to mention their projections for oil prices). And hey, you know what would be a good thing during a recession? A full contingency reserve and an EI fund that’s ready to help any layoffs and job losses that result from said recession. But things were going to be rosy, and there was nothing to worry about – except now there is, but Harper insists it’s all external factors (never mind that he still takes credit when things go well even though it had nothing to do with his government). What great economic leadership…

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cheques doing double duty

Posted on by

While former Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page says that if we go into a technically recession, it should be contained as there is still growth in other sectors beyond oil and gas, Pierre Poilievre has been out spinning yet another tale over the weekend. Not content to show that the universal childcare benefit cheques due in the mail this month are nakedly partisan attempts at vote buying (and those of us of a certain age will remember when Ralph Klein would send out cheques to help Albertans pay for the cost of natural gas conveniently as elections were around the corner), Poilievre has ensured that the cheques get a second political purpose – they are now to also count as economic stimulus. Which of course they would be – but not very much, according to Don Drummond. As well, the government keeps saying they’re making all of these infrastructure investments, but the vast majority of them are still years down the road, and their Canada 150 infrastructure programme is going to be very small-time, and is also unlikely to have much in the way of lasting economic benefit. So we can expect these kinds of talking points to be repeated ad nauseum for the next few weeks as the campaign heats up, and until we get the numbers from StatsCan on September 1st as to whether we’re in a recession or not.

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/620328712375025668

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/620331491910881285

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/620331708169195520

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/620332221707235329

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not the safe space you’re looking for

Posted on by

Over in the National Post, Ashley Csanady found that the student council at the University of Waterloo has taken to abusing the concept of “safe spaces” to try and move their council meetings behind closed doors. Apparently student leaders have argued – with a straight face – that these closed-door meetings would foster a “safe environment, and less scrutiny results in better decision-making.” All of which is complete and utter nonsense because as political actors, they have obligations to transparency in order that they may be held to account. If they’re uncomfortable being challenged in public, then they shouldn’t run for office (which is an issue I have with people who run for office at any level of government, particularly federally – if you can’t so much as ask or answer a thirty-second question in QP without relying on a script and having your hand held, why are you there?) Now, there is a time and a place for closed-door meetings, and in camera discussions in grown-up politics, but it’s not all the time, and it’s not so that they can feel “safe.” Sometimes it takes a while to come up with suitable language when you’re putting together a report, and there is a case that some of the Board of Internal Economy’s decisions do happen better behind closed doors because some MPs can actually behave like adults when no one else is around, and I’m not sure it helps when they’re not using it as an excuse to play up the partisan drama for the cameras – again. (Also, BOIE deals with a lot of personnel issues that have legitimate privacy considerations). Yes, there has been an alarming trend in federal politics to move all considerations of committee business behind closed doors, likely because the Conservatives on the committee don’t want to be seen being irrationally partisan when they deny opposition motions, but they’re not using – or rather abusing – the notion of a safe space, or saying that they feel threatened by the exposure. Not wanting to look like jerks on TV is not a reason to meet in camera, and yet they do it anyway, and we the public should hold them to account for said behaviour. Hopefully the students at Waterloo will also see thought this charade, and vote this council out next year as well.

Continue reading →

QP: Rushing off to the G7

Posted on by

While it was Thursday, Elizabeth May was the only leader present, guaranteeing another mediocre day. Megan Leslie wondered rhetorically whether the PM was going to defend the status quo in the Senate. Paul Calandra reminded her the Senate called in the Auditor General themselves. Leslie responded that the PM “rushed off” to another continent when scandal broke — you know, because the G7 meeting was called at haste and wasn’t arranged months in advance, and Calandra called the NDP out of their depth. Leslie tried again, at which point Calandra  reminded the NDP of their satellite office expenses. Romeo Saganash was up next to ask about the PM’s meeting at the Vatican and if residential schools came up. Mark Strahl said that the PM raised the letter that the minister had sent. Saganash noted the invitation to the Pope to be in Canada for the 150th anniversary and if an apology could happen then. Strahl repeated his answer. Judy Foote led for the Liberals, pointing out trade deficits and wanted a resolution to the issue of the Newfoundland processing compensation, but Parm Gill read a talking point about how treat trade was. Ralph Goodale asked about pension shortfalls, to which Kevin Sorenson decried the Ontario plan. Goodale pressed, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

QP: Misrepresenting the AG report

Posted on by

Though Harper was off in the Baltic Sea visiting our frigate there, the other leaders were in the Commons for another QP running on fumes. Mulcair led off, flirting with libel with his assertions about the AG report on the Senate — grossly mischaracterising what was found. Paul Calandra reminded him that the non-partisan House Administration found problems with their satellite offices, and that he should repay them. Mulcair wanted Harper to take accountability for the senators he appointed, but Calandra repeated the satellite offices line. Mulcair then gave complete falsehoods about why Marjory LeBreton resigned as leader in the Senate, and got the same response from Calandra. Mulcair brought up Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen and wondered about other senators who repaid expenses before the audit — which has nothing to do with the government. Again, same answer from Calandra. for his final question, Mulcair wanted the PM to ask the Pope to apologise for residential schools. Bernard Valcourt took this one, and gave some bland assurances. Justin Trudeau was up, and wondered about the Prime Minister’s 57 patronage appointments to the Senate as a lack of a desire for real reform. Paul Calandra said that Trudeau’s position made no sense, that he would appoint Liberals to appoint non-partisan senators. Trudeau gave a pitch for his plan in French, got derision from Calandra about relieving Liberal senators from the burden of having to attend his caucus meetings. Trudeau wanted the Prime Minister to end partisan appointments, but Calandra gave some broad-based derision of the Liberals in response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Truth and Reconciliation report due

Posted on by

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission makes its first report on Tuesday, wrapping up the commission itself, and after hosting a number of Reconciliation events around the country, the last of them here in Ottawa over the weekend. They found that at least 6,000 children died in residential schools as a result of a policy of “aggressive assimilation” or cultural genocide, a term that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court made at a speech lat week (which may prove problematic, as Emmett Macfarlane explains). Part of the Reconciliation events in the past few weeks have been to try and bring an understanding on both sides of the cultural divide, so as to bring healing in symbolic ways. One such is the bentwood box that has collected some 1300 items since the Commission began, which created a sacred space to bring forward the promise of reconciliation. One hopes that the chapters will turn to something more positive, but I also have a sinking feeling that this will become politicised over the coming weeks, and possibly even over the course of the campaign in the fall.

Continue reading →

QP: CPP consultations and fictitious allegations

Posted on by

Even though the king and queen of the Netherlands were visiting, all of the leaders actually showed up for QP for a change. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking for the declaration of Mike Duffy’s residence. Stephen Harper responded that Duffy’s actions were before the courts. Mulcair threatened that if Harper didn’t answer now, he would at the debates, and then demanded that the full Duffy audit be released. Mulcair gave some vaguely coherent muttering about the PMO covering up the cover-up in the Senate, to which Harper reminded them that the NDP faces their own repayment problem for their satellite offices. Mulcair moved onto the retirement age, demanding it be lowered to 65 (not that it actually changed — just OAS), to which Harper listed off their other measures for seniors. Mulcair closed with a quote from Jim Flaherty regarding CPP, to which Harper insisted the NDP would raise taxes on seniors. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and wondered why the government made their CPP announcement with no consultation by the provinces. Harper said that their record of supporting voluntary options was clear, while the Liberals would raise taxes. Trudeau reminded Harper of his record of statements on breaking up the CPP. Harper said that was false, and touted the options they created to help Canadians save. When Trudeau insisted that experts agreed with them, Harper said that Trudeau’s experts were imaginary, and that Trudeau would show leadership in raising taxes.

Continue reading →

QP: Shoehorning in the Duffy issue

Posted on by

Despite it being a Tuesday, only two leaders were present — Thomas Mulcair, and Elizabeth May. Alas. Mulcair led off, asking about the destruction of records on the long-gun registry despite the Access to Information requests. Stephen Blaney insisted that the RCMP respects all laws and the will of parliament — which, you know, hadn’t been recorded because it was simply a bill at the time. Mulcair demanded to know who ordered the records deleted, and Blaney didn’t deviate. Mulcair tried to stretch it to the audit on Senate residencies, and Blaney insisted the NDP should be given a free vote on an upcoming gun bill. Mulcair insisted that the PM release the statement that Duffy apparently signed about his residency, to which Paul Calandra stood up and reminded the NDP about their satellite offices. Mulcair kept trying to tie the Duffy affair into things, and Calandra repeated his demanded that the NDP pay back the money from those offices. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, decrying the focus on TFSAs instead of focusing on those who need help. Pierre Poilievre listed a couple of scenarios where seniors use the accounts. Scott Brison hammered on the TFSAs and the PBO’s statements on them, and Joe Oliver actually answered, listing some figures about them as a kind of non sequitur. Brison noted the GIS payments affected by TFSAs, but Oliver quoted some people who support their moves.

Continue reading →

QP: Talking points on a list

Posted on by

Monday in the Commons, and true to form, none of the leaders were present — never mind that there are a mere four weeks left. Megan Leslie led off, asking about the GHG emissions targets announced by the government. Leona Aglukkaq got up and read a statement about their sector-by-sector approach, and that they wouldn’t implement a carbon tax. Leslie raised the use of offset credits, which the government used to decry, and Aglukkaq simply read the next non sequitur talking point on her list. Leslie then moved onto the PMO interference in the audit of Mike Duffy, to which Paul Calandra reminded her that it was before the courts. Peter Julian asked the same again in French, and got the same response from Calandra in English, and brought up the NDP satellite offices. Julian tried to bring the rest of the Senate into the mix, but Calandra gave a pro forma response about cooperation, and reminded them about the satellite offices. Emmanuel Dubourg led for the Liberals, and asked another youth unemployment as a way of touting the Liberal plan. Pierre Poilievre touted the government’s  plan in response. Ralph Goodale was up next, and slammed the government’s growth record, to which Poilievre repeated his Tax Cuts, Training and Trade™ talking point. For his final question, Goodale decried the government’s child tax plans, to which Poilievre insisted that he was wrong, and that even the PBO said the government plan was okay.

Continue reading →