Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

Roundup: A century of women in the House

Posted on by

The CBC has a look back at 100 years since the first woman was elected to Parliament, and as with the present-day discourse, it’s largely about how other women’s voice were excluded, be they Indigenous, racialized, or otherwise. Yes, early feminists and women who were elected to public office were problematic—the Famous Five were very racist and proponents of eugenics. (So was the founder of the NDP, Tommy Douglas, for that matter, but he is rarely called out as being problematic as early white women in officer were, but that’s a whole other topic altogether).

So while we have a lot more diverse women in Parliament these days, we absolutely do need to do better, and much of that relies on the parties themselves. I would normally say that the grassroots riding associations should have a big role to play in recruiting more diverse women to run for them, but my enthusiasm for grassroots politics is currently being held in check by the fact that overly powerful leaders’ offices have been essentially bigfooting those processes, and so many nominations are being run centrally, if not using outright appointments over the past few cycles, after there was a big push toward “open nominations” for one or two election cycles. And the worst part is that some of this is explicitly about nominating more women to run for office, but in an effort to say that they have more women running, most of the parties will simply run them in unwinnable ridings so that they can say they had them running, but not jeopardise their chances in that riding by running someone who doesn’t fit the popular conception, which perpetuates the problem. And before you say “But the NDP!” I have watched them time and again monkey with their own rules around nominations to run a straight white male in ridings with hugely diverse populations if they think they can win. (Think Robert Chisholm or Joe Cressy). The parties have a big role to play in getting more diverse women to run, and the Liberals were really good about this for an election cycle or two with a sound recruitment strategy, but I’m not sure it’s carried forward as well in the last election cycle.

Meanwhile, I also find myself frustrated by the notion that hybrid sittings are some kind of panacea to women running for office, because it’s based on a few bad assumptions. One of those is the fact that hybrid sittings are demonstrably bad – they are more toxic, and they have a human cost on the interpreters, and using the excuse that this allows more women to run for office should not be contingent upon interpreters needing to injure themselves in order to make it happen. The other is that it simply perpetuates the notion that women must be the primary childcare providers. There are a lot of accommodations for MPs who have small children, and they can develop more as time goes by (and seriously, they need to get over this notion that they can’t hire nannies), but some accommodations—like hybrid sittings—exact a cost that is too high for the benefit. There have to be better ways.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Blockbuster jobs numbers—mostly

Posted on by

Statistics Canada released the Labour Force Survey numbers yesterday, and they were very good—four times as many jobs were created as had been forecast by economists. All of the jobs lost during the pandemic have been recovered and more, and unemployment is very nearly as low as it was before the pandemic began (at which point we were at record lows, around statistical “full employment”), and it was even noted that “core-aged” women had their highest ever employment levels. Things are turning around. Mostly.

There are still a lot of vacancies and there is a mismatch between jobs available and the skills that unemployed workers possess, and while the government is pouring money into training, that takes time. And labour shortages mean wages are likely to continue to increase (and if anyone says they’re stagnant, they are either lying or haven’t read the data). As well, productivity has taken a dive over the last quarter, so that will matter as well. Conservatives are claiming that the increase in jobs is as a result of the majority of pandemic benefits ending, but I’m not sure there is a direct comparison that can be made given the skills mismatches that are in the economy (and which pre-date the pandemic, which was one of the reasons why the Bank of Canada, among others, was making a concerted effort to call for inclusive growth). There is work still to do, but the government is feeling pretty good about the data.

Meanwhile, here are some economists’ takes to consider:

https://twitter.com/stephen_tapp/status/1466766974365622275

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1466771813594140675

Continue reading →

Roundup: A newer, worse compromise

Posted on by

The Speaker engaged in a bit of procedural housekeeping after Question Period yesterday, and ruled that the Board of Internal Economy’s vote on a vaccine mandate for MPs in the House of Commons was in fact a violation of MPs’ privileges—which most of us expected, because that’s pretty much what it was. It’s a moot point, however, because the motion passed that re-authorized hybrid sittings included the vaccine mandate for the Chamber, so there remains a vaccine mandate regardless of this outcome. It sounds like the Conservatives are satisfied with this ruling in that it doesn’t create a precedent for expanding the BoIE’s powers, so that’s not necessarily a bad thing in all.

At the same time, the government house leader proposed a compromise for the Winnipeg Lab documents, which had been floated before dissolution but is back on the table now—which is procedurally dumb because the committee that requested those documents is non-existent, as is the order to produce those documents. If said committee were reinstated and they vote on a new motion to produce documents, then the government should have floated this compromise then, but no, they’re going ahead with it unbidden, which is silly. This compromise would see the creation of a new committee that would be advised by a panel of three former senior judges who would vet materials—but again, this is stupid.

The compromise was the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. That was the point. It was the right venue for these documents to go to, and that’s where those documents were sent, before the Conservatives decided that theatre was more important (and the other two parties decided that embarrassing the government was also the point). All this is doing is muddying the waters even further, duplicating efforts, and making MPs even less trustworthy to Canadian security and intelligence services. Because our MPs are not interested in actual oversight or accountability—they are only interested in theatre, and that diminishes our Parliament for everyone.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1466554090452762626

Continue reading →

QP: What is your inflation position today?

Posted on by

Even though the prime minister was in town, he was not in Question Period, but his deputy was, so that was something. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and he worried about the news that the coming fiscal update would only have “limited information,” and worrying about them covering up spending. Chrystia Freeland stood up and recited O’Toole’s floundering position on whether inflation is a global problem or not. O’Toole retorted that she was the only politician to have been flagged on Twitter for misleading information, and demanded that she tell the Bank of Canada to get inflation under control. Freeland chided O’Toole for not realising that monetary policy is the role of the Bank, which is arm’s length from government. O’Toole started sputtering about small businesses suffering from inflation, and Freeland reminded him that their campaign documents promised even more government spending in the current fiscal year, and wondered what their position was today. O’Toole demanded to know then a budget would be balanced, and Freeland recited the Economist’s top-ten list of most expensive cities to live in, and noted that none were in Canada. O’Toole then switched to French to say that Quebeckers were tired of living paycheque to paycheque. Freeland repeated the same Economist list in response.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he worried that the prime minister didn’t raise softwood tariff while in Washington, and Freeland stated that while she could not match Therrien’s ability to play on words, but the file was important and they were continuing to defend the sector’s interest like they did for aluminium. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay demanded that the government insist on separate treatment for Quebec because their forestry rules are different, while Freeland assured him that they were defending sector.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he worried that the COVID rules were too confusing for travellers. Freeland said that they agreed that the fight against COVID was the most important issue for the country and vaccination was the way out, but noted that the current rules are a circuit-breaker to buy them time. Singh repeated the question in French, and repeated her response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A plan hatched in caucus

Posted on by

Events yesterday bring to mind the 76th Rule of Acquisition, which states “Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.” It almost feels like that was the tactic at play when the Conservatives decided to move a motion regarding Bill C-4—the conversion therapy ban— that would pass it at all stages. It did not receive any objections, and it went through, so the bill sailed through the House of Commons with no debate, and is now off to the Senate.

As I outline in my forthcoming Xtra column, the truth is that this wasn’t about confusing their enemies – it was about trying to take the heat off of Erin O’Toole and the social conservatives in caucus. After O’Toole’s office told the media that it would be a free vote, like it had been the last time around. Nine of those MPs didn’t survive their election, and O’Toole was being called a hypocrite for labelling himself an ally of the queer community without doing anything meaningful on proving it, like whipping his caucus so that they wouldn’t vote against the rights he said he respected. Thus, a plan was hatched in their caucus meeting where O’Toole basically laid down the law and said this was the route they were going to go, so that they could put this behind them.

I will fully admit that I didn’t expect things to turn out this way. The Xtra column was originally written to say that I expected them to drag out the debate on this bill again because it removed the loopholes around “consenting adults,” which many of the Conservatives were insisting on focusing on given how they couched their support for the ban under the weasel words of “coercive conversion therapy” instead of all forms, and a number of their MPs praised “counselling” that helped constituents deal with same-sex attraction of “lesbian activity.” I’m a little surprised that O’Toole exerted his authority on this particular bill given how much pressure his leadership is under – but there were also a lot of sour faces when the motion passed, and plenty of MPs who resolutely sat down and did not participate in the standing ovation that others in the caucus were visibly seen to participate in (chief among them former leadership candidate Leslyn Lewis). So I had to rewrite part of the column to reflect this change—even though it was a welcome change. But let’s not kid ourselves. This wasn’t a magnanimous gesture or one that showed true allyship—it was a pretty cynical ploy to avoid a recorded vote and further embarrassment of the party.

Continue reading →

QP: A rose-coloured paean to the Harper era

Posted on by

There were a few more absences in the benches, but the leaders were all present, so that was something. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he loudly worried about the real housing crisis, and somehow blamed it on government spending. Justin Trudeau assured him that housing was a priority for the government, and that they would work with partners to get more housing built, while listing some of their proposed measures. O’Toole was unconvinced, and continued the specious correlation between government spending and housing prices, and Trudeau reminded him that the Conservatives plan would have raised prices further. O’Toole gave a rose-coloured revisionist paean to the halcyon days of Stephen Harper, and Trudeau batted it away. O’Toole switched to French to lament that the government wasn’t helping Canadians, and Trudeau repeated his assurances that they are there for Canadians and the way to get out of the economic situation is to end the pandemic. O’Toole then raised the labour shortage, accusing the government of doing nothing, and Trudeau listed measures the government is taking such as higher immigration targets and more money for training.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and raised the situation of French-speaking students from Africa being unable to get student visas to Quebec, and Trudeau assured him it was a problem and they were conducting a systemic review of the situation. Blanchet insisted that was meaningless, and wondered if the government was admitting it was racist, and Trudeau said that unlike the Bloc, they recognised that systemic racism exists and once identified they are working to eliminate it.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and demanded Canadian support to ensure that other countries can make vaccines in their own country, and Trudeau listed Canada’s leadership actions, including COVAX and working at the WTO to address the various restrictions, beyond just patents. Singh switched to French to repeat the question, and Trudeau chided Singh for using “literally” when he meant metaphorically, before repeated his answer in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unable to read the signs about Freeland

Posted on by

Just a quick note because a lot of talking heads have been mentioning it over the past few days, which was about that Globe and Mail article from a couple of days ago (which I’m not going to link to) that proclaimed Chrystia Freeland’s leadership ambitions because…she is the subject of an unauthorized biography, and she wrote that letter to the board of Air Canada. No, seriously—that was the sum total of the Globe’s evidence.

And yet, on Power and Politics, The Line and other places, everyone is treating this biography as though it were a) an autobiography, which is what many party leaders will release ahead of an election, not ahead of a leadership vote; or b) a book that she commissioned herself, when in fact someone else is writing it, and Freeland has apparently not even agreed to be interviewed for it, or cooperate with it in any way. Nevertheless, the conflation by all of these outlets continues to paint a picture that is not actually there.

As for the letter to the board of Air Canada, the federal government is one of the largest shareholders with six percent of the company’s stock, which Freeland mentioned in the letter. Add to that, Air Canada is a repeat offender when it comes to violating their obligations under the Official Languages Act, so as finance minister, Freeland has particular obligations to remind the Board of this when their CEO did something as impolitic (and frankly stupid) as the comments he made. This wasn’t something that she did on a whim because she wants to build up her Quebec cred for the (eventual) leadership bid.

I get the desire to stir the pot and create some drama, but come on. Yes, Freeland no doubt has ambitions, and she is likely going to be the next prime minister. But if you’re a serious news outlet, at least get your basic facts and context right before you start making these kinds of proclamations. You don’t look very credible with this kind of nonsense.

Continue reading →

QP: Trying to make “Justinflation” happen

Posted on by

The Liberal benches were again about two-thirds full, and the prime minister was in attendance, so that was something? While Erin O’Toole gave a lengthy speech in the Chamber earlier, he was nowhere to be seen. That left it up to Gérard Deltell to lead off, and he moaned about inflation and worries in the US about persistent inflation—which is not Canada’s situation. Justin Trudeau said the biggest thing that they could do was end the pandemic, which would end the supply chain disruptions that were increasing costs. Deltell cited the “not thinking about monetary policy” quip and demanded limited spending—erm, which is fiscal policy—and Trudeau repeated that they needed to end the pandemic. Deltell selectively quoted a  countries with lower inflation than us, and Trudeau noted that this was a global issue because of supply chains. Michael Barrett got up after and took a page from Pierre Poilievre’s playbook in confusing land and housing stock to rail about inflation, and Trudeau noted that the question ignored the pandemic, and the way to end it was by vaccination, which Conservatives didn’t seem to get. Barrett countered that his riding has one the highest vaccination rates in the country and gave more wrong talking points about inflation, and Trudeau suggested that Barrett’s constituents help convince his Conservative colleagues to get vaccinated).

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and worried that they softwood lumber tariffs were doubled after the Three Amigos summit and wondered what they talked about. Trudeau listed off items discussed including softwood and PEI potatoes. Blanchet made a jab at the potatoes, and mused that Quebec would be better able to negotiate on their own, but Trudeau insisted that they were defending the sector like they did aluminium (another Quebec export).

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and demanded immediate action on the housing crisis, but Trudeau disputed his characterisation and listed measures in the Speech from the Throne. Singh switched to French to repeat the question, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Who they gave succour to

Posted on by

Cast your minds back to summer of 2018, when prime minister Justin Trudeau attended a Liberal rally in rural Quebec and encountered a woman heckling him about refugees crossing the border at irregular points of entry. As part of this, she demanded to know when Trudeau would support “Québécois de souche,” a term tinged with racism as it applies only to those who descended from the early French settlers, essentially considering anyone without those particular roots to be some kind of contagion upon the state. Trudeau called out her intolerance, and she tried to sue for defamation.

A Quebec Superior Court judge dismissed her case, and pointed out the fact that she had tried to use the incident to make a name for herself among far-right circles, all while claiming that she has empathy because she’s a nurse, and will treat anyone. More to the point, the judge pointed out that she was deliberately trying to provoke the prime minister, and was thus the author of her own misfortune, and in dismissing the case, ordered her to pay legal fees.

So why bring this up? Because if you also think back to when the House of Commons returned shortly after this incident, the Conservatives all rushed to give succour to this woman, and tried to frame her aggressive questions and demands as though she was “just asking about the budget.” No, seriously. Conservative after Conservative stood up in the House of Commons to whine that “if Trudeau doesn’t like your questions, he calls you a racist.” Because in their minds, being called a racist is a worse crime than the actual racism that the woman was displaying. And it goes to show what the party is willing to stand up for, and who they are willing to protect if they think they can score points from it.

Continue reading →

QP: You should read a book or two

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town, he was not in Question Period today, but his deputy was, so all was not lost. Candice Bergen led off, script in front of her, and she went off on inflation, accusing the finance minster of printing money so that she never runs out of bucks to pass. Chrystia Freeland read contradictory statements from different Conservative and wondered who was right. Bergen selectively quoted economists to assign blame for inflation. Freeland quoted former Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz that government spending is not the problem. Bergen was apoplectic and demanded federal action on inflation, to which Freeland again quoted Poloz, and then suggested the Conservatives read a book or two. Alain Rayes took over, and asked about the labour shortage in Quebec. Marco Mendicino, even though it’s no longer his file, reminded him they have been working with Quebec and hit a record high of temporary foreign workers. Rayes went another round, and got the same.

Luc Therrien led off for the Bloc, and raised the Environment Commossioner’s report, and then demanded the government cap the production of fossil fuels. Stephen Guilbeault appeared by video, and reminded him that the Commissioner’s report didn’t capture several new programmes from the government. Therrien was not mollified, and in response, Guilbeault listed measures they have taken that no other government has taken.

Don Davies rose for the NDP, and demanded that the government support lifting patent restrictions on vaccines manufacturing to help the developing world avoid new variants. Harjit Sajjan read about the government’s vaccine donations. Niki Ashton repeated the question in French over video, and François-Philippe Champagne reminded her of Canada’s support for COVAX and other initiatives to deliver vaccines.

Continue reading →