Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: Some pushback on the hybrid sittings

Posted on by

I felt a tiny glimmer of hope over the weekend as I read this piece that talked to three MPs from each of the main parties about their experience with hybrid sittings, and lo, MPs are unimpressed. Praise be! Mind you, it’s a small sample, and it’s all Manitoba MPs (given that it was a piece in the Winnipeg Free Press), but props for having this conversation with them, and props for not letting it simply go by unquestioned, as is often the case.

This being said, I don’t think we’re out of the woods yet in terms of what the lasting implications of these hybrid changes will be, particularly when there are west coast MPs who are loudly praising the hybrid format, and when groups like Samara Canada are already lining up the excuses to allow it to keep happening, which is exactly the kind of slippery slope that I have been warning about since before this began. Don’t forget that the Liberals were pushing for these kinds of changes for nearly five years before the pandemic hit, and this was the perfect excuse for them to finally implement them, even if it was under the rubric of it being for the duration of the emergency. But as you’ve heard me warn before, they will soon find a list of excuses – just as Samara provided for them – to keep them going in some capacity, which will have a long-term erosion on our system and the norms therein. I am especially worried that there will be pressure to keep the voting app system going, even though, as the interviews in the article pointed out, this system greatly benefits the government because it doesn’t allow opposition MPs to use the votes to register displeasure (such as slow-voting). So while it’s great that some MPs want a return to proper sittings (one of them being an advocate for a parliamentary bubble, to little avail), there is still going to be a fight to ensure these changes stay are relegated to the dust heap once the pandemic is over.

Continue reading →

Roundup: New targets, same criticism

Posted on by

It was Earth Day yesterday, and US President Joe Biden held a climate summit, which Justin Trudeau used as a platform to announce that Canada would be setting a more ambitious climate target of 40 to 45 percent reduction of emissions from 2005 levels, and naturally, that was panned from all sides. For the NDP, the Bloc and the Greens, it’s not enough, and for the Conservatives, it’s too much, and “empty words” that lack a plan (despite all evidence to the contrary). One of the spanners in the works here is the Americans announcing their own new targets, which sound more ambitious than ours – but are they really?

Enter economist Andrew Leach, who is offering a warning that we can’t commit to matching American emissions targets because our emissions mix is very different, so we’d be essentially making a different commitment than they are, which could hurt us. The Americans can get much further on reductions that we can with less stringent policies because of their emissions mix. Unfortunately, too many of our parties and party leaders seem to think that Canada is just a smaller version of America, and that we can simply copy their policies and divide by ten – but it doesn’t work like that, and we should call out this kind of thinking.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Emergency finger-pointing

Posted on by

Sometimes I question the naïveté of certain politicians in this country, but the belief in the utility of emergency debates is one of those things that apparently never gets old. Last week, the Commons held an emergency debate on the state of Laurentian University, which was a bit odd because that really falls under provincial jurisdiction, but sure, at least give speeches about it for all of the good it would do. The fact that Charlie Angus got up in Question Period the following day and sounded shocked that nothing came of it was perhaps a bit tough to swallow. (For the record, the minister of official languages – relevant since Laurentian served a large population of Franco-Ontarians and had French-language education that is now on the chopping block – said she is waiting for the province to come up with a plan before she can do anything, because jurisdiction).

Last night was no exception to this belief in the goodness of parliamentary debate, as Elizabeth May was granted a request for an emergency debate on new COVID variants. Surprising nobody, except possibly her, it quickly devolved into a bunch of finger-pointing and reinforcing of existing narratives, most of them false. The NDP, for example, went hard after their new demand that the Emergencies Act be invoked for Ontario, and the Conservatives continued their bogus insistence that Canada could somehow have been fully vaccinated before the end of February, which ignores pretty much every single variable, from vaccine supplies, production levels, and the fact that this virus grows exponentially, while you vaccinate linearly. And this was, of course, followed by Liberal “sadness” at misinformation being peddled by opposition parties.

The lead for the CP story on the debate was telling. “An emergency parliamentary debate that was supposed to be a forum for cross-party collaboration on better ways to combat the COVID-19 pandemic…” is a fairy tale opening. There is no way this was going to be a pleasant collaborative session full of genteel and helpful exchanges. Parties have committed to narratives that seek to pin the blame on Justin Trudeau rather than provincial premiers, and committing fully to Green Lantern Theory, as though it can overcome jurisdictional boundaries and the constitution itself. More to the point, there is nothing more useless in Parliament than an emergency debate. It is merely an excuse for MPs to read speeches into the record for several hours to show they are concerned about something, but it means nothing in the bigger picture, other than another clip for an MP’s social media channels.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Flexibility and red lines on child care negotiations

Posted on by

A day out from the federal budget, we are getting some reaction to the centrepiece proposal of a massive expansion to early learning and child care, particularly from provinces with whom this all needs to be negotiated. It sounds like several of them are welcoming the new funding, and Chrystia Freeland has signalled some willingness for flexibility, but is drawing a red line around keeping fees low, because the whole point of this is to reduce barriers to women getting in the workforce, and high fees are very much a barrier, even when there are available spaces (which is often not the case). And yes, there are already recalcitrant provinces, looking particularly to Alberta and Ontario, and some of their objections are grounded in the fantasyland that there is no such thing as constrained choice. Of course.

For some more context, here is a good interview with Don Giesbrecht, CEO of the Canadian Child Care Federation, which gives a good lay of the land of the current system of bilateral agreements that the federal government has in place with provinces around childcare funding, and yes, there are strings attached to that funding. This new funding will build on those agreements, which is why it’s not entirely out of the blue and building something from the ground-up, but simply taking things up an order of magnitude from where they exist currently.

Meanwhile, my social media has been flooded with salty New Democrats who think that they’ve somehow caught me out in previously pointing out that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction whenever Jagmeet Singh would performatively demand “concrete action” on childcare or the like. For starters, at no time did I declare this Liberal plan a done deal – it has always been presented as being contingent upon negotiation with the provinces, but this time they’ve put money on the table that the provinces will find hard to refuse, especially because we have all seen the effect that this pandemic has had on women in the workforce. That’s a fairly unique set of circumstance that creates a hell of a lot more political pressure than could be applied previously. More to the point, Singh’s rhetoric, and those of his MPs, is largely grounded in Green Lantern Theory, that it’s simply a matter of willpower to overcome jurisdictional interviews, while they will only admit the need for negotiation in written releases or backgrounders and never out loud. This especially goes with making promises that they will “get it done,” as though they can put on their Green Lantern rings and just willpower it to happen, or drafting a federal bill and expecting the provinces to clamour to the sound of free money rather than doing the hard work of negotiation. Real life doesn’t work like that, which is what I have consistently pointed out. If New Democrats can’t understand that criticism, then I can’t help them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland’s first big budget

Posted on by

The budget was released yesterday, and lo, the commitment to child care was huge – $30 billion over five years in order to build a national system of $10/day early learning and child care, which is huge money – money that will make it very, very hard for provinces to refuse. It’s not going to be immediate, but a process to build to that system, which they have already put work into over the past five years, but it’s a much more robust commitment than we have seen in the past. It means more negotiations with provinces, however, as well as an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec so that they can still get funding to augment their existing subsidised child care system.

While there is a good overview here, other items in the budget include:

  • Some $17.6 billion in new spending for GHG reductions.
  • New taxes on foreign investors in housing, with more commitments to the national housing strategy.
  • $18 billion over five years has been earmarked for Indigenous communities to close the socio-economic gaps.
  • There is a commitment for $400 million to combat sexual misconduct in the military, plus funds to revitalise NORAD and to cover our NATO operations
  • They plan to make it easier and cheaper to obtain a criminal pardon.
  • There will be new taxes on big global tech companies.
  • Here are twenty new or expanded benefits and taxes.
  • There is the usual pearl-clutching that the budget predicts some $686 billion in accumulated deficits over the next five years.
  • Here are ten smaller items in the budget that are of interest.

Something that did come up over the talking heads discussing the budget was pharmacare, and how there wasn’t a big song and dance about it, as that was largely reserved for childcare. I did read the section on pharacare in the document, and it notes continued investment in things like the catastrophic drug plan to help those who need it most, but we have to remember that they have been trying to negotiate this with the provinces, and the provinces have said no. There’s only so much the federal government can push them on this, so it may require waiting until a few provincial governments change hands before more progress can be made. That’s the thing about these kinds of programmes in provincial jurisdiction – you need to have willing partners at the table, or it can’t go anywhere.

Meanwhile, Heather Scoffield grouses that there is too much conventional thinking in the budget to deal with the problems exacerbated by the pandemic. Susan Delacourt looks to all of the promises that rely on federal-provincial negotiations to make them happen. Paul Wells offers a fairly sober assessment of what’s in the budget, and whether the enthusiasm for this child care spending will last the next couple of years.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Federal damage control while Ford playacts

Posted on by

While Ontario continues to be on fire, Doug Ford spent much of the weekend walking back his ridiculous pronouncements on Friday, re-opening parks and playgrounds, followed by walking back the increased police powers (which was not helped by the fact that most police forces declared publicly that they would not use them – though stories of arbitrary accosting of people of colour did resonate over social media. This was then followed by news that Ford plans to shutter the legislature this week – apparently it’s the one workplace he doesn’t consider “essential” – while there is also talk about a Cabinet shuffle, because gods know this band of murderclowns needs to rearrange the deckchairs on their own personal Titanic one more time. (Speculation here is also that he is facing a very restive caucus, and closing Queen’s Park would make it easier to avoid them). And then, to make it look like he was doing something, Ford engaged in some performance art to phone up consulates and try to secure vaccines from international allies, as though they wouldn’t all laugh in his face. But he’s committed to the narrative that all he needs is more doses to vaccinate his way out of the burning building rather than doing the public health measures he needs to in order to stop the spread of the virus.

Meanwhile, prime minister Justin Trudeau announced some additional help for Ontario, some of which will wind up bypassing the provincial government and go directly to municipalities and businesses with things like additional testing and tracing capacity. Even these measures, however, are little more than damage control because they can’t do the things that need to happen, like stopping the spread in industrial workplaces, because they don’t have the requisite jurisdictional authority.

As for the doctors in this province, they’re at a breaking point. Thank the murderclowns for that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ontario is on fire, and Ford offers performance art

Posted on by

I will admit that I am currently vacillating between rage and despair right now, as Doug Ford and his band of murderclowns looked at the new modelling data that shows us still on a course for disaster, and decide to do the barest minimum effort to merely prolong the state of affairs, rather than to take meaningful action.

It’s not just half-measures – it’s theatre. Closing parks and playgrounds will do nothing to halt the spread of the virus, but workplaces deemed “essential” continue to operate with few protections for workers – which is where much of the new infections are happening, and then spreading when those “essential” workers return home, often to crowded, inter-generational households – and most of all, Ford is still not budging on paid sick leave. On top of that, he’s giving police the power to randomly stop people to ask why they’re not at home, and essentially reintroduced carding (which is unconstitutional), and will inevitably target Black, Indigenous and other minorities because that’s what police do. (Several police forces have pledged not to use these powers, but we’ll see if that holds). And then Ford lies and says that Ontario has had the toughest measures anywhere, and pats himself on the back while he blames ordinary people for not following rules – rules which change on a daily basis and are never clear to begin with – and blames the federal government for not magically providing vaccines fast enough when it is mathematically impossible to vaccinate our way out of this.

None of this needed to happen. That’s what is just so gods damned enraging about this whole thing. They were warned repeatedly back in February not to re-open until the reproduction rate of the virus was lower, and they didn’t listen. They rushed to re-open just as variants were starting to spread in the community, confident that they could let a little bit of COVID circulate and everything would be find (when it grows exponentially), because they needed to “protect the economy,” and lo, things got worse like everyone knew that they would, and we had to restrict again, and it will keep happening like this until they can finally squash the curve of transmission.

If there is one silver lining, it’s that we know that Doug Ford can be swayed, because Uncle Doug doesn’t like being the bad guy. He wants to be the fun uncle. And maybe now, people in Ontario will finally be outraged enough to stop being guiled by his folksy bullshit, and finally start demanding action in a consistent and coherent manner. That may be what finally spurs action, months and thousands of unnecessary later, assuming the anger is directed in the right way. That may, however, be easier said than done, but the possibility exists, and perhaps we as a province should seize it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Launching a laughable climate plan

Posted on by

With much fanfare – and a moving backdrop that was dizzying to watch – Erin O’Toole rolled out his much-ballyhooed climate plan yesterday morning, and it was…underwhelming. And bizarre. Replacing climate rebates with a special “savings account” that can only be used to purchase “green” items like bicycles and high-efficiency furnaces? Yeah, that’s not an improvement, you guys. And lo, it’s not winning O’Toole any plaudits in his own party either, with caucus members telling media that they were essentially blindsided by this, and many feel it’s a betrayal, and a sign that he has no credibility because he’ll say anything to get elected. And they probably have a point.

Here is some reaction to the news, with additional threads from Nic Rivers and Jennifer Robson.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1382694545398317066

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1382716424087605252

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1382722697159925764

Meanwhile, I have a beef with CBC’s coverage of the issue, because they insist on framing the existing Liberal carbon price as a tax – which it’s not because it doesn’t go into general revenue, and the Supreme Court of Canada said this – but they insisted on calling the Conservative plan a “levy,” when it’s the exact same gods damned mechanism as the existing Liberal plan that just recycles the revenues differently. You can’t call one a tax and the other a levy because that is massively misleading. It places a wholly negative frame around the Liberal plan and not the Conservative one when, again, it’s the same mechanism. “Taxes” come with particular preconceived notions around them, in particular the gem about “taxes are theft,” and so on. CBC’s editorial decision to use this framing device biases the conversation and perceptions around the programmes, which is a very big problem.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The curious case of Will Amos

Posted on by

It was the end of Question Period when Bloc MP Claude DeBellefeuille raised a point of order, asking the Speaker to remind MPs that there is a dress code, citing that she had seen a male MP in a state of undress – which came across through the interpretation as “shirtless,” but as it turns out was much more – and she managed to do this without naming who it was, or offering too much description other than he apparently has a very good physique, and all with a straight face. The Speaker thanked her for the intervention and gave his usual gentle chiding. Because said MP’s mic was not activated, no one public-facing saw who it was, especially not in the Chamber. MPs who are on Zoom, however, have a different view than the rest of us get, and they could see it.

Not long after, someone leaked a minimally censored screenshot to Brian Lilley, who put it out over Twitter, and in short order it was determined that this was Liberal MP Will Amos, and he was more than shirtless. Amos made an apology, citing that he had just come from “jogging,” and didn’t realize his camera was on – but I know this has raised more questions because MPs need special log-ins and passwords in order to even log into their special Zoom, so why he would have done so before he had changed is…dubious. (It has also been questioned why he would have gone jogging mid-day when there are no showers in his Precinct office building). In any case, Amos has learned a very valuable lesson.

A bigger issue here, however, is the screenshot itself. MPs aren’t allowed to take photos in the Chamber, and it has been determined that screenshots of their Zoom screens follow under the same rules. It would have almost certainly been an MP who took the screenshot in order to leak to Lilley, which is a violation of House rules, and arguably, Amos’ privileges. It’s also likely that it was a Conservative MP who leaked said photo, given that they leaked it to Lilley. (There are additional issues around the non-consensual sharing of such images, and whether they would have been so quick to do so if it was a woman). I suspect that if Amos were to pursue the matter as a breach of his privileges, this could turn into a Thing that the Procedure and House Affairs Committee will likely have to deal with. It should also be yet another wake-up call for MPs about their collective behaviour over the course of this whole Hybrid Parliament, and why they are letting their standards slide. It probably wouldn’t hurt for the Speaker to actually lay down the law for a change rather than the constant gentle chidings that do absolutely nothing to change behaviour, but here we are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A broken system thwarting foreign agents

Posted on by

Something in the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) annual report, made public this week caught my eye, which talked about how the “critical election incident protocol panel” – the body set up in order to have some sort of way to help deal with any detected foreign interference during an election (given the whole Russian interference thing south of the border in previous of their elections) – needs to include more traditional espionage as part of their warning triggers. Why? Because, as NSICOP says, foreign agents could try to infiltrate political parties to exert influence, whether it’s in nomination meetings, or volunteering in campaign offices.

I will admit that I laughed.

Not because foreign interference isn’t serious – because it is – but because the joke would be on them, given that grassroots members no longer have any influence in our political system since we have made the system entirely leader-driven. Nomination meetings are being gamed by leaders’ offices to the point where it’s difficult to determine just how free and fair any of them are these days – that is, when leaders aren’t outright appointing candidates (as Justin Trudeau did with Marci Ien and Ya’ara Saks for the by-elections late last year). Trying to hijack nomination contests at the best of times is exceedingly difficult because of the requirement for the leader’s signature (or their proxies, thanks to the garbage Reform Act), which was part of why that requirement was created back in 1970 – officially to keep the Chief Electoral Officer from needing to adjudicate nomination disputes, but anecdotally about heading off pro-life groups trying to hijack Liberal nominations. Foreign agents trying to use the same tactics would have fairly marginal chances of success once their involvement became known.

This is less of an indictment of the use of party infiltration as a tactic of foreign agents, but rather of how our system has degenerated. Because we insisted on moving to leadership contests that became quasi-presidential primaries, we have upended the entire grassroots nature of our parties, and now everything is top-down, leader driven. It shouldn’t be this way, and yet this is where we are.

Continue reading →