Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: O’Toole’s use of stock photos is telling

Posted on by

You may have noticed that Erin O’Toole has been launching a new social media campaign about the dire state of our economy, using stock photo images to illustrate his points. Over my years in journalism, I have come to be very wary of the use of stock images by parties in their advertising, because much of it is inherently deceptive or manipulative (aside from being cheap to slap into their products) – and I will fully credit Glen McGregor for this.

So, what have we seen with two of O’Toole’s posts? One of them was about January’s brutal job numbers, accompanied by a stock photo of a young white guy in a hoodie, looking somewhat distressed. The problem? Those same job numbers showed disproportionate losses among women and visible minorities because the most affected sectors were wholesale and retail trade, as well as accommodation and food services – which makes sense given all of the closures in the second wave. In other words, the images he put up was not only tone deaf, but speaks to just who he thinks his voter base will respond sympathetically to, which says a lot. (The only upside here is that he model was actually Canadian and not a Romanian, but when said model found out about it, he chimed in).

https://twitter.com/TunaPhish09/status/1359408430264377347

O’Toole posted another one yesterday about standing up for Canadian workers, using a photo of a (white) construction worker. But again, if you look at last month’s job numbers, construction jobs were actually up – they were the main driver of goods-producing jobs (which were a net gain rather than a net loss on the month). Again, though, this is about what O’Toole is signalling what kinds of jobs he thinks matters, and it’s not where the losses have been. As he starts to make a lot of noise about his recovery plans and supposed economic dream team, he is sending very loud signals about what he thinks the recovery should look like, and it appears to be pretty divorced from what everyone else thinks it should look like, and that is something worth paying attention to.

Continue reading →

Roundup: CSIS has a warning and a request

Posted on by

The head of CSIS gave a rare speech yesterday, in which he did two things – called for more modernisations to the CSIS Act in order to let the organisation collect more digital information, and to warn about state actors who are targeting the country’s economic secrets, often though partnerships that they then take advantage of (pointing the finger on this one specifically at China).

Meanwhile, here’s former CSIS analyst Jessica Davis’ assessment of what she heard in the speech, which has a few interesting insights.

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359213965851697154

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359213967906865152

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359214670624792576

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359215146657341441

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359215476224704512

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s risky, ideological experiment

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole met with the Toronto Star’s editorial board yesterday, and indicated that any election won’t be his doing, which would indicate that he’s in no rush to call non-confidence with this government – and why would he? Should he topple the government (in a pandemic), he would not only have to wear that decision, but also try to explain how he would do things differently around things like vaccine procurement – something which he won’t actually do because he knows that we don’t have the domestic capacity to produce them, and that the current delays are outside of this government’s control. He won’t say those things out loud, because he needs to create a narrative about this government “failing,” even though he couldn’t do any better, but the truth has apparently never been a barrier for O’Toole (nor his predecessor).

What O’Toole is trying to do is set up a competing narrative for the post-pandemic recovery, where he gets to frame the Liberals’ plans of “build back better” – focused on green and inclusive growth – as being some kind of risky, ideologically-driven “experimentation.” The problem with this, of course, is that his plans for getting the economy back to status quo is that the old normal led us to this point – including the thousands of deaths that happened as a result of this pandemic. It would seem to me that trying to get to the old normal is risky and ideological, because they have proven to have failed, and were stifling growth – remember that calls for inclusive growth predate the pandemic and were highlighted by those radical ideologues at the Bank of Canada as a necessary pathway if the Canadian economy was to continue growing at a point where we had reached “full employment” and future growth was going to be constrained. Nevertheless, O’Toole is pandering to a voter base (and, frankly, a pundit class) that fails to see that the future economic drivers are going to be the green economy and ensuring that we get more women and minorities into the workforce. For a party that likes to fancy itself as “good economic managers,” they seem to be completely blinkered on where the market is heading, and are trying to chart a path that everyone else is rapidly abandoning.

Meanwhile, O’Toole’s finance critic, Pierre Poilievre, has been putting on a big dog and pony show about our unemployment rate over the past few days, and thinks he has a winning line in talking about “paycheques versus credit card debt,” but he’s basing it on a false premise that unemployment figures are directly comparable – they’re not, and as a former employment minister, he knows that and is lying to you. (He also knows that places like the US have their economies opened with massive death tolls as a result, but those are just details, right?)

Continue reading →

Roundup: Nuancing the discipline debate

Posted on by

Over the weekend, Aaron Wherry wrote a piece about party discipline, comparing Derek Sloan’s ouster from the Conservatives in Canada, with Marjorie Taylor Greene’s censure in the US. While I think Wherry makes a few interesting points, he misses a boatload of nuance that should probably be included in there – including the fact that I’m not sure that control over nominations is necessarily an issue of party discipline per se, and I fear that the piece suffers a bit of conflation as a result.

What I thought in particular was his point where parties can exert more control over who can and cannot get nominations in Canada, where party influence is much weaker in American primaries. The ability for party leaders to be able to veto nominations is a fairly recent development, dating back to the Canada Elections Act reforms in 1970, when they needed an accountability mechanism when party names appeared on ballots for the first time, and in the interests of not burdening Elections Canada with intra-party disputes over nominations, they gave party leaders the ability to sign off on nominations. At no point in the debates (and I did read the Hansards and committee transcripts when I was researching for my book) was the possibility of this being used as a tool of party discipline raised. Nevertheless, this became essentially a tool of blackmail, where leaders could threaten to withhold signing the nomination papers of any MP who wanted to run again if they didn’t toe the party line. But this is only a tool of discipline for an incumbent, not someone who has never run before, which is more what Wherry is talking about with Sloane and Greene.

In either of those cases, these were newbies to the party, and control over who is and is not running is part of the argument he is making – that it’s tighter control in Canada than in the US, and maybe this isn’t such a bad thing. I don’t necessarily disagree, but I think there is more elegance to the argument than that. When it comes to the more substantial difference between Canada and the US when it comes to quality control of who winds up on the ballot is how the grassroots mechanisms different. In Canada, it is ostensibly a matter for the riding association, which can be hundreds of thousands of members – especially if there is a membership drive for a contested nomination – but that’s not the same as a primary, which is many, many times larger. There is a more robust intra-party green-light process in Canada that has grown up over time, but the bigger problem right now is it is being abused, and parties are gaming the nomination process, in many cases to favour candidates that their leader would prefer, and this is a problem that very much needs to be solved as soon as possible. While yes, it may be preferable that we have a bit more quality control over our candidates (emphasis on “bit” – plenty of people get elected who never should have made it past their green-light process), it should still be a more grassroots driven process, and not be the sole discretion of the party leader. That is the part that is harming us more than helping us, and the happy medium won’t be found until we get back to a place where we aren’t selecting party leaders through membership votes, and the grassroots has their proper role in ground-up democracy restored.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, there won’t be a spring election

Posted on by

I wanted to take a few moments to vent, dear readers, about the constant talk about an election. Because, quite frankly, there is too much talk about it right now and it’s starting to do my head in. There is no chance that anybody actually wants to go to an election right now, and yet that’s all anyone can talk about. We’re seeing another round of “exclusive polls” being published here, there and yonder, because everyone is super keen on it, for no reason other than the pundit class has become bored and are itching for something to do.

Guys. Stop trying to make an election happen. It’s not going to happen.

We are still not out of the second wave, and there won’t be sufficient vaccine distribution to reach the bulk of the population until the end of September. Any party that tries to push an election before then is going to be suicidal, no matter how high their poll numbers may be looking for them. The Liberals are not going to force it now because their numbers are healthy, because Canadians know when parties are cynically trying to take advantage of those numbers and force an unnecessary election – there is plenty of precedent of governments being punished for doing so. The fact that the vaccine rollout has had hiccups that have punished them at the polls (in part because these same pundits have decided to coalesce on the narrative of “botched” and “off-the-rails,” in spite of facts and logic) would make anyone too hesitant to pull the trigger, even on the strength of what they’re offering on the budget. Unless the other parties vote down said budget or a non-confidence motion (over what? Something that the PM has little control over and they could do no better on), any attempt to go to the GG or the Administrator outside of that would immediately be clocked as a cynical ploy while there’s a pandemic on. The fact that some provinces have done so is not licence for the federal government to do so.

“But they need to do it this year or it’s not going to happen!” is usually what I hear as an excuse. Maybe in the fall, on an economic update – maybe. But frankly, with the vaccinations rolling up then, and the economy re-opening for realsies (we hope), frankly I would presume people to be too busy or preoccupied to focus on an election, or to want one for no reason other than for the Liberals to try and regain a majority parliament. Nevertheless, anyone who thinks it’s going to happen in the spring or even the summer is huffing the fumes of those polls.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not releasing the contracts

Posted on by

It seems that prime minister Justin Trudeau has rejected a call by the premiers to release the details of the vaccine contracts – as well he should have. So much of the past couple of weeks’ panic over the delays in Pfizer and Moderna doses has been this self-assuredness that the federal government must have negotiated a bad deal, and they’re going to “prove it” by demanding to see what’s in the contracts. After all, most of the conservative-leaning premiers are still operating under the assumption that Trudeau is some kind of naïf who can barely put his own pants on let alone govern a country (while most of them believe themselves to be super-geniuses). Of course, all that making the contracts public would do is to allow other countries to start trying to outbid what we paid for our doses in order to get the companies to break the contracts in order to get their own orders faster.

With this in mind, I would point you in the direction of this longread from Maclean’s, which goes through the story of the procurement process for these vaccines, including talking to some of the players involved, and while no secrets are divulged, some of the calculations on the part of the companies is better fleshed out, including the fact that our public healthcare system ostensibly makes out rollout likely to go more smoothly, which is good for the companies because it means fewer wasted doses. Now, mind you, it’s not going to be even across the country given the disparities in health systems between provinces, and the varying levels of incompetence that some of the provincial governments display, but there are some good insights in the piece, so I would encourage you to take the time to read it through.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The COVAX conundrum

Posted on by

It was another day of less than optimal vaccine news yesterday – first a warning that there was going to be more fluctuation in future shipments including what appears to be another reduction in the next Moderna shipment (of which we’re still not sure the allocation yet), followed by news that we are in line for a shipment from the COVAX facility, which comes with its own particular special challenges.

Why? Because part of COVAX is to provide vaccines to the developing world, and it appears that Canada is accepting vaccines that would be going to them. Except that’s not the deal we signed – while we are funding vaccines for the developing world through COVAX (and will be sending our excess doses once our own population is vaccinated), part of the procurement diversification strategy was the stream under COVAX that we get some doses while also funding for the developing world. But of course, that wasn’t clearly explained – and the minister did have to do the media rounds to do that later in the day, by which it was too late, and you had everyone tut-tutting that we’re taking doses from those who need it more than we do. Which, incidentally, is happening at the same time that the government is being yelled at for not procuring more doses faster (as though yelling will make Pfizer’s retooling go faster or Moderna’s supply chain issues resolve themselves), and lo, we have doses that we paid for, but we’re going to look like jerks if we take them. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. Good thing this government can communicate effectively. Oh, wait…

Continue reading →

Roundup: Domestic vaccine production…eventually

Posted on by

There was a sliver of positive news yesterday, when it was announced that the federal government had signed a deal with Novavax to produce their vaccine in the future National Research Council facility in Montreal. The catch? That facility won’t be completed construction until summer, and then it will require Health Canada approval, so it may not be able to produce new doses until the end of the year – at which point, most Canadians should already be vaccinated using the Pfizer and Moderna doses we’ve contracted for. That doesn’t mean this facility still won’t be for naught – it’s possible we will need booster shots for the other vaccines, possibly do deal with different variants (and Novavax has shown success with the B.1.1.7 variant first spotted in the UK), and it also means that we will be able to produce for export to other countries who will need it.

Of course, this started back in on the same questions about why we weren’t able to produce vaccines domestically earlier, and why this plant is taking so long. Of course, this plant is actually moving faster than is usual – Good Manufacturing Practices facilities to produce vaccines usually take two or three years to build, not a single year, and there are several other facilities under construction across the country for other vaccine candidates. As for the same questions about why we didn’t contract to produce other vaccines here, it was because there were no suitable facilities – particularly from the approved ones. (This NRC facility was in talks to produce the AstraZeneca vaccine, but there is also talk about why the PnuVax facility in Montreal has not yet been tapped – but it may yet be for a future candidate once approved). And for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, we simply didn’t have facilities in this country that could produce mRNA vaccines to scale (most existing mRNA production was on a single-dose system for tailored vaccines used for treating particular cancers). And these are things we a) can’t build overnight, and b) didn’t know were even viable because it’s a new technology that had not yet been approved for a vaccine, especially on the scale of the one we’re dealing with now. It would have been a hell of a gamble to build a facility to GMP standards for a vaccine technology that may not have panned out.

Why I’m particularly annoyed about the return of these questions – particularly from the likes of Jagmeet Singh as he appeared on platforms like Power & Politics – is that they pretend that any vaccine facility can produce any vaccine, ignoring that not all vaccines are created equally, or that the technology to produce vaccines isn’t different across platforms. Singh’s notion that a nationalised vaccine producer should have been able to handle this is also farcical because again, what platform would it have bet on? All of them? It’s ridiculous and dishonest – as have been the demands to make the vaccine procurement contracts public (which no other country has done), because all that would do is allow other countries to look at what we paid, and then offer the companies more money to break the contracts with us. (And FFS, both Singh and Erin O’Toole are lawyers and should know this). The kinds of point-scoring that is taking place right now is getting to be beyond the pale, and it’s obscuring the actual kinds of accountability we should be practicing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not another Supreme Court reference

Posted on by

The medical assistance in dying bill is finally before the Senate’s legal and constitutional affairs committee, as the (extended) deadline approaches for it to be passed to comply with a Quebec court ruling, and we have justice minister David Lametti saying that there is always the possibility that they could yet refer this bill to the Supreme Court of Canada to get their judgment on whether it will meet the courts’ requirements. And I just cannot with this.

This is part of a pattern in this country where anytime there is a contentious or “moral” issue, parliamentarians of all stripes get afraid to put their necks on the line for something – no matter how right the cause is – and insist that the courts weigh in so that they can do the performative action of looking like they were dragged, kicking and screaming, into complying. They did this with lesbian and gay rights, they did this with safe injection sites, they did this with prostitution laws, and they did this with assisted dying – and in the cases of both prostitution laws and assisted dying, the laws drafted to replace those that were struck down were not going to comply with the court’s rulings, and yet they went ahead with them anyway so that they could force a new round of court challenges to really put on a show of kicking and screaming. It’s spineless, and it causes so much more unnecessary suffering (and in some cases, like with prostitution laws, deaths) when better laws could and should be drafted, but those MPs and senators who push for full compliance get sidelined by the skittish majority. And in the case of assisted dying, so many of those pushing to go back to the courts are simply seeking to re-litigate the action, which is not going to happen. A unanimous decision is not going to be scaled back on a second hearing.

While I am encouraged that Lametti did try to say that this option is not the best one, and his office later clarified that they have no plan to have yet another reference on assisted dying, but the fact that you have his clamour of people who don’t want to either make a decision, or who want to re-litigate the same issues, clamouring to send this back to the Supreme Court is disappointing. That parliament can’t respond to the Court’s ruling in a reasonable manner is one of the most irritating things about how we run this country, and it would be great if our MPs (and some senators) could forego the theatrics.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not fussed about Payette’s pension

Posted on by

For the past week, in the wake of Julie Payette’s resignation, we have seen the various cheap outrage stories and QP attacks circling around. How dare she get her generous pension if she voluntarily resigned under a cloud of scandal? Why should Canadians have to pay for this? (Usually followed by the usual republican nonsense that falsely equates how much Canada’s contribution to the monarchy is and which grossly underestimates how much more an elected head of state would cost compared to the system we have in place now).

While Parliament could theoretically alter the laws that guarantee Payette her pension, trying to do so retroactively would invite a lawsuit that the government would be hard-pressed to win. Not to mention, the fact that she walked away without causing a constitutional crisis is probably worth the pension (because seriously, that could have been very ugly and messy). As for the additional annuity that former GGs are afforded to support any duties related to their time as GG that carry on afterward, be it speeches or answering letters, I’m less fussed about that because I think it’s healthy that we have people who are interested in keeping up civic duties once their term is over (especially as we don’t have ready-enough access to members of the royal family for that kind of thing), but would welcome additional transparency and reporting around that. It does, however, help make the somewhat ageist case that we shouldn’t appoint GGs that are too young because what do they then follow it up with after holding the second highest office in the country? (See: Michaëlle Jean’s time as head of the Francophonie). We also have to remember that things like a GG’s pension are made generous enough because it’s part of institutional independence – we don’t want a prime minister to threaten that pension if they aren’t going to get their way. It’s actually the same logic behind why you want a monarchy to be rich – so that they have independent wealth and that can’t be used as leverage by a government. Of course, Canadians have been conditioned to revel in hairshirt parsimony after the Reform Party years and media that delights in the response they get from cheap outrage stories, so we’re going to keep getting them, no matter how inappropriate and damaging to our institutions that they actually are.

Meanwhile, Erin O’Toole has been making the rounds claiming that Justin Trudeau would be in a “conflict of interest” if he chose the next GG on his own, and I just cannot with this completely illiterate nonsense. There would be no conflict because the GG acts on the advice of the prime minister – he or she is not going to say no if Trudeau decides to call an election, because there are no grounds for them to do so. The only time they have any kind of discretion around this is if the incumbent demands another election right after he or she ostensibly lost one, and if there is a viable alternative, the GG has every right to ask the incumbent to see if they can maintain confidence, and if not, another party can be invited to form government. There is this perception that the vice-regal has a truckload of discretion in these matters, and they simply don’t. More to the point, having the opposition sign-off on a new GG would then allow Trudeau to launder the prerogative and accountability for the decision to advise the Queen on that person, which we do not want. That’s not how Responsible Government works. Yes, there is merit to restoring the vice-regal appointments committee (but it’s too late for Payette’s replacement, because that process should have started months ago), but even then, the PM still has the final say from the names put to him on the short-list, as well he should. O’Toole is trying to sow confusion, and is giving further disinformation as to how our system works, which is very bad because it’s that kind of thing that undermines democratic norms. Knock it off!

Continue reading →