Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: O’Toole’s conversion to the labour movement

Posted on by

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole addressed the Canadian Club of Toronto yesterday, and the more I read of his speech, the more curious I become of just what it is he’s trying to say. For example, he spent part of the speech bemoaning the collapse of private sector union membership in the country, talking about how it was part of the balance between what was good for the economy and what was good for workers. That’s surprising considering that when he was in Cabinet, O’Toole supported anti-union legislation that the party put forward (under the guise of private members’ bills, naturally), and the party was having a field day before the last election trying to accuse the government of stacking their media bailout fund by allowing Unifor – the country’s largest private sector union – to have a seat at the table (given that Unifor also represents a lot of journalists). I’m sure the labour movement in this country has whiplash from this sudden reversal – though I would note that in his mouthing about the importance of unions the past couple of months, he is careful to distinguish between private and public sector unions, the latter he still continues to be evil. (And before anyone says those two anti-union bills were “about transparency,” you all know that’s a lie and can stop insulting our intelligence).

O’Toole argued that we have somehow completely de-industrialized as a country, which is news to the rest of us, and then went on an extended tirade about China, because he’s trying to frame this as a national security argument and not just populism hollowing out his party’s political ideology. He claimed that the Liberals were using the pandemic to launch a “risky experiment with our economy” around green energy, which is…not really true, and ignores how markets have moved to green tech with better economic outcomes for doing so. He also continued his protectionist bent, and made a few deeply curious statements like “Free markets alone won’t solve all our problems” (erm, his party is the one that rails about the evils of socialism, no? Is he proposing nationalizing industries? Or does he simply mean global trade when he talks about “free markets”?), and adding that that GDP growth is not the “be-all and end-all of politics” – which is odd because nobody has actually suggested that it is (but his predecessor was fond of attacking straw men as well). I’m also a bit puzzled by what exactly he’s getting at when he says “We need policies to shore up the core units of society — family, neighbourhood, nation. We need policies that build solidarity, not just wealth.” Some of this is thinly-veiled Thatcherism, but where it’s building in terms of his populist rhetoric I am a bit troubled.

And make no mistake – this is full-throated populism, particularly when he starts railing about political and business elites selling out the country (with mention about political correctness in there) – which he’s oddly making to an audience that is thought of as Canada’s business elites. But it’s also deeply hypocritical because of just who O’Toole is. He is the son of a GM executive (which he tries to obscure when he says his father “worked for GM” as though he were blue-collar), who went on to be an MPP. In fact, earlier in the week, O’Toole was tweeting about how he built himself up to leadership, conveniently omitting the huge leg-up he was given along the way. It’s like the “self-made” tech millionaires who got their start with loans from their millionaire fathers, and getting those fathers to buy their tech at their companies. More to the point, after O’Toole left the military, he was a Bay Street corporate lawyer, which is not exactly the image of the middle-class guy he’s painting himself as. When he rails about “elites,” he needs to look in the mirror because that’s exactly what he is. Of course, we’ve seen this story so many times in populist politics, where rich white guys turn themselves into the heroes for the “oppressed underclass” (of mostly straight white guys) who somehow believe that said rich white guy is a “man of the people.” And no doubt O’Toole is hoping he’ll dine out on this as well, but make no mistake, this speech was hypocrisy of the highest order.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A gesture toward pettiness

Posted on by

There are a lot of symbolic gestures that politicians do that I cannot abide, but one of the most obnoxious and corrosive ones is the insistence on cutting their own pay when times get tough – and lo and behold, we have an Ontario senator who is moving a motion to do just that, asking both MPs and Senators to forgo statutory pay increases (to meet inflation) as a gesture. This is not really a symbolic or empty gesture – it is a signal to populist impulses that serve to devalue public life, and treats what they do as somehow being less valuable than people in the private sector – which is ironic considering how much less MPs and senators make than professionals and executives in the private sector.

Without entirely relitigating what I wrote on this before, I wanted to point out some of the fairly offensive characterizations of such gestures that were in the National Post piece, which describes the gesture as “important” for private sector and low-income workers, and the usual suspects at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation trying to insist that politicians aren’t making sacrifices when people are losing their businesses.

The problem with this line of logic is that these gestures don’t do anything. If anything, they come with a dose of schadenfreude, that if I’m suffering then watching politicians or civil servants being forced to suffer as well is satisfying, even if it ultimately makes things worse overall. What good does it serve to make everyone miserable or worse off? How does that make the situation better for everyone? It doesn’t. There are enough trade-offs that go with public life or public service that often make it a fairly unappealing to many people, so why pile on? Pettiness won’t solve the economic crisis or make people’s businesses reopen, and it certainly won’t make COVID go away, so why indulge it?

Continue reading →

Roundup: The slow part of the economic recovery

Posted on by

It was a big day for economic news – the Bank of Canada stating that they expect interest rates to continue to be at near-zero until 2023, as the economic recovery moves into a much slower phase as we wait for a vaccine for the pandemic. They also stated their plan to change how they buy bonds going forward. A few hours later, Chrystia Freeland gave a major speech wherein she stated that the government was going to keep spending until the pandemic was over, because they can at a time of such historically low interest rates, and because it provides businesses and households a necessary bridge through the economic turmoil until the pandemic is over. And for those of you in the back, it’s not 1995, and even with all of this added spending – which is time-limited – is not going to create a debt bomb. It’s just not.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1321497252783775744

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1321498671389777920

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1321498708551241729

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1321507072773685250

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1321499588683948032

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1321496597000323080

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1321500584046784512

Of course, conservative pundits set about clutching their pearls that the government is taking on the debt instead of households, apparently not comprehending that they have more tools and levers at their disposal than households – but these are the same chuckleheads who equate government debt with credit card debt. The Bank of Canada’s Monetary Policy Report noted that much of the recovery to date has been on the back of consumer spending, which is one more reason why allowing households to go insolvent and enforcing consumer austerity would only harm the economic recovery – we saw this in the Great Depression, where consumers who had money but didn’t spend it because of the social stigma prolonged the depression for years. And yet, we keep hearing “taxpayer dollars!” and “leaving debt to our children,” as though leaving them a weak economy is any better – particularly if that debt is affordable and is treated as an investment with programmes like childcare, that creates more economic returns. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp – and yet…

Meanwhile, here is Kevin Carmichael’s parsing of the Bank of Canada’s rate decision and Monetary Policy Report, while Heather Scoffield gives her own thoughts on Freeland’s speech.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Flirting with unconstitutional legislation

Posted on by

The bill to mandate sexual assault training for judges was a bad idea from the start, when Rona Ambrose first tabled it years ago, and the current iteration that this government is putting forward is little better, especially now that MPs have decided they need to start amending it to add other things. While Ambrose’s initial bill was blatantly unconstitutional (that the Commons passed on a whim because of the political syllogism: Something needs to be done, this is something, therefore we must do this), and needed to be gutted in the Senate to make it acceptable, the current version was more or less acceptable (barring one or two possible issues), but it seems that MPs want to make it blatantly unconstitutional again.

Former Supreme Court of Canada executive legal officer Gib van Ert warned back in February that this bill would be an invitation to demand that judges take training in other areas than just sexual assault, and lo and behold, we are there, with demands for the “social context of systemic racism.”

https://twitter.com/btaplatt/status/1321246603781570560

van Ert makes the point that if judges need to be seen as independent, then bills like this, where politicians appear to be giving them marching orders, is a bad look and will undermine the justice system. But since when to populist impulses consider the consequences of their actions? They don’t.

Continue reading →

QP: Reaching on a false premise

Posted on by

The prime minister was in attendance today, though his deputy wasn’t. Alas. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and he noted the two American CEOs who crossed the border without quarantines, and that if the public safety minister didn’t have the power to approve them, it must have been the PMO — a blatant reach based on a false premise. Justin Trudeau reminded him that these were decisions made by CBSA officers at the border in error — then congratulated the victors of last night’s by-elections. O’Toole then asked about the public inquiry into the Nova Scotia mass shooting, and Trudeau gave a somewhat platitudinous response about moving ahead with the inquiry at the behest of the families. O’Toole wondered just who was in charge of the RCMP if there were differing opinions in Cabinet about calls for her to resign, and Trudeau read a script about acknowledging systemic racism in the Force. O’Toole switched to French to lament rapid tests and the early numbers that came from China, and Trudeau explained everything they did to help families, which was what mattered. O’Toole then worried that the prime minister was blaming provinces for inaction and demanded they get to work, to which Trudeau reminded him there are areas of provincial jurisdiction and that he working with provinces to ensure that all Canadians were taken care of. Yves-François Blanchet was up next and raised blackface and the Indian Act as racist, while trying to defend that University of Ottawa professor. Trudeau reminded him that they were working with the First Nations to get past the Indian Act, but it can’t be done by decree. Blanchet went on a meandering path about what was nation-to-nation relations, to which Trudeau reminded him that there is a diversity of opinion among First Nations, which is why they were talking at the nation’s pace. Jagmeet Singh was up next that for the NDP, and in French, he demanded universal pharmacare, to which Trudeau recited his practiced lines about how nobody should be forced to choose between food and medicine, and that they were working with the provinces. Singh then raised that the federal government as a landlord raised the rent on a daycare facility forcing it to close, to which Trudeau said they would be looking into what happened.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Nail-biter by-elections

Posted on by

The Liberals won the two Toronto-area by-elections last night, but with far less comfortable margins than before. While Marci Ien won Toronto Centre, Green Party leader Annamie Paul came in a not-too-distant second place, which was a surprise showing for her considering she was a far-distant fourth in the previous election. In York Centre, Liberal Ya’ara Saks pulled ahead at the very end, but it was a constant dance with the Conservatives most of the evening, and very close (and close enough there may yet be a recount). While it’s not good to read too much into by-elections, one supposes that this should be a bit of a warning to Justin Trudeau about going to a snap election, given how close it was. There should also be a warning for Trudeau in here about engaging his own party membership – one suspects that there are a lot of angry Liberals who are incredibly unhappy about the way that Trudeau short-circuited the nomination process and simply appointed candidates in both ridings, cutting out the grassroots membership to the detriment of democracy as a whole. Erin O’Toole will crow that he made progress in the GTA with nearly winning York Centre (though the Conservative candidate was almost a non-entity in Toronto Centre), though Maxime Bernier’s entry into the race in that riding ostensibly took enough votes away from O’Toole to lose the race. Hopefully O’Toole won’t take that as a cue to go even more extreme to try to attract those voters.

Fiscal anchor

At a talk for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, prime minister Justin Trudeau said that the government wouldn’t be setting a new fiscal anchor while the pandemic was still ongoing – but that there would soon be a “robust” fiscal update presented. This immediately gave the whole it’s-1995-and-will-always-be-1995 crowd the vapours, but there is credible economic thought that this isn’t the time for a fiscal anchor because it would simply be a signal to cut spending at a time when that spending is building resilience into the economy and is giving us a leg-up on recovery over other countries. Erin O’Toole followed up and handwaved that if his party was in charge, they would have done everything better, offering no evidence to that end.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1320794340747194369

Continue reading →

Roundup: Self-harm by way of platitude

Posted on by

I try not to make a habit of re-litigating my Twitter disputes in this space, but in this particular case, I find it’s a perfect illustration of how this government’s inability to communicate its way out of a wet paper bag, and why that harms them. To wit: A Global News piece declares that Trudeau won’t commit to ending boil-water advisories on First Nations by 2021 as is the current promise. It uses the recent evacuation at Neskatanga First Nation as an illustration of problems with boil-water advisories. It quotes Trudeau giving a bland talking point about “more work to do,” and way down at the bottom of the story is reference to the fact that in Neskatanga, not only has money been approved and delivered, but the new water treatment facility is nearly completed construction.

So why is this a problem for the government? Because if they had the slightest bit of candour, they could have explained that capital projects like these take time, particularly in the kinds of remote and fly-in communities like these particular First Nations. Twitter is filled with people who are seriously asking why the government hasn’t solved these issues if they’re showering money around, without having the slightest clue about what he actual problems with these boil water advisories are, and accustomed to situations where they can simply throw money at a problem and it will go away. That’s not the case, and not understanding the logistical and capacity issues at play means that we get this ongoing confusion. For example, many of these reserves are only accessible to bring equipment up with ice roads for a couple of months of the year, which slows the ability to make timely solutions. (This is also an issue with housing on many reserves – small windows by which to bring in building supplies, and those windows are getting ever shorter because of climate change). This has been made even worse in the pandemic, because many communities won’t let the people who are building these new facilities into the community in an attempt to keep COVID out (which Trudeau made vague reference to, but folded it into his platitude so it gets lost). In some communities, it’s not a question of the equipment but of maintenance – as soon as they find and train someone local to do the work, they get headhunted and given a better offer, and the community has to start over again, as the equipment once again breaks down. And it would be great if Trudeau or one of his ministers could actually articulate these challenges, but they won’t. Instead, they fall back on their platitudes about “doing better,” and not giving people a clue about what the actual challenges are.

The government also assumes that these reporters will do the work to find out what the challenges are, but they won’t. Pressed for time, and under the constant pressure to produce, most of them will only both-sides the quotes and move on (as happened in this particular case). Most don’t understand the background or the actual challenges, so it doesn’t get reported – only the platitudes in face of the complaints. Actual candour from Trudeau and the Cabinet would fix this – easily! But they won’t do it. It’s maddening, and they’re just shooting themselves in the foot, over, and over, and over again.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pushing back against the committee order

Posted on by

The credulous takes on the Conservatives’ health committee motion continue, and now industry is also starting to push back, concerned that commercially sensitive information is going to be released publicly which will affect them and the ability to produce PPE for the country. Of course, Michelle Rempel Garner is dismissing these concerns as “Liberal spin” and offering the assurance that the Commons Law Clerk will redact any sensitive information – except that there are no assurances that he knows what is and is not commercially sensitive information. (And this recent trend of making the Law Clerk redact documents under the howls that anything else amounts to a cover-up is worrying, because it’s once again piling work into independent servants of the House that is beyond the scope of their duties, which will soon become a permanent duty). Other manufacturers are saying it’s not about the information, but about the fact that they’re going to become political footballs for stepping up in the early days of the pandemic – and they’re right. Given how many falsehoods are being repeated about the Baylis Medical contract – which media continues to both-sides rather than call out – is going to keep happening, and we’ll see these company owners be grilled for any remote Liberal connections, because this is an exercise in the Conservatives fishing to “prove” that this was about the Liberals trying to pad the pockets of their “friends,” because they are determined to try and recreate a new Sponsorship Scandal. And I’m surprised that there aren’t more voices in the media who can’t see this, or the shenanigans in Rempel Garner’s motion.

Meanwhile, Patty Hajdu hasn’t exactly covered herself in glory over the past few days with her dismissive comments about Access to Information requests – comments that got the attention of the Information Commissioner, who sounded the alarm over them. I will note that having once worked as a contractor in Health Canada’s records department (I had to pay the bills while building up my pre-political freelance career), that they had one of the worst-kept systems across the federal government, and I have no reason to believe that things are much different now than they were then. This gets compounded by the fact that ATIPs are being slowed by the fact that government offices are closed because of the pandemic, and people aren’t being able to access the files necessary, which is making the situation worse. It would be great if Hajdu could actually say something other than the dismissive comment (which I’m fairly certain was off the cuff when caught flat-footed by the issue), and her haughty defence of civil servants, but as we all know, this government can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag, and she proved it once again, in spades.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another paralyzing motion

Posted on by

In the wake of Wednesday’s confidence vote, Erin O’Toole was strutting around saying that his party was going to focus on “issues” instead of “playing politics” – as though the stunt of the so-called “anti-corruption committee” was anything other than playing politics, or the fact that he has to continually lie about non-issues in order to make people angry than focusing on some of the actual issues that this government is getting wrong. And to that end, O’Toole and Michelle Rempel Garner spent yesterday on another Supply Day motion, this time geared toward ordering the health committee to conducting a wide-ranging study on the federal government’s response to the pandemic. Rempel Garner insisted that this was “non-partisan” and free of the hyperbole of the previous motion (and the government is not treating this as a confidence motion), but I still have issues with it (and I do not agree with Kady that this is “100% shenanigan-free).

For starters, many of the items enumerated by the order are the kinds of things that the Conservatives have been engaging in a campaign of revisionist history around, so I absolutely do not consider their intentions to be pure and honourable regarding them, and I suspect there will be many a fishing expedition based on this order, particularly to satisfy the conspiracy theorizing that the Conservatives have engaged in around the role of China and the WHO. The motion also orders a massive production of documents going back to January 2018 in some cases – something that the government has warned would be physically impossible in the time allotted (because we need to remember that nobody is working from their offices, and access to many of their files is limited to non-existent because nobody can get to their offices for “health and safety” reasons). I don’t think that Patty Hajdu was being too hyperbolic herself when she said that this kind of order would grind the department to a halt. As Kady mentioned in her tweet, the protocol of ordering ministers to appear is bad and setting a terrible precedent, and I’m increasingly uncomfortable with orders that the Law Clerk handle redactions on a very limited basis, meaning that there is no room for Cabinet confidences under the order, and the fact that he may not necessarily have the right knowledge to know about national security exemptions, or commercial sensitivity as Anita Anand pointed out yesterday around some of the negotiations for contracts, whether it’s PPE or vaccines, and publicly releasing that information could undermine ongoing negotiations with other suppliers.

The vote on this won’t be until Monday, and it looks like the other opposition parties are lined up in favour of supporting it, as they have with most other Supply Day motions (that weren’t declared confidence). I do worry that these kinds of motions are going to start becoming commonplace, and that very bad precedents are being set for the future.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Confidence maintained, control wrested

Posted on by

It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that the government survived the confidence vote – it was very much an example of Wells’ First Rule – and the NDP and Greens voted to keep parliament going. Of course, the narrative that both the Conservatives and NDP adopted was that the Liberals were pushing for an election – the Conservatives (and Bloc) claiming it was because the Liberals really wanted to cover something up, and the NDP self-righteously declared that they weren’t going to give Trudeau the election that he wanted, but would keep parliament going to get things done for Canadians. Of course, if Trudeau really wanted an election (which he doesn’t), he could just head next door to Rideau Hall on any given morning and ask Julie Payette to dissolve Parliament, but he won’t, because that’s not what today was about.

Part of what has irked me in this is the way in which the Conservatives’ motion was being described, which is innocuously. One writer went so far as to call it a “pedestrian motion,” which it was anything but, and I highly suspect that nobody actually read through it except for the two other procedural wonks in the Gallery. Aside from the inflammatory title of “anti-corruption,” or the proposed alternative whose four-letter abbreviation would have been SCAM (both instances that demonstrate that it’s a group of juvenile shitposters running O’Toole’s office who are treating the Order Paper as a game of who can be the most outrageous), the proposed committee’s terms of reference would have put the government at a structural disadvantage with three fewer members (generally committees in the current parliamentary composition are split, and on committees where the government chairs it, the opposition has the votes to outweigh the government), but it would have given the committee first priority for all parliamentary resources, and compelled production of all documents they wanted and witnesses to appear, no matter who. This essentially means that both ministers and the civil service would be at the committee’s beck and call, and that they would have to drop everything to attend it – which is what Pablo Rodriguez meant by the committee being meant to “paralyze” government. They could go on unlimited fishing expeditions with little to no ability to push back, and given the fact that there aren’t any smoking guns here, it would be constant wild goose chases while Parliament was unable to get anything else accomplished. More than that, it would also have enshrined that the prime minister’s extended family – meaning his mother and brother – would be considered legitimate targets, and have their financial information put into the open for no good reason. And funnily enough, not one story from yesterday mentioned these facts – not the Star, not the National Post, not CBC, nor The Canadian Press. Yet this seems like some pretty vital context for why the government would so strenuously object to this “pedestrian” motion.

There was another consideration, that former Paul Martin-era staffer Scott Reid expounded upon, which is control of the agenda. That’s a pretty important thing in a hung parliament, and under the current circumstances. Trudeau hasn’t been able to make much progress on any file (admittedly, much of this is his own fault for refusing to bring parliament back in a sensible way, followed by his decision to prorogue), but being hamstrung by that motion was going to make things moving forward near impossible. Now that he’s stared down O’Toole, I suspect he has some breathing room again.

Continue reading →