Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: Bracing for bad numbers

Posted on by

Because COVID numbers continue to climb, and more provinces are moving toward stricter measures to try and control the spread of the virus (but not too strict for most – they still have to think about businesses, natch), the prime minister took the opportunity yesterday to meet with the opposition leaders to brief them on the situation in advance of new federal modelling numbers being released this morning, which paint a dire picture of people don’t stay home and limit the number of people they come into contact with. Of course, Erin O’Toole took the opportunity to immediately come out of the meeting and slam the prime minister for the fact that a global pandemic is bad for the economy, while also apparently ordering Trudeau to step into areas of provincial jurisdiction with a “real plan to test, trace, and isolate those who are infected.” Seriously?

With regard to provincial measures, BC has finally made masks mandatory as part of their new series of restrictions, along with trying to restrict non-essential travel while the Quebec premier put forward a “moral contract” for the coming Christmas holidays, which extends the province’s lockdown measures and tries to build in a kind of buffer around Christmas as a way of trying to avoid telling people not to meet up with family at all. And we’re expecting Doug Ford to also announce more “tough” measures today, which one suspects still won’t actually be tough because his sympathies continue to lay with business owners.

And while infections continue to climb and hospital resources get increasingly stressed, we are going to have to watch out for how doctors and nurses are going to start burning out, presuming they don’t get infected themselves, which will make things even harder going forward (and made even worse in some provinces where the government is going to war with their doctors – looking at you, Alberta). Things are serious, and we need to be even more vigilant about this virus.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pretending there’s a shortcut

Posted on by

The NDP spent the day yesterday trying to make hay of their private members’ bill, which purports to create a national pharmacare programme. Unless the party has been secretly negotiating with the provinces, it will do no such thing, and it’s pretty much guaranteed that the bill is unconstitutional, both on the grounds that it delves into areas of provincial jurisdiction and the fact that it is inherently a money bill, which would require a Royal Recommendation – which they’re not going to get. Beyond that, this is performative grandstanding that seeks to short-circuit the actual work of implementing a national pharmacare programme that the government is already doing.

Because seriously – I was inundated with replies over Twitter about how the Liberals also promised pharmacare, so how was this different? It’s different because the Liberals a) promised negotiations with the provinces, and b) already have a roadmap to implementation through the Hoskins report, whose steps they are following and have invested money toward. I was also reminded constantly that this bill was modelled after the Canada Health Act, so everything should be fine – err, except that the CHA was the end-product of federal-provincial negotiations, not the starting point to be lorded over the provinces, nor does this address the fact that it is inherently a money bill, which Private Members’ Bills are forbidden from being.

I am also somewhat tickled by the fact that the NDP are considering this bill to be some kind of fait accompli, and in a press release, they claimed that this bill would “guarantee” coverage for Canadians. But that’s a lie,  because none of it can happen if provinces don’t come to the table, and several of them are balking at it because it’s expensive (and the expected savings over the longer term won’t be realised right away), and we are already going through the usual hoops of Quebec saying their provincial plan is good enough and if the federal government wants to go ahead with a national plan then they should be able to opt out with full compensation – and you can bet that Alberta will make the same demand if Quebec is. This bill will not be a shortcut to those negotiations, as much as they might like it to be. The government is moving ahead with the Hoskins Report, which may be slower, but that’s how things get done. Trying to claim they’re not living up to their commitments is one more falsehood that the NDP have become adept in promulgating in order to score political points.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Scheer joins the sister-hiring brigade

Posted on by

The saga of MPs hiring siblings exploded yesterday as several revelations came to light – that Andrew Scheer not only hired his sister-in-law, but that he also hired his sister to work in his office when he was both Deputy Speaker and Speaker. Granted, this was within the rules at the time, and those rules were changed at the end of the time Scheer was Speaker (and his sister was let go then – and then moved over to a Conservative senator’s office), but for someone who liked to give lectures to the prime minister on the optics and the appearance of ethical conduct, it does seem like a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. Erin O’Toole, meanwhile, said that while these hirings were within the rules, he wants to set a higher ethical bar, so he would have a talk with Scheer about it, though he apparently let his sister-in-law go around the same time. No word yet on whether the Conservatives will call for his resignation.

Meanwhile, in the other sibling hiring drama, it turns out that now-former Liberal MP Yasmin Ratansi’s hiring her sister was actually flagged to the Ethics Commissioner two years ago, and his office decided to take a pass on it, figuring that it was better dealt with by the Board of Internal Economy. Now he’s saying that maybe he should have taken a look then. Of course, this sounds to be about par for the course for Mario Dion, whose approach to interpreting his enabling legislation is…creative to say the least, from inventing new definitions under the Act, stretching the credulity of what it covers in some reports, and even confusing his Act with the MP Code – which are completely different – in another case. So, that’s going well. Incidentally, the Board of Internal Economy will be meeting later this week and will address the Ratansi complaints at that time about whether or not this hiring violated the rules, and they will determine the next course of action at that point. (And yes, this is an example of parliamentary privilege, where parliament makes and enforces its own rules, because it’s a self-governing institution, which is the way it should be).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Getting to COVID-zero

Posted on by

The pandemic continues to grow exponentially, and people are wringing their hands about what to do, the notion of getting to COVID-zero is circulating again, after certain jurisdictions – Australia, New Zealand, Slovakia – managed it. So here’s Dr. Isaac Bogoch to explain it.

We can barely get premiers to institute some reasonably tough measures as it is, which is going to make anything required to actually crush the virus almost impossible – especially if we’re relying on their political calculus that closing businesses is worse for them than the hundreds or thousands of deaths that will happen otherwise.

For a bit of a reality check on the feasibility of this, Chris Selley explains why some countries’ systems for locking down COVID wouldn’t work in Canada, either because they were draconian or we are too far behind the curve to make it happen.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some real repercussions of the post-Trump era

Posted on by

There was a Canadian Press piece over the weekend that took a cursory look at how the end of the Trump era may help Canadian conservatives, given that he can’t really be a bogeyman to beat them over the head with. The problem, however, is that this was just a cursory look, and didn’t get into any of the more profound cultural changes within politics that have come out of the Trump era, which the Conservatives in this country have taken full advantage of.

Some of this is the culture war stuff that the Conservatives have been very much keen to dive right in with, and you can see Erin O’Toole very much embracing that as he tweets about “cancel culture” (when it’s very much not about cancel culture), or his refusal to give a proper reckoning to historical injustices rather than complaining that this is about “erasing history” – mostly because it’s historical conservative figures who are the targets of such actions. Some of this has to do with ways in which he is trying to target working-class votes in a way that is essentially twisting himself into pretzels in order to reconcile with is past record and that of his party – populism doesn’t encourage ideological consistency after all.

More than anything, however, the piece doesn’t grapple with some of the broader legacy, which is that it made it permissible to lie constantly in politics – especially because they have learned that the media will only both-sides everything and not call them out on it. And more to the fact, they have learned that they can attack the media with impunity, and will face no rebuke or suffer no damage from doing so. They have learned that they can coarsen politics and crank up divisive rhetoric and that it will get a rise out of people more than civil dialogue and discourse will, and more than anything, they have learned that they can largely get away with it because the mainstream dialogue has shifted to make it acceptable. This is the real legacy of the Trump era that will be harder to dissipate once Trump is out of the picture, because the underlying sentiments remain, and here in Canada, while they may not be as pronounced as they are in the States, they are nevertheless still there, and they are festering because we broadly ignore them by assuring ourselves that we’re nothing like the Americans so we have nothing to worry about. But we should worry that the state of our discourse has moved, and we need to call it out for what it is, which few people seem to be willing to do.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A warning of finite federal resources

Posted on by

Apparently spooked by the new modelling numbers showing daily infection counts in the range of 6,500 by mid-December, and the fact that he got caught out ignoring public health advice in favour of uncontrolled spread, Doug Ford announced that they were re-jigging their advisory system to a much more reasonable number to trigger “code red” states. You’d think this was good news, but “code red” still means you can eat out at restaurants and go to bars, and aren’t really in any kind of serious lockdown state, so it looks like a lot of show, and more excuses to not inconvenience business owners while case counts grow exponentially and hospitalisations and deaths mount.

Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau is sounding a bit more impatient with premiers, reminding them that their resources aren’t infinite and that there is still a chance to save Christmas if we all act now (but probably not). And while certain voices sounded incredulous that a government that has shovelled money out the door at an unprecedented rate doesn’t have infinite resources, we’re not talking about money – we’re talking about personnel from the Red Cross and Canadian Forces if absolutely necessary to step into hospitals and long-term care facilities, and one imagines it also means physical resources like PPE. You can’t simply buy capacity or trained staff – it doesn’t come off the shelf, and people should realise this. And to that end, Trudeau also warned that if they reach the threshold beyond which they have capacity, then difficult choices are going to need to be made about the allocation of those resources.

And if the calls for the federal government to invoke the Emergencies Act wasn’t bad enough (it’s not going to happen), we’re not getting calls for Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health to resign because Ford won’t take advice and he won’t visibly push back against Ford’s blundering – even though his options as an advisor would be limited, and he may not feel he’s at the ethical line of requiring a public resignation just yet. And even further down that path was a piece in Maclean’s (which I’m not linking to) that called on these provincial health officers to assert authority and start making orders, which is a dangerous path to tread down. Why? Because this isn’t a technocracy. In a democracy, advisors advise, and elected politicians decide. Dr. Howard Njoo, the deputy federal chief public health officer, made this exact point yesterday – that they give their best advice to their political masters, and it’s up to those masters to make the final decision, which Ford, Kenney and company are certainly doing. We don’t want politicians to hide behind their advisors by blurring that line of accountability, and we don’t want unaccountable advisors to be making the decisions exactly because we can’t hold them to account at the ballot box. We also need to remember that “listen to the science” isn’t actually public policy. Science can provide guidance, but policy is about implementation, which the science cannot always dictate. Nevertheless, we need to stop blaming Ford’s public health officer and blame Ford himself (along with Kenney, Moe, Pallister, Legault, et al.) They are where the responsibility and the accountability lies, and where the pressure for them to actually take this pandemic seriously needs to be centred.

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1327380638106849283

Continue reading →

Roundup: A promise to fight back against federal action

Posted on by

Another day, more record-breaking COVID cases in this country. In Ontario, new modelling suggests that if we don’t get this under control that we’ll be seeing 6,500 new cases a day by mid-December, which should terrify everyone. And Doug Ford? Well, he called the reports that he ignored public health advice “inaccurate,” and “one doctor’s opinion,” and insisted that he’s trying to find a “balance.” Because the needs of businesses outweigh human lives.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1326965295941099521

In Alberta, where the pandemic is starting to overwhelm a couple of hospitals, Jason Kenney was back in isolation for the second time after another close-call with a positive COVID case (which he tested negative for) – because he’s totally taking it seriously. Kenney decided to “toughen” measures, which means that he…reduced hours in restaurants and bars, stopped indoor sports, and limited weddings and funerals. Because he still refuses to do a proper lockdown to get infections under control, and he refuses to do anything to inconvenience businesses. Hell, he’s still telling people to go out to restaurants and bars – just not as late, which also has the added effect of ensuring more people will be in these establishments during the compressed hours, which would seem to increase the chances of infection rather than decrease it. After all, Alberta’s public health insisted that people should socialize in a “structured setting” (i.e. restaurant or bar) instead of at home, so they’re really taking it seriously.

As for those who still insist on calling on the federal government to enact emergency legislation, Ford stated yesterday in no uncertain terms that he would not stand for it, and warned that other premiers would also fight back because they want to guard their own jurisdiction. So yeah, unilateral federal action would not fly (not that it really could under the terms of the Emergencies Act anyway), and we’d simply wind up in court over it. In other words, stop waiting for Trudeau to act (because he can’t) and pressure the premiers instead to quit worrying about businesses – especially since they have the power to help them out – and worry instead about the hundreds of deaths that are happening every week.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford ignored advice in favour of uncontrolled spread

Posted on by

Surprising nobody, we find that Doug Ford rejected advice from his public health officials in releasing his colour-coded guidelines, because it’s all about business over human lives. And while there have been calls for a while to try and determine just who is giving him advice, this reinforces the point that these remain political decisions, and that it is Ford and his Cabinet who are the ones to be held to account for what has been happening with infections in Ontario. The fact that Ford put his “red line” figure so far above public health advice, to a level where you are literally dealing with uncontrolled spread rather than trying to stamp it out early, should tell everyone that he is not taking this seriously.

https://twitter.com/jyangstar/status/1326702217051729920

https://twitter.com/jyangstar/status/1326703779232755712

We’ve also been finding out things like Ford refusing to spend COVID funds on things like schools and long-term care homes, and have instead been sitting on the funds to pad the books – and we have the province’s Financial Accountability Officer confirming this. This should be no surprise. I mean, look at the autism programme, where Ford promised more money and then spent none of it, and the wait lists continued to grow and parents and families continue to suffer, and the long-term consequences of not getting early intervention therapies are going to balloon for years. But Ford doesn’t care. He cares about looking like he’s fiscally prudent because every gods damned pundit in this country still thinks it’s 1995 and will always be 1995 – and Ford desperately seeks their validation.

https://twitter.com/TheHerleBurly/status/1326619298060754951

And this need for validation has been a big part of why we’re at the state we’re in here in Ontario. Because Ford didn’t go full-Trump early in the pandemic, or throw tantrums at Justin Trudeau, everyone suddenly started giving him praise. He sounded avuncular, and suddenly everyone assumed he was doing a good job when he wasn’t doing anything but sitting on the COVID money and delaying any meaningful action about, say, getting schools back up and running, or increasing lab capacity for testing, or the contact tracing abilities of public health units across the province. None of it. But people still showered him with praise for how well he was behaving, and for striking up an unlikely friendship with Chrystia Freeland. And yet here we are, where he and his Cabinet have repeatedly lied about what is going on with the pandemic, about their response, and even the direction of the case numbers. Hopefully this piece in the Star that clearly demonstrates that Ford rejected the advice in favour of waiting for uncontrolled spread (because gods forbid he close down businesses) will start to open people’s eyes, but my optimism for that is waning because of all of the other scandals and distractions that his government has created only serve to scatter the attention necessary to force his hand.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exasperation over provincial inaction

Posted on by

You can almost see the exasperation creeping into prime minister Justin Trudeau’s weekday press conferences, as yesterday, he implored the premiers to do more to fight the pandemic and to stop trying to keep businesses open, because they will still fail without healthy populations. He also obliquely asked mayors and public health officials to use what powers they can if their premiers won’t. Because this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, and the federal government has almost no levers. And the numbers are getting very serious in this country.

In Ontario and Manitoba, there are record high numbers, and Manitoba is going into a province-wide lockdown, while in Ontario, Toronto’s chief medical officer of health is imposing more restrictions on that region after Peel Region did the same earlier in the week. In Alberta, doctors are imploring the government to institute a “circuit-breaker” lockdown for at least a couple of weeks so that they can get infections under control before they completely overwhelm the healthcare system, but Jason Kenney says no, because he’s concerned about “civil liberties.” And you can tell just how seriously Alberta is taking this – their chief medical officer of health retweeted advice telling people to only socialise in “structured settings,” which means bars and restaurants. There are no words.

As for Doug Ford, he made his own swipe at Trudeau’s remarks, insisting that if Trudeau is talking about him, that they need more financial support for businesses, which is ridiculous at this point. The federal government has been shovelling money out the door – not always in the most effective manners, mind you, because they have very limited levers, whereas provinces have more direct levers that they refuse to use. And Ford here, playing the victim, is just engaged in buck-passing so that he doesn’t have to look like the bad guy when things go into lockdown, and they’re going to have to sooner than later. He keeps saying he’ll act when things get “out of control,” but by then it’ll be too late. Positive tests are a lagging indicator. Hospitalisations are a lagging indicator. Deaths are a lagging indicator. If you’re waiting for things to get “out of control” rather than stopping the exponential growth when it presents itself, that’s negligence. But then again, Ford’s apologists seem to think that there is greater political cost for him to closing businesses than there is in preventing hundreds, if not thousands of deaths, and if that’s the calculation, I can’t even with these people.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A question of political accountability

Posted on by

An issue that I am getting tired of writing commenting on over, and over again, is this story about the supposed political vetting of judicial candidates. The reporters on the story fail to mention the crucial constitutional details underpinning the story, Erin O’Toole lies about what the justice minister has said in response to the constant allegations, and now the president of the Canadian Bar Association is writing to the government to express his concerns that this whole thing threatens public faith in the judiciary. And here I go again.

For the eleventieth time, let me reiterate that the prime minister is politically accountable for judicial appointments under our system of Responsible Government. That means that if another bad one gets through the selection process, he has to wear it politically if things come to light – kind of like what happened around now-former Justice Robin Camp (who you may remembered wondered why a sexual assault complainant didn’t keep her knees together). This is one of the reasons why once the candidates have made it through the initial non-partisan vetting process, that they are subjected to a political screen – to ensure that nobody is aware of any particular skeletons in these potential judges’ pasts that could come around to bite them in the future. Some of the confusion here is because one of the ways in which the government has been doing this vetting has been through their voter identification database, which has been interpreted as seeing if they are donors or had lawn signs – which is a false reading of what these databases do, which is to build voter profiles, and they consume vast amounts of data to do so (which is also why there are concerns that they are not subject to federal privacy laws). But this is being deliberately framed as looking for partisan manipulation. (This is not to suggest the motives of these reporters is partisan – only that they are looking to embarrass the government, and it wouldn’t matter which party is in charge).

I am more concerned by the fact that someone is leaking to the press, and the French press especially seems to be targeted about revelations concerning a particular staffer, which suggests to me some internecine fighting within the Liberal ranks that they are willing to do damage to themselves in order to hurt this staffer in particular. But why worry about motive or the fact that you are being played when you have a potentially embarrassing headline?

Continue reading →