Roundup: Accountability for transfers is not micro-management

Posted on by

We are now in day thirty-one of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and things are going badly enough for Russia that the Ukrainians are starting to counter-attack, not only pushing Russian forces further away from Kyiv, but also other areas, which has the possibility of making Russia pay a high enough price that they could be willing to accept some kind of negotiated settlement and withdraw. Maybe. We’ll see, but it’s a good sign nevertheless that Ukraine is able to take these measures. Elsewhere, it sounds like about 300 people were killed when the Russians bombed the theatre in Mariupol, and the city is digging mass graves, while some 100,000 people remain trapped there as the Russians turn the city to rubble.

Closer to home, the federal government announced a one-time special transfer of $2 billion to provinces to help them with their surgical backlogs as a result of COVID, but they want some conditions of a sort, and cited five areas of focus for upcoming healthcare talks: backlogs and recruitment and retention of health-care workers; access to primary care; long-term care and home care; mental health and addictions; and digital health and virtual care. And some provinces, predictably, are balking at this because they think this is federal “micromanagement” of healthcare when it’s nothing of the sort. They simply need assurances that provinces are going to spend this where they say they’re going to, because we just saw Doug Ford put some $5.5 billion in federal pandemic aid onto his bottom line, and giving out rebates for licences plate stickers in a blatant exercise in populist vote-buying rather than using that money where it was intended—the healthcare system.

https://twitter.com/journo_dale/status/1507478370300628996

More to the point, provinces are insisting that they are unanimous that hey want unconditional health transfers that will bring the federal share of health spending up to 35 percent, but that’s actually a trap. They are deliberately not mentioning that in 1977, provinces agreed to forego certain health transfers in exchange for tax points, which are more flexible, and that increasing to 35 percent will really be a stealth increase to something like 60 percent, because they’re deliberately pretending that they don’t have those tax points. On top of that, provinces were getting higher health transfers for over a decade—remember when the escalator was six percent per year, and what was health spending increasing at? Somewhere around 2.2 percent, meaning that they spent that money on other things. They should have used it to transform their healthcare systems, but they chose not to, and now they cry poor and want the federal government to bail them out from problems they created, and are blaming the federal government for. It’s a slick little game that doesn’t get called out because the vast majority of the media just credulously repeats their demands without pointing to the tax points, or the fact that they spent their higher transfers elsewhere, or that Doug Ford sat on that pandemic spending, as other provinces did to balance their budgets (Alberta and New Brunswick to name a couple). So no, they do not need these transfers to be unconditional, and the federal government would be foolish if they acceded to that kind of demand.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1507418761912983561

Continue reading →

Roundup: Displacing and dispersing Ukrainians into Russia?

Posted on by

We are now on day thirty of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and while Kyiv remains safe, there are reports that as many as 400,000 Ukrainians have been forcibly relocated into Russia, where they are being dispersed to economically depressed regions in that country. The Russians are claiming that these relocations are voluntary, but Ukrainian officials worry they may be used as hostages. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the NATO summit happening in Brussels and asked for aircraft and tanks, but was mostly only promised more of the same kinds of aid that they have been receiving to date.

Closer to home, there are now two more prospective entrants into the Conservative leadership race—former floor-crosser-turned-deputy leader Leona Alleslev, who has launched a website and who has volunteers getting the necessary signatures required to launch a bid; as well, a failed candidate named Joel Etienne from York Centre, who has also put up a website and is collecting signatures. One of the other leadership candidates, Marc Dalton, seems to have enough self-awareness that he knows he’s a long-shot candidate, but seems to be pinning his hopes on the vagaries of preferential ballots as his salvation. Oh, and he still hasn’t lined up his entrance fee yet, so that’s probably a sign about his chances.

As these entrants keep lining up, Candice Bergen is warning them not to call those in the race that they disagree with as “not Conservative” because that’s “identity politics,” and they don’t want to wedge, divide and polarize, because that’s what they accuse the Liberals of doing—which is kind of hilarious when you think about it. They’ve explicitly framed this contest as one for the “soul of the party,” and the contest is going to entirely be about whether they find a leader who can appeal to enough of the moderate Canadians in the suburbs who can deliver them an election victory, or whether they retrench into their “values” and electoral consequences be damned because they’re acting like Conservatives and not Liberals. And when you set up the contest as one about what constitutes those “values,” with a purity test or two thrown up around them, who is and is not a Conservative is going to be a bigger sticking point in this race the longer it goes on.

Continue reading →

QP: Crocodile tears for the anti-vaxxers

Posted on by

As the prime minister was in Europe, and his deputy in “private meetings,” it was another day with virtually no leaders present, save one. Michael Barrett led off, quoted the health minister as saying that it was “complicated” to lift federal vaccine mandated, and wondered why it wasn’t complicated for provinces. Jean-Yves Duclos listed the number of people who have been vaccinated. Barrett accused the government of moving the goal posts and demanded a number for when the mandates be lifted, and Duclos noted that the mandates worked, otherwise they would not be all sitting in the chamber again. Barrett tried again, raising the provinces that lifted their mandates, but Duclos did not change his answer. Dominique Vien took over in French, and demanded the mandates be lifted, and Duclos reminded her that her party kept saying that Canada would be the last country in the world to be vaccinated, and that vaccines were great. Vien tried again, insisting that provinces are following science, but Duclos reminded them that COVID is still with us, which is why they need to be careful.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and complained that while the government tabled a bill to maintain Quebec’s seat count, their relative influence continues to wane as more seats are gained elsewhere. Pablo Rodriguez insisted that the Bloc was only trying to pick a fight and reopen the constitution while the government was protecting Quebec. Therrien repeated his complaint that it wasn’t good enough, and Rodriguez repeated his response.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and wanted more supports for Ukrainian refugees when they arrive in Canada, and Marie-France Lalonde read some talking points about their new travel authorisation programme. Singh repeated the question in French, and Lalonde read the French version of her response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: One month into Russia’s invasion

Posted on by

It’s now day twenty-nine of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, or one month since it began. To that end, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is calling on people to gather in public around the world to show support for Ukraine to mark the occasion. NATO is estimating that somewhere between 7000 and 15,000 Russian troops have been killed to date (as many as 30,000 to 40,000 if you count killed or wounded), and to put that in comparison, Russia lost 15,000 fighting in Afghanistan over the course of a decade. And on that note, here’s a look at what went wrong for Russia (beyond Ukraine’s resilience).

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1506790177364131846

Closer to home, many more questions are being asked of some of the plans outlined in the Liberal-NDP supply and confidence agreement, especially around the areas of pharmacare and dental care. NDP MPs like Don Davies are already talking tough, insisting there should be a “phased in” approach, but the timelines for the Canadian Drug Agency to do their work are pretty much what was already being planned through the Hoskins Report, but the biggest obstacle remains the premiers. So far, only PEI has signed on, and I keep saying this, but the NDP have not been publicly haranguing their provincial counterparts in BC to sign onto the system, so that can’t be a good sign. Likewise with dental care, the expectation seems to be some kind of national insurance plan which builds on the system used for First Nations and Inuit people, who call under federal responsibility, but there are a lot of complicating factors to extending that approach, as Jennifer Robson points out in this thread. Right now, it’s a lot of handwaving and wishful thinking, which isn’t helpful.

And then there are the premiers, who are none too happy with these proposals as they consider them to be intrusions in areas of provincial jurisdiction (which they might be if done incorrectly). Of course, they would rather the federal government just turn over more cash to them with no strings attached, which should never happen considering how many provinces just took the federal pandemic money and applied it to their bottom lines, and then praised how low their deficits were this fiscal year (while their hospitals remain overloaded, and in plenty of cases, their health care workers are leaving in droves from burnout and low wages).

Continue reading →

QP: Looking for the “secret agreement”

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau back in Europe for more NATO and G7 meetings, most of the other leaders didn’t show up either, even though it was caucus day. Candice Bergen was present, however, and led off, concern trolling about the confidence agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, and insisted there was a signed agreement between them that is being kept secret (never mind that the details of the agreement are public). Mark Holland noted that Canadians expect MPs to work together in a hung parliament, which is a foreign concept to Conservatives given that they didn’t even try when they were in similar circumstances under Stephen Harper. Bergen insisted that there must be a signed agreement and that there is a so-called new executive committee that excludes the opposition, and Holland repeated that they are always looking to work together whenever possible. Bergen railed about “social experiments” (like pharmacare?) and decried the “nightmare socialist deal” that would be hugely expensive, and Holland gave another paean about working together to get things done. Luc Berthold took over in French, and he worried about “secret committees” under the agreement, to which Dominic LeBlanc reminded him that the Conservatives wrote a whole book on how to sabotage committees, so it was rich for them to insist the government didn’t respect Parliament. (Note that this government’s parliamentary vandalism is largely relegated to the Senate). Berthold worried this agreement would trample on Quebec’s jurisdictional rights, to which Pablo Rodriguez got up to list things the government is doing for Quebec.

Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he too worried about Quebec’s jurisdiction, and LeBlanc lamented the Bloc’s frustration which led them to picking fights, and assured him they do respect provincial jurisdiction. Therrien read a statement from the Quebec government that gave a nonsense reading about the revenues they send to the federal government, and Rodriguez listed things they are doing that is good for Quebec, which is bad for the Bloc.

Rachel Blaney rose for the NDP, and she lamented that their motion on an excess profit tax failed, and wanted the government to tax companies and not people. (Erm, you know that people pay corporate taxes, right? That it’s not a magical money tree?) Randy Boissonnault acknowledged the sentiments behind the motion but that that the government was building a fairer and more affordable country with more benefit for people while taxing the rich. Alexandre Boulerice repeated the question in French, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wondering who the real winner of the confidence agreement is

Posted on by

We are now on day twenty-eight, four weeks into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like Russia’s attempts at occupying Mariupol continue to be thwarted, though the city is being reduced to rubble. As well, Ukrainian forces retook a strategic suburb of Kyiv, so that is as good of news as can be hoped for in the situation. Remember how Russia thought it was a matter of marching?

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1506296240438452232

Back in Canada, the supply and confidence agreement between the Liberals and NDP was made official, and boy were there a bunch of reactions. Some of them were expected, like the Conservatives abusing the term “coalition” (it’s not a coalition) and claiming it’s a “power grab” rather than a legitimate exercise of cooperation in a hung parliament as happens not infrequently in Westminster systems. Oh, and she said that this ultimately benefits Putin. No, really—she said that. Even more problematic were certain CBC reporters pushing this bizarre notion that Canadians “elected a minority government” and that this agreement somehow violates it, which no, is not how things work. We don’t elect governments, and there is not majority/minority option on the ballot, and it’s been just as much a recurring narrative in the past two parliaments that a hung parliament means that “Canadians want us to work together” (which is just as silly a notion, frankly), but honestly, I expect better from the CBC than to push this kind of nonsense, and it’s embarrassing for them as the national broadcaster to be pushing this nonsense.

https://twitter.com/SusanDelacourt/status/1506273770176188427

In the meantime, there is a bunch of pearl-clutching that this agreement somehow means that we won’t be increasing defence-spending, even though the NDP has no veto on budgets, and the fact that we can’t even spend the current allocation so it’s way too soon to worry about this. The early indications of the outlined dental care plan could help millions—but it’s light on details and the actual mechanism that will be used given that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction (but some good perspective threads from economist Kevin Milligan here and here). The consensus seems to be that the Liberal are the real winners here and not the NDP, but others argue that the Conservatives could be the real winners because it will give the next leader time to rebuild the party and establish themselves given that the next election will be more than three years away (maybe). And then there is the question about whether this agreement gives Trudeau the runway to accomplish a few more things before turning it over to his successor, though he says otherwise when asked (which of course he will, because saying he won’t run again makes him lame duck instantly). It does make for a different dynamic for the next couple of years in any case, so we’ll see how it shapes up.

Continue reading →

QP: In the din of clinking glasses, talk of a political marriage

Posted on by

It was to be the only day that the prime minister was going to be present this week, given that he’ll be off on a red-eye flight to Europe tonight for NATO and G7 meetings over the rest of the week, and all of the other leaders were present as well. With Speaker Rota recovering from scheduled heart surgery, his deputy, Chris d’Entremont, was again in the big chair. Candice Bergen led off, script in front of her, and she railed about the “secret backroom deal” between the so-called new NDP-Liberal government, to which Trudeau calmly noted this was about stability in order to deliver the things that Canadians asked for in the election, instead of the toxicity we had seen. Bergen falsely stated that inflation was because of government spending, and that the “new NDP-Liberal government” would spend even more. Trudeau returns to the line about working across party lines to avoiding the toxic atmosphere that has developed. Bergen worried that natural resource and fisheries jobs were in danger because of this deal, for which Trudeau worried about how toxic partisanship slowed down delivery of help for Canadians, while this job would get good jobs for Canadians while respecting Parliament. Bergen insisted that the deal disrespected Parliament and voters—which is blatantly absurd—before railing about gas prices and demanding taxes on it be cut. Trudeau cautioned her about spreading misinformation and that they had plenty of room for debate and disagreement under the agreement like Parliament works. Luc Berthold took over in French and acted confused about who was in charge and trolled that Jagmeet Singh should be named deputy prime minister, and Trudeau repeated that this deal would allow the House to operate more constructively.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and worried that the basis of the agreement, with pharmacare and dental care, would trample over provincial jurisdiction, to which Trudeau insisted that they believe in working collaboratively with provinces, but they would ensure all Canadians get high-quality healthcare. Blanchet worried that the NDP were hostile toward Quebec’s Law 21, to which Trudeau gave a paean about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he demanded support for their Supply Day motion on higher wealth taxes, to which Trudeau reminded him of their previous actions, and the investments they are making, but did not signal support. Singh repeated the question in French and got the same answer. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: A confidence agreement in the works?

Posted on by

We are now on day twenty-seven of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Ukraine has refused to surrender the strategic port city of Mariupol to the Russians. As well, Russian shelling destroyed a shopping centre in Kyiv killing eight, which is escalating the attacks facing the capital. Also of note was a possible leak of Russian casualty figures, citing 9,861 killed and 16,153 injured over the course of the invasion, which contradicts Russian propaganda figures to date, and which could turn up the pressure on Putin by the Russian people.

Back in Canada, news started spreading over the evening that the Liberals and NPD had reached a tentative agreement to a supply-and-confidence agreement that would see the NDP agree to support the next four Liberal budgets so that they can stay in power until 2025 in relative stability, and in return, the Liberals will make “real progress” on national pharmacare and dental care. I’m a little confused why those would be the conditions, given that they’re wholly dependent upon the provincial governments signing on, and while the current federal government put a framework in place for national pharmacare, thus far only PEI has signed on (and I haven’t seen the NDP publicly haranguing John Horgan to sign on either). And while people ask why they can’t do what they did with early learning and child care, part of that answer is that the reason why provincial governments are gun-shy about these programmes is they are concerned that if they set them up, a future federal government will cut funding and leave them holding the bag for very expensive programmes. While Quebec has shown that child care will pay for itself once more women are in the workforce and paying taxes, I’m not sure the calculation is quite the same for the other two, or will at least take much longer for the fiscal benefits to work their way through the system. So could the government come to the table with a lot more money—maybe. But that doesn’t eliminate the trepidation that once 2025 hits that their fears won’t come true. There are also reports that the deal could include more for housing, reconciliation, and some form of wealth taxes, so we’ll see what gets announced this morning.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, are touting this as evidence of a “coalition” and that it’s “backdoor socialism,” which doesn’t make sense. It’s not a coalition because there are no Cabinet seats for the NDP, and these kinds of confidence agreements are easily broken (see: British Columbia and the deal with the Greens, which Horgan’s NDP tore up when the polls looked good enough to get a majority, which he did). It’s not socialism because they’re not going around nationalising the means of production. They’re still going to wail and gnash their teeth, and pretend that this is somehow illegitimate when it’s one hundred percent within how hung parliaments work under our system, but I’m not going to say it will last the full four years. It will however alter the narrative of the Conservatives’ leadership contest, and could be read either as Trudeau giving himself enough runway to make a few more accomplishments before turning it over to a successor, or for him to try and build the case for re-election. Either way, it’s fairly unprecedented at the federal level in this country, and could make for interesting days ahead.

Continue reading →

QP: Another rail disruption sets the narrative

Posted on by

Monday back from March Break, and none of the party leaders were present, nor was the Speaker, leaving his deputy, Chris d’Entremont, in the big chair instead. Luc Berthold led off in French, a script in front of him, demanding a resolution to the CP Rail strike/lockout, given how much economic damage it could cause. Seamus O’Regan insisted that they had confidence that the parties could reach a negotiated solution. Berthold tried again, got the same answer, and on a third question, Berthold raised inflation and wanted agreement on their “solution” on a GST break on gasoline and diesel, but O’Regan repeated his answer. Marilyn Gladu took over in English to demand a resolution to the CP Rail dispute, and O’Regan gave his same response about a negotiated solution in English. On another round of the same, O’Regan noted that he was in Calgary and both sides were still at the table, and they were counting on a negotiated solution. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and asked about federally-chartered flights for Ukrainian refugees, for which Sean Fraser said they were prioritising Ukrainian applications, and they were working to facilitate faster arrivals. Therrien insisted this was not fast enough, and Fraser insisted he was working on getting as many people here as fast as possible.

Daniel Blaikie rose for the NDP, and after raising them CP Rail dispute, went into some party bromides about reducing the cost of living and making the wealthy pay. Randy Boissonnault listed some of the government’s affordability measures. Niki Ashton took over to demand that the rich be taxed to “provide relief” for Canadians (without any particular follow-through on that logic), and Boissonnault reminded her that they voted against the government’s bill to raise taxes on the one percent.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Three new entrants for the Conservatives

Posted on by

I believe we are now on day twenty-six of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russia’s list of alleged war crimes continues to add up as the shelling of Mariupol continues, and it sounds like there is no immediate military solution to the crisis in that part of the country. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is calling on members including Canada to increase spending, which we’re doing, but it’s not going to happen overnight. Indeed, as my weekend column points out, we literally can’t spend any more right now until we fix the structural problems inhibiting it. And sure, Greece is spending 3.2 percent of its GDP on the military, but how much are the contributing to NATO operations right now? Very, very little. Closer to home, HMCS Halifax departed for a six-month tour in the North Atlantic as part of NATO operations in the Baltic region.

Back in Canada, the Conservative leadership race got three new entrants—Scott Aitchison, Marc Dalton, and Joseph Bourgault. Aitchison, whose video announcing his intention to run was indistinguishable from a truck commercial, is giving the tired line that “Ottawa isn’t working” but has the self-awareness to know that his party has played a part in the divisive nature of the rhetoric. Oh, and he opposes carbon prices but doesn’t think that should be a “purity test” for the party. Dalton wants to launch a national inquiry into the pandemic response, including the supposed contracts to benefit “Liberal friends” (which has been repeatedly disproven) and on the so-called Charter breaches and apparent cover-up of vaccine injuries and deaths. *sigh* And Bourgault is a nobody businessman from rural Saskatchewan who is part of an organisation claiming the government and “globalists” are using the pandemic to “justify the great reset.” This is what the party has to offer?

Continue reading →