Tag Archives: Canadian Forces

QP: A scattershot of unfocused sound and fury

Posted on by

While both Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland were in town and had press events earlier in the morning, neither were present for QP, but neither were any other leader. Candice Bergen led off, script on her mini-lectern, and she demanded a personal apology from Harjit Sajjan for not dealing with sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces, and Anita Anand, fresh from giving the official apology, stated that said apology was one example of the steps they were taking to work toward a place where there was a safe workplace in the Forces. Bergen then pivoted to the planned CPP premium increase, declaring that it would kill small businesses. Randy Boissonnault shrugged that the Conservatives don’t like the CPP, and he praised it. Bergen accused the government of hating small businesses, and Boissonnault praised the strong economic recovery. Gérard Deltell took over in French to also worry about the CPP increases, and Boisonnault repeated praise for the CPP in French. Deltell specifically raised tourism and hospitality sectors, and demanded the government split Bill C-2 to immediately pass those supports, and Boissonault didn’t bite, and wanted support for the whole bill.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and declared that Bill 21 was democratically passed, and declared that it doesn’t target anyone, to which David Lametti said that nobody should lose their job for wearing a hijab. Therrien demanded that the government declare it would not support court challenges, and Lametti said that there are currently court cases being fought in the province.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded an immediate solution to the clawbacks of GIS payments. Kamal Khera declared that they were working on it. Rachel Blaney took over in English to declare that seniors were homeless because of these clawbacks, and Khera read some good news talking points about supports for seniors before repeating that they were working on the clawback issue.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Theatre of the absurd, housing motion edition

Posted on by

The closer the House of Commons gets to rising for the winter break, the more absurd theatre we see. Yesterday was case in point, with the Conservatives’ second and final Supply Day of the calendar year. The topic was housing, but their motion was a complete dog’s breakfast of nonsense, contradiction and outright unconstitutional demands. Because of course it was.

The point was made that the inclusion of the outright lie about capital gains taxes was a ploy for the Conservatives to say that the Liberals were not ruling it out when this motion as inevitably defeated (as indeed it was). But Liberal Mark Gerretsen though he was being crafty and tried to move a motion after QP to head off those talking points, trying to call for unanimous consent to reaffirm that they wouldn’t tax capital gains. But the motion didn’t pass, so Gerretsen tried to spin that too, and it’s just utterly stupid that I can’t even.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Swift passage, but not for the better

Posted on by

In another surprising move, the Senate passed the bill to ban conversion therapy at all stages yesterday, with no committee study, meaning that it only needs royal assent now, which can happen at any time. But while this is a relief to many, it’s also a tad irresponsible.

The lack of study of the current bill in the House of Commons was a political gambit designed to keep the Conservatives from being trapped by their own social conservative members, and to avoid giving any more media clips about people supposedly overcoming “lesbian activity” and so on. The fact that this version of the bill is different from the one that passed the Commons in the previous parliament is relevant, and there are changes that deserved some actual scrutiny because there were live constitutional questions around them (and yes, I asked the minister about it during the press conference, and I asked other questions about the bill during the not-for-attribution technical briefing, but those are not on the parliamentary record). And yes, this matters because the Senate should have done the work that MPs opted not to do out of political expediency. That’s one of the reasons why the Senate is the chamber of “sober second though”—because they don’t have to deal with the political repercussions and ramifications when the politics wins out in the Commons.

Unfortunately, politics also won out in the Senate (which should be an indictment of its supposed more “independent” existence these days). Acting Conservative leader in the Senate, Senator Leo Housakos, in his speech to give the bill swift passage, said that this issue shouldn’t be made into a political wedge like the Liberals were doing. Which is ironic because it wasn’t the Liberals who were holding up the bill previously by slow-walking it, refusing to let debate collapse, and by putting up speaker after speaker to offer the same concern trolling. That wasn’t the Liberals being political—it was 100 percent on the Conservatives for that, and now they’re trying to shift that blame. Yes, passing this bill at all stages was the expedient thing to do, but from a process and a parliamentary perspective, it was not the right thing to do, and it’s going to make the courts’ jobs that much harder when this inevitably gets challenged and they have little on the record to go by.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A century of women in the House

Posted on by

The CBC has a look back at 100 years since the first woman was elected to Parliament, and as with the present-day discourse, it’s largely about how other women’s voice were excluded, be they Indigenous, racialized, or otherwise. Yes, early feminists and women who were elected to public office were problematic—the Famous Five were very racist and proponents of eugenics. (So was the founder of the NDP, Tommy Douglas, for that matter, but he is rarely called out as being problematic as early white women in officer were, but that’s a whole other topic altogether).

So while we have a lot more diverse women in Parliament these days, we absolutely do need to do better, and much of that relies on the parties themselves. I would normally say that the grassroots riding associations should have a big role to play in recruiting more diverse women to run for them, but my enthusiasm for grassroots politics is currently being held in check by the fact that overly powerful leaders’ offices have been essentially bigfooting those processes, and so many nominations are being run centrally, if not using outright appointments over the past few cycles, after there was a big push toward “open nominations” for one or two election cycles. And the worst part is that some of this is explicitly about nominating more women to run for office, but in an effort to say that they have more women running, most of the parties will simply run them in unwinnable ridings so that they can say they had them running, but not jeopardise their chances in that riding by running someone who doesn’t fit the popular conception, which perpetuates the problem. And before you say “But the NDP!” I have watched them time and again monkey with their own rules around nominations to run a straight white male in ridings with hugely diverse populations if they think they can win. (Think Robert Chisholm or Joe Cressy). The parties have a big role to play in getting more diverse women to run, and the Liberals were really good about this for an election cycle or two with a sound recruitment strategy, but I’m not sure it’s carried forward as well in the last election cycle.

Meanwhile, I also find myself frustrated by the notion that hybrid sittings are some kind of panacea to women running for office, because it’s based on a few bad assumptions. One of those is the fact that hybrid sittings are demonstrably bad – they are more toxic, and they have a human cost on the interpreters, and using the excuse that this allows more women to run for office should not be contingent upon interpreters needing to injure themselves in order to make it happen. The other is that it simply perpetuates the notion that women must be the primary childcare providers. There are a lot of accommodations for MPs who have small children, and they can develop more as time goes by (and seriously, they need to get over this notion that they can’t hire nannies), but some accommodations—like hybrid sittings—exact a cost that is too high for the benefit. There have to be better ways.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Blockbuster jobs numbers—mostly

Posted on by

Statistics Canada released the Labour Force Survey numbers yesterday, and they were very good—four times as many jobs were created as had been forecast by economists. All of the jobs lost during the pandemic have been recovered and more, and unemployment is very nearly as low as it was before the pandemic began (at which point we were at record lows, around statistical “full employment”), and it was even noted that “core-aged” women had their highest ever employment levels. Things are turning around. Mostly.

There are still a lot of vacancies and there is a mismatch between jobs available and the skills that unemployed workers possess, and while the government is pouring money into training, that takes time. And labour shortages mean wages are likely to continue to increase (and if anyone says they’re stagnant, they are either lying or haven’t read the data). As well, productivity has taken a dive over the last quarter, so that will matter as well. Conservatives are claiming that the increase in jobs is as a result of the majority of pandemic benefits ending, but I’m not sure there is a direct comparison that can be made given the skills mismatches that are in the economy (and which pre-date the pandemic, which was one of the reasons why the Bank of Canada, among others, was making a concerted effort to call for inclusive growth). There is work still to do, but the government is feeling pretty good about the data.

Meanwhile, here are some economists’ takes to consider:

https://twitter.com/stephen_tapp/status/1466766974365622275

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1466771813594140675

Continue reading →

QP: Trying to make “Justinflation” happen

Posted on by

The Liberal benches were again about two-thirds full, and the prime minister was in attendance, so that was something? While Erin O’Toole gave a lengthy speech in the Chamber earlier, he was nowhere to be seen. That left it up to Gérard Deltell to lead off, and he moaned about inflation and worries in the US about persistent inflation—which is not Canada’s situation. Justin Trudeau said the biggest thing that they could do was end the pandemic, which would end the supply chain disruptions that were increasing costs. Deltell cited the “not thinking about monetary policy” quip and demanded limited spending—erm, which is fiscal policy—and Trudeau repeated that they needed to end the pandemic. Deltell selectively quoted a  countries with lower inflation than us, and Trudeau noted that this was a global issue because of supply chains. Michael Barrett got up after and took a page from Pierre Poilievre’s playbook in confusing land and housing stock to rail about inflation, and Trudeau noted that the question ignored the pandemic, and the way to end it was by vaccination, which Conservatives didn’t seem to get. Barrett countered that his riding has one the highest vaccination rates in the country and gave more wrong talking points about inflation, and Trudeau suggested that Barrett’s constituents help convince his Conservative colleagues to get vaccinated).

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and worried that they softwood lumber tariffs were doubled after the Three Amigos summit and wondered what they talked about. Trudeau listed off items discussed including softwood and PEI potatoes. Blanchet made a jab at the potatoes, and mused that Quebec would be better able to negotiate on their own, but Trudeau insisted that they were defending the sector like they did aluminium (another Quebec export).

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and demanded immediate action on the housing crisis, but Trudeau disputed his characterisation and listed measures in the Speech from the Throne. Singh switched to French to repeat the question, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Who they gave succour to

Posted on by

Cast your minds back to summer of 2018, when prime minister Justin Trudeau attended a Liberal rally in rural Quebec and encountered a woman heckling him about refugees crossing the border at irregular points of entry. As part of this, she demanded to know when Trudeau would support “Québécois de souche,” a term tinged with racism as it applies only to those who descended from the early French settlers, essentially considering anyone without those particular roots to be some kind of contagion upon the state. Trudeau called out her intolerance, and she tried to sue for defamation.

A Quebec Superior Court judge dismissed her case, and pointed out the fact that she had tried to use the incident to make a name for herself among far-right circles, all while claiming that she has empathy because she’s a nurse, and will treat anyone. More to the point, the judge pointed out that she was deliberately trying to provoke the prime minister, and was thus the author of her own misfortune, and in dismissing the case, ordered her to pay legal fees.

So why bring this up? Because if you also think back to when the House of Commons returned shortly after this incident, the Conservatives all rushed to give succour to this woman, and tried to frame her aggressive questions and demands as though she was “just asking about the budget.” No, seriously. Conservative after Conservative stood up in the House of Commons to whine that “if Trudeau doesn’t like your questions, he calls you a racist.” Because in their minds, being called a racist is a worse crime than the actual racism that the woman was displaying. And it goes to show what the party is willing to stand up for, and who they are willing to protect if they think they can score points from it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some more inflation fact-checking

Posted on by

Because you know it’s going to come up yet again during Question Period today and through the rest of the week, here are a couple of reality checks around inflation, first from former Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz, who will give you all of the reasons why the pandemic spending and stimulus is not what is causing the current bout of transitory inflation.

Next, from economist Stephen Gordon:

So when Erin O’Toole and Pierre Poilievre start sounding off on inflation again, I know whose economic judgment I’ll be listening to (and it won’t be theirs).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Setting more dangerous precedents to justify hybrid sittings

Posted on by

With a vote of 180 to 140, hybrid sittings will be returning to the House of Commons, which is bullshit and absolutely unconscionable, but the Liberals and NDP have managed to convince themselves of a lot of nonsense in order to justify this. For the Liberals, it was weaponizing a lot of nonsense about MPs feeling “unsafe” in the House of Commons with potentially unvaccinated Conservatives in their midst, which may be a theoretical danger at this point, but it’s not outside of what everyone else has to contend with – and in fact, we expect a lot of essential workers to put themselves in a lot more danger on a daily basis than MPs have to by being in the Chamber with nearly everyone double-vaxxed and everyone wearing masks. For the NDP, it was a lot of the usual handwaving about “work-life balance” and parents of small children, but they already have a lot of accommodations being made for them, and that excuse is getting thin.

What is especially egregious is that this debate over hybrid sittings and remote voting has created an artificial standard of perfect attendance which has never existed, and there is no reason why it needs to exist now. One or two votes won’t bring the government down, and being dramatic about it isn’t helping matters. If anything, creating this impossible standard of perfect attendance in order to justify hybrid sittings is irresponsible and downright dangerous, and sets a way worse example to the rest of the country. Allowing this standard to flourish will mean that MPs will never be allowed sick days or necessary leaves of absence in the future because they will be expected to attend virtually or to continue voting remotely, and it will be used as justification to keep hybrid formats going in perpetuity (which is very, very bad for the health of our Parliament). Perpetuating it will encourage MPs to remain in partisan silos because they don’t have to attend in person and interact face-to-face, and the toxic atmosphere of the last session will become the new norm.

There is also the accountability problem, which the Conservatives and Bloc have been absolutely right to highlight. Allowing attendance by Zoom allows ministers to escape accountability, and it allows all ministers and MPs to escape the accountability of the media because they will simply absent themselves from Parliament Hill, where they cannot be button-holed on their way in and out. Accountability is already suffering in this country, and the government has given themselves a free pass to let it slide even further, and their apologists are clutching their pearls about the pandemic still being on. This is no way to run a country.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Parliament is summoned, a Speaker elected

Posted on by

The 44th Parliament has been summoned, and nearly all MPs were back in the House of Commons yesterday – the exceptions being the one Conservative MP who tested positive for COVID and a BC MP or two who stayed in their ridings owing to the flood situation, but otherwise, they are back, and all in the Chamber for the first time in nearly two years. The government is trying their best, mind you, to do away with this – Government House Leader Mark Holland is trying to use the black box of unknown “medical exemptions” by some Conservative MPs to bring back hybrid sittings (the motion for that is on the Order Paper), scrupulously ignoring the injuries suffered by interpretation staff as a result of the Zoom format. The Conservatives and the Bloc are opposing the return to hybrid sittings for good reason – it allows the government to escape accountability, both because they can’t be seen face-to-face in the Chamber, and they can’t be questioned by journalists when they leave, and while I’m sure that the government finds this to be a feature and not a bug, it’s an intolerable situation.

Holland also laid out the government’s four legislative priorities that they want passed before the House rises in three or four weeks, which is going to mean cutting corners as there’s no way that standing committees will be up and running by then. The four were new pandemic benefits for businesses and workers affected by lockdowns, ensuring ten paid sick days for workers in federally-regulated sectors, criminalising anti-vax protesters who harass healthcare workers or hospitals, and the conversion therapy ban. While the new benefits could be rolled into a budget implementation bill for the fall economic update (which they would have to bully through without any committees in place), as could the legislation on paid sick days, but I fail to see the need for new criminal measures for anti-vax protesters. Simply enforcing existing laws against criminal harassment and trespassing should be enough, and a specific bill would be mere theatrics. The conversion therapy bill, while important, has been promised to be “tougher,” which will slow down progress because it means it won’t be the same bill that they can claim already passed once – a new bill would demand new scrutiny, and with no committees in place, it’s a much more fraught notion to ram it through.

The Speaker election also took place, and Anthony Rota remained in the position, which is a little disappointing because he wasn’t the best Speaker, particularly as he allowed a lot of the problems with the hybrid format to carry on by gently chiding MPs when they did things that cause injuries to interpreters rather than laying down the law with them. I suspect that part of the calculation on the part of the Conservatives was some mistaken notions around what happened with the demands for those Winnipeg Lab documents – Rota’s name was on the court challenge because he was the Speaker, as a function of his office rather than any personal conviction, but he was lionized for it nevertheless (much like the Attorney General’s name was on the court challenge as a largely automatic function that was triggered under provisions in the Canada Evidence Act rather than a partisan effort – remember that the government did provide documents to NSICOP). Rota also made mention of “fine-tuning” decorum, which he has shown precious little interest in actually enforcing, again relying on gentle chiding, so I’m not sure why he was to be believed, but here we are.

Continue reading →