Tag Archives: Canadian Forces

Roundup: Some pushback on the hybrid sittings

Posted on by

I felt a tiny glimmer of hope over the weekend as I read this piece that talked to three MPs from each of the main parties about their experience with hybrid sittings, and lo, MPs are unimpressed. Praise be! Mind you, it’s a small sample, and it’s all Manitoba MPs (given that it was a piece in the Winnipeg Free Press), but props for having this conversation with them, and props for not letting it simply go by unquestioned, as is often the case.

This being said, I don’t think we’re out of the woods yet in terms of what the lasting implications of these hybrid changes will be, particularly when there are west coast MPs who are loudly praising the hybrid format, and when groups like Samara Canada are already lining up the excuses to allow it to keep happening, which is exactly the kind of slippery slope that I have been warning about since before this began. Don’t forget that the Liberals were pushing for these kinds of changes for nearly five years before the pandemic hit, and this was the perfect excuse for them to finally implement them, even if it was under the rubric of it being for the duration of the emergency. But as you’ve heard me warn before, they will soon find a list of excuses – just as Samara provided for them – to keep them going in some capacity, which will have a long-term erosion on our system and the norms therein. I am especially worried that there will be pressure to keep the voting app system going, even though, as the interviews in the article pointed out, this system greatly benefits the government because it doesn’t allow opposition MPs to use the votes to register displeasure (such as slow-voting). So while it’s great that some MPs want a return to proper sittings (one of them being an advocate for a parliamentary bubble, to little avail), there is still going to be a fight to ensure these changes stay are relegated to the dust heap once the pandemic is over.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A worrying bureaucratic bottleneck

Posted on by

A lot has been written about this budget, and much of it falls under the usual narratives of Canadian media, such as wedging it into the box of election speculation (despite the fact that no party is suicidal enough to want an election in the middle of the third wave), of that it’s apparently still 1995 and will always be 1995, and that we are forever on the precipice of a debt crisis (we’re really not). And while there is certainly a bit of the latter in this piece, it nevertheless lays out some perfectly legitimate concerns that bureaucratic bottlenecks will imperil many of the plans laid out in this year’s budget, because there really is only so much capacity in the federal governmental machinery. As well, it noted that without clear priorities among the hundreds of items, it risks the very salient point that when everything is a priority, then nothing is.

Astute readers may recall that a couple of weeks ago, Paul Wells noted the very same thing coming out of the Liberals’ big virtual policy convention, where it was one big exercise in everyone agreeing to everything and nobody articulating any kinds of priorities for the items under discussion (and agreed to). This should raise alarm bells, because it signals that a government won’t be able to control its own agenda. To wit:

I never cease to be amazed by the weightlessness of Trudeau Liberalism. After a year that has often seemed to come quite literally from Hell, when every parent, worker, small business, youth and elderly Canadian had to make grinding choices several times a week, I’m not sure it’s entirely encouraging to behold a government for which every need is imperative, no cost exists, and no choice among priorities is ever necessary. There is, somewhere in it, the jarring sound of unchecked privilege.

I think he’s got a very good point, and it demonstrates that five years later, there are still moments where this government betrays a lack of seriousness to what it’s trying to do. There are files, particularly in justice, where they have managed to drag their feet for so long that courts have to push them. It’s worrying, especially because there are very important measures in that budget that will have a big impact on future economic growth and prosperity, but if they can’t ensure these particular measures get prioritized and through the bureaucratic process, then it will have a very big impact on this and the next generation of Canadians who have been stymied economically.

Continue reading →

Roundup: New targets, same criticism

Posted on by

It was Earth Day yesterday, and US President Joe Biden held a climate summit, which Justin Trudeau used as a platform to announce that Canada would be setting a more ambitious climate target of 40 to 45 percent reduction of emissions from 2005 levels, and naturally, that was panned from all sides. For the NDP, the Bloc and the Greens, it’s not enough, and for the Conservatives, it’s too much, and “empty words” that lack a plan (despite all evidence to the contrary). One of the spanners in the works here is the Americans announcing their own new targets, which sound more ambitious than ours – but are they really?

Enter economist Andrew Leach, who is offering a warning that we can’t commit to matching American emissions targets because our emissions mix is very different, so we’d be essentially making a different commitment than they are, which could hurt us. The Americans can get much further on reductions that we can with less stringent policies because of their emissions mix. Unfortunately, too many of our parties and party leaders seem to think that Canada is just a smaller version of America, and that we can simply copy their policies and divide by ten – but it doesn’t work like that, and we should call out this kind of thinking.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Flexibility and red lines on child care negotiations

Posted on by

A day out from the federal budget, we are getting some reaction to the centrepiece proposal of a massive expansion to early learning and child care, particularly from provinces with whom this all needs to be negotiated. It sounds like several of them are welcoming the new funding, and Chrystia Freeland has signalled some willingness for flexibility, but is drawing a red line around keeping fees low, because the whole point of this is to reduce barriers to women getting in the workforce, and high fees are very much a barrier, even when there are available spaces (which is often not the case). And yes, there are already recalcitrant provinces, looking particularly to Alberta and Ontario, and some of their objections are grounded in the fantasyland that there is no such thing as constrained choice. Of course.

For some more context, here is a good interview with Don Giesbrecht, CEO of the Canadian Child Care Federation, which gives a good lay of the land of the current system of bilateral agreements that the federal government has in place with provinces around childcare funding, and yes, there are strings attached to that funding. This new funding will build on those agreements, which is why it’s not entirely out of the blue and building something from the ground-up, but simply taking things up an order of magnitude from where they exist currently.

Meanwhile, my social media has been flooded with salty New Democrats who think that they’ve somehow caught me out in previously pointing out that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction whenever Jagmeet Singh would performatively demand “concrete action” on childcare or the like. For starters, at no time did I declare this Liberal plan a done deal – it has always been presented as being contingent upon negotiation with the provinces, but this time they’ve put money on the table that the provinces will find hard to refuse, especially because we have all seen the effect that this pandemic has had on women in the workforce. That’s a fairly unique set of circumstance that creates a hell of a lot more political pressure than could be applied previously. More to the point, Singh’s rhetoric, and those of his MPs, is largely grounded in Green Lantern Theory, that it’s simply a matter of willpower to overcome jurisdictional interviews, while they will only admit the need for negotiation in written releases or backgrounders and never out loud. This especially goes with making promises that they will “get it done,” as though they can put on their Green Lantern rings and just willpower it to happen, or drafting a federal bill and expecting the provinces to clamour to the sound of free money rather than doing the hard work of negotiation. Real life doesn’t work like that, which is what I have consistently pointed out. If New Democrats can’t understand that criticism, then I can’t help them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland’s first big budget

Posted on by

The budget was released yesterday, and lo, the commitment to child care was huge – $30 billion over five years in order to build a national system of $10/day early learning and child care, which is huge money – money that will make it very, very hard for provinces to refuse. It’s not going to be immediate, but a process to build to that system, which they have already put work into over the past five years, but it’s a much more robust commitment than we have seen in the past. It means more negotiations with provinces, however, as well as an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec so that they can still get funding to augment their existing subsidised child care system.

While there is a good overview here, other items in the budget include:

  • Some $17.6 billion in new spending for GHG reductions.
  • New taxes on foreign investors in housing, with more commitments to the national housing strategy.
  • $18 billion over five years has been earmarked for Indigenous communities to close the socio-economic gaps.
  • There is a commitment for $400 million to combat sexual misconduct in the military, plus funds to revitalise NORAD and to cover our NATO operations
  • They plan to make it easier and cheaper to obtain a criminal pardon.
  • There will be new taxes on big global tech companies.
  • Here are twenty new or expanded benefits and taxes.
  • There is the usual pearl-clutching that the budget predicts some $686 billion in accumulated deficits over the next five years.
  • Here are ten smaller items in the budget that are of interest.

Something that did come up over the talking heads discussing the budget was pharmacare, and how there wasn’t a big song and dance about it, as that was largely reserved for childcare. I did read the section on pharacare in the document, and it notes continued investment in things like the catastrophic drug plan to help those who need it most, but we have to remember that they have been trying to negotiate this with the provinces, and the provinces have said no. There’s only so much the federal government can push them on this, so it may require waiting until a few provincial governments change hands before more progress can be made. That’s the thing about these kinds of programmes in provincial jurisdiction – you need to have willing partners at the table, or it can’t go anywhere.

Meanwhile, Heather Scoffield grouses that there is too much conventional thinking in the budget to deal with the problems exacerbated by the pandemic. Susan Delacourt looks to all of the promises that rely on federal-provincial negotiations to make them happen. Paul Wells offers a fairly sober assessment of what’s in the budget, and whether the enthusiasm for this child care spending will last the next couple of years.

Continue reading →

QP: Pushing hard to give Doug Ford some political cover

Posted on by

In the shadow of the looming budget, I fully expected a day full of questions related to attempts to get the government to admit what was coming in a couple of hours’ time. Candice Bergen led off by video, accusing the federal government of prolonging the third wave by not having enough vaccines — as though premiers delaying proper public health measures were blameless. Anita Anand calmly gave a recounting of increasing vaccine shipments, which are more than originally planned. Bergen then lied and claimed the third wave was a result of the prime minister’s inaction, and Patty Hajdu reminded her that eight out of every ten dollars spent on fighting the pandemic came from the federal government, and listed the measures taken. Michael Chong took over and railed about Ontario’s situation and blamed vaccine shortages, and Patty Hajdu repeated her assurances, but on two hyperbolic follow-ups, Hajdu reminded him that vaccines alone were never enough to stop the third wave without strong public health measures.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc and and railed that federal parties used the wage subsidy, for which Sean Fraser reminded him that they took decisive action to help Canadians. Therrien stated that CRA is reporting fraudulent take-up of the wage subsidy, and Diane Lebouthillier reminded him that he voted against compliance audits, and that he should pick a lane.

Don Davies led for the NDP, and demanded that the federal government use the Emergencies Act to increase hospital capacity and implement paid sick leave in Ontario — which is both novel and would poison federalism. Patty Hajdu calmly responded that they have been working with the government of Ontario to provide whatever help they can. Lindsay Mathyssen repeated the demand, and got much the same response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ontario is on fire, and Ford offers performance art

Posted on by

I will admit that I am currently vacillating between rage and despair right now, as Doug Ford and his band of murderclowns looked at the new modelling data that shows us still on a course for disaster, and decide to do the barest minimum effort to merely prolong the state of affairs, rather than to take meaningful action.

It’s not just half-measures – it’s theatre. Closing parks and playgrounds will do nothing to halt the spread of the virus, but workplaces deemed “essential” continue to operate with few protections for workers – which is where much of the new infections are happening, and then spreading when those “essential” workers return home, often to crowded, inter-generational households – and most of all, Ford is still not budging on paid sick leave. On top of that, he’s giving police the power to randomly stop people to ask why they’re not at home, and essentially reintroduced carding (which is unconstitutional), and will inevitably target Black, Indigenous and other minorities because that’s what police do. (Several police forces have pledged not to use these powers, but we’ll see if that holds). And then Ford lies and says that Ontario has had the toughest measures anywhere, and pats himself on the back while he blames ordinary people for not following rules – rules which change on a daily basis and are never clear to begin with – and blames the federal government for not magically providing vaccines fast enough when it is mathematically impossible to vaccinate our way out of this.

None of this needed to happen. That’s what is just so gods damned enraging about this whole thing. They were warned repeatedly back in February not to re-open until the reproduction rate of the virus was lower, and they didn’t listen. They rushed to re-open just as variants were starting to spread in the community, confident that they could let a little bit of COVID circulate and everything would be find (when it grows exponentially), because they needed to “protect the economy,” and lo, things got worse like everyone knew that they would, and we had to restrict again, and it will keep happening like this until they can finally squash the curve of transmission.

If there is one silver lining, it’s that we know that Doug Ford can be swayed, because Uncle Doug doesn’t like being the bad guy. He wants to be the fun uncle. And maybe now, people in Ontario will finally be outraged enough to stop being guiled by his folksy bullshit, and finally start demanding action in a consistent and coherent manner. That may be what finally spurs action, months and thousands of unnecessary later, assuming the anger is directed in the right way. That may, however, be easier said than done, but the possibility exists, and perhaps we as a province should seize it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Launching a laughable climate plan

Posted on by

With much fanfare – and a moving backdrop that was dizzying to watch – Erin O’Toole rolled out his much-ballyhooed climate plan yesterday morning, and it was…underwhelming. And bizarre. Replacing climate rebates with a special “savings account” that can only be used to purchase “green” items like bicycles and high-efficiency furnaces? Yeah, that’s not an improvement, you guys. And lo, it’s not winning O’Toole any plaudits in his own party either, with caucus members telling media that they were essentially blindsided by this, and many feel it’s a betrayal, and a sign that he has no credibility because he’ll say anything to get elected. And they probably have a point.

Here is some reaction to the news, with additional threads from Nic Rivers and Jennifer Robson.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1382694545398317066

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1382716424087605252

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1382722697159925764

Meanwhile, I have a beef with CBC’s coverage of the issue, because they insist on framing the existing Liberal carbon price as a tax – which it’s not because it doesn’t go into general revenue, and the Supreme Court of Canada said this – but they insisted on calling the Conservative plan a “levy,” when it’s the exact same gods damned mechanism as the existing Liberal plan that just recycles the revenues differently. You can’t call one a tax and the other a levy because that is massively misleading. It places a wholly negative frame around the Liberal plan and not the Conservative one when, again, it’s the same mechanism. “Taxes” come with particular preconceived notions around them, in particular the gem about “taxes are theft,” and so on. CBC’s editorial decision to use this framing device biases the conversation and perceptions around the programmes, which is a very big problem.

Continue reading →

QP: Putting words in Boris Johnson’s mouth

Posted on by

In the wake of yesterday’s nudity brouhaha and the subsequent calls for an investigation, the prime minister was away and there were but two Liberals in the Chamber — Mark Gerretsen and Marc Serré. Candice Bergen led off by video, and she recited a hyperbolic litany of ills that lockdowns have imposed upon the population and lamented the government’s failures, before demanding to know why the finance minister was treating the situation as a political opportunity. Sean Fraser noted that they were looking to reform the system for those who were disadvantaged by the status quo. Bergen then switched to delays in Moderna shipments, and using it to blame the government for the third wave of the pandemic. Patty Hajdu reminded her that the government has been there for the provinces all through the pandemic. Bergen then raised the Daily Mail’s coverage of vaccines in Canada, falsely attributing comments to Boris Johnson around vaccinations when Johnson has in fact credited the lockdowns in Britain for halting the spread of the virus and not vaccinations, which is a pretty important thing to realize. In response, Hajdu again repeated that they were supporting provinces and encouraged people to get vaccinated when it’s their turn. Gérard Deltell got up next and in French, slammed the Bloc for joining the Liberals in ending the defence committee study on the General Vance allegations, to which Harjit Sajjan dismissed the attacks and patted himself on the back for his six hours at committee. Deltell then tried to police the government’s feminism, and Sajjan said that they were waiting for the committee’s report.

For the Bloc, Yves Perron led off to decry delays in getting temporary foreign workers out of quarantine and into fields, for which Carla Qualtrough assured him they were working as fast as they can to resolve the situation. Perron blasted that the contractor doing the testing didn’t have capacity in French, and Qualtrough assured him they were working to ensure people in Quebec could get their services in French.

Jagmeet Singh led off for the NDP, and in French, asked to extend the tax filing deadline, and Diane Lebouthillier listed tax relief measures they have offered. Singh switched to English to blame slow vaccine rollout on the federal government, apparently believing that vaccines can be produced form thin air, and wanted an admission of failure on domestic production. Anita Anand recited vaccine arrivals and that Canada is third in the G20 for vaccinations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A broken system thwarting foreign agents

Posted on by

Something in the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) annual report, made public this week caught my eye, which talked about how the “critical election incident protocol panel” – the body set up in order to have some sort of way to help deal with any detected foreign interference during an election (given the whole Russian interference thing south of the border in previous of their elections) – needs to include more traditional espionage as part of their warning triggers. Why? Because, as NSICOP says, foreign agents could try to infiltrate political parties to exert influence, whether it’s in nomination meetings, or volunteering in campaign offices.

I will admit that I laughed.

Not because foreign interference isn’t serious – because it is – but because the joke would be on them, given that grassroots members no longer have any influence in our political system since we have made the system entirely leader-driven. Nomination meetings are being gamed by leaders’ offices to the point where it’s difficult to determine just how free and fair any of them are these days – that is, when leaders aren’t outright appointing candidates (as Justin Trudeau did with Marci Ien and Ya’ara Saks for the by-elections late last year). Trying to hijack nomination contests at the best of times is exceedingly difficult because of the requirement for the leader’s signature (or their proxies, thanks to the garbage Reform Act), which was part of why that requirement was created back in 1970 – officially to keep the Chief Electoral Officer from needing to adjudicate nomination disputes, but anecdotally about heading off pro-life groups trying to hijack Liberal nominations. Foreign agents trying to use the same tactics would have fairly marginal chances of success once their involvement became known.

This is less of an indictment of the use of party infiltration as a tactic of foreign agents, but rather of how our system has degenerated. Because we insisted on moving to leadership contests that became quasi-presidential primaries, we have upended the entire grassroots nature of our parties, and now everything is top-down, leader driven. It shouldn’t be this way, and yet this is where we are.

Continue reading →