Tag Archives: CBSA

Roundup: One-time benefits for seniors

Posted on by

The day began much as Monday did, with a ministerial presser in Toronto, where Bill Morneau and Deb Schulte announced a one-time additional benefit for seniors who earn low-income supports. People may ask why this was necessary given that they haven’t lost incomes (like others have), and the theoretical justification is that they may be facing some increased costs around things like deliveries, taxis, or prescription fees. There is also a particular political justification in that this is a bit of a sop to the Bloc, who have been howling about this for weeks, and we all know that it’s because seniors vote.

Shortly thereafter, Justin Trudeau held his daily presser at a slightly earlier time because of the impending sitting of the Commons “virtual” special committee, and he reiterated much of what had been announced earlier, but somewhat more unusually, stated that this pandemic has revealed uncomfortable truths about how we treat seniors in this country, and that there are serious underlying challenges that they will help the provinces with in finding lasting solutions. This particular construction is pretty key, because this is explicitly a provincial issue, and the federal government can’t just write in long-term care to the Canada Health Act as certain people have been demanding. The Act doesn’t work like that, as they should very well know. During the Q&A, Trudeau stated that the government planned to be very careful when it comes to easing border restrictions, and that he wasn’t going to ask for Carolyn Bennett’s resignation over the dispute over the Wet’suwet’en MOU.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1259819355866632192

During the special committee meeting that followed, the Conservatives were hung up on the reporting that civil servants were instructed to ignore any potential cheating on CERB applications and process them anyway, with the goal to investigate and pursue repayment after this is all over. We’ll see if this concern over the government “ignoring fraud” carries over the next few days, or if this is an instance of the opposition chasing headlines.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Big border closure, big aid package

Posted on by

As the impact of the pandemic starts to be really felt in Canada, there is a new kind of rhythm starting to take shape in Ottawa, which is essentially that we get our daily press conference with Justin Trudeau, followed by ministerial press conferences, one after the other, and along the way, the daily briefings and pressers from the different provinces creep up in there as well. Today’s Trudeau press conference outlined the agreement to close the Canada-US border to non-essential traffic, and to outline the broad strokes of the $82 billion in economic measures (when you include tax deferrals) designed to help the country cope with the pandemic. He also said that measures specific to the airline industry and oil and gas sector were coming later in the week, including significant measures to remediate orphan wells in Alberta, which means that the federal government has now assumed a chunk of the province’s environmental liabilities, and both the companies that left them and the province that didn’t properly regulate their remediation are going to be let off the hook, so slow clap for that one.

Other measures included in the package were a suspension of federal student loan repayments (made interest-free), and distinctions-based funds for Indigenous communities, along with additional funds for shelters and the homeless. Not everyone is happy with those measures – the small-business lobby says that the measures aren’t enough to stop layoffs because the wage subsidy is only ten percent, which they say isn’t big enough. And in case this weren’t all bad enough, the price that Canadian oil is going for fell to its lowest level ever. So that’s fun.

We also learned that negotiations are ongoing between the parties – and Chambers – to temporarily recall Parliament in order to pass spending measures that were announced yesterday, and that could happen as early as next week, because there is a forty-eight-hour window after the Speaker agrees to the request. Part of the issue is the negotiation around how many MPs to recall – quorum for the Commons is twenty, and fifteen for the Senate – because they want to ensure proportionality. Pablo Rodriguez stated that he also wants to ensure that it’s MPs who don’t have to travel by plane to get here, but Jagmeet Singh was on TV yesterday saying he’s ready to come back, which kind of defeats the purpose, especially if we’re trying to encourage Canadians not to travel.

[Maclean’s has updated their Q&A on symptoms and contacts on where to get help.]

Meanwhile, Heather Scoffield gets a personal perspective on the aid package announced today, while Kevin Carmichael weighs in on the debate around the package – whether it is preferable to favour speed and not precision – by finding that the details are a bit too finnicky, but also notes the “elasticity” of the aid, which can expand or contract as need be as it progresses. In this thread, the Parliamentary Budget Officer finds it not targeted enough (though I’m not sure that it’s his job to weigh in on policy decisions like this). Economist Lindsay Tedds also has some suggestions on how provincial governments can step up given that the federal aid package only goes so far.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1240331137517367298

Good reads:

  • Here’s a look behind-the-scenes of the discussions around closing the Canada-US border.
  • Two new test kits for COVID-19 have been approved for use in Canada, to hopefully speed up testing in provincial labs.
  • The IRB has suspended in-person refugee hearings for the time being, and CBSA has halted deportation orders.
  • Here’s a look into emergency federal procurement rules that can be activated to rapidly source things like medical equipment.
  • The Hill Times got a look into the deals made between parties and caucuses in both chambers to pass those four bills and to suspend Parliament.
  • CBC is suspending their local evening news broadcasts for a central CBC News Network broadcast (in place of Power & Politics), which may breach CRTC rules.
  • It looks like MPs have agreed on a subcommittee of MPs to help guide the Centre Block renovations, including a list of “do not touch” heritage spaces.
  • Jason Kenney introduced an aid package for Alberta given that the province is being hit not only with COVID-19, but also plummeting oil prices.
  • Colby Cosh offers a meditation on the nature of liberal democracy in times of crisis like the one we’re facing.
  • Susan Delacourt notes that the current pandemic means that the government has stopped talking about citizens as “taxpayers” and framing politics as transactions.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

Roundup: Airports and capacity issues

Posted on by

As the country heads further toward some kind of state of lockdown – school closure announcements went out in Alberta (but not Saskatchewan) – there is a great deal of garment-rending over what is happening at airports in particular, especially since it appears that there were only a handful of CBSA officers staffing the Toronto airport on Saturday night for hundreds of arrivals. There isn’t a lot of visible screening at airports because that’s proven to be largely ineffective (and most places are screening people before they get on planes), and the bigger message is communication around self-isolation, and some of that may depend on where travellers are coming from – it’s being stated that people arriving from countries with few infections aren’t being given as strenuous of warnings. There are complaints that this wasn’t being effectively communicated by CBSA officials over the weekend, or that some of their pamphlets contained dated information, which is possible, especially given that more measures were announced late Friday afternoon, and weekend capacity for many of these agencies is reduced. (Also it’s been recorded that one CBSA officer from the Toronto airport has been diagnosed with COVID-19, and I’m sure this will be the first of many). A lot of this should be about local public health officials’ communications efforts, rather than expecting CBSA to simply do it all, but I’m not sure that everyone who is freaking out online about this is necessarily understanding areas of jurisdiction and responsibility.

Justin Trudeau is set to announce further measures this afternoon following a Cabinet meeting on Sunday evening, which unfortunately saw a group of Cabinet ministers leaving the meeting being fairly inept at communicating that decisions were taken and that they need time to prepare their implementation (as self-righteous journalists and pundits melted down over Twitter). Apparently nobody understands that these is such a thing as capacity issues and that not everything can happen immediately, even in an extraordinary crisis situation as we appear to find ourselves in.

Meanwhile, here’s another Q&A with infectious disease specialist Dr. Isaac Bogoch on what people should and should not be doing for social distancing. As well, here’s a look through some of the pandemic preparedness guides to show what things could look like if we reach a crisis point. Two infectious disease specialists wonder about the efficacy of draconian measures, particularly if they will spark “containment fatigue.”

Continue reading →

Roundup: Urging calm, patience, and police action

Posted on by

Yesterday was a long and very busy day, as everyone scrambled to get their say on the ongoing protest and blockade situation across the country, with a mounting economic cost to them. First thing in the morning, the AFN National Chief, Perry Bellegarde, and several First Nations leaders held a press conference to ask the Mohawk protesters to dismantle the barricades – not as surrender, but as compassion for those who would soon be affected by shortages – but one of those Mohawk leaders also noted that his band office has been locked out and protesters among his own people say they want him out. A short while later, Justin Trudeau gave a speech in the House of Commons to counsel patience and to reiterate that dialogue remained the best way to resolve the situation – something Andrew Scheer denounced as weak, and he continued to insist that the police end the protests, insisting that this was but a group of “professional protesters” and “radicals” and that the “real” position of the Wet’suwet’en people was for jobs and resource development (even though he later said he hadn’t actually spoken to any of them) – something that both Peter MacKay and Erin O’Toole also echoed, because police action has never gone badly before. Oh, wait. (Marilyn Gladu, for the record, wants the military to step in). Shortly after Trudeau’s speech, he had a meeting with Yves-François Blanchet, Jagmeet Singh, and Elizabeth May, and made a pointed remark that Scheer had not been invited because his remarks were “disqualifying” – which led to Scheer’s agitated breathy and high-pitched performance during QP. Oh, and while all of this was going on, some activists in Victoria tried to perform a “citizen’s arrest” on BC premier John Horgan (and they got arrested instead).

By the time the five o’clock politics shows rolled around, Carolyn Bennett had concluded a meeting with some of the hereditary chiefs – who stated on one of the shows that they wouldn’t actually negotiate until the RCMP were off of their territory – and Marc Miller refused to discuss whether that was on or off the table when asked, leading the pundits to make hay of that. (“He didn’t say no!” is the worst impulse in journalism, guys). Oh, and hilariously, Jody Wilson-Raybould offered her services as a mediator, as though anyone in the government would be willing to trust her. As the day wound down, Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe said he was holding a meeting of premiers today because Trudeau “refused to act” – though I’m not sure what exactly he proposes, unless it’s to try to direct provincial police forces to start cracking skulls, both violating the rule of law and making the situation worse. And that’s where we are.

Meanwhile, here is a good primer written by a lawyer and a law professor about what “rule of law” means and why it’s important – as Scheer and company keep misusing the term. Heather Scoffield sees the business impacts of the blockades and deduces that it will be impossible to resolve them both quickly and peacefully – it would have to be one or the other. Andrew Coyne counsels patience in threating the needle that the protests can both be illegal while still noting that using force will only create martyrs. Matt Gurney worries that if the blockades go on much longer, they could fuel populist anger and damage the cause of reconciliation. Paul Wells attempts to make sense of the day that was, and the Liberals’ high-wire act in the middle of it all.

Continue reading →

QP: Putting the heat on Blair

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau fled the capital to go sell auto workers the merits of the New NAFTA over in Brampton, Andrew Scheer was elsewhere. Candice Bergen led off with the story of the murder of a sex worker of a person on parole, and demanded a denunciation of the Board’s actions. Bill Blair reminded her that an investigation has been launched into the matter. Bergen asked about MasterCard getting $50 million from the government, to which Mélanie Joly said that the government was investing into a cyber-security centre. Bergen said that MasterCard can afford to pay for their own cyber-security, and bashed the investment again, and Joly responded about the importance of job creation. Luc Berthold was up next to ask about the Auditor General’s budget, to which Jean-Yves Duclos effused about the Middle Class before citing that they would work with the Auditor General. Berthold asked again in French, and Duclos responded with the record on growth and job creation. Yves-François Blanchet was up next to worry about Teck Frontier Mine destroying the Paris Agreement, and Jonathan Wilkinson responded that they were still making their determination on the environmental assessment. Blanchet also worried that said mine would require new pipelines and wondered if they were afraid of saying no to Jason Kenney, to which Wilkinson repeated that they were still considering it. Jagmeet Singh was up for the NDP, to once again demand limiting the tax break in order to fund dental care, and Bill Morneau reminded Singh that their tax cuts have benefited 20 million Canadians. Singh asked again in French, and got much the same response. 

Continue reading →

QP: What about infrastructure?

Posted on by

Tuesday, and all of the leaders were back once again. Andrew Scheer was up first, and he claimed there were “sky high” deficits and taxes and no infrastructure spending to show for it — assertions that were all false. The deficits are actually tiny in comparison to the size of the federal budget, and the tax burden on Canadians is hovering near its lowest point in the post-war period, not to mention the fact that many of the promised infrastructure projects were held up by provinces trying to play politics in advance of the election, and that the hoped-for productivity gains were blunted when provinces didn’t keep up their planned infrastructure spending, and instead rolled it back as the federal government spent more. Justin Trudeau stood up and used a script to list projects that they were approving. Scheer then raised their Supply Day motion about calling in the Auditor General about the infrastructure programme. Trudeau reminded him that the Conservative record was spending on billboards, door knobs and gazebos, while their government was getting things done. Scheer asked again in French, got much the same answer, and Scheer raised the coronavirus and wanted support for Taiwan to get observer status at the WHO. Trudeau avoided the direct question and gave assurances about the coronavirus and collaboration with China. Scheer tried again, and Trudeau reminded them that they shouldn’t play politics with public health crises. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc, and he once again raised the possibility of aluminium impacting the Quebec market under the New NAFTA, to which Trudeau reminded him there were guarantees in the new agreement that do not exist currently. Blanchet tried again, and Trudeau quoted the aluminium producer association as saying it was a good deal. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he railed about the Volkswagen settlement agreement, calling it a “sweetheart deal.” Trudeau, without script, stated that they are paying a penalty and it was great for the fight against climate change. Singh then railed about a supposed tripling of outsourcing of public service functions, and Trudeau spoke to the balance around procurement. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: “True Blue” O’Toole

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole made his official entry into the leadership race yesterday by way of a video that takes swipes at “cancel culture” and celebrity activists – the kinds of keyboard warrior buzzwords that are pretty much the domains of O’Toole’s new campaign staffer, Jeff Ballingall, of those “Canada Proud” etc. sites.

At a rally in Calgary later in the evening, O’Toole said that Peter MacKay would turn the party into Liberal-lite, which I have yet to see any actual evidence of (MacKay is not really a Red Tory, guys – he’s not. Stop pretending he is). It also struck me that he kept reiterating the kinds of comforting lies that the party likes to tell itself about issues like the plight of the energy sector, where the woes are blamed on the Trudeau government and not changing market forces (seriously, the shale revolution in the US is a pretty big driver of these changes). He did say that he would march in a Pride parade, and justified it with his military background, which is a bit funny given that he hasn’t marched in one to date, which makes his sudden conviction around it mighty suspect. His opposition to carbon pricing continues to dig the party into its current environmental rut, and his talk of deficits remains completely economically illiterate – all doubling down on the party’s current positions, because that’s apparently what will make him a “true blue” Conservative. I’m not sure how this grows the party’s base, but what do I know?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Flashbacks about prorogation

Posted on by

It was a day of flashbacks to 2008, as Boris Johnson asked the Queen to prorogue the Parliament in Westminster, and social media had erupted with cries of “coups,” “dictatorships,” and wannabe constitutional scholars ignoring nearly two centuries of Responsible Government as they tried to implicate the Queen in granting Johnson’s request. Of course, there are some fundamental differences between now and the 2008 prorogation, such as the fact that there will still be a “washing up period” of a few days, as is traditional with UK prorogations, and time where the opposition can still try to move some kind of motion to try and stop a no-deal Brexit, though I’m not sure what mechanism they would use. A private member’s motion would be non-binding (and would carry only the symbolic weight of the Chamber), while a private members’ bill would try to impose some kind of negative obligation on the government – even if it could be sped through in those final days – and if there is no no-deal option on the table, it would then impose the necessity to have some kind of deal, which the Commons has already rejected. There is also the option of moving a non-confidence motion in those remaining days, which could topple Johnson’s government, ostensibly. The prorogation is also for a couple of weeks, and will return Parliament by October 14th, which still leaves it time to do something about Brexit before the October 31stdeadline. Johnson’s move may be dubious – and a dick move – but it could have been much worse. It’s not a coup. It’s not demolishing democracy. And it’s not eliminating parliament as an obstacle to Johnson – in fact, it may have only made it worse, as the move signals his desperation.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166695661108105216

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166717156140244992

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166680410392289280

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166683151588057089

All of this being said, we need to also remember that some of the received wisdom of the 2008 prorogation crisis needs to be challenged. For example, people keep insisting that Michaëlle Jean was wrong to grant Harper the prorogation (ignoring that if she refused the advice of her prime minister, he would have been obligated to resign, which would have created a whole other constitutional crisis), that an opposition coalition would have been able to take over. The problem is that said coalition was never really viable, and pretty much everyone knew it. And this was proven correct by the fact that it did not survive the prorogation period. Had it done so, had they banded together and moved a motion of non-confidence, then formed a coalition, then sure, it would have proven that it was viable, and it would have reinforced that the system was working (as it did in when Sir John A Macdonald did not survive a prorogation to avoid a confidence vote around the Pacific Scandal). But the coalition fell apart, proving that Jean was right to simply grant the prorogation – making Harper stew about it for a few hours – and doing her job in acting on the advice of a first minister. But you’re going to hear a rehash of the coalition fanfic of the day, and we need to remember that it was only that – fiction.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt offers her thoughts on the prorogation, the disconnect between parliaments and the outside world, and the idle speculation about whether Stephen Harper’s 2008 prorogation may have inspired Johnson.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On feeding the loons

Posted on by

I try not to do that hackneyed “slow news day?” thing, however I am forced to question the editorial judgment at Global’s Calgary bureau after they reported on a supposed new “separatist” group meeting in Alberta, who are shaking their fist at clouds – err, I mean throwing a temper tantrum about some perceived slights. The apparent “newsworthiness” of this event is the fact that there was a bullshit poll out last week that said that as many as a quarter of Albertans could support separation, and Jay Hill, one-time Alberta separatist, says that Justin Trudeau being re-elected could make that fifty percent.

That sound was my eyes rolling so hard. And then again when John Ivison tweeted this gem.

What could possibly different about Scotland than Alberta? Could it be that Scotland once used to be its own country? Could it be that they have a distinct language and culture? That they already field their own sports teams in international competitions? That they’re not landlocked? Colby Cosh wrote about this not two weeks ago – there is no coherence in the argument for Alberta separatism, and they can’t even take their own argument seriously.

Let’s call this what it is – extortion, blackmail, and a campaign of lies fomented by the likes of Jason Kenney who is stoking it to keep his base angry, because the moment they realize that they’ve run out of external enemies to blame their problems on, the moment they’ll turn on him because he hasn’t been able to deliver on any of his snake oil promises. And Kenney is using these swivel-eyed loons as a straw man – the whole “I’m not a separatist, but Justin Trudeau is stoking the sentiment” defence. It’s just more lies, and We The Media don’t have to keep giving them oxygen. We don’t have to pay attention to these loons – especially if they’re going to call themselves moronic things like “Wexit Alberta.”

Continue reading →

Roundup: Dire warnings about MPs’ jobs

Posted on by

Another day, another apocalyptic warning that the workload and schedules of MPs are going to wind up killing somebody someday, and I just cannot even. This isn’t even the first time this particular argument has been made by MPs, but it boggles me even more that journalists aren’t pushing back more, and at least giving an “Oh, come on,” and it leaves the impression that there is an expectation that parliamentarians go in thinking it’s a nine-to-five job. And it gets even more ludicrous when you realise that MPs are not only sitting fewer days than they used to, but we already eliminated evening sittings three days a week in order to make the days more “family friendly” (which, as it happens, made congeniality worse because they stopped eating dinner together three nights a week).

https://twitter.com/garry_keller/status/1150587736736317441

Part of what has triggered this wave of pearl-clutching are the number of voting marathons that we saw in this current parliament, but we need to pour a bit of perspective sauce on the situation here. First of all, the opposition needs to have some tools to apply pressure to the government when they feel it’s necessary, and eliminating those tools would be a major problem. That said, I’m not sure that these particular marathons were appropriate uses for those tools, particularly as they were pegged to issues that were fairly minor on the scope of things, if not outright ridiculous, and yet the Conservatives made a big song and dance about these vote-a-thons, which wound up coming across as a temper tantrum. It became routine that estimates votes were coming up, so they were going to force a vote-a-thon to express their outrage of the day, and then blame the government for “forcing it” to happen. That’s…not how this works. And if MPs are opposed to those tactics, well, they can let their party leadership know that they’re opposed and do something about it internally. Otherwise, I’m not sure what their suggestions are for making life easier for MPs, because the alternatives – such as time allocating all business by means of programming motions and the like – is not healthy for democracy either. Perhaps they need to think about that as they complain about the jobs they chose.

Speaking of workloads, there was some angry debating over Twitter over the weekend about the Senate not sitting later to pass the bill that would add CBSA to the new civilian oversight body created for the RCMP (the accusation that they wanted to go on vacation). While I have my doubts about that bill (I think the earlier Senate bill to create an Inspector General for CBSA held a lot of promise, but the government refused to debate it), it’s pretty unfair to lay the blame on the Senate as a whole. Rather, it’s the government’s fault – both in introducing the bill so late, and sending it to the Senate at the very last minute, and in their Leader in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder, who controls the agenda. He could have ensured that the Senate sat long enough to pass it, but we’ve seen over the past three-and-a-half years that Harder has been absolutely allergic to staying later than the Commons does, even though the Senate is actually scheduled to sit for an extra week at the end of each sitting, like they always do. Harder, however, has steadfastly refused, and the Independent senators haven’t pushed back. If you want someone to blame, start there.

Continue reading →