Tag Archives: China

Roundup: $2 billion unbidden

Posted on by

There was a lot of reaction to the announcement that prime minister Justin Trudeau was giving an additional $2 billion to the provinces to help schools restart safely – unbidden – and those reactions were interesting. Trudeau himself made a point of saying that this was as a result of listening to his backbench Liberal MPs and parents who continued to express concerns, and that it wasn’t requested by premiers, so that’s a political marker right there. It’s also a transfer that is largely without strings – it comes in two tranches, one now, one at the end of the year, and all the provinces need to do between them is to tell Ottawa how they spent the money, so again, it’s a bit of a political test for those premiers – and it’s also giving rise to speculation that this is a sign that Trudeau is in election mode.

Reaction was mixed. Doug Ford expressed gratitude (but also falsely claimed that Ontario’s restart plans were the safest in the country, which is patently absurd), but his education minister – and his opposition critic in the NDP – derided the funds as “late to the game.” Manitoba premier Brian Pallister, for example, was somewhat non-committal, and said he’d take the money, but praised his own government’s efforts. And, hilariously, Jagmeet Singh took credit for it, saying that he had called a press conference to “make an announcement” (read: demand) about more money for schools and lo and behold, the prime minister delivered before that press conference happened. Yeah, okay then.

The complicating factor in all of this is that this is an area of sole provincial jurisdiction and there should be zero expectation for federal dollars, which is why I find myself mystified by all of the people on Twitter (and the Ontario NDP education critic) bemoaning that these funds didn’t flow in June. But if you recall, in June, Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland were negotiating with the provinces for their “Safe Restart Plan,” with $14 billion on the table which included money for schools, so it’s not like it wasn’t being discussed – the provinces were recalcitrant because they didn’t want the strings attached that come with billions of dollars. Eventually, they came to an agreement and it turned into $19 billion, and this $2 billion is on top of that, so it’s not like the federal government has been completely silent. I would also suspect that there is a bit of an implicit rebuke in this new envelope of money because provinces have been dithering on their restart plans, giving confusing options to parents with no time to evaluate them, and more critically, have been unwilling to do the important work of reducing class sizes. One could easily interpret this money as Ottawa telling them – not in so many words – to get their acts together, and they’ll look fairly magnanimous while they’re at it.

https://twitter.com/StandingHannah/status/1298685195579723776

Continue reading →

Roundup: First attempts to define O’Toole

Posted on by

It was not quite ten o’clock Eastern when the Liberals fired their first salvo across Erin O’Toole’s bow. Liberal MP Pam Damoff put out a press release highlighting three of Derek Sloan’s most egregious comments – questioning Dr. Theresa Tam’s loyalties, comparing women’s bodily autonomy to slavery, and calling banning conversion therapy “child abuse” – and said that if O’Toole didn’t repudiate those claims that he was condoning them. It seems the Liberals took a cue from the Conservatives before them and are trying to define the party’s new leader before he can define himself – payback for Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff (tough Justin Trudeau proved resilient to those attempts).

A short while later, O’Toole had his first press conference as leader, where he told people to ignore the Liberal spin, and reiterated parts of his victory speech where he welcomed all kinds of Canadians into the Conservative fold, before he took questions for a whole 15 minutes. To wit, when pressed about how concretely he wants the prime minister to address “Western alienation,” he blustered about support for getting resources to market, as though Trudeau controls the world price of oil. Asked about the social conservatives and Sloan’s comments, O’Toole shrugged them off as an attempt to highlight differences in the context of a leadership but said that he would “have a talk” with Sloan, but gave no indication that Sloan was on thin ice. O’Toole also called himself pro-choice – but in the same breath defended voting for a bill that would give rights to foetuses by claiming it was a “public safety” bill about sentencing, which was the weaselliest thing I have seen in ages. He also said that he supported trans rights more than Trudeau did because he was one of 18 Conservatives that voted for one of the private members’ bills and Trudeau had missed that vote – ignoring of course that said bill died and that Trudeau revived it and passed it in government. He also intimated that it was Trudeau who was trying to force an election, not him, for what that’s worth.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1298277863297298434

Meanwhile, here’s a look at some of the raw feelings inside the Peter MacKay camp as the “co-founder” of the party has been repudiated, while O’Toole is rushing to try and unify the party behind his leadership in spite of the things that were said during the campaign.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Combing the document dump

Posted on by

The mass of WE-related documents were the subject of yesterday’s news fodder, and the fact that they largely corroborated the government’s assertion that the civil servants were the ones who suggested WE Charity be the vehicle to deliver the Canada Student Service Grant programme. They did, however, make a couple of notes that raised eyebrows – one was another communication between Bardish Chagger and the Kielbergers (though she has responded to dispel those concerns, saying it was a general comment she had made as the CSSG was not on her radar at the time), and the other were communications between Bill Morneau’s office and the finance department officials where Morneau’s office were described as “besties” with WE – which doesn’t necessarily prove that this was some orchestrated campaign to benefit WE. There were also documents wherein Jean-Yves Duclos was clearly not comfortable with WE being the only delivery vehicle for the programme because they don’t have sufficient depth in Quebec, though he was being assured otherwise.

To these revelations, and the fact that some of the pages had redactions on them (which is standard for both Cabinet confidences and instances where privacy is involved), the Conservatives and Pierre Poilievre in particular put on a melodramatic press conference full of air quotes and flung pages, and the howling accusation that there was a cover-up in the works. Because we all know that when you don’t find the answers you want, there must be a conspiracy at play. It’s not unexpected, and I’m not sure he won over any converts among the Canadian public, but hey, this is all theatre for him, like so many things in Canadian politics.

Continue reading →

QP: Trying to single out ministers to divide the Cabinet

Posted on by

The prime minister was finally present for the second day of the mid-July sitting, after his inexplicable absence the day before. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, where he insisted that Canadians had enough of his scandals, and demanded he appear before committee. Trudeau stated that he was considering the invitation, that he was happy to be here today and tomorrow, and that he should have recused himself when the suggestion was made by the public service. Scheer spun a tale of WE’s alleged schemes, and again demanded that Trudeau appear at committee. Trudeau responded by listing the aid they have given students. Scheer then ranted about his disgust with the Liberals and didn’t have a question, to which Trudeau chided him about the things that he should be asking about, like the aid package under debate. Scheer got increasingly breathy as he again spun out a conspiracy theory around WE, wondering on what basis the civil service could have recommended WE, to which Trudeau stated that the civil service looked at the government’s plans and decided WE was best placed to fulfil it. Scheer quoted a charity watchdog on WE’s ability to fulfil the programme, and the asked Chrystia Freeland what it would take for her to lose faith in the prime minister, but Trudeau rose once more to praise the efforts they have made to engage students and support them. Yves-François Blanchet was up next for the Bloc, and he meandered around the problems Trudeau is facing, to which Trudeau insisted that they were focused on helping Canadians through the pandemic. Blanchet quipped that Trudeau couldn’t buy his way out of a crisis, and a suggested that Trudeau temporarily step aside and let Freeland replace him, and Trudeau praised the Safe Restart agreement with the provinces. Up next was Jagmeet Singh for the NDP, and he wondered why Trudeau didn’t recuse himself when the WE contract came up, and Trudeau stated that he followed the recommendation of the civil service. Singh insisted that apologies mean nothing if the Liberals help their “wealthy friends,” and worried why they didn’t just use another program instead, to which Trudeau said it was a shame that the NDP was so cynical about measures for students.

Continue reading →

QP: Chagger for the defence

Posted on by

The ranks were thin, as was to be expected as it was both the middle of July and the middle of a global pandemic. The prime minister was mysteriously absent, the only major leader not present for the day. Andrew Scheer led off by concern trolling that the PM listed that today was a personal day on his website, which should have been against the rules being as you’re not allowed to mention if a member is present or not, and additionally you can’t do through the back door what you can’t through the front, which Scheer did here. Chrystia Freeland responded that she was happy to take their questions. Scheer then moved onto the WE Imbroligo and how WE was chosen as the partner, to which Freeland recited the non-partisan public service gave the advice to go with WE, and they followed it. Scheer demanded that the PM show up at committee to answer questions, to which Freeland repeated her same points. Scheer listed more problems with WE, and Freeland repeated the same points again. Scheer then attempted to shame the Liberals on the Ethics committee for filibustering the questions, and tried to accuse the Liberals or corruption or incompetence, and Freeland responded that was neither, before she recited the prepared lines one last time. Yves-François Blanchet was up next for the Bloc, and he raised the concerns of someone who met with the prime minister recently and demanded fifty weeks for some unspecified programme, to which Freeland assured him that they were helping Canadians. Blanchet made reference to people with serious illnesses on EI, and Freeland again returned with bland assurances. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and insinuated that the student grant programme was about helping Liberal friends and not students. Freeland explained that youth were particularly threatened by current circumstances which was why they tried to help. Singh switched to English to rail about a “billion-dollar bail-out,” to which Freeland reiterated her assurances.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Feigned confusion and a filibuster

Posted on by

As anticipated, the government unveiled their reforms to the wage subsidy programme yesterday, which included more of a sliding scale for revenue drops and how much support businesses could get before the subsidy phases out, which helps ensure that businesses don’t reach a “cliff” in terms of restart growth only to have that support ripped away at an arbitrary level. This has the business community both applauding the government for responding to concerns, while also moaning that it’s so complicated now, which has some economists rolling their eyes. It also looks like the government that insisted they don’t like abusive omnibus bills is rolling the legislation for these changes in with the new-and-improved disability payments, as well as the justice timelines legislation, so that’s something to look forward to when the House comes back next week for a single day.

Meanwhile, the Ethics committee met yesterday to start their own look into the WE Imbroglio (conveniently with many of the same faces who subbed in at the Finance Committee during its hearing), to which the Liberals on the committee, knowing that they don’t have sufficient votes, decided instead to filibuster things, which is not a good look. Their arguments that this undermines the work of the Ethics Commissioner ignores that his role is supposed to support them, not the other way around; the fact that they were blocking a motion to demand the receipts from Margaret and Alexandre Trudeau’s public speaking events from their Speaker’s Bureau going back to 2008 is a little more suspect, and I haven’t heard a reasonable rationale for it or how it relates to the proposed study on how well the conflict-of-interest regime is working. Suffice to say, this isn’t a good look for the Liberals, and there are better ways of beating the Conservatives at their own game than playing into their hands. It’s too bad that they can’t seem to grasp that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some strings attached

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau wound up holding an irregular presser yesterday, mid-afternoon instead of late morning, and with a specific purpose in mind – to announce that the federal government had finally come to an agreement with the provinces over the Safe Restart Plan, now pegged at $19 billion rather than the $14 billion initially put on the table. What is noteworthy is that there were still federal strings attached for this money, though some premiers noted that the strings were not as tight as before. The money is to go toward municipalities, transit, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, childcare, and ten days of paid sick leave (so now Jagmeet Singh can pat himself on the back, even though this was BC premier John Horgan’s initiative), and is to last for the next six to eight months, at which point there will be a re-evaluation of where everyone is at. Trudeau also made it official that the Canada-US border will remain closed to non-essential travel until August 21st.

During the Q&A that followed, Trudeau expressed optimism around the vaccine candidate being held up by Chinese customs, and said that in spite of the Russian hacking story, it was important to work with everyone to develop a vaccine and that they were working to get the balance right. When asked if he would appear before committee as invited around the WE Imbroglio, that his House leadership team was looking at the possibilities, but that he also looked forward to taking questions in the Commons next week during the scheduled special sitting day. Chrystia Freeland was asked about what she knew regarding the WE Imbroglio, and she gave a fairly lengthy response about how everyone accepts responsibility for what happened, and apologized, saying that “clearly we made a mistake and we’re going to learn from it,” adding that everyone knew that the PM was connected to WE but didn’t know of his family’s specific financial arrangements, and then added that she still supported the PM and that it was a privilege to serve in his Cabinet. When asked if Quebec had no problems with the strings attached to the billions on the table, Freeland said that they agreed to it like everyone else, and that it was actually a Really Big Deal to get all thirteen provinces and territories to sign onto a deal that includes the municipalities and covered several ministries, saying that it showed that Canadians have understood that we need to work together in this time of crisis.

Shortly after the presser ended, Bardish Chagger and her officials appeared before the Finance committee to discuss the WE Imbroglio. Chagger insisted that nobody in PMO directed her to make an arrangement with WE, but she kept deferring to her officials, which…isn’t really how ministerial responsibility works. There was also talk about how WE had sent an unsolicited proposal to several ministers about a youth programme before this was announced, which WE later came out and said was a youth entrepreneurship programme which had nothing to do with what became the Service Grant programme. This having been said, the senior bureaucrat on the file said that they had three weeks to come up with a programme, and that WE fit the bill for its requirements, which is why they were recommended – and pointed out that potential conflicts are for public office holders to deal with, not bureaucrats (which is true). Up today, the Ethics Committee will begin their own examination into the Imbroglio, so we’ll see if that goes any better.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A curious case for declaratory legislation

Posted on by

A curious story showed up on the CBC website yesterday, wherein justice minister David Lametti stated that if it looked like pandemic delays were going to cause criminal trials to essentially “age out” of the court system as a result of the Jordan decision – meaning that once they reach a certain point, they are deemed to be stayed because they took too long and have become unconstitutional – that he would introduce legislation to “clarify” how the Supreme Court’s Jordan decision was to be clarified. It’s curious because it seems to be a bit of a made-up issue – the Jordan decision already stated that the 30-month timeline allowed for exceptional circumstances, and we can all agree that a global pandemic is by definition an exceptional circumstance. This isn’t to say that declaratory legislation isn’t a valid exercise, because it can be – but it just seems wholly unnecessary in this case, when there are other ways that the government could be better dealing with the criminal justice system and juries than worrying about the Jordan timelines.

In any event, here is defence lawyer Michael Spratt with some thoughts on the story:

Continue reading →

Roundup: A shock-and-awe number

Posted on by

The Conservatives are crowing about their membership numbers in the lead-up to their leadership vote, where some 269,000 Canadians are now eligible to vote – not that they all will, but it’s a shock-and-awe number that they say are bigger than any previous Conservative (or its predecessor parties’) leadership contest – though not quite as large as the Liberal contest that elected Justin Trudeau. And while on paper it’s great that there are so many people who have joined the party, this is one of those traps that have created so many of our problems in this country.

The original sin in Canadian politics was the Liberals’ decision in 1919 to move away from caucus selecting their new leader after Wilfrid Laurier’s death to a delegated convention. From then on, under the guise of being “more democratic,” they ensured that their leaders could henceforth not be held to account by the MPs of their caucus – nor the party, really, because “leadership reviews” are largely bogus exercises (sorry, Thomas Mulcair!). And what ends up happening is that when you have a big number like 260,000 party members, when the leader who winds up being selected in this manner gets into trouble, he or she tells their caucus “I have the democratic legitimacy of these 269,000 votes – the average riding has 75,000 electors. I have the bigger mandate.” It has been the way in which the centralization of power has been justified, and all of abuses of that power have followed.

The other problem is that these kinds of memberships tend to be transactional for the duration of the leadership contest. A good many of these members won’t stick around and to the work of nominations or policy development, which is another reason why these shock-and-awe numbers wind up being hollow in the long run. We do need more people to take out party memberships in this country, but it has to be meaningful engagement, and a leadership contest is not that. It only serves to perpetuate the problems in our system.

 

Good reads: Continue reading →

Roundup: Hot and Bothered for Basic Income

Posted on by

The idea of a Basic Income has been a hobby-horse of parliamentarians for a while, and yesterday the Parliamentary Budget Officer came out with a report that purported to cost one out in a couple of different scenarios. But it’s a bit of a horror show of a report because what it’s actually describing is a cash transfer and not an actual Basic Income scheme, and more than that, some of the things it purports to strip in order to pay for its high price tag are a number of disability supports. Remember that while a Basic Income may sound like a left-wing idea, there is plenty of right-wing support for it if it dismantles the welfare state, where replacing tailored disability programmes with a one-size-fits-all cash transfer is a feature and not a bug. (More from economist Mike Moffatt here).

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280537746881212422

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1280630991661535238

Suffice to say, this report got some senators all hot and bothered, including Senator Yuen Pau Woo, who put out a press release on the topic, calling for a pilot project, so here’s Lindsay Tedds, who worked on BC’s Basic Income project for the last two years, and who knows a thing or two about Basic Income.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280562781142388736

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280643403349291008

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280623432766353408

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280623434410496003

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280624155994361856

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280628328622219265

Continue reading →