Tag Archives: Conservative Leadership

Roundup: Pearl-clutching over fraud

Posted on by

While he didn’t show up at the “virtual” special committee yesterday, prime minister Justin Trudeau nevertheless held his daily presser, during which he announced that they were creating a $470 million programme to support fish harvesters, which would include grants for those businesses who needed a bridge, and EI application rules for those who would have to miss the season because it wasn’t safe. As well, there was another $100 million for an agriculture and food solutions programme through Farm Credit Canada. Trudeau also noted the upcoming long weekend, and said that as of June 1st, some national parks and historical sites would be re-opened to the public – provided the province they are in would allow it – and that there were new restrictions for pleasure craft, with the intention that they not be allowed to head to places where they could infect local populations, particularly in the North.

Meanwhile, the breathless pearl-clutching fraudulent CERB claimants continues unabated, as the National Post procured yet another government documents that allegedly says to grant it even to people who have quit their jobs or been fired with cause, which shouldn’t be allowed. But as Trudeau stated under questions after his presser, the goal was to ensure rapid delivery for the 99 percent of people who were claiming this benefit for legitimate reasons, and that if they had insisted on more robust checks at the beginning of the process, the money still wouldn’t be flowing. This of course hasn’t stopped some of the usual suspects from tweeting bullshit about how the programme is being abused, with zero evidence and using examples that could not actually work. But let’s create a moral panic about it.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1260960640480407552

We also had some observers fanning themselves and reaching for their fainting couches when Liberal MP Wayne Easter, who chairs the finance committee, remarked to Bill Morneau at yesterday’s finance committee meeting, that he wanted a stronger statement from the government that they were going to deal with fraudulent cases. Imagine – an experienced backbencher taking a tough tone with his own party in government! Suffice to say, the message from this government has consistently been that if there is misconduct, it will be caught and dealt with at the appropriate time (and now is not that time). I’m not sure how much more explicit they can actually get, but maybe that’s just me.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Dairy commissions and questions of jurisdiction

Posted on by

There were a couple of announcements for prime minister Justin Trudeau’s daily presser yesterday – that Health Canada had approved a serological test that was critical to the work of the immunity task force; that some $1 billion in additional funds was being allocated to regional development agencies to help struggling businesses; and that the student benefits would be open for applications as of Friday. There were a lot of things that came up during the Q&A – demands from reporters for a budget or a fiscal update, for which Trudeau said that they couldn’t predict what was going to happen in a few weeks, so it didn’t make much sense to try to lay out a plan for the next twelve months. On the Canada-US border, it was strongly hinted that the current closure would continue for another month, but he wasn’t going to speculate past then. He talked about the need to work with provinces and municipalities as transit operators face a huge revenue shortfall. Regarding Norway’s sovereign wealth fund pulling its investments out of the oilsands, he remarked that it was clear that climate considerations were becoming a bigger feature in the investment landscape. He also promised to look into the issue of health researchers in the country facing layoffs because funding sources evaporated and they aren’t eligible for the federal wage subsidy because of a technicality.

And then it was off to the House of Commons, first for the in-person meeting of the Special Committee, which descended into farce fairly quickly and stayed there – Andrew Scheer railing about the revelations that potential fraud of the CERB isn’t being caught up-front, while his MPs both demand easier access to small business supports while clutching their pearls about the potential size of the deficit, apparently blind to the contradiction in their position. Meanwhile, Jagmeet Singh was demanding that the federal government swoop in and offer some kind of national guarantee around long-term care, giving Trudeau the chance to chide him about his disregard for provincial jurisdiction (and Trudeau was a little sharper on this than he often is).

The special committee eventually gave way to a proper emergency sitting of the Commons to pass the latest emergency bill, this time on increasing the borrowing limit of the dairy commission, while many a journalist mischaracterized this as “debating” said bill. There was no debate – it was pre-agreed to, and each party would give a couple of speeches that may or may not be related to the bill before they passed it at all stages for the Senate to adopt on Friday. At the beginning of this, however, Singh was back up with yet another motion, this time to call on the government to ensure that there was universal two-week paid sick leave – which is, once again, provincial jurisdiction. (The motion did not pass). I’m torn between trying to decide if Singh is genuinely clueless about what is and is not federal jurisdiction (a position bolstered by his promises in the election around things like local hospital decisions), or if he’s cynically trying to make it look like the federal government doesn’t care about these issues when they have no actual levers at their disposal to make any of these demands happen. Either way, federalism is a real thing, and trying to play it like it’s not is a real problem for the leader of a federal party.

Continue reading →

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: Possibly a criminal leak

Posted on by

The day got off to a very brow-raising start when someone – meaning almost certainly a minister’s office – leaked StatsCan jobs data ahead of its official release to soften the narrative around it, given that the predicted number of job losses were twice as many as what wound up being reported. This is a big deal – it’s market-moving information that should have criminal consequences for leaking, and yet here we are. And what is particularly galling about this is that I have my suspicions about which minister’s office leaked the information, and it’s one that has been showing a particular pattern of impunity, which is a very bad sign for how this government works – and not to mention how it communicates. Because they can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag, someone took it upon themselves to leak sacrosanct data (which, it needs to be reiterated, should not and cannot happen in a gods damned G7 country) in order to spin the narrative. Heads should roll for this.

And then prime minister Justin Trudeau had his daily presser, acknowledging the jobs numbers before he announced that the government would be extending the wage subsidy beyond June in order to keep the (eventual) economic recovery strong, while also announcing that Navdeep Bains would be leading a new industry strategy council. During the Q&A, Trudeau also had to face questions about why nobody can say “Taiwan” when it comes to thanking them for donations of personal protective equipment, so Trudeau did just that, so I guess certain MPs will need to find something else to have a meltdown over next week.

And for the 75th anniversary of VE Day yesterday, the Queen made a televised address in the footsteps of her father.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Virtual aggression at committee

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau began his daily presser a little earlier than usual, owing to the fact that the Commons’ Special Committee on COVID-19 was meeting at noon, and today, the announcement was for $252 million in aid for food producers and the agri-food sector – which he assured us was a “first step,” as the industry representatives have been asking for some $2.6 billion in aid. Some of this aid was for beef and hog producers to keep their animals longer, given that meat processing plants have faced outbreaks and been shut down; other funds were for the government to buy stocks of produce that is facing the risk of expiring, in the hopes that it can be distributed elsewhere. During the Q&A, when asked about news that there were eyewitnesses to the crash of the Canadian Forces Cyclone helicopter off the coast of Greece, Trudeau responded that the military has their protocols for notification that he respected.

And then there was the “virtual” Special Committee meeting, which was a decidedly less friendly tone than it had been last week. MPs asking questions were constantly interrupting ministers because they felt they were going too long (because talking points need to be recited), some MPs had signs up in their backgrounds which they wouldn’t have been able to get away with in a regular Commons sitting or committee meeting, and some MPs felt the need to lob personal insults as part of their questions – and the Chair said nothing of it. In fact, had they done so during QP, the other MPs in the chamber would have raised hell, and the Speaker would have been obliged to say something, if only a warning about inflammatory language. But because it’s “virtual” and there can be no heckling, some MPs are feeling emboldened. I suspect it’s also the kind of emboldened attitude that people have when they abuse customer service people over the phone because they don’t have to look them in the eye, and this goes directly to my warnings about the social contagion that will accompany any attempts to solidify “virtual sittings” of Parliament.

The other thing of note was that MPs were asking questions about things that were outside the ambit of the committee, which is supposed to be about the pandemic response. Questions about the assault rifle ban are not about pandemic response, and those should have been ruled out of order. As well, the thing that kept getting asked repeatedly during the hearing was the notion that the government should deny aid to companies who use legal tax havens, because they are “immoral.” It’s a bit galling for MPs to be calling on the government to deny aid to people who work for those companies, particularly since they are not engaging in illegal behaviour. The minister, Diane Lebouthillier, kept repeating that the CRA was investigating anyone using illegal tax avoidance, but wouldn’t call out that what was being demanded was problematic. The other reason why those demands are problematic is they keep saying “Demark did it!” without offering any kind of analysis of how Denmark’s tax system compares to Canada’s, particularly where tax havens are concerned. When Denmark introduced their 75 percent wage subsidy and people kept pointing to it, they ignored the list of caveats that accompanied it, which was vital context. But hey, parties need soundbites and clips for their social media, even now.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bringing in the assault-rifle ban

Posted on by

For the second day in a row, prime minister Justin Trudeau held his daily presser in the West Block instead of outside of Rideau Cottage, and once again, he was flanked by Cabinet ministers for an announcement – this time it was to declare that he had signed an Order-in-Council that relegated some 1500 “assault-style” rifles to be illegal, effective immediately, with a two-year amnesty period while they sorted out the legislation around the buy-back programme that was going to accompany it, which would be tabled as soon as we got back to regular parliamentary operations, along with a budget. They took great care to say that legitimate hunters and sport-shooters were not being targeted, and Chrystia Freeland spun a homily about her father the farmer taking his hunting rifle to scare off bears and to shoot prairie chickens that would become dinner – but also made the point that part of what they were doing was targeting the fetishization of particular weapons as part of gun culture.

The reaction was fast and furious – the Conservatives considered it to be pure politics and that they were taking advantage of the tragedy in Nova Scotia to score points (because they never did that). Jason Kenney was predictably apoplectic and declared that he was looking at replacing the federal firearms officer with a provincial chief firearms officer for all the good it would do, considering that these changes are under the Criminal Code, which is federal jurisdiction. Many gun control advocates said that these measures didn’t go far enough, and that they didn’t live up to the promises that the Liberals made during the election. There is also the very legitimate criticism that these kinds of measures are useless unless more attention and resources are poured into security the border against illegal gun smuggling, which is how a great many illegal firearms wind up in this country.

Add to that was a great deal of hue and cry about the way in which this government went about doing this, which is by Order-in-Council, and many a voice over social media including some reporters who should know better that this was all very unseemly in a “minority government.” (Reminder that there is no such thing as a “minority government” – we have a hung parliament but a government is a government regardless of whether they hold a majority of seats in the legislature or not, because government is Cabinet). So, to break it down, it’s not unseemly because this kind of ban happens through regulation – the legislative framework is already in the Criminal Code. And you want this kind of ban list in regulation because you’re not going to amend the Criminal Code every time you need to add or subtract a particular make of weapon from the prohibited list. That’s why regulation exists, and has its own consultative processes and review by the Scrutiny of Regulations committee in Parliament. The government will still need legislation for their buy-back programme and any other assorted measures to mitigate and compensate current owners, and even though it’s a hung parliament, the Bloc and NDP are almost certainly going to be in support of these measures, so that’s less of a concern for them.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1256259714234679301

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1256266671083454465

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mourning a fallen helicopter crew

Posted on by

In light of the news of the downed military helicopter, prime minister Justin Trudeau’s daily presser took on a different format – he was in the West Block today instead of outside of Rideau Cottage, and this time flanked by the minister of national defence, Harjit Sajjan, as well as Chief of Defence Staff, General Jonathan Vance, and the deputy minister of national defence, Jody Thomas. They largely laid out what information they had and their condolences for the families and colleagues of those dead and missing. During the Q&A, non-crash questions largely revolved around the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report earlier that morning on the projected size of the deficit given the various emergency measures, and given that so many of my media colleagues only have a certain number of pre-set narratives when it comes to the deficit, it went about as well as could be expected when Trudeau refused to bite.

On the subject of the deficit, here is a good thread from economist Trevor Tombe, as well as some additional thoughts from Kevin Milligan.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1255882692610027520

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1255884110368669696

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1255885291182669829

Continue reading →

Roundup: Concern over student measures

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau’s daily presser was shorter than usual – not much news other than the fact that the legislation for student measures would be coming up that afternoon, and oh yeah, the Snowbirds would be doing flyovers across the country as a salute to front-line workers, which immediately got everyone up in arms over how useless it was (but one suspects it’s also about finding a way for them to keep up their flying hours while airshows are grounded pretty much for the rest of the year). During the Q&A, there were yet more questions on trying to goad some kind of federal strong-arming the provinces over re-openings and to have their guidelines include “hard numbers,” whereas Trudeau kept falling back on “foundational elements” and consultations, and of course jurisdictional differences. He also wouldn’t say that he would mandate that meat-packing plants stay open given that there have been outbreaks in several of them (and pre-pandemic, one major plant had been shut down because it couldn’t pass inspection). He also said that there were discussions with the CFL given that they are likely going to have to cancel their season, which again had people grousing about the possibility of a bailout there (though as far as professional sports in this country goes, I would hazard to say that the CFL is one of the least dominated by millionaires).

And then there was the House of Commons. After the “special committee” met in-person in the Chamber for their designated two-and-a-half hours, things shifted to a regular-ish sitting, with the Speaker in robes and in the Big Chair, and the Mace on the table, to discuss the bill on the student measures. This one seems to have been a bit more controversial than other measures, because the Conservatives were demanding that it include measures to ensure that students would still look for jobs (in the middle of a global pandemic, no less) because it’s terrible that they could get paid for staying at home (in the middle of a global pandemic), while the NDP were howling that the measures weren’t as generous as the CERB, forgetting that if students had made more than $5000 last year because they worked enough, they were eligible for the CERB, and this student programme was intended for those who had different circumstances, while also being paired with other enriched benefits. Nevertheless, the government did relent and ensured that a ticky-box would be added to the student application portal to attest that yes, they were looking for a job, while they did increase the benefit levels for students with disabilities or dependants. Crisis averted. The bill heads to the Senate, but not until Friday, for some unknown reason.

I do find the insistence by the Conservatives and the Bloc that these students be forced to work on farms or the like to be problematic because we’ve heard from agricultural producers that this is usually specialized work, and you can’t just send untrained students to do it (which kind of goes to the point about why we should pay the migrant workers with the specialized knowledge more, and ensure that they have pathways to citizenship). As for the pearl-clutching that students might make more on the government wage replacements for the duration of the pandemic instead of taking low-paid jobs that with no guarantee of safety in the course of a pandemic, it does make me wonder if part of that lesson isn’t actually that maybe employers should be offering higher wages rather than demanding that the government enforce their being artificially low. But hey, since when does basic economics enter into the equation?

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Committee Zoom™

Posted on by

For his Tuesday presser, prime minister Justin Trudeau noted the reports of his mother being sent to hospital when her apartment building in Montreal caught fire, and assured everyone that he had spoken to her and that she is doing fine. There wasn’t much in the way of news to share – noting that new federal modelling numbers for the course of the pandemic would be released shortly (and they were, with the same obligatory dumb questions as though these were predictions and not tools for planning purposes), and that their federal guidelines would also be forthcoming later in the day (and they too were). The Q&A was mostly focused on attempts to get Trudeau to say whether or not he would make any potential COVID-19 vaccine mandatory, some obligatory Francophone outrage that some of the personal protective equipment coming into the country didn’t have French labelling, and several attempts for him to give his personal opinion on whether he would send his kids to school if they were reopened when Quebec’s intend to be (which he dodged repeatedly, talking about science and evidence).

And then came the Great Virtual Committee Meeting – which was not a sitting of the House of Commons as so many people kept calling it. I settled on Committee Zoom™ as what I was going to call it, for what it’s worth. It started off with a ministerial statement from Patty Hajdu, followed by each other party offering a response of equal length, none of which had any bearing on what she was talking about, because we don’t actually debate in this country any longer – we just read prepared speeches past one another. After a brief interruption for petitions, we got down to the questions – five-minute rounds started with Scheer (who was the only leader to ask questions; Jagmeet Singh was wholly absent from the entire day), and then distributed through the parties in what appeared to be the QP rotation list that included obsequious backbench suck-up questions from the Liberals. But it was glitchy – lots of mute button errors, interruptions when MPs didn’t mute properly, constant challenges with the translation channels and which channel the MP was speaking on (some of those points of order leading to huge digressions as points mounted), a couple of Ministers whose connections were poor and made for very bad sound (spare a thought for the poor transcriptionists in Hansard),

Of course, everyone’s takeaway seems to be just how civil the whole thing was, and that there was no heckling. The closest we got was when Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner was fairly aggressively asking questions and interrupting the responses she felt were taking too long. But without the clapping (which needs to die regardless) and the heckling, everyone has taken up with the impression that this was somehow preferable to QP. It’s not. Sure, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith has a point about the questions being generally better, but this was also the function of it not being on a 35-second clock, which QP needs to do away with as it is. That would help matters immensely. But the flip-side of this format is that ministers were able to give non-sequitur talking point answers that had nothing to do with what was asked of them (particularly the ones around tax havens), which is one of the places where heckling in the Chamber would actually help get that point across. Heckling doesn’t need to be just the jeering, hooting baboons that it can be (and yes, it absolutely can be). As well, there is a need for some theatre in politics, and I don’t see the long-term benefit of being robbed of it by trying to make this a more permanent feature as people are already salivating at the prospect of. The unintended consequences will be far worse than you can possibly imagine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Responsibility for re-opening

Posted on by

For his Monday presser, prime minister Justin Trudeau didn’t have a lot of news – mostly talking about how the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy was now available for application, and that payments would be going out next week for businesses that are approved, and that they were working with the opposition on legislation for the new measures for students announced last week. And sure enough, later in the day, notice was given that the Commons would sit in some capacity on Wednesday, after their “special committee,” to pass said bill. (No word yet on whether the Senate gets recalled for Wednesday evening or Thursday morning). During the Q&A, Trudeau had to once again reiterate that he was loathe to enact the Emergencies Act, which people are still demanding that he do for some strange reason. He also stated once again the even though provinces may have different timelines when it comes to re-opening their economies (because, once again, each province has a different epidemiology), those provinces have rights and obligations around local measures, while the federal role was to provide guidelines that they should follow. Again, the notion that he should swoop in and take over their areas of jurisdiction remains a deeply frustrating one.

This jurisdictional howling will only get worse as both Ontario and Quebec unveiled their re-opening plans yesterday, Ontario starting with guideposts before they will move to next steps, while Quebec has decided that they will start opening some schools in two weeks, which has everyone alarmed that it’s too soon, and that they don’t understand the epidemiology of this disease, because it can and does affect children and they may actually be asymptomatic and become major spreaders. So that’s fun.

Meanwhile, the first “virtual” meeting of MPs in a Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic meets today, and everyone is going to call it a “historic first virtual sitting of Parliament,” and they’ll be wrong. Because it’s not a sitting of the Commons, it’s a special committee, that the Speaker will be chairing from a committee room in the West Block. And you can bet that Trudeau and others will pat themselves on the back for this, and “Because it’s 2020,” and that kind of noise, but it’s an absurdly unwieldy committee, and that’s it. Treat it with only that amount of reverence. (And look for my column on why this matters later today).

Continue reading →