Tag Archives: EI Reform

QP: A personal tale of witnessing injustice

Posted on by

The prime minister was off to Los Angeles for the Summit of the Americas, we had two other leaders present, plus the deputy prime minister, so that was something. Candice Bergen led off, script on her mini-lectern, decrying Canadians skipping meals, saying that they don’t want a “top-up cheque” but want prices to stop rising. (If only the Canadian federal government had the power to control the world price of oil and to stop droughts in food-producing regions). Chrystia Freeland praised her government’s job-centred recovery and the record-low levels of unemployment. Bergen insisted that the government’s fiscal policy was a mess, and raised Bill Morneau’s revisionist concerns, to which Freeland listed the inflation-indexed benefits that families and seniors were getting. Bergen pivoted to rising gun crimes and accused the government of being soft on crime, and Freeland offered a personal story about her mother doing legal aid work for Indigenous clients in Northern Alberta, and she could see first-hand how the justice system treats them, which was why this government was making changes. Luc Berthold took over in French to decry the abolition of mandatory minimums, and Freeland repeated the same story in French. Berthold then pivoted to the cost of living concerns, complaining that their gimmick-laden Supply Day motion was defeated. Freeland wondered why the Conservatives didn’t support their own “concrete” assistance to low-income households.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he insisted that a third of Quebec seniors were losing purchasing power because of rising inflation. Freeland said that she had good news—that OAS was going up by ten percent this summer. Blanchet did not deviate from his question and insisted the same again, and Freeland reminded him that these benefits are already indexed to inflation.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded the GST credit and Canada Child Benefit be doubled. Freeland stated that there were targeted measures already going out. Rachel Blaney repeated the question in English with added sanctimony, and Freeland insisted that they looked ahead and set five particular programmes in motion before this summer hits.

Continue reading →

QP: Appealing to the NDP Whip?

Posted on by

While the prime minister was away, none of the other leaders were present either, though the deputy PM was attending virtually. Luc Berthold led off, and he decried Motion 11 on extending sitting hours, and wondered if the NDP were be whipped on the vote (which…isn’t really a question to the government, as much as they’re trying to be clever about there allegedly being a coalition). Kevin Lamoureux insisted this was simply about more hours for debate, which surely nobody could object to. (Note that there are things that can be objected to, but neither side will be reasonable in the discussion). Berthold then listed off some torqued versions of this government’s ethical lapses, and wondered if someone on the other side would say enough was enough, and Lamoureux dismissed this as mere personal attacks. Berthold demanded that the RCMP re-open the investigation into the Aga Khan vacation—never mind that they already concluded that there was no evidence—and Lamoureux dismissed it again as personal attacks instead of focusing on things that matter. James Bezan took over in English to demand an RCMP investigation, and Lamoureux insisted that this was simply character assassination. Bezan tried to pretend he was a prosecutor who had obtained a witness box confession, and Lamoureux deployed the “three leaders ago” quip.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he praised the police action over the weekend with the “bike rally” and how they didn’t need the Emergencies Act, and he wondered if it was necessary at all months ago. Marco Mendicino also praised the police’s actions, and said that the invoked the Emergencies Act at the time because it was needed. Therrien spun a version of events during the occupation that presumed more federal powers than exist, and Mendicino repeated that they needed the Act that time.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and in French, and he lamented that federal COVID sickness benefits were expiring, and Karina Gould appeared by video to say that they extended EI sickness benefits, which was not the same thing. Daniel Blaikie took over to add some sanctimony to the question, and demanded the benefits be extended, and Gould listed actions they have taken around sick days (for federally-regulated sectors) and EI modernisation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Incoherent housing plans

Posted on by

We are now on or about day fifty-eight of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russia has declared victory when it comes to their siege of the strategic city of Mariupol, and has ordered its troops not to storm the last pocket of resistance there. But hey, they’ve “liberated” the city by shelling it to rubble, so good job there. It is estimated that some 2000 Ukrainian troops remain on site, spread out in a network of tunnels and bunkers, along with several thousand civilians. Of course, this also means that Russian forces are likely going to simply try and wait out those remaining troops and civilians as they run out of food and supplies, and trap them inside.

Closer to home, Pierre Poilievre has been unveiling more of his housing platform, but…it’s pretty incoherent, in a lot of ways. There isn’t that much financial leverage that the federal government can wield when it comes to ending NIMBYism and seven decades of market incentives for single-family homes that are unsustainable and which only continue to exacerbate the affordability crisis (not to mention the climate crisis). Oh, and Poilievre is defending his own rental property portfolio, citing that he’s providing affordable rental accommodations to two “deserving families.”

The last point on that list is pretty critical—it would undermine central bank independence, and one imagines could actually create a deflationary spiral in the right circumstances that would create a depression, which is precisely what they were avoiding when they engaged in quantitative easing during the pandemic recession. Jennifer Robson has even more concerns about the incoherence of the plan in this thread. Meanwhile, I would also recommend checking out this thread by Mike Moffatt about just how complex the drivers of the housing situation in Ontario is. It’s not just one thing—it’s a lot of moving parts that got us to where we are now.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1517214855572320256

Continue reading →

QP: Bland assurances about Arctic sovereignty

Posted on by

For Thursday, neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present, nor were most of the the other leaders, save one. Luc Berthold led off, with a script but without a mini-lectern, and in French, he worried about the disinformation circulating about the invasion of Ukraine, but wedged this into a question about expelling the Russian ambassador. Anita Anand rose, not to answer but to recognise the presence of Ukraine’s chargé d’affaires in the gallery, which was against the rules—which the Speaker reminded her of—before Anand made a bland statement. Berthold worried about the state of our military’s readiness should Putin carry on, and Anand assured him that of course we are ready and that nothing has been neglected, before she read out what new lethal aid was provided to Ukraine this morning. Raquel Dancho took over in English to again demand to know what meetings she has had to prepare for Russian threats of retaliation. Anand assured her that they were prepared for any eventuality, and mentioned working with American counterparts to modernise NORAD as a priority. Dancho worried that we did not have sufficient military assets in the Arctic, and wanted further reassurances, and Anand repeated her reassurances before saying that we need to be non-provocative and rational in this situation. Berthold took back over to repeat the question about what we are doing about deterrence to keep Russia from invading the Arctic. Anand repeated that we would work with the US, and stated that the Coast Guard would defend us.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and worried that the government’s emergency travel documents for Ukrainian refugees would take too long, and Anand read that what was announced today would reduce red tape and would hasten passage for Ukrainians, and there was no limit to how many were would take in. Normandin stated the need for an emergency airlift operation, and Anand spoke about more measures for these refugees but did not commit to an airlift.

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, in person, and demanded more sanctions against more Russian oligarchs, to which Anand, after some hesitation, listed those already under sanction and said that they were working with allies to impose yet more sanctions. Singh repeated the question in French, and Anand repeated her response in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A plan to tax the unvaxxed

Posted on by

By all accounts, it sounded like Quebec premier François Legault was spit-balling policy when, at the press conference to announce the province’s new chief public health officer, he proposed that the province impose additional costs on the unvaccinated in the form of some kind of surtax that would be “significant,” meaning more than $100. There were no details, which is kind of a big deal, but you immediately had other political leaders worried about “slippery slopes,” as though we don’t have other sin taxes on things like alcohol and cigarettes which impose their own significant public health burdens, as well as concerns that this will further disenfranchise those who are already marginalised. And fair enough.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1481062196314624000

The concerns about whether this somehow contravenes the Canada Health Act seem to be overblown, as it’s not charging for healthcare services, but other concerns about just how this might be implemented remain, as professors like Jennifer Robson articulate below.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, an electoral agreement won’t work

Posted on by

Because Doug Ford and his merry band of incompetent murderclowns have decided to make Ontario miserable again with eleventh-hour changes and nonsensical measures (sorry, guys, but I am going to be insufferably bitter about the gyms being closed down again), there is once again talk about how the provincial Liberals and the NDP need to come to some kind of agreement in order to get Ford out. Which is insane.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1478063212281085953

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1478064242985246720

The Liberals and NDP, provincially and federally, are not the same party, don’t have the same positions, and even if they both err on the side of progressivity, and frankly, it’s a major betrayal of local democracy if you’re telling your riding associations not to run candidates because of some cockamamie plan that involves dubious polls or results from an election three-and-a-half years ago with other factors in play which are irrelevant to the current context. Sorry, but no. The opposition parties need to come up with a coherent message and plan to sell to the people of Ontario, and to be steadfast in holding Ford to account rather than letting him get away with his folksy aw-shucks routine. It means the parties need to organise their ground game. It means a proper electoral contest, not a theoretical exercise based on bullshit reasoning.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding the inflation target

Posted on by

With the prime minister virtually attending Biden’s “democracy summit,” and Chrystia Freeland absent, it was promising to be a rockier day in the Commons. Erin O’Toole led off, his script on his mini-lectern, and he brayed about inflation, housing prices, and coming interest rate hikes. Ahmed Hussen reminded him that they were the federal party that restored leadership to the housing file and he praised the National Housing Strategy. O’Toole raised the prospect of predicted food price hikes, and then pretended that Trudeau and Freeland were in the Chamber and not answer, and Randy Boissonnault, in his role as associate finance minster, reminded O’Toole about the Bank of Canada’s inflation target. O’Toole pretended that the prime minster ignored his responses about the Bank’s mandate and worried it would be changed, to which Boissonnault reminded him that the Bank is independent. O’Toole switched to French to misleadingly say that the Liberals planned to abandon the inflation targeting mandate, and Hussen repeated his first response, and called out the nonsense in the Conservatives’ supply day motion. O’Toole returned to braying about inflation in French, and Boissonnault repeated in French about the Bank’s mandate, before reciting some good news talking points.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he worried that the Auditor General showed that thirty percent of COVID tests were lost or mislabelled, for which Duclos said that he thanked the AG for her work, and said they would examine the results. Therrien worried about the stat that fourteen percent of those tested were never notified, but Duclos gave a bromide about working to prevent omicron.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and after citing a report on growing inequality (I would be dubious of that given that the Canadian trajectory has not been the same as the US), and he demanded a tax on the super-wealthy, for which Boissonnault listed measures to help those in need. Singh repeated the question in French, and Boissonnault read measures in the Liberal platform about taxing banks and insurance companies.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Return of the two Michaels

Posted on by

Friday was very much an exercise in life coming at one fast, as Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with American authorities, and hours later, the extradition order she was under was dropped and she was free to return to China. A few hours after that, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were on their way back to Canada, the fig leaf that their arrests were not hostage diplomacy in retaliation for Meng’s arrest completely gone, and they arrived on Canadian soil in the early hours of Saturday morning, with prime minister Justin Trudeau and foreign affairs minister Marc Garneau greeting them on the tarmac in Calgary. Spavor debarked there, Kovrig then continued onto Toronto, where he was met by his estranged wife and his sister.

With all of this in mind, there are questions as to where our relationship with China goes next. Garneau says that they are “eyes wide open,” and that they are now following a four-fold approach to China: “coexist,” “compete,” “co-operate,” and “challenge” – which seems to be a more articulate policy direction than the “tough but smart” that Garneau’s predecessor, François-Philippe Champagne stated several months ago. This certainly came up during the election, but the Liberals didn’t articulate much of a foreign policy in their platform, and we got very little in the way of debate on the subject. It is not insignificant, however, that Canada did lead a group of Western allies in a pact against the use of hostage diplomacy, whether practice by China or others (and there are others), so it’s not like the government sat on their hands the whole time either. It will also be exceedingly difficult to disentangle our trade from China – particularly in our agricultural sector – so it will be very interesting to see what this process looks like going forward over the next couple of years.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Singh needs to start giving details

Posted on by

We have seen plenty of coverage thus far in the election about how popular Jagmeet Singh is, and how authentic he seems to his audience, and plenty about his personal likeability, but I am not seeing a lot that is pushing back against the things he is proposing. We have a couple of such examples yesterday, first with his pharmacare proposal. Essentially, the current government has put in the work, and established the Canada Drug Agency transition office, and thus far has signed up one province – Prince Edward Island. The other premiers have all balked at this, including the NDP premier of British Columbia, John Horgan, which I find mighty interesting in the current context. So, just what would Singh do differently? Well, he won’t say. Per the CBC:

When pressed by reporters on how he would get the provinces to sign onto his plan, Singh was light on details but committed to partnering with provincial and territorial governments. “We’d work with provinces and territories, I know it’s going to be hard work, but it’s going to save families money,” he said.

Great. He’ll “partner” with provinces that have thus far said no, and lo, he’ll do it by next year when it’s going to take years to negotiate a national formulary for said programme – something that seems to be a surprise to Singh, if you go by their stunt of a private members’ bill in the previous parliament, where they essentially proposed a framework where the provinces pay for prescription drugs and the federal government will then sign over a cheque. Yeah, it doesn’t really work like that. But I haven’t seen this being hammered home – you can’t just keep handwaving promises, particularly promises in areas of provincial jurisdiction, and not provide details on how you’ll accomplish it, and no, just promising to “work with” those provinces is not good enough. The current government has been doing that, and if you’re going to complain that they haven’t moved fast enough, then you need to explain how you’re going to do it differently. And no, the fact that you’re not Justin Trudeau is not an answer.

But he didn’t stop there. No, he also opined on vaccine passports, saying that the federal government should just go ahead and implement it federally – but again, didn’t say how they should, given that they don’t control the vaccination data because the delivery of healthcare is a provincial jurisdiction. These particular details matter, and you can’t just handwave them away. We need to start pressing Singh for details, because his answers aren’t good enough, and if he’s going to present himself as a serious contender for government, he needs to be asked the implementation questions so that he can answer them – and be made to answer them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Subjecting a minister to a double standard

Posted on by

I found myself bemused at the CBC story yesterday about Carolyn Bennett’s office allegedly being some kind of “toxic work environment,” according to a number of former staffers. Reading the piece, however, says little about Bennett herself – other than hammering on the point that she didn’t get along with Jody Wilson-Raybould, as though that were somehow relevant to her office – but rather that the toxicity was related to other staffers in the office who were clannish and played favourites with other staffers. The story made great pains to say that Indigenous staff felt their voices weren’t being heard on policy files, but again, this is about the behaviors of other staffers and not the minister herself.

This all having been said, I am forced to wonder whether anyone could reasonably expect a minister’s office to be some kind of normal office environment, because I can’t really see it. These places are pressure cookers of constant deadlines and stress, and there’s a reason why they tend to be populated by fairly young staffers, many of them recent graduates, which is because they are willing to put up with the long hours, constant travel, and the obliteration of their personal lives where older staffers with families and obligations largely wouldn’t. And while we can say we’d prefer that these offices are healthy work environments and safe spaces, but this is politics at the highest levels in this country. It’s not going to be pretty, as much as we may like it to be.

https://twitter.com/jec79/status/1417870826934730753

https://twitter.com/jec79/status/1417948347009101827

I also think it bears noting that Bennett has been the subject of a lot of criticism that is never given to male ministers, and in particular with the dust-up over her snarky text message with Wilson-Raybould a few weeks ago, seems subject to a double standard that women in ministerial roles are not allowed to have personality conflicts where this, again, is not even blinked at among men. Under this context, the CBC piece looks to be both catering to these double-standards, and looking like they have an axe to grind with Bennett, for whatever the reason.

Continue reading →