Tag Archives: Euthanasia

Roundup: The COVAX conundrum

Posted on by

It was another day of less than optimal vaccine news yesterday – first a warning that there was going to be more fluctuation in future shipments including what appears to be another reduction in the next Moderna shipment (of which we’re still not sure the allocation yet), followed by news that we are in line for a shipment from the COVAX facility, which comes with its own particular special challenges.

Why? Because part of COVAX is to provide vaccines to the developing world, and it appears that Canada is accepting vaccines that would be going to them. Except that’s not the deal we signed – while we are funding vaccines for the developing world through COVAX (and will be sending our excess doses once our own population is vaccinated), part of the procurement diversification strategy was the stream under COVAX that we get some doses while also funding for the developing world. But of course, that wasn’t clearly explained – and the minister did have to do the media rounds to do that later in the day, by which it was too late, and you had everyone tut-tutting that we’re taking doses from those who need it more than we do. Which, incidentally, is happening at the same time that the government is being yelled at for not procuring more doses faster (as though yelling will make Pfizer’s retooling go faster or Moderna’s supply chain issues resolve themselves), and lo, we have doses that we paid for, but we’re going to look like jerks if we take them. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. Good thing this government can communicate effectively. Oh, wait…

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not another Supreme Court reference

Posted on by

The medical assistance in dying bill is finally before the Senate’s legal and constitutional affairs committee, as the (extended) deadline approaches for it to be passed to comply with a Quebec court ruling, and we have justice minister David Lametti saying that there is always the possibility that they could yet refer this bill to the Supreme Court of Canada to get their judgment on whether it will meet the courts’ requirements. And I just cannot with this.

This is part of a pattern in this country where anytime there is a contentious or “moral” issue, parliamentarians of all stripes get afraid to put their necks on the line for something – no matter how right the cause is – and insist that the courts weigh in so that they can do the performative action of looking like they were dragged, kicking and screaming, into complying. They did this with lesbian and gay rights, they did this with safe injection sites, they did this with prostitution laws, and they did this with assisted dying – and in the cases of both prostitution laws and assisted dying, the laws drafted to replace those that were struck down were not going to comply with the court’s rulings, and yet they went ahead with them anyway so that they could force a new round of court challenges to really put on a show of kicking and screaming. It’s spineless, and it causes so much more unnecessary suffering (and in some cases, like with prostitution laws, deaths) when better laws could and should be drafted, but those MPs and senators who push for full compliance get sidelined by the skittish majority. And in the case of assisted dying, so many of those pushing to go back to the courts are simply seeking to re-litigate the action, which is not going to happen. A unanimous decision is not going to be scaled back on a second hearing.

While I am encouraged that Lametti did try to say that this option is not the best one, and his office later clarified that they have no plan to have yet another reference on assisted dying, but the fact that you have his clamour of people who don’t want to either make a decision, or who want to re-litigate the same issues, clamouring to send this back to the Supreme Court is disappointing. That parliament can’t respond to the Court’s ruling in a reasonable manner is one of the most irritating things about how we run this country, and it would be great if our MPs (and some senators) could forego the theatrics.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More year-enders, more bland assurances

Posted on by

The year-ender interviews with the prime minster continue to roll out, so we’ll see how much in there is actually newsworthy. Still from The Canadian Press’ year-ender, Trudeau said that the government is trying to find “balance” with its ability to be transparent while still able to have no-holds-barred closed-door discussions like they do in Cabinet, all in response to questions about why the government is so slow at its promised reforms to the Access to Information system.

From the CBC, Trudeau said that the 500,000 Canadians who got “educational” letters from the CRA about their CERB payments won’t need to repay by the end of the year, as some had feared – never mind that the government created this problem when they weren’t clear about what the eligibility criteria were.

To CTV, Trudeau said that the target date of having Canadians vaccinated by September is something of a conservative estimate – it could happen faster, but it could also happen more slowly, depending on supply chain issues like those that have hit Pfizer already. He also said that he’s less concerned about the comparisons with the US as having plans to inoculate people at a faster per-capita rate, noting that they have much bigger challenges in their healthcare system, hinting that their estimates may be overly optimistic.

Monetary policy

Andrew Scheer is back at shitposting, this time spreading lies about the Bank of Canada and their use of quantitative easing during the pandemic recession. Quantitative easing is not actually just “printing money,” and it’s not going to cause runaway inflation. In fact, we’re running so far below our inflationary targets that the Bank should be running expansionary monetary policy – and yes, the Bank has a helpful primer on quantitative easing for people like Scheer and Pierre Poilievre if they cared to learn. But they don’t, and are jeopardizing the independence of the central bank by keeping up this particular policy of lies and shitposting to try and score points.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1339640374751596544

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1339643586204348418

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unleash the year-ender interviews

Posted on by

It’s year-end interview season, and prime minister Justin Trudeau had a number of them yesterday, so let’s dig through what he had to say in them. To CityTV, Trudeau said that if he could do anything over again, it would be that he would act faster on procuring more personal protective equipment for front-line workers (and here I would have thought he’d say he’d step back from the whole WE Charity/Canada Student Grant decision). This also appears to have been an influence in the decision to hedge bets when it came to vaccine procurement and get options on a wide variety of options from a variety of suppliers in a wide variety of countries. When asked when he planned to get the vaccine, he said that he wouldn’t until they open it up for healthy people in their 40s.

To The Canadian Press, Trudeau hinted that provinces who don’t sign on for national standards to long-term care won’t get additional funding to meet those standards, which sounds like a much tougher stance than the provinces are hoping to get away with. Of course, we have enough instances in recent memory of provinces who took health transfers and spent them on other things, or other transfers to address “fiscal imbalances” that got turned into tax cuts, so you can bet that federal governments are going to be gun-shy about provinces who think that they should get money without strings attached. On the subject of the next Chief of Defence Staff, Trudeau said that he expects their priority will be to address systemic racism in the Forces, which sounds about right.

Finally, the year-ender for Global’s West Block won’t air until this weekend, but they released a preview clip wherein Trudeau says he’s hoping for good news on the two Michaels in Chinese custody before the year is out. I’m pretty sure that’s not going to happen, but it’s certainly on-brand for Trudeau to try and strike an optimistic note about it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: CRA changed the rules

Posted on by

There has been a lot of consternation over the past few days of the “education letters” that CRA has been sending to people to say that they can’t verify their incomes and that they may need to repay their CERB benefits. The big complication, however, is that it appears that the CRA had quietly changed its income criteria from gross income to net income. But reporters have receipts, and CRA did make changes that they aren’t saying.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1338505818090725378

This does seem to be something that the minister should probably look into, because this certainly looks bad for the CRA and like they are acting in bad faith – as the government keeps insisting that they will encourage flexibility and leniency for those who made mistakes “in good faith.” But if the mistake was CRA’s – or that they deliberately changed the criteria for whatever reason – then this is more than just people making errors in good faith, and punishing people for the CRA’s screw-ups is a really bad look in the current context.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bold new climate action

Posted on by

As expected, Justin Trudeau and Jonathan Wilkinson (along with Steven Guilbeault for good measure) announced the next round of climate action to get us to the Paris targets, and it includes a rapidly increasing carbon price, which immediately had conservative premiers like Doug Ford and Jason Kenney go into full meltdown about how this was going to crush the economy and make life unaffordable for people – never mind that it’s designed to be revenue neutral. We even had political show hosts try to frame this issue as “can we afford climate action when the economy is terrible?” which is both irresponsible in that it presents a false binary and a wrong expectation that climate action is costly as opposed to able to provide cost savings. As part of this, a more enhanced rebate for those provinces subject to the federal price was announced so that people will be getting larger quarterly front-loaded rebates so that they can offset their increased costs and make smarter choices and keep more of their money.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1337535225245655041

Meanwhile, Heather Scoffield declares the plan to be bold, but worries that there is no alternative to a carbon price if the Supreme Court of Canada strikes down the current one (but that ignores that they could impose it by a different legislative mechanism). Paul Wells is also surprised by the audacity of the plan, given that this government likes to try and take the easy route rather than make the politically hard sell of carbon pricing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Telling the premiers no

Posted on by

The prime minister met with the premiers (virtually) yesterday, and while there was talk about the vaccine roll-out and that kind of good stuff, there was also a discussion about healthcare transfers – or more specifically, the premiers’ demand for some $28 billion in permanent new transfers with no strings attached. Justin Trudeau, to his credit, said no – or more specifically, he does see a role for the federal government to pay more, but now is not the time to discuss how much, and you can bet that it’s going to come with plenty of strings for new programmes that the federal government wants to launch, like pharmacare and national standards for long-term care.

There are a few things to remember about why there need to be strings attached to this money. One is that we can’t trust that provinces will actually spend this on healthcare, and lo, we have precedence for this. Prior to the Harper government capping the health transfer escalator at three percent or GDP growth (whichever was higher), healthcare spending increases by the provinces were far below what the health transfer escalator was – meaning that the provinces were not spending healthcare money on healthcare. Additionally, some of you may remember when Stephen Harper fell for Jean Charest’s bogus demands to address a “fiscal imbalance” between Ottawa and Quebec, so when Harper – desperate for Quebec votes – turned over a pile of money to Charest to address said bogus “imbalance,” Charest turned around and turned that into tax cuts, burning Harper in the process. On top of that, we have seen plenty of provinces during this pandemic alone just sitting on the money the federal government gave them to deal with it. So no, we should not trust that provinces will spend it wisely.

As well, the premiers have been misrepresenting the history of health transfers, citing the “it used to be 50-50” line, without acknowledging why it changed, which was to give the provinces tax points that they could use for healthcare or other programmes. There is a great thread here that you should all read that spells it out, and why we should take these provincial (and Bloc, NDP and now Conservative) talking points with a shaker of salt, because they’re misrepresenting history.

Last sitting day

Given that this is the last sitting day of 2020, I suspect that we may see a unanimous consent motion to pass a number of bills in one fell swoop before the Commons rises, being the UK trade deal bill, the Elections Act bill, and quite possibly the fiscal update implementation bill. Why those three? There are worries about trade disruptions if the UK trade implementation bill doesn’t get passed by December 31st, and this essentially just rolls over the existing CETA with the EU, so there would be very little that is contentious in this bill. With the elections bill, it is also relatively uncontentious, based on Elections Canada’s input that would allow for a pandemic election to have three voting days and extra advanced polling, plus some other changes for things like long-term care facilities and increased mail-in ballots – and since it needs 90 days from royal assent to come into effect, parties will want it to pass as quickly as possible. And as for the implementation bill, it contains both a fix for a flaw in the commercial rent assistance programme that they didn’t amend, plus has other pandemic supports, and again, they will want it passed as soon as possible. Of course, this means once again that there is plenty of spending that didn’t get scrutiny, and it jams the Senate by pushing a bunch of bills on them without time to give it proper study or the ability to move amendments, but this is becoming a hallmark of this parliament.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A reasoned amendment

Posted on by

Something very usual happened in the Senate yesterday, in that Independent Senator Kim Pate decided to move a reasoned amendment to the government’s supply bill. A reasoned amendment is basically a procedural move to decline to give a bill second reading, meaning you don’t even agree with the bill in principle. This is a very rare move, and the fact that this is being used on a supply bill is a sign that this is a senator who is playing with fire.

You don’t mess around with supply bills. This is about money the government needs to operate, and if it fails, they can’t just keep funding government operations with special warrants. It’s going to be a giant headache of having to recreate the bill in a way that isn’t identical to the one that just passed (because you can’t pass two identical bills in the same session), go through the process again as the House is set to rise for the holidays (the Senate usually lags a few days later) is going to be a giant headache that is going to lose this senator any of the support she’s hoping to gain. Now, because the Senate isn’t a confidence chamber, defeating a money bill won’t make the government fall, but this is still a very bad precedent to try and set, or worse, given other newer senators ideas about how they should start operating.

There are plenty of objectionable aspects of this stunt of Pate’s – and yes, it is a stunt – but part of it is misunderstanding what that the supply bill is not about new pandemic aid programmes – it’s about keeping the civil service functioning. Her particular concern that 3.5 million people remain the poverty line is commendable, but Pate has been advocating for the government to implement a basic income for a while now, and a lot of people have been misled by the way in which the CERB was rolled out into thinking that this is a template for a basic income, which it’s not. And implementing a basic income – of which certain designs can be useful, but plenty which are not – is a complex affair if you talk to economists who have been working on the issue for years, not the least of which is that it’s going to require (wait for it…) negotiation with the provinces, because they deliver welfare programmes. And if Pate thinks that this kind of a stunt is going to force the government to suddenly implement one, she’s quite mistaken. I am forced to wonder who is giving her this kind of procedural advice, because she’s operating out of bounds, and asking for a world of procedural trouble. It’s fortunate that the Senate adjourned debate for the day shortly after she moved this motion so that others can regroup, but this is a worrying development for the “new” Senate.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A tough case for Beyak’s expulsion

Posted on by

As the end of the fall sitting in Parliament approaches, the drama in the Senate is not abating as Independent senator Mary Jane McCallum has introduced a motion to have Senator Lynn Beyak expelled from the Chamber for her ongoing racism. There is a bit of procedural legitimacy to this: there hadn’t been a formal determination on whether or not to fully reinstate Beyak after her suspension order expired, and the debate on that was not concluded when prorogation happened. What is at play, however, is that the Senate’s ethics and conflict of interest committee had recommended that Beyak’s suspension be lifted because she did finally complete proper anti-racism training, removed the offending racist letters from her website and offered a more sincere apology to the institution. Senator Murray Sinclair publicly stated that he was willing to give her another chance at redemption. McCallum, it seems, is not.

This is going to be a very tricky to pull off, however – and would be a historic first. Normally when a senator gets into a lot of ethical trouble, they will resign so that they can preserve some sense of honour (along with their pension). Beyak, however, is unlikely to do the honourable thing, and will more than likely turn herself into some kind of free speech martyr, which is where much of the danger in McCallum’s approach lies. If this is handled ham-fistedly – as in “she’s a racist and shouldn’t be a senator” – then she is likely going to find a lot of defenders coming out of the woodwork from all sides, because they will feel that she has been a) denied procedural fairness, and b) will set a terrible precedent because as soon as one person can be expelled for their beliefs, then what belief will be on the chopping block next? Yes, racism is bad – but this is where people will start to look at slippery slopes, especially in this era of “cancel culture.” More to the point, the Ethics Officer said that she did everything that was asked of her, and the committee agreed, so trying to now argue for her suspension without an iron-clad case that she has breached the rules is going to be an uphill battle.

It’s important to remember why Senators have these kinds of protections, which is to preserve institutional independence. The Senate is one line of defence in parliament against a government with a majority of seats in the Commons who can ram through unconstitutional legislation by sheer numbers. The Senate has not only an absolute veto on everything short of constitutional amendments (for which they only have a six-month suspensive veto), but they have security of tenure so that they can’t be replaced should they stand in the way of a government trying to do something like pass an unconstitutional bill. The flip-side is that it makes problematic senators much harder to get rid of, which is generally why prime ministers should be very careful about who they appoint (which Stephen Harper very obviously was not). Yes, they can discipline their own – that comes with parliamentary privilege – but I have my doubts about McCallum’s case here. She is going to have do more than just call this institutional racism.

Continue reading →

QP: Giving over to yet another conspiracy theory

Posted on by

While both the prime minister and deputy prime minister stated they would be at QP today, only the latter was present in the Chamber. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he led off worrying about the CanSino deal, and news reports that some scientists objected to it. Justin Trudeau, appearing from home, said that they had looked at every option and didn’t close any doors. O’Toole was not mollified, and Trudeau reiterated that CanSino had success on the Ebola vaccine, and they had hopes they could help with COVID. O’Toole then insisted that the government wasted five months and didn’t attempt a made-in-Canada vaccine solution — which doesn’t match the timeline — and Trudeau reiterated that they got a broad portfolio of vaccine candidates so that they didn’t rely on a single source. O’Toole switched to French to raise the PornHub story, insisting that the government had done nothing about it, to which Trudeau insisted that they were moving regulations that would help tackle illegal online content. O’Toole insisted that the alarm was raised months ago, and Trudeau repeated his response. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc, worrying that not enough vaccines had been procured, to which Trudeau reminded him that they have contracts for more doses than any other country. Blanchet was not impressed, but moved onto his usual demand for increased health transfers, to which Trudeau reminded him that vaccine rollout depends on their production, and that he has given the provinces have everything they need from the federal government. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and in French, he was concerned that the Pfizer vaccine had too many transportation problems and wondered when the Moderna vaccine was coming, and Trudeau reminded him that it was one of four candidates under regulatory approval, and that it would take different kinds of vaccines to protect everyone. Singh repeated the question in English, and got the same response.

Continue reading →