Tag Archives: Foreign Aid

QP: Looking for the “secret agreement”

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau back in Europe for more NATO and G7 meetings, most of the other leaders didn’t show up either, even though it was caucus day. Candice Bergen was present, however, and led off, concern trolling about the confidence agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, and insisted there was a signed agreement between them that is being kept secret (never mind that the details of the agreement are public). Mark Holland noted that Canadians expect MPs to work together in a hung parliament, which is a foreign concept to Conservatives given that they didn’t even try when they were in similar circumstances under Stephen Harper. Bergen insisted that there must be a signed agreement and that there is a so-called new executive committee that excludes the opposition, and Holland repeated that they are always looking to work together whenever possible. Bergen railed about “social experiments” (like pharmacare?) and decried the “nightmare socialist deal” that would be hugely expensive, and Holland gave another paean about working together to get things done. Luc Berthold took over in French, and he worried about “secret committees” under the agreement, to which Dominic LeBlanc reminded him that the Conservatives wrote a whole book on how to sabotage committees, so it was rich for them to insist the government didn’t respect Parliament. (Note that this government’s parliamentary vandalism is largely relegated to the Senate). Berthold worried this agreement would trample on Quebec’s jurisdictional rights, to which Pablo Rodriguez got up to list things the government is doing for Quebec.

Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he too worried about Quebec’s jurisdiction, and LeBlanc lamented the Bloc’s frustration which led them to picking fights, and assured him they do respect provincial jurisdiction. Therrien read a statement from the Quebec government that gave a nonsense reading about the revenues they send to the federal government, and Rodriguez listed things they are doing that is good for Quebec, which is bad for the Bloc.

Rachel Blaney rose for the NDP, and she lamented that their motion on an excess profit tax failed, and wanted the government to tax companies and not people. (Erm, you know that people pay corporate taxes, right? That it’s not a magical money tree?) Randy Boissonnault acknowledged the sentiments behind the motion but that that the government was building a fairer and more affordable country with more benefit for people while taxing the rich. Alexandre Boulerice repeated the question in French, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A confidence agreement in the works?

Posted on by

We are now on day twenty-seven of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Ukraine has refused to surrender the strategic port city of Mariupol to the Russians. As well, Russian shelling destroyed a shopping centre in Kyiv killing eight, which is escalating the attacks facing the capital. Also of note was a possible leak of Russian casualty figures, citing 9,861 killed and 16,153 injured over the course of the invasion, which contradicts Russian propaganda figures to date, and which could turn up the pressure on Putin by the Russian people.

Back in Canada, news started spreading over the evening that the Liberals and NPD had reached a tentative agreement to a supply-and-confidence agreement that would see the NDP agree to support the next four Liberal budgets so that they can stay in power until 2025 in relative stability, and in return, the Liberals will make “real progress” on national pharmacare and dental care. I’m a little confused why those would be the conditions, given that they’re wholly dependent upon the provincial governments signing on, and while the current federal government put a framework in place for national pharmacare, thus far only PEI has signed on (and I haven’t seen the NDP publicly haranguing John Horgan to sign on either). And while people ask why they can’t do what they did with early learning and child care, part of that answer is that the reason why provincial governments are gun-shy about these programmes is they are concerned that if they set them up, a future federal government will cut funding and leave them holding the bag for very expensive programmes. While Quebec has shown that child care will pay for itself once more women are in the workforce and paying taxes, I’m not sure the calculation is quite the same for the other two, or will at least take much longer for the fiscal benefits to work their way through the system. So could the government come to the table with a lot more money—maybe. But that doesn’t eliminate the trepidation that once 2025 hits that their fears won’t come true. There are also reports that the deal could include more for housing, reconciliation, and some form of wealth taxes, so we’ll see what gets announced this morning.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, are touting this as evidence of a “coalition” and that it’s “backdoor socialism,” which doesn’t make sense. It’s not a coalition because there are no Cabinet seats for the NDP, and these kinds of confidence agreements are easily broken (see: British Columbia and the deal with the Greens, which Horgan’s NDP tore up when the polls looked good enough to get a majority, which he did). It’s not socialism because they’re not going around nationalising the means of production. They’re still going to wail and gnash their teeth, and pretend that this is somehow illegitimate when it’s one hundred percent within how hung parliaments work under our system, but I’m not going to say it will last the full four years. It will however alter the narrative of the Conservatives’ leadership contest, and could be read either as Trudeau giving himself enough runway to make a few more accomplishments before turning it over to a successor, or for him to try and build the case for re-election. Either way, it’s fairly unprecedented at the federal level in this country, and could make for interesting days ahead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s day of reckoning

Posted on by

Regardless of the outcome of today’s caucus vote, Erin O’Toole is finished as leader—the only question is how long he lingers. Thanks to the (garbage) Reform Act, what should have been an exercise in reading the room has come down to weaponization, threats, and now a legalistic battle of wills where anything less than fifty-percent-plus-one will mean O’Toole will try to lord over the caucus until an eventual grassroots leadership review, which may or may not be sooner than the current date scheduled (pretty much acceding to what Senator Denise Batters sidelined for calling for). But the fact that we’ve even reached this point, months in the making, where more than a third of his caucus is alienated, means he’s unable to lead the party no matter what, and frankly, the (garbage) Reform Act is just making this situation worse than it needed to be.

O’Toole apparently spent the day working the phones, and apparently has been saying that he’s willing to change his policies if he survives—but isn’t that part of the problem that got him here? That he keeps changing his positions depending on the audience he’s in front of? I’m not sure how he thinks this promise helps him. Also, “coincidentally” an Astroturf grassroots group calling itself the “Majority Committee” launched itself yesterday morning, conveniently parroting the exact same lines O’Toole used in his challenge letter to his caucus, so that doesn’t look staged at all. Meanwhile, his former allies are lining up against him, a number of former MPs have added their names to an open letter calling for him to step down, so any illusion that continuing on as leader after this is really just delusion.

https://twitter.com/BobBenzen/status/1488633402400071682

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne argues that it’s not O’Toole that needs to be ousted, but rather the unhinged yahoos in the caucus that are causing the party its biggest headaches. (I don’t disagree, but appealing to the yahoos is part of O’Toole’s problem). Althia Raj correctly notes that whatever the outcome of tomorrow’s vote, it’s untenable for O’Toole to stay. Matt Gurney (by video) wonders if this winds up leading to the break-up of the party.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1488522864269705222

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1488526887408353282

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1488528268106031108

Continue reading →

QP: Back to inflation

Posted on by

After a number of statements about Black History Month, things got underway, with almost none of the leaders present—Justin Trudeau is still isolating and not planning to attend virtually, and Erin O’Toole has other problems to worry about. Gérard Deltell led off in his stead, worrying about inflation and cited the PBO’s concerns about stimulus spending as though government spending is what’s driving inflation (which it is not). Chrystia Freeland worried that the Conservatives were talking down the economy, and countered it with the good news about the GDP figures that showed complete recovery in advance of omicron. Deltell dismissed this as being cold comfort for the average person, for which Freeland insisted that this was just Deltell focusing on the Conservatives’ partisan interests, and recited that we are projected to have the second highest growth in the G7. Deltell insisted this was “contempt” for Canadians, and Freeland insisted that she does her own grocery shopping, and that facts and data are important and that inflation in Canada is beneath the G7, G20 and OECD averages. Michelle Rempel Garner took over in English to accuse the minster of being out of touch, and Freeland suggested that it was the Conservatives who should apologise for voting against Bill C-2 that are helping support those affected by mockdowns. Rempel Garner called the government out of touch with average Canadians and were fuelling divisions, and told Freeland to “take the temperature down,” and Freeland repeated her response about the supports in C-2.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he dissembled for a while before demanding action on the grifter convoy outside. Omar Alghabra stated that he has met with those in the supply chain including the trucking industry and that they would continue moving forward. Blanchet noted that wasn’t his question, and repeated it, for which Freeland thanked him for supporting C-2, and that she agreed that it was important for them to be able to do their work, which is why they trust law enforcement. 

Jagmeet Singh appeared by video, and asked about the blockade at the Coutts border crossing in Alberta and demanded federal action. Alghabra agreed that the blockade needs to end. Singh switched to French to lament housing affordability, and Ahmed Hussen recited this talking points on the National Housing Strategy and the first-time home ownership programme. (Note that shortly after this question, the RCMP moved in on that Coutts blockade and broke it up, for which I half expect Singh to take credit for).

Continue reading →

QP: Offering succour to the grifters

Posted on by

In spite of the grifters outside, the House of Commons reconvened for its winter sitting, with a lot more MPs present than I would have guessed. In spite of testing positive for COVID, Justin Trudeau intended to attend virtually from isolation, but Chrystia Freeland was present in person. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, sending his best wishes to Trudeau and his children for their COVID infections, before launching into a diatribe to give succour to the grifters outside and demanded that Trudeau meet them. Trudeau stated that the way out the pandemic is to get vaccinated, and 90 percent of truckers have already done so. O’Toole railed about “divisions” and demanded to know when life would get back to normal, for which Trudeau sympathised with the frustration but insisted that Canadians have been stepping up and getting vaccinated as a demonstration of unity. O’Toole switched to French to repeat his first question, for which Trudeau repeated that vaccines would be the way out of the pandemic. O’Toole then raised the possibility of a Russian invasion of Ukraine and demanded we send them arms, for which Trudeau insisted that they have always stood up for Ukraine, and that they have been delivering what they most need. O’Toole repeated the question in French, and got much the same answer.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he railed about the grifters outside, for which Trudeau said that while they support the right to protest, they will be firm in standing against violence and hatred, and assured him that police are there to protect people. Therrien complained that everyone is exhausted but that hatred was not the solution, before demanding concrete actions. Trudeau insisted that they would support Canadians throughout the pandemic.

Jagmeet Singh then appeared by video, to raise the Nazi and Confederate flags seen over the weekend, that O’Toole didn’t denounce it, and asked the Pm what he would do to oppose these people. Trudeau repeated that everyone is frustrated but vaccines was the way out of the pandemic. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another grifter convoy on the way

Posted on by

Sucking up much of the oxygen in the news cycle is this so-called “Freedom Convoy” on its way to Ottawa, which looks to be just a lame repeat of the Yellow Vesters convoy from 2019, which turned out to be a big damp squib once it arrived. It’s been organised by the usual network of right-wing organisers using a bunch of trumped-up bullshit (truckers are vaccinated at a higher rate than the general population), and is quickly becoming a catch-all for a bunch of other anti-vax/anti-mask nonsense, and some of their demands, like around vaccine mandates in restaurants, are squarely within provincial jurisdiction, so “blockading” Parliament Hill won’t do anything about it. And an organizer for the Maverick Party in Alberta set up a GoFundMe, which has amassed some $3.7 million in donations, but those funds are being held until the service can determine how the funds will be disbursed—not that it’s stopping said organiser, which is a pretty good signal that this is just more grift.

Of course, Conservative MPs are signing right up to this (and I have a column on this out later today), tweeting nonsense things like that the prime minister is pushing a “vaccine vendetta,” which makes no sense unless you’ve been infected with these kinds of hyper-partisan brain worms. And Erin O’Toole won’t give a straight answer as to whether he supports this convoy (as many of his MPs are tweeting), so one suspects he’s waiting to see which way the wind is blowing before he makes any kind of definitive statement, but it’s all looking very familiar with what his predecessor did in 2019 (who is also tweeting support for this convoy).

https://twitter.com/Garossino/status/1485748899495112707

https://twitter.com/Garossino/status/1485750505431179266

https://twitter.com/Garossino/status/1485752969794523136

Continue reading →

Roundup: The inevitable comparisons will be flawed

Posted on by

It’s the anniversary of the Capitol Hill insurrection, so you can expect the media on both sides of the border to be full of thinkpieces about What It All Means™, particularly as America continues down the path of being a failed state. So while there is some good stuff out there, such as this good analysis piece, we’ll see some inevitable “what about Canada?” pieces out there as well. Case in point:

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1478858665423745026

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1478861864541036544

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1478865054699294726

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1478868398192930817

To answer Wherry’s question, there aren’t the same structural weak points in Canada, because our system is far more robust than the Americans’ system. For example, the insurrection happened on the date that Congress had to ratify election results, which doesn’t happen here, because Parliament is dissolved for an election. Elections Canada, which answers to the Crown, does the work of verifying election results, and they have uniform rules around the country, unlike the US, where every state and county runs their own federal polls, and there is no uniformity and voting rights are a mess across the board. We don’t have their gerrymandering because we gave that to arm’s-length judge-run panels decades ago. Nothing could prevent a transfer of power, short of a recalcitrant Governor General, and in that case, there would be the recourse of going to the Queen, but even in those cases, things tend to work behind the scenes to prevent that eventuality from ever happening (because the first rule of constitutional monarchy is that you keep the Queen out of it).

Our structure is sound, but we do have a problem with bad actors because much of our system depends on people having a sense of honour or decency to do the right thing, and when they don’t, things get sticky. They tend to work out in the long run because it’s resilient—but if we go about codifying a bunch of things that operate by convention, we would likely find things being perverted even more so, because then the impetus to find ways around those written rules becomes apparent, rather than there being a broader spirit of the convention to be upheld. It also tends to lead to all kinds of unexpected consequences—Erin O’Toole weaponizing the (garbage) Reform Act is proof of that. And it’s hard to build systems to be bad actor-proof, because bad actors will find a way to exploit the system to their ends. We do need to fix some things in our system, such as the way we’ve bastardised leadership contests and turned them into quasi-presidential primaries, the broader point is that we don’t have the same structural vulnerabilities that the Americans have, which is a good thing, but we do need to be on guard to ensure that bad actors don’t get the chance to wreak havoc.

Continue reading →

QP: You should read a book or two

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town, he was not in Question Period today, but his deputy was, so all was not lost. Candice Bergen led off, script in front of her, and she went off on inflation, accusing the finance minster of printing money so that she never runs out of bucks to pass. Chrystia Freeland read contradictory statements from different Conservative and wondered who was right. Bergen selectively quoted economists to assign blame for inflation. Freeland quoted former Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz that government spending is not the problem. Bergen was apoplectic and demanded federal action on inflation, to which Freeland again quoted Poloz, and then suggested the Conservatives read a book or two. Alain Rayes took over, and asked about the labour shortage in Quebec. Marco Mendicino, even though it’s no longer his file, reminded him they have been working with Quebec and hit a record high of temporary foreign workers. Rayes went another round, and got the same.

Luc Therrien led off for the Bloc, and raised the Environment Commossioner’s report, and then demanded the government cap the production of fossil fuels. Stephen Guilbeault appeared by video, and reminded him that the Commissioner’s report didn’t capture several new programmes from the government. Therrien was not mollified, and in response, Guilbeault listed measures they have taken that no other government has taken.

Don Davies rose for the NDP, and demanded that the government support lifting patent restrictions on vaccines manufacturing to help the developing world avoid new variants. Harjit Sajjan read about the government’s vaccine donations. Niki Ashton repeated the question in French over video, and François-Philippe Champagne reminded her of Canada’s support for COVAX and other initiatives to deliver vaccines.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rejections without significance

Posted on by

Because it’s a story that refuses to die, we now know that both the Bloc and the NDP have rejected the four main votes in the (garbage) Reform Act, and now we await the Liberals, who will in turn doubtlessly reject it as well whenever they finally have their first official caucus meeting, and of course, we have political scientists trying to derive meaning from these refusals, as they have tried with the Conservatives agreeing to the four votes.

The simple truth, however, are that these votes really don’t matter because the legislation is garbage. The power to elect caucus chairs doesn’t require its adoption, as we’ve seen, and the power over the expulsion of caucus members is largely illusory anyway because it tends to depend on what the leader says either way. I would be hugely surprised if the caucus and the leader ever parted ways on whether or not to boot someone out of the club, as that would create a schism and be a sign that the leader was on the way out. As well, the power of the caucus to pressure a leader to resign is actually better off without the Reform Act because what the Act winds up doing is protecting the leader by setting a high threshold and requiring a public declaration to trigger a vote, which can invite retribution. It has been far more effective to push a leader out with one or two public declarations by brave members that signal the writing on the wall rather than demanding a twenty percent threshold.

In the Hill Times piece, the Act’s author, Michael Chong, pats himself on the back for codifying these sorts of caucus decisions, but codifying them is part of the problem. Our Westminster system tends to work best under conventions that aren’t codified because it affords them flexibility and the ability to adapt, whereas codification is inflexible, leads to testing of the system and the pursuit of loopholes and getting around what has been codified. It’s the same with setting that threshold to push out a leader – it winds up insulating the leader more than empowering the caucus, and we’ve seen leaders resign with far less pressure than what this codified system affords, not to mention that by Chong codifying that party leaders must be selected by membership vote in the actual Parliament of Canada Act as a result of this garbage legislation, he has made it even harder for parties to return to the proper system of caucus selection and removal of leaders as we need to return to. Chong has screwed Parliament for a generation, and it would be great if the talking heads would stop encouraging him.

Continue reading →

Roundup: We have a date for dissolution

Posted on by

This is not a drill – the election call will be coming on Sunday, for an election date of September 20th – a thirty-six day campaign, which is the bare minimum and technically will take place entirely in the summer. But until that happens, you can expect a flurry of announcements later today – a child care agreement with Saskatchewan, probably a few more Senate appointments, possibly some more judges, and any other senior bureaucrats who need to be repositioned before the government goes into caretaker mode.

Of course, as this is taking place, case counts are once again starting to rise across the country, and we are officially at the start of a fourth wave – because of course we are. While we can expect to hear a lot of hand-wringing about this over the next week or so, I would expect that the bulk of rallies or events will be held outdoors over the course of the campaign, plus a lot more virtual events – after all, Erin O’Toole is renting out that studio space with its big screens to do just that, and I wouldn’t be surprised if other leaders have similar plans that they have not yet unveiled.

Also, because this will drive me insane for the next week, the phrase “drop the writ” is completely wrong. There is no single writ, and it does not drop. Once the Governor General signs the proclamation to dissolve parliament, the Chief Electoral Officer will draw up 338 writs – one for each election being held (because remember, an election is not a single event – it’s 338 separate but simultaneous elections). So don’t use a wrong phrase, and save yourself a scolding from me.

Continue reading →