The prime minister was around, but absent from the Chamber for QP, leaving his deputy in his place. Erin O’Toole led off, script and mini-lectern in front of him accusing the government of being absent on the issue of tensions around the Mi’kmaq fishery issue, to which Chrystia Freeland condemned the violence that took place, and said that federal and provincial governments were working together to recognise the Mi’kmaq rights under the Marshall Decision. O’Toole went again on the same question in French, got the same answer, then n French worried about threats that China was making, particularly around Canadians in Hong Kong. Freeland responded that the foreign minister had issued a clear statement, and that only Canada would make its own decisions on immigration. O’Toole asked again in English, and got much the same response, with slightly more specificity on the individual issues in China. O’Toole blustered more about Trudeau’s apparent “admiration for the basic dictatorship of China,” the Chinese ambassador’s comments and wondered when his credentials would be pulled. Freeland reminded him that she was well aware of what a totalitarian communist country is like, as she lived in one and reported from it, before repeating that they were standing up for human rights and the Canadian citizens in Hong Kong. Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, worrying that the government would rather go to an election than talk about the WE Imbroglio, to which Freeland said that the Government House Leader had made a sensible suggestion around a special committee on pandemic costing, which she hoped they would support. Therrien said that was well and good but still wanted a committee dedicated to the WE Imbroglio, to which Freeland reminded him of what has been released to date. Jagmeet Singh appeared by video to accuse the prime minister in French of standing by and not protecting the Mi’kmaq (never mind that policing is a provincial responsibility), to which Freeland said that they approved a request to give more resources to the RCMP on the ground. Singh switched to English to repeat the question, and got much the same response.
Tag Archives: Healthcare
Roundup: A spineless premier in the centre of a dispute
The suspicious fire of a lobster pound used by the Mi’kmaq in Nova Scotia is the latest escalation in the fisheries dispute in that province, which prompted a number of calls over the weekend for the federal government to do something. But when you ask for specifics, people tend to come up with a bunch of hand-waving and not a lot of answers. As a reminder, policing is a provincial responsibility, and in Nova Scotia, the RCMP are contracted to the province. This means that it’s the province’s responsibility to ensure that the RCMP are doing their jobs and protecting the Mi’kmaq people from the mobs of angry commercial fishers that are threatening them, and not just standing there and watching it happen like they did during the swarming of a lobster pound last week.
Of course, the premier keeps trying to insist that he can’t solve the problem and demands that the federal government define what a “moderate livelihood” for the Mi’kmaq people is under their treaty rights (which, to be clear, the government has been at the negotiation table about for weeks now), which is a cynical exercise in buck-passing from a premier who make a big song and dance about admitting that the province was mired in systemic racism. Funny that when it’s in his face, he doesn’t want to do anything about it. On Saturday, the province’s attorney general finally requested additional support for the RCMP from the federal government, which Bill Blair immediately granted, days after he publicly stated that there were resources waiting to be deployed to the province upon request, which they had not done up until that point. A bunch of people (including Jagmeet Singh) also started chirping over Twitter that this attack was “terrorism,” except that it’s not – the Criminal Code has a very specific definition, and a mob is not it. One of the Indigenous chiefs at the centre of the dispute also mused over social media that the military should be called in, but again, this can’t be done without the request of the provincial government, and I cannot stress this enough, but you do not want the military to conduct law enforcement. It’s a VERY, VERY BAD THING.
Meanwhile, both the fisheries minister and the NDP are now calling for an emergency debate in Parliament over this, which seems to me to be the most useless thing imaginable, but what can you do? Erin O’Toole is also trying to pin the blame on the federal government, insisting that they should have had the negotiations over by now (how? By imposing a solution?) and blaming the federal government for not properly resourcing the RCMP in the province (who are under provincial contract and jurisdiction), but then again, truth hasn’t exactly been his strong suit of late. But this shouldn’t be an issue about the treaty – the government has signalled that they will protect those rights, and are just figuring out the details. Protection of the Mi’kmaq fishers and their property should be a police matter, which is provincial jurisdiction, but so long as the premier is too afraid of the white voters, I don’t see him exactly taking a strong stand on this issue anytime soon, and while all eyes turn back to Justin Trudeau to do something, anything, he doesn’t exactly have the levers at his disposal.
Roundup: Special committee games
The competing offers for special committees got even more crowded yesterday as the Liberals suggested their own possible special committee to examine pandemic spending, in a bid to jam both the Conservatives and NDP as they make their own offers. The Conservatives, you may recall, are employing a stunt to call for a special “anti-corruption committee,” as though the penny-ante bullshit that happens here were actual corruption that happens in other countries, and called explicitly for the purpose of decrying any lack of support for this committee idea as being in support of corruption. The NDP have their own proposal for a pandemic spending committee, but it was intended as a kind of super-committee to draw in not only the WE Imbroglio, but to revisit other non-scandals such as the Rob Silver affair (which the Ethics Commissioner declined to investigate), or the fact that one of the many pandemic procurement contracts went to a company whose owner is a former Liberal MP (whose departure was a bit huffy and drawn out at the time, one may recall).
The Liberal plan is to offer a “serious committee” to do “serious work,” which is a political gambit in and of itself – citing that if the other parties don’t agree to this particular committee (whose terms of reference one expects will be fairly narrowly circumscribed), then it proves that they are simply motivated by partisan gamesmanship rather than helping Canadians. And they’re not wrong – that’s exactly what both the Conservatives and NDP are looking for, at a point where they can only expect diminishing returns the longer that they drag on the WE Imbroglio (though, caveat, they do have a legitimate point in the Finance committee about producing the unredacted documents because that was the committee order that the government didn’t obey, and risks finding themselves in contempt of parliament over; the Ethics Committee demands are going outside of that committee’s mandate).
To add to the possible drama, the Liberals are also contemplating making the Conservatives’ upcoming Supply Day motion on their committee demand a confidence vote, which will wind up forcing the hands of one of the opposition parties into voting against it because nobody wants an election (and that could mean a number of Conservative MPs suddenly having “connectivity issues” and being unable to vote on the motion to ensure its demise). Of course, there is always the possibility of an accident – that seat counts weren’t done properly and the government could defeat itself, though that’s highly unlikely in the current circumstances. Nevertheless, this game-playing is where we’re at, seven months into the pandemic.
QP: Energy workers and omitted automation
The prime minister was away, having attended the state funereal of Rt.Hon. John Turner, but his deputy was again present, which was worth something. Erin O’Toole led off, with his script on the mini-lectern in front of him, and in French he accused government of dragging their feet on the procurement of ventilators, citing one contract in particular. Chrystia Freeland assured him they were taking the pandemic seriously, and thanked industrial partners for stepping up. O’Toole tried again, and this time Freeland stated that his assertion wasn’t true, that they had sourced enough ventilators across the country, and were still procuring necessary equipment and medication. O’Toole switched to English to reiterate the question with added bombast, to which Freeland calmly assured him that they were confident they have the ventilators they need, and they have acquired so much PPE that they are acquiring additional warehouse space. O’Toole then switched to the topic of a possible refinery closure in Newfoundland, to which Freeland too exception to his characterisation, and reminded him that they just transferred millions of dollars to the government of Newfoundland and Labrador for the benefit of energy workers. O’Toole then raised Suncor job losses — studiously omitting that those losses were as a result of increased automation— and Freeland disabused him of the notion that the government doesn’t care about Albertans and listed the benefits delivered to the province. Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he made the usual demand for increased health transfers, to which Freeland reminded him of the increased supports they have already provided. Luc Thériault repeated the plea, and Freeland repeated that they have given the provinces additional funds. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and in French, he complained that some people made profits off the pandemic and they needed to be taxed, to which Freeland listed that they were working to combat tax evasion. Singh switched to English to complain that private clinics were giving COVID tests for a fee, and Freeland agreed that everyone should be treated the same, and that Health Canada just approved an antigen test.
O’Toole studiously omits that the Suncor job losses were as a result of increased automation. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 6, 2020
QP: Blaming Trudeau for Ford’s inaction
Prime minister Justin Trudeau was in town but chose not to appear at QP today, but fortunately his deputy was present in his stead. Erin O’Toole led off, listing countries that are using rapid tests and railing that Manitoba can’t procure their own. Chrystia Freeland led off with belated congratulations to O’Toole for his election as leader before stating that they have recently purchased millions of rapid tests. O’Toole railed that provinces couldn’t procure them, but Freeland insisted that they worked with the provinces on the Safe Restart Agreement. O’Toole switched to French to ask the same thing and Freeland repeated her response in kind. O’Toole returned to English to carry on his lament for rapid tests, and Freeland assured him that they would start arriving next week, and more announcements were forthcoming. O’Toole then attempted some revisionist history around border closures, and Freeland insisted that they got it right. Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he, unsurprisingly, demanded increased health transfers, and Freeland assured him that they reached the Safe Restart Agreement with the provinces. Therrien said that it wasn’t enough, that they demanded $28 billion, and Freeland very calmly annunciated that Quebec got nearly $300 billion for health and economic recovery. Jagmeet Singh appeared by video to lead for the NDP, where he demanded a plan for testing and long-term care, both of which are provincial responsibilities. Freeland responded that they were working with provinces and municipalities. Singh stumbled over his attempt to pin the blame on the prime minister, to which Freeland agreed that the country was at a crossroads, before she reiterated that the government was working with provinces and municipalities.
Erin O’Toole seems to think that provinces regulate medical devices. They don’t. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 5, 2020
Roundup: Another brave demand for money without strings
Four nominally conservative premiers convened in Ottawa yesterday to once again bravely demand that the federal government give them more money for healthcare and infrastructure, and to not attach any strings to it. In total, they demanded at least $28 billion more per year for healthcare, $10 billion for infrastructure, and retroactive reforms to fiscal stabilization that would give Alberta another $6 billion. Of course, two of those premiers – Jason Kenney and Brian Pallister – were in the Harper government when health transfers were unilaterally cut, to which we must also offer the reminder that the numbers at the time show that provincial health spending was not rising nearly as fast as the health transfer escalator, which means that the money was going to other things, no matter how much the provinces denied it. As well, most provinces have not actually been spending the current infrastructure dollars that are on the table for one reason or another (some of which have been petty and spiteful), so why demand more when they already aren’t spending what’s there.
As for Alberta’s demand for retroactive fiscal stabilization, one should also add the caveat that the current formula asserts a certain amount of moral risk for provinces who rely too heavily on resource revenues for their provincial coffers – that they should be looking at other forms of revenue (like sales taxes) so that they aren’t so exposed to the vagaries of things like world oil prices. Retroactively changing the formula means that the federal government becomes their insurance for the risks they undertook on their own balance sheets, which hardly seems fair to the other provinces in confederation, who have to pay higher provincial taxes.
And then Kenney dropped this little claim:
Kenney: our ability at the prov level to pay for the quality of healthcare is increasingly limited. This is more desperate in Alberta than maybe anywhere else given the decline in the economy.
— Rosemary Barton (@RosieBarton) September 18, 2020
This is patently untrue. The province still has tremendous fiscal capacity because they still have the highest per capita incomes in the country and the lowest taxation. Sure, that fiscal capacity has diminished, but not that much. The province’s deficit is a policy choice because they refuse to implement a modest sales tax that could actually pay for the services that Kenney is now in the process of slashing, having ordered up a report to tell him that they have a spending problem instead of a revenue problem. Err, and then he spent billions on a money-losing refinery and another pipeline that will actually make said refinery an even bigger money-loser. So no, the quality of healthcare in his province isn’t being jeopardized by the state of his economy – it’s because he won’t stabilize his revenues (and because he’s launching an ill-conceived war against the doctors in his province in the middle of a global pandemic, because he’s strategic like that).
Yes and no. Mostly no. Our fiscal capacity has declined significantly this year, certainly, as have others. But Alberta remains above average, but probably lost its number one spot. Now 2nd or (*maybe*) 3rd place (too soon to know for sure).
Fixing AB budget requires AB action. https://t.co/8onwQOM23h
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) September 18, 2020
QP: New measures not mentioned in the Speech
The first Monday of the new Parliament, and the prime minister was present but Andrew Scheer was not. That left Leona Alleslev to lead off in French, and she lamented the reported job losses from last month, and demanded a new economic statement with new measures and a balanced budget. Justin Trudeau responded that the first thing they did in 2015 was cut taxes and they were doing so again, and they were supporting Canadians and the economy. Alleslev read the same question in English, and got the same response. Alleslev read more doom, saying that the country was on the verge of recession (reminder: Not according to the Bank of Canada), and Trudeau reminded her of the plan to invest in Canadians, which is what they would continue to do. Erin O’Toole was up next, demanding retaliation against China for the two detained Canadians, being the one-year anniversary of their captivity. Trudeau assured the House that they were continuing to engage the Chinese, and that he had spoken to President Xi directly. O’Toole then raised the protests in Hong Kong, and Trudeau spoke about their support for the one-country two-systems principles and reiterated their calls for de-escalation. Yves-François Blanchet asked about healthcare, and Trudeau responded in general platitudes about the system, and they went for a second round of the same. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and in his new style of alternate French and English sentences, demanded that the upcoming tax cut be more targeted in order to use the savings to pay for national dental care, and Trudeau reminded him of how many people the tax cut would help. Singh demanded increased health transfers, to which Trudeau reminded him that they had worked with the provinces to target specific needs in the last parliament and they would continue to do so in this one.
Roundup: Gun control theatre
While there was suspicion that the announcement was timed as a pivot from the past two days of bad press – Liberals insisting that his has been planned for days – Justin Trudeau was in Toronto yesterday for a morning of meeting people on the streets before he announced his long-awaited additional gun control measures which are guaranteed to please nobody – a total ban on semi-automatic assault rifles (never mind that there’s no actual definition of an “assault rifle”) with a buy-back programme, and the ability for cities to make additional regulations around handguns (as in, allowing them to attempt to ban them), plus some additional offers around licensing and the ability to forbid the purchase of new weapons after certain red-flags. The measures are not enough for those who want a national handgun ban, too far for certain gun enthusiasts, and almost certainly going to be useless because the problem of illegal guns is that the vast majority of them are smuggled from the US, which these measures largely won’t address (I didn’t see any promise for more resources for CBSA in the backgrounder). In other words, it’s a political play, trying to balance the need to be seen to be doing more about gun control for big cities where it’s a problem, while not alienating their rural voters (again), while also being hemmed in by jurisdictional considerations (Doug Ford, for example, has said he won’t go along with any kind of handgun ban that would fall under provincial jurisdiction). Nevertheless, the symbolism of banning AR-15s is something they hope to capitalise on, while they castigate Andrew Scheer for his promise to relax some gun control regulations, so that may be enough for them in the election in any case.
https://twitter.com/CochraneCBC/status/1175047467265642497
Speaking of, Andrew Scheer was in Saint John, New Brunswick, to promise that a Conservative government would spend $1.5 billion to get provinces new MRI and CT machines in an effort to reduce wait times (structural issues? What structural issues?) – never mind again that it’s provincial jurisdiction and he may have a hard time getting them to actually spend dollars that he’s earmarked for said purchases. Scheer also clarified that oil and gas subsidies would not be part of those he plans to eliminate – try to look surprised, everyone!
Jagmeet Singh was in Windsor to talk up the party’s pharmacare plan, and answer yet more questions on the Blackface issue, citing that he didn’t want to be complicit in Trudeau’s public exoneration. (And yet, the media is demanding this kabuki theatre to play out).
Roundup: The OECD is watching
Because the Double-Hyphen Affair continues to roll along, the news yesterday was that the OECD is keeping an eye on the proceedings around the SNC-Lavalin prosecution, given that our anti-bribery rules are part of a concerted OECD effort to stamp out the practice, and much of the language in our laws – including the Criminal Code provisions around deferred prosecutions – contain OECD language. And lo, suddenly everyone was bemoaning this international attention, and it was a sign that we were all the more suspect, and so on. Err, except the OECD doesn’t have any regulatory jurisdiction over Canada, and they’re monitoring the processes ongoing already in Canada. You know, the ones that are examining the very issue. Almost as though the system is working.
A statement from a spokesperson for Minister @cafreeland, after the OECD expresses concern with the SNC Lavalin Affair #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/6YsK3knUa2
— Cormac Mac Sweeney (@cmaconthehill) March 11, 2019
On a related note, it was revealed that SNC-Lavalin signed a confidential deal with the government days after the Throne Speech in 2015, that allowed them to keep bidding on federal contracts while they would subject themselves to compliance monitoring for their ethical obligations, at their own expense. I’m not sure that we can consider this something nefarious, but certainly an acknowledgment that they were aware of their issues and were taking steps to deal with them in advance of any prosecution.
In today’s punditry on the matter, Matt Gurney suspects that the international attention will be harder for this government to shake off. Chantal Hébert details the coming crunch time for the main players in this whole Affair. Vicky Mochama writes that if we try to treat Jody Wilson-Raybould, Jane Philpott, and Celina Caesar-Chavannes as paragons of virtue out of a sense of gender essentialism, that we diminish the action and rhetoric of women politicians.
Roundup: Asking the wrong questions about the rules
There was a piece on the CBC site this weekend that irked me, and I’m not sure it was just the problematic headline – why our ethic rules aren’t keeping politicians out of trouble. It’s a ridiculous construction on the face of it – you can have all the laws you want, and it won’t stop people from contravening them out of malice or ignorance. After all, the Criminal Code hasn’t eliminated crime, so why would an ethics regime miraculously end all ethics violations by public office holders?
While the piece quotes an academic who says that part of the problem is that the rules regime tells politicians how they can’t act, but not how they should act, so much of it is based on judgment calls, and not everyone has good judgment. But more to the point, in the two prominent situations that we’ve seen in recent months – the Trudeau report about his vacation with the Aga Khan, and the LeBlanc report about whether his wife’s cousin counted sufficiently as “family” under the definition of the Act, is that both of these situations were based on the judgement of the Ethics Commissioners rather than what was in the legislation. Mary Dawson took it upon herself to judge how someone defines their relationship with the Aga Khan (who is akin to the Pope of the Ismaili Muslim faith), while Mario Dion took what has been called an overly broad interpretation so that LeBlanc is forced to treat one of his wife’s sixty first cousins as close when all evidence points to them being mere acquaintances (and this after Dion has publicly come out to state that he wants to be seen as tough and not a lapdog). I’m not sure how any of these situations points to how the rules are stopping politicians from staying out of trouble when the trouble they’re in is based on a single person’s choice of how to interpret those rules, in some cases in defiance of common sense.
I would also caution that we need to be careful about setting a regime that is too constrictive, because it becomes either a means of either becoming one of constant investigation for political score-settling, or a system where we have yet another Officer of Parliament who becomes the embodiment of “Mother, May I?” and we don’t let politicians exercise any judgment that we can hold them accountable for – and we can’t hold these commissioners to account for their judgment, even when it can be found to be dubious. (Also note that we also made the requirements for who can be Commissioner to be so restrictive that anyone qualified wouldn’t want the job, which is another problem in and of itself). The amount of energy we put into the penny ante “scandals” in Canadian politics, which are piddling in comparison to the kinds of gross violations that happen regularly in the US, or that did happen in the UK (moat cleaning, anyone?) makes you wonder about our preoccupations. Which isn’t to say that we should ignore them, but let’s treat them with the gravity that they deserve, and I’m not sure that any of the “scandals” we’ve seen in this parliament are worth the energy we’ve expended on lighting our hair on fire about them.