Tag Archives: Immigration

Roundup: A promise to fight back against federal action

Posted on by

Another day, more record-breaking COVID cases in this country. In Ontario, new modelling suggests that if we don’t get this under control that we’ll be seeing 6,500 new cases a day by mid-December, which should terrify everyone. And Doug Ford? Well, he called the reports that he ignored public health advice “inaccurate,” and “one doctor’s opinion,” and insisted that he’s trying to find a “balance.” Because the needs of businesses outweigh human lives.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1326965295941099521

In Alberta, where the pandemic is starting to overwhelm a couple of hospitals, Jason Kenney was back in isolation for the second time after another close-call with a positive COVID case (which he tested negative for) – because he’s totally taking it seriously. Kenney decided to “toughen” measures, which means that he…reduced hours in restaurants and bars, stopped indoor sports, and limited weddings and funerals. Because he still refuses to do a proper lockdown to get infections under control, and he refuses to do anything to inconvenience businesses. Hell, he’s still telling people to go out to restaurants and bars – just not as late, which also has the added effect of ensuring more people will be in these establishments during the compressed hours, which would seem to increase the chances of infection rather than decrease it. After all, Alberta’s public health insisted that people should socialize in a “structured setting” (i.e. restaurant or bar) instead of at home, so they’re really taking it seriously.

As for those who still insist on calling on the federal government to enact emergency legislation, Ford stated yesterday in no uncertain terms that he would not stand for it, and warned that other premiers would also fight back because they want to guard their own jurisdiction. So yeah, unilateral federal action would not fly (not that it really could under the terms of the Emergencies Act anyway), and we’d simply wind up in court over it. In other words, stop waiting for Trudeau to act (because he can’t) and pressure the premiers instead to quit worrying about businesses – especially since they have the power to help them out – and worry instead about the hundreds of deaths that are happening every week.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exasperation over provincial inaction

Posted on by

You can almost see the exasperation creeping into prime minister Justin Trudeau’s weekday press conferences, as yesterday, he implored the premiers to do more to fight the pandemic and to stop trying to keep businesses open, because they will still fail without healthy populations. He also obliquely asked mayors and public health officials to use what powers they can if their premiers won’t. Because this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, and the federal government has almost no levers. And the numbers are getting very serious in this country.

In Ontario and Manitoba, there are record high numbers, and Manitoba is going into a province-wide lockdown, while in Ontario, Toronto’s chief medical officer of health is imposing more restrictions on that region after Peel Region did the same earlier in the week. In Alberta, doctors are imploring the government to institute a “circuit-breaker” lockdown for at least a couple of weeks so that they can get infections under control before they completely overwhelm the healthcare system, but Jason Kenney says no, because he’s concerned about “civil liberties.” And you can tell just how seriously Alberta is taking this – their chief medical officer of health retweeted advice telling people to only socialise in “structured settings,” which means bars and restaurants. There are no words.

As for Doug Ford, he made his own swipe at Trudeau’s remarks, insisting that if Trudeau is talking about him, that they need more financial support for businesses, which is ridiculous at this point. The federal government has been shovelling money out the door – not always in the most effective manners, mind you, because they have very limited levers, whereas provinces have more direct levers that they refuse to use. And Ford here, playing the victim, is just engaged in buck-passing so that he doesn’t have to look like the bad guy when things go into lockdown, and they’re going to have to sooner than later. He keeps saying he’ll act when things get “out of control,” but by then it’ll be too late. Positive tests are a lagging indicator. Hospitalisations are a lagging indicator. Deaths are a lagging indicator. If you’re waiting for things to get “out of control” rather than stopping the exponential growth when it presents itself, that’s negligence. But then again, Ford’s apologists seem to think that there is greater political cost for him to closing businesses than there is in preventing hundreds, if not thousands of deaths, and if that’s the calculation, I can’t even with these people.

Continue reading →

QP: Reminder that it’s a novel virus

Posted on by

It was Thursday, and neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present, which generally means a less exciting day. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and poked out inconsistencies in the story around the Global Public Health Information Network, to which Patty Hajdu related early actions by the government and Dr. Theresa Tam, as well as citing that she would say more about the GPHIN soon. O’Toole tried to call out inconsistencies in early pandemic advice, to which Hajdu reminded him that it’s a novel virus that we are still learning about. O’Toole called the decision around GPHIN politically motivated, to which Hajdu said that when she was alerted to the changes, she ordered and external investigation, and she would have more to say about that soon. In French, O’Toole accused the government of losing control of the pandemic, and Hajdu listed federal actions. O’Toole then concern trolled about testing, to which Hajdu listed the rollout of new rapid tests. For the Bloc, Stéphane Bergeron trolled the prime minister about his call with the president of France, to which François-Philippe Champagne pointed out what was wrong about the premise of the question, and reminded him that Canada defends freedom of expression around the world. Bergeron asked when there was going to hold a debate on acceptable limits to freedom of expression, to which Champagne rebutted his assertions. Jagmeet Singh was up next to lead off for the NDP, and in French, he worried about the record profits of web giants, to which Steven Guilbeault reminded him at they are now treating web giants the same as traditional players in the creative market. Singh switched to English to rail about the Westons making profits in the pandemic, for which Sean Fraser said that they were supporting front-line workers, and that they raised taxes on the top one percent, which the NDP voted against. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Heading down the same road to destruction

Posted on by

As the American election results continue to grind along, there are a couple of things that have emerged that we should take to heart – one is that “Trumpism” wasn’t a fluke in 2016, and that it’s a real force that America needs to contend with honestly. The other is that the polarisation in the country has become so acute that adherents to each tribe party are now living in alternate realities, where facts don’t penetrate. This was punctuated by something that Gerald Butts has been saying over the past couple of days, that there are also two “information ecosystems” in the US, that perpetuate these alternate realities, in that each side’s news media is fairly disassociated from one another (and in some cases, facts and reality).

Why do I think this matters in particular? Because I see elements of this culture war bubbling up in this country, in somewhat inchoate and fledgling forms, but it’s there. We may not have the alternate forms of media in this country, but parties – Conservatives in particular – are building it over social media instead of traditional broadcasting (though they did make an honest effort with SunTV). The complete disregard for facts has well and truly wormed its way into the party’s discourse, and we’re now on their second party leader for whom bald-faced lying is now a daily occurrence, and this gets built into shitposts for those social media channels that they are promulgating, in some cases presenting their own alternate reality versions of situations. The NDP aren’t much better, importing wholesale the rhetoric of a segment of the American democratic party, and their own adherents refuse to believe the facts of situations (such as the existence of federalism in this country), as their leader deliberately misleads or omits facts to present the image of a government that simply doesn’t care to do things rather than the truth of their not having the jurisdiction to do them.

This is a problem that we have been complacent about addressing in this country, because we insist that it’s not as bad as in the US – and sure, we don’t have the same level of tribalism and political duality as they do, but just because we’re not as far down the road as they are doesn’t mean we’re not on the road here. There was an attempt to create that duality here – it wasn’t that long ago that the Liberals were considered to be a spent force, politically, and the Conservatives and NDP spent early Question Periods of the 41st Parliament patting themselves on the back that there was finally a real contrast in parties in the House of Commons (while the whole of the pundit class demanded that the remains of the Liberals merge with the NDP, as though the parties didn’t have fundamental ideological differences). We keep adopting Americanisms in our political systems and structures, and way too many political staffers (and more than a few reporters) spend their days LARPing episodes of the West Wing. Too many Canadians are keen to import all of the same problems that are turning America into a failed state because we think they’re more “exciting,” or somehow enviable in other ways. We should be repudiating this and shedding these American affectations from our politics, but nobody wants to do that, and this is going to cause an increasing number of problems the longer we go down this road. America is a giant flashing warning sign to turn back – can we do so in time?

Continue reading →

QP: Assertions of no PMO interference

Posted on by

All of the leaders were absent for the day, and not even the deputy PM was present, making it feel a little more like a Friday than a Monday. Gérard Deltell led off in English, lamenting that the prime minister wouldn’t protect the unconditional freedom of speech, and feeling there should be limits on it. François-Philippe Champagne responded with condolences for the people of France, and saying that Canada would defend freedom of expression around the world. Deltell repeated the question in French, to which Champagne warned him against politicising such a horrific incident. Deltell tried to put forward the notion that it took Trudeau twelve days to condemn the murder of that teacher in France, to which Champagne rebutted that he made a statement the following day. Deltell reminded Champagne that he is not yet prime minister, and insisted that the government was not standing by its ally in France, and Champagne rebutted that the government speaks as a whole. Deltell again returned to Trudeau citing that there are limits to freedom of expression, for which Champagne again chided him about politicising the issue. Stéphane Bergeron led for the Bloc, and he too hammered on Trudeau saying there were limits to freedom of expression, for which Champagne reiterated his that Canada stood by France and to defend freedom of expression. Bergeron accused the government of downplaying Islamic terrorism and hurting Quebec’s special relationship with France, to which Champagne repeated that Canada was standing by France. Jagmeet Singh was up next by video, and in French, after mentioning the attack in Quebec City, he demanded increased funding for mental health services, for which Patty Hajdu reminded him that they have been increasing funds for provinces for mental health services. Singh switched to English to worry about small businesses paying commercial rent, accusing Trudeau of helping “Liberal insiders” instead. Sean Fraser responded with a list of programmes available for small businesses. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s conversion to the labour movement

Posted on by

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole addressed the Canadian Club of Toronto yesterday, and the more I read of his speech, the more curious I become of just what it is he’s trying to say. For example, he spent part of the speech bemoaning the collapse of private sector union membership in the country, talking about how it was part of the balance between what was good for the economy and what was good for workers. That’s surprising considering that when he was in Cabinet, O’Toole supported anti-union legislation that the party put forward (under the guise of private members’ bills, naturally), and the party was having a field day before the last election trying to accuse the government of stacking their media bailout fund by allowing Unifor – the country’s largest private sector union – to have a seat at the table (given that Unifor also represents a lot of journalists). I’m sure the labour movement in this country has whiplash from this sudden reversal – though I would note that in his mouthing about the importance of unions the past couple of months, he is careful to distinguish between private and public sector unions, the latter he still continues to be evil. (And before anyone says those two anti-union bills were “about transparency,” you all know that’s a lie and can stop insulting our intelligence).

O’Toole argued that we have somehow completely de-industrialized as a country, which is news to the rest of us, and then went on an extended tirade about China, because he’s trying to frame this as a national security argument and not just populism hollowing out his party’s political ideology. He claimed that the Liberals were using the pandemic to launch a “risky experiment with our economy” around green energy, which is…not really true, and ignores how markets have moved to green tech with better economic outcomes for doing so. He also continued his protectionist bent, and made a few deeply curious statements like “Free markets alone won’t solve all our problems” (erm, his party is the one that rails about the evils of socialism, no? Is he proposing nationalizing industries? Or does he simply mean global trade when he talks about “free markets”?), and adding that that GDP growth is not the “be-all and end-all of politics” – which is odd because nobody has actually suggested that it is (but his predecessor was fond of attacking straw men as well). I’m also a bit puzzled by what exactly he’s getting at when he says “We need policies to shore up the core units of society — family, neighbourhood, nation. We need policies that build solidarity, not just wealth.” Some of this is thinly-veiled Thatcherism, but where it’s building in terms of his populist rhetoric I am a bit troubled.

And make no mistake – this is full-throated populism, particularly when he starts railing about political and business elites selling out the country (with mention about political correctness in there) – which he’s oddly making to an audience that is thought of as Canada’s business elites. But it’s also deeply hypocritical because of just who O’Toole is. He is the son of a GM executive (which he tries to obscure when he says his father “worked for GM” as though he were blue-collar), who went on to be an MPP. In fact, earlier in the week, O’Toole was tweeting about how he built himself up to leadership, conveniently omitting the huge leg-up he was given along the way. It’s like the “self-made” tech millionaires who got their start with loans from their millionaire fathers, and getting those fathers to buy their tech at their companies. More to the point, after O’Toole left the military, he was a Bay Street corporate lawyer, which is not exactly the image of the middle-class guy he’s painting himself as. When he rails about “elites,” he needs to look in the mirror because that’s exactly what he is. Of course, we’ve seen this story so many times in populist politics, where rich white guys turn themselves into the heroes for the “oppressed underclass” (of mostly straight white guys) who somehow believe that said rich white guy is a “man of the people.” And no doubt O’Toole is hoping he’ll dine out on this as well, but make no mistake, this speech was hypocrisy of the highest order.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Supply Day showdown

Posted on by

There is going to be a looming showdown over the duelling motions on special committees, and it’s the Conservatives’ Supply Day today, and their demand for an “anti-corruption committee” is going to be the motion they put forward, barring any last-minute climbdowns, with Erin O’Toole planning a press conference early in the morning to justify the position. The Liberal House leader, Pablo Rodriguez, has been more than hinting that this could very well be considered a confidence motion, as he describes said committee as an attempt to “paralyze” the government. The Bloc are on-side with the Conservatives, but the NDP are undecided, though they had a bit of a climbdown of their own yesterday as Charlie Angus said that they would limit their demands for the records of the speaking fees of the prime minister and his family to just him and his wife – documents which the Liberals provided yesterday (despite the fact that they were already in the public domain). So we’ll see how much of a performance all of the parties put on regarding these competing motions later today.

Meanwhile, WE Charity turned over a bunch of new documents on the speaking fees of the Trudeaus, and well, they don’t all match what had been disclosed before. Here’s Janyce McGregor with more:

There were also a couple of new revelations about the trip with WE that Bill Morneau repaid, for what it’s worth.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Budget cuts and accountability for advice

Posted on by

There was an interesting piece in the Globe and Mail yesterday where a couple of former top doctors enumerated some of the problems at the Public Health Agency of Canada that have been festering for years in spite of repeated warnings, which started creeping in with the budget cuts that started in 2011, and which were compounded with the loss of scientific capacity to the point where the president who just resigned had no scientific background at all. Which isn’t to say that you necessarily need someone with a science background in an administrative position like that (as opposed to the Chief Public Health Officer, which is a different kettle of fish entirely), but it points to some of the ways in which the civil service in this country has been losing capacity for a while. Suffice to say, it would appear to point to the fact that the current government wasn’t paying enough attention to what was going on at PHAC, though to be fair, there has been a fair bit on their plates, as they were dealing with medically assisted dying, legalised cannabis, and completely restructuring First Nations and Inuit healthcare delivery, which were all health-related files. The fact that emergency stockpiles weren’t being properly managed has come up repeatedly, but this does start with the cuts made under the Harper government.

Meanwhile in Queen’s Park (where premier Doug Ford made cuts to public health before the pandemic began), there is a piece in the Star that starts to ascertain just who is as the premier’s “health command table,” and ascertains that it’s Ford pulling all the strings and making all of the decisions. Which is as it should be – any “command table” should be merely advisory, because in our system of government, Cabinet makes the decisions, and Cabinet gets to wear them. I worry that trying to expose who is at this table will try to blame them for the advice they’re giving to Ford, rather than Ford making decisions on that advice – particularly when we’ve seen him ignore advice on things like school re-openings. There is a debate to be had about the transparency around the advice being given, so that we can ascertain whether or not Ford is actually following it, which I get, but I also wonder if there isn’t also a need for that table to be a place of frank discussion without it all coming out in the press – like why we have Cabinet confidentiality. And it’s a fair debate to be had, but again, let me reiterate that this is 100 percent on Ford, no matter what advice he may or may not be getting. That’s how Responsible Government works, and we need to quit finding ways to give Ford a pass, or an out on his shite decision-making.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An escalation of props

Posted on by

The moment that “remote sittings” began, which morphed into “hybrid” sittings, MPs began with the stunts. First it was signs in their backgrounds – which were ruled out of order as props, then it was dress code violations, and during the first “hybrid vote,” we saw MPs have their kids and dogs in the frame, and one of them was conspicuously driving while he voted. None of this is good for the practice of parliamentary democracy (and no, I don’t care what people say about how great it is they had their kids with them). And of course, one MP decided to take it to the next step.

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/1313542759727484929

How this particular stunt wasn’t declared a de facto prop I’m not sure, but you can expect that this sort of thing is only going to escalate the longer it goes on unless the Speaker puts his foot down right now and stamps it out. And to be honest, when I’ve been cautioning against the problems that normalising “hybrid” sitting was going to bring, I didn’t think to include that MPs would start pulling stunts in the name of being “first” or “historic,” as they keep patting themselves on the back for these days, and yet they found new ways to surprise me. This is not a good thing. And because the Speaker didn’t say anything yesterday, I can only imagine how many more locales we’ll start seeing in the coming days, ever-escalating until someone comes to their senses and declares this to be the same as using props. Because honestly – this is going to be a very bad precedent.

Rideau Hall

In an unusual move, Governor General Julie Payette has contracted the services of former Supreme Court of Canada justice Michel Bastarache to be a “constitutional advisor” in the ongoing saga of the investigations of her office for harassment and bullying issues. It’s very odd and problematic, and here is professor Philippe Lagassé to provide some added context:

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1313577963565322240

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1313578978368802820

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1313581941103493121

Continue reading →

Roundup: Conflating the “leader’s courtesy”

Posted on by

New Green Party leader Annamie Paul is running for a seat in the upcoming Toronto-Centre by-election, and this has already caused a bit of a friction between outgoing leader Elizabeth May and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh. Why? Because May argues that Singh should repay the courtesy that the Greens extended him when he was running for his own seat in a by-election in the previous parliament and not run a candidate to oppose him. The problem? That May’s conception of “leader’s courtesy” is not really what she thinks it is.

First of all, “leader’s courtesy” largely only existed when it came to government or official opposition – third, fourth, and fifth-place parties are not really owed any particular courtesies. Second, what this particular courtesy involves is a member of the new leader’s own party voluntarily resigning their seat so that the new leader can run there in order to get into the Commons as soon as possible – it’s generally not about unheld ridings, even if it just happens to coincidentally be the same riding where Paul ran in the last federal election. The Liberals are certainly not obligated to not run to keep their own seat for the sake of giving Paul a seat, no matter if she is a Black woman. Hell, they’re running a Black woman of their own in the riding. Not to mention, less than a year ago, during the election, Paul came in a distant fourth place in the riding with a mere seven percent of the vote-share. Bill Morneau, incidentally, got 57 percent, and the NDP came in second at 22 percent – even if Singh did the “classy” thing, as May demanded, and didn’t run a candidate, it’s still unlikely that Paul would win – especially when she’s running against a legitimate media personality like Liberal candidate Marci Ien.

I would also add that demanding that the other parties surrender their candidates so that Paul can win it because she’s a Black woman leader smacks of tokenism, and is an implicit declaration that she couldn’t win the seat on her own. Not to mention, it deprives the voters of the riding the chance to make the decision on who they want to represent them. Again, the historical “leader’s courtesy” was about a riding that the party held, and it was usually intended to be a short-term measure so that the leader would have a seat, and would then run in their intended seat in the next election and return the riding to the MP who stepped aside for the leader. This is clearly not what is happening in Toronto Centre, so unless May wants to resign her own seat so that Paul can run there, she’s conflating just what exactly this “courtesy” really is.

Continue reading →