Tag Archives: Justin Trudeau

Roundup: Enter Omicron

Posted on by

If it all feels like a little bit of history repeating, the World Health Organization declared a new variant of concern, B.1.1.529, designated Omicron, yesterday, and in the lead-up to that decision, there was a lot of the same kinds of usual behaviours from the usual suspects. The variant was detected in South Africa (where there is apparently good surveillance), and has been spotted in seven southern African countries thus far. Conservatives demanded travel advisories and wailed that the border needed to be closed – never mind that there are no direct flights between Canada and South Africa – and gave some revisionist history about their demanding the borders be closed with the original COVID outbreak (when they demanded the borders be closed to China, whereas the vast majority Canada’s infections came by way of Europe and the United States).

But by mid-afternoon, the government did lay out new restrictions, but we’ll see how much of it is effective, or how much of it is pandemic theatre.

This is happening at a time where COVID cases have been ticking back upward across much of the country, prompting fears of a fifth wave being on the horizon as people get lazy with public health measures and start taking masks off indoors, or the like, while those who refuse to get vaccinated remain petri dishes for new variants to emerge or for it to enter into new animal reservoirs where it can mutate yet again. Essentially the way out of this remains getting vaccinated and keeping up good public health measures – most especially masking because we know that this is airborne – and maybe we can keep this fifth wave blunted and the Omicron variant largely tamed. But people are idiots, so things could get a lot worse once more.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Casting doubt as a smoke bomb

Posted on by

As I was just saying about Canadian political leaders focusing on American issues and culture wars, we are seeing yet another instance in this country – this time over the upcoming riding redistribution hearings. The Conservatives have decided that they want to go all-in on American culture wars and are fundraising to fight these redistributions, citing that they don’t trust the Liberals to run the process fairly – never mind that the process is arm’s length, and the fact that the Speaker of the House is involved in the process is supposed to ensure neutrality. The fact that he was elected as a Liberals should not be a factor – and it’s especially rich from the Conservatives, seeing as it was their votes that ensured that Rota got into the post during Tuesday’s election (and I know enough about where votes were going for certain candidates that the maths work out that the Conservatives were voting for Rota).

We really, really do not want to go down this path of making a partisan issue of riding redistribution, because only madness lies this way. Aside from outright partisan lunacy in thinking that this is an effective way of fundraising never mind the corrosive effect that this has on our political system, it’s also a simple admission of sore loserism. If they think they’ve been losing because of riding redistribution (with “rurban” seats largely being split up into actual rural and urban seats), the most recent redistribution happened under their watch, and frankly, “rurban” seats were pure gerrymandering because they didn’t make sense and were trying to use rural votes to outweigh urban ones and never made sense in terms of “communities” like they are so concerned that ridings encompass. If they think that they won’t get a fair shake this time around, it’s pure projection.

Of course, this isn’t actually about riding redistribution – it’s about throwing another smoke bomb into the mix in order to distract from the party’s internal problems and the challenges to Erin O’Toole’s leadership. The fact that they are trying to discredit a process that is meant to be removed from political considerations and partisan gamesmanship is pretty gross, especially because that is meant to be a pure distraction (and fundraising grab). This process is important to our democracy, and for them to cast doubt for selfish reasons is a sign of the party’s continued moral decline.

Continue reading →

QP: Inflation vs child care, ad nauseam

Posted on by

And we’re back, after some nearly five months away, and to a full Chamber at that. Let’s hope it stays that way. Erin O’Toole led off, mini-lectern in front of him, and he raised the floods in BC, recognising that the minster has been in contact with province, and asked for an update on the situation. Justin Trudeau read a statement about what the Canadian Forces members on the ground have been up to. O’Toole then moved to the Coastal GasLink situation, raising concerns about the “dog whistling” about blowing up pipelines and insisting that this project was somehow about “economic reconciliation.” Trudeau insisted that they are working toward economic reconciliation, but it needs to be done in partnership with the communities. O’Toole shifted to the issue of inflation and noted that it only got a single mention in the Speech from the Throne, and Trudeau said it was being driven by supply chain challenges, before touting how their child care plans will help families. O’Toole repeated the same question in French and got the same answer, with a bit more punch that the Conservatives promised to tear up those agreements. O’Toole raised the labour shortage in Quebec, saying the PM has not acknowledged it, but a Trudeau disputed this, insisting that building back better includes new jobs, raising immigration levels and training, as that shortage existed before the pandemic.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and true to form, demanded more health transfers and a “public summit” on health funding that he has been pushing for. Trudeau read that the government has a plan to eliminate delays, build better long-term care and hire more doctors in partnership with the provinces, and that they would continue to invest while respecting jurisdictions. Blanchet dismissed the idea that the federal government could have done better than provinces during the pandemic, and Trudeau said he wasn’t interested in finger-pointing, and wanted to partner with provinces in the best interests of seniors.

Jagmeet Singh then rose for the NDP, and after declaring a climate crisis, claimed there was no plan for workers in the Speech from the Throne. Trudeau reminded him that all experts gave the Liberal plan top marks in the election. In French, Singh groused about fossil fuel subsidies, and Trudeau, without script, reminded him that they are phasing them out ahead of schedule, along with their emissions cap for the oil and gas sector.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Three Amigos without much outward progress

Posted on by

Well, that was the Three Amigos summit, and it doesn’t sound like there was any outward progress on Canada’s biggest request, which is getting rid of that electric vehicle tax credit that would essentially crater Canada’s auto sector (and the nascent electric vehicle industry) in spite of decades of cross-border integration of our supply chains. But that progress may yet happen because the Canadian delegation was not solely focusing on the White House – where Biden was non-committal – but also engaging congressional leaders who have the real power in this situation, so there remains time to see if that credit will survive the tortuous and nonsensical budget bill process in their system.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have declared that Trudeau’s approach to relations with the American administration “isn’t working,” and I’m not quite sure what they’re really on about, because there is a massive power imbalance here, and we can’t forget that we are largely an afterthought to the Americans, who are far more concerned about their southern border than the northern one. Softwood lumber has been an irritant for decades, and I distinctly recall the sector was unhappy with the agreement that the Harper government signed (which has since expired). Buy American? Again, this happens under every administration, and is not unique to the current government. Measures targeting agricultural exports? Erm, some of us recall the problems with country-of-origin-labelling that the Conservatives couldn’t make any progress on. Action against pipelines? Seems to me that Harper didn’t have any luck there either, even after plastering Washington DC with billboards and posters declaring that Keystone XL was a “no brainer.” Yeah, that didn’t work.

So what exactly does Chong propose? Performative temper tantrums for the benefit of the media? That seems to be the Conservative demand for most files, but there were two former diplomats on Power & Politics last night who basically said that if you want progress with the American government, you need to do it behind closed doors and not be seen to be pinning someone down, because they don’t respond to that well at all. But we also need to remember that the Conservatives also seem to think that diplomacy is the cookie you get for good behaviour rather than how you deal with problems, so it’s not unsurprising that this demand for performance is how they think this needs to be dealt with.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Demands to take action on transitory inflation

Posted on by

Inflation was the word of the day again yesterday, as it was the monthly release of Statistics Canada’s Consumer Price Index, and lo, it was once again high – 4.7 percent, which it hasn’t been since February of 2003. But the factors behind it are largely global – energy demand versus supply on the market, the shortage of semiconductor chips that is driving up the cost of vehicles, and locally, labour shortages (much of it because of COVID) is driving up meat prices. Not that these factors matter much to Erin O’Toole.

Here’s the thing – there’s not a lot that the federal government can do about the causes of this current bout of inflation, which, let’s be clear, the Bank of Canada and the majority of analysts still believes is transitory given what’s driving it, so the last thing you want to do is overreact and create more problems in the economy. When it comes to food items, the rising costs of dairy are from supply management reflecting an increase in input costs; meat is being driven up by labour costs; other foods are impacted by droughts and supply chain issues. There’s very little that the federal government can actually do about this, not that it’s stopped O’Toole from demanding that something – anything – be done. But what is that anything? Price controls? Do we need to start practicing “Zap, you’re frozen!” again? Because it feels a lot like we’re heading back to that territory.

In the meantime, Kevin Carmichael puts the figures into context for what the Bank of Canada is likely to do about upcoming interest rate decisions. Mike Moffatt and Ken Boessenkool call on the Bank of Canada to give a clear explanation of what is happening with inflation, because otherwise the Bank will lose its credibility for allowing inflation to run hot when using their tools could do further economic damage if employed at this point. Heather Scoffield worries that the floods and washed-out roads and railways in BC will further drive inflation – though that fear may be somewhat misplaced, as the macroeconomic damage may be limited to a few days.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1461179942880694281

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1461181382302973954

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole boots Batters at his peril

Posted on by

The internal strife within the Conservative ranks is getting more pointed, as word came down yesterday that Erin O’Toole had lined up enough caucus members to force out any MP who signed Senator Denise Batters’ petition – thus weaponizing the (garbage) Reform Act to protect the leader rather than curb the leader’s powers – and with that threat in the open, O’Toole then kicked Batters out of caucus.

There are a few things about how this is all going down. First of all, the use of the Reform Act provisions to threaten other caucus members is a completely hypocritical action that would be utterly galling if it were not predictable. If only someone *cough* had warned everyone that this was a garbage piece of legislation that would only be used to insulate leaders and give them freer rein to be more autocratic and to threaten the MPs who get out of line, and literally put a target on the backs of anyone who openly stood against the leader as the Act’s provisions require. Imagine it being abused in exactly the way that someone *cough* warned was likely to happen, no matter what Michael Chong and every talking head pundit in this country gushed over. Funny that.

The other aspect of this is the fact that O’Toole kicking Batters out puts a stake in the party’s self-righteous moralising that they respect strong women and that Justin Trudeau hates them (citing Jody Wilson-Raybould, Jane Philpott and Celina Caesar-Chavannes – but curiously omitting Chrystia Freeland from consideration). It’s even more curious that Senator Michael McDonald said virtually the same things about O’Toole that Batters did, and he didn’t face any sanction. In fact, this has clearly shown that O’Toole will tolerate the anti-vaxxers in his caucus but not someone who wanted the party’s grassroots membership to have a say in his leadership before August 2023 (at which time they would warn that there could be an election at any time so they couldn’t possibly change leaders then). And by kicking Batters out of caucus, she has nothing left to lose. She can join up with the Canadian Senators Group later today (the likeliest place for her to land) and carry on criticising O’Toole and calling on Conservative grassroots members to have their say about his leadership, and O’Toole can’t do anything about it. All of his leverage over her is now gone. If O’Toole thinks that this move solved any of his problems, he’s mistaken.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More dynamics at play with the story of the Clerk

Posted on by

The CBC story earlier in the week regarding the Clerk of the House of Commons has its critics, and there were elements of the story that felt “off” while reading it – such as how it described Charles Robert’s relationship with a senator (omitting that the senator was male, and the actual dynamics of what happened with the former Liberal-appointed senators when Justin Trudeau expelled them from the party), or the way in which Robert allegedly consulted the Liberals over the timing of releasing a privilege ruling to the Speaker. I did know that his appointment ruffled feathers, which was in part over the poor process that the government ran for it, and how they essentially pushed out the other contender, Marc Bosc, by forcing him to re-apply for his deputy clerk position when he didn’t get the full clerk job. But it sounds like there were other dynamics at play there as well – and this thread by a former procedural clerk in the House of Commons illuminates some of those. It may not absolve Robert entirely, but it certainly colours the story that CBC published, and reminds us that we may not be seeing the full picture.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Moe defends the Saskatchewan Nation

Posted on by

Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe is in trouble. The COVID numbers in his province are still out of control, five of the patients that they had to airlift to Ontario because they didn’t have enough ICU capacity have died, and his approval ratings are plummeting. So what does Moe think the solution to his problems is? Taking a page from Jason Kenney’s playbook and trying to pick fights with Ottawa, and in keeping with Kenney’s playbook, Moe has decided to also try adopting a tactic of “We want what Quebec has!” and wants Saskatchewan to be declared a “nation within a nation.”

That’s right – the nation of Saskatchewan, which is defined not by language (though they do call hoodies “bunny hugs” there, so that counts, right?) or by culture (going to Roughriders games is a distinct culture from the rest of Canada, right?), but by…well, he won’t exactly say. Which is pretty much where the rationale for his argument falls apart entirely. Because he doesn’t actually know what the hell he’s talking about, he is aping talking points from Kenney and company, and spouting a random sampling of phrases from Quebec nationalists, and hoping it gives him credibility. Rest assured, it doesn’t.

The other thing that Moe seems to forget that this kind of nationalism/separatism talk has consequences. In Quebec, it devastated their economy in the seventies and eighties as head offices departed for Toronto, and the former financial capital of the country, Montreal, was a corporate graveyard. Not sure that this is an outcome that Moe is gunning for, but hey, those who fail to learn history correctly… Moe seems to think that he can get more autonomy from the federal government in this way, but he doesn’t actually make any case for it. He brays that Quebec has their own immigration deal with the federal government (because they are prioritizing francophones – and they are now facing labour shortages because they have been overly restrictive), or that they got a special deal around national childcare (because they already had a system in place that meets the criteria where Saskatchewan does not), but doesn’t acknowledge the reasons why, and is simply playing people for idiots. But really, this is all Moe just being Jason Kenney’s Mini-Me, and it’s not going to work.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mark Holland is optimistic

Posted on by

New Government House Leader Mark Holland is brimming with optimism that the things that paralyzed the previous session of Parliament will be behind them post-election. It’s a nice idea, but I wonder just how it will actually play out. Yes, the Liberals have broken some of the deadlocks that plagued them (a fact that they didn’t articulate during the election, even when pressed on the subject), and they have a bit of leverage now in that none of the other parties can even contemplate another election anytime soon – the Conservatives are consumed with internal disputes over vaccine mandates and just when they plan to put Erin O’Toole to a leadership review, and the NDP are very broke having spent record amounts of money to gain themselves a single new seat, and the Bloc have no desire to go back to the polls, particularly since their play to be François Legault’s voice in Ottawa didn’t play well for them in the election. This will allow the Liberals to play some hardball and use confidence to their advantage for the time being.

But in spite of this, I would not put it past any of the opposition parties to engage in some of the other shenanigans that got us the election, whether that is tying up the committees in interminable attempts at witch hunts, or drowning in document production requests – and that may yet still happen. The election did end some of that, but much of it could very easily be revived once the committees are back up and running (likely in the New Year).

“There was a very clear message sent to all parties that there’s an expectation that we work together, and I’m operating on the presumption that we will have all heard that message and that we all come ready to work and to collaborate in a constructive and positive way,” Holland told The Canadian Press.

I’m not sure that such a presumption is a good one to make. There was an expectation that all parties should work together during the pandemic, and while they did a bunch of backroom negotiations around emergency legislation – and kept any of the debates off-the-record – they stalled all other bills until the very end, when the NDP and Bloc realized they needed to start playing ball again. I’m not sure what the appetite for playing ball will be on most bills, or whether the political calculus will be to try and stymie the Liberals once again (which could lead to showdowns over confidence). I wish Holland all the luck in the world on this, but I suspect he may start losing the hair he has left because the current state of our parliamentary discourse is pretty toxic, and things like the Liberals’ desire to keep hybrid sittings going will only exacerbate that problem.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Enter the new Whip

Posted on by

Newly-appointed Chief Government Whip Steve MacKinnon had a conversation with CBC over the weekend, and there are a few interesting bits in there. For one, I didn’t actually realise that the term came from 18th-century hunting slang for “whipper-in, as the rider who keeps hounds from straying from the pack. So it’s not about any kind of literal or metaphorical whipping of MPs to vote a certain way, and now we’ve both learned something new today.

What I did know before is that there is more to the whip’s job than just ensuring MPs vote in certain ways, particularly if there’s a confidence vote upcoming. Rather, the whip and his or her office has a lot of work in juggling assignments – who is on what committee, who can stand in for that MP if they are away, and to an extent, who has House duty. And because the whip is largely the person in charge of MPs’ attendance (even if said attendance is not made public), I have it on very good authority that the Whip spends a lot of time listening to MPs as they unburden themselves, and talk about what is going on in their lives as to why they can’t attend a committee meeting or vote. The whip also becomes responsible for the staff in a riding office if that MP resigns or dies in office. And then comes the discipline part, which is different between each party. Some parties are very strict about it, some have unofficial ways of enforcing discipline – largely through in-group bullying – and some are fairly relaxed over the issue provided it’s not a matter of confidence.

The other thing I would add is that at the advent of the era of “Senate independence,” as Justin Trudeau and others would have you believe, the whip in the Senate was equivalent to in the House of Commons, and they instructed senators how to vote – or else. This was simply not true – the whip in the Senate was always rather illusory, and the Whip’s office was more about doing things like committee assignments, finding alternates for those who were absent, and assigning things like office space or parking to incoming senators who joined the caucus. They had little to no leverage of senators and their voting patterns because of institutional independence, and I heard a former Liberal senate leader once remark that on one occasion when the leader’s office on the Commons side called them up and said they’d really like it if senators could vote for a certain bill, that these senators turned around and voted the other way, just to prove a point around their independence. So there is a lot more to the role than people may expect from the outside, and best of luck to Steve MacKinnon as he takes on this new role.

Continue reading →