Tag Archives: Keystone XL

Roundup: Carney won’t retaliate

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney has dismissed calls by Doug Ford and others to retaliate against increasing American trade actions, insisting that this is not the time, and that this is the time to keep negotiating. But to what end? There is no deal to be had, and any deal they come up with isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The talks keep “stalling,” and every time, the Americans make another demand to restart them, and Carney capitulates, and then the talks resume for a few days, and then they “stall” again. Because there isn’t a deal to be had. Sure, we currently have the “best deal” of everyone, which doesn’t amount to much given the constant tariffs under bullshit “national security” reasons, but their demands are increasingly encroaching on our sovereignty and ability to make our own policy decisions, again, for nothing. When do we start saying no more? Hopefully before we’re a vassal state.

Carney also said that he got “reassurances” from Stellantis about the Brampton plant that they decided to move production away from, but again, what good is that if they decide to keep shifting production south to avoid the tariffs, as Trump wants? Carney also isn’t saying if he’d drop Chinese EV tariffs for the sake of saving the canola trade, but again, that would be foolish because the next time China wants to make a point, they would tariff canola again, or come up with some kind of falsehood about “concerns” about the product, like they constantly do. It would be great if Carney could actually articulate that concern, rather than give false hope that this would be some kind of lasting solution to the canola issue.

Meanwhile, Carney announced his bail and sentencing reform plans, most of which are pretty much the opposite of what the legal community has warned against, and which does nothing about the fact that the real problem with bail is provinces under-resourcing their court systems, or that their jails are overcrowded, and that they’re not funding community supervision programmes, or that their underfunding social programmes means more people are going to find their way into crime. Tinkering with the Criminal Code and endangering people’s Charter rights will do nothing about this. And it’s so infuriating that Carney just capitulated to a bunch of complete falsehoods by the Conservatives, and this will change nothing (other than crowding those provincial jails even worse), and they’ll still get blamed when another case slips through the cracks.

They say they're going to work with the provinces, but rest assured that those provinces won't do what they need to do (resource their court systems), and that the situation is going to get even worse, and the federal government will again take the blame, and tinker with the Criminal Code even more.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-10-16T15:39:15.421Z

Also, as Dale notes, provinces have no room to incarcerate more people. Judges are reducing custodial sentences because jail conditions are so bad. bsky.app/profile/jour…

— Anna Mehler Paperny (@mehlerpaperny.bsky.social) 2025-10-16T18:03:49.009Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian attacks on Ukrainian gas facilities will force them to import more gas this winter. A large Russian assault near Dobropillia was repelled by Ukrainian forces. Reuters takes a deeper dive into Russia’s attacks on Russia’s energy industry. AP has a photo gallery of displaced Ukrainians at a hostel in Dnipro.

Good reads:

  • Lina Diab says that there will be some adjustments coming to the provincial nominee programme numbers.
  • Tim Hodgson says the Americans are interested in “energy security” as part of conversations about reviving the Keystone XL pipeline.
  • Both Alberta and Saskatchewan’s health ministers say that Marjorie Michel hasn’t approached them about joining the federal pharmacare programme.
  • DND and the Canadian Forces are suing NSIRA to block the release of a report on their intelligence activities, claiming the redactions aren’t sufficient.
  • FINTRAC has levied a $600,000 fine on the First Nations Bank for lack of proper controls over money laundering, which they acknowledge.
  • Former PBO Kevin Page and the head of the IMF both say that Canada’s finances are sustainable and could increase spending without issue.
  • As Mélanie Joly tries to press Lockheed Martin for more industrial benefits for F-35s, the company points to 30 companies in Canada providing components.
  • A study shows that Canadian passport holders outpace Americans for visa-free access to other countries.
  • Here is a look at the process to create the Supreme Court of Canada’s new ceremonial robes.
  • In more Dollarama Trumpism, Poilievre is calling for the RCMP to investigate and jail Trudeau for past ethics scandals, saying the senior ranks are “despicable.”
  • The premier of PEI is calling for a federal investigation into allegations of Chinese foreign interference and money-laundering in the province.
  • Wab Kinew is lobbing broadsides at other premiers over their use of the Notwithstanding Clause as he moves a bill to refer future all uses to the courts.
  • Rob Shaw chronicles BC Conservative leader John Rustad’s plummeting fortunes.
  • John Michael McGrath makes the depressing point that Canada has very little leverage when it comes to trying to preserve our auto industry.
  • My Xtra column points out that Carney’s hate crime bill is mostly empty symbolism because the real problem is a lack of police enforcing existing laws.
  • My (delayed) column makes the case that youth may be avoiding politics because they no longer have an entry point with grassroots party organisations.

Odds and ends:

https://twitter.com/RichardAlbert/status/1978906504154489171

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

QP: Trillion dollar fallacies, redux

Posted on by

With so many developing stories happening, it was probably a good thing that the PM was in attendance for a second day in a row, though it remained to be seen just how many of these issues would merit attention. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and immediately jumped into the complete falsehood about what the $1 trillion figure around investment in the American market, and said that if it’s supposed to be private money, if the government would “force” them to invest in the US or to just invest in Canada—which makes no sense whatsoever. Mark Carney responded in English that it was a momentous day and that they should recognise the Middle East peace plan, which he offered his support of. Poilievre, still in French, said that while they congratulate Trump on negotiating peace, but he asked a question in French about jobs and that the prime minister owed respect to answer the question, again about the falsehoods about the trillion dollar figure. Carney responded with his canned bullet points about having the best trade deal, and that they are still negotiating a better deal, and finally that as a result of the agreement, there would be more investment in Canada. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the same bad faith question on “forcing” investment in the U.S. Carney reminded him that he was there, before repeating his same bullet points that did not correct the disinformation or the bad faith reading. Poilievre insisted that we have he fastest-shrinking economy in the G7 (untrue), and again tried to insist that Carney was somehow going to force Canadian private money to invest money in the U.S., or just send them fleeing with high taxes. Carney reminded him that they cut income taxes, the capital gains tax, and the carbon levy, and then touted the forthcoming “generational investment budget.” Poilievre read Carney’s words on the trillion dollar investment, and framed it misleadingly, and wondered if there was an agreement that Trump would send the same north. Carney reminded him that there are no tariffs on auto parts or finished goods, and that they are working toward an agreement that will increase investment in Canada—which again, did not actually answer the question. Poilievre switched topics to energy, and the support for the a Keystone XL pipeline which can’t be filled so long as the emissions cap is in place (which is patently false). Carney said that the motion he voted against was about something that does not exist—being the supposed taxes on groceries. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and worried about the ongoing softwood lumber tariffs. Carney said that Canada currently has the best deal with the U.S. in the world, and that they are working to bring the steel and aluminium tariffs, and that the tariffs an autos and trucks are the lowest in the world. Blanchet then concern trolled that a new pipeline to the U.S. was not diversifying out economy. Carney patted himself on the back for the recent agreement with Indonesia and that more deals are coming for South America. Blanchet then pointed out that money for support programmes for steel and aluminium have not flowed yet, and Carney responded that they will have an opportunity to vote for that support in the budget.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pipeline necromancy in the discussions

Posted on by

With the prime minister back in Canada, a couple of additional things were made known about the meeting with Trump, and one of them was the fact that the “energy” portion of their conversation involved Mark Carney floating the possibility of reviving the Keystone XL pipeline. For those of you unaware, this is entirely an American decision—all of the infrastructure on the Canadian side of the border is pretty much in place, and this project was never in contention. The Trudeau government supported it, but the resistance was on the American side of the border, not only from environmental concerns, but also because there were conspiracy theories developing in places like Nebraska that this was a secret ploy to drain their aquifers. No, seriously. Nevertheless, this is something that the proponent abandoned after Biden rescinded the permits (even though part of the network was built and renamed), so it would need someone to pick it up again.

Meanwhile, US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick spoke virtually at a Eurasia Group event in Toronto, and said that there will be no tariff-free auto deal with Canada, that the most we can hope for is a relationship around auto parts, and that Canada needs to get used to coming in second place to the US. Lutnick also expressed a desire to replace the New NAFTA with bilateral deals rather than a trilateral agreement with Mexico. When Carney later addressed the same event virtually, he said that the government will come to some bilateral agreements with the US, and spoke of “granular discussions” around steel and aluminium tariffs, but didn’t address these comments, just as he didn’t address the reports of Lutnick’s remarks during QP.

It’s hard to know what to make of any of this. After insisting that there was a “rupture” in our trade relationship, this is yet one more proposal to deepen integration and reliance on the American market…but it’s also probably the most viable pipeline for Alberta (though there are proposals to optimise the capacity of the Trans Mountain Expansion that would increase its maximum capacity for west coast exports—not that it’s anywhere near capacity at the moment). On the other hand, if they want to pay for our oil, and also pay their own tariffs to do so, then why not take their money? None of this is going to stop Danielle Smith or the Conservatives from demanding that Carney rip up all of the government’s environmental legislation so that they can crank up production with no consequences (even though there are absolutely environmental consequences that are getting more and more expensive each year), and this isn’t going to create that many jobs in the sector, even if production is increased, given that they are increasingly relying on automation and have been since the last price crash in 2014. But everything is stupid all the time, so this is no exception.

effinbirds.com/post/7804636…

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-10-08T13:25:07.008Z

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy says that Ukrainian forces are inflicting heavy losses on the Russians in a counter-offensive in the Donetsk region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A mixed bag from the English debate

Posted on by

The Liberals’ English-language debate was held last night, and it was a much more lively affair, given that they weren’t speaking in very slow and deliberate French to get their points across. The first few minutes were a complete English-dub replay of Monday’s debate, with the exact same opening statements and first responses to the same question, so it took them a while to actually get to something new, but the longer it went on, the more annoyed I started to get at some of the absolute inanities that were on display. (Here are liveblogs from the Star and The Canadian Press, while I was live-tweeting Bluesky here).

One of the early topics was Canada’s place in the world, and after the initial chest-thumping about Trump, they got into things like NATO targets. Chrystia Freeland was probably the most clear-eyed here, talking about building a new democratic world order with allies that included the UK and France because they have nuclear capabilities (which was a sign of how serious this is), because America is no longer the “leader of the free world.” But when discussing spending to hit NATO targets, everyone was quick to say that they didn’t want those dollars going to American companies, but nobody seemed to have much of an idea of just what the Canadian defence industry was capable of producing for our needs, or the fact that we need to look to other allies because our defence industry is not large and can’t produce a lot of things we need quickly (lest we start buying into vapourware that companies like Bombardier will promise but have no guaranteed ability to deliver on). Oh, and Karina Gould deserves a time-out for pitching a “procurement czar.” No! Stop with this American bullshit!

Freeland has a very clear-eyed statement about building a new democratic world order now that the US is no longer the "leader of the free world." Baylis wants to get allies to bankruptcy Boeing as an example. (Good luck with what that's going to do to our military procurement).

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T01:29:48.917Z

Boy, there is a lot of wishful thinking about the state of the Canadian defence industry, and what capabilities that Canadian industry can produce. (We may have to look to other allies' industries, guys. Be frank and forthright about it.)

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T01:34:57.570Z

And now we're into another round of AI platitudes. And Baylis wants to recreate a research and development programme that already exists and has had challenges turning R&D into procurement. Like, it already exists. That's not the problem.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T01:40:12.215Z

The cost-of-living segment was…unenlightening, and had some of the worst pitches. Chrystia Freeland wants to cut red tape (how? You’ve had nine years!), and Karina Gould wants to modernise social services (provincial jurisdiction) and bring in a basic income (not going to work—there is research to prove it). There was a question on how to improve productivity that nobody could give an actual answer to except to wave their hands and say “AI,” as though it’s a magic incantation.

Moving onto the cost of living theme.You'll never guess, but Carney wants to "build our economy."

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T01:45:12.030Z

Baylis repeats his utter nonsense about fiscal discipline raising the value of the dollar (WHICH DOESN'T MAKE ANY GODS DAMNED SENSE!)And did he mention that he was a businessman? Because he's a businessman.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T01:47:14.001Z

Ireland, where a significant fraction of the paper economy is just US tech companies moving money in and out as a tax dodge? That Ireland?

— Nick P (@npilon.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T02:14:58.888Z

The topic that broke my brain completely was asking them how they could work with provinces to increase the number of doctors. Only Gould gave something resembling a coherent answer here. And again, when the topic changed to the carbon levy, everyone on the stage but Gould was utterly incoherent about how they would replace it (Gould would keep the levy but freeze it).

We've been convening the medical colleges for decades. How do you change that?!Baylis wants to redesign the system for chronic care (again, how is this federal?!) Freeland has an anecdote about a nurse practitioner! But doesn't say anything the *federal* government can do.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T02:25:28.637Z

Gould, correctly, says provinces don't have enough accountability for federal transfers, and points to how childcare agreements have specific guideposts. (The last round of federal transfers to have more strings and required action plans by provinces).

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T02:28:35.715Z

These answers on the carbon levy are *completely* incoherent (except for Gould, who is keeping but freezing it). Gould does admit that they didn't do a good job of talking about it, which no one else could muster the self-awareness to do.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T02:37:41.651Z

Baylis keeps saying "we'll build two pipelines."Who will? The federal government? Or do you think some proponent will swoop in with little economic case for it?

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-02-26T02:43:50.642Z

The final question was asking how they would differentiate themselves from Trudeau, and at first Freeland ignored the question, Gould talked around it before bringing up the fact that the party needs to get back to the grassroots, Baylis said he was going to be “focused on the economy” while Carney said he would be “laser-focused on the economy,” before adding that he’s very hands-on, and has heard from the supporters in caucus that Trudeau didn’t build many relationships with MPs, which he would do. The moderator circled back to Freeland, who talked about the campaign being a “personal liberation,” and that her style of leadership isn’t to be a “one-man band,” which is a pretty big repudiation of Trudeau’s leadership style (though I would say it’s more like a two-man band, because it’s more of a joint Trudeau-Katie Telford effort).

Overall, it was a mixed bag, and I couldn’t really determine someone I felt was a winner. Chrystia Freeland had some of the strongest responses, but some of the weakest delivery and framing of responses, and was very invested in playing nice in order to get second-place votes (because this is a ranked ballot). Gould was strong on many responses, but completely out to lunch on others, which tainted her credibility. Mark Carney kept repeating that he wants to “build the economy.” Over and over and again. Constantly. He still resorted largely to platitudes, and didn’t seem to have a good grasp of a lot of files because they have been out of his bailiwick, and his attempt at attacking Poilievre got cringey in place (Poilievre worships Trump? Really?) And then there was Frank Baylis, who kept reminding us that he’s a businessman. Over and over again, but his constant bizarre refrains about strengthening the dollar (at the expense of our exports?) and the whole thing about Ireland were just completely out to lunch, to say nothing about the fantasy economics of his pipeline plans.

Maybe I’m being too harsh of a critic, but nobody came out ahead.

Ukraine Dispatch

Another overnight attack on the Kyiv region has killed one person, injured four, and set several houses on fire. There also appears to be some progress on a critical minerals deal between the US and Ukraine, but we’ll see if it actually happens.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1894322734047310319

Continue reading →

QP: What is your inflation position today?

Posted on by

Even though the prime minister was in town, he was not in Question Period, but his deputy was, so that was something. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and he worried about the news that the coming fiscal update would only have “limited information,” and worrying about them covering up spending. Chrystia Freeland stood up and recited O’Toole’s floundering position on whether inflation is a global problem or not. O’Toole retorted that she was the only politician to have been flagged on Twitter for misleading information, and demanded that she tell the Bank of Canada to get inflation under control. Freeland chided O’Toole for not realising that monetary policy is the role of the Bank, which is arm’s length from government. O’Toole started sputtering about small businesses suffering from inflation, and Freeland reminded him that their campaign documents promised even more government spending in the current fiscal year, and wondered what their position was today. O’Toole demanded to know then a budget would be balanced, and Freeland recited the Economist’s top-ten list of most expensive cities to live in, and noted that none were in Canada. O’Toole then switched to French to say that Quebeckers were tired of living paycheque to paycheque. Freeland repeated the same Economist list in response.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he worried that the prime minister didn’t raise softwood tariff while in Washington, and Freeland stated that while she could not match Therrien’s ability to play on words, but the file was important and they were continuing to defend the sector’s interest like they did for aluminium. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay demanded that the government insist on separate treatment for Quebec because their forestry rules are different, while Freeland assured him that they were defending sector.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he worried that the COVID rules were too confusing for travellers. Freeland said that they agreed that the fight against COVID was the most important issue for the country and vaccination was the way out, but noted that the current rules are a circuit-breaker to buy them time. Singh repeated the question in French, and repeated her response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford turns to the Notwithstanding Clause – again

Posted on by

The sudden comfort with which premiers are deciding to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause is getting a bit uncomfortable, as Doug Ford decided he needed to invoke it after a court struck down his attempts to limit third-party spending in provincial elections in a somewhat arbitrary fashion (given that unions get together to form American-esque political action committees in this province). While you can find a great explainer on Ford and his particular legal challenge in this thread, the more alarming part is the apparent need to reach for the “emergency valve” of the Clause before even appealing the decision to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada.

There is a perfectly legitimate reason why the Notwithstanding Clause exists, which as to do with keeping a certain amount of parliamentary supremacy in lawmaking, and it gives governments an avenue of recourse if there is a fundamental disagreement with a court’s interpretation of legislation. But lately, it’s being invoked by premiers who know they are trying to push through objectionable legislation – François Legault did it with Bill 21, which the courts have essentially said blocks their ability to strike down any portion of the law, and he’s doing it again with his Bill 96 on trying to obliterate any bilingualism in the province (the same bill that seeks to unilaterally amend the federal constitution). Ford had threatened to invoke it to ram through his unilateral changes to Toronto City Council while they were in the middle of an election, but ultimately didn’t because of a court injunction, and his decision this time is similarly dubious. This willingness to invoke the Clause at the first sign of court challenge or on the first defeat is a very big problem for our democracy, and we should be very wary about this abuse of power, and punish these governments appropriately at the ballot box during the next elections for these decisions.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402715067083280387

In the meantime, here’s Emmett Macfarlane with more thoughts on the court decision that led to this turn of events.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402711628978720772

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402712563960455173

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402713058913525761

Continue reading →

QP: Selectively quoting reports to one another

Posted on by

There were only three Liberals in the Chamber today, which remains a problem, but they keep telling themselves they’re setting a “good example.” They’re not. Pierre Poilievre led off, and he lamented a Canadian Federation of Independent Business report citing that up to twenty percent of small businesses may close because of the pandemic. Appearing by video, Chrystia Freeland quoted this week’s IMF report that praised the federal government’s quick action in providing supports. Poilievre then gave a mendacious comparison of unemployment figures, to which Freeland responded with comparisons of the participation rates in the labour force. Poilievre railed about people not getting jobs, but Freeland repeated her IMF quotes. Pierre Paul-Hus was up next, and he gave a fictitious version of the CanSino deal, to which Freeland read the talking points on the vaccine portfolio. Paul-Hus demanded a back-up plan for vaccinations, to which Freeland haltingly read talking points about the breadth of the portfolio as being Plans A, B, C, and D.

For the Bloc, Sébastien Lemire quoted that experts did not agree with the CanSino deal and falsely quoted the “putting all our eggs in one basket” notion, for which Freeland read assurances that the government always listens to expert advice, before repeating the assurances about diversifying the portfolio. Lemire then complained about the Laval candidate not getting funding, for which Freeland read that the researcher got a million dollar subsidy from the government.

Rising for the NDP, Jagmeet Singh complained in French about the federal sickness benefit, and demanded it being improved — though in 94 percent of workplaces, sick leave is a provincial responsibility. Freeland read that the sickness benefit was an important programme, and that provinces have put protections for employment in place. Singh repeated his demand in English, and Freeland agreed that paid sick leave is important, which is why they provided the benefits they could.

Continue reading →

QP: Random accusations and incoherence

Posted on by

For the day’s proto-PMQs, prime minister Justin Trudeau was present, along with three other Liberals — still a pathetic turnout and contemptuous of Parliament. After a late start, Erin O’Toole led off, mini-lectern and script in front of him, and he accused the prime minister of being out of step with allies and his own caucus on China, and demanded that Canada remove itself from the Asia Infrastructure Bank — as though that would do anything. Trudeau stated that they continue to express their concern about China’s activities and human rights record, solidarity with the two Michaels, and that more discussions were happening in next week’s virtual G7 meeting. O’Toole tried to wedge Canadian job numbers with the Asia Infrastructure Bank, and Trudeau took the opportunity to pat himself on the back for the measures they rolled out to help those who lost their jobs because of the pandemic. O’Toole then worried about our vaccination rollout, and the lack of domestic production capacity, and Trudeau read about their investments in Canadian bio-manufacturing, and how the vaccine plan was on track. O’Toole switched to French to repeat the question and got the same answer, before he demanded to know how many Canadians would be vaccinated next week — as though he can answer for the provinces, but Trudeau listed what deliveries we were expecting this week,

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and stated that the Quebec government was investing in that Laval vaccine candidate, to which Trudeau listed what investments that particular researcher was given by the federal government. Blanchet was not mollified, and he continued to rail that multinationals got contracts instead of Quebeckers, for which Trudeau chided that we can hear the frustration in the Bloc leader’s voice because Ottawa was delivering for Quebec.

For the NDP, Jagmeet Singh got up, and in French, demanded a promise from the government that they would not call an election in the pandemic, and Trudeau took the opportunity to call out the Conservatives for stalling the latest pandemic aid bill. Singh repeated his demand in English, and Trudeau noted that in a minority parliament, the government doesn’t have the sole determination of that, before praising their efforts today.

Continue reading →

QP: Pouncing on COVAX

Posted on by

There was a second Liberal in the Chamber today, with Francis Drouin joining Mark Gerretsen, not that this made the situation any better. Candice Bergen led off for the Conservatives, appearing by video, and she demanded government support for their Supply Day motion on the creation of a Canada-US committee. Chrystia Freeland, also by video, responded that the Conservatives’ plan around Trump’s tariffs was to wave the white flag. Bergen tried again, bringing in the concerns over Line 5, to which Freeland offered calm assurances that they were working with the Americans on this file. Bergen then switched to the topic of vaccines, worrying that we were dropping in rankings, to which Freeland gave the usual assurances about the portfolio and that the schedule was still intact. Gérard Deltell took over in French, and he said it was “humiliating” that the government was drawing from the COVAX fund, misconstruing the deal. Freeland responded that COVAX was always part of the strategy, and this proved the system was working. Deltell pressed upon the urgency of the need for vaccines, and Freeland gave the same assurances.

Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he too brought up the false reading of the COVAX programme, calling it “embarrassing,” and Freeland repeated that it was always part of the strategy and listed other allies who were part of it. Therrien demanded a plan for vaccinations, for which Freeland calmly stated that they also shared the sense of urgency, which is why they are sharing all of their information.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, he tied the loss of lives to vaccine delays, and wanted to know why the government let people down. Freeland read off the talking points on the breadth of our vaccine portfolio. Singh switched to English to repeat the same ghoulish framing and brought up COVAX to repeat the same question on letting people down. Freeland once again repeated that this was always part of the strategy.

Continue reading →

QP: Virtual PMQs in an empty chamber

Posted on by

It was not only a very late start to QP, but there was once again only a single Liberal in the Chamber, and it wasn’t the prime minister, despite it being the designated day he answers all questions. Erin O’Toole led off, and he thundered about the CanSino deal falling apart a week after it was struck. Justin Trudeau, appearing by video, reminded him that they cast a wide net with several possible candidates in case one didn’t pan out, like CanSino. O’Toole wondered about Providence Therapeutics’ made-in-Canada candidate, to which Trudeau assured him they follow the advice of the immunity task force, and that they have given Providence new funds to complete trials. O’Toole then railed about the fact that we are not producing any in Canada, and again, Trudeau reminded him that their “strong and aggressive plan” got us vaccines as soon as possible. O’Toole switched to French to worry about the vaccine protectionist noises coming out of the European Union, to which Trudeau assured him he just spoke to the president of the European Commission, who said that these transparency measures would not affect Canada. O’Toole then accused the government of not telling the truth about vaccine deliveries, and Trudeau took exception to that, insisting that he has been transparent with all of their dates. Yves-François Blanchet was up next for the Bloc, and demanded that health transfers would be increased in the budget, to which Trudeau reminded him that they have sent billions to the provinces already (and several provinces continue to sit on those funds). Blanchet repeated the demand, and Trudeau asked him in return why Blanchet was resisting pan-Canadian standards on long-term care. Jagmeet Singh took over for the NDP, and in French, he blamed the lack of vaccines on deaths, before demanding laid sick leave (which is 94 percent provincial jurisdiction), and Trudeau reminded him of the sickness benefit they put into place, but he hoped the provinces would agree to implement them, especially as the federal government has spent eight or nine out of every ten dollars in this pandemic. Singh tried again in English and got much the same response.

Continue reading →