Tag Archives: Nominations

Roundup: Fundraising off of blame-shifting

Posted on by

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has opted to keep up his little pissing match with the federal government over the border and what he claims are insufficient measures or testing, in spite of all evidence to the contrary – or of the fact that using rapid antigen tests at the border wouldn’t necessarily give proper results because they don’t work as well when someone is pre-symptomatic, meaning they would be just as likely to give a false sense of security with arrivals that may very well be unwarranted. And to top of all off, Ford is using this exercise in blame-shifting in order to send out fundraising appeals to his part’s donors – but remember, he’s “not playing politics.”

Speaking of Ford “not playing politics,” he tried to clap back at Ottawa’s mayor over concerns that the city wasn’t consulted before the mockdown was announced, and the fact that we are in the twenty-eight-day zone rather than the fourteen-day zone despite having the lowest positivity rate in the province and zero cases in ICU. Ford’s response – that he’s trying to save lives, and the mayor must not care about body bags piling up on his doorstep. Excuse me? Ford sat on federal money that should have gone to increasing testing and tracing capacity, and dollars for making schools safer, and for long-term care facilities – which he promised he’d put an “iron ring” around and then did nothing about it, and who has hesitated for month before doing a necessary lockdown – and even then didn’t do a proper lockdown, opting instead for a half-measure mockdown that does nothing about workplace infections – and he’s lecturing others about body bags? Sorry, no. He’s the one going to be held to account for the thousands of death on his watch, not the mayor of Ottawa.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The importance of keeping up democratic appearances

Posted on by

As the most populous areas of the country head back into some form of lockdown (thanks in large part to the premiers being generally useless), prime minister Justin Trudeau said that the two by-elections will continue as planned, as it’s important for Canadians to see that democracy keeps functioning in spite of the pandemic, and said pandemic could be worse later if there are delays, so best to do it now. In case it wasn’t obvious, new Green Party leader, Annamie Paul, has calling for the delays, as though it would make any actual difference for her doomed campaign in Toronto Centre given that it’s a “safe” Liberal seat. (I mean, miracles can happen, but it would be just that – a miracle, if she didn’t come in fourth again as she did during the last election).

There is, however, a bit of irony to this as the Liberals are also looking to make it easier to forgo nominations in ridings that they currently hold, doing away with the actual grassroots democracy of letting members of the riding decide whether or not they want to oust their incumbent or keep them around. In the last election, the party decided that there was a relatively high bar for a nomination to be protected (which is an abomination, don’t get me wrong), but now they’re looking at making that high bar much lower. And given that Trudeau decided to forgo proper nomination processes for the two by-elections, in spite of the fact that there were declared challengers to those who ended up being chosen, it really doesn’t seem like he’s demonstrating that grassroots democracy can still function in spite of the pandemic. Funny that.

All snark aside, I will note that the one positive out of these changes is that the party seems to be taking the search for more diverse candidates a little more seriously, and ensuring that the riding associations in unheld ridings needs to document that they did search for candidates who were women, as well as Black Canadians, people of colour, people with disabilities, or members of the LGBT community. The party did have some success with recruiting more women when they adopted a system of having people search for potential candidates, forwarding the party their name, and having the party follow up with them several times (because there is documented research that shows that women need to be asked multiple times before they will say yes, often because they feel underqualified even when they are more than qualified), so perhaps they will see some more success by extending this to other underrepresented communities. Time will tell, of course – particularly if they start using the pandemic as an excuse not to keep the grassroots process going as it should be.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A continued abuse of process

Posted on by

The myriad ways in which this government continues to abuse process for the sake of expediency in the face of the current pandemic never ceases to amaze. After the unnecessary five-week prorogation during which things could have been accomplished, the government needed to act with alacrity to get the CERB replacements out the door, and this meant very little time for a proper legislative process – and that should have been a red flag right there. They introduced their bill, and then set about ensuring additional negotiations with the NDP that required amendments to said bill. But rather than go through a proper amendment process, the government simply tabled a new, tweaked version of the same bill, and then pushed through a motion to see it fast-tracked through the Commons with a mere four-and-a-half hours of debate and no committee process, so that it can pass in a single day – today – and head to the Senate tomorrow for rapid passage and royal assent.

This is not normal. This is not good. The Conservatives even put forward a motion last week that would see the Commons meet on Sunday so that they could do Committee of the Whole and maybe even have a proper amendment process as part of that, but the Bloc denied consent. Rather than negotiate and try again, they went with this route instead, which is a problem. This kind of nonsense may have made a limited amount of sense for the emergency legislation that passed through the early part of the pandemic when Parliament was ostensibly suspended, but it’s not suspended any longer. And the opposition parties have largely stated that they don’t want to be seen as impediment to getting people their needed benefits, so it’s not like a proper process would drag on forever – maybe an extra day to do things properly. But no.

My patience for this state of affairs is pretty much exhausted. There is no reason why we shouldn’t be running proper legislative processes, and why Parliament can’t bubble and operate in a largely normal capacity like they should be. These shenanigans are weakening Parliament, and it’s not a good look.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The importance of automatic filing

Posted on by

The Throne Speech commitment about automatic tax filings continues to make waves, particularly because it’s such an important component about ensuring that government benefits go to those who need them, and how it’s not happening currently. With that in mind, here’s Dr. Jennifer Robson with some additional context as to why this is a problem and why it’s a good thing the government is finally proposing to act on it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An address to the nation following the Throne Speech

Posted on by

It’s Speech from the Throne day, which is always exciting, though it’ll be a much sparser affair given the pandemic. What is stranger is the fact that prime minister Justin Trudeau plans to take to the airwaves in the evening, around 6:30 PM, apparently in a bid to talk about the urgency pandemic and the emerging second wave, because we’re back to exponential growth in new cases in four provinces. After all, last night in the UK, Boris Johnson gave a public address to announce a second lockdown was going to start, so 2020 is going really well.

Meanwhile, there still is no agreement among MPs on how voting will work once the new session begins, and it sounds like the test for the proposed remote system did not go very well. Currently the parties seem to have some kind of an accord on a rotation system, but Trudeau and the Liberals keep pushing for hybrid sittings and remote voting while the Conservatives (rightfully) remain skeptical. But nobody is talking about the most practical solution, which is sequestering MPs and creating a bubble around Parliament Hill for them. I mean, if the NHL can do it, why can’t MPs, given how much more important Parliament is than the hockey playoffs.

Speaking of the importance of Parliament, MPs from the Liberals and NDP are balking at the availability of priority testing for them and their families at that Gatineau clinic, insisting that they’ll take spots away from other people who need it in the long queues for tests. And then the Conservatives went ahead and used unapproved serological tests yesterday provided by a lobbyist who is trying to get Health Canada to approve them – never mind that these tests don’t determine current infections, but only the presence of antibodies from past infections. This while they howl for the government to approve more rapid tests, even though the truncated approval process in the US has meant that faulty tests got approved there, which Health Canada is trying to avoid.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Blaming the wrong government

Posted on by

It appears that Conservative leader Erin O’Toole has decided to use his need for a COVID-test after one of his staffers tested positive in order to be performative about the whole affair. Despite there being a dedicated testing services available to MPs and their families (because yes, Parliament is an essential service), O’Toole and family apparently opted to attempt the public route, which in Ottawa has been backed up for days because of a lack of testing capacity. O’Toole then put out a press release to blame the federal government – not for inadequate capacity, which is the domain of the provinces, and O’Toole couldn’t possibly be seen to criticize Doug Ford and his lack of appreciable action on the pandemic – but because rapid testing hasn’t been approved by the regulators at Health Canada. Hours later, Michelle Rempel, the new Conservative health critic, doubled down and demanded that Cabinet force Health Canada to work faster (and misusing an analogy about the bourgeoisie and “let them eat cake” in the process).

There are a couple of problems with O’Toole’s demands, and one is that Cabinet should be interfering in the work of a regulator, which sets up all kinds of bad precedents – you know, like the one the Conservatives set when they fired the nuclear safety regulator because she refused to restart a nuclear reactor during a crisis of isotope production. The other is that Health Canada has good reason not to approve these tests as they are, because they produce false negatives more often than the regular tests, and that creates a false sense of security among people who may be spreading the virus. “Oh, but the FDA approved it!” people say, ignoring that it’s an emergency approval that relies on self-reported results and not independently verified ones, which again, should be concerning – not to mention that infections in the US are still spreading rapidly. The fact that Health Canada is doing the job that the FDA didn’t shouldn’t mean that we’re “falling behind” – we’re doing the due diligence that they’re not.

As well, I’m not exactly mollified by the notion that O’Toole attempting the public route when he had an option available already because it’s the kind of performative “We’re like real people” nonsense – especially if it took a spot away from another local family who doesn’t have access to the private test that O’Toole did. It’s not heroic or setting a good example – it’s political theatre that could hurt other people in the process.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An apology on the second attempt

Posted on by

It was prime minister Justin Trudeau’s first presser since the WE Imbroglio blew up over the revelations of his family being paid speakers for the charity, and there was a definite note of contrition this time. After hinting that the government would extend the wage subsidy until December with details coming later in the week, a mention of his call earlier in the morning with Donald Trump that touched on tariffs, Black Lives Matter, and China, and a promise on further updates on the Safe Restart Plan with the provinces to come later in the week, Trudeau turned to his mea culpa on the Imbroglio. “I made a mistake in not recusing myself from discussions, and I’m sincerely sorry about not having done that,” Trudeau said. He praised how the government got creative with designing programmes during the pandemic, and how they had worked with a range of partners to make it happen, but he was sorry that he didn’t remove himself from the discussions with WE, and that he was frustrated that youth would have to wait longer to do their party to serve because of the mistakes he made. (I would argue that WE’s plans raised a lot of red flags too, for what it’s worth). When asked if he would appear before committee to discuss what happened, Trudeau was non-committal, but in a hung parliament, he doesn’t have the votes to shield himself this time.

During the Q&A, he said that he pointed out to Trump about the disruptions to the aluminium supply chains and hoped that they wouldn’t see tariffs that would only slow down the economic recovery; he also mentioned that there were ongoing discussions around the border, but the rest of the time was spent reiterating, over and over, that he didn’t have the details on what his family members had been paid by WE and that he should have, and that he did seem to have some reflection that he needed to be careful on this file because of his past activity with the charity but that he didn’t go far enough and should have removed himself entirely from the conversation. Later in the day, Bill Morneau sent out his own apology for his own failure to recuse himself given his daughters’ activities with WE.

For what it’s worth, there seems to be some kind of learning curve because it only took the second try for Trudeau to give an apology rather than stick to talking points aimed at deflection until the conclusion of the Ethics Commissioner’s report, at which point there would be either an apology or admission of some kind of wrongdoing and a promise to do better next time. This time, we managed to skip weeks of such failed damage control, so that’s something, I guess.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt finds herself wanting when it comes to Trudeau’s explanation for how the whole thing went down, and hopes that he’s saving it for his discussion with the Ethics Commissioner. Matt Gurney gives credit where credit is due for Trudeau learning enough to make a rapid admission and apology rather than dragging things out for months. Paul Wells is unimpressed with the apology and wants a full accounting of what happened, particularly as it is increasingly evident that things were wrong with the WE contract outside of the apparent conflict of interest, and how those decisions were made need to be aired.

Good reads:

  • Ruh-roh! It looks like the federal government wasn’t enforcing the rules around temporary foreign workers, which allowed outbreaks to occur on farms.
  • Here is some number-crunching on the PM’s daily pressers in the first phase of the pandemic and lockdown, including on his choice of verbs and phrases.
  • The RCMP have charged a Quebec man with calling for Justin Trudeau’s death and the eradication of Muslims.
  • Former Liberal MPs who lost their seats in the last election are waiting to hear about nomination contests so they can be ready to run again.
  • Leona Alleslev has resigned as deputy leader of the Conservatives to more vocally back Peter MacKay, who says that no promises were made for her support.
  • Maclean’s has a profile of Conservative leadership candidate Leslyn Lewis.
  • Jason Kenney is accusing the federal government of preventing Apple from fixing the province’s contact tracing app, which requires iPhones to be unlocked to work.
  • Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column looks at the options for calling prime minister Trudeau to committee to testify on the WE Imbroglio.
  • Heather Scoffield is frustrated by the vague answers being given on the extension and amendments to the wage subsidy programme.
  • Colby Cosh recounts how Alberta has abolished its last vestiges of prohibition, by allowing liquor sales in Mormon-centric towns that were still “dry.”

Odds and ends:

For the CBA’s National Magazine, I wrote about Friday’s Supreme Court decision on genetic privacy, and what the broader implications of the ruling are.

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

Roundup: Questions on a dubious nomination

Posted on by

For the second time in what could very well be the start of a series of media events that look suspiciously like campaign stops, prime minister Justin Trudeau was at a café and bistro in Chelsea, Quebec, near Ottawa, to tout the wage subsidy – a programme whose uptake has been hampered by the poor timing of its rollout by the government. He made a minor announcement about $15.8 million for youth green jobs in the natural resources sector, recounted his call with the premiers the night before during which his offer of $14 billion remained on the table for their safe reopening plans, and then capped it off with a plea for people to follow public health guidelines for Father’s Day.

It was during the Q&A that he expressed his “disappointment” with China over the decision to lay espionage charges against the Two Michaels being held as virtual hostages in retaliation for the arrest of Meng Wanzhou on an extradition warrant. Trudeau insisted that he continued to advocate for their release and that stuff was happening behind the scenes, but he didn’t elaborate further. He also was badgered repeatedly about the revelation that his former MP, Marwan Tabbara, was the subject of at least one sexual harassment investigation where claims were substantiated. Trudeau would only say that he was aware of the investigations and that they have a rigorous process in place where outside professionals are brought in to deal with situations when they arise, but that he couldn’t say anything more because said process was also deeply confidential by nature.

While everyone one social media spent the whole day going “I guess zero tolerance doesn’t mean zero tolerance,” ignoring the fact that it’s actually a poor idea to turf everyone at the first sign of trouble (seriously – this recent practice of kicking people out of caucus is inherently destructive and also prevents future use of social controls to keep these MPs and senators in line). I suspect that Trudeau realized that a performative “zero tolerance” policy was more trouble than it was worth and he ensured there was some nuance in how the policy was applied, and this was a case thereof, but now he also has to endure the taunts of “hypocrite!” as his explanations for the apparent change of position remain non-existent in the face of repeated questions. That said, the fact that it appears that Tabbara’s nomination took some six months to be decided upon by the green-light committee is pretty suspicious, and I would suspect they were weighing considerations, such as how much of a fundraiser he is for the party in addition to his being an incumbent. (Remember that protected nominations are antithetical to how our system is supposed to work, and that it’s proven that parties have been manipulating their nomination processes to the detriment of democracy). It would be great if Trudeau could be more frank or candid about things like Tabbara’s nomination and why he was green-lit again when the party clearly had no problem ousting other sitting MPs with little explanation (though in the case of Eva Nassif, it sounds like she was trying to meddle in other nominations for her own ends, if The Hill Times’ sources were to be believed). Then again, the party also somehow managed to be behind on getting all of their nominations in place in advance of the election when they had four gods damned years to do so, so I’m not sure what to suggest other than perhaps Trudeau’s decision to centralize yet more of his party’s power in his office as leader is going to come around bite him in the ass.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A bridge loan, not a bailout

Posted on by

It was a bit of a staggered rollout of the message of the day, starting with Bill Morneau and Navdeep Bains in Toronto to announce the creation of the Large Employer Emergency Financing Facility (LEEFF), which is designed to give large employers temporary bridge financing if they can’t get it by other means, but that comes with a great many strings attached, such as ensuring that jobs and collective agreements are maintained, that climate change plans are not affected, and that there are limits to executive compensation, share buybacks, dividends, and on top of that, these companies will need to disclose their financial structures to ensure that they’re not avoiding taxes with offshore banks or shelters.

Justin Trudeau was up shortly thereafter for his daily presser, noting the start of National Nursing Week, before he spoke about enhanced measures for medium-sized businesses, and then reiterated the messages around the LEEFF, citing that these were bridge loans and not bail-outs, and that the government was only to be a lender of last resort. When asked whether this was some kind of attack on oil companies with the focus on environmental plans, Trudeau insisted that many of them had net-zero-by-2050 plans, so this condition should not have been more onerous on them – but that didn’t stop the usual suspects from complaining that this wasn’t the kind of help that the energy sector was looking for.

During the ministerial presser, Chrystia Freeland said that they working with the US to deal with the inevitable increase in cross-border traffic as economies started re-opening, as premiers express reservations around the possibility of visitors once again coming to Canada.

Meanwhile, here’s economist Kevin Milligan on the path of the labour market and the economy, that’s worth thinking about.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1259641163989970945

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1259641908436930560

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1259642852260278272

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1259644740460404736

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unveiling the help for students

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau arrived at his daily presser with big news – the long-awaited relief package for students, totalling some $9 billion in new emergency measures, starting with the Canada Emergency Student Benefit that provides between $1250 and $1750 per student between May and August (being the period when they would ordinarily be out of school). This would be augmented by additional grants next year on top of loan repayment deferrals. As well, the government would be creating a number of placements for students in needed areas, as well as a Canada Student Service Grant between $1000 and $5000 for those students who volunteer with essential services during these pandemic times – on top of additional funding for the next academic year, and specific pots of money for Indigenous students. During the Q&A and the subsequent ministerial presser, there were questions on repatriations (most especially from India), as well as on what’s happening with prisons as they face the pandemic (and here is a good thread from Justin Ling, who brought the receipts as to why this matters) – made especially important because even the Correctional Investigator can’t get proper figures about what is going on. This gets complicated when you have tough-on-crime politicians making hay about needed decarceration during a crisis like this. Trudeau also gave a rare moment of candour when he stated in response to a question that universal benefits are actually more complicated than they seem, which was why they went with the CERB (but it only took him three tries to actually say it – something I’ve been pointing out for a while).

And then the requests came. Quebec’s premier asked for an additional 1000 soldiers to help cover off in long-term care facilities as the death toll continues to climb, particularly around Montreal. (Here’s a thread that explains some of what is going on, particularly as transmission from long-term-care facility to hospitals is an added problem). Around the same time, Doug Ford also asked for military assistance with five facilities in Ontario (but wouldn’t say which ones). But throughout this, we keep seeing the PM and other ministers being asked if the federal government needs to somehow “take over” the long-term care file, which I think is a bit boggling because there’s no actual mechanism for them to do that. Provincial powers aren’t delegated by the federal government – back during Confederation, they were divvied up between the provinces and the federal government, and in many cases, the provinces were given those powers because they are closer to the people. Yes, there is a federal role in healthcare (beyond simple dollars), which has a lot to do with regulation and the approval of drugs and medical devices, which avoids the duplication of every province needing to do their own. I’m not sure how exactly they should assume control of these facilities – especially because provinces do not take well to having their funding allocations come with strings or reporting requirements. Seriously – previous governments have tried, and it doesn’t go well. Yes, we’re going to need to have a reckoning in this country about the whole issue of long-term care, but that reckoning can’t simply be having Ottawa assume control. I mean, not unless they want to amend the Constitution (and good luck with that).

Continue reading →