Tag Archives: Official Languages

Roundup: Sour premiers wanted more money

Posted on by

We’re not on or about day forty-five of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and yesterday’s particular war crime of note was an attack on a train station in Kamatorsk that killed fifty-two Ukrainians fleeing to safer parts of the country. More chilling was the fact that the remains of the rocket had “For the children” spray painted on its side. Meanwhile, an international organization formed in the 1990s to identify the dead and the missing in the Balkan conflicts is preparing to send a team of forensic experts to Ukraine to help identify their dead as a result of Russian atrocities.

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1512493160013996042

Closer to home, there is more reaction to this week’s budget, and in particular, some of the sour notes coming from provinces. It’s not just the current bit of confusion around just what the dental care programme is going to entail, because we don’t have any implementation details yet, and it sounds like the federal government may try to leverage existing provincial programmes for low-income earners. But more to the point, it’s about health transfers, and the fact that premiers aren’t getting their way with their demands for increased unconditional transfers, ostensibly to ensure that the federal government pays 35 percent of the share of health costs—a figure which is distortionary because since the 1970s, provinces were given tax points instead of direct transfers, so the true cost to the federal government would be far, far higher than the 35 percent figure they like to float. Not to mention, we saw that when federal transfers were higher for a decade, provinces used much of that money on other things, as certain provinces also did during the pandemic. So frankly, I wouldn’t expect the federal government to just hand over more unconditional money in the budget, particularly as they are negotiating with provinces for specific outcomes around mental health and long-term care.

Those demands for higher transfers are also raised in this op-ed by economist Trevor Tombe and professor Daniel Béland, which accuses the federal government of being uninterested in reforming those health care arrangements. I would dispute that because they have made it clear, during the election and since, that they are very interested in reforming those arrangements, and that those reforms mean strings attached to federal dollars, and those negotiations are ongoing. I’m also troubled by the notion that the federal government should be doing something about provincial debt, which is far more unsustainable than the federal government’s. Is the suggestion that the federal government upload more costs or programme responsibilities? Because I don’t see premiers clamouring for that (though they do want more money). Is the suggestion that the federal government simply pay for everything? Because that’s absolutely not sustainable either. It also ignores that most provinces have the ability to raise revenues the old-fashioned way—raising their own taxes. (Some provinces are admittedly screwed demographically, but again, what levers are we proposing the federal government employ?) Tombe and Béland want an open and collaborative process to rethink the fiscal relationships between levels of government, but we’ve all seen this movie before, and it always winds up with the provinces demanding the federal government give them more money. I’m not sure how that helps.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No more human resources to spare

Posted on by

I believe we are now in day thirty-seven of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russian forces are believed to be leaving the area of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant after their soldiers soaked up “significant doses” of radiation while digging trenches in the area. (You think?) There were also plans for another humanitarian corridor to evacuate people from Mariupol, but it doesn’t appear to have been honoured.

Meanwhile, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that he had sacked two high-ranking members of the security services, citing that they were traitors. As for the Russians, the head of CGHQ in the UK says that they have intelligence showing that some Russian soldiers in Ukraine have refused to carry out orders, sabotaged their equipment, and in one case, accidentally shot down one of their own aircraft. There are also reports that Russian troops have resorted to eating abandoned pet dogs because they have run out of rations in Ukraine, which is pretty awful all around.

Closer to home, the Senate was debating their orders to extend hybrid sittings yesterday, as the sixth wave has been picking up steam, and one point of contention are the resources available to senators to hold sittings and committee meetings. In particular, they have a Memorandum of Understanding with the House of Commons about sharing common resources, and that MOU gives the Commons priority when it comes to resources available. This has hobbled the Senate, but even if they did try to come up with some way to add resources, the biggest and most constrained resource of them all is the finite number of simultaneous interpreters available, and we are already in a problem where as a nation, we’re not graduating enough of them to replace the attrition of those retiring, or choosing not to renew their contracts because of the worries that those same hybrid sittings are giving them permanent hearing loss because of the problems associated with the platform and the inconsistent audio equipment used by the Commons. These hybrid sittings exacerbated an already brewing problem of not enough new interpreters coming into the field, and Parliament is going to have a very big problem if they can’t find a way to incentivise more people to go into the field. We rely on simultaneous interpretation to make the place function, and if the number of interpreters falls precipitously low—because MPs and senators insisted on carrying on hybrid sittings in spite of their human cost—then we’re going to be in very big trouble indeed.

Continue reading →

QP: Unhappy with the new emissions plan

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau off in Vancouver to give a speech on the government’s new emissions plan for 2030, we did have his deputy present, which was something. Most of the other leaders weren’t present either, and some have become rare sights of late. Luc Berthold led off in French and complained that the emissions reductions plan would cripple the oil sector and that this meant we couldn’t help our friends in Europe get off Russian oil and gas. Terry Duguid stood up to recite some bromides about the plan as announced. Berthold then launched into a rant about how the government doesn’t answer simple questions, and demanded to know if inflation was costing Canadians more. Chrystia Freeland responded that they were sensitive to costs which is why they indexed benefits and introduced $10/day child care. Berthold then railed about the increasing price on carbon, demanding it be suspended, to which Freeland recited the good news about economic growth. Kyle Seeback took over in English, and he misleadingly cited the PBO report on carbon pricing in order to complain that the emissions reduction plan wasn’t going to work. Duguid got back up to recite that the PBO indeed stated that most families would be better off with rebates, and he cited the rebate levels in several provinces. Seeback then railed that the government spent $60 billion on fighting emissions and they still went up—again, somewhat misleadingly because the curve of growth has flattened—and Duguid responded that if the Conservatives were still in charge the emissions would be even higher.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded that the government start chartering planes to get more Ukrainian refugees over here. Sean Fraser insisted people were arriving all the time and they were rolling out programmes to support them. Therrien said that Air Transat was just waiting for the government to charter flights and repeated his demand, and Fraser said that they are discussing with airlines.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP in person, and he called the emissions reduction plan “disappointing,” saying it gives a free pass to the fossil fuel sector. Duguid got back up to recite a number of actions they have taken around the energy sector. Singh repeated the question in French, and Duguid recited some more climate action plans.

Continue reading →

QP: Selectively quoting a PBO report that selectively frames an issue

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau away—first to Mississauga to announce the child care deal in Ontario along with his deputy, then off to Vancouver, none of the other leaders bothered to show up in the House of Commons for Question Period today, so happy Monday to you all. Luc Berthold led off, script in front of him, and in French, he regaled the Commons with a tale of how people approached him in the grocery store about complaints about the rising cost of living, and demanded to now how the prime minister intends to feed Canadian families. Randy Boissonnault accused him of creating economic fiction, and recited Statistics Canada data on the growth of the GDP. Berthold railed about the price of gas and what it was doing for inflation, to which Boisonnault praised the child care agreement with Ontario as an affordability measure. Berthold then switched to health care transfers to provinces and the principles the government were attaching to them, to which Jean-Yves Duclos praised their measures to save Canadians’ lives. Kyle Seeback got up and in English, railed about the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report on carbon prices, selectively quoting a report that only selectively looks at a portion of the issue, to which Terry Duguid assured him that the PBO stated that most families will get more back in rebates than they pay. Seeback insisted this was wrong, that the PBO stated otherwise, and Duguid repeated his points.

Alain Therrien rose for the Bloc, and he demanded that health transfers have no conditions and blamed the federal government for underfunding provincial health systems, and Duclos recited some good news talking points about the $2 billion for surgery backlogs. Therrien listed federal failures to insist that they had no competence for healthcare, to which Pablo Rodriguez quipped that the Bloc should invest in shirt-making companies because they keep tearing their shirts every day.

Alexandre Boulerice appeared for the NDP by video and wondered about enforcement of sanctions in Canada, to which Mélanie Joly praised the sanctions and the assets that they froze. Heather McPherson repeated the question in English, and Joly repeated her assurances.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A confidence agreement in the works?

Posted on by

We are now on day twenty-seven of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Ukraine has refused to surrender the strategic port city of Mariupol to the Russians. As well, Russian shelling destroyed a shopping centre in Kyiv killing eight, which is escalating the attacks facing the capital. Also of note was a possible leak of Russian casualty figures, citing 9,861 killed and 16,153 injured over the course of the invasion, which contradicts Russian propaganda figures to date, and which could turn up the pressure on Putin by the Russian people.

Back in Canada, news started spreading over the evening that the Liberals and NPD had reached a tentative agreement to a supply-and-confidence agreement that would see the NDP agree to support the next four Liberal budgets so that they can stay in power until 2025 in relative stability, and in return, the Liberals will make “real progress” on national pharmacare and dental care. I’m a little confused why those would be the conditions, given that they’re wholly dependent upon the provincial governments signing on, and while the current federal government put a framework in place for national pharmacare, thus far only PEI has signed on (and I haven’t seen the NDP publicly haranguing John Horgan to sign on either). And while people ask why they can’t do what they did with early learning and child care, part of that answer is that the reason why provincial governments are gun-shy about these programmes is they are concerned that if they set them up, a future federal government will cut funding and leave them holding the bag for very expensive programmes. While Quebec has shown that child care will pay for itself once more women are in the workforce and paying taxes, I’m not sure the calculation is quite the same for the other two, or will at least take much longer for the fiscal benefits to work their way through the system. So could the government come to the table with a lot more money—maybe. But that doesn’t eliminate the trepidation that once 2025 hits that their fears won’t come true. There are also reports that the deal could include more for housing, reconciliation, and some form of wealth taxes, so we’ll see what gets announced this morning.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, are touting this as evidence of a “coalition” and that it’s “backdoor socialism,” which doesn’t make sense. It’s not a coalition because there are no Cabinet seats for the NDP, and these kinds of confidence agreements are easily broken (see: British Columbia and the deal with the Greens, which Horgan’s NDP tore up when the polls looked good enough to get a majority, which he did). It’s not socialism because they’re not going around nationalising the means of production. They’re still going to wail and gnash their teeth, and pretend that this is somehow illegitimate when it’s one hundred percent within how hung parliaments work under our system, but I’m not going to say it will last the full four years. It will however alter the narrative of the Conservatives’ leadership contest, and could be read either as Trudeau giving himself enough runway to make a few more accomplishments before turning it over to a successor, or for him to try and build the case for re-election. Either way, it’s fairly unprecedented at the federal level in this country, and could make for interesting days ahead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Calls to further isolate Belarus

Posted on by

The continued shelling of Mariupol marked day sixteen of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while the Russians were aggressively pushing disinformation and propaganda about what happened there. It also looks like that long convoy on the way to Kyiv has broken up, and redeployed elsewhere. The US, European Union and G7 are all moving to follow Canada’s lead in revoking Russia’s “most favoured nation” trade status, while Belarus’ exiled opposition leader called for tighter sanction on that country, including having it removed from the SWIFT system as well, as she seeks diplomatic isolation of the Lukashenko regime, as well as Canadian recognition of her “government in exile.”

Justin Trudeau’s final stop on his European tour was in Poland, where he met with Ukrainian refugees who had fled across the border. Trudeau later said that Putin would lose the war, and that he would face consequences for his illegal war and the war crimes that come along with it. It has also been announced that Volodymyr Zelenskyy will likely address Canada’s Parliament on Tuesday, which is during the March Break, meaning that MPs and senators will fly into Ottawa for a day, then fly back out again.

Closer to home, the Chief of Defence Staff says that Russia’s re-occupation of its Cold War bases in its far north are of concern to Canada, and that we shouldn’t be complacent. General Eyre’s big challenge remains recruitment, however, which is not going to be an easy nut to crack, particularly as culture change is still underway within our military ranks. Of course, we should also remember that it’s extremely unlikely to face any kind of northern invasion because it’s simply not feasible. Seriously.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding the inflation target

Posted on by

With the prime minister virtually attending Biden’s “democracy summit,” and Chrystia Freeland absent, it was promising to be a rockier day in the Commons. Erin O’Toole led off, his script on his mini-lectern, and he brayed about inflation, housing prices, and coming interest rate hikes. Ahmed Hussen reminded him that they were the federal party that restored leadership to the housing file and he praised the National Housing Strategy. O’Toole raised the prospect of predicted food price hikes, and then pretended that Trudeau and Freeland were in the Chamber and not answer, and Randy Boissonnault, in his role as associate finance minster, reminded O’Toole about the Bank of Canada’s inflation target. O’Toole pretended that the prime minster ignored his responses about the Bank’s mandate and worried it would be changed, to which Boissonnault reminded him that the Bank is independent. O’Toole switched to French to misleadingly say that the Liberals planned to abandon the inflation targeting mandate, and Hussen repeated his first response, and called out the nonsense in the Conservatives’ supply day motion. O’Toole returned to braying about inflation in French, and Boissonnault repeated in French about the Bank’s mandate, before reciting some good news talking points.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he worried that the Auditor General showed that thirty percent of COVID tests were lost or mislabelled, for which Duclos said that he thanked the AG for her work, and said they would examine the results. Therrien worried about the stat that fourteen percent of those tested were never notified, but Duclos gave a bromide about working to prevent omicron.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and after citing a report on growing inequality (I would be dubious of that given that the Canadian trajectory has not been the same as the US), and he demanded a tax on the super-wealthy, for which Boissonnault listed measures to help those in need. Singh repeated the question in French, and Boissonnault read measures in the Liberal platform about taxing banks and insurance companies.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Parliament is summoned, a Speaker elected

Posted on by

The 44th Parliament has been summoned, and nearly all MPs were back in the House of Commons yesterday – the exceptions being the one Conservative MP who tested positive for COVID and a BC MP or two who stayed in their ridings owing to the flood situation, but otherwise, they are back, and all in the Chamber for the first time in nearly two years. The government is trying their best, mind you, to do away with this – Government House Leader Mark Holland is trying to use the black box of unknown “medical exemptions” by some Conservative MPs to bring back hybrid sittings (the motion for that is on the Order Paper), scrupulously ignoring the injuries suffered by interpretation staff as a result of the Zoom format. The Conservatives and the Bloc are opposing the return to hybrid sittings for good reason – it allows the government to escape accountability, both because they can’t be seen face-to-face in the Chamber, and they can’t be questioned by journalists when they leave, and while I’m sure that the government finds this to be a feature and not a bug, it’s an intolerable situation.

Holland also laid out the government’s four legislative priorities that they want passed before the House rises in three or four weeks, which is going to mean cutting corners as there’s no way that standing committees will be up and running by then. The four were new pandemic benefits for businesses and workers affected by lockdowns, ensuring ten paid sick days for workers in federally-regulated sectors, criminalising anti-vax protesters who harass healthcare workers or hospitals, and the conversion therapy ban. While the new benefits could be rolled into a budget implementation bill for the fall economic update (which they would have to bully through without any committees in place), as could the legislation on paid sick days, but I fail to see the need for new criminal measures for anti-vax protesters. Simply enforcing existing laws against criminal harassment and trespassing should be enough, and a specific bill would be mere theatrics. The conversion therapy bill, while important, has been promised to be “tougher,” which will slow down progress because it means it won’t be the same bill that they can claim already passed once – a new bill would demand new scrutiny, and with no committees in place, it’s a much more fraught notion to ram it through.

The Speaker election also took place, and Anthony Rota remained in the position, which is a little disappointing because he wasn’t the best Speaker, particularly as he allowed a lot of the problems with the hybrid format to carry on by gently chiding MPs when they did things that cause injuries to interpreters rather than laying down the law with them. I suspect that part of the calculation on the part of the Conservatives was some mistaken notions around what happened with the demands for those Winnipeg Lab documents – Rota’s name was on the court challenge because he was the Speaker, as a function of his office rather than any personal conviction, but he was lionized for it nevertheless (much like the Attorney General’s name was on the court challenge as a largely automatic function that was triggered under provisions in the Canada Evidence Act rather than a partisan effort – remember that the government did provide documents to NSICOP). Rota also made mention of “fine-tuning” decorum, which he has shown precious little interest in actually enforcing, again relying on gentle chiding, so I’m not sure why he was to be believed, but here we are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The stakes on Monday may be bigger than we think

Posted on by

There were a couple of columns on The Line yesterday that are food for thought as we head into the final days of the election. The first was from Matt Gurney, who states in no uncertain terms that if the Conservatives can’t pull out a strong enough showing, that they will start a death spiral as a party to the forces of right-wing populism that have consumed the Republican Party south of the border. Gurney’s thesis is essentially that if O’Toole can manage to get enough results to hold onto power, he might have enough time to get the party’s shit together to save it, but it’s going to mean hard choices and dumping the shitposters in his office and the loonies in his caucus like Cheryl Gallant, and have a firm enough hand to be the necessary bulwark. But I have my doubts that O’Toole is strong enough to do this – he’s spent his leadership winking and nodding to this crowd, given a free pass to Gallant and to Pierre Poilievre, and has basically lied his way through his entire leadership, while utterly debasing himself and his party in order to secure the favour of François Legault. I’m not confident that O’Toole is the person capable of doing the hard work of steering the ship away from Charybdis that lies ahead of it. I think Gurney is right that we need a coherent right-of-centre party for the sake of the country (and hell, we need a capable opposition party regardless of stripe to do the work of accountability), but I have less faith in O’Toole than Gurney does, and I think the party needs a complete generation change if it’s going to be truly successful in pushing back against the very populists that they’ve nurtured and coddled this whole time.

With all of this in mind, Jen Gerson lambastes the entire election as a collection of shiny talking points, with the Liberals basically a shell of a personality cult versus O’Toole amorphousness that is certainly not ready for power – and that there may be a problem with conservatism as an ideology when it comes to dealing with issues like a pandemic, as Alberta is demonstrating. Most of her points are legitimate, but I also think that if anyone thinks this election is about nothing then they’re not paying attention. I don’t disagree that the Liberals are largely a personality cult around Trudeau, but at the same time, they are the only party that has put in the homework, whether it’s on their plans for early learning and child care, inclusive growth, the environment, housing, LGBT issues – they have actual feasible plans behind them and aren’t just handwavey platitudes, or fig leaves that are designed to look like they have a plan but they really don’t. That counts for something, and Trudeau won’t be there for much longer. The cult of personality will reform as it always does, but there will be still be the actual work they’ve put in, and it has been a lot of work, even if it doesn’t look like it from the outside (and that’s partially the Liberals’ fault for not properly communicating their own successes).

And with that in mind, I am baffled by the fact that O’Toole is making his final pitch to voters that Trudeau called an “unnecessary” election – omitting the months of procedural warfare that O’Toole’s side was orchestrating, and that Trudeau needed to break that logjam one way or another. There is a lot at stake in this election, and it would be great if we could keep our eyes on some of what that actually is.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Subjecting a minister to a double standard

Posted on by

I found myself bemused at the CBC story yesterday about Carolyn Bennett’s office allegedly being some kind of “toxic work environment,” according to a number of former staffers. Reading the piece, however, says little about Bennett herself – other than hammering on the point that she didn’t get along with Jody Wilson-Raybould, as though that were somehow relevant to her office – but rather that the toxicity was related to other staffers in the office who were clannish and played favourites with other staffers. The story made great pains to say that Indigenous staff felt their voices weren’t being heard on policy files, but again, this is about the behaviors of other staffers and not the minister herself.

This all having been said, I am forced to wonder whether anyone could reasonably expect a minister’s office to be some kind of normal office environment, because I can’t really see it. These places are pressure cookers of constant deadlines and stress, and there’s a reason why they tend to be populated by fairly young staffers, many of them recent graduates, which is because they are willing to put up with the long hours, constant travel, and the obliteration of their personal lives where older staffers with families and obligations largely wouldn’t. And while we can say we’d prefer that these offices are healthy work environments and safe spaces, but this is politics at the highest levels in this country. It’s not going to be pretty, as much as we may like it to be.

https://twitter.com/jec79/status/1417870826934730753

https://twitter.com/jec79/status/1417948347009101827

I also think it bears noting that Bennett has been the subject of a lot of criticism that is never given to male ministers, and in particular with the dust-up over her snarky text message with Wilson-Raybould a few weeks ago, seems subject to a double standard that women in ministerial roles are not allowed to have personality conflicts where this, again, is not even blinked at among men. Under this context, the CBC piece looks to be both catering to these double-standards, and looking like they have an axe to grind with Bennett, for whatever the reason.

Continue reading →