Tag Archives: Privacy

Roundup: Eliminating the staffer excuse

Posted on by

The day got off to a slightly different start – the prime minster didn’t have a daily presser because he was off to CFB Trenton for the repatriation ceremony for the crew of the downed Canadian Forces Cyclone helicopter (which is a whole issue I plan to write more on in another place), and there were no announcements in the ministerial presser before the special COVID-19 committee met in the House of Commons chamber for more ministerial questions, followed by a take-note debate.

While the “virtual” special committee reconvenes today, I wanted to draw attention to this piece in the Hill Timesthat shows the impact these meetings are having on the support staff, and in particular the interpreters, who are burning out and suffering cognitive injuries as a result because these meetings are harder on them, when they’re already at a reduced capacity because many are stuck at home without childcare. Why this is particularly important is because leading up to these meetings, we were inundated with a bunch of chuckleheads and tech bros with a superiority complex who were going around shouting “Teach MPs how to Zoom!” and “Okay, Boomer,” and so on. Turns out that it’s more complex than that, and the people we can’t see are paying the price for it.

It’s also a sign of just how disingenuous the government was when they kept insisting that in-person sittings were going to expose all of these staffers in the West Block to potential exposure to COVID-19. But the problem is that even when the MPs aren’t there to meet, these staffers still need to be there to run the daily press conferences, and to run the virtual meetings, and no, they can’t do it from home. And if the workload is more difficult for some of them, like the interpreters, if the MPs are doing this “virtually” instead of having a smaller number of MPs sitting on a regular basis, then their justification is completely blown out of the water. There is no reason why they shouldn’t have proper skeletal sittings three days a week, and we now see that it would be better for these staffers than these “virtual” meetings are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Supply councils and stalled approvals

Posted on by

After a very welcome day off from daily pressers, prime minister Justin Trudeau was back at it on Sunday, in his weekend uniform – jeans, white shirt unbuttoned at the collar, and a blazer – but no sweater because it was actually nice out in Ottawa for a change. And while some weekend pressers are merely greatest hits packages, this one had a few substantive announcements – $240 million for online health and mental health tools that people can access, $175 million for a Canadian company doing promising research using COVID-19 antibodies; and launching a “national supply council” for dealing with personal protective equipment – more of which was elaborated upon in the ministerial presser that followed – and a reminder that enhanced Canada Child Benefit payments were on the way. During the Q&A, Trudeau also reiterated that the promised legislation that would allow municipalities to further restrict handguns in their jurisdictions would be coming once Parliament returned to normal.

Something that Trudeau and Dr. Theresa Tam were asked about in their respective pressers were the news that Health Canada had ordered a pause on those Spartan Bioscience portable testing kits because while the tests themselves worked, it turns out that the swabs didn’t go deep enough into the nasal cavity to get good samples, so they risked giving false negatives. That becomes a setback that some provinces – and remote communities in particular – will definitely feel because they had already ordered thousands of those kits as part of their plans.

Meanwhile, I see that Jason Kenney is back making noises that the federal government isn’t doing enough for the oil and gas sector, and brings up the auto sector bailout of 2008-09 as a comparison of “unfair treatment.” He should be careful what he wishes for – I’m not sure he’s advocating for the same thing at all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On Scheer’s silence over Sloan

Posted on by

For his daily presser, prime minister Justin Trudeau was all about science – specifically, a $1.1 billion package for research on vaccines and clinical trials, plus the launch of an immunity task force that will help to determine the spread of the virus within the population (as many may have been exposed and only ever experienced mild symptoms or had none at all), which will be necessary as we talk about re-opening the economy and how that will proceed. Trudeau also reiterated that the situation with long-term care facilities is untenable, that using soldiers to help the residents of those homes is merely a short-term solution that demands a long-term re-think. During the Q&A, Trudeau was not promising the billions of dollars that municipalities were demanding, but made some fairly vague commitments about working with provinces, given that cities are creatures of provincial legislation. He also said that provinces were going to take their own leads on re-opening their economies given that there are different epidemics playing out across the country and not just one nationally, though there is talk of federal guidelines.

The thing that had everyone talking throughout the day, however, was Conservative leadership candidate Derek Sloan making a fairly blatantly racist call for Dr. Theresa Tam to be fired while questioning her loyalty to Canada as he accuses her of following Chinese propaganda. And more to the point, that Andrew Scheer refuses to comment on what Sloan says insofar as the racism – he did say that as the opposition, they should be criticizing ministers who make decisions and not officials who give advice. Of course, this shouldn’t be too surprising as the party has already been pursuing this notion of vilifying the WHO because they were too credulous about the information coming out of China and Canada followed WHO advice, and Sloan simply took it one step further. And more to the point, under Scheer, the party has offered succour to racists on more than one occasion (most notably after the incident when Trudeau called out the racist statements of an avowedly racist woman in Quebec at an event, after which the Conservatives insisted that she was merely concerned about the economic impact of “illegal” asylum seekers and that anyone who questioned the government would be called a racist – because being labelled a racist is apparently a worse crime than actual racism). A few other Conservative MPs did denounce Sloan’s comments, and local officials within Sloan’s riding called on him to be denounced by Scheer and expelled from the party.

Ah, but that’s part of the issue. The Conservatives, if you recall, voted to adopt certain provisions of Michael Chong’s (garbage) Reform Act which ensures that the full caucus must vote to expel a member, that the leader alone can’t do it. It would be mighty awkward for Scheer to pull that trigger regardless, considering that he’s in an interim, outgoing position and not really the leader any longer, and that Sloan is vying to replace him (and it will be a doomed effort), but I will say that regardless of the circumstances, I have long been uncomfortable with both leaders expelling members, and with the more recent notion that MPs (and senators, where applicable) should be expelled at the first sign of trouble, rather than managing them better from within the fold, or leaving it up to their riding association to decide whether or not to keep them in the party, being as they are really the ones who should be deciding.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sorrow and motions

Posted on by

As the various party leaders lined up, one after another, to give their positions before the microphones on yesterday’s return of the House of Commons, prime minister Justin Trudeau devoted his presser to the mass-shooting in Nova Scotia and the loss of an RCMP constable, including a direct address to children as part of his speech. More controversially, Trudeau made a plea to media not to name the killer and give him the “gift of infamy,” which became the subject of many a column the rest of the day. During the Q&A, he insisted he didn’t want to fight about the return of the Commons, while also saying that the government was not backing away from its plans to enact further gun control measures.

Not far away, the Commons resumed its sitting with a skeleton complement, kicking off with Green MP Paul Manly immediately launching a point of privilege to complain that their health and safety was being jeopardized by the sitting, and it impacted on the ability of MPs who faced travel restrictions to participate. (Manly’s point was later rejected by the Speaker). After a very surreal QP, and more speeches on the Nova Scotia shooting, the vote was held and it was decided that there would be in-person sittings on Wednesdays starting next week, with planned 90-minute “virtual” sittings on Tuesdays and Thursdays – you know, assuming that they can actually get them up and running. Also, those sessions would not be regular sittings of the Commons, but would qualify as “special committee” sessions that would be devoted to two-and-a-quarter-hour-long sessions to ask questions of the government.

Throughout this whole debate, I keep shaking my head at the fact that they insist that they don’t want MPs to keep travelling, or how MPs from regions with travel restrictions can’t participate, but nobody can apparently fathom that MPs could travel to Ottawa, and then *gasp* stay there! You know, like they have housing allowances and per diems that facilitate it. This insistence on once-per-week sittings means that there will be all kinds of unnecessary travel, travel that MPs from those regions can’t participate in (or at least not easily), and it needlessly complicates this whole affair when we could have more easily kept a skeleton parliament with these MPs who stay in Ottawa present, and just ensured that you had a representative sampling that includes MPs from those otherwise hard-to-travel-to-and-from regions so they don’t have to travel back-and-forth. It’s revolutionary, I know. None of this is rocket science, and yes, it involves some sacrifice on the part of these MPs, but no worse than some of our essential healthcare workers who also can’t see their families during this crisis.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to blame the WHO

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer was again out first yesterday morning to repeat his call for in-person sittings in the House of Commons (which Elizabeth May somehow claims is mere partisanship, which I don not grasp), before Scheer went off on tangents about the WHO, because apparently he thinks that following Trumpian logic is a winning plan. (The Conservatives on the Commons health committee have also been aggressively trying to “get answers” on misinformation from China laundered through the WHO).

Prime minister Justin Trudeau was up next for his daily presser, wherein he laid out plans to expand the CERB to those who make less than $1000 and seasonal workers, as well as those whose EI has run out, and promised wage top-ups for those essential workers who make less than $2500/month, but still no news on help for students and commercial rent (which one assumes is in partnership with the provinces). He also noted the assistance that the Canadian Forces as providing in Nunavut and in Northern Quebec. During the Q&A, Trudeau refused to get involved in the WHO debate, for what it’s worth.

Meanwhile, the issue of long-term care in Ontario was getting much more scrutiny, and it turns out that out of 626 facilities in the province, a mere nine got an inspection last year. Nine. Because the province moved to a “risk-based” system, which apparently means that there is only an investigation after a complaint is filed. So that’s totally fine, and one more sign about the complete mismanagement of the Ford government (that people seem to be forgetting when they praise Ford “stepping up” to the current pandemic challenge).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Back-end accountability and second guessing

Posted on by

Even though Good Friday is normally a day where the whole of Ontario shuts down as owing to its strong Protestant roots, prime minister Justin Trudeau nevertheless carried on with his daily presser, talking about how the CERB and the Canada Emergency Business Accounts were now online, and that the wage subsidy was on the way. He also said that his Saturday address would be in the House of Commons instead of at Rideau Cottage, and then he would be spending Sunday and Monday with family, so there will be a brief respite from daily pressers (which have been solid for nearly a month now). He also spoke about his teleconference with the premiers, and upon questions about it, stated that no, they were not looking to invoke the Emergencies Act, and it was the very last thing they wanted to do (so maybe stop asking about it). During the Q&A, he was asked about the G20 energy ministers’ meeting and noted that there had been a decision around production cuts, and with regards to the next Bank of Canada governor, the process was ongoing and they had made no decision on next steps.

During the ministerial briefing shortly thereafter, employment minister Carla Qualtrough said that CRA would deal with the issue from there end where some people got double payments (apparently because they may have applied twice out of confusion) rather than relying on people to call in, and that the accountability measures in this programme were built in on the back-end, in order to speed through the processing of these benefits to those who need them. As well, Indigenous Services minister Marc Miller said that the additional funds to Indigenous communities for the pandemic were flowing, and that they will work together with individual communities and First Nations about what they need.

I’m also concerned with the burgeoning proliferation of stories questioning how quickly the government moved early on – particularly around things like travel bans and quarantine measures. One of there reasons, illustrated by the video here, is that this novel virus has proven to work faster and much deadlier than other epidemics we’ve seen in our lifetime. We’re still in the early phases of this pandemic, so it may be a bit early to second-guess things, given that we were following best practices, and travel bans are generally ineffective because people skirt them and don’t report when they are symptomatic because they don’t want to get in trouble for skirting the ban. This pandemic is unlike any we’ve had before, so it’s hard to start demanding why we weren’t better prepared, given that we were prepared for what we were used to expecting, and that should be something we should keep in mind.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The crash and the cries for stimulus

Posted on by

It was a tough day on the markets yesterday as stock markets plunged at record levels over panic-selling because of COVID-19, and oil prices cratered while Saudi Arabia and Russia got into a pissing contest. Bill Morneau held a post-market-closing press conference to assure Canadians that there was fiscal room to deal with the situation, but he spoke in frustrating platitudes and generalities as he so often does (because this government is largely incapable of communicating their way out of a wet paper bag), but it needs to be acknowledged that his budget challenge has become a lot more complicated, particularly as the oil shock is going to impact federal revenues as well as Alberta’s. But seriously, the whole Conservative “spent the cupboard bare” narrative is bogus and economically illiterate, and they are actively spreading misinformation about it.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1237104005425139712

Around the same time, Jason Kenney held his own press conference, saying that all options were on the table for dealing with the downturn on the province’s economy – and then immediately ruled out a sales tax, which would stabilize the province’s revenues. Because that might make sense. Rachel Notley says that he should scrap the budget and re-do it, given that its assumptions are now proved to be useless, but other economists say it’s likely not worth it at this point, and it would be better to have a fiscal update in the near future.

And then come the demands for some kind of fiscal stimulus plan, but one of the things they’re pressing is that measures need to be timely. Maclean’s talks to four economists about what they think such a plan could look like for the best impact.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1237235733762473984

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hurt feelings and punitive lessons

Posted on by

There is a vote coming up on Monday, when Parliament returns from the constituency week, which is on the Conservatives’ Supply Day motion to allot the opposition an additional three Supply Days, which the Conservatives are trying to spin as a “lesson” for the Liberals, because they apparently haven’t gotten the memo that it’s a hung Parliament. Also, the Conservatives’ feelings are hurt that their previous Supply Day was moved from a Thursday to a Friday, and they feel like it was being done as “punishment.” Never mind that the rules allow the government to allot a certain number of Supply Days to Wednesdays and Fridays (which are half days), and every government has monkeyed around with Supply Days in the past – most especially the Conservatives.

To that end, I find it particularly galling that Candice Bergen thinks that the Liberals need to take some lessons in humility because it’s a hung parliament, considering how the Conservatives behaved during the minority years. Humility? Conciliatory note? Nope. It was daring the opposition, declaring non-money bills (some of them in the Senate) to be confidence measures, screwing over the other parties by changing the federal rules governing spending limits on leadership campaigns while the Liberals were in the middle of theirs, and it culminated in a finding that the government was in contempt of parliament because of how they were withholding information that parliamentarians had a right to see.

Meanwhile, I would also issue the warning that this kind of stunt, which will further limit the government’s available calendar, will inevitably wind up with the government needing to use time allocation or other similar measures in order to pass time-sensitive legislation. Bergan may think she’s being clever by using these kinds of tactics, but this kind of thing always blows up in someone’s face, and nobody wins in the end.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Putting Freeland on the case (again)

Posted on by

With more attention turning to what’s happening around COVID-19, prime minister Justin Trudeau has created a new Cabinet committee to handle the situation, and he’s put Chrystia Freeland in charge of it. An important addition to the committee is Kirsty Duncan, who may no longer be in Cabinet but is nevertheless sworn in as a privy councillor, and the fact that she has expertise in pandemics and once studied the Spanish Flu epidemic, so chalk one up for bench strength there. Freeland says the response has to be both “whole of government” and “whole of country,” and her role as intergovernmental affairs minister is certainly part of that – given that provinces deliver healthcare for the bulk of the country – but one suspects this is also about having a reassuring communicator on the issue (because as we all know, this government can’t communicate its way out of a wet paper bag).

To that end, while certain opposition voices are demanding travel restrictions (which are proven not to work) or enhanced screening measures at airports, what we’re hearing from the health minister and the Chief Public Health Officer is largely that containment can only delay an outbreak – which is not a bad thing, because if it can be delayed by six weeks or so, that would get our healthcare system past peak flu season, which frees up beds and resources. And thus far, we have been lucky that all of the cases in this country can be traced to travel-related causes and not community transmission, which means that the measures taken to date have been working, but again, delay is the watchword. It should also be noted that we have largely avoided panic, which is pretty good (torqued headlines about demanding people start stockpiling notwithstanding).

With that in mind, the military has been ordered to being pre-pandemic planning out of an abundance of caution, given that they need to be able to continue to operate in the case of a crisis.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An abortion bill to position around

Posted on by

The Conservatives’ abortion legislation problem has come home to roost early in the new parliament as MP Cathay Wagantall tabled a bill to ban sex-selective abortions, under the (bullshit) excuse that it reflects Canada’s commitment to gender equality. And because she’s 31 on the order of precedence for private members’ business, this will come up likely late spring or early fall. (Private members’ business is determined by lottery, and arrives on the Order Paper in batches of 30). And all eyes are on Andrew Scheer, who stated during the election that he would vote against any measures to attempt to re-open the abortion debate.

Why does this matter? Because the list of approved candidates for the Conservative leadership closed last night, and social conservatives have played kingmaker in both the last federal leadership contest, as well as the last Ontario one, which was done under the same rules. Already we’re seeing positioning among candidates, such as Erin O’Toole criticizing Peter MacKay for saying he would whip his Cabinet to vote against such a bill, saying that he would never whip anyone, Cabinet or backbench, on “moral issues.” It’s a completely transparent ploy – O’Toole is trying to ensure that he gets second-ballot support from the social conservatives when their preferred no-hope candidates get dropped off of the ranked preferential ballot. That’s how Andrew Scheer won, and it’s how Doug Ford won.

Meanwhile, it looks like it’ll be seven entrants in the race, though some approvals may yet be pending. Of those seven, three qualify as social conservatives, so the “frontrunners” like MacKay, O’Toole and maybe Marilyn Gladu will want the second and third votes from those no-hopers in the hopes of pushing them over the top. So this dynamic is very present in the leadership race, as Wagantall has put it on the table for them to debate around her.

Continue reading →