Tag Archives: Public Health

Roundup: Limited federal options on Bill 21

Posted on by

So, the fight over Bill 21 in Quebec is gaining some traction now that there have been real-world consequences, and a bunch of MPs (mostly Conservatives) who previously said nothing about it—and who previously supported odious things like “barbaric cultural practices tip lines” and “Canadian values tests”—are now speaking up and recanting previous positions. Which is good, but while everyone is hoping for some kind of federal response or action on the legislation, I’m not sure there is an actual avenue. Consider this from constitutional law professor Carissima Mathen:

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1469013986142298114

This is essentially what Justin Trudeau has been saying—he’s opposed to it, but this isn’t the time for the federal government to step in. That time will be when the fight reaches the Supreme Court of Canada, because then they have a legitimate avenue to be an intervenor in the case. Until then, they can say they oppose it—and they have much more so than other parties—but they’re also not making wild symbolic actions that won’t mean anything. And while both Erin O’Toole and Jagmeet Singh say they are personally opposed (and Singh has a legitimate dog in this fight), Singh has been somewhat blank on actions a federal government could take, while O’Toole made it clear he wouldn’t interfere in any way because a) provincial jurisdiction, and b) he’s spent his entire leadership trying to suck up to François Legault and out-Bloc the Bloc, for all of the good it did him in the election. And there are demographic considerations that play into the political calculations as well:

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert, lays out the political calculations and options for Trudeau and O’Toole when it comes to challenging Bill 21. Paul Wells adds a boatload of more context to the situation both federally and in Quebec, and gives some sharper thoughts as to why the federal government has vanishingly few levers but nevertheless has options.

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: Rejecting the compromise for more theatre

Posted on by

In spite of the Liberals proposing a compromise on the release of the Winnipeg Lab documents last week, the Conservatives have rejected the offer, citing that it was “months late,” and that the “will of parliament has not changed.” But this is wholly disingenuous—they did offer another compromise in June before Parliament rose for the summer, and Parliament dissolved before the challenge to the order could reach Federal Court, which may have settled the outstanding question of whether the Security of Information Act fettered parliamentary privilege or not.

This rejection makes it clear that this is not about the information—it’s about political theatre. If it was about the information, they would have let NSICOP review the documents and report back. But no—they first came up with the fiction that they didn’t trust security-trained public servants to properly redact the documents, and then they came up with the fiction that the prime minister redacts NSICOP reports, which he does not and never did, and handwaved about only trusting the Commons’ Law Clerk—who doesn’t have the training or context around national security to know what is a necessary redaction or not—to do redactions. (They also piled onto the same law clerk the redactions from pandemic documents for the health committee in the previous parliament, overloading his office and ensuring that they would never see all of the requested documents). The government provided avenues for the documents to be released, but the Conservatives have consistently decided that theatre was more important (particularly as they fed the “mystery” of these documents into conspiracy theories).

We’ll see how much patience the other parties have for this nonsense—and at this point, it is most definitely nonsense. They were happy enough to embarrass the government pre-election, so we’ll see if they still have the appetite to do so now. But at this point, this no longer has any bearing on accountability or being serious about national security. This is one hundred percent about political theatre, and it would be great if the pundit class of this country could call it out for what it is.

Continue reading →

QP: Shouting about the Bank of Canada’s mandate

Posted on by

Less than two hours after the prime minister announced that Canada would be engaging in a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics, he was present along with his deputy for QP. Erin O’Toole led off, script in front of him, and he lamented that there was no decision on Huawei and that Canada was the “last one” to announce the diplomatic boycott of the Olympics. Justin Trudeau have a paean about standing up for human rights and doing what is right. O’Toole then pivoted to uninsured mortgages and worried that interest rates would soon be rising and blamed the government for letting inflation run rampant—which doesn’t make any sense because rates were going to go up anyway and they are unnaturally low and them rising toward a neutral range would be a good thing. Trudeau reminded him that they had a plan around housing while the Conservatives only promised a tax break for landlords. O’Toole railed about inflation and demanded the government mandate the Bank of Canada maintain the Bank of Canada’s two percent inflation target, and Trudeau said they would renew it and then pointed that the Conservatives plans did nothing for affordability. O’Toole started yelling about inflation, and Trudeau shrugged this off as flailing. O’Toole switched to French to ask again that they renew the Bank’s inflation target, and this time Trudeau said that an announcement was forthcoming. 

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he complained that border measures were too confusing, and Trudeau said that he understood that the new rules could be confusing but they were doing everything they could to keep Canadians safe. Blanchet gave a hypothetical travel plan and wondered to know what tests or constraints they would be subjected to, and Trudeau said that anyone travelling should consult with public health authorities, but they needed to protect Canadians. 

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, and he complained about housing and claimed the government has to tools to solve it — erm, except nothing immediately short of a Green Lantern ring. Trudeau praised the efforts that the government has been taken and are expanding. Singh complained in French that the government wasn’t building housing on federal lands in Montreal and accused Trudeau of giving it to a member of the Bronfman family. Trudeau lamented that he expected personal attacks from the Conservatives but not the NDP, before talking about partnering with Montreal.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Swift passage, but not for the better

Posted on by

In another surprising move, the Senate passed the bill to ban conversion therapy at all stages yesterday, with no committee study, meaning that it only needs royal assent now, which can happen at any time. But while this is a relief to many, it’s also a tad irresponsible.

The lack of study of the current bill in the House of Commons was a political gambit designed to keep the Conservatives from being trapped by their own social conservative members, and to avoid giving any more media clips about people supposedly overcoming “lesbian activity” and so on. The fact that this version of the bill is different from the one that passed the Commons in the previous parliament is relevant, and there are changes that deserved some actual scrutiny because there were live constitutional questions around them (and yes, I asked the minister about it during the press conference, and I asked other questions about the bill during the not-for-attribution technical briefing, but those are not on the parliamentary record). And yes, this matters because the Senate should have done the work that MPs opted not to do out of political expediency. That’s one of the reasons why the Senate is the chamber of “sober second though”—because they don’t have to deal with the political repercussions and ramifications when the politics wins out in the Commons.

Unfortunately, politics also won out in the Senate (which should be an indictment of its supposed more “independent” existence these days). Acting Conservative leader in the Senate, Senator Leo Housakos, in his speech to give the bill swift passage, said that this issue shouldn’t be made into a political wedge like the Liberals were doing. Which is ironic because it wasn’t the Liberals who were holding up the bill previously by slow-walking it, refusing to let debate collapse, and by putting up speaker after speaker to offer the same concern trolling. That wasn’t the Liberals being political—it was 100 percent on the Conservatives for that, and now they’re trying to shift that blame. Yes, passing this bill at all stages was the expedient thing to do, but from a process and a parliamentary perspective, it was not the right thing to do, and it’s going to make the courts’ jobs that much harder when this inevitably gets challenged and they have little on the record to go by.

Continue reading →

QP: Litigating the Kabul evacuation

Posted on by

The Liberal benches were a little over two-thirds full, the opposition benches a little more full than that, and both Trudeau and his deputy were present (Freeland having previously being scheduled to only attend virtually but she was present in the flesh). Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and he insisted that the government had two years to evacuate our interpreters and workers in Afghanistan, quoted a CSIS report, and railed at the government’s failure. Trudeau insisted that they stood by Afghanistan, and noted their commitment to resettle 40,000 Afghans. O’Toole noted that 1,215 Canadians left in Afghanistan when evacuation operations ended, and Trudeau praised the work to get as many Afghans and Canadians out of the country as possible in August. O’Toole read scoffing remarks from script, and complained that the election was called, while Trudeau reminded him of the speed at which things happened in Afghanistan before once again praising the work of officials on the ground at the time. O’Toole switched to French, and he repeated his first question on the alleged two-year timeline, and Trudeau repeated about the work to get people out, and work with the international community to resettle 40,000 Afghans. O’Toole then read the scripted scoffing remarks in French, and Trudeau repeated his same answer.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he worried about a potential rule change that would see oil sands tailing ponds being dumped into the Athabasca River. Trudeau read a script about consultations on regulatory changes to ensure safeguards. Blanchet accused the government of being so much in the pockets of the oil and gas industry that it would cause the Conservatives an identity crisis, and a Trudeau read again that they were putting in strict water quality measures in the region.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, raised the coming fiscal update and the scourge of inflation, and then demanded the puzzling tools of immediate housing supply and lowering cellphone bills—a very curious notion that ignores the causes of this current bout of inflation. Trudeau read a script about what they planned to talk about in the fiscal update. Singh repeated the question in French, and got the French version of the same script.

Continue reading →

QP: From solemn moment to clown show

Posted on by

Following every party’s statements and a moment of silence for the anniversary of the massacre at École Polytechnique, things got underway in earnest. While the prime minister was absent, Chrystia Freeland was present. Candice Bergen led off, script on her mini-lectern, and she asked for an update on the government’s programmes to combat violence against women. Freeland highlighted the importance of the day, and spoke about the “unprecedented” investments in the budget, and then called on all women in the a House to rise for a moment to remember those women. Bergen then pivoted to the topic of inflation and wanted to know what was happening with the Bank of Canada’s inflation target, and Freeland assured her the decision was coming in due course. Bergen was not satisfied, and demanded action on rising prices—though she did not call for price controls. Freeland assured her that they understand the difference between fiscal and monetary policy, and have confidence in the Bank, and that they don’t disparage them like the Conservatives do. Alain Rayes took over in French, and demanded a “concrete plan” to tackle inflation. (Like price controls?) Freeland listed off global inflation figures in response. Rayes repeated his demand for a “concrete plan,” and Freeland responded with praise for the GDP growth and job numbers.

Claude DeBellefeuille also raised the anniversary of École Polytechnique and the current spate of gun violence in Montreal and demanded tougher gun control. Marco Mendicino assured her the are working together with different governments to ensure that everyone can live safely. DeBellefeuille accused the federal government of doing nothing, and Mendicino repeated his assurances and brought up his meetings last week with gun control advocates.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he raised the scourge of opioid deaths, and demanded decriminalisation of simple possession of drugs. Jean-Yves Duclos noted that they are working at several levels around things like safe supply and support for users, with more to be announced shortly. Gord Johns repeated the demand in English, and Carolyn Bennett repeated Duclos’ answer in English.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A century of women in the House

Posted on by

The CBC has a look back at 100 years since the first woman was elected to Parliament, and as with the present-day discourse, it’s largely about how other women’s voice were excluded, be they Indigenous, racialized, or otherwise. Yes, early feminists and women who were elected to public office were problematic—the Famous Five were very racist and proponents of eugenics. (So was the founder of the NDP, Tommy Douglas, for that matter, but he is rarely called out as being problematic as early white women in officer were, but that’s a whole other topic altogether).

So while we have a lot more diverse women in Parliament these days, we absolutely do need to do better, and much of that relies on the parties themselves. I would normally say that the grassroots riding associations should have a big role to play in recruiting more diverse women to run for them, but my enthusiasm for grassroots politics is currently being held in check by the fact that overly powerful leaders’ offices have been essentially bigfooting those processes, and so many nominations are being run centrally, if not using outright appointments over the past few cycles, after there was a big push toward “open nominations” for one or two election cycles. And the worst part is that some of this is explicitly about nominating more women to run for office, but in an effort to say that they have more women running, most of the parties will simply run them in unwinnable ridings so that they can say they had them running, but not jeopardise their chances in that riding by running someone who doesn’t fit the popular conception, which perpetuates the problem. And before you say “But the NDP!” I have watched them time and again monkey with their own rules around nominations to run a straight white male in ridings with hugely diverse populations if they think they can win. (Think Robert Chisholm or Joe Cressy). The parties have a big role to play in getting more diverse women to run, and the Liberals were really good about this for an election cycle or two with a sound recruitment strategy, but I’m not sure it’s carried forward as well in the last election cycle.

Meanwhile, I also find myself frustrated by the notion that hybrid sittings are some kind of panacea to women running for office, because it’s based on a few bad assumptions. One of those is the fact that hybrid sittings are demonstrably bad – they are more toxic, and they have a human cost on the interpreters, and using the excuse that this allows more women to run for office should not be contingent upon interpreters needing to injure themselves in order to make it happen. The other is that it simply perpetuates the notion that women must be the primary childcare providers. There are a lot of accommodations for MPs who have small children, and they can develop more as time goes by (and seriously, they need to get over this notion that they can’t hire nannies), but some accommodations—like hybrid sittings—exact a cost that is too high for the benefit. There have to be better ways.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Blockbuster jobs numbers—mostly

Posted on by

Statistics Canada released the Labour Force Survey numbers yesterday, and they were very good—four times as many jobs were created as had been forecast by economists. All of the jobs lost during the pandemic have been recovered and more, and unemployment is very nearly as low as it was before the pandemic began (at which point we were at record lows, around statistical “full employment”), and it was even noted that “core-aged” women had their highest ever employment levels. Things are turning around. Mostly.

There are still a lot of vacancies and there is a mismatch between jobs available and the skills that unemployed workers possess, and while the government is pouring money into training, that takes time. And labour shortages mean wages are likely to continue to increase (and if anyone says they’re stagnant, they are either lying or haven’t read the data). As well, productivity has taken a dive over the last quarter, so that will matter as well. Conservatives are claiming that the increase in jobs is as a result of the majority of pandemic benefits ending, but I’m not sure there is a direct comparison that can be made given the skills mismatches that are in the economy (and which pre-date the pandemic, which was one of the reasons why the Bank of Canada, among others, was making a concerted effort to call for inclusive growth). There is work still to do, but the government is feeling pretty good about the data.

Meanwhile, here are some economists’ takes to consider:

https://twitter.com/stephen_tapp/status/1466766974365622275

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1466771813594140675

Continue reading →

Roundup: A newer, worse compromise

Posted on by

The Speaker engaged in a bit of procedural housekeeping after Question Period yesterday, and ruled that the Board of Internal Economy’s vote on a vaccine mandate for MPs in the House of Commons was in fact a violation of MPs’ privileges—which most of us expected, because that’s pretty much what it was. It’s a moot point, however, because the motion passed that re-authorized hybrid sittings included the vaccine mandate for the Chamber, so there remains a vaccine mandate regardless of this outcome. It sounds like the Conservatives are satisfied with this ruling in that it doesn’t create a precedent for expanding the BoIE’s powers, so that’s not necessarily a bad thing in all.

At the same time, the government house leader proposed a compromise for the Winnipeg Lab documents, which had been floated before dissolution but is back on the table now—which is procedurally dumb because the committee that requested those documents is non-existent, as is the order to produce those documents. If said committee were reinstated and they vote on a new motion to produce documents, then the government should have floated this compromise then, but no, they’re going ahead with it unbidden, which is silly. This compromise would see the creation of a new committee that would be advised by a panel of three former senior judges who would vet materials—but again, this is stupid.

The compromise was the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. That was the point. It was the right venue for these documents to go to, and that’s where those documents were sent, before the Conservatives decided that theatre was more important (and the other two parties decided that embarrassing the government was also the point). All this is doing is muddying the waters even further, duplicating efforts, and making MPs even less trustworthy to Canadian security and intelligence services. Because our MPs are not interested in actual oversight or accountability—they are only interested in theatre, and that diminishes our Parliament for everyone.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1466554090452762626

Continue reading →