Tag Archives: Public Health

QP: What is your inflation position today?

Posted on by

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

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

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

Continue reading →

Roundup: A plan hatched in caucus

Posted on by

Events yesterday bring to mind the 76th Rule of Acquisition, which states “Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.” It almost feels like that was the tactic at play when the Conservatives decided to move a motion regarding Bill C-4—the conversion therapy ban— that would pass it at all stages. It did not receive any objections, and it went through, so the bill sailed through the House of Commons with no debate, and is now off to the Senate.

As I outline in my forthcoming Xtra column, the truth is that this wasn’t about confusing their enemies – it was about trying to take the heat off of Erin O’Toole and the social conservatives in caucus. After O’Toole’s office told the media that it would be a free vote, like it had been the last time around. Nine of those MPs didn’t survive their election, and O’Toole was being called a hypocrite for labelling himself an ally of the queer community without doing anything meaningful on proving it, like whipping his caucus so that they wouldn’t vote against the rights he said he respected. Thus, a plan was hatched in their caucus meeting where O’Toole basically laid down the law and said this was the route they were going to go, so that they could put this behind them.

I will fully admit that I didn’t expect things to turn out this way. The Xtra column was originally written to say that I expected them to drag out the debate on this bill again because it removed the loopholes around “consenting adults,” which many of the Conservatives were insisting on focusing on given how they couched their support for the ban under the weasel words of “coercive conversion therapy” instead of all forms, and a number of their MPs praised “counselling” that helped constituents deal with same-sex attraction of “lesbian activity.” I’m a little surprised that O’Toole exerted his authority on this particular bill given how much pressure his leadership is under – but there were also a lot of sour faces when the motion passed, and plenty of MPs who resolutely sat down and did not participate in the standing ovation that others in the caucus were visibly seen to participate in (chief among them former leadership candidate Leslyn Lewis). So I had to rewrite part of the column to reflect this change—even though it was a welcome change. But let’s not kid ourselves. This wasn’t a magnanimous gesture or one that showed true allyship—it was a pretty cynical ploy to avoid a recorded vote and further embarrassment of the party.

Continue reading →

QP: A rose-coloured paean to the Harper era

Posted on by

There were a few more absences in the benches, but the leaders were all present, so that was something. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he loudly worried about the real housing crisis, and somehow blamed it on government spending. Justin Trudeau assured him that housing was a priority for the government, and that they would work with partners to get more housing built, while listing some of their proposed measures. O’Toole was unconvinced, and continued the specious correlation between government spending and housing prices, and Trudeau reminded him that the Conservatives plan would have raised prices further. O’Toole gave a rose-coloured revisionist paean to the halcyon days of Stephen Harper, and Trudeau batted it away. O’Toole switched to French to lament that the government wasn’t helping Canadians, and Trudeau repeated his assurances that they are there for Canadians and the way to get out of the economic situation is to end the pandemic. O’Toole then raised the labour shortage, accusing the government of doing nothing, and Trudeau listed measures the government is taking such as higher immigration targets and more money for training.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and raised the situation of French-speaking students from Africa being unable to get student visas to Quebec, and Trudeau assured him it was a problem and they were conducting a systemic review of the situation. Blanchet insisted that was meaningless, and wondered if the government was admitting it was racist, and Trudeau said that unlike the Bloc, they recognised that systemic racism exists and once identified they are working to eliminate it.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and demanded Canadian support to ensure that other countries can make vaccines in their own country, and Trudeau listed Canada’s leadership actions, including COVAX and working at the WTO to address the various restrictions, beyond just patents. Singh switched to French to repeat the question, and Trudeau chided Singh for using “literally” when he meant metaphorically, before repeated his answer in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unable to read the signs about Freeland

Posted on by

Just a quick note because a lot of talking heads have been mentioning it over the past few days, which was about that Globe and Mail article from a couple of days ago (which I’m not going to link to) that proclaimed Chrystia Freeland’s leadership ambitions because…she is the subject of an unauthorized biography, and she wrote that letter to the board of Air Canada. No, seriously—that was the sum total of the Globe’s evidence.

And yet, on Power and Politics, The Line and other places, everyone is treating this biography as though it were a) an autobiography, which is what many party leaders will release ahead of an election, not ahead of a leadership vote; or b) a book that she commissioned herself, when in fact someone else is writing it, and Freeland has apparently not even agreed to be interviewed for it, or cooperate with it in any way. Nevertheless, the conflation by all of these outlets continues to paint a picture that is not actually there.

As for the letter to the board of Air Canada, the federal government is one of the largest shareholders with six percent of the company’s stock, which Freeland mentioned in the letter. Add to that, Air Canada is a repeat offender when it comes to violating their obligations under the Official Languages Act, so as finance minister, Freeland has particular obligations to remind the Board of this when their CEO did something as impolitic (and frankly stupid) as the comments he made. This wasn’t something that she did on a whim because she wants to build up her Quebec cred for the (eventual) leadership bid.

I get the desire to stir the pot and create some drama, but come on. Yes, Freeland no doubt has ambitions, and she is likely going to be the next prime minister. But if you’re a serious news outlet, at least get your basic facts and context right before you start making these kinds of proclamations. You don’t look very credible with this kind of nonsense.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Who they gave succour to

Posted on by

Cast your minds back to summer of 2018, when prime minister Justin Trudeau attended a Liberal rally in rural Quebec and encountered a woman heckling him about refugees crossing the border at irregular points of entry. As part of this, she demanded to know when Trudeau would support “Québécois de souche,” a term tinged with racism as it applies only to those who descended from the early French settlers, essentially considering anyone without those particular roots to be some kind of contagion upon the state. Trudeau called out her intolerance, and she tried to sue for defamation.

A Quebec Superior Court judge dismissed her case, and pointed out the fact that she had tried to use the incident to make a name for herself among far-right circles, all while claiming that she has empathy because she’s a nurse, and will treat anyone. More to the point, the judge pointed out that she was deliberately trying to provoke the prime minister, and was thus the author of her own misfortune, and in dismissing the case, ordered her to pay legal fees.

So why bring this up? Because if you also think back to when the House of Commons returned shortly after this incident, the Conservatives all rushed to give succour to this woman, and tried to frame her aggressive questions and demands as though she was “just asking about the budget.” No, seriously. Conservative after Conservative stood up in the House of Commons to whine that “if Trudeau doesn’t like your questions, he calls you a racist.” Because in their minds, being called a racist is a worse crime than the actual racism that the woman was displaying. And it goes to show what the party is willing to stand up for, and who they are willing to protect if they think they can score points from it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some more inflation fact-checking

Posted on by

Because you know it’s going to come up yet again during Question Period today and through the rest of the week, here are a couple of reality checks around inflation, first from former Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz, who will give you all of the reasons why the pandemic spending and stimulus is not what is causing the current bout of transitory inflation.

Next, from economist Stephen Gordon:

So when Erin O’Toole and Pierre Poilievre start sounding off on inflation again, I know whose economic judgment I’ll be listening to (and it won’t be theirs).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Enter Omicron

Posted on by

If it all feels like a little bit of history repeating, the World Health Organization declared a new variant of concern, B.1.1.529, designated Omicron, yesterday, and in the lead-up to that decision, there was a lot of the same kinds of usual behaviours from the usual suspects. The variant was detected in South Africa (where there is apparently good surveillance), and has been spotted in seven southern African countries thus far. Conservatives demanded travel advisories and wailed that the border needed to be closed – never mind that there are no direct flights between Canada and South Africa – and gave some revisionist history about their demanding the borders be closed with the original COVID outbreak (when they demanded the borders be closed to China, whereas the vast majority Canada’s infections came by way of Europe and the United States).

But by mid-afternoon, the government did lay out new restrictions, but we’ll see how much of it is effective, or how much of it is pandemic theatre.

This is happening at a time where COVID cases have been ticking back upward across much of the country, prompting fears of a fifth wave being on the horizon as people get lazy with public health measures and start taking masks off indoors, or the like, while those who refuse to get vaccinated remain petri dishes for new variants to emerge or for it to enter into new animal reservoirs where it can mutate yet again. Essentially the way out of this remains getting vaccinated and keeping up good public health measures – most especially masking because we know that this is airborne – and maybe we can keep this fifth wave blunted and the Omicron variant largely tamed. But people are idiots, so things could get a lot worse once more.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Setting more dangerous precedents to justify hybrid sittings

Posted on by

With a vote of 180 to 140, hybrid sittings will be returning to the House of Commons, which is bullshit and absolutely unconscionable, but the Liberals and NDP have managed to convince themselves of a lot of nonsense in order to justify this. For the Liberals, it was weaponizing a lot of nonsense about MPs feeling “unsafe” in the House of Commons with potentially unvaccinated Conservatives in their midst, which may be a theoretical danger at this point, but it’s not outside of what everyone else has to contend with – and in fact, we expect a lot of essential workers to put themselves in a lot more danger on a daily basis than MPs have to by being in the Chamber with nearly everyone double-vaxxed and everyone wearing masks. For the NDP, it was a lot of the usual handwaving about “work-life balance” and parents of small children, but they already have a lot of accommodations being made for them, and that excuse is getting thin.

What is especially egregious is that this debate over hybrid sittings and remote voting has created an artificial standard of perfect attendance which has never existed, and there is no reason why it needs to exist now. One or two votes won’t bring the government down, and being dramatic about it isn’t helping matters. If anything, creating this impossible standard of perfect attendance in order to justify hybrid sittings is irresponsible and downright dangerous, and sets a way worse example to the rest of the country. Allowing this standard to flourish will mean that MPs will never be allowed sick days or necessary leaves of absence in the future because they will be expected to attend virtually or to continue voting remotely, and it will be used as justification to keep hybrid formats going in perpetuity (which is very, very bad for the health of our Parliament). Perpetuating it will encourage MPs to remain in partisan silos because they don’t have to attend in person and interact face-to-face, and the toxic atmosphere of the last session will become the new norm.

There is also the accountability problem, which the Conservatives and Bloc have been absolutely right to highlight. Allowing attendance by Zoom allows ministers to escape accountability, and it allows all ministers and MPs to escape the accountability of the media because they will simply absent themselves from Parliament Hill, where they cannot be button-holed on their way in and out. Accountability is already suffering in this country, and the government has given themselves a free pass to let it slide even further, and their apologists are clutching their pearls about the pandemic still being on. This is no way to run a country.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Casting doubt as a smoke bomb

Posted on by

As I was just saying about Canadian political leaders focusing on American issues and culture wars, we are seeing yet another instance in this country – this time over the upcoming riding redistribution hearings. The Conservatives have decided that they want to go all-in on American culture wars and are fundraising to fight these redistributions, citing that they don’t trust the Liberals to run the process fairly – never mind that the process is arm’s length, and the fact that the Speaker of the House is involved in the process is supposed to ensure neutrality. The fact that he was elected as a Liberals should not be a factor – and it’s especially rich from the Conservatives, seeing as it was their votes that ensured that Rota got into the post during Tuesday’s election (and I know enough about where votes were going for certain candidates that the maths work out that the Conservatives were voting for Rota).

We really, really do not want to go down this path of making a partisan issue of riding redistribution, because only madness lies this way. Aside from outright partisan lunacy in thinking that this is an effective way of fundraising never mind the corrosive effect that this has on our political system, it’s also a simple admission of sore loserism. If they think they’ve been losing because of riding redistribution (with “rurban” seats largely being split up into actual rural and urban seats), the most recent redistribution happened under their watch, and frankly, “rurban” seats were pure gerrymandering because they didn’t make sense and were trying to use rural votes to outweigh urban ones and never made sense in terms of “communities” like they are so concerned that ridings encompass. If they think that they won’t get a fair shake this time around, it’s pure projection.

Of course, this isn’t actually about riding redistribution – it’s about throwing another smoke bomb into the mix in order to distract from the party’s internal problems and the challenges to Erin O’Toole’s leadership. The fact that they are trying to discredit a process that is meant to be removed from political considerations and partisan gamesmanship is pretty gross, especially because that is meant to be a pure distraction (and fundraising grab). This process is important to our democracy, and for them to cast doubt for selfish reasons is a sign of the party’s continued moral decline.

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 →