Tag Archives: Public Health

QP: Green Lanterning the price of houses

Posted on by

With the prime minister still in Belgium, there were a lot more Conservatives than usual in the Chamber, which made for a louder day. As for the Liberal ranks, Mark Gerretsen was joined by Kate Young for possibly the first time since the Hybrid sittings began, but the imbalance between both sides of the Chamber was very noticeable. Erin O’Toole in led off in French, and from his script, he read about how Trudeau was apparently so preoccupied with becoming the “Dean of G7” and apparent celebrity meetings (of which there haven’t been any) while he ignored the job losses back in Canada. Chrystia Freeland replied by pointing out that the Conservatives have been using procedural tactics to delay debate on the budget implementation bill. O’Toole switched to English, to decry that a Toronto developer snapped up housing, thus driving up prices, for which Ahmed Hussen reminded him that the current government was doing more for affordable housing than the Conservatives ever did. O’Toole demanded that the government somehow lower housing prices before the summer — maybe using a Green Lantern ring? — and Hussen repeated that he had no lessons to take from the Conservatives. From there, O’Toole started slamming Harjit Sajjan, accusing him of stolen valour, and of being “buddies” with General Jonathan Vance, and Sajjan brushed off the allegations. O’Toole put on a performance of theatrical anger to demand Sajjan’s resignation, and Sajjan hit back by reminding O’Toole that his government still appointed Vance while he was under active investigation. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded support for a motion to validate Quebec’s plan to unilaterally amend the constitution, for which David Lametti noted there are amending formulas and their proposal needed to ensure other rights were protected, which he got assurances about. Therrien railed about Section 45 — which is what the Quebec government has largely proposed — and Lametti spoke about clarifying the motion about Quebec being a nation in a United Canada.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP in French, and he demanded that the government not cut pandemic supports, to which Carla Qualtrough reminded him that the budget implementation bill will extend benefits. Singh switched to English to rail that there was still a cut to supports, and Qualtrough noted there are other supports available.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not just a golf game

Posted on by

The top brass of the Canadian Forces shot themselves in the foot – metaphorically – yet again this weekend as both the outgoing vice-chief of defence staff and the head of the Royal Canadian Navy both went golfing with former CDS, General Jonathan Vance, while Vance is under active police investigation. To call it tone-deaf is an understatement – rather, it highlights the old boys’ club mentality that still pervades the upper ranks of the Forces, and sends the wrong message to the victims of sexual misconduct, who remain the subordinates of these officers. And to make the optics even more nightmarish, the vice-chief technically has the power to issue orders to the Provost Marshall, who controls the military police.

https://twitter.com/leahwest_nsl/status/1404114717405286401

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1404192298905264128

You can get that there was an outcry, including from numerous Cabinet ministers, and in short order, there were apologies from those involved, while the minister of defence, Harjit Sajjan, said that he would be evaluating “next steps” in this particular situation.

https://twitter.com/leahwest_nsl/status/1404262974504812545

To the point that West (who was drummed out of the military because of the double standard around sexual misconduct) is making in her tweet, there is very much a growing trend of professionally-crafted apologies going around given where things have gone over the past year or so, and I have to agree with this take that we need to take this into account as yet more of them are delivered over the coming days.

Continue reading →

Roundup: C-10 shenanigans have poisoned the well of our parliament

Posted on by

Because things around Bill C-10 couldn’t get any more ridiculous, we now have news stories about Michael Geist getting the vapours about how amendments are being rushed through committee in a “secretive” manner, as though he’s never witnessed a clause-by-clause debate before. And to an extent, what has happened with that committee is the result of a complete breakdown of how it should be operating, forcing the government to impose time allocation on the process – a rare manoeuvre at the committee stage – because it has become so toxic. And with the whips intervening, this turned into essentially a forced meeting that the chair himself objected to, but again, this whole process has become so toxic because of partisan gamesmanship.

First things first ­– Geist’s vapours are more or less melodramatic, because there are still several other opportunities to see what amendments have been agreed to – the final committee report, which goes to Report Stage debate in the Chamber, where the full Commons can vote to accept or reject those amendments. And then there is third reading. If anything, particularly egregious is in there, it can still be caught and amended, and while rare at those stages, it is possible. And then there is the entire Senate process, where they can hear from yet more witnesses in their own committees on the amended version of the bill, and given that this particular iteration of the Senate is far more activist and interventionist, we can bet that there will be more impetus for amendments there (which could force an awkward contest of wills around those amendments given that they’d have to go back to a Commons that has risen for the summer, and at a time when nobody in this city can shut up about election speculation). Nevertheless, the point stands that there are several avenues yet for more amendments to this bill than what happened at the Commons committee.

The bigger point here, however, is that the reason this process became so toxic was because the Conservatives took a fundamentally – nay, existentially – flawed bill, and decided that instead of engaging its actual flaws, they would invent a whole litany of straw men and red herrings, and try to get the country up in arms over fictional provisions that they pulled out of their asses and held them up as effigies to be burned in protest. It’s a bad bill – it never should have placed under the Broadcasting Act because that statute deals with the assumption of the limited bandwidth of TV and radio, and trying to apply it to the internet is largely unworkable. This is a legitimate criticism that should have been debated, but instead, we got this fabrication of an Internet Czar who is going to be vetting your tweets and Facebook posts, and dark visions of Orwellian censorship at the hands of the CRTC, which is not even remotely plausible. But they went full-tilt with this insanity, and just completely poisoned the well of parliament along the way.

The government is not blameless here either – the minister’s communication around the bill has been nothing short of a disaster in English Canada, and his stumbles have been extremely damaging, but he’s been given a long leash because this is playing well in Quebec (where discoverability is a huge vote-getter because they do have difficulty finding Quebec and Canadian content in French – pointing to how the debate on this bill has been hugely built on what I’m going to dub “Anglophone privilege.”) We could have had a constructive debate around this bill. But we didn’t. A mountain of lies was countered by communications incompetence, and after six weeks of absolute shenanigans at committee, the government had enough and brought the hammer down. None of this needed to happen, but apparently we don’t have enough grown-ups in our parliament, and that’s just a sad, sad state of affairs.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford turns to the Notwithstanding Clause – again

Posted on by

The sudden comfort with which premiers are deciding to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause is getting a bit uncomfortable, as Doug Ford decided he needed to invoke it after a court struck down his attempts to limit third-party spending in provincial elections in a somewhat arbitrary fashion (given that unions get together to form American-esque political action committees in this province). While you can find a great explainer on Ford and his particular legal challenge in this thread, the more alarming part is the apparent need to reach for the “emergency valve” of the Clause before even appealing the decision to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada.

There is a perfectly legitimate reason why the Notwithstanding Clause exists, which as to do with keeping a certain amount of parliamentary supremacy in lawmaking, and it gives governments an avenue of recourse if there is a fundamental disagreement with a court’s interpretation of legislation. But lately, it’s being invoked by premiers who know they are trying to push through objectionable legislation – François Legault did it with Bill 21, which the courts have essentially said blocks their ability to strike down any portion of the law, and he’s doing it again with his Bill 96 on trying to obliterate any bilingualism in the province (the same bill that seeks to unilaterally amend the federal constitution). Ford had threatened to invoke it to ram through his unilateral changes to Toronto City Council while they were in the middle of an election, but ultimately didn’t because of a court injunction, and his decision this time is similarly dubious. This willingness to invoke the Clause at the first sign of court challenge or on the first defeat is a very big problem for our democracy, and we should be very wary about this abuse of power, and punish these governments appropriately at the ballot box during the next elections for these decisions.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402715067083280387

In the meantime, here’s Emmett Macfarlane with more thoughts on the court decision that led to this turn of events.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402711628978720772

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402712563960455173

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402713058913525761

Continue reading →

QP: Alleging a national security breach

Posted on by

For what was possible the last time in person for the spring sitting, Justin Trudeau was present in the Chamber, with only Mark Gerretsen on the Liberal benches with him. Erin O’Toole led off, and he immediately launched into the National Microbiology Lab firings, accusing the government of hiding the truth. Trudeau refuted this, and said that they we looking to share the information in the right way, which was why they were asking NSICOP to look into it, and that unredacted documents had already been provided to it. O’Toole tried to make the case that the government broke national security laws around the Lab, but Trudeau repeated his response. O’Toole threw out a bunch of possibly non-sequitur facts about the Wuhan lab in China and tried to tie them to the Winnipeg lab, and Trudeau chided the Conservatives for ignoring oversight of national security, which is why they created NSICOP. O’Toole tried to accuse Trudeau of advancing China’s interests, and Trudeau gave the somewhat tired response that the Conservatives were focused on political games while he was working for Canadians against foreign threats. O’Toole then repeated his first question in French, and Trudeau repeated his response about NSICOP.

Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc, and he complained that Trudeau mused about COVID masks and Quebec’s “secularism” law, and Trudeau remarked that he supports Quebeckers’ rights to challenge that law in court. Blanchet was irate that people were linking Bill 21 with the rise in Islamophobia, but Trudeau instead spoke about the importance of the Court Challenges programme, which was why his government restored its funding.

Jagmeet Singh appeared by video for the NDP, and in French, demanded an end to the lawsuits related to Indigenous children. Trudeau said it was false, they were not suing the children, but acknowledged that they deserve compensation and were negotiating it — but didn’t explain the purpose of the litigation. Singh repeated the question in English, and Trudeau repeated his answer, and once again did not explain the litigation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Craven for Quebec votes

Posted on by

The day was marked by reflection on the part of political leaders on the hate crime that took place in London, Ontario, that killed a Muslim family, along with vows to do better. Of course, within each of those was their own particular issues. As much as Justin Trudeau insisted that this was a “terrorist attack” before such a designation could be applied by means of police investigation, he also vowed to keep dismantling far-right groups, patting himself on the back for the designation of the Proud Boys as a terror group, even though that really just drove its membership underground. Erin O’Toole steered clear of his party’s recent history of dog-whistling and the absolute histrionics they engaged in around M-103, which you may recall was to have a parliamentary committee deal with the issue of Islamophobia in Canada. (Conservatives and their defenders will point to a similar motion on systemic racism that the Liberals voted down, ignoring that the motion was essentially the parliamentary equivalent of “all lives matter”). Jagmeet Singh loudly wondered how many more attacks needed to happen before the government did something about it, though there are limits to what the federal government is able to do, and they have been putting resources into their anti-racism strategy.

But the part that really reflects poorly on Trudeau is the fact that at his media availability afterward, he was asked if he thinks that Quebec’s Bill 21 (dubbed their “secularism” law but really disproportionately attacks Muslim women) fosters hated or discrimination, and he said no. We’re not sure if he was simply saying no about the hatred part, given that he has called out the discrimination inherent in said bill before – but he also still hasn’t taken any moves to combat it, apparently waiting for it to reach the Supreme Court of Canada before he’ll intervene. Which is more than the other leaders would do (well, Singh has reluctantly said he also might intervene at the Supreme Court if he were prime minister, but that’s after being pressed). Trudeau also mused that perhaps all of the mask-wearing in the pandemic will change Quebeckers’ opinions on religious symbols and face-coverings, but apparently François Legault is not moved. Either way, it’s a sign that every federal leader is way too craven to stand up to Legault on this because they’re all eager for Quebec votes, and that’s pretty gross all around.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1402432194564526080

To that end, Susan Delacourt calls out Trudeau, O’Toole and Singh for their refusal to discuss Bill 21 (or in O’Toole’s case, acknowledge their past dog-whistles about “veiled voting” and “barbaric cultural practices tip lines”), and praises the courage of that former PC candidate who acknowledged the racism of his community that he shrugged off at the time.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1402313600602157058

Continue reading →

QP: Magical solutions to housing shortages

Posted on by

We had initially been promised the prime minister’s attendance today, but given events, he and the other party leaders all decided to jet off together to the vigil in London, Ontario, for the Muslim family that was killed in a hate crime on Sunday night. Candice Bergen led off by video, requesting an update on what the government was doing to support the Muslim community in the wake of the tragedy. Bill Blair listed off some supports, and made the point about Canada trying to “be the country we aspire to be,” which I thought was probably one of the better articulations out there, rather than the usual “this isn’t us” denialism. Bergen then demanded to know why unredacted documents related to the two fired scientists had not been turned over to the House of Commons as had been ordered, for which Patty Hajdu reminded her that she turned those documents over to NSICOP, which was the proper venue for it. Bergen accused the government of being in contempt of Parliament, and tied the lab to the investigation into the origins of COVID in Wuhan, thus fuelling more conspiracy theories, and Hajdu warned her about conflating issues. Gérard Deltell took over in French and tried to insist that NSICOP was the personal committee of the prime minister and that they couldn’t know what was turned over to it – which is a very dangerous move to politicise the committee like that – and Hajdu corrected him that the committee is multi-partisan and has the ability to review these kinds of documents. Deltell tried again, and got the same pushback from Hajdu.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and demanded action to solve the delays to temporary foreign workers in Quebec. Marco Mendicino insisted that he was hard at work with his Quebec counterpart and they were on target. Yves Perron took over and demanded immediate action on the arrival of those workers, and Mendicino reminded him that they have doubled the number of arrivals over the past decade.

Rachel Blaney demanded immediate action on the motion that passed yesterday on ending litigation against First Nations children and residential schools survivors, for which Carolyn Bennett praised the intent of the motion, but stated that they contain complex legal issues that should not be resolved unilaterally on the floor of the House of Commons. Charlie Angus repeated the question with added sanctimony, and Bennett read that the court ordered an independent review of the compensation which could include greater amounts for some survivors, which the government was funding.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chalk up another moral victory

Posted on by

The NDP did what they are very good at yesterday, which is to get a non-binding motion passed in the House of Commons, and declare a moral victory in spite of the fact that it does little more than make a statement. In this case, it was their Supply Day motion on calling on the government to drop their litigation on both the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision around First Nations children taken into foster care, while the second is round survivors of the St. Anne’s residential school. The Cabinet abstained from the vote, while most Liberal backbenchers voted for it – agreeing in principle to parts of the motion, and making a statement, but not binding the government to do anything. And while the NDP pats themselves on the back and says that they are “forcing” the government to drop the litigation, it does no such thing. It was merely the House of Commons voicing an opinion.

Part of the problem is that there is very little ability for people to discuss what the litigation is actually about in a meaningful way. According to Singh and company, this is about “taking First Nations kids to court,” which isn’t it. As a lawyer, Singh very well knows that there are complex issues that governments are obligated to sort out, especially if there is a bad precedent that it can set. In the case of the Tribunal decision, the government says they will pay compensation – and they are negotiating with two other class action lawsuits on similar matters to do just that – but the Tribunal ordered individual remedies for a systemic claim, which it should not be able to do, if the logic holds from previous Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence that said that they could not offer systemic remedies for individual claims. The government, however, mumbles about the jurisdiction of the Tribunal rather than explaining this, and it means they look like the bad guys. With the St. Anne’s case, I’m less familiar but the government’s line has been that they are seeking clarity on some five percent of survivors who have not yet been compensated, and in some of those cases could be getting more compensation for some of those five percent – because complex issues can require complex litigation to solve.

Unfortunately, that’s not what most journalists will sort out. Instead, we get the usual both-sidesing of this, where you get the advocates insisting the government is being “incomprehensible,” and the government gives some pat talking points, and they leave it at that. It’s why, for the Tribunal litigation, I went and talked to law professors and got some outside perspective on what the issues actually are, and why they matter for a government to bother litigating them. We’re being failed because most journalists are too incurious to sort the issues out, and that’s a problem. Legal stories are complex, but they deserve some attention paid to them so that we’re not left with the misleading narratives that are now being allowed to circulate unchallenged. Media needs to do better.

Continue reading →

QP: Mona Fortier reminds us she exists

Posted on by

It was a scorcher in the Nation’s Capital, and once again, the only Liberal MP in the Chamber was Mark Gerretsen. Candice Bergen led off by video, and she complained that the million jobs promised by the end of June had not materialized, and compared our job numbers to the Americans’, and demanded a plan to re-open the economy – as though that were a federal call. Mona Fortier assured her eight out of every ten jobs lost at the start of the pandemic had already been recovered, and that international credit ratings have pointed out Canada’s plan was sound. Bergen railed about job losses and accused the government of being more concerned about their travel itineraries than Canadians, for which Fortier reminded her of the good new of the Q1 GDP numbers (which really weren’t great, considering how much of those numbers were tied up in real estate). Bergen then blamed the federal government for the third wave of the pandemic (when she knows full well it was premiers who reopened too early and locked down too late), and Fortier listed measures taken to help businesses in lockdowns and as part of the recovery. Gérard Deltell took over in French and railed about jobs, for which Fortier repeated the “good news” in the GDP numbers. Deltell seemed to think the lockdowns were completely over when complaining that jobs had not completely recovered, and Fortier recited good news talking points about the wage subsidy. 

Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he demanded that the federal government extend Quebec’s Bill 101 to federally-regulated industries because the Official Languages Act only protects bilingualism and not French, and Mélanie Joly assured him they were protecting French. Therrien complained this wasn’t good enough because the federal bureaucracy had a high failure rate, and Joly stated that they were working to strengthen the Act and the Commissioner’s powers, and to extend the Act to industries in federal jurisdiction in the private sector.

Alexandre Boulerice led for the NDP by video, and he demanded the government support their motion on abandoning litigation involving First Nations children and survivors, for which Mark a Miller noted that they support parts of the notion but there are jurisdiction issues to be litigated, and they were negotiating compensation. Charlie Angus repeated the question in English with added sanctimony, and Miller repeated slowly that every First Nations child that has suffered at the hands of the child welfare system will get just and fair compensation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Liberals being weasels about “open nominations” – again

Posted on by

Remember back before the 2015 election when Justin Trudeau declared that the Liberals would be a party of open nominations? And then how he weaselled out on that after the election in order to protect nominations when they had a majority? And even after that, decided to trigger their “electoral urgency” rules in advance of the 2019 election, even though they knew the timing of it years in advance and could have actually let those nominations happen? Well, they are being weasels again, and just triggered the “electoral urgency” rules once more.

Of course, because there are only three narratives to choose from in most media outlets, this was seen as “more proof” that there’s going to be an election this fall, especially when combined with the fact that MPs agreed to hold a take note debate session on the 15th that will allow MPs who have opted not to run again to give a farewell speech. It’s all proof! Erm, except that this is a hung parliament that will have reached the two-year mark in the fall, making an election far more likely, so it’s a convenient time to hold such a session, given that it certainly wouldn’t happen after a confidence vote to bring down the government. I remain unconvinced that the Liberals are planning to dissolve parliament by the end of summer on a flimsy excuse, but then again, I generally don’t subscribe to the Three Narratives.

This being said, this weaselly behaviour around nominations is unsurprising given the trends in this country, and where the party has been headed. They did it in 2019, and at the end of last year, they did away with open nominations for the two by-elections and simply appointed candidates outright, never mind that there was interest from others in each riding and they could have held competitive races, yes, including in a virtual situation. We’ve seen all parties behave in ways that are undermining the democratic process by gaming nominations – Samara Canada wrote a report on it. (Samara was also credulous about the NDP’s claims about open nominations in 2011, in spite of all of the evidence of paper candidates who never even visited the ridings, never mind having run in an open contest, but that’s neither here nor there). The point is that this kind of behaviour is toxic to the long-term health of our system of government, and it needs to be countered and pushed back against. Unfortunately, because the media is hung up on the “early election” narrative at any opportunity, they never actually hold the parties to account for their undemocratic behaviour, and we’ve allowed it to get to this point. This is a very bad thing, and we should be pushing back and demanding proper, open nominations from all parties, no matter how inconvenient it may be in a hung parliament.

Continue reading →