Tag Archives: Public Health

Roundup: Trudeau cleared, Morneau not

Posted on by

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner released his reports on Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau’s involvement in the WE Imbroglio yesterday, and came to two different results – the prime minister was cleared, but Morneau was found to have breached three sections of the Act, because he was not only personal friends with the Kielburgers (which Trudeau was not), but Morneau gave them a lot of access to his department as a result of that friendship, and offered them very preferential treatment.

On the one hand, this defused a few of the prepared talking points, but it didn’t disarm all of them. The Conservatives insist that even if he wasn’t found to have broken the rules, the system is still “broken” and needs to be made even tougher, which they are going to regret when every interaction becomes a minefield and their own members start getting caught up in impossible situations should they form government, and it misses the mark of what the current problems are. The NDP, predictably, say that this proves the Liberals only care about their “rich friends,” which I’m not sure the Kielburgers really qualify as for obvious reasons.

Of course, as I have written before, the problem is not that the rules are too lax, but rather that the Liberals in their current incarnation have a culture that believes that so long as they mean well, that the ends will justify the means. No amount of tinkering or toughening up the rules can change that because it’s a cultural problem. It also doesn’t help that the definition of “corruption” has become so broad in the Canadian discourse that penny ante bullshit is treated as a capital crime, though very curiously, grift that is out in the open in places like Queen’s Park or the Alberta Legislature are not treated with the same kinds of howling denunciations that the WE Imbroglio has been. I also have to wonder what these same howlers would do if they saw the actual corruption that takes place in other countries, because it’s on a whole other level than anything that has happened here. And on a final note, this report does not mean that WE Charity was “destroyed” for nothing. The charity hasn’t been “destroyed,” and its dubious activities were brought to light by good reporting, not Charlie Angus’ antics at committee, and that’s a good thing. This incident helped to shine that spotlight. Let’s not confuse Trudeau’s exoneration with anything else that has happened to WE in the interim.

Continue reading →

QP: Freeland vows to protect free expression

Posted on by

The Commons was a little emptier than the new normal of late, but as our rock of stability, Mark Gerretsen was again the only Liberal on the Chamber. Again. Candice Bergen led off in person, with a script in front of her, and she complained that Americans were getting together and attending packed sports stadiums while most Canadians were still “locked down,” and blamed the federal government’s inability to procure vaccines out of thin air. Chrystia Freeland reminded her that over twenty million doses have already arrived, and more were on the way. Bergen then read a bunch of blatant falsehoods about Bill C-10, for which Freeland assured her that as a former journalist, she understands the importance of freedom of expression and they would never endanger it, which this bill does not do. Bergen then raised Guilbeault’s blunder about “Net Neutrality,” and accused the government of trying to control speech, and Freeland repeated her response. Gérard Deltell carried on raising Guilbeault’s many blunders, and Freeland reassured him that everyone was against censorship, but they were concerned with the cultural sector. Deltell raised that Guilbeault keeps needing to correct himself, and Freeland repeated that as a former journalist, she would never limit freedom of expression, which the bill does not do.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he crowed about the Quebec government tabling a bill on protecting French, and Freeland read that the federal government recognises that the situation of French in Quebec is unique, and that they would study the bill in depth. Blanchet was disappointed that Freeland was insufficiently thrilled with the bill, and demanded a promise that the federal government would not challenge that bill in court. Freeland would not give him such an assurance.

Jagmeet Singh raised the blood deferral for men who have sex with men, and demanded to know why the prime minister would promise to overturn the ban and then not do it. Freeland assured him they support overturning the deferral, but they respect the authority of independent decision-makers and science. Singh complained in French that this didn’t make sense, but Freeland repeated her answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Refusing to enforce quarantine orders

Posted on by

There were a couple of notes around the border and quarantines yesterday that I thought bear some additional note, particularly in light of the rhetoric we’re hearing. The first is that it looks like as many of a third of air travellers are able to avoid hotel quarantine and the Public Health Agency of Canada won’t provide a breakdown of figures as to why. There is a fairly obvious answer to this, which is that as part of the hotel quarantine programme, the government also allowed for a metre-long list of exemptions that are applicable to these travellers, because remember that there is ostensibly very little non-essential travel happening right now – I heard a figure that travel volumes are about five percent of what they were pre-COVID. Given how many of these hotel quarantine exemptions have to do with certain essential travel reasons, it should not be a surprise that as many as a third of these travellers are able to bypass that system. The fact that there are as many exemptions as there are should be up for debate, however, because it does undermine the whole point of quarantine, but it’s hard to have that discussion when every time you turn around, someone else is demanding another exemption – and it really doesn’t help when the party in the Commons howling that the border is too lax is at the very same time trying to get an exemption for returning snowbirds.

And then there is the question of enforcing the Quarantine Act, and we find that Alberta hasn’t signed onto the Contraventions Act, which makes it easy for their police to do the enforcement, and to issue fines for those who break it. (Saskatchewan also hasn’t signed onto the Act, but there are no airports currently open to international travel in that province). And this is completely baffling, because you would think that the provincial government would want to empower their peace officers to do the enforcement work if they are so concerned about variants coming in over the borders that they would want to ensure that they are actually enforcing quarantine orders in the province, but apparently not. This makes it all the more difficult to swallow Jason Kenney’s insistence that the federal government hasn’t done enough about the border – they have clamped down as much as they are really able to under the constitution, and they have empowered the provinces to enforce quarantines, but oh, Alberta refuses to take responsibility for doing so, while they complain.

I will also note that the fact that Ontario has signed onto the Contraventions Act means that their own complaints about quarantines and lax borders are all the more hollow. They have all the tools they need to enforce the orders, and they are also largely refusing and blaming the federal government. And worse, nobody is holding them to account for their failures to exercise their own powers in their own areas of jurisdiction to do so – especially not the media. This is a problem, but hey, keep writing stories about “finger-pointing.” That’ll help.

Continue reading →

QP: Inventing an “Internet Czar” out of whole cloth

Posted on by

For Wednesday, proto-PMQ day, Justin Trudeau was present, as was the usual Liberal placeholder, Mark Gerretsen. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he led off by accusing the government of moving the goalposts on vaccines, blamed him for not getting any last winter (when no one else in the world did), and Trudeau reminded him that they had stated the goals of three million doses by the end of March and they got well more than anticipated. O’Toole raised the CanSino conspiracy theory and accused Trudeau of wanting lockdowns until Thanksgiving, and Trudeau stated that by accelerating first doses means people can do more with one another in the summer, in advance of getting their second doses in the fall. O’Toole then accused the government of “stealing doses from COVAX” and of being late by trying to partner with CanSino, and Trudeau reminded him they have seven signed contracts and none were with a Chinese firm. O’Toole declared that we were in a third wave because of the CanSino non-deal, and Trudeau called out the misinformation and disinformation coming from the opposition. O’Toole then switched to French to repeat his first question, and got the same answer about first doses meaning a better summer.

Yves-François Blanchet led off for the Bloc, and he accused the government of wanting an election and invited all leaders to have a private meeting to come to a consensus, but Trudeau denied wanting an election while they were delivering for Canadians, and the Bloc are the ones who want an election by voting against a confidence motion. Blanchet repeated his invitation for a meeting to come to a consensus — which seems to be the opposite of an open legislative process — and Trudeau reminded him that all parties can reflect on the bill at committee, and repeated that he didn’t want an election.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in English, demanded “concrete action” on long-term care, for which Trudeau reminded him that there were $3 billion in the budget, and the government has been investing to create standards and to make permanent changes, but they need to work with provinces. Singh demanded more of the same, and Trudeau declared that the situation is deplorable, but they have stepped up as a federal government to assist the provinces, whose jurisdiction this is.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Inflating the Line 5 drama

Posted on by

There was a lot of performative nonsense around Enbridge Line 5 yesterday, considering that today is the deadline by which Michigan’s governor gave to Enbridge to shut it down. And plenty of media outlets were playing up the drama around this, despite having been told repeatedly that it’s pretty certain that nothing is going to happen because that pipeline is under federal jurisdiction in the US, and the governor has no authority or power to shut it down. She has since shifted her rhetoric, saying she’ll go after Enbridge’s profits if they don’t follow her requests, but all of this is now in the courts.

Which brings me to my particular complaint, which is how things were characterised. The federal government filed an amicus brief in the case yesterday, which is basically just presenting its reasons for why they support the continued operation in the ongoing court case, and yet, both Erin O’Toole and most major media outlets treated this as though the federal government had applied for an injunction. An amicus brief is not an injunction – far from it. But this was the how the narrative was applied, as though that’s the only thing that happens in courts. It’s not particularly helpful for media outlets to treat it as such, but hey, it’s not like I have any say in this.

Regardless, it’s almost certain that Line 5 won’t be shut down because it’s frankly too important to both sides of the border, and this is largely a stunt on the governor’s part. It’s a stunt that the Biden Administration is handling with kid gloves, mind you, but I’m sure she’d love nothing more than the prime minister of Canada throwing a public tantrum over this, as the Conservatives are demanding, as it would be a propaganda victory for her, which we probably don’t want to give her. Let’s all keep a level head over this.

Continue reading →

QP: Beware Big Arts and Culture

Posted on by

For the prime minister’s first appearance of the week, he had only Mark Gerretsen on the benches to keep him company (though Francis Drouin arrived after the PM left when the leader’s round ended). Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he wondered if the government filing an amicus briefing in American courts mere hours before the threatened closure of Line 5 was an admission of failure of diplomacy — not that the Michigan governor has the power or authority to shut down the pipeline. Justin Trudeau replied that they filed the brief and are continuing to engage and encouraging mediation between the parties involved. O’Toole asked the same question in French, got the same answer, and then he asked why Trudeau personally approved a raise for General Vance if his office was investigating him for sexual harassment, and Trudeau stated that his office did not investigate, but that was PCO, as political offices should never conduct investigations, before he gave some usual bromides about supporting men and women in uniform. O’Toole related the question in English, got the same answer, and then insisted that he caught out Trudeau in a lie, stating that Katie Telford was apparently “investigating” when she sought assurances the allegations didn’t pertain to a safety issue, but Trudeau shrugged off the allegation and repeated his usual assurances of taking all allegations seriously and following the same process the Conservatives did in 2015.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he groused about time allocation on C-19, insinuating that the prime minister wanted an election in a pandemic. Trudeau disputed that, stating that he doesn’t want one, but the Bloc and Conservatives obviously do because they voted against a confidence issue. Blanchet said he wasn’t afraid of an election but didn’t want one, and repeated the allegation, and Trudeau considered this far-fetched, but they need to be prepared in a hung parliament for a possible election, since the opposition apparently wants one.

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, and accused the government of sending the military to spy on Black Lives Matters protests, and Trudeau agreed that the reports were concerning and he was looking into them. Singh repeated the same question in French, as though Trudeau didn’t just deny involvement, and Trudeau repeated his same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Accusing your opponents of encouraging mass deaths

Posted on by

My patience for the current round of blame-shifting in the handling of this pandemic has pretty much reached its breaking point, and Alberta’s justice minister has crossed a line. Recall that a week ago, NDP MP Heather McPherson accused the prime minister of rather watching Alberta burn than help Jason Kenney – a statement that borders on psychotic and ignores the billions of dollars in federal aid that has been extended that Kenney has either sat on or declined. Of course, McPherson, like her leader Jagmeet Singh, seems to think that the federal government should be invoking the Emergencies Act and swooping in to take over the province, which is nothing more than a recipe for a constitutional crisis the likes we have never seen in this country. (Can you imagine the reaction in the province if Trudeau did this?)

Well, yesterday Alberta’s justice minister declared that the provincial NDP opposition, the federal government, and the media, were all cheering on a COVID disaster in the province, which is absolutely boggling. To think that your opponents literally wish death upon Albertans is some brain worm-level thinking, and yet here we are – and no, the minister would not apologise, citing that his opponents were trying to exploit the pandemic for political purposes. This is nothing short of insane, and yet this kind of thinking is clearly rearing its head as the provincial government flails, under attack by all sides, and frankly, reaping the unhinged anger that it has been sowing for years and thinking they were too clever to get caught by.

But in the midst of this, there was a column in Maclean’s yesterday which declared that it was “partisans” that were the cause of this blame-shifting, and then proceeded to pathologically both-sides the issues until my head very nearly exploded. It’s not “partisans” – it’s political actors who are to blame, and trying to pin this solely on people who vote for them is ridiculous. I will say that a chunk of the blame does rest on media, for whom they downplay actual questions of jurisdiction as “squabbling” and “finger-pointing,” thus allowing premiers in particular to get away with the blame-shifting and hand-waving away their responsibilities, and it’s allowed this obsessive fantasy about invoking the Emergencies Act to keep playing itself out – especially because most of these media outlets have been cheerleading such a declaration (so that they can fulfil the goal of comparing this to Trudeau’s father invoking the War Measures Act during the October Crisis). If media did a better job of actually holding the premiers to account rather than encouraging their narratives that everything can be pinned on the federal government (for whom they have some of their own issues they should be better held to account for), there may have been actual pressure on some of them to shape up long before now, and yet that doesn’t happen. Absolutely nobody has covered themselves in glory here, and it’s just making this intolerable situation all that much worse.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1391949740896657410

Continue reading →

QP: Being smug about a flailing minister

Posted on by

For Monday, the depleted ranks in the Chamber were a little lower than usual, and once again, the only Liberal present was Mark Gerretsen. Candice Bergen led off in person, and read that there were contradictions between Katie Telford’s testimony and something that Senior Liberal Sources™ told the Toronto Star. Harriet Sajjan insisted that they took appropriate action at the time given that they had no . Bergen tried again, got the same answer, and for her third question, Bergen tried to ask Candice Bergen how the Feminist Government™ could allow this to happen, and Sajjan have his usual lines about having a lot more work to do, naming former Justices Arbour and Fish for the work they are undertaking. Gérard Deltell took over in French and repeated Bergen’s first question, got the same answer. Deltell then tried the tactic of asking Freeland about how she could have let this happen, but Sajjan repeated his well-worn lines.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he groused that Bill C-19 was being put under time allocation, and Dominic LeBlanc reminded him that nobody wants an election but they wanted to respond to the Chief Electoral Officer’s report. Therrien insisted that by imposing time allocation, the government was tacitly admitting they want an election as soon as possible, and LeBlanc repeated his answer.

Alexandre Boulerice led for the NDP by video, and he accused the government of ignoring the Deschamps Report before hiring Justice Arbour, and Sajjan repeated his lines that they have know they have more work to do. Lindsay Matthysen repeated the question in English, and Sajjan repeated his answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to make an election happen

Posted on by

I find myself growing increasingly tired of the media’s singular focus on a snap election, wedging every possible story they can into this narrative. And every time I see it, I keep thinking “Gretchen, stop trying to make an election happen. It’s not going to happen.” Honestly, no party is suicidal enough to pull the plug with the third wave raging across the country, and the legislation to make safer elections happen still stuck at second reading and has been for months because the Conservatives have been playing procedural games in the Commons (though the government is hoping to finally get it to committee this week). And given next week is a constituency week, the soonest it might pass at this point is maybe – maybe – the first week of June. Maybe. And then it has a 90-day implementation period, so Elections Canada could not safely hold an election until maybe mid-September. Maybe. Yeah, it’s not going to happen.

Undaunted, The Canadian Press’ big story this weekend is about how parties are gearing up for a potential election, and how to do everything virtually if they can’t go door-knocking and so on. And I get that they are probably in the midst of doing some rudimentary preparations because this is a hung parliament and anything can happen, but honestly? It’s not going to happen until later in the fall at the very earliest. But this constant obsession with pumping out election stories is starting to look both desperate and tacky, especially because it’s not going to happen.

With that in mind, I found Chantal Hébert weekend column to be lacking, where she questions the need for the Liberals to have a majority if legislation is finding “dance partners” in the Commons. The problem there is that it’s a fairly facile measure of things, given that there are bigger problems than the few bills getting passed with a sufficient “dance partner” available – there have been so few bills passed this session because the Conservatives in particular are slow-walking every bill they can, and only recently did the Bloc and NDP wake up to that fact when they have bills they want to see advanced as well. Add to that, most of the committees are now in a state of dysfunction because of partisan dickishness, and most of them are in endless cycles of witch hunts on would-be “scandals” that have long-since played themselves out. I’m not sure how she sees this as being remotely productive, but that’s me.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Telling them nothing of consequence

Posted on by

Yesterday was the big day that the Commons defence committee had been waiting for – prime minister Justin Trudeau’s chief of staff, Katie Telford, had volunteered to testify about what she knew about the General Vance allegations, and the moment that she volunteered, opposition parties should have known that she wasn’t going to actually say anything of use to them. (And the fact that she volunteered after the government has been pushing the point for weeks that staffers shouldn’t be testifying because minsters are responsible under our constitutional framework is another problem, not the least of which is that they appear to have given up on being consistent).

And for nearly two hours, full of interruptions, points of order, and a whole lot of preening for the cameras by opposition MPs, Telford basically told them nothing of any consequence. She didn’t of the nature of the allegations, but she reached out to ensure that they weren’t a “safety issue” (i.e. assault as opposed to harassment). But in spite of her concerns, they didn’t learn any details, and on a broader picture, she often looks back in hindsight to wonder if she should have been pushing harder for transformational change in the military, or to look past Vance’s assurances that he was committed to doing that work. We should have expected that there wouldn’t be any sweeping new revelations going into this, and there weren’t. Of course, to the Conservatives, this “proves” that there is some kind of cover-up, but trying to go after Telford seems like a poor use of time when Harjit Sajjan is right there, waiting to be held to account for his numerous failings on this file. There needs to be some accountability on this, but the opposition just keeps flailing around performatively rather than being focused in holding the one person to account who needs it, and it’s not Telford.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt equates Telford to someone from the bomb squad in a movie, carefully dealing with possible explosives to ensure the PM doesn’t come to harm. Matt Gurney makes the salient point that it’s hard to fathom why Sajjan or Telford didn’t do more once they learned the PCO investigation was stalled (though I’m not really keen on Gurney trying to police Telford’s feminism).

Continue reading →