All of the leaders were absent for the day, and not even the deputy PM was present, making it feel a little more like a Friday than a Monday. Gérard Deltell led off in English, lamenting that the prime minister wouldn’t protect the unconditional freedom of speech, and feeling there should be limits on it. François-Philippe Champagne responded with condolences for the people of France, and saying that Canada would defend freedom of expression around the world. Deltell repeated the question in French, to which Champagne warned him against politicising such a horrific incident. Deltell tried to put forward the notion that it took Trudeau twelve days to condemn the murder of that teacher in France, to which Champagne rebutted that he made a statement the following day. Deltell reminded Champagne that he is not yet prime minister, and insisted that the government was not standing by its ally in France, and Champagne rebutted that the government speaks as a whole. Deltell again returned to Trudeau citing that there are limits to freedom of expression, for which Champagne again chided him about politicising the issue. Stéphane Bergeron led for the Bloc, and he too hammered on Trudeau saying there were limits to freedom of expression, for which Champagne reiterated his that Canada stood by France and to defend freedom of expression. Bergeron accused the government of downplaying Islamic terrorism and hurting Quebec’s special relationship with France, to which Champagne repeated that Canada was standing by France. Jagmeet Singh was up next by video, and in French, after mentioning the attack in Quebec City, he demanded increased funding for mental health services, for which Patty Hajdu reminded him that they have been increasing funds for provinces for mental health services. Singh switched to English to worry about small businesses paying commercial rent, accusing Trudeau of helping “Liberal insiders” instead. Sean Fraser responded with a list of programmes available for small businesses.
Tag Archives: Public Health
Roundup: Mischief with a reasonable goal
It may be a bit of mischief, but it’s certainly well-deserved, as the Alberta NDP are moving a motion in the legislature to have the government condemn separatism. The ostensible goal for the denunciation is because talk of separatism is bad for the economy – it drives away investment, no matter how low corporate taxes are (and you only have to look to Canadian history to see how the two referendums in Quebec saw the country’s financial capital move from Montreal to Toronto, even though Montreal was a more tax-advantageous environment). If Alberta hopes to diversify their economy, they need to ensure that they aren’t driving away investment in a similar way.
It’s also about jamming Jason Kenney to an extent, because while he has stated in the past that he’s not a separatist, he’s also winked and nodded to them in a fairly constant fashion, and used his own rhetoric to fuel their arguments, up to and including his ridiculous “Fair Deal Panel.” But with the rise of separatist parties, both federally and provincially in the prairie provinces, there are concerns about them gaining political traction – particularly as the so-called “Buffalo Party” gained a fair number of votes in last week’s Saskatchewan election, and it may have some people in Alberta worried. Granted, the Conservatives in the province should likely be more worried because they’re likely to peel voters away from the Conservatives, which may allow the NDP to come up the middle provincially, but there should also be no doubt that letting these separatists get any kind of political traction – even a handful of seats – would be sending the wrong signals to markets. Having Kenney denounce them in a way that they can’t spin as winking or nodded to them may be a way to take some of the wind out of their sails – but it could also expose divisions in Kenney’s own caucus (which is partly where the mischief comes in). Nevertheless, even if the movement is headed by a bunch of swivel-eyed loons who have no chance of success, they can cause a lot of damage along the way, and should be taken down at every chance.
Roundup: O’Toole’s conversion to the labour movement
Conservative leader Erin O’Toole addressed the Canadian Club of Toronto yesterday, and the more I read of his speech, the more curious I become of just what it is he’s trying to say. For example, he spent part of the speech bemoaning the collapse of private sector union membership in the country, talking about how it was part of the balance between what was good for the economy and what was good for workers. That’s surprising considering that when he was in Cabinet, O’Toole supported anti-union legislation that the party put forward (under the guise of private members’ bills, naturally), and the party was having a field day before the last election trying to accuse the government of stacking their media bailout fund by allowing Unifor – the country’s largest private sector union – to have a seat at the table (given that Unifor also represents a lot of journalists). I’m sure the labour movement in this country has whiplash from this sudden reversal – though I would note that in his mouthing about the importance of unions the past couple of months, he is careful to distinguish between private and public sector unions, the latter he still continues to be evil. (And before anyone says those two anti-union bills were “about transparency,” you all know that’s a lie and can stop insulting our intelligence).
O’Toole argued that we have somehow completely de-industrialized as a country, which is news to the rest of us, and then went on an extended tirade about China, because he’s trying to frame this as a national security argument and not just populism hollowing out his party’s political ideology. He claimed that the Liberals were using the pandemic to launch a “risky experiment with our economy” around green energy, which is…not really true, and ignores how markets have moved to green tech with better economic outcomes for doing so. He also continued his protectionist bent, and made a few deeply curious statements like “Free markets alone won’t solve all our problems” (erm, his party is the one that rails about the evils of socialism, no? Is he proposing nationalizing industries? Or does he simply mean global trade when he talks about “free markets”?), and adding that that GDP growth is not the “be-all and end-all of politics” – which is odd because nobody has actually suggested that it is (but his predecessor was fond of attacking straw men as well). I’m also a bit puzzled by what exactly he’s getting at when he says “We need policies to shore up the core units of society — family, neighbourhood, nation. We need policies that build solidarity, not just wealth.” Some of this is thinly-veiled Thatcherism, but where it’s building in terms of his populist rhetoric I am a bit troubled.
And make no mistake – this is full-throated populism, particularly when he starts railing about political and business elites selling out the country (with mention about political correctness in there) – which he’s oddly making to an audience that is thought of as Canada’s business elites. But it’s also deeply hypocritical because of just who O’Toole is. He is the son of a GM executive (which he tries to obscure when he says his father “worked for GM” as though he were blue-collar), who went on to be an MPP. In fact, earlier in the week, O’Toole was tweeting about how he built himself up to leadership, conveniently omitting the huge leg-up he was given along the way. It’s like the “self-made” tech millionaires who got their start with loans from their millionaire fathers, and getting those fathers to buy their tech at their companies. More to the point, after O’Toole left the military, he was a Bay Street corporate lawyer, which is not exactly the image of the middle-class guy he’s painting himself as. When he rails about “elites,” he needs to look in the mirror because that’s exactly what he is. Of course, we’ve seen this story so many times in populist politics, where rich white guys turn themselves into the heroes for the “oppressed underclass” (of mostly straight white guys) who somehow believe that said rich white guy is a “man of the people.” And no doubt O’Toole is hoping he’ll dine out on this as well, but make no mistake, this speech was hypocrisy of the highest order.
Roundup: A gesture toward pettiness
There are a lot of symbolic gestures that politicians do that I cannot abide, but one of the most obnoxious and corrosive ones is the insistence on cutting their own pay when times get tough – and lo and behold, we have an Ontario senator who is moving a motion to do just that, asking both MPs and Senators to forgo statutory pay increases (to meet inflation) as a gesture. This is not really a symbolic or empty gesture – it is a signal to populist impulses that serve to devalue public life, and treats what they do as somehow being less valuable than people in the private sector – which is ironic considering how much less MPs and senators make than professionals and executives in the private sector.
Without entirely relitigating what I wrote on this before, I wanted to point out some of the fairly offensive characterizations of such gestures that were in the National Post piece, which describes the gesture as “important” for private sector and low-income workers, and the usual suspects at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation trying to insist that politicians aren’t making sacrifices when people are losing their businesses.
The problem with this line of logic is that these gestures don’t do anything. If anything, they come with a dose of schadenfreude, that if I’m suffering then watching politicians or civil servants being forced to suffer as well is satisfying, even if it ultimately makes things worse overall. What good does it serve to make everyone miserable or worse off? How does that make the situation better for everyone? It doesn’t. There are enough trade-offs that go with public life or public service that often make it a fairly unappealing to many people, so why pile on? Pettiness won’t solve the economic crisis or make people’s businesses reopen, and it certainly won’t make COVID go away, so why indulge it?
QP: A minister for divination?
Justin Trudeau was in town and on another “virtual” tour while his deputy was in the Commons in his stead. Erin O’Toole led off with his script on a mini-lectern, and he tried to tease out a contradiction in the status of the pandemic early warning system, to which Chrystia Freeland slowly and calmly stated that it was the time to focus on the second wave, but post-mortems should come later as one should not change the plane’s engine after taking off. O’Toole was not mollified, and tried again, but Freeland was not dissuaded in her calm dismissal. O’Toole tried to delve into news reporting about Freeland disagreeing on closing borders earlier in the pandemic, and Freeland calmly walked through the history of the Canada-US border closure. O’Toole switched to French to decry the terrorist attack in France earlier this morning and accused the prime minister of not taking it seriously, to which Freeland corrected him and said that all Canadians are horrified by the attack and they show solidarity with France. O’Toole wondered what happened to the promised de-radicalisation centres, to which Freeland calmly stated that they never failed to step up and show leadership, and that Canada stands with France. Stéphane Bergeron led for the Bloc, even though Yves-François Blanchet was present, and he demanded an official apology for the October Crisis, to which Freeland reminded him of the period in question and of the family of the Quebec politician who was killed by extremists. Andréanne Larouche tried again, and Freeland gave a paean to democracy and the space for disagreements. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and in French, he decried the situation in long-term care facilities but wondered where the national standards were, and Freeland slowly explained that they need to work with provinces and territories as the second wave has hit. Singh switched to English to decry that the worst problems were in for-profit homes, and made an allusion to the falsehood that the federal government owns some of these facilities. Freeland agreed that they can’t turn a blind eye to the conditions in long-term care facilities, and that the country needs to do better.
Roundup: The slow part of the economic recovery
It was a big day for economic news – the Bank of Canada stating that they expect interest rates to continue to be at near-zero until 2023, as the economic recovery moves into a much slower phase as we wait for a vaccine for the pandemic. They also stated their plan to change how they buy bonds going forward. A few hours later, Chrystia Freeland gave a major speech wherein she stated that the government was going to keep spending until the pandemic was over, because they can at a time of such historically low interest rates, and because it provides businesses and households a necessary bridge through the economic turmoil until the pandemic is over. And for those of you in the back, it’s not 1995, and even with all of this added spending – which is time-limited – is not going to create a debt bomb. It’s just not.
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1321497252783775744
https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1321498671389777920
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1321498708551241729
https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1321507072773685250
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1321499588683948032
https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1321496597000323080
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1321500584046784512
She also noted that debt payments as a share of #cdnecon is the smallest in a century. This is also true! One has to go back to the WW1 period to see lower shares. Here's all the data since 1867. (Note: 2020 is a forecast.) pic.twitter.com/YjTiYDRrBM
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) October 28, 2020
Of course, conservative pundits set about clutching their pearls that the government is taking on the debt instead of households, apparently not comprehending that they have more tools and levers at their disposal than households – but these are the same chuckleheads who equate government debt with credit card debt. The Bank of Canada’s Monetary Policy Report noted that much of the recovery to date has been on the back of consumer spending, which is one more reason why allowing households to go insolvent and enforcing consumer austerity would only harm the economic recovery – we saw this in the Great Depression, where consumers who had money but didn’t spend it because of the social stigma prolonged the depression for years. And yet, we keep hearing “taxpayer dollars!” and “leaving debt to our children,” as though leaving them a weak economy is any better – particularly if that debt is affordable and is treated as an investment with programmes like childcare, that creates more economic returns. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp – and yet…
Meanwhile, here is Kevin Carmichael’s parsing of the Bank of Canada’s rate decision and Monetary Policy Report, while Heather Scoffield gives her own thoughts on Freeland’s speech.
QP: A flaming clown show where seriousness goes to die
It being Wednesday, the prime minister was not only present, but ready to respond to all of the questions of the day — though the utility of those responses was the question. Erin O’Toole led off, scripts on mini-lectern, and he started in on the Baylis Medical story, asking the prime minister to ask Frank Baylis to change the name from the “Baylis Ventilator.” Justin Trudeau reminded him that people of all partisan stripes, including well known conservatives like a Rick Jamison also stepped up to partner with Baylis. In French, O’Toole tried to insist that the Baylis contract was padded, but Trudeau reiterated the response. O’Toole then lied about the story on judicial appointments, to which Trudeau insisted that they were chosen based on merit and diversity — including political diversity. O’Toole switched to English attempt being clever about judicial appointments, and Trudeau protested that it wasn’t true. O’Toole then demanded to know why Canadians would be at the “back of the line” on vaccine roll-outs, and again Trudeau stated that it simply wasn’t true, and listed their early actions on the pandemic. Yves-François Blanchet was up next, and demanded an official apology for the October Crisis in 1970, to which Trudeau reminded him of the Quebec politician who was assassinated by a terrorist cell. Blanchet insisted that raids were like those in the Soviet Union, but Trudeau reminded him that the premier of Quebec and the leader of the opposition in 1970 called on Ottawa go send in the troops. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and in French, stated that Stephen Harper cut healthcare funds which is why long-term care facilities were under-resourced — which is utterly false. Trudeau stated that the federal government worked with the provinces to help with their facilities when asked. Singh then blamed the government for deaths in care homes that he claims they own — another falsehood — and Trudeau gave a paean about propel deserving care in dignity.
Singh false claims Harper cut healthcare which is why long-term care is under-resources.
Harper didn’t cut funds — he reduced the escalator. Funding still increased every year above inflation. #QP— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 28, 2020
Roundup: Flirting with unconstitutional legislation
The bill to mandate sexual assault training for judges was a bad idea from the start, when Rona Ambrose first tabled it years ago, and the current iteration that this government is putting forward is little better, especially now that MPs have decided they need to start amending it to add other things. While Ambrose’s initial bill was blatantly unconstitutional (that the Commons passed on a whim because of the political syllogism: Something needs to be done, this is something, therefore we must do this), and needed to be gutted in the Senate to make it acceptable, the current version was more or less acceptable (barring one or two possible issues), but it seems that MPs want to make it blatantly unconstitutional again.
I see the Greens are flirting with making the training bill for judges unconstitutional again… #cdnlaw #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/DGBfd64Qf6
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 27, 2020
Former Supreme Court of Canada executive legal officer Gib van Ert warned back in February that this bill would be an invitation to demand that judges take training in other areas than just sexual assault, and lo and behold, we are there, with demands for the “social context of systemic racism.”
https://twitter.com/btaplatt/status/1321246603781570560
van Ert makes the point that if judges need to be seen as independent, then bills like this, where politicians appear to be giving them marching orders, is a bad look and will undermine the justice system. But since when to populist impulses consider the consequences of their actions? They don’t.
QP: Reaching on a false premise
The prime minister was in attendance today, though his deputy wasn’t. Alas. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and he noted the two American CEOs who crossed the border without quarantines, and that if the public safety minister didn’t have the power to approve them, it must have been the PMO — a blatant reach based on a false premise. Justin Trudeau reminded him that these were decisions made by CBSA officers at the border in error — then congratulated the victors of last night’s by-elections. O’Toole then asked about the public inquiry into the Nova Scotia mass shooting, and Trudeau gave a somewhat platitudinous response about moving ahead with the inquiry at the behest of the families. O’Toole wondered just who was in charge of the RCMP if there were differing opinions in Cabinet about calls for her to resign, and Trudeau read a script about acknowledging systemic racism in the Force. O’Toole switched to French to lament rapid tests and the early numbers that came from China, and Trudeau explained everything they did to help families, which was what mattered. O’Toole then worried that the prime minister was blaming provinces for inaction and demanded they get to work, to which Trudeau reminded him there are areas of provincial jurisdiction and that he working with provinces to ensure that all Canadians were taken care of. Yves-François Blanchet was up next and raised blackface and the Indian Act as racist, while trying to defend that University of Ottawa professor. Trudeau reminded him that they were working with the First Nations to get past the Indian Act, but it can’t be done by decree. Blanchet went on a meandering path about what was nation-to-nation relations, to which Trudeau reminded him that there is a diversity of opinion among First Nations, which is why they were talking at the nation’s pace. Jagmeet Singh was up next that for the NDP, and in French, he demanded universal pharmacare, to which Trudeau recited his practiced lines about how nobody should be forced to choose between food and medicine, and that they were working with the provinces. Singh then raised that the federal government as a landlord raised the rent on a daycare facility forcing it to close, to which Trudeau said they would be looking into what happened.
QP: Demanding an answer on provincial measures
With the prime minister in town but not in the Chamber, his deputy was, which tends to be better in any case. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he decried that the government announced the appointment of a special representative for the fisheries dispute in Nova Scotia. Chrystia Freeland assured him that they want a peaceful, constructive solution, and that everyone wants to assure the rights of First Nations people as well as conservation, O’Toole then pivoted to boil water advisories on First Nations and Neskatanga in particular, to which Freeland noted that they are working hard to solve the advisories, but there was shared responsibility as the Conservatives didn’t solve the issues either – but she didn’t offer anything in the way of candour about the particularities of the situation. O’Toole then decided to thump his chest on China and their dubious numbers early in the pandemic, to which Freeland reminded him not to lecture her on authoritarian regimes because she lived in one and reported on them extensively, and she listed concerns Canada has with China’s actions and human rights abuses. O’Toole went again in French, got the same answer, and for his final question, he went on a paean about democracy and transparency versus Chinese dictatorship, and in a very slow and calm tone, Freeland cautioned O’Toole that they draw very careful lines about what is permissible in democracies, and that he is engaging in the most base partisanship. Alain Therrien got up for the Bloc to decry businesses suffering in “red zones” in Quebec, to which Freeland assured him a bill was coming in days. Therrien stated this was too little too late, to which Freeland listed measures they have provided to businesses so far. Jagmeet Singh was up next by video, and in French, decried the Neskatanga situation, and insisted that Trudeau had no intention of keeping his promise on boil-water advisories. Freeland disagreed, and stated they we working to address it and had made progress. Singh switched to English to repeat the question, and got much the same answer.