Tag Archives: Tough on Crime

QP: Like an interminable rerun

Posted on by

For caucus day, all of the leaders were present, which has been nice to see more consistently over the course of the week, for as long as this is going to last. Pierre Poilievre led off, and in French, asked how much the federal government had spent on contracts with McKinsey. Justin Trudeau said that he asked the deputy prime minister, the minister of public service as the president of the Treasury Board to follow up to ensure all rules had been followed, and that they are open and transparent with the committee. In English, Poilievre asked the same question again, and lamented that McKinsey is shrouded in scandal. Trudeau repeated his same response, noting that most of those contracts were signed by the public service. Poilievre quoted a previous Trudeau statement about his recruiting Dominic Barton, and demanded again to know how much they got paid. Trudeau noted that he has been touched by the number of Canadians of extraordinary backgrounds who have asked to contribute to the country, and Barton was someone who served the country; with regards to the contracts, he repeated his previous response. Poilievre accused Trudeau of never taking responsibility, and shed some crocodile tears about the civil servants feeling undervalued by those McKinsey contracts—never mind the history that the Conservatives and Poilievre personally had with using outside consultants because they didn’t trust the civil service—and again demanded a figure for those contracts. Trudeau mouthed some platitudes about supporting Canadians through a difficult time with direct supports. Poilievre listed mortgage prices, the cost of rent, the number of people going to food banks and blaming the carbon price for that (which is specious to say the least), and somehow tying this to the use of consultants, and his pathetic “just inflation” line. Trudeau said that while the Conservatives focus on schoolyard taunts, he’s helping Canadians.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, mentioned his meeting with the new special representative for combatting Islamophobia, Amira Elghawaby, and wanted Trudeau to admit that he did things indirectly. Trudeau noted that there are difficult conversations that needed to be had around the country, such as systemic racism, which is why they appointed Elghawaby in the first place. Blanchet wanted the prime minister to say that Quebec’s Law 21 is not Islamophobic, but Trudeau gave some platitudes about learning together. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he blamed the prime minister for the growing nursing deficit across the country, which is solely a provincial issue. Trudeau noted that they sent billions of dollars to the provinces in the pandemic, and they were sitting down with premiers next week to discuss next steps. Singh made the same accusation in French, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

QP: Field-testing a new talking point

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was in the building, he didn’t show up for Question Period today, nor did his deputy, but all of the other leaders were present. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and decried that the national debt has doubled (ignoring the reason, being the pandemic), and decried that rent and mortgage payments have doubled, worried about seniors, lamented supposed rising crime rates, and then somehow tied this all to McKinsey contracts, because that makes logical sense. Pascale St-Onge got up to agree that it was a difficult period with high inflation, but the government would be there for people who need it. Poilievre wondered if those most in need were McKinsey consultants, and lamented how much the government was spending on consultants (never mind the explosion in such contracts under the Conservative government and in Poilievre’s department in particular when he was a minister). Mark Holland got up to remind the Conservatives that when they were in government, they never talked about poverty or people using food banks, while praising his own government’s record on lifting people out of poverty. Poilievre then accused the government of telling people that they should stop complaining because they’ve never had it so good. Holland called out Poilievre for doing nothing about the situation other than making YouTube videos. Poilievre went on a tear about rental costs—which is provincial responsibility—and red tape preventing housing development—a municipal issue—and blamed the federal government for it. Holland got back up to insist that Poilievre is just amplifying anxiety. Poilievre then accused the government of trying to silence the debate, and demand they fix the problems instead, and Holland reiterated that the government is playing it straight about the problems the country is facing, while Poilievre’s only solution was to tell people to invest in crypto. Poilievre got back up, but had run out of questions. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc to wonder what the Notwithstanding Clause was for if not preemptive use—which is hilariously wrong. David Lametti got up to talk about minority rights, the dialogue between legislatures and the courts, and why the last word should not be the first. Blanchet rambled for a moment before quoting Pierre Trudeau on the Charter, and Lametti reminded him that Charters in Canada and Quebec were about protecting minority rights, and he repeated his point about dialogue with the courts.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and recalled the horrors that were in long-term care homes early in the pandemic and accused the government of doing nothing since, demanding legislated standards—never mind this is provincial jurisdiction. Kamal Khera got up to remind Singh that she was a nurse, and that the government appreciated the work of the Canadian Standards Association in developing national standards. Singh switched to French to lament increased privatisation, and Jean-Yves Duclos insisted they were holding up the principles of access and the public system.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The committee goes after McKinsey

Posted on by

The Commons’ government operations committee met and, as expected, launched a study into those McKinsey contracts, but because the Liberals decided to be tricksey about it, they got consent to amend the terms so they’re going to review contracts going back to 2011, which means they’ll also be reviewing Conservative-era contracts. But it’s all pretty stupid because McKinsey does very little in the way of government contracts overall (especially compared to a number of other big firms), and this is just about politics and the Conservatives trying to accuse McKinsey of being a “Liberal-friendly firm” because of Dominic Barton, not to mention the fact that McKinsey has had a lot of bad press of late. But this doesn’t touch the overall issue of use of outside consultants by government, and is mostly going to be about showboating, because why do actual valuable work in committee when you can spend all of your time scoring partisan points.

With that in mind, I will point you to my most recent YouTube episode, where Carleton university professor Jennifer Robson and I discuss the rise of the so-called “shadow public service,” and it’s a lot more nuanced than you think. Additional context from Robson below:

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 330:

The major news out of Ukraine was a helicopter crash, killing the country’s interior minister, senior staffers, and one child when it crashed into a kindergarten in a suburb of Kyiv. What we know and don’t know about the crash can be found here, but there is no indication yet if it was downed by Russian missiles. Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency is placing teams in all four of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants to reduce the risk of accidents as the fighting carries on.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1615719966820507684

 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford opts for more private clinics

Posted on by

As expected, Doug Ford announced a plan to move more outpatient surgeries to private clinics. While I have a column on this coming out later today that goes into my thinking on this in greater depth, I did want to share some of the more salient tweets on this through the day, because they’re asking the right questions.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1615014400385077251

We should note the interview that provincial health minister Sylvia Jones did Power & Politics, where the question of these clinics upselling to patients was raised, and Jones dismissed any concerns as this being about “choice,” which is a red flag.

Jagmeet Singh was, of course, demanding that Justin Trudeau swoop in to save the day, in spite of not really having any particular federal levers to deploy.

Meanwhile, Chrystia Freeland was busy subtweeting the whole thing.

And of course, the Beaverton had one of the most salient responses to Ford’s announcement, as they are wont to.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 328:

The death toll from the Russian missile strike on the apartment building in Dnipro has risen to 40, as rescuers continue to sort through the rubble. There was also Russian shelling in Kherson, killing three people. Meanwhile, Russians may have finally taken Soledar, though it remains unconfirmed, though that came at a horrific cost of thousands of dead or wounded Russians—a tactic where the Ukrainians are trying to exhaust the Russians leaving them vulnerable in other areas.

https://twitter.com/tpyxanews/status/1615112061951909894

Continue reading →

Roundup: On Trudeau’s feeling re-energized

Posted on by

The CBC’s Aaron Wherry has a longread out right now about Justin Trudeau’s time in office, and the sense that he’s feeling re-invigorated and is almost certainly going to run for a fourth election, likely in 2025, which some of us (myself included) have not been so sure about. But there is a lot of observation from insiders and observers that he does seem to have the fight back (indeed, I heard from some people in the know of the funk he found himself in at one particular point), and that it’s not necessarily Pierre Poilievre’s presence that is doing it, but that he has a sense of unfinished business, of promises yet to be fulfilled.

To that end, the piece notes that Cabinet and caucus have been told to focus on four Cs: competence, confidence, contrast and campaign-readiness (in that order), of which the first is going to be incredibly important when it comes to trying to dispel this notion that “everything feels broken,” particularly when there is a pervasive sense that government can’t even get the little things right (though I would note that some of the “little things” are more complex than they may appear on the surface, and a lot of what people are complaining about is not the job of the federal government to fix, no matter that they may try to claim some kind of policy ownership, such as investing in housing when those funds are the only policy lever they have available). And yeah, some of it is their own fault (see: judicial appointments), where they decided on processes that hampered them more than it helped them, and absolutely their inability to communicate their way out of a wet paper bag is one hundred percent one of their biggest own-goal problems, which they seem resolutely unwilling to do anything about.

I know there is also a lot of talk about the “smell of death” on this government, and I will probably write something longer about that elsewhere, but nevertheless, it was interesting to read Wherry’s piece and put some of it into the context of these conversations that are being had around the pundit sphere. There are a lot of things to consider about this government, and little of it can fit into some of these fairly facile narratives.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 327:

There was a fresh round of Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure across Ukraine on Saturday, and one missile struck a nine-story building in Dnipro, killing at least twelve people, while another 30 to 40 people are still missing and could be trapped under rubble. The missile—the kind used to strike warships—may have been aimed at a nearby power station. This as Ukrainian officials continue to insist that the battle for Soledar is not lost, and this certainly takes the attention away from that. CBC also heard from a Russian conscript who was at the site of the Makiivka counter-attack, which struck Russian barracks.

https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1614351103637991424

Continue reading →

Roundup: On tight camera shots in the Commons

Posted on by

One of the particular sub-plots of the interminable Speaker election south of the border is the discussion around camera angles on C-SPAN, and how suddenly they’re dynamic during this process. There’s a good explainer here about how the usual rules around tight shots are relaxed because this is considered a special event and not usual proceedings, and it normally only takes two or three hours and not three or four days, but that’s why suddenly they get to be much more dynamic about what they’re seeing.

This problem of camera angles is a familiar one here in Canada, where the directive, since about day two of televised proceedings in the House of Commons, has also been on tight shots, with no wide shots or reactions. This is at the behest of MPs themselves, who came up with these rules, in part because they’re convenient for them, but if you watch the very first televised Question Period, you’ll see wide shots and reactions, and it’s much more dynamic and engaging, and it’s something we should see more of. MPs, however, don’t want that. They like being able to fill camera shots (and frequently play musical chairs to do so, most especially on Fridays), because they don’t like to show how empty the Chamber is during non-QP debates, or on Fridays. They don’t like camera operators and CPAC producers to have the latitude of choosing shots in real-time, so they don’t allow it. It’s really too bad, because it could make for better viewing. That said, it’s also one of the reasons why I attend QP in person—so that I can see the full picture of what’s happening in the Chamber and not just the tight shots that obscure more than they illuminate.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 317:

While the Russians are proposing a truce over Orthodox Christmas, the Ukrainians reject it, saying that this is simply a cover to bring in more ammunition and troops to try and halt Ukrainian advances in the Donbas region. Meanwhile, American analysts suspect that one of Putin’s allies is trying to gain access to salt and gypsum mines near Bakhmut, which is why they are trying so hard to take it over.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The passing of Jim Carr

Posted on by

Just before Question Period was about to start yesterday, the news broke that Liberal MP Jim Carr, who had been dealing with cancer for the past three years, had died. Proceedings were cancelled for the day, and tributes have been pouring in.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 293:

It appears that Russia has burned through so much ammunition that they are now using decade-old stockpiles with high failure rates. Ukrainian forces say they have repelled Russian advances against four settlements in eastern Donetsk, and on eight settlements in Luhansk. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy met virtually with G7 leaders about the need for modern tanks, artillery, shells, and natural gas to help their situation.

Continue reading →

QP: We created two independent panels!

Posted on by

Both the prime minister and his deputy were in the House together for the first QP in weeks, which is always nice to see. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, he asked if any public servants, security officials, or police inform the prime minister of Beijing’s alleged interference in elections. Justin Trudeau said that while security and police take foreign interference very seriously, he could assure Canadians that in the 2019 and 2021 elections, there was no foreign interference that could have changed any of the results in any significant way. Poilievre found the answer to be tricksy, and in English, wanted to know if there was any interference period. Trudeau pointed out that there is always some level of interference, be it cyber or disinformation, but they had assurances this was not an issue and that the elections were free and fair. Poilievre still was not satisfied, and asked again. Trudeau reiterated that they had the panel of top civil servants and national security who monitored both 2019 and 2021 and found no interference. Poilievre tried again, more slowly, if there were any briefings about alleged interference, period. Trudeau stated that he had no briefings, period, around foreign-funded candidates. Poilievre insisted this was a denial of an absurdity, and repeated yet again if he had any intelligence of any interference of any kind from Beijing during either election. Trudeau reiterated that the report from the non-partisan panel that there was no interference that impacted those elections.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the NDP, and raised that the RCMP was now investigating, and if democracy was at stake, the prime minister needed to know which alleged eleven candidates were in question. Trudeau repeated that all of the reports stated anything about any interference or funding directly or indirectly from China. Blanchet was not mollified and worried that Trudeau was somehow isolating China for the sake of grandstanding. Trudeau once again cited that China does try to interfere, which is why we work with allies to protect ourselves. 

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, and worried about conservative premiers trying to privatise healthcare, and demanded the prime minister do something about that. Trudeau noted that on some days the NDP demand he send more money to premiers and today he was telling them not to, but any future transfers would be subject to the Canada Health Act. Singh switched to French and sounded concern about Quebec hospitals in particular, and Trudeau reiterated that they were working with provinces to deliver “real results.”

Continue reading →

QP: Being happy-clappy about dental care

Posted on by

While the PM was off at James Smith Cree Nation today, his deputy was present for the first time in a week. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he misquoted Tiff Macklem’s testimony at committee about the relationship between government deficits and inflation, and tried to wedge this into his facile narrative about blaming the government for it, and demanded the government reverse their deficits. Chrystia Freeland responded with the good news that this week, Canadians can start applying for the new dental claim benefit for children under twelve. Poilivre repeated his mendacious Macklem misquote and added in a quote from an insurance company that says they won’t accept heat pumps as primary sources of heat because they can’t be counted on to not freeze pipes, and demanded the government cancel their plan to “triple” the carbon price (which is not tripling). Freeland responded with her happy-clappy good news talking point about dental care, which was not the question, and then added in the country’s Aaa credit rating. Poilievre then worried about Canadians not being able to heat their homes in the winter and again demanded the government cancel the carbon price (which won’t do anything for affordability because the increases largely have to do with the world price of oil). Jonathan Wilkinson got up this time to note their affordability measures like doubling the GST credit, and pointed out that in spite of what the Conservatives say, the carbon price rebates benefit eight out of ten families and the Conservatives campaigned on a carbon price themselves. Poilievre then misquoted the PBO’s report on carbon prices, dropped his “triple, triple, triple” ear worm, and demanded the government cancel their planned carbon price increases. This time, Sean Fraser got up to declare that Poilievre’s questions were irrational, with his newfound opposition to heat pumps, when they are important to people who live in his part of the country, and pointed out that the cost of inaction is too great to ignore. Poilievre then pivoted to the recently announced Indo-Pacific Strategy, and a statement about challenging China for their abusive behaviours, and raised the wave of protests around that country, and he demanded that the government tell Beijing to let the protests go ahead. Maninder Sidhu got up to read a script about following the events closely, and that protesters should be able to do so peacefully.

Claude DeBellefeuille led for the Bloc, and she worried about the allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 election, and in the absences of something more concrete from the government, wondered if the Global a news story was “fake news.” Marco Mendincino stood up to reminder her that they had an independent panel in both elections that declared that there was no interference. DeBellefeuille used this as an opportunity to make the case for a return to the per-vote subsidy as “protection” against this kind of interference, and this time Dominic LeBlanc got up to reiterate the same points.

Rachel Blaney for the NDP, and blamed Loblaws for rising food prices and demanded they pay their “fair share.” Freeland recited her well-worn talking points about corporations paying more in taxes, their Recovery Dividend, and their luxury taxes. Daniel Blaikie took over in French to repeat the same question, and Freeland recited the French version of her same talking points.

Continue reading →

QP: Directly quoting selectively from the PBO

Posted on by

The prime minister was present once again, while his deputy was busy testifying at the public inquiry. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he worried about deficits causing inflation (which they’re not), and demanded a course correction. Justin Trudeau reminded him that they were there for Canadians during the pandemic in order to ensure it was less severe than other places on the world, and that our economy bounced back faster, and insisted that the Conservatives only want to cut. Poilievre switched to English to denounce alleged comments from Seamus O’Regan, and demanded they cut the carbon price. Trudeau dismissed the concern as twisting the words of minister, and pointed to the PBO report on the carbon price and how it helps eight out of ten families. Poilievre picked up that report and cited several numbers out of context to “prove” his talking points. Trudeau, looking rather pleased, insisted that Poilievre did not look at the section about the rebates, and called him out about not caring about climate change. Poilievre insisted that the rebates were “tiny” and didn’t cover costs—and was called out by the Speaker for using the report as a prop—and Poilievre went on a tear about how the price is ineffective and hurts people. Trudeau disputed that the rebates were tiny, and noted the other benefits they have delivered, noting that Poilievre is only playing rhetorical games. Poilievre tried to bring up the cost of the hotel for the Queen’s funeral and insisted that the report proved that people are being hit hard. Trudeau countered that the report shows that the rebates compensate most families more than they pay, because fighting climate change is important while Poilievre only wants to nickel-and-dime them.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he returned to the alleged contradictions in the reports about the Xi Jinping confrontation and demanded a return to the per-vote subsidy to prevent foreign funding. Trudeau clapped back that the Bloc only want the subsidy because they can’t raise money on their own. Therrien was incensed, and insisted that China was exploiting this vulnerability, and Trudeau countered that political financing is robust and transparent, and pointed out that the media are invited to his fundraising events, and encouraged other parties to do the same.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and decried the crisis in emergency rooms and demanded the federal government show up. Trudeau took exception to the insinuation he doesn’t care about children, and pointed out that they have transferred billions to provinces and are sitting down with provinces. Singh switched to French to repeat the question and got the same response.

Continue reading →