While both the prime minister and deputy prime minister stated they would be at QP today, only the latter was present in the Chamber. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he led off worrying about the CanSino deal, and news reports that some scientists objected to it. Justin Trudeau, appearing from home, said that they had looked at every option and didn’t close any doors. O’Toole was not mollified, and Trudeau reiterated that CanSino had success on the Ebola vaccine, and they had hopes they could help with COVID. O’Toole then insisted that the government wasted five months and didn’t attempt a made-in-Canada vaccine solution — which doesn’t match the timeline — and Trudeau reiterated that they got a broad portfolio of vaccine candidates so that they didn’t rely on a single source. O’Toole switched to French to raise the PornHub story, insisting that the government had done nothing about it, to which Trudeau insisted that they were moving regulations that would help tackle illegal online content. O’Toole insisted that the alarm was raised months ago, and Trudeau repeated his response. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc, worrying that not enough vaccines had been procured, to which Trudeau reminded him that they have contracts for more doses than any other country. Blanchet was not impressed, but moved onto his usual demand for increased health transfers, to which Trudeau reminded him that vaccine rollout depends on their production, and that he has given the provinces have everything they need from the federal government. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and in French, he was concerned that the Pfizer vaccine had too many transportation problems and wondered when the Moderna vaccine was coming, and Trudeau reminded him that it was one of four candidates under regulatory approval, and that it would take different kinds of vaccines to protect everyone. Singh repeated the question in English, and got the same response.
Tag Archives: Tough on Crime
QP: The PornHub panic
While the prime minister was on the Hill and just gave a press conference to announce that vaccines would likely be arriving in a week following Health Canada approval, neither he nor his deputy were at QP. Candice Bergen led off, giving selective information about vaccination roll-outs in other countries, and then said that the announced first batch of the Pfizer vaccine wouldn’t be enough. Anita Anand insisted that this was a wonderful day, and that the light at the end of the tunnel was clear. Bergen then moved to the PornHub story in the New York Times, saying he was allowing rape and sexual exploitation to happen in his own backyard, to which David Lametti reminded her that there are laws in place, including for Internet service providers, and that they were taking this seriously. Bergen insisted that there has been no action, as though there was a magic wand that was not being used, and Lametti repeated his points before declaring his pride in the Digital Charter. Stephanie Kusie then took over in and French to demand refunds for airline consumers, to which Chris Bittle stated clearly that there would be no sector-specific aid without refunds. Kusie worried that any plan would bar executive compensation, and Bittle reiterate the importance of ensuring refunds. Claude DeBellefeuille led for the Bloc to demand increased health transfers with no strings attached, to which Patty Hajdu read in halting French about how much the federal government had transferred to the provinces since the pandemic began. DeBellefeuille was not mollified, and repeated her demand, for which Hajdu read another set of talking points. Jenny Kwan demanded more safe places for women in Vancouver’s downtown east side, to which Maryam Monsef said that she has been working with the advocates in the area. Leah Gazan demanded action on the report from the MMIW inquiry, to which Carolyn Bennett assured her that they were working on this with a new $751 million funding commitment.
Roundup: Bringing in a general as a prop
To finish out what was unofficially Vaccine Week™, prime minister Justin Trudeau announced that he had tasked Major General Dany Fortin, the country’s former NATO commander in Iraq, to head up the vaccine distribution response – because apparently, we have decided that if the Americans have a military response, we need one too. Also, Doug Ford went and hired former Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, at great expense to head up Ontario’s vaccine roll-out, so Trudeau apparently felt the need to compete there too.
Paul Wells correctly noted on Power & Politics yesterday that this is mostly theatre, because the real work is being done by anonymous bureaucrats in public health offices in each province, who do the work of immunization on a constant basis. Nevertheless, the impulse to follow the American lead is so strong in Canadian politics, even when it makes no sense. In particular, the Americans needed their military to coordinate vaccine roll-out because they don’t have anything that resembles centralised healthcare delivery in any way. It’s more of a need than we have here, but hey, it looks like we’re being super serious that we have generals coordinating this. And it’s not to say that there wasn’t already coordination between the Public Health Agency and the Canadian Forces for any logistics help they might provide, which could mean transport or medical personnel (because remember that our complement of doctors and nurses are already being overloaded with COVID hospitalisations), but it wasn’t going to be a big Thing with the military in charge. Now Trudeau has pulled that trigger, and I’m not sure exactly what value he hopes to add to the equation from it.
Trudeau also stated yesterday that he estimates that most Canadians will be vaccinated by September of next year, but of course, this remains a bit of a moving target based on the number of vaccines available. If another candidate becomes viable and goes into production, that could cut the time down as well (assuming no logistics bottlenecks along the way). But as with anything, it’s a bit of a moving target, and there are still too many unknown variables to say anything definitive, despite the constant demands to, but that’s where we are. We’ll see if this fixation continues next week, or if the fiscal update will become the prevailing narrative instead.
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: Blaming Trudeau for Ford’s inaction
Prime minister Justin Trudeau was in town but chose not to appear at QP today, but fortunately his deputy was present in his stead. Erin O’Toole led off, listing countries that are using rapid tests and railing that Manitoba can’t procure their own. Chrystia Freeland led off with belated congratulations to O’Toole for his election as leader before stating that they have recently purchased millions of rapid tests. O’Toole railed that provinces couldn’t procure them, but Freeland insisted that they worked with the provinces on the Safe Restart Agreement. O’Toole switched to French to ask the same thing and Freeland repeated her response in kind. O’Toole returned to English to carry on his lament for rapid tests, and Freeland assured him that they would start arriving next week, and more announcements were forthcoming. O’Toole then attempted some revisionist history around border closures, and Freeland insisted that they got it right. Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he, unsurprisingly, demanded increased health transfers, and Freeland assured him that they reached the Safe Restart Agreement with the provinces. Therrien said that it wasn’t enough, that they demanded $28 billion, and Freeland very calmly annunciated that Quebec got nearly $300 billion for health and economic recovery. Jagmeet Singh appeared by video to lead for the NDP, where he demanded a plan for testing and long-term care, both of which are provincial responsibilities. Freeland responded that they were working with provinces and municipalities. Singh stumbled over his attempt to pin the blame on the prime minister, to which Freeland agreed that the country was at a crossroads, before she reiterated that the government was working with provinces and municipalities.
Erin O’Toole seems to think that provinces regulate medical devices. They don’t. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 5, 2020
Roundup: It’s all coming back to me now
As Jason Kenney continues his bellicose demands for a revival of the Energy East project, it seems that his arguments have a certain familiar ring to them. Wait for it…
What Kenney wants to create is, "an opportunity for all Canadians to participate in the energy industry; particularly oil and gas, and to share in the benefits of its expansion," it seems.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) September 16, 2020
In addition to incentives for the oil sands production, "the government is also prepared to offer incentive prices for enhanced oil recovery and for upgraded heavy oil."
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) September 16, 2020
"As a matter of national priority, the government will ensure that the pipeline system is extended beyond Montreal to Quebec City and the Maritimes." Truly nation-building stuff here, wouldn't you say?
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) September 16, 2020
None of this quotes @jkenney. These quotes are all taken from the 1980 speech of the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and Member of Parliament for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso from October 28, 1980 introducing the NEP. #ABLeg #cdnpoli
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) September 16, 2020
Anyone who has paid any attention to the Energy East demands for the past few years will note that there is a definite NEP 2.0 sensibility to them – especially the notion that in the name of “energy security,” we should repurpose this pipeline/build a new segment to the port of Saint John, where there is a single refinery that can handle limited amounts of heavy crude, and that the Irvings should either be forced to accept said Alberta heavy crude at a cost of an additional $10/barrel than they can currently import cheaper, lighter crude from abroad that their current refinery can handle, and that consumers in Atlantic Canada should be made to pay more for their gasoline for the privilege of it coming from Alberta – because I’m not sure that Alberta is going to accept the $10/barrel discount on their crude when they already are suffering from low global oil prices that have made many new oilsands projects economically unviable. Never mind the similarities of this scheme to the original NEP, for which Alberta has created a grand myth about the Great Satan Trudeau (even though the resulting closures in the industry had more to do with the collapse in global oil prices and global recession that happened at the same time) – the cognitive dissonance will not hold.
A thing you might not know about the National Energy Program: it contained a guaranteed minimum price for oil sands synthetic crude oil, backed by federal coffers. If it were in place today, oil sands synthetic would be selling to the federal government for $115/barrel. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/FkGA6Ey3rs
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) September 17, 2020
Roundup: Combing the document dump
The mass of WE-related documents were the subject of yesterday’s news fodder, and the fact that they largely corroborated the government’s assertion that the civil servants were the ones who suggested WE Charity be the vehicle to deliver the Canada Student Service Grant programme. They did, however, make a couple of notes that raised eyebrows – one was another communication between Bardish Chagger and the Kielbergers (though she has responded to dispel those concerns, saying it was a general comment she had made as the CSSG was not on her radar at the time), and the other were communications between Bill Morneau’s office and the finance department officials where Morneau’s office were described as “besties” with WE – which doesn’t necessarily prove that this was some orchestrated campaign to benefit WE. There were also documents wherein Jean-Yves Duclos was clearly not comfortable with WE being the only delivery vehicle for the programme because they don’t have sufficient depth in Quebec, though he was being assured otherwise.
To these revelations, and the fact that some of the pages had redactions on them (which is standard for both Cabinet confidences and instances where privacy is involved), the Conservatives and Pierre Poilievre in particular put on a melodramatic press conference full of air quotes and flung pages, and the howling accusation that there was a cover-up in the works. Because we all know that when you don’t find the answers you want, there must be a conspiracy at play. It’s not unexpected, and I’m not sure he won over any converts among the Canadian public, but hey, this is all theatre for him, like so many things in Canadian politics.
3/ My reading of these excerpts is that they just move this exact story forward by three days, from 22nd to 19th. And if you think the date of the program announcement means something, yes that makes it look like the fix was in. But it's an interesting question: does it?
— Alex Usher (@AlexUsherHESA) August 19, 2020
5/ But read those excerpts: on the 19th, you have public servants acting *as if a decision has already been taken* and they are just there to figure out how to make it work. For them the discussion about the basic parameters (if not all the details) of CSSG are already set.
— Alex Usher (@AlexUsherHESA) August 19, 2020
7/ And yet public servants have to march to the beat of the policy directions, because only they can "make it happen". They deliver the details. They write the memos to cabinet. And only once they are done does the public find out about anything.
— Alex Usher (@AlexUsherHESA) August 19, 2020
9/ So don't assume these revelations mean "they rigged the CSSG to give it to WE" (they might have, but no proof yet). There is still a need to understand where the policy direction came from and how the thinking about CSSG came about. Look pre-19/4. That's where the prize is.
— Alex Usher (@AlexUsherHESA) August 19, 2020
2/2 Doesn’t mean politicos have predetermined details of design/implementation. But does mean nature of pressure on PS is to deliver, quickly, on what the government has already announced.
— Dr. J Robson (@JenniferRobson8) August 19, 2020
Roundup: A curious case for declaratory legislation
A curious story showed up on the CBC website yesterday, wherein justice minister David Lametti stated that if it looked like pandemic delays were going to cause criminal trials to essentially “age out” of the court system as a result of the Jordan decision – meaning that once they reach a certain point, they are deemed to be stayed because they took too long and have become unconstitutional – that he would introduce legislation to “clarify” how the Supreme Court’s Jordan decision was to be clarified. It’s curious because it seems to be a bit of a made-up issue – the Jordan decision already stated that the 30-month timeline allowed for exceptional circumstances, and we can all agree that a global pandemic is by definition an exceptional circumstance. This isn’t to say that declaratory legislation isn’t a valid exercise, because it can be – but it just seems wholly unnecessary in this case, when there are other ways that the government could be better dealing with the criminal justice system and juries than worrying about the Jordan timelines.
In any event, here is defence lawyer Michael Spratt with some thoughts on the story:
2. There is little reason to think that impacts directly attributable to COVID will result in charges being tossed (or even in applications being brought). The SCC already has considered exceptional circumstances And COVID is clearly exceptional.
— Michael Spratt (@mspratt) July 15, 2020
4. If Lametti really wants to help, he should reduce burdens on the system by repealing minimum sentence, make legal aid more accessible, and stop the criminalization mental, health, addiction, and poverty….. you know the stuff we have been begging him to do.
— Michael Spratt (@mspratt) July 15, 2020
Roundup: Referenda as a subversion of parliamentary democracy
Over in Alberta, a new bill has been tabled that amends the province’s enabling legislation to run referenda, and upon reading what’s in the bill, the NDP critic immediately sounded the alarm on what’s in the bill – that it gives the premier sole power to determine whether or not these referenda are binding, the timing, and the wording of the referendum question, and more to the point, it allows for third parties to spend as much as $500,000 in advertising – and they won’t be audited if they spend under $350,000. (Remember that in the province, during a general election, third parties can only spend $150,000 on advertising). And when said critic labelled the bill as “undemocratic,” she has been ridiculed by the premier, justice minister, and any number of halfwits over social media who insist that there is nothing more democratic than a referendum.
They’re wrong. Referenda are actually deeply undemocratic.
Why? Because anytime there is more than two simple alternatives being put to the public – and alternatives are never simple or binary – then there isn’t actually a clear question being put forward, or a clear choice involved. And at the end of the process, the government then gets to interpret those unclear results as they see fit, which is actually a means by which the premier (or equivalent – this is the case with any referendum) simply uses those results to strengthen their own control. They use the façade of putting the decision to the people to tighten their own grip on power, and democracy as a whole suffers, especially because it reduces the role and function of Parliament (or provincial legislature in this case). I would recommend that people read The Will of the People: A Modern Myth by Andrew Weale, which, while predicated on the Brexit referendum, lays out why these exercises diminish Parliament. It’s important that people understand what exactly Kenney is doing by bringing this forward.
More to the point, the reason why Kenney is bringing this bill forward is advancing the agenda of his “Fair Deal Panel,” which aims to hold referenda on things like equalization (which can’t actually do anything), opting out of the Canada Pension Plan in favour of a provincial model (which should raise alarm bells considering how the province’s existing pension plan has made a series of bad decisions), or any other number of the Panel’s recommendations for opting out of federal institutions in favour of more costly provincial ones out of spite, or as a make-work project. It’s deeply cynical, and as we’ve established, actually undemocratic wearing the guise of populist democracy, and Kenney is going to do untold damage to the province with these tools at his disposal, but people won’t care because they’ve been fooled by his rhetoric. It’s all deeply concerning, but unless the province’s opposition can up their game and actually make cogent arguments to the public, then Kenney will continue to steamroll over them.
Roundup: Demands from the Parliamentary Black Caucus
Prime minister Justin Trudeau was sporting a new haircut for his daily presser – a relief no doubt (some of us are counting the days until our appointment), but he was also a bit hoarse as well. He started off announcing that the government had extended the CERB eligibility for another eight weeks, which was no surprise given that this of all governments was not going to leave Canadians out in the cold if they still couldn’t get back to jobs (assuming they have jobs to go back to) – but that hasn’t stopped Jagmeet Singh and the NDP from loudly claiming victory. Trudeau then spoke about looking to international best practices going forward to see if CERB is working in the best way possible, so there will no doubt be more tinkering of the programme doing forward (and there was an attempt at added flexibility being put into the programme in the bill that failed to move forward last week – we’ll see if they also rush it through during the proper sitting later today). Finally, Trudeau said that they had agreed with the American government to keep the border closed to non-essential traffic until July 21st, which again should be no surprise to anyone paying attention.
During the Q&A, there was talk about how Trudeau was “looking at” removing mandatory minimum sentences (and the way in which Jody Wilson-Raybould framed her question on this on Monday about “red meat issues” seems to indicate she received some pushback from Cabinet on this in spite of it being part of the party’s gods damned election platform), and that he was following up on the deaths of two Mexican migrant workers, however much of it was taken up with talks of the list of action items forwarded to him from the Parliamentary Black Caucus, that was co-signed by a number of allies amongst the Liberals, NDP, and Greens (the Conservatives claim they weren’t invited and that this is a partisan game; Greg Fergus says Scheer wasn’t invited because he wouldn’t acknowledge the existence of systemic racism when pressed in a televised interview), and notably, half of the Cabinet signed on as allies, meaning they are essentially complaining to themselves about a lack of action. Trudeau said he was working with stakeholders, including the Black community, in trying to move forward on these issues.
Meanwhile, in the Senate, a number of initiatives are being put forward on the topic of systemic racism, including a move to haul several ministers before the full chamber in a Committee of the Whole to hear directly on what the government is doing to combat it, as well as a planned inquiry into the subject – presuming, of course, that the Senate can manage to get itself sorted on how to sit in the current situation (which is the subject of a current privilege motion).