Tag Archives: Trade

Roundup: More dynamics at play with the story of the Clerk

Posted on by

The CBC story earlier in the week regarding the Clerk of the House of Commons has its critics, and there were elements of the story that felt “off” while reading it – such as how it described Charles Robert’s relationship with a senator (omitting that the senator was male, and the actual dynamics of what happened with the former Liberal-appointed senators when Justin Trudeau expelled them from the party), or the way in which Robert allegedly consulted the Liberals over the timing of releasing a privilege ruling to the Speaker. I did know that his appointment ruffled feathers, which was in part over the poor process that the government ran for it, and how they essentially pushed out the other contender, Marc Bosc, by forcing him to re-apply for his deputy clerk position when he didn’t get the full clerk job. But it sounds like there were other dynamics at play there as well – and this thread by a former procedural clerk in the House of Commons illuminates some of those. It may not absolve Robert entirely, but it certainly colours the story that CBC published, and reminds us that we may not be seeing the full picture.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another of Kenney’s talking points blows up on him

Posted on by

The Alberta government is facing yet another situation where reality butts up against their preferred victimhood narratives – this time around equalisation. You see, for the first time since the 1960s, they have received more in federal transfers than they paid in federal taxes, and we can thank Justin Trudeau’s benediction, not only in pandemic transfers, but in things like money that they sent to the province to remediate orphan wells as a job-creation (and environmental) programme – never mind that they never should have because it meant that private companies and the province were able to successful offload their environmental liabilities to the federal government after the Supreme Court of Canada specifically ruled that they couldn’t under existing bankruptcy laws.

Of course, this isn’t stopping Kenney or his government from trying to spin this to carry on their narrative. For example, the province’s finance minister is claiming that they are still being unfairly impacted because of their contributions on a per capita basis continue to outstrip their share of the population. Because they have the highest incomes in the country by far and we have a progressive federal income tax. This is yet more of the province’s outright disinformation on how equalisation works because they are trying to make people angry rather than properly telling them how the system works, because if people understood, they might not be able to summon some performative outrage about it, and that wouldn’t help Kenney and his agenda.

Because really, so much of how the province is spinning this is yet more distraction sauce from Kenney’s continued failures, and the thousands of unnecessary deaths on his watch, and as I have pointed out elsewhere, Kenney has only one tool in his toolbox, and that is anger. He’s losing yet one more argument that Alberta is being treated “unfairly,” so you can expect a lot more gaslighting and deception in the near future as Kenney and company will try to push back against reality.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1458600346398478337

Continue reading →

Roundup: Clear and concise, to counteract Poilievre

Posted on by

Earlier this week, to accompany the release of their Monetary Policy Report, the Bank of Canada released a sixty-second clip over social media to explain their assessment of the state of the Canadian economy in plain language. And it was great.

This kind of communication is essential, especially now, for the Bank because of the level of noise and misinformation that is being promulgated, particularly by certain members of Parliament who have made it their mission to politicise the work of the Bank, as they spout facile talking points about the current state of inflation that have zero bearing on the actual causes. And if it’s not Pierre Poilievre, my reply column is full of chuckleheads who think they know better, and inflation truthers (which are the gods damned worst). So yes, this kind of clear, simple-to-digest communication is especially needed by the Bank, much like the Cases in Brief have become an essential form of communication from the Supreme Court of Canada. This is a great initiative from the Bank, and hopefully we’ll see more like it in the future.

On a related note, former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge says that the current governor is on the right track with the economic recovery and where inflation is going, so if you needed an additional vote of confidence that they know what they’re doing, there you have it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Taking his sweet-ass time to meet caucus

Posted on by

The Liberals are starting to get restless – members of caucus are feeling put out that they haven’t actually had a formal caucus meeting yet post-election, and many of them are champing at the bit to have a closed-door drag out session about what went wrong in the election, and why their own leadership seemed unprepared for it when they called the blood thing in the first place. And telling the Hill Times that they want to know why the party leadership is taking their “sweet-ass time” to call this meeting was the icing on this particular cake.

I’m having a hard time fathoming why it’s taking Trudeau and company so long to get their collective acts together post-election. They made a whole song and dance about how urgently they needed to act while on the campaign trail, only for them to turn around and take said sweet-ass time in both finalising the Cabinet shuffle (and no, the recounts do not account for how long the delay is) as well as their decision to further delay summoning Parliament – and even his planned international travel does not excuse this. They could have had Cabinet sworn in before the Governor General went on her state visit to Germany, and could have summoned Parliament this week, in advance of Trudeau’s planned travel. That would have given them actual time to get committees up and running, and legislation in the system – particularly around the changes to the pandemic benefits – as soon as possible, as opposed to the current trajectory of a three-week sitting that will accomplish very little before they head back to their ridings for the Christmas break.

Additionally, not having a proper caucus meeting by now has reached the point of disrespecting their own MPs. They have things they want to say after the campaign trail, and they should be able to say it – that’s how this system works. It’s a very bad signal that they are being kept away from the leadership like this, because even aside from it betraying all of Trudeau’s talking points about being open and accountable within his own party, that kind of thing will start to fester if it’s not taken seriously. I’m not sure that’s a situation Trudeau wants to go out on in his final tour-de-force as leader.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A vote devoid of real meaning

Posted on by

As expected, the Conservative caucus voted for the (garbage) Reform Act proposals that give them the option to demand a leadership review, and as expected, the media fell all over themselves to interpret some kind of significance into this, including the fact that the same thing happened after the last election when Andrew Scheer was still the leader – never mind that the Reform Act had precisely zero to do with Scheer’s demise.

And while everyone was smiling and preaching unity coming out of the meeting, there are still sore MPs, who are concerned about the losses they suffered, and that their promised gains in places like the GTA didn’t materialise. MP Scott Reid is openly decrying that the party is being run like a “petty tyranny” where policy positions like the carbon price was imposed on them without discussion or even notice (as Reid was running to be caucus chair). So clearly they still have some healing to do, but I wouldn’t read any significance into the (garbage) Reform Act vote, because all it will do is insulate Erin O’Toole.

Meanwhile, I am concerned at some of the delusion that seems to have set into the party, as O’Toole went into the meeting telling the assembled reporters that it was the Liberals and People’s Party who spent the campaign misleading people and sowing division. I mean, serial liar Erin O’Toole, who attempted to make the falsehood of a non-existent Liberal plan to tax home equity a campaign issue, says it was the other guys who thrived on misleading people. I’d say it was unbelievable, but it was simply one more lie that O’Toole effortlessly spouts. Later in the day, Michael Chong was on Power & Politics, and when O’Toole’s constantly shifting positions on issues like gun control were raised, he called it a “Liberal trap.” Erm, it’s O’Toole’s shifting position – that’s on him. Chong also declared that it was wrong to make vaccination a wedge issue because anti-vaxxers felt like “hunted prey,” which is…warped. When you have a group of people who are prolonging the pandemic and endangering the lives of others, whether it’s directly with the virus or because they have overwhelmed the healthcare capacity that vaccinated people require, they should be made to feel social stigma. That’s the point. That Chong is going to bat for them demonstrates why his party continues to be tone deaf about the course of this pandemic.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1445387619215552520

Continue reading →

Roundup: No knockouts in the TVA debate

Posted on by

The first official debate took place last night – TVA’s “Face-à-face” which was a debate in a slightly more behaved format than we tend to see with the consortium/commission debates. All four leaders displayed adequate French – though Erin O’Toole’s accent and pronunciation started to degrade the longer it went on – and it was broadly organized around three particular themes: the pandemic, social policy, and the Canada of tomorrow. As with most debates, there was no “knock-out punch,” the leaders largely held their own, and unlike 2019, no one got cornered and slaughtered as what happened to Andrew Scheer.

There were contentious issues – early on, the other leaders tried to gang up on Trudeau about the “unnecessary” election, which Justin Trudeau countered Yves-François Blanchet’s accusations with a reminder that on four occasions Blanchet voted non-confidence in the government and obviously wanted an election. O’Toole also claimed that Parliament was working together and that made the election unnecessary, but that was a complete lie, and there were five months of procedural warfare brought on by his MPs to drive that point home. Trudeau also made the point that the twenty percent of the population that remained unvaccinated shouldn’t be able to stop democracy, and that our institutions were robust enough to deal with it. Blanchet laid into O’Toole about his plans to cancel the child care programme and withdraw the promised money from Quebec in exchange for tax credits that won’t help create any child care spaces. Blanchet and Jagmeet Singh also got into it on a few occasions, particularly around who called whom a racist in the House of Commons, and on any issue that touched on race, Blanchet kept insisting that Quebeckers weren’t racist. It being a Quebec-centric debate (as opposed to inclusive of francophones outside of the province), it had its moments of parochialism, like the moderator demanding assurances from each of the leaders that the future Moderna plant will be built in Quebec and not Ontario.

While everyone is going to assert that either Blanchet won out of natural advantage, or that their own preferred leader “won,” just because I did want to make a couple of observations. Trudeau is still having difficulty articulating the need for an election – most especially around the toxic parliamentary session in the spring. Erin O’Toole kept repeating that he has a plan, and that he has a “contract with Quebec,” and just repeating those assurances, ad nauseum. He also did most of the interrupting and talking over others throughout the evening. Blanchet was chippy and peevish for much of it, while Jagmeet Singh would dodge direct questions in favour of his usual tactic of reverting to some kind of an anecdote about someone he allegedly met. And here are a collection of quotes from the evening, for what it’s worth.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Considerations on the private delivery debate

Posted on by

The accusations and sanctimony from that video continued to reverberate around the campaign yesterday, with the Liberals defending the video and its edits, while the Conservatives wrote to the Commissioner of Elections to have it taken down, and really, we’re all the dumber for it.

It did keep the debate on healthcare going throughout the day, and while I do have a column on this coming out later today, I’ll make a few additional observations, which is that there are nuances to the debate around private delivery, and one of them is how stringently the federal government enforces the Canada Health Act when it comes to that enforcement. There are concerns that the Conservatives’ pledge to increase health transfers with no strings attached is a signal that they are willing to allow more private delivery, whereas the Liberals are starting to resume clawbacks of health transfers in proportion to fees collected from private delivery, as they paused those clawbacks during the pandemic so as to give provinces as many resources as possible (though one could argue that the federal government could have played harder ball). An example is Clinic 554 in New Brunswick, which is a private abortion clinic as the province won’t pay for its services, citing that the province is already sufficiently covered with the three hospitals that provide the service (which is disputed as the Clinic is in Fredericton, where the service is not provided publicly). The federal government was clawing back health transfers related to fees that people paid to the clinic, but stopped when the pandemic hit. It looks like this is going to start in Saskatchewan and Manitoba with private delivery of services in those provinces.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Beware the lure of a pilot project

Posted on by

You can bet that, as an election looms, that certain parties will start talking up Basic Income again (and this includes the Liberals, given recent party policy votes around it). We’re also hearing from a group of senators who want to push this in spite of evidence that it’s not the best way to go (and they have been vocally dismissing any dissent, no matter how expert). And a bill in the US about Basic Income pilots will add fuel to this particular tire fire. So with that, I turn it over to Dr. Lindsay Tedds, who was on the BC panel that examined the feasibility of Basic Income to break it down:

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1422689592722051072

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1422689597105049603

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1422689601018372096

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1422691518230433793

But there’s a reason why these kinds of pilot proposals are popular, and that is politics. Alas.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1422692966142029826

Continue reading →

QP: Why are you sending cheques?

Posted on by

It’s the beginning of the last week of the sitting calendar, and none of the leaders were present, in person or virtually. The Liberal benches once again remained virtually empty, save Anita Vandenbeld, who swapped with Mark Gerretsen a short while later. Candice Bergen led off in person, raising the story that Liberal MPs have been sending cheques to Tom Pitfield’s company, given his friendship with the prime minster. Pablo Rodriguez responded that this was for a system to help manage constituency files. Bergen tried again, and this time Rodriguez insisted that the Conservatives were obstructing the agenda. Bergen, after starting off with the wrong script, then demanded that the government demand that the president of PHAC turn over documents related to the National Microbiology Lab firings, for which Patty Hajdu admonished her for playing games with national security, given that the documents were given to NSICOP. Gérard Deltell took over in French to repeat the demand, and Hajdu warned that the Conservatives were playing a dangerous game with national security, and quoted Thomas Juneau about his concerns. Deltell tried again, and Hajdu quoted Stephanie Carvin this time.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1407050831128584198

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and demanded that EI reform better cover people in the cultural sector, and Carla Qualtrough assured him they were working to do just that. Therrien couldn’t take yes for an answer and demanded again, and Qualtrough insisted that the best thing they could do was to pass the budget.

Rachel Blaney conflated the bodies at residential schools with the court case challenging the Human Rights Tribunal ruling on First Nations children, for which Mark Miller stated that there were competing concerns in class action lawsuits, which is why they we negotiating compensation for them. Leah Gazan raised a Black Lives Matter protest about police state violence, and Bardish Chagger stated that they take the calls to action seriously, which is why they took measures in the budget to address this work.

Continue reading →

QP: Green Lanterning the price of houses

Posted on by

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

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

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

Continue reading →