Tag Archives: Trade

Roundup: The O’Toole victory post-mortems

Posted on by

Now that Erin O’Toole has been “decisively” declared the winner of the Conservative leadership contest, all of the analysis has churned out. While O’Toole avoided the media (he’ll have a press conference today instead) and got to work with meetings to solidify his transition to leader, including changes to senior staff, but had a call with the PM, wherein O’Toole was sure to point out in his readout that he raised “western alienation” as a concern he wanted addressed in the Throne Speech – sending a signal to his base on day one.

Here is a reminder of the things that O’Toole promised during his leadership campaign – and caution, a lot of those promises are premised on some eye-popping economic illiteracy. Here are five ridings whose results help tell the story of O’Toole’s rise using the rules of the campaign (you can find the full riding-by-riding breakdown here). Here’s an analysis of who the power players are in O’Toole’s Conservative Party.  Here’s a look into Leslyn Lewis’ campaign and what it signals, but I would put a word of caution for those who insist that this is some kind of turning point for a party that tends to favour old straight white men at all levels – I did notice over the past few months that whenever certain Conservative voters would harass female academics on social media and were called out for it, they would insist they weren’t sexist because they were voting for “a black woman to become prime minister.” I have a sneaking suspicion that Lewis has given a certain amount of cover to these kinds of people, which isn’t really a sign of progress.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt lists the things O’Toole will need to address before the party will be ready for an election, which means biding their time. Heather Scoffield sees an opportunity for O’Toole to exploit when it comes to fiscal policy. Aaron Wherry wonders how O’Toole will differentiate himself as leader given the party’s approach to issues. Éric Grenier crunches the numbers to show how the social conservative vote benefitted O’Toole over Peter MacKay. And Paul Wells takes stock of O’Toole, finding him to be little more than a warmed-over Scheer in an era where the political centre in the country has shifted from where the Conservatives believe it to be, which will mean that O’Toole will need to think bigger than he currently seems to have an interest in.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An apology on the second attempt

Posted on by

It was prime minister Justin Trudeau’s first presser since the WE Imbroglio blew up over the revelations of his family being paid speakers for the charity, and there was a definite note of contrition this time. After hinting that the government would extend the wage subsidy until December with details coming later in the week, a mention of his call earlier in the morning with Donald Trump that touched on tariffs, Black Lives Matter, and China, and a promise on further updates on the Safe Restart Plan with the provinces to come later in the week, Trudeau turned to his mea culpa on the Imbroglio. “I made a mistake in not recusing myself from discussions, and I’m sincerely sorry about not having done that,” Trudeau said. He praised how the government got creative with designing programmes during the pandemic, and how they had worked with a range of partners to make it happen, but he was sorry that he didn’t remove himself from the discussions with WE, and that he was frustrated that youth would have to wait longer to do their party to serve because of the mistakes he made. (I would argue that WE’s plans raised a lot of red flags too, for what it’s worth). When asked if he would appear before committee to discuss what happened, Trudeau was non-committal, but in a hung parliament, he doesn’t have the votes to shield himself this time.

During the Q&A, he said that he pointed out to Trump about the disruptions to the aluminium supply chains and hoped that they wouldn’t see tariffs that would only slow down the economic recovery; he also mentioned that there were ongoing discussions around the border, but the rest of the time was spent reiterating, over and over, that he didn’t have the details on what his family members had been paid by WE and that he should have, and that he did seem to have some reflection that he needed to be careful on this file because of his past activity with the charity but that he didn’t go far enough and should have removed himself entirely from the conversation. Later in the day, Bill Morneau sent out his own apology for his own failure to recuse himself given his daughters’ activities with WE.

For what it’s worth, there seems to be some kind of learning curve because it only took the second try for Trudeau to give an apology rather than stick to talking points aimed at deflection until the conclusion of the Ethics Commissioner’s report, at which point there would be either an apology or admission of some kind of wrongdoing and a promise to do better next time. This time, we managed to skip weeks of such failed damage control, so that’s something, I guess.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt finds herself wanting when it comes to Trudeau’s explanation for how the whole thing went down, and hopes that he’s saving it for his discussion with the Ethics Commissioner. Matt Gurney gives credit where credit is due for Trudeau learning enough to make a rapid admission and apology rather than dragging things out for months. Paul Wells is unimpressed with the apology and wants a full accounting of what happened, particularly as it is increasingly evident that things were wrong with the WE contract outside of the apparent conflict of interest, and how those decisions were made need to be aired.

Good reads:

  • Ruh-roh! It looks like the federal government wasn’t enforcing the rules around temporary foreign workers, which allowed outbreaks to occur on farms.
  • Here is some number-crunching on the PM’s daily pressers in the first phase of the pandemic and lockdown, including on his choice of verbs and phrases.
  • The RCMP have charged a Quebec man with calling for Justin Trudeau’s death and the eradication of Muslims.
  • Former Liberal MPs who lost their seats in the last election are waiting to hear about nomination contests so they can be ready to run again.
  • Leona Alleslev has resigned as deputy leader of the Conservatives to more vocally back Peter MacKay, who says that no promises were made for her support.
  • Maclean’s has a profile of Conservative leadership candidate Leslyn Lewis.
  • Jason Kenney is accusing the federal government of preventing Apple from fixing the province’s contact tracing app, which requires iPhones to be unlocked to work.
  • Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column looks at the options for calling prime minister Trudeau to committee to testify on the WE Imbroglio.
  • Heather Scoffield is frustrated by the vague answers being given on the extension and amendments to the wage subsidy programme.
  • Colby Cosh recounts how Alberta has abolished its last vestiges of prohibition, by allowing liquor sales in Mormon-centric towns that were still “dry.”

Odds and ends:

For the CBA’s National Magazine, I wrote about Friday’s Supreme Court decision on genetic privacy, and what the broader implications of the ruling are.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

Roundup: Pearl-clutching about the deficit

Posted on by

For the first time this week, prime minister Justin Trudeau held a presser, wherein he praised the agreement with the First Nations on moving ahead with transferring control over child welfare, mentioned the virtual Cabinet retreat that was held over the previous two days, and mentioned that new pandemic modelling was on the way, noting that there are still hot-spots around the country. And then it was the takeaway message of the day – a mere couple of hours away from the fiscal “snapshot” being delivered, Trudeau made the case that they chose to support Canadians rather than leaving them to fend for themselves, and that the cost of doing nothing would have been far greater on both healthcare and the economy. He reiterated that this was not the time for austerity, but that they have been building a “bridges” to a stronger, more resilient Canada, and drove home the point that the federal government took on debt so that ordinary Canadians wouldn’t have to. He pointed to the low debt-to-GDP ratio, and that historically low interest rates mean manageable borrowing costs. And with one final word on Bob Rae being appointed to the UN, he took questions, one of the first of which determined that he didn’t recuse himself when the WE Charity sole-source contract came before Cabinet, which is something the Ethics Commissioner is looking at. He spoke about the necessity of childcare, that Bill Blair has been engaged on the subject or the RCMP and police brutality as part of the broader Cabinet workplan on combatting systemic racism, that they were following the recommendations of the Auditor General on CBSA, and then reiterated again that with historically low debt-servicing costs, it was easier for the federal government to take it on in order to prevent Canadian households from having to do so. When asked about the relationship with Donald Trump, Trudeau once again reiterated that they have concerns about the possibility of new tariffs, and that it will only hurt American industry because they need Canadian aluminium as they can’t produce enough of their own.

And then the fiscal “snapshot.” While Bill Morneau’s pabulum-heavy speech was pretty much all self-congratulation and a recap of measures they’ve taken, the accompanying documents did show a $343 billion deficit projected for this year (though it has been speculated that this was an outer bound limit designed for them to come under), and that the total debt by the end of this fiscal year could be $1.2 trillion – numbers everyone clutched their pearls about while ignoring that the debt-servicing costs continue to decrease even though the size of the debt has increased. There was mention that the wage subsidy is going to be extended, but with modifications on the way “sooner than later,” but there wasn’t much indication about the broader recovery plan thus far.

Of course, the obsessions among all of the media coverage was the deficit and debt figures, because our reporting narratives remain firmly affixed in the mid-1990s, and no one can break free of them – not to mention the hyperbolic mentions about how this was the biggest deficit since the Second World War (never mind that this is a virtually unprecedented global pandemic we’re facing with a demand-side shock that people can’t seem to wrap their heads around). And because the framing devices remain in the 1990s, headlines obsessed that there wasn’t a plan to curb spending – because of course we know how the epidemiology of this pandemic is going to play out until we get a vaccine at some point in the future. But perspective? You need to turn to the economists on Twitter for that.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1280933038394875905

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280946657106878464

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280948115911045120

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280935717359644672

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1280992891343527936

Continue reading →

Roundup: A confirmation on uttered threats

Posted on by

We got a better read of the charges against the Rideau Hall intruder from last week, including more specifics on the weapons charges – a restricted revolver, a prohibited rifle, and two legal shotguns – as well as confirmation that the uttering threats charge was indeed directed toward the prime minister. This is, of course, in direct contravention to what RCMP sources were leaking to certain journalists last week that he didn’t intend to harm anyone, which never actually was credible at the time, and yet they dutifully reported it anyway.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1278788951885721602

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1278809780392427520

What is especially galling is that the RCMP seems to have zero self-awareness that this sort of thing fuels the calls about systemic racism in their organization – doing proper de-escalation and then floating this “not intending to harm” fiction when it’s a white guy with guns as opposed to a Black, Indigenous or otherwise person of colour where they will beat, taze, or outright kill them when they are unarmed. The contrast had been made to the arrest video of Chief Allan Adam video where he was tackled and pummelled for merely mouthing off after police outright harassed him for expired licence plate tags, whereas the intruder was armed and had intent to threaten the prime minister (if not outright assassinate him – that remains for the investigation to conclude and the courts to decide), and he was apparently unharmed after a ninety-minute conversation. The fact that they would float that “no harm” notion when the guy was armed and rammed through the gates pretty much confirms in everyone’s minds that white perpetrators of violence get treated separately and less lethally than anyone else – but they remain oblivious to it. Incredible.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Considerations before making masks mandatory

Posted on by

As the mask debate continues to circle around and around, one of the things that seems to need pointing out is that if you’re going to mandate wearing masks (which, it needs to be re-stated is a provincial and/or municipal decision and not a federal one), that is going to have to come with some sort of consequences for not adhering to rules for wearing it, and that’s where things get very sticky, and start getting into areas where civil liberties start getting at stake – and if there are to be no consequences for not adhering, then what’s the point of making them mandatory? So it’s not really as easy as you may think.

Meanwhile, here is infectious disease specialist Dr. Isaac Bogoch on why this is not a cut-and-dried discussion.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More questions about the WE contract

Posted on by

It was another campaign stop – err, media availability field trip for prime minister Justin Trudeau, where he headed to a local brewery that has converted part of their production line to produce hand sanitizer to both highlight that the country is now nearly self-sufficient in the production of personal protective equipment, but also to once again highlight how great the wage subsidy is, and please, for the love of the gods, would employers take advantage of it (and get people off of CERB). He mentioned Thursday’s teleconference with the premiers and the $14 billion that the federal government has put on the table, but the fact that they haven’t apparently taken him up on it would seem to me that this is a bit of public diplomacy on Trudeau’s part to try to get the premiers to take it with the strings attached. From there, he said that the Canadian Forces personnel would start withdrawing from some of the long-term care facilities in Quebec where the Red Cross could step in, but also that the Forces were going to stabilize four more residences. And finally, he gave a shout out to Pride, which is no longer happening in Toronto this weekend because of the pandemic, but it is still nice to have a prime minister that acknowledges it.

During the Q&A, Trudeau said that changes to the wage subsidy were on the way so as not to be a disincentive for companies growing beyond the qualifying criteria – but we’ll see what “soon” means. He stated that they did have a plan in the works to help the Royal Canadian Legion branches that are in danger of closing because of the pandemic, and when asked about the anti-racism statement that all of the First Ministers put out earlier in the week, Trudeau said that they didn’t come to an agreement on systemic racism, but that reporters would have to ask the premiers which ones they were. (Spoiler: It’s Quebec). And then there were the questions about the service grant contract being given to WE Charities. Trudeau said that it was about creating opportunities, and that they needed to have a partner with established networks, and very clearly annunciated that it was the civil service that recommended WE as the only organization capable of delivering those networks on the scale being asked. He also said that while they were covering WE’s costs, the organization wouldn’t be profiting. It’s still pretty dubious, and here’s Alex Usher laying out some of the questions that remain outstanding on this whole affair.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No to hostage diplomacy, yes to dubious administration

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau held his no-longer-daily presser at Rideau Cottage today, and finally unveiled the Canada Service Grant programme for student and recent graduate volunteers, where every hundred hours of volunteering earns them $1000. On top of that, he announced some $40 million for Mitacs internships, and 100,000 new summer job placements as the programme has apparently become fully subscribed, along with another 20,000 post-secondary job placements. While the Q&A touched on the problem with the rent subsidies where businesses re-opening can earn too much to qualify, and long-term care – where he bluntly stated that provinces failed to support seniors but that the federal government was happy to help where they could – it was the subject of China’s hostage diplomacy that dominated, as reporter after reporter kept asking him over, and over, and over again about that letter signed by prominent Canadians to essentially capitulate to the Chinese and end the extradition of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou in exchange for the release of the Two Michaels. In language that was almost uncharacteristically blunt for Trudeau, he said that he deeply disagreed with the letter-writers, citing that giving in now would send the message to everyone that they could simply kidnap Canadians in order to get diplomatic concessions going forward, and it would endanger the safety of those Canadians going forward.

But back to that Canada Service Grant announcement, because what wasn’t announced during the presser and only came out later was the fact that they have turned over the administration of this grant to WE Charities, which is…problematic, not only because of the personal connection that Trudeau and his wife has with the group. We don’t know what kind of cut WE is getting for doing the work, and the fact that one of their main sources of income – their big stadium events – is off the table for the sake of the pandemic, this almost has the feel of Trudeau doing them a favour because they’ve lost that revenue, which is poor optics. Trust this government to step on a rake and evaporate good will that they’ve accumulated by making this kind of dumb move. It happens over and over again (and yet nobody seems to lose their job over it).

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1276314924793450497

Continue reading →

Roundup: Referenda as a subversion of parliamentary democracy

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Manufacturing an “attendance” record

Posted on by

The big headline that everyone was talking about yesterday was a load of manufactured bullshit, which shouldn’t really surprise anyone, but it was what everyone was throwing around nevertheless. The Globe and Mail crunched the numbers from the Zoom log-ins from the special COVID-19 committee that has been sitting in lieu of regular House of Commons sittings, and found that lo, the Conservatives had the worst “attendance record.” Which is kind of hilarious because it completely misunderstands how this whole farcical process works. Oh, but the Conservatives must be hypocrites, because they’re demanding full sittings! Well, no – you’ve just found some numbers that you’re applying disingenuously in order to make them look like hypocrites. It’s exactly the kind of stunt that causes people – and small-conservatives especially – to distrust the mainstream media, because it looks an awful lot like they’re not being given a fair shake. Of course, Andrew Scheer didn’t do himself any favours when he called it “Liberal spin” rather than pointing out that this was a false construction, but his inability to do anything other than meathead partisan talking points was and still is his downfall.

Why this is such bad-faith “reporting” is because it ignores the fact that there is a set speaking list every day. If you’re an MP – particularly a Conservative MP in a rural riding where you have spotty Internet to begin with – what incentive is there for you to log into Zoom and watch it that way when you have no chance to participate when you can simply follow the proceedings on CPAC and get a better experience because the translation tends to work better? It also operates on the assumption that all 338 MPs are in the House of Commons at all times when Parliament is sitting regularly, which isn’t the case – the only time all MPs are in the Chamber are during Question Period and for votes, and no, despite the sales job that the government has been trying to foist onto the public, this committee is not Question Period. Trying to hand out attendance awards for participating in a Zoom call on steroids is a waste of everyone’s time and resources, and is a distraction from the actual issues related to the calls to have proper in-person sittings – or it would be if the majority of media outlets could actually report critically on it rather than swallowing the government’s lines.

Speaking of outrage clicks, the CBC has again been misrepresenting some Senate matters, like how the Selection Committee works, as part of their story wherein Senator Dalphond is calling for committee chairs and deputy chairs to rescind their “bonuses” in the current session because of many haven’t sat because of the pandemic. But it occurs to me that it’s unlikely that chairs have even been getting their stipends because most committees haven’t even been constituted yet, which makes this look even more like this is part of Dalphond’s particular vendetta against Senator Yuen Pau Woo, and Woo’s insistence on chairing the Selection Committee, and he’s trying to use a larger point about chairs’ salaries (using false comparisons with the House of Lords as ammunition) in order to provide cover from making this look personal. I am becoming extremely concerned about Dalphond’s behaviour here – though my disappointment with how the CBC covers the Senate is pretty much standard. Cheap outrage clicks on the backs of misrepresenting the Senate is par for the course for how journalism runs in this town. (I wrote more on the backstory here).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Demands from the Parliamentary Black Caucus

Posted on by

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).

Continue reading →