Tag Archives: Bob Rae

Roundup: Calling for price caps

Posted on by

The NDP are at it again, and by “it,” I mean making stupid demands that should get them laughed out of any room they’re in. To wit, yesterday they demanded price caps on certain grocery items, claiming that the Loblaws settlement over the class action for the bread price-fixing scheme as “proof” that government needs to take action. I can’t think of a more economically illiterate argument that is trying to simply base itself on “vibes” that will only do far more harm than it will do good.

The high price of certain grocery items is rarely an issue of grocery chains hiking prices. It does happen, but there has been little evidence of it when margins have been stable. If you bother to actually pay attention to agricultural news or Statistics Canada data, it’s pretty clear that much of those price increases are a result of climate change-related droughts in food-producing regions, with the odd flash flood or hurricane also ruining crops, and driving up prices. The invasion of Ukraine exacerbated issues by throwing world markets for wheats and cooking oils out of whack, driving up prices as exports couldn’t get to market. And even if you have growing conditions that rebound, often price are locked into contracts with producers or processors for several years at a time, which can delay prices returning to lower levels as supply rebounds. But the point here is that most of this is explainable if you actually bother to look, rather than just screaming “corporate greed!” because you are ideologically predisposed to doing so.

More to the point, this just strikes me as a little bit of history repeating the demands for price controls in the mid-seventies as inflation was reaching double-digits, which then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau mocked with the phrase “Zap, you’re frozen!” We’re not there, and frankly the demand for price caps is frankly ridiculous, and if they persist, we should resurrect “Zap, you’re frozen” to mock them as relentlessly.

Programming Note: I am taking the next week or so off. Columns will continue on schedule but blogs and videos will be taking a bit of a break.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched drone attacks against power facilities in two regions, prompting more power grid disruptions. Another drone attack appears to have overshot and struck down in Romania, but NATO doesn’t believe that this was an intentional attack. A leaked UN report is pointing to Russia as the culprit of an explosion at barracks housing Ukrainian POWs two years ago that killed fifty.

Continue reading →

QP: Competing scripted inflation talking points

Posted on by

It was akin to Friday attendance in Chamber for everyone but the Conservatives, who were largely present, but the PM was in attendance, which is what counts on a Wednesday. Erin O’Toole led off, script before him, and he decried the cost of living crisis and accused the prime minister of fixing his budget by fuelling inflation. Justin Trudeau read a prepared script of good news talking points from the fiscal update. O’Toole tried and failed to land an attack about pipelines and supply chains, and this time, Trudeau extemporaneously recited the promise to have peoples’ backs. O’Toole raised the report on food inflation, and quipped about the prime minister not thinking about monetary policy, and Trudeau reiterated his usual points about the fact that they were helping Canadians and why investing up-front in ensuring people made it through the crisis was the smart economic thing to do. O’Toole switched to French to decry food inflation, and demanded the government fix it—not specifying how. (Wage and price controls, anyone?) Trudeau noted the health crisis and keeping people safe, which was how to help the economy recover. O’Toole worried the dream of home ownership has vanished, blaming Trudeau for it, and Trudeau praised programmes they have rolled out to help fight the housing crisis.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he complained about Bob Rae’s comments about Bill 21 and demanded Rae be recalled. Trudeau said that he profoundly disagree with Bill 21, and they would be on the side of Quebeckers who were upset that the teacher lost her job for wearing a hijab. Blanchet railed that Trudeau was condoning “Quebec bashing,” and Trudeau said that Quebeckers like him stand up for individual rights including freedom conscience.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he demanded the federal government give more booster shots, rapid tests, and hiring more nurses—never mind that is all provincial jurisdiction. Trudeau recited concerns about omicron and warned Canadians should reconsider non-essential travel and getting boosters as quickly as possible. Singh repeated the demand in French, and Trudeau said they were already doing that having procured enough shots for all Canadians.

Continue reading →

QP: Ignoring the threats of a trade war

Posted on by

In advance of the fall fiscal update, neither the PM nor the finance minister were absent, but so were all of the other leaders. Michell Rempel Garner led off for the Conservatives, and grumbled that the Americans want Saudi and Iranian oil over Canadian imports, for which Steven Guilbeault reminded her that the world of energy is changing, and that the future was in renewables, and that the record investments were happening in Alberta. Garner needled that she wanted Mary Ng to answer instead of a man to answer for her, for which Ng stood up and took exception to how the question was framed, before asserting that she always stands up for Canadian workers. Rempel Garner accused the government of being happy to offshore jobs to climate destroying countries, and this time François-Philippe Champagne stood up to praise their leadership in clean energy sectors. Gérard Deltell took over in French, and he worried about the American EV tax credit and stated that the government was doing nothing about it, to which Ng reminded him of their threat of retaliatory tariffs that they delivered to the US. Deltell again accused the government of doing nothing, and Ng listed how they have engaged with the US administration.

Alain Therrien rose for the Bloc, and complained that Trudeau was not currently interfering in the fight against Bill 21, and then demanded no interference in court challenges, for which David Lametti recited that nobody should lose their job for how they dress or their religion, and noted the were protests in Chelsea, Quebec, about the removal of a teacher. Therrien then railed that UN Ambassador Bob Rae said that Bill 21 defies the UN Declaration of Human Rights and wanted him recalled, for which Lametti simply asserted that they were monitoring the situation.

Jagmeet Singh suddenly appeared and complained about inflation and the GIS clawbacks, for which Kamal Khera read her talking points about supporting senior and working toward a solution on the clawbacks. Singh then to French to repeat the question, and this time Randy Boissonnault recited a litany of their support programmes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The coded language of “social experiments”

Posted on by

There was an analysis piece published over the weekend that wondered about why Erin O’Toole is talking about “social experiments” as part of his rejection of the Throne Speech, but while the piece went on to look at polling data and so on, it merely said that O’Toole didn’t exactly say which part of it was the “social experiment.” Of course, you’d have to have been living under a rock to not realise that small-c conservatives have been using this language for a while, particularly when it comes to things like gender equality.

Much of the thinking around this language is that the “social experiment” is the disruption of the so-called “natural” state of family life – that women in the workforce and childcare outside of the home is going to be some kind of sociological destabilizing force – and much of that line of reasoning also goes hand-in-hand with some garden-variety homophobic nonsense about same-sex marriage somehow “devaluing” regular marriage (as though straight people weren’t already doing that on their own). And let’s face it – the Throne Speech was heavy on inclusive growth and the need for childcare as part of its main themes. Of course, this isn’t really “experimental” at this point either – we have plenty of data to show the economic benefits of women in the workforce and what subsidised childcare can do to facilitate it. And if O’Toole is really that concerned about the deficit and economic growth, you’d think that he would be enthusiastically supporting plans to expand subsidised childcare and early learning because it’s been proven to have far greater economic returns than what it costs a government.

But we also need to remember that O’Toole is beholden to the social conservatives in his party for his leadership win, and he’s spent his time as leader trying to play both sides on a lot of issues – talking about the importance of free trade while promoting protectionist “Canada First” policies, or saying he’ll go to Pride – but only if they allow uniformed police to march, or that he opposes conversion therapy but won’t support that particular bill because of hand-wavey discredited reasoning. I am not unconvinced that this isn’t more of the same – O’Toole winking to his social conservatives using their own coded language about “social experiments” without actually saying what it is out loud so that he can’t be called out on it by those who know that things like enhancing childcare is sound economic policy, and that this recession, which has disproportionately affected women and minorities, won’t be solved by the same tired bro-recovery that provides stimulus for bro-jobs. To dismiss the kinds of inclusive policies that this economic recovery demands as “social experiments” gives a clue as to who O’Toole is pandering to.

Continue reading →

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: Self-isolating MPs

Posted on by

Yesterday evening, Seamus O’Regan tweeted that after a persistent head cold, he went to his doctor and was self-isolating until he got the results of the COVID-19 test that he got. Around the same time, former Conservative Cabinet minister (and sexting blackmail victim) Tony Clement was on Power & Politics saying that it may be time to think about taking Parliament “digital,” and holding debates and votes remotely for the duration. Yeah, that’s a big nope.

I get that being a politician is a tactile business, and there are concerns that the House of Commons is essentially one big cruise ship, however Parliament needs to happen face-to-face. It’s inconceivable that it could be done remotely because so many of the needed conversations happen off-camera and on the sidelines. That can’t be replicated by everyone working remotely. Should they take additional precautions? Sure – additional hand-washing, practicing social distancing when they take meetings, and so on, but that’s not exactly a big hardship. And it’s not like there aren’t a number of constituency weeks coming up for MPs to hunker down if they need to, and even though it may be a hung parliament, there are more than enough provisions for members from different parties to “pair” absences so that there are no accidental losses of confidence in the meantime (because as much as the Conservatives claim they want an early election, this is largely bravado as their party organization is in chaos and they are in no shape for it, not to mention that neither the Bloc nor the NDP want one either, and they have the votes that count).

The bigger danger, however is contagion – not of the virus, but of the notion that MPs can “work remotely,” which many have been pushing for in the ongoing effort to make Parliament more “family friendly.” But that way lies madness – MPs won’t bother to leave their constituencies, believing they can do more good there (even though constituency work is actually not part of their job description), and without those sideline conversations, it will polarize the environment even more than it already is. Recall how collegiality was shattered after evening sittings were ended and MPs no longer ate dinner together – this would make it that much worse, if they no longer have to look one another in the eye or cross paths. This nonsense needs to be quashed here and now. You can’t Skype Parliament.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The first salvo of a trade war

Posted on by

It looks like we’ll officially be in a trade war with the United States, thanks to the decision of the American government to slap steel and aluminium tariffs on us as a direct consequence of NAFTA not being renegotiated (under the guise of “national security” concerns), and the Canadian government has opted to retaliate. And we also learned that a NAFTA deal was on the table, but because we refused the five-year sunset clause (as well we should have because it would present too much uncertainty to industry), the Americans walked away from the deal. So that’s a pretty big deal.

The tariffs could have pretty big knock-on effects on our economy, and it won’t really help the American steel industry, which is already operating pretty much at capacity, so much of Trump’s justification evaporates. And Canada’s retaliatory measures, calculated to be dollar-for-dollar on the US-imposed tariffs may sound like an odd list that includes things like yogurt, candy, pizzas and pens, it’s all carefully calculated to target the industries of swing states and key American legislators as they start heading toward mid-term elections. The objective of course is to put pressure on them, who should in turn put pressure on Trump. In theory. We’ll see.

Meanwhile, Aaron Wherry looks at how Trump is ignoring the basics of statecraft and getting away with it with impunity. Paul Wells suspects it’s time to start snubbing Trump rather than appearing eager to get a deal accomplished, since that’s what he’s more focuse don in the first place. Stephen Saideman says that Canada needs to retaliate somehow, lest it feed Trump’s perception that “maximal pressure” works in negotiations.

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/1002189314107703297

Continue reading →

Roundup: The AG’s vacancy problem

Posted on by

The Auditor General was on Power Play yesterday to talk about his recent examination of the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, and how the lack of appointments to the board meant a lack of oversight for the CEO, who then abused his expenses. Michael Ferguson then went on to talk about the greater pattern of unfilled vacancies by this government (which will be the focus of one of his upcoming reports), and it’s a verifiable problem that this government has, in large part because as part of their reform of the system to ensure that more women and minorities were appointed, they changed to a system of seeking out nominees to having people apply for positions. For as much merit as ensuring more diversity among appointees has, the way they’ve handled it has been a gong show.

All of this is well and good to point out, but where I have a problem is where the AG suggests that if governments can’t fill these positions in a timely manner that we should consider a system where these boards have their own nomination committees to make their own appointments. This should raise a major alarm because it’s a sign of creeping technocracy and undermining accountability and responsible government. Government makes these appointments so that there is someone who can be held to account for them. Who is accountable if boards nominate their own members? How do we ensure that they don’t turn into cesspits of nepotism after we worked long and hard to ensure that we have taken patronage out of our current appointment systems?

Unfortunately, this is not a surprise with Ferguson, whose recommendations around an external audit committee for the Senate ignores the detrimental effect that this would have on Parliament’s ability to be self-governing. I do think it’s problematic that you have an officer of parliament who keeps advocating for greater technocracy and the undermining of our parliamentary democracy (and worse, that nobody in the media will dare to call him on it, because apparently we worship auditors general and believe that they can do no wrong). His observations about the problems around appointments are valid, don’t get me wrong. It’s his solutions that are untenable in the extreme.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A cynical membership ploy

Posted on by

Oh, Alberta politics. For the place where I first got cut my political chops, you continue to fill me with such…outrage, particularly with how you’ve so bastardized the way in which leadership contests are supposed to run. The former Progressive Conservative party was a good example of how our system could be so debased as to turn those leadership contests into quasi-primaries that they became a direct election of the premier through instant party memberships, and usually block votes to groups such as teachers, for whom leaders like Alison Redford became indebted to. This time, it’s the antics of the upstart Alberta Party that has me fuming.

For those of you who don’t know, the Alberta Party is a centrist party of mostly hipsters and academics that aims to try and find the sweet spot of the province’s political pulse, while also not being associated with the heretofore tainted Liberal brand. (Disclosure: I was friends with one of the leadership hopefuls in the previous contest, and am friends with a previous candidate for the party in the last election; both, incidentally, are academics). And with the demise of the amorphous PC brand and its quasi-centrism in favour of Jason Kenney’s United Conservative Party and its decidedly more right-leaning brand, there is optimism within the Alberta Party that hey, maybe they can attract some of the former PC types fleeting for greener pastures. And so with that in mind, the current leader (and up until a week ago, holder of their only seat in the legislature, until an NDP defector joined the ranks) decided he was going to resign.

But – and here’s the catch – he just might run for the position again. And admitted yesterday that his resignation is a ploy to drive party memberships. And this is the part that makes me crazy, because it reinforces this sick notion that has infected our body politic that the only real reason that the grassroots membership exists any longer is for the purpose of leadership contests. And while sure, that’s important, it continues do drive this growing push that makes these contests into quasi-presidential primaries that centralises power in the leader’s office because the selection (and subsequent ability to remove said leader) rests outside of the caucus – though I will grant you that for Greg Clark, that was a caucus of one until just now.

And I get that at this point, the Alberta Party is one that isn’t as centrally-driven as other parties, and where there is trust in candidates about policy matters that they’re not just parroting talking points (so says my friend who ran for them), and that’s great. But it’s also indicative of a party without seats (which they had none until the last election), and without a taste of power. But it nevertheless follows the pattern that memberships – which Clark is trying to drive – is all about the leadership, and not about the nominations, or the grassroots policy development, or being the interlocutor between civic life and the legislature. And if they do manage to attract a bunch of former PCers, that could be either great for them, or their own demise as that party’s former culture takes over the party (which isn’t necessarily a great thing). It’s a risky move that Clark made, and it may present a change for the political landscape…or it becomes one more cynical exercise in bastardizing the meaning of grassroots party memberships. I guess we’ll have to see.

Continue reading →