Tag Archives: Brian Pallister

Roundup: Awaiting the (garbage) Reform Act votes

Posted on by

Today is the Conservatives’ first caucus meeting of the new parliament – in person, no less – and everyone is anxiously awaiting news of whether they plan to vote on the (garbage) Reform Act provisions that would give caucus the ability to call for a leadership review. While I wrote about this for my column, coming out later today, I will make a few additional notes here.

As the column spells out, these provisions don’t actually provide an accountability mechanism, and they will wind up protecting O’Toole more than they will threaten him. So when I see MPs like Tom Kmiec saying that he wants MPs to accept the (garbage) Reform Act powers on a leadership review, citing that it provides a clear process, what he omits is that the 20 percent threshold insulates O’Toole, because those 24 MPs would need to openly sign their names to a letter to the caucus chair, meaning they will be easily identifiable for retribution if O’Toole survives the subsequent vote and/or leadership review, and that retribution can include not signing their nomination papers. That’s not an insignificant threat against them.

Meanwhile, Senator Michael MacDonald, a former Harper-era organizer, is urging a vote on a leadership review, citing O’Toole’s decision to say anything to whoever was in the room as being a threat to the party’s future chances.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s tacit endorsement of conspiracy theories

Posted on by

At another campaign event yesterday, Justin Trudeau faced another angry mob in the background, and this time they included signs that showed doctored photos of Trudeau at the gallows about to be hanged. Trudeau carried on throughout, but did call out Erin O’Toole to actually denounce this kind of thing, and O’Toole…didn’t really. Not in any meaningful way.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1432050587860881409

It was pointed out that this particular image of Trudeau at the gallows was also part of one of Conservative incumbent Cheryl Gallant’s videos, wherein she peddled the conspiracy theory that Trudeau was going to call a “climate lockdown” to exert control and that climate change is just some fiction cooked up for these kinds of nefarious plots. And wouldn’t you know it – O’Toole refused to condemn Gallant or her continued attempts to push conspiracy theories. The party ensured Gallant scrubbed her YouTube channel, but their excuse when asked was that the image in question was “out of context,” which is bullshit that nobody should believe.

This isn’t the first time Gallant has been in the media for such things, and O’Toole has been aware of them in the past, and refused to do anything about it – in essence, endorsing the behaviour. And hell, Gallant is one of the reasons why Stephen Harper became so hard line about message discipline – because Gallant’s batshit media utterances about protecting sexual orientation from hate crimes helped to sink the Harper campaign in 2004. That O’Toole has been letting her run free with her accusations that the Liberals want to normalise sex with children, or this “climate lockdown” is a plot – and he knows she’s doing it, because it’s been brought to his attention before and he refused to say anything about it then either – it’s a tacit endorsement. Just saying “I’m the leader and what I say goes” both delegitimises the whole point of having MPs in the first place, and presents the party as monolithic, which it’s not. But to not say anything about Gallant or her conspiracies at all, and to consciously avoid saying anything about it at all is a choice, and it’s a choice that should be pointed out loud and clear as to what kinds of behaviours that O’Toole is willing to tolerate in order to achieve power.

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: Questioning the housing numbers

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report yesterday on the federal government’s programme spending on housing affordability, and I have questions, both on the report, and on the responses to it. On the report itself, I’m having a hard time seeing how this is necessarily within his remit, and not that of the Auditor General. This is not exactly fiscal or macro-economic analysis – it’s evaluating programme spending, which is the Auditor General’s job. (Once again, the PBO is not a “budget watchdog” or a “watchdog” of any kind, per his enabling legislation). This doesn’t appear to have been at the request of any MPs in particular, though this updates his 2019 report which was requested by an unnamed MP at the time, but again, not really his wheelhouse. “Providing economic and financial analysis for the purposes of raising the quality of parliamentary debate and promoting greater budget transparency and accountability” is being taken a little too broadly.

The findings of the report are that the funds allocated to housing are being underspent, but doesn’t really delve into why, other than noting that some of the spending was related to having to renew bilateral agreements with provinces that were allowed to lapse in 2015, and that CMHC’s programmes have both faced “implementation delays” and that their shift toward funding capital contributions instead of affordability supports spread that funding out over the life of projects. Those “implementation delays” probably deserve a lot more exploration – the fact that municipalities in particular aren’t spending the dollars available fast enough because the projects are bottlenecked in their own jurisdictions (and Vancouver is most especially guilty of this) – and that’s a lot of what this report seems to be light on details about. Housing is largely a provincial responsibility, and aside from providing money, the federal government has very few levers at its disposal, and when municipalities can’t get their acts together, that’s not really a problem the federal government can solve.

As for opposition reaction, it was predictable in that it read the PBO’s topline and not much else. The Conservatives complained that the housing plans haven’t met their targets and that they need a plan that “gets homes built,” which again, is pretty hard to do with the very few levers available at the federal level. The NDP, meanwhile, accuse the government of dubious accounting and broken promises, as per usual, again based largely on topline figures and not the fact that many of the problems exist at the provincial and municipal levels. Federal dollars only go so far and can only wield so much influence, and these are details that matter when it comes to implementing promises.

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 →

Roundup: Reprieve for Annamie Paul?

Posted on by

After weeks of intense drama (sooo much drama), it looks like the Green Party’s federal council is finally going to back off on holding a vote to challenge Annamie Paul’s leadership, and possibly the review of her party membership as well. Nobody is saying what exactly went on, other than Paul will be holding a press conference in Toronto Centre at some point today, so we’ll see what she has to say for herself.

Meanwhile, one of Paul’s former leadership rivals has helped establish the Green Left, which promises to be a political organization but not a party, and it seems to be largely geared toward Green Party members in order to help them organize and push the party further toward eco-socialism. Whether there is any correlation between the two, or whether it’s simply coincidence, remains to be seen, but perhaps this sorry chapter in the Greens’ history may be drawing to a close – or at least transitioning to a new phase.

As for why this happened in the first place, I think part of the fault rests with how the Greens are structured, which is a hugely decentralized party that gives its leader very little power – which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but this certainly highlights some of the drawbacks of structure (and which other parties will use as a cautionary tale when it comes to demands that their own leaders relinquish their iron grip on power). But with the Greens, this particular problem is not just with the leader, but with much of their policy development process, which they have opened wide in the name of earning more democracy points, but leads to things like “men’s rights activists” writing swaths of their platform because it’s that open, and without much in the way of adult supervision. This is further compounded by having a leader who doesn’t have a seat, who isn’t planning on running in a winnable seat, and who doesn’t actually understand enough about what her own MPs are doing and how to communicate with them (thus driving one of them to cross the floor). There needs to be a better balance of grassroots empowerment and having a leader who has enough power to do things but is still beholden to the elected members (of which Paul is not one). You can’t just handwave and shout “democracy!” and not have any reasonable give-and-take in the process. Right now the balance is as absent in the Green Party as it is with the other mainstream parties – it’s just tipped in the opposite direction.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The “failure of negotiations” is nonsense

Posted on by

It appears that the lack of seriousness around getting Bill C-6, which would ostensibly ban conversion therapy in Canada, through the Senate has reached its peak, as the Government Leader in the Senate, Senator Marc Gold, claims that negotiations have collapsed and he can’t bring the Senate back to deal with it. Which is nonsense. He has the power to petition the Speaker to recall the Chamber, and that request would almost certainly be granted. They can sit as long as necessary to pass the bill, and if they can’t get unanimous consent for hybrid sittings, well, by now most if not all Senators should be double-vaxxed and can attend in person. There are no actual impediments to them actually doing this.

Part of the problem is Gold himself – he doesn’t seem to grasp how the Senate works procedurally, and that he has a lot more power than he claims to. He also, for no good reason, proposed a date for the Senate to rise at the end of June when he could have kept it sitting into July with no actual problem. He also seems to be enamoured with the idea of agreeing on a timeline to pass the bill, which he doesn’t need, but ever since the Senate agreed to timelines around some major pieces of legislation in the previous parliament, there is a romance with doing this all the time in the Senate, which is unnecessary and in some cases counter-productive.

The other part of the problem is Justin Trudeau. And while it has been suggested that he has ordered Gold to let the bill die so that he can use it as a wedge in the election – frankly, the dynamics in the Senate don’t really support this line of reasoning – it’s more that Trudeau has a case of not-so-benign neglect when it comes to the Senate. By cutting it loose, so to speak, he gives it no mind rather than making it part of his strategy. There’s no reason why Gold is not a Cabinet minister who can answer for the government in the Chamber, rather than his current half-pregnant quasi-governmental role while still claiming independence, which doesn’t work in theory or practice. He clearly needs the support of PCO because he’s not able to do a reasonable enough job as it stands with what support he does get, and there frankly needs to be an actual government (meaning Cabinet) voice in the Chamber. But in insisting on “Senate independence,” Trudeau simply expects things to go through the Chamber and he can forget about it, which is a mistake.

Gold needs to fix this situation, and fast. If that means recalling the Senate in person, so be it. But claiming negotiations “collapsed” and he can’t do it is both untrue and against procedure. This is on him.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Lying with statistics, quarterly GDP edition

Posted on by

Statistics Canada released their fourth quarter GDP data yesterday, and it was surprisingly not bad – it far exceeded expectations for growth, with an annualized increase of 9.6 percent, and the estimates of January’s GDP numbers are that they will grow, in spite of renewed lockdowns/mockdowns across much of the country, which is good economic news. Comparatively, OECD data shows that Canada ranked second out of G7 countries in terms of GDP growth over the quarter – only Japan beat us. This should give rise to some cautious optimism about the direction of our economic recovery.

https://twitter.com/PhilSmith26/status/1366746936825548801

Erin O’Toole, however, declared that these figures just will not do, and that the country needs “economic leadership.” As proof, he cited that the country’s annual GDP fell a record 5.4 percent – the most since comparable data began being kept in 1961 – never mind that the economic shock was brought on by the global pandemic, plus the false notion that we have the “highest unemployment in the G7,” as well as high pandemic spending levels. The Conservatives keep trotting out these unemployment figures, but every country measures unemployment differently, so they are effectively lying with statistics. Even if we measured our unemployment by the same way the Americans do, the gap is consistent with the gap in figures that always exists between our countries. Meanwhile, we still have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and our pandemic spending has insulated the economy so that it will be more resilient once we’re able to open – and hey, we also managed to have a much lower death count than most other G7 countries because we paid people to stay home. But part of the problem is that O’Toole (and most especially Pierre Poilievre) never gets called out for essentially lying with statistics, because the CBC has essentially given up on economics reporting, and the Financial Post largely sticks to getting their commentary from Jack Mintz and the Fraser Institute (with one or two exceptions). So O’Toole can stand at the lectern in the current ad hoc press theatre in the West Block and lie with statistics unchallenged, and media won’t call out the misinformation because they will either both-sides it, or just report it verbatim because they don’t know enough about the numbers to challenge it. It’s a sad state of affairs.

Meanwhile, in more news that O’Toole is unwilling to have an honest discourse, his staff penned an op-ed in his name in the National Post calling on the government to turn to India instead of China for future economic growth – but the piece was deafeningly silent on Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalism, which has turned into pogroms against Muslims and mistreatment of Sikhs in the country. It’s a lie of omission to simply call India the world’s largest democracy and ignore the flagrant human rights violations going on there as well – but this is pretty much what we’ve come to expect from O’Toole and company, because We The Media have enabled them the whole way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The weekend year-enders

Posted on by

The main networks had their year-enders with prime minister Justin Trudeau air over the weekend, and I’m not sure that we’ve learned too much more that’s new, but nevertheless, here we are. To CBC, Trudeau said that they need to be ready for an election regardless, given that it’s a hung parliament, even if he doesn’t want one, but wouldn’t rule out calling one himself (which is fair, given that there may be a situation where he may not have a choice to clear a logjam in Parliament. Things happen). He also says that it’s possible that he did contract COVID when his wife had it, but he was asymptomatic the whole time and was in self-isolation throughout.

To CTV, Trudeau defended his vaccine strategy given the scramble for PPE early on, slammed the NHL trying to jump the queue for vaccines, gave some more explanation as to the rationale behind the planned stimulus spending once the pandemic ends (and again promised to balance the budget after temporary benefits programmes are wound down), deflected on his ethical blind spots, and stated that he wasn’t ready to decriminalise all drugs yet, despite some sectors calling for it as a way to deal with the opioid epidemic.

Meanwhile, the PM’s private photographer, Adam Scotti, offered his year-in-review, and there are some amazing photographs in there. Take some time to wander through them and it will take a while, because there is a lot to go through from the year that was. I think what I was most taken with were the photos of the full House of Commons from early in the year, and how strange that looks now given the current circumstances. Highly recommended overall.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another brave demand for money without strings

Posted on by

Four nominally conservative premiers convened in Ottawa yesterday to once again bravely demand that the federal government give them more money for healthcare and infrastructure, and to not attach any strings to it. In total, they demanded at least $28 billion more per year for healthcare, $10 billion for infrastructure, and retroactive reforms to fiscal stabilization that would give Alberta another $6 billion. Of course, two of those premiers – Jason Kenney and Brian Pallister – were in the Harper government when health transfers were unilaterally cut, to which we must also offer the reminder that the numbers at the time show that provincial health spending was not rising nearly as fast as the health transfer escalator, which means that the money was going to other things, no matter how much the provinces denied it. As well, most provinces have not actually been spending the current infrastructure dollars that are on the table for one reason or another (some of which have been petty and spiteful), so why demand more when they already aren’t spending what’s there.

As for Alberta’s demand for retroactive fiscal stabilization, one should also add the caveat that the current formula asserts a certain amount of moral risk for provinces who rely too heavily on resource revenues for their provincial coffers – that they should be looking at other forms of revenue (like sales taxes) so that they aren’t so exposed to the vagaries of things like world oil prices. Retroactively changing the formula means that the federal government becomes their insurance for the risks they undertook on their own balance sheets, which hardly seems fair to the other provinces in confederation, who have to pay higher provincial taxes.

And then Kenney dropped this little claim:

This is patently untrue. The province still has tremendous fiscal capacity because they still have the highest per capita incomes in the country and the lowest taxation. Sure, that fiscal capacity has diminished, but not that much. The province’s deficit is a policy choice because they refuse to implement a modest sales tax that could actually pay for the services that Kenney is now in the process of slashing, having ordered up a report to tell him that they have a spending problem instead of a revenue problem. Err, and then he spent billions on a money-losing refinery and another pipeline that will actually make said refinery an even bigger money-loser. So no, the quality of healthcare in his province isn’t being jeopardized by the state of his economy – it’s because he won’t stabilize his revenues (and because he’s launching an ill-conceived war against the doctors in his province in the middle of a global pandemic, because he’s strategic like that).

Continue reading →