Tag Archives: Budget 2021

Roundup: Some pushback on the hybrid sittings

Posted on by

I felt a tiny glimmer of hope over the weekend as I read this piece that talked to three MPs from each of the main parties about their experience with hybrid sittings, and lo, MPs are unimpressed. Praise be! Mind you, it’s a small sample, and it’s all Manitoba MPs (given that it was a piece in the Winnipeg Free Press), but props for having this conversation with them, and props for not letting it simply go by unquestioned, as is often the case.

This being said, I don’t think we’re out of the woods yet in terms of what the lasting implications of these hybrid changes will be, particularly when there are west coast MPs who are loudly praising the hybrid format, and when groups like Samara Canada are already lining up the excuses to allow it to keep happening, which is exactly the kind of slippery slope that I have been warning about since before this began. Don’t forget that the Liberals were pushing for these kinds of changes for nearly five years before the pandemic hit, and this was the perfect excuse for them to finally implement them, even if it was under the rubric of it being for the duration of the emergency. But as you’ve heard me warn before, they will soon find a list of excuses – just as Samara provided for them – to keep them going in some capacity, which will have a long-term erosion on our system and the norms therein. I am especially worried that there will be pressure to keep the voting app system going, even though, as the interviews in the article pointed out, this system greatly benefits the government because it doesn’t allow opposition MPs to use the votes to register displeasure (such as slow-voting). So while it’s great that some MPs want a return to proper sittings (one of them being an advocate for a parliamentary bubble, to little avail), there is still going to be a fight to ensure these changes stay are relegated to the dust heap once the pandemic is over.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A worrying bureaucratic bottleneck

Posted on by

A lot has been written about this budget, and much of it falls under the usual narratives of Canadian media, such as wedging it into the box of election speculation (despite the fact that no party is suicidal enough to want an election in the middle of the third wave), of that it’s apparently still 1995 and will always be 1995, and that we are forever on the precipice of a debt crisis (we’re really not). And while there is certainly a bit of the latter in this piece, it nevertheless lays out some perfectly legitimate concerns that bureaucratic bottlenecks will imperil many of the plans laid out in this year’s budget, because there really is only so much capacity in the federal governmental machinery. As well, it noted that without clear priorities among the hundreds of items, it risks the very salient point that when everything is a priority, then nothing is.

Astute readers may recall that a couple of weeks ago, Paul Wells noted the very same thing coming out of the Liberals’ big virtual policy convention, where it was one big exercise in everyone agreeing to everything and nobody articulating any kinds of priorities for the items under discussion (and agreed to). This should raise alarm bells, because it signals that a government won’t be able to control its own agenda. To wit:

I never cease to be amazed by the weightlessness of Trudeau Liberalism. After a year that has often seemed to come quite literally from Hell, when every parent, worker, small business, youth and elderly Canadian had to make grinding choices several times a week, I’m not sure it’s entirely encouraging to behold a government for which every need is imperative, no cost exists, and no choice among priorities is ever necessary. There is, somewhere in it, the jarring sound of unchecked privilege.

I think he’s got a very good point, and it demonstrates that five years later, there are still moments where this government betrays a lack of seriousness to what it’s trying to do. There are files, particularly in justice, where they have managed to drag their feet for so long that courts have to push them. It’s worrying, especially because there are very important measures in that budget that will have a big impact on future economic growth and prosperity, but if they can’t ensure these particular measures get prioritized and through the bureaucratic process, then it will have a very big impact on this and the next generation of Canadians who have been stymied economically.

Continue reading →

Roundup: New targets, same criticism

Posted on by

It was Earth Day yesterday, and US President Joe Biden held a climate summit, which Justin Trudeau used as a platform to announce that Canada would be setting a more ambitious climate target of 40 to 45 percent reduction of emissions from 2005 levels, and naturally, that was panned from all sides. For the NDP, the Bloc and the Greens, it’s not enough, and for the Conservatives, it’s too much, and “empty words” that lack a plan (despite all evidence to the contrary). One of the spanners in the works here is the Americans announcing their own new targets, which sound more ambitious than ours – but are they really?

Enter economist Andrew Leach, who is offering a warning that we can’t commit to matching American emissions targets because our emissions mix is very different, so we’d be essentially making a different commitment than they are, which could hurt us. The Americans can get much further on reductions that we can with less stringent policies because of their emissions mix. Unfortunately, too many of our parties and party leaders seem to think that Canada is just a smaller version of America, and that we can simply copy their policies and divide by ten – but it doesn’t work like that, and we should call out this kind of thinking.

Continue reading →

QP: Renewed demands for border closures

Posted on by

While we had been promised an appearance by Chrystia Freeland today, only Mark Gerretsen was sitting in the Liberal benches, meaning Freeland would only appearing by video. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and he complained that new variants were coming into the country and demanded the border be closed to “hot spot countries.” Patty Hajdu reminded him that Canada already has some of the strongest border measures in place (in theory, anyway), and listed them off. O’Toole went two more rounds of the the same demand, and got much the same response from Hajdu. O’Toole then switched to French to praise America’s ability to produce vaccines domestically, and demanded an admission that the third wave was on the prime minister’s failure to secure it. François-Philippe Champagne reminded him of the billions in investments in bio manufacturing, which was showing results. O’Toole then demanded that the border be closed to Brazil and India — naming them when he wouldn’t in English — and Hajdu demanded he pick a lane, demanding open borders one week and closed borders the next.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, demanding an immediate closure of the border from India, and Hajdu reiterated the measures being taken. Therrien tried again, and got the same answer.

Jagmeet Singh for the NDP, appearing by video, and he panned the government’s climate plan, for which Chris Bittle read a quote from Thomas Mulcair that praises the plan. Singh repeated the question in French, and Bittle listed the investments being made and the fact that emissions have stabilised instead of rising,

Continue reading →

Roundup: Emergency finger-pointing

Posted on by

Sometimes I question the naïveté of certain politicians in this country, but the belief in the utility of emergency debates is one of those things that apparently never gets old. Last week, the Commons held an emergency debate on the state of Laurentian University, which was a bit odd because that really falls under provincial jurisdiction, but sure, at least give speeches about it for all of the good it would do. The fact that Charlie Angus got up in Question Period the following day and sounded shocked that nothing came of it was perhaps a bit tough to swallow. (For the record, the minister of official languages – relevant since Laurentian served a large population of Franco-Ontarians and had French-language education that is now on the chopping block – said she is waiting for the province to come up with a plan before she can do anything, because jurisdiction).

Last night was no exception to this belief in the goodness of parliamentary debate, as Elizabeth May was granted a request for an emergency debate on new COVID variants. Surprising nobody, except possibly her, it quickly devolved into a bunch of finger-pointing and reinforcing of existing narratives, most of them false. The NDP, for example, went hard after their new demand that the Emergencies Act be invoked for Ontario, and the Conservatives continued their bogus insistence that Canada could somehow have been fully vaccinated before the end of February, which ignores pretty much every single variable, from vaccine supplies, production levels, and the fact that this virus grows exponentially, while you vaccinate linearly. And this was, of course, followed by Liberal “sadness” at misinformation being peddled by opposition parties.

The lead for the CP story on the debate was telling. “An emergency parliamentary debate that was supposed to be a forum for cross-party collaboration on better ways to combat the COVID-19 pandemic…” is a fairy tale opening. There is no way this was going to be a pleasant collaborative session full of genteel and helpful exchanges. Parties have committed to narratives that seek to pin the blame on Justin Trudeau rather than provincial premiers, and committing fully to Green Lantern Theory, as though it can overcome jurisdictional boundaries and the constitution itself. More to the point, there is nothing more useless in Parliament than an emergency debate. It is merely an excuse for MPs to read speeches into the record for several hours to show they are concerned about something, but it means nothing in the bigger picture, other than another clip for an MP’s social media channels.

Continue reading →

QP: Questions from a fantasyland awash in vaccines

Posted on by

For the first post-budget Porto-PMQs, Justin Trudeau was present and ready to go, with only Mark Gerretsen in the Chamber with him on the Liberal benches – of course. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and complained that the vaccine rollout was only running at 58 percent capacity due to supply issues, and Trudeau listed the coming millions of doses being delivered by May. O’Toole groused about the “race” against variants, and demanded border closures from hot spot countries, not naming any countries in particular, for which Trudeau stated that we already have some of the strongest border measures in the world, but they would look at other ways to keep Canadian safe based on science and data, but importation was a fraction of cases. O’Toole then accused the government of “stealing vaccines” from the developing world, and Trudeau pointed out that this was disinformation and that O’Toole did not ask about the budget, which must mean he supports it. O’Toole switched to French, and he demanded increased health transfers to the provinces, and Trudeau pointed out that there must be a reason why the Conservative leader only asks about the budget in French, before reciting how much they have sent to provinces. For his final question, O’Toole claimed that the US changed their travel advisory on Canada, and Trudeau pointed out that in all five questions, he peddled falsehoods to score political points.

Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc, and he decried that the were no increased health transfers in the budget, and Trudeau reminded him that they had a meeting with premiers in November that they said that they would increase transfers once they were out of the pandemic, and pointed to the supports they are already delivering. Blanchet stated that they were going against the wishes of the Quebec government and then mentioned their demand for enriched pensions for all seniors, for which Trudeau reminded that they have been delivering for seniors.

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, and unusually started off in English to demand the government invoke the Emergencies Act, and Trudeau reminded him that they have been delivering for provinces. Singh read another sob story from someone who lost a family member for COVID, and demanded improved access to paid sick leave — which is provincial jurisdiction in 94 percent of workplaces. Trudeau noted their federal benefit, and said they would continue to have people’s backs.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Flexibility and red lines on child care negotiations

Posted on by

A day out from the federal budget, we are getting some reaction to the centrepiece proposal of a massive expansion to early learning and child care, particularly from provinces with whom this all needs to be negotiated. It sounds like several of them are welcoming the new funding, and Chrystia Freeland has signalled some willingness for flexibility, but is drawing a red line around keeping fees low, because the whole point of this is to reduce barriers to women getting in the workforce, and high fees are very much a barrier, even when there are available spaces (which is often not the case). And yes, there are already recalcitrant provinces, looking particularly to Alberta and Ontario, and some of their objections are grounded in the fantasyland that there is no such thing as constrained choice. Of course.

For some more context, here is a good interview with Don Giesbrecht, CEO of the Canadian Child Care Federation, which gives a good lay of the land of the current system of bilateral agreements that the federal government has in place with provinces around childcare funding, and yes, there are strings attached to that funding. This new funding will build on those agreements, which is why it’s not entirely out of the blue and building something from the ground-up, but simply taking things up an order of magnitude from where they exist currently.

Meanwhile, my social media has been flooded with salty New Democrats who think that they’ve somehow caught me out in previously pointing out that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction whenever Jagmeet Singh would performatively demand “concrete action” on childcare or the like. For starters, at no time did I declare this Liberal plan a done deal – it has always been presented as being contingent upon negotiation with the provinces, but this time they’ve put money on the table that the provinces will find hard to refuse, especially because we have all seen the effect that this pandemic has had on women in the workforce. That’s a fairly unique set of circumstance that creates a hell of a lot more political pressure than could be applied previously. More to the point, Singh’s rhetoric, and those of his MPs, is largely grounded in Green Lantern Theory, that it’s simply a matter of willpower to overcome jurisdictional interviews, while they will only admit the need for negotiation in written releases or backgrounders and never out loud. This especially goes with making promises that they will “get it done,” as though they can put on their Green Lantern rings and just willpower it to happen, or drafting a federal bill and expecting the provinces to clamour to the sound of free money rather than doing the hard work of negotiation. Real life doesn’t work like that, which is what I have consistently pointed out. If New Democrats can’t understand that criticism, then I can’t help them.

Continue reading →

QP: Gathering clips of vaccine drama

Posted on by

In the day following the budget, both Justin Trudeau and his deputy, Chrystia Freeland were both present for a rare change of pace in these pandemic times, and it was nice to see both. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he immediately blamed the government for the third wave by not having enough vaccines — because they can be procured from thin air. Trudeau reminded him that they have been securing vaccines for Canadians. O’Toole complained about delays for AstraZeneca doses and about the Johnson & Johnson plant being shut down, and demanded the government to go back in time to do something about it, and Trudeau calmly reminded him that they have exceeded their vaccine targets. O’Toole got anger in the demand for more vaccines, and Trudeau reminded him that vaccinations need to be accompanied by strong public health measures, and then noted that the budget must have been so good because O’Toole had no questions on it. O’Toole switched to French to lament that higher, unconditional transfers to provinces aren’t in the budget, for which Trudeau chided him that in English, O’Toole says that the government is spending too much, and in French, says they’re not spending enough. O’Toole accused the government of not helping Canadians with the budget, and Trudeau hit back, citing the programmes that are helping Canadians instead of just choosing to reduce the deficit.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he denounced the “age-based discrimination” in the budget because the additional assistance to seniors over the age of 75 was not extended to all seniors. Trudeau reminded him that older seniors have higher costs and many worry about exhausting their savings, so older seniors were getting additional help. Blanchet claimed that explanation didn’t make sense, and Trudeau listed the assistance they have given to all seniors.

Jagmeet Singh was up for the NDP, and in French, he groused that the budget didn’t choose to tax the ultra-rich and cut assistance to people, and Trudeau stated that was false, and that their first act as a government was to raise taxes on the one percent, which the NDP opposed, and listed tax measures in the budget. Singh switched to English to decry the situation in Ontario, and demanded the government use the Emergencies Act to implement paid sick leave in the provinces. Trudeau reminded him that they have been working with provinces throughout the pandemic.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland’s first big budget

Posted on by

The budget was released yesterday, and lo, the commitment to child care was huge – $30 billion over five years in order to build a national system of $10/day early learning and child care, which is huge money – money that will make it very, very hard for provinces to refuse. It’s not going to be immediate, but a process to build to that system, which they have already put work into over the past five years, but it’s a much more robust commitment than we have seen in the past. It means more negotiations with provinces, however, as well as an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec so that they can still get funding to augment their existing subsidised child care system.

While there is a good overview here, other items in the budget include:

  • Some $17.6 billion in new spending for GHG reductions.
  • New taxes on foreign investors in housing, with more commitments to the national housing strategy.
  • $18 billion over five years has been earmarked for Indigenous communities to close the socio-economic gaps.
  • There is a commitment for $400 million to combat sexual misconduct in the military, plus funds to revitalise NORAD and to cover our NATO operations
  • They plan to make it easier and cheaper to obtain a criminal pardon.
  • There will be new taxes on big global tech companies.
  • Here are twenty new or expanded benefits and taxes.
  • There is the usual pearl-clutching that the budget predicts some $686 billion in accumulated deficits over the next five years.
  • Here are ten smaller items in the budget that are of interest.

Something that did come up over the talking heads discussing the budget was pharmacare, and how there wasn’t a big song and dance about it, as that was largely reserved for childcare. I did read the section on pharacare in the document, and it notes continued investment in things like the catastrophic drug plan to help those who need it most, but we have to remember that they have been trying to negotiate this with the provinces, and the provinces have said no. There’s only so much the federal government can push them on this, so it may require waiting until a few provincial governments change hands before more progress can be made. That’s the thing about these kinds of programmes in provincial jurisdiction – you need to have willing partners at the table, or it can’t go anywhere.

Meanwhile, Heather Scoffield grouses that there is too much conventional thinking in the budget to deal with the problems exacerbated by the pandemic. Susan Delacourt looks to all of the promises that rely on federal-provincial negotiations to make them happen. Paul Wells offers a fairly sober assessment of what’s in the budget, and whether the enthusiasm for this child care spending will last the next couple of years.

Continue reading →

QP: Pushing hard to give Doug Ford some political cover

Posted on by

In the shadow of the looming budget, I fully expected a day full of questions related to attempts to get the government to admit what was coming in a couple of hours’ time. Candice Bergen led off by video, accusing the federal government of prolonging the third wave by not having enough vaccines — as though premiers delaying proper public health measures were blameless. Anita Anand calmly gave a recounting of increasing vaccine shipments, which are more than originally planned. Bergen then lied and claimed the third wave was a result of the prime minister’s inaction, and Patty Hajdu reminded her that eight out of every ten dollars spent on fighting the pandemic came from the federal government, and listed the measures taken. Michael Chong took over and railed about Ontario’s situation and blamed vaccine shortages, and Patty Hajdu repeated her assurances, but on two hyperbolic follow-ups, Hajdu reminded him that vaccines alone were never enough to stop the third wave without strong public health measures.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc and and railed that federal parties used the wage subsidy, for which Sean Fraser reminded him that they took decisive action to help Canadians. Therrien stated that CRA is reporting fraudulent take-up of the wage subsidy, and Diane Lebouthillier reminded him that he voted against compliance audits, and that he should pick a lane.

Don Davies led for the NDP, and demanded that the federal government use the Emergencies Act to increase hospital capacity and implement paid sick leave in Ontario — which is both novel and would poison federalism. Patty Hajdu calmly responded that they have been working with the government of Ontario to provide whatever help they can. Lindsay Mathyssen repeated the demand, and got much the same response.

Continue reading →