Tag Archives: Childcare

QP: A hand extended to work together?

Posted on by

While the prime minister was busy doing virtual business tours, his deputy was present. Erin O’Toole led off, with his scripts and mini-lectern, accusing the government of allowing Canadians to be at the “back of the line” for rapid testing. Chrystia Freeland listed the rapid tests that have been approved to date with an assurance that they were available to Canadians. O’Toole then engaged in some revisionist history around the early days of the pandemic, to which Freeland listed a timeline of events. O’Toole raised the false story about Baylis Medical before demanding the government support their Supply Day motion on the health committee, to which Freeland stated with in no uncertain terms that insinuating the government was not looking out for Canadians would not be tolerated. O’Toole tried again, and Freeland again took umbrage with the insinuations. O’Toole switched to French to return to the Baylis Medical false story, to which Freeland clearly annunciated that there was no contract with Baylis. Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he concern trolled about the use of the n-word by a university professor — in support of the professor. Freeland picked up a script to denounce anti-Black racism. Kristina Michaud got up to demand the government defend academic freedom, and Freeland insisted that they do support academic freedom but they need to be aware of systemic racism and take action to fight it. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and in French, raised a particular First Nation that hasn’t had drinking water for 25 years, to which a Freeland reminded him that drinking water on First Nations was a priority, and that they still have work to do, and they are working on it. Singh repeated the question in English, to which Freeland reiterated some of the same points, but stated that they were recommitting to the promise that all communities will have water to drink.

Continue reading →

QP: Bravado before the confidence vote

Posted on by

In advance of the confidence vote, the probability of bluster and tough talk was about 100 percent. Erin O’Toole led off, with his script on his mini-lectern, and accused the prime minister of wanting Huawei to be part of the 5G network. Justin Trudeau picked up a script to read that they work with allies to ensure security. O’Toole switched to French to repeat the question, and got much the same response, though Trudeau was extemporaneous this time. O’Toole then performed some shock that former MP Frank Baylis’ company got a ventilator contract — which is not exactly true, as Baylis Medical had a cleanroom that they actual manufacturer needed. Trudeau skirted the question and assured Canadians that the country was currently only at ten percent of capacity around the country and that the actual company contract was above board. They went for another round on the very same before O’Toole repeated the accusation in English, and Trudeau repeated the lines about ventilator capacity and the contract. For the Bloc, Yves-François Blanchet listed a number of past ethical issues and wanted a comment on the current outrage at the University of Ottawa over use of racist terms. Blanchet pivoted to the WE Imbroglio, and pivoted again to racism, and Trudeau instead needled the Bloc about their fear of a federal government that is delivering for Quebeckers. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and in French, worried about students not getting help they need, and Trudeau read a script that listed the various actions they’ve taken to help students. Singh repeated the question in English, and Trudeau recited the English version of his script.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The importance of automatic filing

Posted on by

The Throne Speech commitment about automatic tax filings continues to make waves, particularly because it’s such an important component about ensuring that government benefits go to those who need them, and how it’s not happening currently. With that in mind, here’s Dr. Jennifer Robson with some additional context as to why this is a problem and why it’s a good thing the government is finally proposing to act on it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Recovery benefit tabled

Posted on by

The House of Commons resumed its first full day of “normal” operations yesterday, if you consider the abomination of hybrid sittings to be normal. While the topic of the day was the Bloc’s sub-amendment to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne (because you don’t actually amend the Speech itself), we also saw the government’s first piece of legislation tabled, which lays out some of the post-CERB recovery benefits, particularly the creation of the new benefit for those who don’t qualify for EI.

The headline figure there is that the Liberals have decided to keep the benefit levels around $500 per week or $2000 per month, as it was under CERB, rather than the plan that they initially floated which was to cap it at $400/week, likely in response to demands that they don’t allow it to become a disincentive to finding work (which is really indicative of a problem in this country where wages are too low to attract workers). It also provides the 10-day sick leave benefit and amends the Canada Labour Code so that it’s accessible to federally-regulated employers, though provinces will still need to amend their own labour laws to accommodate it.

All of this means is that the demands that Jagmeet Singh was making for him to “consider” supporting the Throne Speech are essentially met, and he can start declaring victory and patting himself on the back for the onerous task of pushing on an open door. I mean, I rather suspect that the Liberals kept the levels at $500/week of their own accord once it became clear that we are now in the second wave and that further lockdowns, either province-wide or more targeted, are far more likely than they were before. But this particular detail won’t matter to Singh and his followers. Instead, they will insist that it was their pressure that made the Liberals cave, and the can consider themselves heroes – but Trudeau’s government will survive another day.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Blaming the wrong government

Posted on by

It appears that Conservative leader Erin O’Toole has decided to use his need for a COVID-test after one of his staffers tested positive in order to be performative about the whole affair. Despite there being a dedicated testing services available to MPs and their families (because yes, Parliament is an essential service), O’Toole and family apparently opted to attempt the public route, which in Ottawa has been backed up for days because of a lack of testing capacity. O’Toole then put out a press release to blame the federal government – not for inadequate capacity, which is the domain of the provinces, and O’Toole couldn’t possibly be seen to criticize Doug Ford and his lack of appreciable action on the pandemic – but because rapid testing hasn’t been approved by the regulators at Health Canada. Hours later, Michelle Rempel, the new Conservative health critic, doubled down and demanded that Cabinet force Health Canada to work faster (and misusing an analogy about the bourgeoisie and “let them eat cake” in the process).

There are a couple of problems with O’Toole’s demands, and one is that Cabinet should be interfering in the work of a regulator, which sets up all kinds of bad precedents – you know, like the one the Conservatives set when they fired the nuclear safety regulator because she refused to restart a nuclear reactor during a crisis of isotope production. The other is that Health Canada has good reason not to approve these tests as they are, because they produce false negatives more often than the regular tests, and that creates a false sense of security among people who may be spreading the virus. “Oh, but the FDA approved it!” people say, ignoring that it’s an emergency approval that relies on self-reported results and not independently verified ones, which again, should be concerning – not to mention that infections in the US are still spreading rapidly. The fact that Health Canada is doing the job that the FDA didn’t shouldn’t mean that we’re “falling behind” – we’re doing the due diligence that they’re not.

As well, I’m not exactly mollified by the notion that O’Toole attempting the public route when he had an option available already because it’s the kind of performative “We’re like real people” nonsense – especially if it took a spot away from another local family who doesn’t have access to the private test that O’Toole did. It’s not heroic or setting a good example – it’s political theatre that could hurt other people in the process.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Energy East distraction

Posted on by

After wide reporting that Jason Kenney’s poll numbers have been tanking and that he’s currently tied with the provincial NDP, it was predetermined that Kenney was going to have to start coming up with something new to blame the federal government about in order to whip his voter base into a new round of irrational anger. He also, apparently needed to provide some cover to his friend Erin O’Toole after O’Toole’s meeting with the Quebec premier, and so Kenney’s distraction of choice was going to be Energy East, and blaming the federal government for its demise. Of course, that’s not true at all, and energy economist Andrew Leach has the receipts.

Continue reading →

QP: Trying to single out ministers to divide the Cabinet

Posted on by

The prime minister was finally present for the second day of the mid-July sitting, after his inexplicable absence the day before. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, where he insisted that Canadians had enough of his scandals, and demanded he appear before committee. Trudeau stated that he was considering the invitation, that he was happy to be here today and tomorrow, and that he should have recused himself when the suggestion was made by the public service. Scheer spun a tale of WE’s alleged schemes, and again demanded that Trudeau appear at committee. Trudeau responded by listing the aid they have given students. Scheer then ranted about his disgust with the Liberals and didn’t have a question, to which Trudeau chided him about the things that he should be asking about, like the aid package under debate. Scheer got increasingly breathy as he again spun out a conspiracy theory around WE, wondering on what basis the civil service could have recommended WE, to which Trudeau stated that the civil service looked at the government’s plans and decided WE was best placed to fulfil it. Scheer quoted a charity watchdog on WE’s ability to fulfil the programme, and the asked Chrystia Freeland what it would take for her to lose faith in the prime minister, but Trudeau rose once more to praise the efforts they have made to engage students and support them. Yves-François Blanchet was up next for the Bloc, and he meandered around the problems Trudeau is facing, to which Trudeau insisted that they were focused on helping Canadians through the pandemic. Blanchet quipped that Trudeau couldn’t buy his way out of a crisis, and a suggested that Trudeau temporarily step aside and let Freeland replace him, and Trudeau praised the Safe Restart agreement with the provinces. Up next was Jagmeet Singh for the NDP, and he wondered why Trudeau didn’t recuse himself when the WE contract came up, and Trudeau stated that he followed the recommendation of the civil service. Singh insisted that apologies mean nothing if the Liberals help their “wealthy friends,” and worried why they didn’t just use another program instead, to which Trudeau said it was a shame that the NDP was so cynical about measures for students.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Taking a personal day

Posted on by

Of all the possible misplays for Justin Trudeau to make at the height of a controversy around his poor choices, ethical blind spots, and insistence that he’s being open and transparent, the first day of a two-day recall of the House of Commons saw him absent with the only excuse on his daily itinerary being a “personal day,” which sent the opposition into a frenzy. It’s not like Trudeau chose this day for the Commons to be recalled and for there to be a proper Question Period – erm, except he did. And then wasn’t present. Way to read the room.

Andrew Scheer had his own attempts to make hay, insisting that if the Liberal backbenchers don’t oust Trudeau (without a mechanism to do so, it should be noted), that they were signalling that they were okay with his “corruption” – never mind that a conflict of interest is not actually corruption, and he’s not exactly someone who should be throwing stones considering that he was forced to resign his own leadership after it was revealed that he was helping himself to party funds to the tune of almost a million dollars.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives are also pushing back against the bill being debated, objecting to the “complexity” of the wage subsidy changes, despite the fact that for there to be a proper phase-out and to ensure it’s more broadly encompassing than the programme was initially, there needs to be added complexity. Their objections won’t matter for much, considering that the Bloc has agreed to support the bill regardless so there are enough votes to go around, but it is a change from bills being supported unanimously at all stages, and something that resembles a sense of normalcy slowly returning to Parliament, which is a good thing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exit WE

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau seems to be making Fridays his campaign stop field trip presser days, and this time it was to a food bank in Gatineau. Trudeau started off by announcing that because of the situation with the new national security law that China had imposed on Hong Kong, they were suspending the extradition treaty to Hong Kong, as well as exports of certain equipment including military equipment. After commenting about how the government was helping food banks during the crisis, he mentioned that they were moving ahead on delayed infrastructure projects, noting that 92 were getting underway in BC. He also said that he would be hosting a two-day virtual Cabinet retreat next week, where discussions would include how to make the country more resilient during future waves of the pandemic. During the Q&A, Trudeau stated that he was disappointed by Air Canada’s service cuts and hoped that they would be restored as the economy recovers. He also made the point that childcare was an important consideration and why it was one of the conditions for the provinces as part of the $14 billion that is still on the table, and that hasn’t been agreed to. Asked about the intruder on the grounds of Rideau Hall, he simply stuck with thanking the RCMP for their response. And with regards to China, Trudeau said that they were taking action regarding the Hong Kong situation, and looking at steps that Canada can take while we are in discussions with our allies.

Of course, Trudeau also addressed the news that shortly preceded his presser that WE Charity had voluntarily pulled out of the Canada Student Grant programme, for which he said that he was disappointed in how it unfolded, but that he would continue to look for ways to give young people opportunities to serve. He stated that he thought WE had more capacity for training and protectively identifying volunteers, and insisted again that it was the public service that reached out to WE and not his office. And a few hours later, the Ethics Commissioner said he would look into this contract on the grounds of whether or not it furthered the private interests of someone (meaning Trudeau’s family), though I’m not sure how exactly volunteering their time and profile is a material benefit when they get no money from it. Then again, this particular Ethics Commissioner has gone out of his way to invent new interpretations of offences to make it look like he’s being tough, so who knows where this will go.

On the subject of WE, new revelations came out in advance of their pulling out, including criminal activity and fraud in their Kenyan operations in 2017, and the fact that they were offering summer camps $25,000 if they brought in over 75 volunteers over a few months. To add to that, others in the charitable sector are raising questions about the assertion that WE was the only group capable of administering the programme given that they lack links with local groups across the country ­– and the government’s own Canada Service Corps could have been used instead. So it’s no wonder that WE looked at what was before them and decided to pull the plug before even more organizations started digging into their activities, and this government didn’t fight them on it, because maybe they’ve learned a lesson or two on issues management. Maybe.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wilson-Raybould tries to rehabilitate her image

Posted on by

There were a couple items of note that came up over the weekend, and the first was an op-ed penned by Jody Wilson-Raybould, which called for action in reforming the criminal justice system as a way of addressing systemic racism, but more curiously, offered an insistence that she tried to, but was blocked by “the centre” from doing so. I have questions. The notion that she was prevented from fulfilling one of the tasks assigned to her in her mandate letter by the PMO makes no sense whatsoever, which makes me wonder if the real issue here isn’t one of process.

Why I raise this question was the fact that there was a bunch of reporting about behind-the-scenes clashes between Wilson-Raybould and Carolyn Bennett on Indigenous self-government legislation, and Wilson-Raybould was insistent that they bulldoze ahead using criteria that she insisted on, as she felt that she was the expert in these matters, while Bennett was instead insistent that they continue to consult with Indigenous communities (because let’s face it – every time the government tries any kind of reform of existing laws concerning Indigenous people, it is immediately met with unhappy voices who tell the government to start over with consultations). It seems plausible to me that Wilson-Raybould was attempting to pursue criminal justice reforms in a manner that PMO or PCO raised concerns about. Backing up this theory are the fact that she was unable to manage her own bills as she presented them – for example, there was much fanfare over a bill to fully repeal laws that targeted gay men, but that bill was abandoned and folded into a larger bill, and that larger bill was also abandoned and folded into yet another larger bill before it was passed. She also insisted on specific provisions in the Medical Assistance in Dying legislation which everyone warned her the courts would strike down, and lo and behold, they did, and yet she was insistent. She was insistent upon random alcohol screening legislation that was almost certainly unconstitutional, and would actually make it more likely that police would use it to target Black, Indigenous or other visible minority drivers, and yet she stuck firm. She also convinced the prime minister to have Cabinet vote against the genetic discrimination legislation that came from the Senate, and went so far as to call up provinces that previously had no problem with the bill and beg them to oppose it, even after every single MP in the Chamber outside of Cabinet voted for it. After that passed, said she was going to immediately refer it to the Supreme Court of Canada (and then didn’t, but the Quebec government challenged it after she prompted them to, and that is now before the Supreme Court). So weighing all of these things, I’m sure you can understand why I might be dubious about her claims.

The other item of interest was a revisiting of Jagmeet Singh calling the Bloc House Leader a racist, and beyond people like Gilles Duceppe accusing Singh of “cheap politics,” looking at what happened through a procedural lens, you’ll find that what the Bloc objected to was introducing the motion – not the motion itself. Why? Because the usual practice is to give 48 hours’ notice for any motion so that the Commons isn’t blindsided, hence why introducing a motion without that notice period requires unanimous consent. Singh, as has become usual, introduced the motion as a performative gesture without going through the usual motions, and it’s more than plausible that the Bloc objected on procedural grounds than substantive ones, only to be rewarded by being labelled racists (never mind the fact that their support for Quebec’s Bill 21 on face-coverings may lend more substance to the charge than against it). Nevertheless, had Singh followed proper procedure, which exists for a reason, he may have had better success. Even more to the point, if he hadn’t been so quick to sign away resuming regular sittings, he could have used one of his allotted Supply Days to bring forward such a motion and have a full, formal vote on it after a full day’s debate on the subject. But he gave away that opportunity for the sake of a promise by the prime minister to talk to the premiers about sick leave rather than getting any substantive measure out of it, so he had only himself to blame ultimately.

Continue reading →