Tag Archives: Citizenship

QP: Spinning a Vance/Norman conspiracy theory

Posted on by

It was a grey day in the Nation’s Capital, but the prime minister was in the Galactic Senate House of Commons for Question Period, along with the other fixture in the Liberal benches, Mark Gerretsen.

Erin O’Toole led off in French, worrying about the message that NACI gave yesterday, deliberately conflating it with Health Canada. Justin Trudeau told him that the most important thing is to get vaccinated with the first one offered to you, as they have all been judged safe and effective by Health Canada. O’Toole asked again in English, and got the same answer. O’Toole then switch to the Vance allegations, and spun an elaborate conspiracy that Katie Telford was friendly with Vance, and wondered if they didn’t pursue the allegations because of the Mark Norman investigation, to which Trudeau offered a simple no. O’Toole insisted that things all seemed a little too cozy, and Trudeau insisted they would support with anyone who came forward with an allegation. O’Toole spun the conspiracy out again, and Trudeau called him out for doing so.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and worried that victims of CERB fraud were being told to pay now and get reimbursed later. Trudeau insisted that was false, and that the department was working closely on the issues with fraud, and nobody had to pay for it. Blanchet was not able to reconcile the statement, and Trudeau repeated that they were there to help fraud victims.

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, and in French, he wondered why they were refusing to implement the Deschamps Report, and Trudeau insisted that they did take concrete measures, and listed a number of federal strategies around things like combatting gender-based violence. Singh switched to English to state that there was a chilling effect for women who complain about sexual misconduct in the Forces, and Trudeau largely repeated his list of measures taken.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding a “data-driven” plan to re-open

Posted on by

On a beautiful Tuesday in the Nation’s Capital, the prime minister was indeed in the Chamber for QP, along with fourth other Liberals, which was a very pleasant change of pace. Erin O’Toole led off in person, script on mini-lectern, and he raised the fatigue over lockdowns and the spectre of opioid overdoses, and true to his party’s Supply Day motion, demanded a “data-driven” federal plan for re-opening the economy. Justin Trudeau noted that the federal government has always been there for Canadians and would continue to listen to the recommendations of experts on re-opening. O’Toole tried to wedge a mental health angle, and Trudeau insisted that they stuck to the advice of science, and poked that some Conservatives didn’t even believe in masks. O’Toole then falsely accused the federal government of making a political decision around second doses, before accusing the federal government of being late on everything, to which Trudeau pushed back, citing that the provinces make the decision around spacing vaccine doses. O’Toole then repeated his first question in French, got much the same response in French, and for his final question, O’Toole accused the country of trailing behind. Trudeau took the opportunity to say that while O’Toole wanted a plan for the economy, he still doesn’t believe that the environment and the economy go hand in hand.

Yves-François Blanchet rose to for the Bloc, and after raising the announcement on high-speed internet yesterday, demanded higher health transfers. Trudeau reminded him that they have given higher transfers to the provinces in the pandemic and they would discuss future transfers after it was over. Blanchet then raised the panic over a certain obnoxious blow hard professor’s “Quebec-bashing,” but this time, Trudeau didn’t bite and returned to talk about federal supports for provinces. 

Jagmeet Singh then rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded an apology for General Vance getting a raise after allegations were raised against him, and Trudeau spoke about the importance of independent investigations. Singh switched to English to demand the government support their Supply Day motion on taking profit out of long-term care, to which Trudeau reminded him that under the constitution, this is a provincial responsibility. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Approvals sooner than we think

Posted on by

The day in vaccine news was marked by the first in what was promised to be a weekly series of briefings about the progress of the planned vaccine rollout, wherein we learned that Health Canada’s close work with the FDA and the European Medicines Agency in the rolling application process, so that means that the Canadian approval for the vaccines should happen around the same time as their do – something that will relieve some of the anxiety. We are also expecting some six million doses (so, vaccinations for three million people) between approval and the end of March, with more doses to start ramping up considerably faster afterward. So there’s that.

Meanwhile, for all of the yelling and pleading for at-home tests, no manufacturer has applied to Health Canada (and Health Canada has proactively asked them to apply), and most companies haven’t even perfected their technologies yet, so this remains something of a pipe dream that we should stop hoping will be the panacea to ending lockdowns.

Over in Alberta, a number of recordings of meetings that their Chief Medical Officer of Health had were leaked to media, showing how her advice was being overruled by Cabinet, which confirms what was pretty much a no-brainer, but because it leaked, there is going to be damage to the way our system of government operates. Dr. Hinshaw called the leaks a betrayal of trust – and she’s right – but it really puts her in an impossible situation. (I have more about this in my weekend column, so keep an eye out for it).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pretending there’s a shortcut

Posted on by

The NDP spent the day yesterday trying to make hay of their private members’ bill, which purports to create a national pharmacare programme. Unless the party has been secretly negotiating with the provinces, it will do no such thing, and it’s pretty much guaranteed that the bill is unconstitutional, both on the grounds that it delves into areas of provincial jurisdiction and the fact that it is inherently a money bill, which would require a Royal Recommendation – which they’re not going to get. Beyond that, this is performative grandstanding that seeks to short-circuit the actual work of implementing a national pharmacare programme that the government is already doing.

Because seriously – I was inundated with replies over Twitter about how the Liberals also promised pharmacare, so how was this different? It’s different because the Liberals a) promised negotiations with the provinces, and b) already have a roadmap to implementation through the Hoskins report, whose steps they are following and have invested money toward. I was also reminded constantly that this bill was modelled after the Canada Health Act, so everything should be fine – err, except that the CHA was the end-product of federal-provincial negotiations, not the starting point to be lorded over the provinces, nor does this address the fact that it is inherently a money bill, which Private Members’ Bills are forbidden from being.

I am also somewhat tickled by the fact that the NDP are considering this bill to be some kind of fait accompli, and in a press release, they claimed that this bill would “guarantee” coverage for Canadians. But that’s a lie,  because none of it can happen if provinces don’t come to the table, and several of them are balking at it because it’s expensive (and the expected savings over the longer term won’t be realised right away), and we are already going through the usual hoops of Quebec saying their provincial plan is good enough and if the federal government wants to go ahead with a national plan then they should be able to opt out with full compensation – and you can bet that Alberta will make the same demand if Quebec is. This bill will not be a shortcut to those negotiations, as much as they might like it to be. The government is moving ahead with the Hoskins Report, which may be slower, but that’s how things get done. Trying to claim they’re not living up to their commitments is one more falsehood that the NDP have become adept in promulgating in order to score political points.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Liberal caucus boards the BI train

Posted on by

Ever since the creation of CERB at the beginning of the pandemic, the Basic Income crowd has believed that this is their chance to finally get what they’ve been asking for. Most of it remains in the realm of lollipops and unicorns, with a lot of handwaving away the difficulties associated with a basic income, but here we are. To that end, it seems that the Liberal caucus has made this their top priority for the party’s upcoming policy convention, which means that it has a fairly good chance of getting adopted as party policy. Of course, in the current day and age, a party’s policy book isn’t really worth the paper that it’s printed on because the leader’s office now controls everything, most especially the campaign platform (you know, what the party’s policies are supposed to inform), so I wouldn’t put too much stock in this, but it’s certainly an indication of where their heads are at.

To that end, economist Lindsay Tedds, who has been studying the implementation of Basic Income programmes, is unimpressed with this turn of events. Why? Because there are a lot of things in the federal government’s wheelhouse when it comes to better implementing current social supports programmes that they’re simply not doing, because of the ways in which they rely on the current tax system – which is a problem when a significant portion of marginalized people can’t access those benefits because they don’t file taxes. And if you’re going to implement a Basic Income, you would think you’d want to get these kinds of things sorted first so that it becomes easier to do any kind of BI.

Economist Mike Moffatt also makes the point that there are far more effective things that the federal government could spend money on that would get better outcomes than spending it on basic income, because of the supply side problems that adding more money into the system won’t fix, but will simply drive up things like rental costs.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1304769768961048577

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1304770683881299969

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1304772615752617986

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1304782580466712577

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1304784277041709056

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau steps on yet another rake

Posted on by

The prime minister’s problems with the now-cancelled WE Charity contract blew up yesterday, as it was revealed that Justin Trudeau’s mother and brother have been paid by WE to speak at events, that his wife had once been paid by them in 2012, all of which contradicts their previous statements that they don’t pay speakers. (Trudeau maintains that he has never been paid). Suddenly this makes the fact that Trudeau didn’t recuse himself from any decisions around that contract at the Cabinet table look very bad, because his family does benefit from the organization, and they’re not just donating their time and profile as had been previously stated. And for WE’s part, they have done themselves no favours by saying that it was their social enterprise arm, ME to WE, which paid them, except for the times when there was a billing error and WE Charity paid them instead. This as more parliamentary committees are (finally) doing their jobs in calling ministers and bureaucrats before them to explain their decisions. And to cap it off, Yves-François Blanchet is now demanding that Trudeau step aside and let Chrystia Freeland run things until everything is cleared up. So that’s something.

It’s hard not to see that the Liberals’ capacity for self-harm knows no bounds, between these self-inflicted wounds and their inability to communicate their way out of a wet paper bag/manage an issue, means that they inevitably make it worse for themselves – which they did yet again today by essentially saying that the only thing that matters is that Trudeau was really concerned about the youth. Seriously? It is not only obvious that Trudeau seems to lack any sense of self-awareness, in part because he has grown up as a kind of celebrity, but it’s also combined by the fact that there clearly isn’t anyone in his office who will stand up to him and say that no, this maybe isn’t a good idea, and no, it’s going to come across well no matter how well-meaning it all is. I mean, the first couple of years in office, Trudeau dismantled any way for the party mechanism to push back against the leader and his office, and that was a fair bit more autonomous than what goes on in PMO. This being said, I will add that our ethics and conflict of interest regime in this country is ludicrous, and subject to the whims of successive Ethics Commissioners, who either read their mandates so narrowly that nothing was ever her problem, except when she took it upon herself to decide who is and is not a family friend of the Aga Khan (that being Mary Dawson), or her replacement, who has invented new statutory interpretation out of whole cloth on numerous occasions to baffling results. None of this excuses Trudeau’s constantly stepping on rakes – he should absolutely know better, but seems incapable of figuring that out.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt remarks on how repetitive Trudeau’s ethical lapses are getting, and how every time he promises that he’s learned his lesson – until he does makes yet another blunder. Matt Gurney is baffled at PMO’s tone-deafness on this whole affair. Chris Selley, while boggled at Trudeau’s constant blunders, is even more incredulous at how Andrew Scheer keeps being so bad at responding while creating his own distractions.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cautious progress in most places

Posted on by

For his daily presser, prime minister Justin Trudeau led off by teasing that new federal modelling numbers were on the way, before mentioning the global vaccination pledging conference, and then turned to domestic measures to help seniors, announcing that their additional OAS and GIS payment would go out on July 6th. During the Q&A, there were questions on Huawei (as the US is making more clear threats to limit intelligence sharing with Canada if they aren’t banned), the fact that he hasn’t been more equivocal in denouncing Trump, and recent instances of police violence and misconduct in Canada such as one in Nunavut.

As promised, the new federal modelling numbers were released shortly thereafter, and it’s becoming increasingly clear that the two biggest problem areas in the country remain Toronto and Montreal. There remain warnings that we could see another outbreak if testing and tracing regimes aren’t increased. This having been said, I think it was the data released by BC yesterday that was even more interesting.

One is the data around contact tracing (which that province can seem to manage, but Ontario can’t in its epic managerial incompetence), and it shows that once lockdown measures were in place, the number of contacts that infected people made dropped from 10.7 per case to 3.6, which is a pretty effective demonstration of why physical or social distancing matters.

The other is this analysis of the genomic epidemiology of the virus – as in, where it’s travelled from, because there are small mutations based on where it’s come from, and lo and behold, the vast majority of them were from European/Eastern Canadian strains and very few from China. But hey, the Conservatives and others keep insisting that if only we’d closed the border to China sooner, this all could have been avoided. This data proves that simply wasn’t the case (despite what people like Dr. Theresa Tam have been saying already) – not that it will stop their revisionist history. Nevertheless, it’s interesting stuff.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An emergency clip-gathering

Posted on by

Sympathetic protests continue across the country as Justin Trudeau and several Cabinet ministers convened the Incidence Response Group yesterday, but had little to say as they emerged, other than dialogue remains the best option to resolve the situation as opposed to sending in the police to crack heads. Some new protests included demonstrations that closed Bloor Street in Toronto, and another blockade on the Thousand Islands international bridge (which was short-lived). Carolyn Bennett is still waiting on more meetings, apparently, while the CBC got a leaked recording from Marc Miller’s meeting with the Mohawks in Ontario on Sunday, so there’s that. And amidst this, police associations are grousing that they’re caught in the middle of all of this, criticized for both being too aggressige and not doing enough at the same time.

And with Parliament back again today, the request has been made for an emergency debate on the situation – but I can tell you right now that it’s going to be nothing shy of a five-alarm clown show. If the Speaker decides to grant it, it’ll happen after the close of regular business, so somewhere between 6 and 7 PM, and designated to run until midnight, unless debate collapses sooner. But you can bet that the most that can come of it – and the parties bloody well know it – is that they’ll simply be gathering clips for their social media of their righteous indignation for their side of the debate, whether it’s that the economy is being affected, that police are supposedly not enforcing the rule of law (hint – that’s not what “rule of law” means), or that this government has failed in its goals of reconciliation (as though that could happen in the space of four years). And if it’s outraged clips they want, well, isn’t that what Question Period has devolved into? In other words, I see zero actual utility in the exercise, but then again, I’m cynical (or realistic) like that.

https://twitter.com/Lazin_Ryder/status/1229361547593408512

https://twitter.com/Lazin_Ryder/status/1229362819901952002

https://twitter.com/Lazin_Ryder/status/1229363277202784256

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt tries to evaluate this government’s communications around the current situation after they handled the previous two (Flight PS752 and COVID-19) fairly well, and outlines the difference between complex and complicated problems. But being unable to communicate their way out of a wet paper bag is this government’s usual schtick, so that should be no surprise.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The big endorsement

Posted on by

All three leaders were in Quebec yesterday, being one of the most important battleground provinces when it comes to getting out the vote. Justin Trudeau started off his day in Montreal to again make the pitch that voters need a progressive government and not a progressive opposition, and saying that this was the “dirtiest” campaign ever because of things like disinformation. From there, he made several stops on the way to Sherbrooke. The big news in the afternoon, however, was a tweet from Barack Obama, giving an endorsement for Trudeau’s re-election, citing the need for a progressive voice on the world stage (and taking some of the wind out of the sails of the Conservative claim that Trudeau has been some kind of “embarrassment” on the world stage).

https://twitter.com/b_momani/status/1184550642225991685

Andrew Scheer started his day in Saint-Jérôme, Quebec, then headed to Essex, where he promised higher penalties for ethics violations (possibly flirting with constitutional challenges of what constitutes an administrative monetary penalty versus a criminal sanction), and headed into Ontario, eventually making it to Hamilton, where he was in the riding of the Liberal incumbent who was at her mother’s funeral that day – to which Scheer insisted it was okay because he made a charitable donation. (We also found out that he switched the location he planned to make the stop, and the pub owner of the first location was brassed off because he spent $700 preparing food for the stop and putting more workers on staff).

As part of his Quebec tour, Jagmeet Singh was in Hudson, Quebec, the birthplace of Jack Layton, to make his pitch of trying to claim Layton’s legacy. Throughout the day, he started making more untenable promises, like reopening an emergency room in Winnipeg – something that is explicitly provincial jurisdiction, while hand-waving about “levers” he can use, which he actually has none – particularly not in the Canada Health Act. But hey, he wants people to “dream big,” and never mind the Constitution or the clear division of powers therein.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Secrecy and sticking with damaged goods

Posted on by

It’s (English) debate day, which means that it will be a low-key day as leaders are busy with debate prep. Yesterday, Andrew Scheer took the day off, while Justin Trudeau went to Plainfield, Ontario, to plant another tree, which I suspect will be the new go-to photo-op of the campaign. There, he accused Scheer of keeping his full platform and costs secret ahead of the debates, and compared him to Doug Ford given Ford’s lack of a platform during the Ontario election. During a later media availability, he said that he was sticking with the Cape Breton candidate despite his past racist and misogynist posts because he had apologised (which is the standard that most everyone has since adopted in this election).

As for Jagmeet Singh, he was campaigning at a farmer’s market in Ottawa with Ed Broadbent.

Continue reading →