Tag Archives: EI Reform

QP: Getting the minister to stick to his talking points

Posted on by

While we had a couple of leaders present in the Chamber today, the Liberal benches remained largely empty, with only Mark Gerretsen and Francis Drouin present. Erin O’Toole led off, his scripts on his mini-lectern in front of him, and in French, he quoted the Globe and Mail by saying that it was amateur hour on Bill C-10, and selectively quoted Michael Geist’s concerns about freedom of expression, and demanded the bill be withdrawn. Steven Guilbeault read a script that C-10 forces web giants to invest in Canadian and Quebec creators, and the Conservatives, by blocking the bill, were merely shielding web giants. O’Toole repeated the question in English, and got the same answer in English. O’Toole claimed that Guilbeault doesn’t understand his own bill, and he tried to conflate this with media funding, and called it a direct attack on free speech (something none of the experts have actually said), and Guilbeault suggested that O’Toole actually read the bill, because Section 2.1 states that individuals who upload content are not considered broadcasters. O’Toole the switched to French to complain that it was taking longer to approve immigration files in Quebec than in the rest of the country, and Marco Mendicino recited some reassuring lines about the value of immigration and reaching the right levels. O’Toole pivoted again, and in English, demanded action on Line 5, for which Seamus O’Regan noted the importance of the pipeline on both sides of the border, and why they were making that case.

Rhéal Fortin led for the Bloc, and he raised the General Vance allegations, and wondered if the prime minister considered it a problem that his defence minister didn’t alert him. Harjit Sajjan insisted that he followed the right procedures, and that they were committed to culture changes in the military. Fortin raised the notion of seeking Sajjan’s resignation and replacing him with a female defence minister, and Sajjan, naturally, disputed this.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, he demanded the government commit to waiving COVID vaccine patents, to which Mary Ng recited that they would participate in these negotiations at the WTO. Singh repeated the question in English, and Ng repeated her response.

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 →

QP: Putting words in Boris Johnson’s mouth

Posted on by

In the wake of yesterday’s nudity brouhaha and the subsequent calls for an investigation, the prime minister was away and there were but two Liberals in the Chamber — Mark Gerretsen and Marc Serré. Candice Bergen led off by video, and she recited a hyperbolic litany of ills that lockdowns have imposed upon the population and lamented the government’s failures, before demanding to know why the finance minister was treating the situation as a political opportunity. Sean Fraser noted that they were looking to reform the system for those who were disadvantaged by the status quo. Bergen then switched to delays in Moderna shipments, and using it to blame the government for the third wave of the pandemic. Patty Hajdu reminded her that the government has been there for the provinces all through the pandemic. Bergen then raised the Daily Mail’s coverage of vaccines in Canada, falsely attributing comments to Boris Johnson around vaccinations when Johnson has in fact credited the lockdowns in Britain for halting the spread of the virus and not vaccinations, which is a pretty important thing to realize. In response, Hajdu again repeated that they were supporting provinces and encouraged people to get vaccinated when it’s their turn. Gérard Deltell got up next and in French, slammed the Bloc for joining the Liberals in ending the defence committee study on the General Vance allegations, to which Harjit Sajjan dismissed the attacks and patted himself on the back for his six hours at committee. Deltell then tried to police the government’s feminism, and Sajjan said that they were waiting for the committee’s report.

For the Bloc, Yves Perron led off to decry delays in getting temporary foreign workers out of quarantine and into fields, for which Carla Qualtrough assured him they were working as fast as they can to resolve the situation. Perron blasted that the contractor doing the testing didn’t have capacity in French, and Qualtrough assured him they were working to ensure people in Quebec could get their services in French.

Jagmeet Singh led off for the NDP, and in French, asked to extend the tax filing deadline, and Diane Lebouthillier listed tax relief measures they have offered. Singh switched to English to blame slow vaccine rollout on the federal government, apparently believing that vaccines can be produced form thin air, and wanted an admission of failure on domestic production. Anita Anand recited vaccine arrivals and that Canada is third in the G20 for vaccinations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Too-generous benefits?

Posted on by

I find myself a bit troubled by this notion that pandemic benefits have been “too generous,” even when people trot out statistics that show that some households got as much as $3000 more in supports like CERB over reported lost income in a three-month period, and some $2500 more in lower-income households. Partially why this rankles is because this is a gods damned global pandemic and we needed people to stay home rather than try to recklessly go to potentially unsafe workplaces where they could spread the virus. This notion that people needed to get back to work is one of the reasons why COVID infections and deaths were at much higher rates in other countries who had less generous supports, and I don’t think we should necessarily be apologising for this.

The other aspect of this that is unsettling is this notion that if these benefits continue that there will be a disincentive to work as the economy recovers, but again, if the economy is recovering and we are reaching a point of mass vaccination sufficient to actually have a re-opened economy, then these pandemic-specific programmes would be wound down, so it shouldn’t be a long-term consideration. More to the point, however, is that these pandemic supports were not really all that generous, and if people think it’s a disincentive to work, then maybe they should re-examine the wages that people are being paid – if they’re so low that CERB-level payments are a disincentive, then perhaps the job is the wage rate and not the benefits themselves. Businesses have continually lobbied to keep minimum wages artificially low, in spite of an increasing volume of evidence that higher minimum wage don’t actually cause businesses to close (and in fact, have the opposite effect). Perhaps governments should take that into account as we look to “build back better,” with more inclusive growth that should include higher wages for these workers, rather than returning to the failed “old normal” of grinding poverty.

Continue reading →

QP: The PornHub panic

Posted on by

While the prime minister was on the Hill and just gave a press conference to announce that vaccines would likely be arriving in a week following Health Canada approval, neither he nor his deputy were at QP. Candice Bergen led off, giving selective information about vaccination roll-outs in other countries, and then said that the announced first batch of the Pfizer vaccine wouldn’t be enough. Anita Anand insisted that this was a wonderful day, and that the light at the end of the tunnel was clear. Bergen then moved to the PornHub story in the New York Times, saying he was allowing rape and sexual exploitation to happen in his own backyard, to which David Lametti reminded her that there are laws in place, including for Internet service providers, and that they were taking this seriously. Bergen insisted that there has been no action, as though there was a magic wand that was not being used, and Lametti repeated his points before declaring his pride in the Digital Charter. Stephanie Kusie then took over in and French to demand refunds for airline consumers, to which Chris Bittle stated clearly that there would be no sector-specific aid without refunds. Kusie worried that any plan would bar executive compensation, and Bittle reiterate the importance of ensuring refunds. Claude DeBellefeuille led for the Bloc to demand increased health transfers with no strings attached, to which Patty Hajdu read in halting French about how much the federal government had transferred to the provinces since the pandemic began. DeBellefeuille was not mollified, and repeated her demand, for which Hajdu read another set of talking points. Jenny Kwan demanded more safe places for women in Vancouver’s downtown east side, to which Maryam Monsef said that she has been working with the advocates in the area. Leah Gazan demanded action on the report from the MMIW inquiry, to which Carolyn Bennett assured her that they were working on this with a new $751 million funding commitment.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole on the third ballot

Posted on by

On a third ballot result, Erin O’Toole won the Conservative leadership race. The big event turned into a very big disaster. It was delayed by over six hours because the machine they were using to open the envelopes with ballots started destroying thousands of ballots, and it was well past midnight by the time the first ballot was even announced – far beyond the day’s news cycle and past the deadlines for newspapers’ first editions, which had long since gone to print. While we were waiting, Andrew Scheer gave his farewell speech, which was bitter, and full of jejune understandings of conservatism or the political landscape – he railed against imaginary left-wing straw men, scared up a Bolshevik threat, lied about the media – to the point where he called The Post Millennial and True North (aka Rebel Lite™) as “objective” that more people should pay attention to, which is incredible.

https://twitter.com/btaplatt/status/1297768475939819521

As for the result, this was very much about the social conservatives flexing their muscles within the party. Both Leslyn Lewis and Derek Sloan got over 35% of the votes combined on the first ballot, and there were places where either of the front-runners came in third to Lewis, and she swept Saskatchewan, where MacKay came in last. And true to form, it was those social conservatives’ down-ballot support that played kingmaker to O’Toole over MacKay, who was inexplicably considered the “last Progressive Conservative standing” (which doesn’t make sense because he was in no way a PC MP, especially if you look at his voting record). O’Toole at least has a seat, so that means he can get to work immediately, but we’ll see how many bruised feelings are in the caucus and party ranks given how the campaign played out, especially given that O’Toole hired a professional shitposter to run his campaign.

For his victory speech, O’Toole graciously thanked his competitors, and thanked the “patriotic Canadians” who made the victory happen. He paid special mention to Quebec, where he won the most votes, and made it clear that he was going to keep Sloan in the fold, in spite of some of his odious statements. O’Toole insisted that he was going to unite the party, before he took pot shots at Trudeau. He said they would be proposing a new “positive Conservative vision,” and that they would be ready for the next election, which could be as early as this fall. And then it was onto the doomsaying about the direction of the country under the Liberals, complete with the economic illiteracy that has marked the modern Conservative party. “The world still needs more Canada – it just needs less Justin Trudeau,” O’Toole said, before insisting that everyone has a home in the Conservative party.

We’ll delve into the entrails of the regional breakdowns of the race, and the particular mechanics of it and how that affected the results, but I will tell you right now that I have little patience for these takes about how this result means that the party’s power is shifting eastward – that’s hard to believe given the concentration of their votes, even though none of the leadership candidates came from there. And frankly, the notion that the party requires someone from Alberta to helm it keeps it blinkered, and insular. That’s not how you build the kind of national party that the country needs.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Outlining the transition steps

Posted on by

The government unveiled their planned next steps in income supports for the economic recovery yesterday, starting with an additional month of CERB, after which they will start transitioning people to EI (with relaxed criteria) as well as a new system of support benefits for those who don’t normally qualify for EI, as well as sick benefits. I’m given to understand that part of why they are being transitioned away from CERB has to do with flexibility – the EI computers are more able to handle the ability to allow benefits to flow while a person is still getting incomes than the CRA’s system does, and that is one of the things that are being rolled out here, so that people don’t lose benefits the moment they reach an arbitrary threshold. (More from economist Jennifer Robson in this thread).

Something that came up repeatedly over the day (particularly on certain politics shows), however, was the notion that while the legislative portions of these changes would need to happen fast when Parliament is recalled, that nothing could happen until after a confidence vote on the Speech from the Throne. This is false. Once the Speech has been read by the Governor General, the government can start introducing and debating other bills. They don’t have to simply debate the Reply to the Speech, and they don’t have to have an immediate confidence vote. In fact, they don’t need to have one at all, given that there are other confidence votes coming up in the Supply Cycle. Yes, Trudeau did promise a confidence vote, in what appears to be a dare to the opposition, but that’s not the point here – the point is that they can introduce these measures in Bill C-2, and swiftly pass them before Trudeau has that confidence vote. All of the pearl-clutching that I’m seeing is completely for naught, because people don’t pay attention to process or procedure (and I’m sure a few of them are trying to create an artificial sense of drama).

https://twitter.com/SkinnerLyle/status/1296556887761129476

Meanwhile, a certain senator is grousing that transitioning people to EI is going to be too complicated, so he wants the provinces to start basic income pilots, and I can’t even. Economist Lindsay Tedds has been working on this issue for a long time and has stated that we don’t need more pilots – governments need to simply design programmes that meet their objectives, but it seems that said Senator hasn’t been listening when she’s told him that directly.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1296646779639746560

Continue reading →

QP: Focusing on the May 14th timeline

Posted on by

For a second day in a row, a skeletal sitting of the Commons convened, and we were treated to a proper Question Period once again. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern in front of him, and read his concern that the government allegedly sat on the report from the Armed Forces on the conditions in long-term care facilities for nearly two weeks. Trudeau clarified that the full report was brought forward on Thursday, and they passed it along to Ontario the following day. Scheer changed to French to pass along that a second report was being prepared on the Quebec homes, and Trudeau reiterated that they received that report on Thursday and passed it along. Scheer worried about what happened between May 14th and Thursday, and Trudeau said that Thursday was when the Chief of Defence Staff passed it along. Scheer then brought up the question from this morning’s prime ministerial presser about Joyce Murray supporting a fundraiser to sue a journalist, and Trudeau said that the staffer who posted it was not working for them. Scheer tried to tie this to the Chinese government, and Trudeau repeated the previous response before he read some support for Hong Kong. Yves-François Blanchet was up next, and he railed about political parties accessing the wage subsidy, and Trudeau spoke about the aims of the programme to help workers retain their jobs. Blanchet tried again, and got the same response. Jagmeet Singh then got his turn, and he demanded federal action to end the privatization of long-term care, and Trudeau replied that they can’t tell the provinces what to do in their areas of jurisdiction but that the federal government would be there to support them. Singh made a paean for national leadership in French, and Trudeau again reiterated that they have to respect provincial jurisdiction.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding to end the blockades

Posted on by

In the wake of the statements in the Commons earlier this morning on the ongoing protests and blockades across the country, the benches were full and all of the leaders were present for QP. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he read some of his same condemnation for the government not dealing with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs in favour of those who support Coastal GasLink. Justin Trudeau noted that they are concerned with dialogue, and that he invited other parliamentary leaders to discuss the matter but not Scheer because he disqualified himself after this morning’s statement. Scheer insisted that Trudeau was elevating “professional protesters” with those Indigenous communities that wanted these projects, and demanded a date for the blockades to come down, and Trudeau reminded him that they need solutions for the long term. Scheer decried the lack of action, and Trudeau said that they needed to ensure there was long-term partnership so that Canadians could rely on their transportation network rather than short-term violent action. Scheer again tried to insist that Trudeau was pandering to activists, and Trudeau reminded him that the Conservatives couldn’t get projects built because they would pick and choose who they would engage with. Scheer got increasingly breathy and high-pitched as he demanded action, and Trudeau reminded him that five years ago, Canadians chose parties who were committed to reconciliation. Yves-François Blanchet was up next for the Bloc, and he expressed his concern that Québec and Canada’s image was one where Indigenous communities were opposed to development, and wanted some clarity on the timeline for when blockades would be lifted. Trudeau stated that they were still committed to dialogue, and that was the first step to lifting the barricades. Blanchet asked for future meetings on the issue, and Trudeau said that he was open to that — for parties that wanted to engage constructively. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and demanded to know when the federal government would meet with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, but they were waiting on them. Singh wanted concrete action now, but pivoted to record-keeping on Indigenous kids in care, go which Trudeau reminded him that child and family services were provincial jurisdiction and they were working to devolve that to First Nations themselves.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not what parties are for

Posted on by

As part of a longer piece (linked in the section below), the campaign director of the Liberal Party offered a loathsome sentence yesterday, and it’s just so completely disheartening.

No. The role of the party is not just to win elections and to fundraise. In fact, this kind of attitude is why the political system in Canada is in the state that it’s in. Parties are just seen as election vehicles rather than the grassroots organizations that deal with ground-up policy development, selection and nomination of candidates, or holding either their local representatives or the party itself to account. There is a whole structure that parties are supposed to play in the political ecosystem of being the interlocutors between ordinary people and the caucuses in the capital – it’s not just about mobilizing volunteers to make phone calls and knock on doors during a campaign. It’s not just about election machinery. It’s about the lifeblood of politics.

But this is where we are – our bastardized leadership selection process, twisted into a parody version of American presidential primaries, has centralized power, and hollowed out parties so that they are no longer performing the functions they were designed to do, and instead are merely vassals to the personality cults that have added brand recognition. It’s utterly debased how the system is supposed to work, and campaign guys like these help to fuel the demise.

Continue reading →