Tag Archives: Foreign Aid

Roundup: The Pope arrives, and snubs Indigenous women

Posted on by

We’re on or about day one-hundred-and-fifty-two of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and wouldn’t you just know it, the day after Russia signed a deal to allow grain shipments out of Black Sea ports, they attacked Odessa, killing civilians. Because that’s who Russia is. They don’t respect their own cease-fires, and they act with impunity at every opportunity. (One might note that Justin Trudeau stated immediately that he didn’t trust Russia to uphold their end of the deal, and lo, was proven right). Elsewhere, Russian forces are blocking people trying to flee the Zaporizhzhia region, and they struck an apartment building in the port city of Mykolaiv.

Closer to home, the Pope’s visit to Canada has begun as part of the apology for residential schools, and both the Governor General and prime minister were in Edmonton to greet him. There are a lot of questions about how substantive this apology is really going to be, and whether he’s willing to do substantive things, like rescinding the Doctrine of Discovery that justified colonial behaviours. AFN national chief RoseAnne Archibald has been told she won’t be part of the welcoming ceremony at Maskwacis today, and she notes there are no women in leadership positions in the event (but this is the Catholic Church we’re talking about—they’re not exactly in favour of women in any leadership positions, or really of women in general). There has also been some irony noted that these events are being translated into Indigenous languages that were forbidden in residential schools, for what it’s worth.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Home for the summer

Posted on by

It is day one-hundred-and-twenty-one of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and still no news out of Severodonetsk, but there is additional bombardment of the area including air strikes. The big news, however, was that the EU has granted the request to make Ukraine a candidate for membership—itself a years-long process that will require great reforms, most especially Ukraine cracking down on its problem of government corruption—but more than anything, this is a symbolic victory. It signals that Ukraine is moving more to the west, and away from Russia, and that further undermines Putin’s aims.

Closer to home, both the House of Commons and the Senate have risen for the summer, the latter being a problem because it was supposed to sit next week and they rammed through a bunch of legislation with little or no debate or scrutiny in order to make it happen. Below is a speech by Senator Paula Simons about one of those bills being expedited, and why that’s a problem (and you’d better believe I have an angry column about this coming out over the weekend).

Meanwhile, Aaron Wherry had an interview with the Commons’ Speaker, Anthony Rota, and frankly I wonder if we’re living in the same reality. Rota seems to think that his method of gentle chiding of MPs gets results, and that they change their behaviours when he hints that he knows who’s being disruptive (but won’t actually name and shame them). Except he doesn’t get results, and they continue to openly flout the rules, because they know that he’ll belatedly make some gentle comment that won’t actually do anything to enforce the rules that they broke, so it keeps happening again and again. But he thinks this is a good way, because things aren’t as bad as they were in the pre-2015 days before the Liberals largely stopped applauding and being as vociferous in their heckles. He’s not doing his job, plain and simple.

Continue reading →

QP: A focus on Islamophobia

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town, meeting with the President of Chile, he did not venture to the Chamber for QP, though his deputy was present. Most of the other leaders were absent as well. Luc Berthold led off, worrying about rising prices, and wondered why the government was doing nothing about it. Chrystia Freeland responded with her prepared talking points about affordability measures like dental care. Berthold was incensed and roared that this was not good enough, especially with food banks under pressure. Freeland assured him that federal benefits like the Canada Child Benefit were indexed to inflation. Berthold was still incredulous, decried people being unable to eat enough, and demanded more from the government. Freeland shrugged off the yelling, stated that she took no lessons from the Conservatives, and noted the poverty reduction since her government had come to power. Dan Albas took over in English decry gasoline prices and demanded a tax break on them, and Jonathan Wilkinson reminded him that world oil prices were being affected by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Albas went on a tangent that cast the prime minister as some kind of scripted actor before repeating his demand, and Wilkinson noted that the country was increasing production and supply, and that the carbon rebates put money back in people’s pockets.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he decried the rise in 911 calls to report gunfire and demanded action from the federal government. Marco Mendicino gave his assurances that he too was worried and they were taking measures to deal with the problem. Therrien demanded a registry of criminal organisations, and Mendicino insisted that the gun control bill does have measures to tackle organised crime.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he marked the anniversary of the Islamophobic attack that killed a family in London, Ontario, and demanded more federal action to combat the problem. Mendicino insisted that they were taking concrete steps, and that needs to start with every member of the Chamber condemning Islamophobia. Singh repeated the question in French, and got assurances in English from Ahmed Hussen, who listed some of the actions the government has taken.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sour premiers wanted more money

Posted on by

We’re not on or about day forty-five of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and yesterday’s particular war crime of note was an attack on a train station in Kamatorsk that killed fifty-two Ukrainians fleeing to safer parts of the country. More chilling was the fact that the remains of the rocket had “For the children” spray painted on its side. Meanwhile, an international organization formed in the 1990s to identify the dead and the missing in the Balkan conflicts is preparing to send a team of forensic experts to Ukraine to help identify their dead as a result of Russian atrocities.

Closer to home, there is more reaction to this week’s budget, and in particular, some of the sour notes coming from provinces. It’s not just the current bit of confusion around just what the dental care programme is going to entail, because we don’t have any implementation details yet, and it sounds like the federal government may try to leverage existing provincial programmes for low-income earners. But more to the point, it’s about health transfers, and the fact that premiers aren’t getting their way with their demands for increased unconditional transfers, ostensibly to ensure that the federal government pays 35 percent of the share of health costs—a figure which is distortionary because since the 1970s, provinces were given tax points instead of direct transfers, so the true cost to the federal government would be far, far higher than the 35 percent figure they like to float. Not to mention, we saw that when federal transfers were higher for a decade, provinces used much of that money on other things, as certain provinces also did during the pandemic. So frankly, I wouldn’t expect the federal government to just hand over more unconditional money in the budget, particularly as they are negotiating with provinces for specific outcomes around mental health and long-term care.

Those demands for higher transfers are also raised in this op-ed by economist Trevor Tombe and professor Daniel Béland, which accuses the federal government of being uninterested in reforming those health care arrangements. I would dispute that because they have made it clear, during the election and since, that they are very interested in reforming those arrangements, and that those reforms mean strings attached to federal dollars, and those negotiations are ongoing. I’m also troubled by the notion that the federal government should be doing something about provincial debt, which is far more unsustainable than the federal government’s. Is the suggestion that the federal government upload more costs or programme responsibilities? Because I don’t see premiers clamouring for that (though they do want more money). Is the suggestion that the federal government simply pay for everything? Because that’s absolutely not sustainable either. It also ignores that most provinces have the ability to raise revenues the old-fashioned way—raising their own taxes. (Some provinces are admittedly screwed demographically, but again, what levers are we proposing the federal government employ?) Tombe and Béland want an open and collaborative process to rethink the fiscal relationships between levels of government, but we’ve all seen this movie before, and it always winds up with the provinces demanding the federal government give them more money. I’m not sure how that helps.

Continue reading →

QP: Counting down to the budget release

Posted on by

The benches were fairly empty today, as many MPs were preparing for their budget reactions, leaving a reduced presence in the Chamber. After a moment of silence for both Portapique and the anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, Luc Berthold led off, worrying about a “secret trial” that took place in Quebec. David Lametti noted that the was concerned about the reports but prosecutions remain independent of government, and he couldn’t speak more about the issue due to proceedings underway. Berthold then switched to the budget, and was worried about reports that Jagmeet Singh received a briefing on its contents, and wondered if he was sworn to secrecy about it. Mark Holland assured him that no secret information was released. Berthold insisted that there must have been a briefing based on media comments, and worried that leaked details could affect the stock market, and Holland repeated that no secret briefings were had. Kyle Seeback took over in English to worry that carbon prices would mean higher food prices, and that both the environmental and economic policies were a failure. Steven Guilbeault read off investments the government has made and corrected him that emissions have gone down by 30 million tonnes. Seeback chuckled at his own lame joke about how government spending only drove housing prices up—missing a few of the steps to that logic—and Randy Boissonnault denounced the Conservatives delaying the vote on Bill C-8 and the supports therein.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and was outraged that the prime minister was chosen by the UN to promote sustainable development and an hour later approved Bay du Nord, insisting that this made Canada a rogue state. Guilbeault said he was confused by the Bloc being outraged over a provincial decision, a wondered if they wanted federal interference in the Third Link project in Quebec City. Therrien insisted that there was no place for new oil projects, for which Guilbeault reminded him of Yves-François Blanchet’s decision to approve drilling provincially when he as a minster in Quebec.

Alexandre Boulerice appeared for the NDP by video, and he too railed about the Bay du Nord approval. Guilbeault assured him that he read the IPCC report, and that the project was as low-carbon as possible. Laurel Collins repeated the condemnation in English, and Guilbeault repeated his response, and assurances that they would reduce Canada’s emissions by the level required in the report, and that the report did admit that fossil fuels would still be used.

Continue reading →

QP: Sticking by childish epithets about the NDP

Posted on by

While neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present, Candice Bergen was back after a week of isolating while her husband had COVID. She led off, script on her mini-lectern, and she raised the of inflation, and worried that the government would spend “outrageously” rather than producing a “responsible” budget on Thursday. Randy Boissonnault, appearing by video, stated that the Conservatives have ignored the facts of the economic recovery from the pandemic. Bergen raised Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, and John Manley to denounce the supposed “tax-and-spend” budget, because apparently it’s 1995 and will always be 1995. Boissonnault reminded Bergen that she campaigned on a higher deficit, and that their positions are all over the map, and called on the Conservatives to support Bill C-8 on the fiscal update measures. Bergen demanded a GST holiday on fuel and to scrap the price on carbon as “real measures” to give Canadians “a break,” and offered some childish epithets about the NDP. Boissonnault recited measures the government has taken for affordability, including their new plan on low-cost internet for low-income families. Luc Berthold took over in French, and repeated the claim that there were no fiscally-responsible Liberals left, and wondered what good the Liberal Party was if it sacrificed its values for the NDP agenda. Boisonnault repeated his good-news talking point about economic statistics, but in French. Berthold lamented inflation, and worried that the government would unveil new permanent spending in the budget, which apparently would make Chrétien and Martin embarrassed (though I’m not quite sure about that). Boissonnault thanked Berthold for saying that Liberals are fiscally responsible, and praised measures that helped children and seniors out of poverty.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she wanted unconditional health transfers and demanded a public summit to hear from premiers and health care providers. Jean-Yves Duclos praised providers, and noted that tens of thousands of lives, and tens of billions of dollars were saved thanks to their collaborations and efforts. Normandin repeated her demand for a public summit, and Duclos repeated his response. 

Alexandre Boulerice led for the NDP by video, and he cited the three-year warning of the IPCC on the pace of emissions cuts, demanding and end to fossil fuel subsidies, to which Steven Guilbeault recited that they are ahead of the rest of the G7 on ending subsidies and praised the investments in their emissions reduction plan. Laurel Collins repeated the question in English, to which Guilbeault cited environmental groups who praised the emissions reduction plan. 

Continue reading →

QP: Looking for the “secret agreement”

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau back in Europe for more NATO and G7 meetings, most of the other leaders didn’t show up either, even though it was caucus day. Candice Bergen was present, however, and led off, concern trolling about the confidence agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, and insisted there was a signed agreement between them that is being kept secret (never mind that the details of the agreement are public). Mark Holland noted that Canadians expect MPs to work together in a hung parliament, which is a foreign concept to Conservatives given that they didn’t even try when they were in similar circumstances under Stephen Harper. Bergen insisted that there must be a signed agreement and that there is a so-called new executive committee that excludes the opposition, and Holland repeated that they are always looking to work together whenever possible. Bergen railed about “social experiments” (like pharmacare?) and decried the “nightmare socialist deal” that would be hugely expensive, and Holland gave another paean about working together to get things done. Luc Berthold took over in French, and he worried about “secret committees” under the agreement, to which Dominic LeBlanc reminded him that the Conservatives wrote a whole book on how to sabotage committees, so it was rich for them to insist the government didn’t respect Parliament. (Note that this government’s parliamentary vandalism is largely relegated to the Senate). Berthold worried this agreement would trample on Quebec’s jurisdictional rights, to which Pablo Rodriguez got up to list things the government is doing for Quebec.

Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he too worried about Quebec’s jurisdiction, and LeBlanc lamented the Bloc’s frustration which led them to picking fights, and assured him they do respect provincial jurisdiction. Therrien read a statement from the Quebec government that gave a nonsense reading about the revenues they send to the federal government, and Rodriguez listed things they are doing that is good for Quebec, which is bad for the Bloc.

Rachel Blaney rose for the NDP, and she lamented that their motion on an excess profit tax failed, and wanted the government to tax companies and not people. (Erm, you know that people pay corporate taxes, right? That it’s not a magical money tree?) Randy Boissonnault acknowledged the sentiments behind the motion but that that the government was building a fairer and more affordable country with more benefit for people while taxing the rich. Alexandre Boulerice repeated the question in French, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A confidence agreement in the works?

Posted on by

We are now on day twenty-seven of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Ukraine has refused to surrender the strategic port city of Mariupol to the Russians. As well, Russian shelling destroyed a shopping centre in Kyiv killing eight, which is escalating the attacks facing the capital. Also of note was a possible leak of Russian casualty figures, citing 9,861 killed and 16,153 injured over the course of the invasion, which contradicts Russian propaganda figures to date, and which could turn up the pressure on Putin by the Russian people.

Back in Canada, news started spreading over the evening that the Liberals and NPD had reached a tentative agreement to a supply-and-confidence agreement that would see the NDP agree to support the next four Liberal budgets so that they can stay in power until 2025 in relative stability, and in return, the Liberals will make “real progress” on national pharmacare and dental care. I’m a little confused why those would be the conditions, given that they’re wholly dependent upon the provincial governments signing on, and while the current federal government put a framework in place for national pharmacare, thus far only PEI has signed on (and I haven’t seen the NDP publicly haranguing John Horgan to sign on either). And while people ask why they can’t do what they did with early learning and child care, part of that answer is that the reason why provincial governments are gun-shy about these programmes is they are concerned that if they set them up, a future federal government will cut funding and leave them holding the bag for very expensive programmes. While Quebec has shown that child care will pay for itself once more women are in the workforce and paying taxes, I’m not sure the calculation is quite the same for the other two, or will at least take much longer for the fiscal benefits to work their way through the system. So could the government come to the table with a lot more money—maybe. But that doesn’t eliminate the trepidation that once 2025 hits that their fears won’t come true. There are also reports that the deal could include more for housing, reconciliation, and some form of wealth taxes, so we’ll see what gets announced this morning.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, are touting this as evidence of a “coalition” and that it’s “backdoor socialism,” which doesn’t make sense. It’s not a coalition because there are no Cabinet seats for the NDP, and these kinds of confidence agreements are easily broken (see: British Columbia and the deal with the Greens, which Horgan’s NDP tore up when the polls looked good enough to get a majority, which he did). It’s not socialism because they’re not going around nationalising the means of production. They’re still going to wail and gnash their teeth, and pretend that this is somehow illegitimate when it’s one hundred percent within how hung parliaments work under our system, but I’m not going to say it will last the full four years. It will however alter the narrative of the Conservatives’ leadership contest, and could be read either as Trudeau giving himself enough runway to make a few more accomplishments before turning it over to a successor, or for him to try and build the case for re-election. Either way, it’s fairly unprecedented at the federal level in this country, and could make for interesting days ahead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s day of reckoning

Posted on by

Regardless of the outcome of today’s caucus vote, Erin O’Toole is finished as leader—the only question is how long he lingers. Thanks to the (garbage) Reform Act, what should have been an exercise in reading the room has come down to weaponization, threats, and now a legalistic battle of wills where anything less than fifty-percent-plus-one will mean O’Toole will try to lord over the caucus until an eventual grassroots leadership review, which may or may not be sooner than the current date scheduled (pretty much acceding to what Senator Denise Batters sidelined for calling for). But the fact that we’ve even reached this point, months in the making, where more than a third of his caucus is alienated, means he’s unable to lead the party no matter what, and frankly, the (garbage) Reform Act is just making this situation worse than it needed to be.

O’Toole apparently spent the day working the phones, and apparently has been saying that he’s willing to change his policies if he survives—but isn’t that part of the problem that got him here? That he keeps changing his positions depending on the audience he’s in front of? I’m not sure how he thinks this promise helps him. Also, “coincidentally” an Astroturf grassroots group calling itself the “Majority Committee” launched itself yesterday morning, conveniently parroting the exact same lines O’Toole used in his challenge letter to his caucus, so that doesn’t look staged at all. Meanwhile, his former allies are lining up against him, a number of former MPs have added their names to an open letter calling for him to step down, so any illusion that continuing on as leader after this is really just delusion.

https://twitter.com/BobBenzen/status/1488633402400071682

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne argues that it’s not O’Toole that needs to be ousted, but rather the unhinged yahoos in the caucus that are causing the party its biggest headaches. (I don’t disagree, but appealing to the yahoos is part of O’Toole’s problem). Althia Raj correctly notes that whatever the outcome of tomorrow’s vote, it’s untenable for O’Toole to stay. Matt Gurney (by video) wonders if this winds up leading to the break-up of the party.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1488522864269705222

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1488526887408353282

Continue reading →

QP: Back to inflation

Posted on by

After a number of statements about Black History Month, things got underway, with almost none of the leaders present—Justin Trudeau is still isolating and not planning to attend virtually, and Erin O’Toole has other problems to worry about. Gérard Deltell led off in his stead, worrying about inflation and cited the PBO’s concerns about stimulus spending as though government spending is what’s driving inflation (which it is not). Chrystia Freeland worried that the Conservatives were talking down the economy, and countered it with the good news about the GDP figures that showed complete recovery in advance of omicron. Deltell dismissed this as being cold comfort for the average person, for which Freeland insisted that this was just Deltell focusing on the Conservatives’ partisan interests, and recited that we are projected to have the second highest growth in the G7. Deltell insisted this was “contempt” for Canadians, and Freeland insisted that she does her own grocery shopping, and that facts and data are important and that inflation in Canada is beneath the G7, G20 and OECD averages. Michelle Rempel Garner took over in English to accuse the minster of being out of touch, and Freeland suggested that it was the Conservatives who should apologise for voting against Bill C-2 that are helping support those affected by mockdowns. Rempel Garner called the government out of touch with average Canadians and were fuelling divisions, and told Freeland to “take the temperature down,” and Freeland repeated her response about the supports in C-2.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he dissembled for a while before demanding action on the grifter convoy outside. Omar Alghabra stated that he has met with those in the supply chain including the trucking industry and that they would continue moving forward. Blanchet noted that wasn’t his question, and repeated it, for which Freeland thanked him for supporting C-2, and that she agreed that it was important for them to be able to do their work, which is why they trust law enforcement. 

Jagmeet Singh appeared by video, and asked about the blockade at the Coutts border crossing in Alberta and demanded federal action. Alghabra agreed that the blockade needs to end. Singh switched to French to lament housing affordability, and Ahmed Hussen recited this talking points on the National Housing Strategy and the first-time home ownership programme. (Note that shortly after this question, the RCMP moved in on that Coutts blockade and broke it up, for which I half expect Singh to take credit for).

Continue reading →