Tag Archives: Joe Biden

Roundup: Three Amigos without much outward progress

Posted on by

Well, that was the Three Amigos summit, and it doesn’t sound like there was any outward progress on Canada’s biggest request, which is getting rid of that electric vehicle tax credit that would essentially crater Canada’s auto sector (and the nascent electric vehicle industry) in spite of decades of cross-border integration of our supply chains. But that progress may yet happen because the Canadian delegation was not solely focusing on the White House – where Biden was non-committal – but also engaging congressional leaders who have the real power in this situation, so there remains time to see if that credit will survive the tortuous and nonsensical budget bill process in their system.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have declared that Trudeau’s approach to relations with the American administration “isn’t working,” and I’m not quite sure what they’re really on about, because there is a massive power imbalance here, and we can’t forget that we are largely an afterthought to the Americans, who are far more concerned about their southern border than the northern one. Softwood lumber has been an irritant for decades, and I distinctly recall the sector was unhappy with the agreement that the Harper government signed (which has since expired). Buy American? Again, this happens under every administration, and is not unique to the current government. Measures targeting agricultural exports? Erm, some of us recall the problems with country-of-origin-labelling that the Conservatives couldn’t make any progress on. Action against pipelines? Seems to me that Harper didn’t have any luck there either, even after plastering Washington DC with billboards and posters declaring that Keystone XL was a “no brainer.” Yeah, that didn’t work.

So what exactly does Chong propose? Performative temper tantrums for the benefit of the media? That seems to be the Conservative demand for most files, but there were two former diplomats on Power & Politics last night who basically said that if you want progress with the American government, you need to do it behind closed doors and not be seen to be pinning someone down, because they don’t respond to that well at all. But we also need to remember that the Conservatives also seem to think that diplomacy is the cookie you get for good behaviour rather than how you deal with problems, so it’s not unsurprising that this demand for performance is how they think this needs to be dealt with.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Beware the lure of a pilot project

Posted on by

You can bet that, as an election looms, that certain parties will start talking up Basic Income again (and this includes the Liberals, given recent party policy votes around it). We’re also hearing from a group of senators who want to push this in spite of evidence that it’s not the best way to go (and they have been vocally dismissing any dissent, no matter how expert). And a bill in the US about Basic Income pilots will add fuel to this particular tire fire. So with that, I turn it over to Dr. Lindsay Tedds, who was on the BC panel that examined the feasibility of Basic Income to break it down:

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1422689592722051072

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1422689597105049603

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1422689601018372096

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1422691518230433793

But there’s a reason why these kinds of pilot proposals are popular, and that is politics. Alas.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1422692966142029826

Continue reading →

Roundup: Subjecting a minister to a double standard

Posted on by

I found myself bemused at the CBC story yesterday about Carolyn Bennett’s office allegedly being some kind of “toxic work environment,” according to a number of former staffers. Reading the piece, however, says little about Bennett herself – other than hammering on the point that she didn’t get along with Jody Wilson-Raybould, as though that were somehow relevant to her office – but rather that the toxicity was related to other staffers in the office who were clannish and played favourites with other staffers. The story made great pains to say that Indigenous staff felt their voices weren’t being heard on policy files, but again, this is about the behaviors of other staffers and not the minister herself.

This all having been said, I am forced to wonder whether anyone could reasonably expect a minister’s office to be some kind of normal office environment, because I can’t really see it. These places are pressure cookers of constant deadlines and stress, and there’s a reason why they tend to be populated by fairly young staffers, many of them recent graduates, which is because they are willing to put up with the long hours, constant travel, and the obliteration of their personal lives where older staffers with families and obligations largely wouldn’t. And while we can say we’d prefer that these offices are healthy work environments and safe spaces, but this is politics at the highest levels in this country. It’s not going to be pretty, as much as we may like it to be.

https://twitter.com/jec79/status/1417870826934730753

https://twitter.com/jec79/status/1417948347009101827

I also think it bears noting that Bennett has been the subject of a lot of criticism that is never given to male ministers, and in particular with the dust-up over her snarky text message with Wilson-Raybould a few weeks ago, seems subject to a double standard that women in ministerial roles are not allowed to have personality conflicts where this, again, is not even blinked at among men. Under this context, the CBC piece looks to be both catering to these double-standards, and looking like they have an axe to grind with Bennett, for whatever the reason.

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 →

Roundup: More alike than unalike

Posted on by

The NDP decided that the bilateral meeting between Justin Trudeau and Joe Biden was the perfect time to take to shitposting about it, in the form of a juvenile mock-up of the agenda items, and making their remarks on them. Because this is where we’re at in this country – our two main opposition parties have decided that the online tactics of shitposting are definitely the way to win the hearts and minds of Canadian voters.

In the NDP’s case, this is not only about trolling Trudeau, but also Biden, because they have made a concerted effort to appeal to the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Bernie Sanders fanbase – consistent with their lifting their policy ideas wholesale, no matter whether or not they have any relevance in the Canadian context. This tends to involve a certain amount of trying to “win the Internet,” whether it’s with Jagmeet Singh adopting TikTok memes, or the culmination of this attempt to co-opt American Democrat cred when Singh and Ocasio-Cortez played Among Us over Twitch as part of a fundraiser. As a more centrist, compromise candidate, Biden is seen as a betrayal of the progressive wing of the Democrats, and you can bet that the Canadian New Democrats trying to appeal to them is going to cash in on that as much as possible.

None of this should be too surprising, however – the NDP have long-since abandoned any real sense of ideology for the sake of being left-flavoured populists, running after flavours of the week and pursuing policies that don’t actually make sense for their own purported principles (like their demand to cut the HST off of home heating, which would only disproportionately reward the wealthy). In this way, they have been more like the Conservatives than unalike for a while now, but with this full-on embrace of shitposting (as opposed to simply the mendacious omission of jurisdictional boundaries in their demands) just drives that point home.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A slacktivist declaration

Posted on by

The Conservatives’ non-binding Supply Day vote went ahead yesterday on declaring that China is conducting a genocide against the Uyghur population, and it passed unanimously – without anyone in Cabinet voting. Well, Marc Garneau was there to performatively declare that he was abstaining – which you can’t actually do, because Commons votes are strictly yay or nay (the Senate has an abstention option), but no one else in Cabinet was there, for what it’s worth.

Immediately, news outlets everywhere started declaring that “Parliament declared a genocide,” which, no, did not happen. It was a non-binding vote in the House of Commons – which is not Parliament – that essentially expressed an opinion. There is nothing official about said declaration, which is important, because an official declaration would have consequences. Essentially, the House of Commons voted to put a black square on their Instagram and call it action against genocide.

And there will be consequences, such as China attempting to impose further sanctions upon Canada in an attempt to try and warn other Western countries from making a similar declaration, because China doesn’t want to lose face. This is precisely why the government has been working with allies to do – ensure that all of their ducks are in a row before they make a formal declaration of genocide, so that they a) have a united front against China’s retaliation, b) that they can uphold the obligations under the Genocide Convention around preventing genocide and punishing those responsible – something that the Americans have opted themselves out of because they refuse to respect the authority of the International Court of Justice, which means that America declaring a genocide is largely a symbolic act, whereas Canada doing the same is not. (And it would be great if media outlets could actually articulate this point rather than ignoring it, because they all have. Every single one of them).

But the opposition parties – and apparently the backbench Liberals as well – are more concerned with making a statement and the kind of preening that comes with “showing leadership” rather than doing the actual hard work of getting our allies on-side so that we have a meaningful declaration and that we aren’t cheapening the term “genocide,” which is literally the worst crime against humanity. But political leadership in this country is decidedly unserious, so this is the kind of clown show we’re getting, complete with a cartoonish understanding of foreign policy. Go us.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A lack of will is not an emergency

Posted on by

With the spread of variants on the rise, and certain provinces still insistent on relaxing public health restrictions, we’re going to get another round of reporters demanding that the federal government invoke the Emergencies Act to force provinces to maintain lockdowns – which they can’t actually do. No, seriously – they can’t do it.

I cannot stress this enough – the federal government cannot just invoke the Act on a whim. It needs to meet the threshold – which I am hard-pressed to see how this situation does – and it needs provincial consent, and if it doesn’t it is essentially declaring war on the provinces, and is going to poison the well of federalism. And even more to the point, keeping the focus on the federal government continues to give premiers who aren’t doing their jobs a free pass when we should be holding them to account for their failures.

Speaking of which, the math on these variants is scary, and premiers need to so something about it rather than feigning helplessness, which is what they’re oh so good at. They have the power to do something about it, rather than shrugging and blaming the federal government for not making vaccines appear out of thin air. But that’s what they’re doing, and that’s what the vast majority of the media are letting them get away with. We shouldn’t let them.

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1363532149832310784

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1363533026559332355

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1363534914046500865

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau’s transparent fiction about vetting

Posted on by

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made his call to the Queen yesterday morning to update her on the situation with the Governor General and that the Chief Justice will be fulfilling his role as Administrator in Julie Payette’s absence, and then he went to face reporters and spun an elaborate and transparent fiction to them, claiming that there was a “rigorous vetting process” around Payette’s appointment. This was a lie, complete with the rote assurances that they are always looking to improve the process. You know what would have been an improvement? Not abandoning the perfectly good process in the first place because when you had a lieutenant governor position open up, you wanted to fill it with one of your former ministers because you owed her after siding with Jody Wilson-Raybould over her. And from there, he couldn’t abandon it just for that position – he had to abandon the whole thing. In fact, Dominic LeBlanc pretty much ratted him out to the Globe and Mail that the vetting was inadequate, so even if you haven’t been following this file like some of us have, you know this was a lie.

Where the rub in this is because Trudeau is refusing to apologise or take any responsibility for the appointment itself, which is entirely on him under the tenets of Responsible Government. He has to wear this appointment – especially because he abandoned an established consultative process that worked and got good results, then didn’t actually vet Payette when she was suggested to him by his close circle, nor did he call references. As one CBC reporter at the presser said, it took her almost no work at all to find out that Payette’s previous two workplaces showed this very same pattern of abusive behaviour – which again supports the fact that the “rigorous vetting” was a lie. This is something that Parliament should be holding Trudeau to account for, like how our system is supposed to work.

Meanwhile, Colby Cosh makes the salient point that part of our desire for putting celebrities into Rideau Hall stems from our watching the cult of celebrity in American politics and looking to replicate it here, whereas what we should be doing is finding someone competent and unassuming for the role. Paul Wells recounts some of the early red flags with Payette, like her refusal to sign government orders in a timely manner, before making the salient point that part of Trudeau’s problem is really bigger than him – that the impulse to try and make things new and shiny is bigger than just him, and that Trudeau needs to be reminded of the hard work that goes into making these appointments. Meanwhile, here’s Philippe Lagassé providing a reality check as the cheap outrage brigade starts in on Payette’s post-appointment annuities.

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1352702547702800385

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1352703435058065408

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1352705240517251073

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1352707613633425409

Continue reading →

Roundup: The politics of throwing tantrums

Posted on by

The word of the day was tantrums. It started off with Ontario premier Doug Ford throwing one at the CEO of Pfizer when he called him up to demand answers on new vaccines. It seems, however, that it didn’t last long, because when Ford put out a press release – sans staged photo of him on the call – he didn’t say what he had been told. After his bluster about firecrackers the day before, it would certainly appear that he was chastened by said CEO that he couldn’t make magic happen, but Ford had to look tough for his audience.

Shortly thereafter, Erin O’Toole put out a press release demanding that Justin Trudeau also phone up the CEO to throw a tantrum about the temporary vaccine shortage, and then hours later, when it became confirmed that President Biden rescinded the Keystone XL permit by executive order, O’Toole put out a separate release that said that Trudeau hadn’t done enough to stand up for their energy sector, as though Trudeau needs to scream, cry, threaten, and hold his breath until he turns blue. And more to the point, I find it fascinating that the Conservatives keep insisting that Trudeau is all style and no substance, and yet the one thing they keep demanding of him is more political performance art. Then again, when you look back at their legacy in government, it was far more about optics over substance, whether that was over their unconstitutional tough-on-crime measures, or the GST cut – which went against all good economic sense. Signalling to their base seemed to be what they were really all about, to the detriment of sound governance.

And to top off the day of tantrums, Jason Kenney’s reaction to the Keystone XL cancellation was beyond precious, as he demanded that the federal government start imposing trade sanctions against the US for the move, which is utterly bonkers. It’s also pretty telling as to the state of delusion Kenney seems to occupy when it comes just what cards he has in his hand. Trying to start a trade war with the US would have far more devastating consequences for Canada, and Kenney should know that, but apparently the politics of throwing tantrums in public is too good to avoid. And this is the state of the discourse, apparently. I would very much like leaders who behave like adults to be in the room, but this is where we are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A question of political accountability

Posted on by

An issue that I am getting tired of writing commenting on over, and over again, is this story about the supposed political vetting of judicial candidates. The reporters on the story fail to mention the crucial constitutional details underpinning the story, Erin O’Toole lies about what the justice minister has said in response to the constant allegations, and now the president of the Canadian Bar Association is writing to the government to express his concerns that this whole thing threatens public faith in the judiciary. And here I go again.

For the eleventieth time, let me reiterate that the prime minister is politically accountable for judicial appointments under our system of Responsible Government. That means that if another bad one gets through the selection process, he has to wear it politically if things come to light – kind of like what happened around now-former Justice Robin Camp (who you may remembered wondered why a sexual assault complainant didn’t keep her knees together). This is one of the reasons why once the candidates have made it through the initial non-partisan vetting process, that they are subjected to a political screen – to ensure that nobody is aware of any particular skeletons in these potential judges’ pasts that could come around to bite them in the future. Some of the confusion here is because one of the ways in which the government has been doing this vetting has been through their voter identification database, which has been interpreted as seeing if they are donors or had lawn signs – which is a false reading of what these databases do, which is to build voter profiles, and they consume vast amounts of data to do so (which is also why there are concerns that they are not subject to federal privacy laws). But this is being deliberately framed as looking for partisan manipulation. (This is not to suggest the motives of these reporters is partisan – only that they are looking to embarrass the government, and it wouldn’t matter which party is in charge).

I am more concerned by the fact that someone is leaking to the press, and the French press especially seems to be targeted about revelations concerning a particular staffer, which suggests to me some internecine fighting within the Liberal ranks that they are willing to do damage to themselves in order to hurt this staffer in particular. But why worry about motive or the fact that you are being played when you have a potentially embarrassing headline?

Continue reading →