Tag Archives: Labour

QP: Concerns about the scope of the inquiry

Posted on by

Despite the fact that he gave a press conference outside of the Chamber minutes before QP, the prime minister was not present, nor were any of the other leaders. Luc Berthold led off, and in French, he accused the government of writing the Emergencies Act inquiry’s findings before it even began. Chrystia Freeland slowly read some talking points about the blockades and occupation, and said they look forward to the inquiry report. Berthold again accused the government of fixing the report in their favour, and Freeland read that the measures were targeted and limited, and that they had a duty to protect Canadians and the economy, which they met. Berthold then switched to the torqued story on the RCMP memo and demanded a new investigation, which Freeland slowly and patiently read that the opposition was bringing up a six-year-old matter that has been settled. James Bezan took over in English to demand a new RCMP investigation, and Freeland again slowly read the same talking points in English. Bezan selectively quoted the RCMP memo, without quoting that they concluded there was no evidence, and Freeland responded that Canadians are instead demanding action on climate change, to build more house, and to support Ukraine.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he complained that a new committee was being set up to deal with the Winnipeg Lab documents without the consent of two opposition parties, and Freeland read that they came up with a reasonable solution, and that they would move ahead with this committee. Therrien repeated his complaint, and Freeland repeated her answer.

Alexandre Boulerice led for the NDP by video, and said that Quebeckers demand universal pharmacare—erm, which would be an issue of provincial jurisdiction—and demanded a federal solution. Freeland read that they announced an agreement with PEI last August as a first step, but they were continuing the work. Matthew Green raised the plan to lift the federal sickness benefit and demanded the enactment of ten paid sick days (in federally-regulated workplaces, surely). Freeland praised working with unions and their legislation to make those sick days happen.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A strange definition of dictatorship

Posted on by

We’re now on or about day thirty-five of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russian forces appeared to be pulling back from Kyiv, allegedly to give more space to peace talks, not that anyone believes Russia (nor should they). It could mark a more concentrated effort by Russian forces to “liberate Donbas,” which some say could be a face-saving measure for Putin. As part of the peace talks, Ukraine floated the idea of making Canada a security guarantor to the proposal of neutrality, and not hosting any military troops or bases from other alliances such as NATO, so that’s something. In the meantime, here is a look at why Russia is taking such heavy casualties (and why that is unlikely to deter them).

Closer to home, we have a major problem with disinformation that is being pushed by MPs, particularly Conservative ones. This week, MPs Brad Redekopp and Rachael Thomas declared that Justin Trudeau is a “dictator,” and that they were being absolutely serious about it. This, like Andrew Scheer declaring that Trudeau is the world’s greatest threat to liberty, is absolutely gobsmacking, but part of an increasing pattern of rhetoric that is dangerous to our democracy because it is so corrosive to both accepting election results, and faith in government writ-large, regardless of party.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1508917840333709317

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1508917842607054853

This metastasises into the full-blown endorsement of conspiracy theories, and it’s a problem that is currently plaguing MPs, as that (fairly shite) Senate bill on developing a framework for a guaranteed basic liveable income has senators’ mailboxes and social media being flooded with both conspiracy theories and disinformation about this bill, but also panicked seniors who are being told that they will be denied their pensions and benefits if they are insufficiently vaccinated or the likes. It’s a real problem, and too many MPs (and a handful of senators) have been feeding into this disinformation environment for the sake of scoring a few points, and they really need to stop. No good comes of this, and they’re causing longer-term damage that will be incredibly hard to overcome.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wondering who the real winner of the confidence agreement is

Posted on by

We are now on day twenty-eight, four weeks into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like Russia’s attempts at occupying Mariupol continue to be thwarted, though the city is being reduced to rubble. As well, Ukrainian forces retook a strategic suburb of Kyiv, so that is as good of news as can be hoped for in the situation. Remember how Russia thought it was a matter of marching?

Back in Canada, the supply and confidence agreement between the Liberals and NDP was made official, and boy were there a bunch of reactions. Some of them were expected, like the Conservatives abusing the term “coalition” (it’s not a coalition) and claiming it’s a “power grab” rather than a legitimate exercise of cooperation in a hung parliament as happens not infrequently in Westminster systems. Oh, and she said that this ultimately benefits Putin. No, really—she said that. Even more problematic were certain CBC reporters pushing this bizarre notion that Canadians “elected a minority government” and that this agreement somehow violates it, which no, is not how things work. We don’t elect governments, and there is not majority/minority option on the ballot, and it’s been just as much a recurring narrative in the past two parliaments that a hung parliament means that “Canadians want us to work together” (which is just as silly a notion, frankly), but honestly, I expect better from the CBC than to push this kind of nonsense, and it’s embarrassing for them as the national broadcaster to be pushing this nonsense.

https://twitter.com/SusanDelacourt/status/1506273770176188427

In the meantime, there is a bunch of pearl-clutching that this agreement somehow means that we won’t be increasing defence-spending, even though the NDP has no veto on budgets, and the fact that we can’t even spend the current allocation so it’s way too soon to worry about this. The early indications of the outlined dental care plan could help millions—but it’s light on details and the actual mechanism that will be used given that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction (but some good perspective threads from economist Kevin Milligan here and here). The consensus seems to be that the Liberal are the real winners here and not the NDP, but others argue that the Conservatives could be the real winners because it will give the next leader time to rebuild the party and establish themselves given that the next election will be more than three years away (maybe). And then there is the question about whether this agreement gives Trudeau the runway to accomplish a few more things before turning it over to his successor, though he says otherwise when asked (which of course he will, because saying he won’t run again makes him lame duck instantly). It does make for a different dynamic for the next couple of years in any case, so we’ll see how it shapes up.

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 →

QP: Another rail disruption sets the narrative

Posted on by

Monday back from March Break, and none of the party leaders were present, nor was the Speaker, leaving his deputy, Chris d’Entremont, in the big chair instead. Luc Berthold led off in French, a script in front of him, demanding a resolution to the CP Rail strike/lockout, given how much economic damage it could cause. Seamus O’Regan insisted that they had confidence that the parties could reach a negotiated solution. Berthold tried again, got the same answer, and on a third question, Berthold raised inflation and wanted agreement on their “solution” on a GST break on gasoline and diesel, but O’Regan repeated his answer. Marilyn Gladu took over in English to demand a resolution to the CP Rail dispute, and O’Regan gave his same response about a negotiated solution in English. On another round of the same, O’Regan noted that he was in Calgary and both sides were still at the table, and they were counting on a negotiated solution. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and asked about federally-chartered flights for Ukrainian refugees, for which Sean Fraser said they were prioritising Ukrainian applications, and they were working to facilitate faster arrivals. Therrien insisted this was not fast enough, and Fraser insisted he was working on getting as many people here as fast as possible.

Daniel Blaikie rose for the NDP, and after raising them CP Rail dispute, went into some party bromides about reducing the cost of living and making the wealthy pay. Randy Boissonnault listed some of the government’s affordability measures. Niki Ashton took over to demand that the rich be taxed to “provide relief” for Canadians (without any particular follow-through on that logic), and Boissonnault reminded her that they voted against the government’s bill to raise taxes on the one percent.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Three new entrants for the Conservatives

Posted on by

I believe we are now on day twenty-six of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russia’s list of alleged war crimes continues to add up as the shelling of Mariupol continues, and it sounds like there is no immediate military solution to the crisis in that part of the country. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is calling on members including Canada to increase spending, which we’re doing, but it’s not going to happen overnight. Indeed, as my weekend column points out, we literally can’t spend any more right now until we fix the structural problems inhibiting it. And sure, Greece is spending 3.2 percent of its GDP on the military, but how much are the contributing to NATO operations right now? Very, very little. Closer to home, HMCS Halifax departed for a six-month tour in the North Atlantic as part of NATO operations in the Baltic region.

Back in Canada, the Conservative leadership race got three new entrants—Scott Aitchison, Marc Dalton, and Joseph Bourgault. Aitchison, whose video announcing his intention to run was indistinguishable from a truck commercial, is giving the tired line that “Ottawa isn’t working” but has the self-awareness to know that his party has played a part in the divisive nature of the rhetoric. Oh, and he opposes carbon prices but doesn’t think that should be a “purity test” for the party. Dalton wants to launch a national inquiry into the pandemic response, including the supposed contracts to benefit “Liberal friends” (which has been repeatedly disproven) and on the so-called Charter breaches and apparent cover-up of vaccine injuries and deaths. *sigh* And Bourgault is a nobody businessman from rural Saskatchewan who is part of an organisation claiming the government and “globalists” are using the pandemic to “justify the great reset.” This is what the party has to offer?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mary May Simon’s tea with the Queen

Posted on by

As we carry on through day twenty-three of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we had a glimmer of good news yesterday in that the bomb shelter under that theatre in Mariupol held, and it sounds like a lot of people survived and are being dug out of the rubble. Unfortunately, it sounds like about 80 percent of Mariupol is now rubble, but Ukrainians and allies are vowing to rebuild.

Meanwhile, Canada’s mission at the UN sent out a tweet yesterday marking up and annotating a Russian resolution before the UN about the invasion that doesn’t mention the invasion, only the need for protection of civilians in “vulnerable situation.” The tweet attracted a lot of mixed reviews, but most of them fairly negative because it seems to betray a particular lack of seriousness in how we conduct our foreign affairs (and that it looks like they’re aiming for Twitter dunks).

On a different note, Her Excellency Mary May Simon told CBC that she and the Queen discussed reconciliation and the need to better teach history so that Canadians get a true history of the relationship with Indigenous people. She also said they spoke about the grifter occupation in Ottawa (which the Queen was already briefed about, because the Queen of Canada knows what is going on in her realm), and the situation in Ukraine. It was also revealed that May Simon had requested briefings from officials about the Indian Act and efforts to reform it—which is fine and not a sign that she is overstepping her role. If she wants to make reconciliation a theme of her time in office, then it’s good to have a knowledge base about the intricacies of the history of it (as an Inuk, she was under a different government system than the Indian Act). And frankly, given the expectations that were being heaped upon her to be activist when she was nominated to the position, I think that implied tone of the story of these briefings was some kind of activist move is perhaps as much of a problem as those expectations. May Simon is now on a state visit to three countries in the Middle East, starting with Dubai.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A middle power and a convenor

Posted on by

We are on day twenty-two of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the shelling and air strikes against civilian targets continue—an apartment building in Kyiv, a theatre where children were sheltering in Mariupol. Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the US Congress yesterday, invoking Pearl Harbour and 9/11 as part of his demand to close the sky” (which isn’t going to happen), and added that if America can’t do that, then to at least give Ukraine the planes so they can do it themselves. That was obviously a demand he couldn’t make of Canada (no, seriously—third-hand CF-18s would not be of much use to them), so we’ll see if that gets him any further aid from the US—hours after his address, Joe Biden signed an order authorising another $800 million worth of lethal aid, including anti-aircraft systems, so that presentation may have done its job.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1504186533791870984

Meanwhile, closer to home, Mélanie Joly’s comments that Canada isn’t a military power, but a middle power whose strength is convening to make sure diplomacy happens and convincing other countries to do more is rubbing a bunch of former military leaders the wrong way. We do contribute militarily, oftentimes more so than other allies who meet the stated NATO spending targets (which is one more reason why those targets are not a great measurement of anything), though our ability to do more is being constrained. That’s one reason why I’m getting mighty tired of the number of articles and op-eds over the last few days calling for more spending, while none of them address the current capacity constraints, particularly around recruiting.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The gloves are off in the leadership

Posted on by

It is now day twenty of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Kyiv remains largely intact, while Russian bombardment continues of other cities, particularly Mariupol. Peace talks continue, but there is some speculation that because Russia cannot capture Kyiv that the shelling of other cities is an attempt to force some kinds of concessions from the Ukrainians to end the conflict. There is also news that Russians bombed a military base near the border of Poland, which some are interpreting as an act to warn NATO about providing aid to Ukraine. At the same time, we are hearing that China turned down Russia’s request for military aid as well as financial aid to weather the economic sanctions, though both countries deny this (not that they should be believed), so that is a very interesting development indeed. Elsewhere, the World Bank has approved another $200 million in financial aid for Ukraine to help it weather the invasion.

Later today, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy will address the Canadian parliament, and here is a list of previous leaders who have done so. Meanwhile, two Canadian MPs—one Liberal, one Conservative—are in Poland to offer assistance where they can to Ukrainian refugees, and showing that this is a non-partisan effort to help where Canada is able to. Both expect Zelenskyy to demand more from Canada, and they have been hearing about needs in Poland to assist with the influx of refugees.

Conservative leadership

The gloves are off, and Pierre Poilievre and Patrick Brown are at each other’s throats over the 2015 “niqab ban” policy of the former Harper-led government. Brown is trying to paint Poilievre as complicit in it, as he was in Cabinet at the time, while Poilievre is calling Brown a liar (which is rich considering that Poilievre is an avowed lying liar who lies all the gods damned time), and says there was never a niqab ban—erm, except there was, Harper doubled down on it, members of Poilievre’s own campaign team have said there was and apologised for not standing against it. But again, Poilievre is a lying liar who lies what are you going to do? Oh, and Poilievre is also making a bogus promise about coercing provinces to accept foreign credentials for doctors and engineers. Good luck with that, Pierre, because if that’s all it would take, it would have been done by now (particularly when Poilievre was the federal minister of employment and social development). Cripes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The last-minute scramble to add to Trudeau’s Euro trip

Posted on by

We are now on day nineteen of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and it remains in something of a holding pattern. Russian airstrikes are ramping up, and no, NATO will still not implement a no-fly zone because it will mean shooting down Russian targets, blowing up air defences on Russian soil, and dragging us into a shooting war with a nuclear power while at the same time not doing anything about ground-based shelling or missile-strikes. While sanctions continue to ramp up, the IMF is warning of a massive recession in Russia, which could have bigger international ramifications. (Because sanctions need to hurt us if they’re going to hurt Russia. That’s how it goes).

https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1503024136523767814

Meanwhile, the Star got a behind-the-scenes peek at some of the diplomatic scrambling that happened with Trudeau’s trip to Europe last week, which was supposed to be a short trip to meet the new German chancellor, but quickly ballooned into a number of other meetings and events to show solidarity among NATO allies and with Ukraine (and of course, an audience with the Queen).

Continue reading →