Tag Archives: Labour

QP: Bland assurances about Arctic sovereignty

Posted on by

For Thursday, neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present, nor were most of the the other leaders, save one. Luc Berthold led off, with a script but without a mini-lectern, and in French, he worried about the disinformation circulating about the invasion of Ukraine, but wedged this into a question about expelling the Russian ambassador. Anita Anand rose, not to answer but to recognise the presence of Ukraine’s chargé d’affaires in the gallery, which was against the rules—which the Speaker reminded her of—before Anand made a bland statement. Berthold worried about the state of our military’s readiness should Putin carry on, and Anand assured him that of course we are ready and that nothing has been neglected, before she read out what new lethal aid was provided to Ukraine this morning. Raquel Dancho took over in English to again demand to know what meetings she has had to prepare for Russian threats of retaliation. Anand assured her that they were prepared for any eventuality, and mentioned working with American counterparts to modernise NORAD as a priority. Dancho worried that we did not have sufficient military assets in the Arctic, and wanted further reassurances, and Anand repeated her reassurances before saying that we need to be non-provocative and rational in this situation. Berthold took back over to repeat the question about what we are doing about deterrence to keep Russia from invading the Arctic. Anand repeated that we would work with the US, and stated that the Coast Guard would defend us.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and worried that the government’s emergency travel documents for Ukrainian refugees would take too long, and Anand read that what was announced today would reduce red tape and would hasten passage for Ukrainians, and there was no limit to how many were would take in. Normandin stated the need for an emergency airlift operation, and Anand spoke about more measures for these refugees but did not commit to an airlift.

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, in person, and demanded more sanctions against more Russian oligarchs, to which Anand, after some hesitation, listed those already under sanction and said that they were working with allies to impose yet more sanctions. Singh repeated the question in French, and Anand repeated her response in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reaction to Russia’s further invasion of Ukraine

Posted on by

Russian forces have been advancing in Ukraine, but not without opposition. Shelling continues against several Ukrainian cities and into Kyiv itself, as people are taking shelter in the metro. Closer to home, prime minister Justin Trudeau announced another round of tougher sanctions against Russian oligarchs and other key leaders, and there is talk that yet more sanctions are on the way, but it also sounds like there is some difficulty in getting all of our allies on-side, and the thing about these kinds of sanctions is that everyone needs to do them so that there aren’t loopholes that Russia can slip through. (Trudeau also announced measures to help Canadians in Ukraine get safe passage to neighbouring countries, as well as expeditated immigration processing for Ukrainians).

But one of the biggest measures—cutting Russia out of the SWIFT global financial transaction system—has not yet been implemented because Europeans are balking (though Canada has reportedly been pushing for this, along with the UK). Canada is somewhat fortunate because we are less exposed to Russian trade and money than other allies, but it’s that exposure which will make sanctions harder on Western allies the tougher they are on Russia—and that’s something that a lot of the talking heads can’t seem to get their heads around. If you look at what European countries are trying to get carve-outs for, it’s because they don’t want to lose the Russian money in their economies. And that’s a tough pill to swallow, especially as all of our economies are still recovering from the pandemic recession.

https://twitter.com/LillyResearch/status/1496964138962386945

https://twitter.com/MatinaStevis/status/1496758467943866374

Where this will hurt us especially is higher world oil prices, as cutting Russia out of the market will further restrict supply at a time where energy shortages in certain countries have turned to oil to fill that gap, creating demand and limiting supply. That will mean higher gasoline prices in Canada, and while these higher prices will be good for the Alberta economy (oh, look—one more boom for them to piss away), it’s going to be felt in the inflation data, which will have more people lighting their hair on fire, demanding Something Must Be Done, but they won’t come out and spell out that they mean wage and price controls, or a new NEP. Jason Kenney, unable to read the room, is trying to make this about a new pitch for Alberta’s so-called Ethical Oil™, and we have federal Conservatives demanding a fast-tracked LNG infrastructure to export to Europe, but seriously, that’s a multi-year and multi-billion-dollar investment that is going to be short-lived the fast were decarbonise our economies.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding the inflation target

Posted on by

With the prime minister virtually attending Biden’s “democracy summit,” and Chrystia Freeland absent, it was promising to be a rockier day in the Commons. Erin O’Toole led off, his script on his mini-lectern, and he brayed about inflation, housing prices, and coming interest rate hikes. Ahmed Hussen reminded him that they were the federal party that restored leadership to the housing file and he praised the National Housing Strategy. O’Toole raised the prospect of predicted food price hikes, and then pretended that Trudeau and Freeland were in the Chamber and not answer, and Randy Boissonnault, in his role as associate finance minster, reminded O’Toole about the Bank of Canada’s inflation target. O’Toole pretended that the prime minster ignored his responses about the Bank’s mandate and worried it would be changed, to which Boissonnault reminded him that the Bank is independent. O’Toole switched to French to misleadingly say that the Liberals planned to abandon the inflation targeting mandate, and Hussen repeated his first response, and called out the nonsense in the Conservatives’ supply day motion. O’Toole returned to braying about inflation in French, and Boissonnault repeated in French about the Bank’s mandate, before reciting some good news talking points.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he worried that the Auditor General showed that thirty percent of COVID tests were lost or mislabelled, for which Duclos said that he thanked the AG for her work, and said they would examine the results. Therrien worried about the stat that fourteen percent of those tested were never notified, but Duclos gave a bromide about working to prevent omicron.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and after citing a report on growing inequality (I would be dubious of that given that the Canadian trajectory has not been the same as the US), and he demanded a tax on the super-wealthy, for which Boissonnault listed measures to help those in need. Singh repeated the question in French, and Boissonnault read measures in the Liberal platform about taxing banks and insurance companies.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Evidence-based dumping a promise

Posted on by

Because we’re going to re-litigate this issue yet again over the course of the campaign, I’m going to remind you all that Trudeau’s decision to abandon electoral reform was a result of evidence-based policy as opposed to a lie or false promise. The issue was studied. They engaged in polling that was output-based, meaning what people wanted for outcomes rather than simply asking them which system they preferred, because that conditions people who are rote in their responses about what system they think they prefer, without necessarily understanding their outcomes. And the outcomes they were looking for had a lot more to do with status quo than most people like to believe.

Beyond that, the special committee that studied the issue in the House of Commons returned a report that was hot garbage. Its conclusions were to call on the government to design a bespoke version of proportional representation that fell below a certain threshold of what they consider vote percentages to seat allocations which would require a massive number of new seats to be even remotely possible, that also had to have a simple ballot and retained the ability to elect individual MPs who had a connection to the riding as opposed to choosing MPs from party lists. Such a thing is a virtual impossibility. The common talking point is that Trudeau killed it because it didn’t advance ranked ballots, which he preferred (never mind that the Liberals on the committee didn’t advance study of this system in any meaningful way), and both the committee and the media were caught up in one bullshit analysis that relied on a single poll of second choices that declared that the Liberals would have won more seats under such a system, where there is actually no evidence of that. (Seriously, look at how politics works in Australia’s House of Representatives, which is elected by ranked ballot). That was the dominant narrative, which made it poisonous for Trudeau to advance.

But we’re going to get a bunch of people continue to moan about that in this election, including some ridiculous assertions that if the Conservatives form government that it’s because Trudeau didn’t implement proportional representation. (Seriously, if you favour a voting system because you think it’ll keep a certain party out, then you’re a sore loser, not actually interested in democratic outcomes). And no doubt, we’ll see some more garbage journalism like this CBC piece which is obtuse about things like the Conservative platform, and getting comment from a single political scientist who favours reform. Seriously? That’s not how you do your job.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carney out, no need to panic

Posted on by

To the dismay of the bulk of the pundit class, Mark Carney says he has other climate-related commitments and won’t be running for a seat in the next election. In response, Pierre Poilievre tweeted that Carney is afraid of running because Trudeau will cause a financial meltdown, and Carney will try to blame it on Freeland. It’s just so stupid, and yet this is the state of public discourse in this country.

To be clear, there is no financial meltdown going to happen. Yes, there are challenges that need to be addressed, but let’s be real here.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1417623876880588800

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1417625158450225153

Continue reading →

Roundup: C-10 shenanigans have poisoned the well of our parliament

Posted on by

Because things around Bill C-10 couldn’t get any more ridiculous, we now have news stories about Michael Geist getting the vapours about how amendments are being rushed through committee in a “secretive” manner, as though he’s never witnessed a clause-by-clause debate before. And to an extent, what has happened with that committee is the result of a complete breakdown of how it should be operating, forcing the government to impose time allocation on the process – a rare manoeuvre at the committee stage – because it has become so toxic. And with the whips intervening, this turned into essentially a forced meeting that the chair himself objected to, but again, this whole process has become so toxic because of partisan gamesmanship.

First things first ­– Geist’s vapours are more or less melodramatic, because there are still several other opportunities to see what amendments have been agreed to – the final committee report, which goes to Report Stage debate in the Chamber, where the full Commons can vote to accept or reject those amendments. And then there is third reading. If anything, particularly egregious is in there, it can still be caught and amended, and while rare at those stages, it is possible. And then there is the entire Senate process, where they can hear from yet more witnesses in their own committees on the amended version of the bill, and given that this particular iteration of the Senate is far more activist and interventionist, we can bet that there will be more impetus for amendments there (which could force an awkward contest of wills around those amendments given that they’d have to go back to a Commons that has risen for the summer, and at a time when nobody in this city can shut up about election speculation). Nevertheless, the point stands that there are several avenues yet for more amendments to this bill than what happened at the Commons committee.

The bigger point here, however, is that the reason this process became so toxic was because the Conservatives took a fundamentally – nay, existentially – flawed bill, and decided that instead of engaging its actual flaws, they would invent a whole litany of straw men and red herrings, and try to get the country up in arms over fictional provisions that they pulled out of their asses and held them up as effigies to be burned in protest. It’s a bad bill – it never should have placed under the Broadcasting Act because that statute deals with the assumption of the limited bandwidth of TV and radio, and trying to apply it to the internet is largely unworkable. This is a legitimate criticism that should have been debated, but instead, we got this fabrication of an Internet Czar who is going to be vetting your tweets and Facebook posts, and dark visions of Orwellian censorship at the hands of the CRTC, which is not even remotely plausible. But they went full-tilt with this insanity, and just completely poisoned the well of parliament along the way.

The government is not blameless here either – the minister’s communication around the bill has been nothing short of a disaster in English Canada, and his stumbles have been extremely damaging, but he’s been given a long leash because this is playing well in Quebec (where discoverability is a huge vote-getter because they do have difficulty finding Quebec and Canadian content in French – pointing to how the debate on this bill has been hugely built on what I’m going to dub “Anglophone privilege.”) We could have had a constructive debate around this bill. But we didn’t. A mountain of lies was countered by communications incompetence, and after six weeks of absolute shenanigans at committee, the government had enough and brought the hammer down. None of this needed to happen, but apparently we don’t have enough grown-ups in our parliament, and that’s just a sad, sad state of affairs.

Continue reading →

QP: Magical solutions to housing shortages

Posted on by

We had initially been promised the prime minister’s attendance today, but given events, he and the other party leaders all decided to jet off together to the vigil in London, Ontario, for the Muslim family that was killed in a hate crime on Sunday night. Candice Bergen led off by video, requesting an update on what the government was doing to support the Muslim community in the wake of the tragedy. Bill Blair listed off some supports, and made the point about Canada trying to “be the country we aspire to be,” which I thought was probably one of the better articulations out there, rather than the usual “this isn’t us” denialism. Bergen then demanded to know why unredacted documents related to the two fired scientists had not been turned over to the House of Commons as had been ordered, for which Patty Hajdu reminded her that she turned those documents over to NSICOP, which was the proper venue for it. Bergen accused the government of being in contempt of Parliament, and tied the lab to the investigation into the origins of COVID in Wuhan, thus fuelling more conspiracy theories, and Hajdu warned her about conflating issues. Gérard Deltell took over in French and tried to insist that NSICOP was the personal committee of the prime minister and that they couldn’t know what was turned over to it – which is a very dangerous move to politicise the committee like that – and Hajdu corrected him that the committee is multi-partisan and has the ability to review these kinds of documents. Deltell tried again, and got the same pushback from Hajdu.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and demanded action to solve the delays to temporary foreign workers in Quebec. Marco Mendicino insisted that he was hard at work with his Quebec counterpart and they were on target. Yves Perron took over and demanded immediate action on the arrival of those workers, and Mendicino reminded him that they have doubled the number of arrivals over the past decade.

Rachel Blaney demanded immediate action on the motion that passed yesterday on ending litigation against First Nations children and residential schools survivors, for which Carolyn Bennett praised the intent of the motion, but stated that they contain complex legal issues that should not be resolved unilaterally on the floor of the House of Commons. Charlie Angus repeated the question with added sanctimony, and Bennett read that the court ordered an independent review of the compensation which could include greater amounts for some survivors, which the government was funding.

Continue reading →

QP: Being smug about a flailing minister

Posted on by

For Monday, the depleted ranks in the Chamber were a little lower than usual, and once again, the only Liberal present was Mark Gerretsen. Candice Bergen led off in person, and read that there were contradictions between Katie Telford’s testimony and something that Senior Liberal Sources™ told the Toronto Star. Harriet Sajjan insisted that they took appropriate action at the time given that they had no . Bergen tried again, got the same answer, and for her third question, Bergen tried to ask Candice Bergen how the Feminist Government™ could allow this to happen, and Sajjan have his usual lines about having a lot more work to do, naming former Justices Arbour and Fish for the work they are undertaking. Gérard Deltell took over in French and repeated Bergen’s first question, got the same answer. Deltell then tried the tactic of asking Freeland about how she could have let this happen, but Sajjan repeated his well-worn lines.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he groused that Bill C-19 was being put under time allocation, and Dominic LeBlanc reminded him that nobody wants an election but they wanted to respond to the Chief Electoral Officer’s report. Therrien insisted that by imposing time allocation, the government was tacitly admitting they want an election as soon as possible, and LeBlanc repeated his answer.

Alexandre Boulerice led for the NDP by video, and he accused the government of ignoring the Deschamps Report before hiring Justice Arbour, and Sajjan repeated his lines that they have know they have more work to do. Lindsay Matthysen repeated the question in English, and Sajjan repeated his answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Committee rudeness undermines their work

Posted on by

There is a piece on the Canadian Press’ newswire right now about how victims of sexual assault who went before House of Commons committees to testify, whether it’s on the PornHub issue or the Canadian Forces’ problems with sexual misconduct, have been ill-treated by MPs, usually by rudeness, or not allowing them time to deal with the trauma related to this kind of testimony. And they’re absolutely right – and Commons committees are some of the worst offenders for this kind of behaviour.

Why? Part of this is because MPs lack some basic self-awareness. There are tight rules around timelines in committee hearings, as to how long an MP has to ask questions and get answers, and they get so wrapped up in the issue of their time that they get tunnel vision, and witnesses essentially get railroaded by it. The bigger and more prevalent part, however, is that MPs are more concerned about scoring points at these hearings that they are simply being partisan dicks about everything. Ask anyone who has testified before both Commons and Senate committees, and they will tell you that Senate committees are far more preferable, as they are more interested in the subject matter and the actual expertise or experiences of the witnesses than they are in using those witnesses to score points on their behalf. And much of the time, they’re barely paying attention, because they don’t have to actually write the report at the end – the analysts provided by the Library of Parliament do, and MPs simply approve it or write dissenting recommendations. It’s a problem and it really, really devalues the role that Commons committees should be playing in our basic democratic processes in this country.

And I can speak to some of this from personal experience. I was once invited to testify before the Procedure and House Affairs committee as they were contemplating hybrid and remote voting rules, and it quickly became apparent that I had been asked not for my expertise or my insights as someone who had been watching Parliament longer than any member of that committee had been an MP – I was there to be treated as a reactionary whom they could hold up their proposals to and show that they were being reasonable and my opinions weren’t. It was kind of a gross experience, and I was rudely treated by a couple of Liberal MPs (one of whom has since become a minister), because they were interested in scoring points. I also didn’t have the added weight of having to re-traumatise myself to provide this testimony to be treated in such a way, like some of the women in the piece were. It’s pretty gross, and it’s a poor reflection of how Parliament operates, particularly in the current climate and context. MPs really need to shape up and do better, if they want to retain any credibility at all.

Continue reading →

QP: Vance and the old boys’ club

Posted on by

Wednesday, proto-PMQ day, and we actually saw three Liberals in the Chamber for a change — the prime minister, Catherine McKenna, and Mark Gerretsen, because of course he was there. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and in French, gave his insistence that he didn’t believe that Trudeau wasn’t aware of the allegations against General Jonathan Vance. Justin Trudeau first gave the statement that any sexual misconduct was unacceptable and that they have new investments in the budget to combat misconduct, and that more announcements were coming soon. O’Toole switched to English to raise what happened when Trudeau booted two MPs from caucus over sexual harassment allegations before lamenting that a woman in uniform who came forward got no help. Trudeau repeated the list of actions they have taken and are planning to take. O’Toole then returned to the incredulity that Trudeau couldn’t have know about the nature of the allegations, for which Trudeau reminded him that they followed the same process that O’Toole followed in 2015 when he first heard rumours of allegations against Vance. O’Toole insisted that wasn’t true, and insinuated that the Liberals were too busy dealing with misconduct in their own ranks, and Trudeau noted that what was being lobbed at him proved that his party took things seriously. O’Toole then insisted that if everyone knew but the prime minister, then he needed to fire his chief of staff, and Trudeau gave one more impassioned cry that his party takes this seriously.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and raised the strike at the Port of Montreal, and wondered if text in the back-to-work legislation had to do with unilateral scheduling issues, for which Trudeau recited that they believe in negation but exhausted all of their options. Blanchet noted that he didn’t answer the question, and repeated it, asking for a yes or no answer, but Trudeau read a timeline of negations instead.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in English, raised the National Day of Mourning, demanding better paid sick leave, and Trudeau read that employer leave is the most effective mechanism, and that they instituted it for federally-regulated workplaces but the NDP voted against it. Singh insisted that the federal sickness benefit simply needed to be improved, and Trudeau noted that the NDP are “completely befuddled” by provincial jurisdiction.

Continue reading →