Tag Archives: RCMP

Roundup: Special committee games

Posted on by

The competing offers for special committees got even more crowded yesterday as the Liberals suggested their own possible special committee to examine pandemic spending, in a bid to jam both the Conservatives and NDP as they make their own offers. The Conservatives, you may recall, are employing a stunt to call for a special “anti-corruption committee,” as though the penny-ante bullshit that happens here were actual corruption that happens in other countries, and called explicitly for the purpose of decrying any lack of support for this committee idea as being in support of corruption. The NDP have their own proposal for a pandemic spending committee, but it was intended as a kind of super-committee to draw in not only the WE Imbroglio, but to revisit other non-scandals such as the Rob Silver affair (which the Ethics Commissioner declined to investigate), or the fact that one of the many pandemic procurement contracts went to a company whose owner is a former Liberal MP (whose departure was a bit huffy and drawn out at the time, one may recall).

The Liberal plan is to offer a “serious committee” to do “serious work,” which is a political gambit in and of itself – citing that if the other parties don’t agree to this particular committee (whose terms of reference one expects will be fairly narrowly circumscribed), then it proves that they are simply motivated by partisan gamesmanship rather than helping Canadians. And they’re not wrong – that’s exactly what both the Conservatives and NDP are looking for, at a point where they can only expect diminishing returns the longer that they drag on the WE Imbroglio (though, caveat, they do have a legitimate point in the Finance committee about producing the unredacted documents because that was the committee order that the government didn’t obey, and risks finding themselves in contempt of parliament over; the Ethics Committee demands are going outside of that committee’s mandate).

To add to the possible drama, the Liberals are also contemplating making the Conservatives’ upcoming Supply Day motion on their committee demand a confidence vote, which will wind up forcing the hands of one of the opposition parties into voting against it because nobody wants an election (and that could mean a number of Conservative MPs suddenly having “connectivity issues” and being unable to vote on the motion to ensure its demise). Of course, there is always the possibility of an accident – that seat counts weren’t done properly and the government could defeat itself, though that’s highly unlikely in the current circumstances. Nevertheless, this game-playing is where we’re at, seven months into the pandemic.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre attacks the central bank

Posted on by

I am generally tolerant of MPs taking on ministerial or critic portfolios without first requiring a background knowledge in the subject matter, because for ministers, what matters is your ability to manage the department and act on advice that you’re given (as well as being accountable for those actions), while critics are playing an accountability role, and don’t exactly need subject matter expertise in order to do that. This having been said, sometimes ignorance is damaging, and we saw a very real example of that yesterday, where the Conservative finance critic, Pierre Poilievre, started taking shots at the Bank of Canada, saying that their quantitative easing programme is a “pyramid scheme” that is enabling the Liberals’ deficit spending (because we’re in a global pandemic!), and in doing so, is threatening the independence of the central bank. Poilievre also raised the spectre of runaway inflation if the Bank keeps printing money, err, except that we are currently facing deflationary pressure – not inflationary.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1316702304867946497

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1316703965585833984

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1316854251826683904

There are plenty of economists who can explain these concepts to Poilievre, except we know that he’s not interested. He was given the portfolio in order to be a shit-disturber, to knock Bill Morneau off his game (and Morneau was fairly easily rattled by this kind of partisan buffoonery), and presumably kept in the role because Erin O’Toole thought he was doing a good job of it. Mind you, Chrystia Freeland is not Bill Morneau, and she’s not affected by Poilievre’s antics, and frequently puts him in his place in QP. But the fact that this is the state of the discourse on the economic recovery is both disappointing and dispiriting. We should be having reasonably conversations about what is happening with the economic recovery, not this kind of performative baboon jeering and hooting that we’re getting from a party that claims to be the better economic managers.

Good reads:

  • The Chinese ambassador has implicitly threatened Canadians in Hong Kong if Canada grants asylum to Hong Kong protesters. So that’s going well.
  • The new commercial rent subsidy will be retroactive to October 1st, but will require legislation to pass before those funds can roll out.
  • Indigenous Services minister Marc Miller says the raid on the Nova Scotia lobster pound on Tuesday was an attack on all Mi’kmaw people.
  • The Mi’kmaq chief involved in the fishery dispute says that the RCMP inaction on the scene as their property was destroyed in the raid is systemic racism in action.
  • The federal government is investing $20 million in helping bring small modular reactors to market as part of the goal of reaching net zero emissions.
  • The RCMP’s union is back in talks around salary increases, after they were delayed for the pandemic.
  • The government’s COVID Alert app has a bit of a glitch on Apple phones running older iOS, where it’s telling them they have potential conflicts when the app doesn’t.
  • The Bank of Canada is preparing to have a digital currency at the ready in the event it’s needed should Facebook’s planned Libra get blocked by regulators.
  • Pharmaceutical companies are threatening not to launch new medicines in Canada if new regulations come to force that would lower some prices.
  • Liberals on the finance and ethics committees are continuing their filibusters to avoid resuming the investigations into the WE Imbroglio.
  • Economists Andrew Leach and Blake Shaffer consider Alberta’s shift away from coal-fired electricity to be a success story for tools like carbon pricing.
  • Susan Delacourt recounts a political scientist’s attempts to interview women MPs about their experiences, and how that translates into changing the political culture.

Odds and ends:

Colin Horgan gives a wake-up call that the end of 2020 won’t bring relief, but will probably make things worse because we’ve exposed the problems in society.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

Roundup: Learned helplessness sets into the Senate

Posted on by

News that the Senate has been suspended until the end of the month, and that they have only met fourteen times since March, is deeply irritating to me on numerous levels. My primary irritation is that the Senate has work it can do, but hasn’t been doing it both because they’ve been unable to get their committees up and running, and because there have been virtually no government bills that were not COVID-related or Estimates that have headed their way. On the committee front, it would seem that much of the drama that happened in the early part of the year in the Selection committee has largely resolved itself because the Progressive Senators Group has been revitalized and is now a viable caucus again, meaning that Senator Yuen Pau Woo’s attempt to exclude them from committee seats has been for naught, and they should be able to come to an agreement about equitable distribution of seats now that he’s not able to screw them over. As for government bills, this has largely been a question of timing – bills in process did not advance very far before the pandemic hit – but the government has a very full agenda and should introduce one or two of its bills in the Senate as they are capable of doing, in order to get the ball rolling on them. There is no excuse for them not to.

As for the lack of sitting days, this is largely the prerogative of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and in the current pandemic state, I find that a kind of learned helplessness has been setting in, in both chambers. The Senate, disadvantaged on the part of resources, particularly when it comes to thinks like IT and video capacity, has taken a back-seat while the Commons has been gobbling up those resources to get its own operations going remotely, and yet the Senate could very well have come up with ways to meet in-person safely. The concerns about travel could be mitigated by just having senators stay put, but they have thus far refused to make allowances in their Internal Economy committee to let them do so that won’t cost them out-of-pocket if they don’t already have an apartment or condo in town. The current demands for “hybrid” sittings, in spite of the problems that have developed with them in the Commons, seems to be barrelling ahead in spite of the objections of the Conservatives, and despite the fact that simply creating a parliamentary bubble is the cheaper, easier, and better option.

The bitter irony in all of this is that for all of Justin Trudeau’s talk about a more “independent” Senate, the last eight months have turned the Chamber into one big rubber stamp, as process gets abused time and again in the name of emergency legislation because they refuse to create a parliamentary bubble. People should be angry about this, but most everyone is just shrugging and playing into the learned helplessness that has set it, making me all the more irritated by it all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole and his conditional support

Posted on by

As part of their need to get bills that died during prorogation back on the Order Paper, the Liberals yesterday reintroduced the bill that would ban “conversion therapy” as a criminal offence. Erin O’Toole insists that he’s against this pseudo-science – really! – but in the same breath claims that this bill is terribly flawed and that the Liberals are just introducing it to set a trap for him. His claim that the bill is problematic is dubious, because he claims that it would criminalise conversations about sexuality or gender identity between a minor and their parents or faith leader, when that’s clearly not the case. This, however, is a pervasive bogeyman that the social conservatives in the Conservative caucus want to put forward, and we’ve seen versions of it for years. Remember how they were so opposed to the government’s legislation allowing for same-sex civil marriages, and how they were rending their garments and howling that this was going to mean that their pastors and preachers were going to be forced to perform these marriages, or that their sermons would be denounced as hate speech? Did any of that happen? Nope. But there is a constant need to beat the drum that their religious freedoms are being trampled by the LGBT community because said community simply wishes to exist unmolested.

To an extent, though, this is the Liberals throwing the cat among the pigeons, because it’s going to be O’Toole’s first big test as leader when it comes to whether or not he’ll appease the social conservatives to whom he owes a debt for their support of his leadership, or whether he’ll keep trying to project the image that his is a big, welcoming party that wants to draw in members of this community. From previous conversations with insiders when previous private members’ bills on banning conversion therapy were introduced, that this sends the Conservative caucus into a panic because they know it’s going to sow divisions in their ranks, and these usual fears about religious freedoms rear their heads. And it’s not like the Liberals came up with this specifically to cause O’Toole headaches – it was introduced in the previous session, and got derailed by the pandemic.

I also feel the need to point out that during the leadership, there were a lot of profiles in the mainstream media that kept repeating that O’Toole had pledged to march in Pride parades without mentioning that he made that pledge conditional on uniformed police also marching, which eliminates all of the major Pride parades in this country owing to the current climate and conversation about policing. It also shows that his support is transactional, much like his insistence that he’s pro-choice but voted for a bill that would open a backdoor to criminalising abortion was shrugged off in the mainstream media rather than called out for the bullshit weaselling that it was. O’Toole is going to try to play both sides on this bill, and I suspect that he’s going to concern troll his way out of it – that his “concerns” about this “criminalization” will carry the day and he’ll insist that he’s being principled and weasel out of standing up to the social conservatives that he is beholden to.

Continue reading →

QP: A smarmy thanks for their concern

Posted on by

Both Erin O’Toole and Yves-François Blanchet claimed to have been recovered from COVID, though neither has stated that they have received two negative tests to prove that fact, and they were in the Commons to make their debut in the new session — O’Toole his first as party leader. To that end, he led off, with a mini-lectern and script in front of him, and he thanked everyone for their thoughts and prayers for him and his wife when they were diagnosed, before he launched into a demand for why there has been slow progress on the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Justin Trudeau started off with well-wishes to both O’Toole and Blanchet, before he thanked the Conservatives for taking interest in reconciliation and stated that they have been making progress over the past five years. O’Toole repeated the question in French, and Trudeau gave a more expansive answer on the progress that has been made. O’Toole pivoted to the approval of rapid testing, to which Trudeau picked up a script to list the steps taken, and that one test was just approved this afternoon. O’Toole tried to insist that Canada not approving the same tests that were approved in the EU was a violation of CETA, and Trudeau noted that approvals had been granted in the spring in other jurisdictions that later had to be rescinded. O’Toole switched to French to lament the lack of availability for rapid testing, and Trudeau reiterated his previous response on the approval of a test, saying that they respected science. Blanchet was up next, and he led off by first giving a nod to O’Toole for his new role, before he offered the usual demand for higher health care transfers. Trudeau gave his usual response about working with provinces and having already given higher transfers. Blanchet tried to demand to know how many doctors and nurses the federal government was paying, to which Trudeau listed the places where the federal government does have jurisdiction for healthcare delivery. Jagmeet Singh raised the case of the First Nations woman who taped her racist nurses shortly before she died, and decried systemic racism, to which Trudeau offered a script about his condolences and his concerns over the racism on display. Singh then decried that there are still Indigenous communities that have no clean drinking water, and Trudeau listed the progress that they have made to date, and stated that they are still working toward their May 2021 goal of eliminating all long-term advisories.

Continue reading →

QP: The importance of independent regulators

Posted on by

The first Monday of the new session, the Prime Minister was elsewhere, leaving his deputy in his place. Candice Bergen led off for the Conservatives, worrying about people who can’t get rapid at-home COVID tests. Chrystia Freeland said that they too want rapid tests, but it’s important that we have independent regulators, because lives depend on it. Bergen said this was an example of this being too little, too late, but Freeland insisted that the government would do whatever it takes to help Canadians. Bergen raised the spectre of the WE Imbroglio, and lost time in helping people, to which Freeland chided that they were hard at work the whole time, and listed measures. Gérard Deltell was up next to accuse the government of attacking Quebec in the face of the pandemic, and Freeland insisted that there was no dispute and that they we working together with the government of Quebec. Deltell got huffy in his response, insisting that Trudeau insulted the premier, and Freeland soared to new rhetorical heights about the importance of working together. Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, accusing the government of “withholding Quebeckers’ money” and demanded new health transfers, to which Freeland assured him that they did increase transfers, on top of the $19 billion Safe Restart plan. Therrien was not amused, and demanded higher transfers, to which Freeland insisted that they were all working together. Jagmeet Singh was up for the NDP, and in French, he demanded a commitment to introducing a wealth tax, to which Freeland said that they did mention in the Throne Speech, they did mention new taxes. Singh repeated the question in English, and Freeland was more specific in talk of taxing web giants and stock options.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Recovery benefit tabled

Posted on by

The House of Commons resumed its first full day of “normal” operations yesterday, if you consider the abomination of hybrid sittings to be normal. While the topic of the day was the Bloc’s sub-amendment to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne (because you don’t actually amend the Speech itself), we also saw the government’s first piece of legislation tabled, which lays out some of the post-CERB recovery benefits, particularly the creation of the new benefit for those who don’t qualify for EI.

The headline figure there is that the Liberals have decided to keep the benefit levels around $500 per week or $2000 per month, as it was under CERB, rather than the plan that they initially floated which was to cap it at $400/week, likely in response to demands that they don’t allow it to become a disincentive to finding work (which is really indicative of a problem in this country where wages are too low to attract workers). It also provides the 10-day sick leave benefit and amends the Canada Labour Code so that it’s accessible to federally-regulated employers, though provinces will still need to amend their own labour laws to accommodate it.

All of this means is that the demands that Jagmeet Singh was making for him to “consider” supporting the Throne Speech are essentially met, and he can start declaring victory and patting himself on the back for the onerous task of pushing on an open door. I mean, I rather suspect that the Liberals kept the levels at $500/week of their own accord once it became clear that we are now in the second wave and that further lockdowns, either province-wide or more targeted, are far more likely than they were before. But this particular detail won’t matter to Singh and his followers. Instead, they will insist that it was their pressure that made the Liberals cave, and the can consider themselves heroes – but Trudeau’s government will survive another day.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An address to the nation following the Throne Speech

Posted on by

It’s Speech from the Throne day, which is always exciting, though it’ll be a much sparser affair given the pandemic. What is stranger is the fact that prime minister Justin Trudeau plans to take to the airwaves in the evening, around 6:30 PM, apparently in a bid to talk about the urgency pandemic and the emerging second wave, because we’re back to exponential growth in new cases in four provinces. After all, last night in the UK, Boris Johnson gave a public address to announce a second lockdown was going to start, so 2020 is going really well.

Meanwhile, there still is no agreement among MPs on how voting will work once the new session begins, and it sounds like the test for the proposed remote system did not go very well. Currently the parties seem to have some kind of an accord on a rotation system, but Trudeau and the Liberals keep pushing for hybrid sittings and remote voting while the Conservatives (rightfully) remain skeptical. But nobody is talking about the most practical solution, which is sequestering MPs and creating a bubble around Parliament Hill for them. I mean, if the NHL can do it, why can’t MPs, given how much more important Parliament is than the hockey playoffs.

Speaking of the importance of Parliament, MPs from the Liberals and NDP are balking at the availability of priority testing for them and their families at that Gatineau clinic, insisting that they’ll take spots away from other people who need it in the long queues for tests. And then the Conservatives went ahead and used unapproved serological tests yesterday provided by a lobbyist who is trying to get Health Canada to approve them – never mind that these tests don’t determine current infections, but only the presence of antibodies from past infections. This while they howl for the government to approve more rapid tests, even though the truncated approval process in the US has meant that faulty tests got approved there, which Health Canada is trying to avoid.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A difference in Supreme Courts

Posted on by

There’s been a fair amount of chatter the past couple of days about how everyone on both sides of the border seemed to know who US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was, but most Canadians would have no idea who any members of our own Supreme Court are. While some blame this on American “media saturation,” I think it’s more than that (though media saturation is a factor). Rather, the partisan jockeying around the composition of the American Supreme Court means that there is far more investment in who is on the bench and what their ideological leanings are, coupled with a willingness on the part of that Court’s justices to become media figures.

The Supreme Court of Canada is largely devoid of the partisan balancing act of its American counterpart, and Canada’s relative lack of particularly conservative schools of legal thought means that we have a much more homogenous legal community, which finds for less polarization on the top court – though the McLachlin era of many unanimous decisions has largely come to an end and dissents are more frequent – which is not such a bad thing. This isn’t to say that our court isn’t political, because it is – it is very much a political actor in the Charter era – but it is generally not partisan in that regard. As for the willingness for celebrity, most Canadian Supreme Court justices eschew the limelight, and very rarely grant interviews (not the case in the US), though the new Chief Justice, Richard Wagner, is a little more open with media and has taken to holding a year-ending press conference every June, which has not happened before now. Nevertheless, those are some of the reasons why Canada’s court and its personalities are not media spectacles like they are in the US, and that’s really not such a bad thing.

Meanwhile, here’s a look at how the Supreme Court of Canada is adapting to ensure in-person sittings for the duration of the pandemic.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Liberal caucus boards the BI train

Posted on by

Ever since the creation of CERB at the beginning of the pandemic, the Basic Income crowd has believed that this is their chance to finally get what they’ve been asking for. Most of it remains in the realm of lollipops and unicorns, with a lot of handwaving away the difficulties associated with a basic income, but here we are. To that end, it seems that the Liberal caucus has made this their top priority for the party’s upcoming policy convention, which means that it has a fairly good chance of getting adopted as party policy. Of course, in the current day and age, a party’s policy book isn’t really worth the paper that it’s printed on because the leader’s office now controls everything, most especially the campaign platform (you know, what the party’s policies are supposed to inform), so I wouldn’t put too much stock in this, but it’s certainly an indication of where their heads are at.

To that end, economist Lindsay Tedds, who has been studying the implementation of Basic Income programmes, is unimpressed with this turn of events. Why? Because there are a lot of things in the federal government’s wheelhouse when it comes to better implementing current social supports programmes that they’re simply not doing, because of the ways in which they rely on the current tax system – which is a problem when a significant portion of marginalized people can’t access those benefits because they don’t file taxes. And if you’re going to implement a Basic Income, you would think you’d want to get these kinds of things sorted first so that it becomes easier to do any kind of BI.

Economist Mike Moffatt also makes the point that there are far more effective things that the federal government could spend money on that would get better outcomes than spending it on basic income, because of the supply side problems that adding more money into the system won’t fix, but will simply drive up things like rental costs.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1304769768961048577

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1304770683881299969

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1304772615752617986

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1304782580466712577

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1304784277041709056

Continue reading →