Tag Archives: The Monarchy

Roundup: The invasion as a culmination

Posted on by

It was a shocking spectacle that, sadly, was not wholly unexpected as Trump supporters invaded Capitol Hill in Washington DC, halting the process of certifying the election results. This was the culmination of years of incitement, not only by Trump, but by the whole of the right-wing media ecosystem in the US, which has been feeding the kind of anger that builds to this kind of violence. Now, there are some questions about how serious these invaders were – many seemed to be largely play actors who were LARPing the start of the next American civil war (like they’ve been dreaming about), but it does make me wonder about how much this emboldens the real far-right militias in the country, because they watched how easily these Trumpsters overwhelmed security in the building and took it over. The next time, the invaders are likely to be far better armed, and serious about their threats of violence – and that should be alarming. This also puts an end to America’s usual boasts that they’re the “only country in the world” with a peaceful transition of power – a risible statement, but their self-created myth has been shattered. It was enough to spook most Republicans on the Hill into giving up their performative insistence that the election results were fraudulent and to be contested, but the damage is done. (Also, this technically was not a coup attempt, and they don’t quite fit the definition of terrorists, so those are not the best words to employ for what happened, as much as people want to).

https://twitter.com/jm_mcgrath/status/1346915575017177088

In terms of the response from Canada, Justin Trudeau did first tell a media interview as this started going down that he was watching it “minute by minute,” and hoping for the best, before sending out a tweet denouncing the violence and attack on democracy. Erin O’Toole, meanwhile, tweeted that he was “deeply saddened” by what was happening, but offered no condemnation of the violence – which should be important, because if he had a semblance of self-awareness, he would realize that his own rhetoric is feeding into some of these same sentiments in this country. Recall that his leadership slogan was asking people join his fight to “take back Canada.” It’s not even a stretch to point out that the implicit message in that statement is that the current government is illegitimate and must be replaced, and it feeds into these same dark impulses that we’re seeing play out. This is why it matters when we see O’Toole and company shitposting memes that are coming from these same American tactics – because it’s importing the American culture war into Canada, and it can have similar consequences if we let it fully manifest itself here. Don’t forget that there were pro-Trump rallies happening in this country as this spectacle went down in the States.

One thing that this whole incident does give rise to is a bit of smugness in our own Westminster constitutional monarchy, which prevents much of the kind of chicanery we’re seeing around this election in the US, and I know, we can’t be too smug because we have some of these very same dangerous elements in this country, but there is a bit of comfort in having a superior form of government.

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1346921398837497863

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt warns Canadians not to get too smug as these kinds of sentiments don’t stop neatly at the border, and we recently saw someone drive up to Rideau Cottage with a truck full of weapons. Paul Wells offers some necessary snark as to the deafening silences coming out from this country over what has taken place in the American election (though he was a bit premature as statements did come, and it’s almost certain the call with Boris Johnson was much earlier in the day as those readouts tend to be on a six-to-seven-hour delay).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A reasoned amendment

Posted on by

Something very usual happened in the Senate yesterday, in that Independent Senator Kim Pate decided to move a reasoned amendment to the government’s supply bill. A reasoned amendment is basically a procedural move to decline to give a bill second reading, meaning you don’t even agree with the bill in principle. This is a very rare move, and the fact that this is being used on a supply bill is a sign that this is a senator who is playing with fire.

You don’t mess around with supply bills. This is about money the government needs to operate, and if it fails, they can’t just keep funding government operations with special warrants. It’s going to be a giant headache of having to recreate the bill in a way that isn’t identical to the one that just passed (because you can’t pass two identical bills in the same session), go through the process again as the House is set to rise for the holidays (the Senate usually lags a few days later) is going to be a giant headache that is going to lose this senator any of the support she’s hoping to gain. Now, because the Senate isn’t a confidence chamber, defeating a money bill won’t make the government fall, but this is still a very bad precedent to try and set, or worse, given other newer senators ideas about how they should start operating.

There are plenty of objectionable aspects of this stunt of Pate’s – and yes, it is a stunt – but part of it is misunderstanding what that the supply bill is not about new pandemic aid programmes – it’s about keeping the civil service functioning. Her particular concern that 3.5 million people remain the poverty line is commendable, but Pate has been advocating for the government to implement a basic income for a while now, and a lot of people have been misled by the way in which the CERB was rolled out into thinking that this is a template for a basic income, which it’s not. And implementing a basic income – of which certain designs can be useful, but plenty which are not – is a complex affair if you talk to economists who have been working on the issue for years, not the least of which is that it’s going to require (wait for it…) negotiation with the provinces, because they deliver welfare programmes. And if Pate thinks that this kind of a stunt is going to force the government to suddenly implement one, she’s quite mistaken. I am forced to wonder who is giving her this kind of procedural advice, because she’s operating out of bounds, and asking for a world of procedural trouble. It’s fortunate that the Senate adjourned debate for the day shortly after she moved this motion so that others can regroup, but this is a worrying development for the “new” Senate.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bad-faith grievance narratives and faux confusion

Posted on by

The day started off on something of a petulant tone, as Andrew Scheer complained that people were “upset and confused” by prime minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to attend the Black Lives Matter protest in spite of the pandemic, and furthered the bad faith grievance narrative by pointing to the Ottawa restaurant that was fined $880 for opening its patio. Scheer, and other Conservatives, spent the day obscuring the difference between what the federal government is in charge of and what falls under local public health guidelines, and deliberately playing up this “confusion” where none should actually exist – there were public health guidelines that said that if people were going to protest that they should wear masks and social distance, and then self-isolate afterward, if anyone bothered to pay attention.

Trudeau was up shortly thereafter for his daily presser, and he talked at length about those protesting, and people being afraid of the police, and that he promised to deal with systemic racism and listed actions that his government has taken to thus far to deal with it, including mental health resources for the Black community, an anti-racism secretariat and strategy under the Minister of Diversity, and agreed that it’s not enough. He also said that he has been in discussions with Cabinet, as well as the RCMP commissioner, and that he was also raising the issue of body cameras with premiers this week. Trudeau also mentioned that Bill Blair was following through on their commitment to Indigenous policing, and that this week the government would be undergoing a stock-taking on their reconciliation efforts with Indigenous people. He then pivoted to the wage subsidy and other measures being taken to help people, the $14 billion being offered to help provinces with their economic restarts, and finally announced that they had introduced a number of limited exemptions at the border for immediate family members of Canadians to cross – spouses, children, parents of minor children in Canada – but that they must still self-isolate for 14 days upon arrival. During the Q&A, he defended his attending the protests as balancing competing interests.

On body cameras, it looks like the RCMP has agreed to outfit some members with them, but it remains a controversial move, that may be seen as a band-aid solution to deeper problems. (Here’s a good thread by lawyer Michael Spratt to that effect). It’s also pointed out that if we want to shift resources away from the current model of policing, this is a big expense that makes it even harder to do so.

As the talk of the defunding/abolishing police gains momentum, here is a look at how Camden, New Jersey, has been doing an experiment in scrapping their police force and starting over, and some of the more important things to realize in his are that the incentives changed – not judging performance by the number of arrests or tickets issued, and a focus on making connections in communities. Of course, it also says that they haven’t made enough investments in the other community supports that are supposed to underpin this model, so that’s something to think about.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No to herd immunity

Posted on by

For his Saturday presser, Justin Trudeau was back to his weekend uniform – tieless, collar unbuttoned, under a sweater and blazer with jeans. He started off talking about last night’s virtual vigil for Nova Scotia, then recapped the programmes they launched during the week before talking about the $62.5 million the government would spend to help the fish and seafood processing industry cope with the pandemic, both in terms of capacity, protective equipment and ensuring more physical distancing in workspaces. During the Q&A, there was more talk of health transfers and this bizarre notion that somehow the federal government could put long-term care facilities “under the Canada Health Act” (erm, I don’t think the Act works the way you think it does, guys), Trudeau stated once again that he has no intention of interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Let that sink in. No. Intention. So stop asking him to “take over” things like healthcare and rents. Provinces exist. Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 exist. These are real things and he can’t just wave a wand and suddenly take over. Jurisdiction doesn’t work like that. Stop asking. Trudeau also said that he was aware of the Correctional Investigator’s report on the state of federal prisons in this pandemic era, where anyone who is sick is being sent to solitary confinement (and potential human rights abuses), but he continued to claim that they were taking “strong measures.” The problem is that nobody can seem to show any evidence of said measures. (Trudeau mentioned there wouldn’t be any pressers today, so don’t look for one).

During the ministerial briefing, Dr. Theresa Tam also shot down this notion of herd immunity and “immunity passes” that keep being floated around after Chile is piloting them, in part because we simply don’t have enough information about the virus to know whether or not someone can be re-infected once they’ve had it, or how long any protection from anti-bodies may last, and herd immunity means to continually expose greater numbers to the infection, which could still overwhelm our health capacity, and no, younger people aren’t really less susceptible as has been suggested – they can still get very sick from it, even if the mortality rate is lower for younger people. It means there are no easy fixes to reopening the economy, as much as we may hope for one.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A negotiated solution

Posted on by

In the end, a compromise was reached – MPs shuffled back into the House of Commons by 3 AM, and had passed the bill by six, after grilling the ministers who were present. Parliament did its job, democracy was saved, and the Conservatives spent the day patting themselves on the back to let you know just how brave they were in saving it. As the bill was over in the Senate on schedule – and it had always been scheduled to reach there yesterday for debate and passage and not on Tuesday, as many hysterical media outlets failed to mention – Trudeau held his daily presser, outlining the measures that were passed within it, which included a streamlining of several of the earlier-announced benefits into a more catch-all $2000/month benefit over the course of four months for anyone who wasn’t working, whether they had been laid off or not. Trudeau also announced new support for journalism (mostly ad revenues) and an acceleration of their tax measures. During the ministerial briefing, more details on supports for Indigenous communities was outlined, and shortly thereafter, Patty Hajdu also announced that the Quarantine Act was being invoked to ensure travellers returning to Canada actually self-isolated, even if it meant the government putting them in a hotel room for two weeks and providing them food.

[Maclean’s has updated their information on symptoms and where to get tested].

The tales of the negotiations are fairly interesting to me, in part because there seem to be breakdowns across the board. The Conservatives went into this saying “no surprises” and were surprised by the outsized spending powers, which they say broke their trust. The Liberals were on the one hand apparently surprised to see them in there (and it’s a question of whether it was the drafters in the Department of Justice who are to blame, or perhaps some of the people in Bill Morneau’s office who seem to operate pretty independently of the minister, if testimony from the Double-Hyphen Affair is to be believed), while also justifying that they needed enhanced powers because of the shifting nature of the pandemic emergency, and how fast everything has been changing. Which mostly just reinforces my own previously published points that if we kept the Skeleton Parliament in place, the government could more easily pass new fiscal measures in short order rather than do the song and dance of recalling MPs while providing more constant oversight while still respecting physical distancing and other protective measures. But who listens to me?

Paul Wells gives his take on the whole affair here, which is well worth your time reading. (My own take on what brought us to this point, in the event that you missed it, is here).

Continue reading →

Roundup: An abortion bill to position around

Posted on by

The Conservatives’ abortion legislation problem has come home to roost early in the new parliament as MP Cathay Wagantall tabled a bill to ban sex-selective abortions, under the (bullshit) excuse that it reflects Canada’s commitment to gender equality. And because she’s 31 on the order of precedence for private members’ business, this will come up likely late spring or early fall. (Private members’ business is determined by lottery, and arrives on the Order Paper in batches of 30). And all eyes are on Andrew Scheer, who stated during the election that he would vote against any measures to attempt to re-open the abortion debate.

Why does this matter? Because the list of approved candidates for the Conservative leadership closed last night, and social conservatives have played kingmaker in both the last federal leadership contest, as well as the last Ontario one, which was done under the same rules. Already we’re seeing positioning among candidates, such as Erin O’Toole criticizing Peter MacKay for saying he would whip his Cabinet to vote against such a bill, saying that he would never whip anyone, Cabinet or backbench, on “moral issues.” It’s a completely transparent ploy – O’Toole is trying to ensure that he gets second-ballot support from the social conservatives when their preferred no-hope candidates get dropped off of the ranked preferential ballot. That’s how Andrew Scheer won, and it’s how Doug Ford won.

Meanwhile, it looks like it’ll be seven entrants in the race, though some approvals may yet be pending. Of those seven, three qualify as social conservatives, so the “frontrunners” like MacKay, O’Toole and maybe Marilyn Gladu will want the second and third votes from those no-hopers in the hopes of pushing them over the top. So this dynamic is very present in the leadership race, as Wagantall has put it on the table for them to debate around her.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Holding off on enforcement

Posted on by

Indigenous protests continue across the country in support of those protesting the Coastal GasLink pipeline, with not only rail disruptions, but also blockades around legislatures and city halls (Halifax city hall being a target that nearly kept Chrystia Freeland from the building). Thus far, police have not cleared any of them despite warnings that enforcing the various court orders will be imminent, and even some Indigenous leaders are calling on their people to end the blockades. That doesn’t seem to have persuaded any of them just yet. (The Star hears from protesters themselves here).

While Jagmeet Singh is calling on Justin Trudeau to return from his foreign trip early to deal with the situation, and Andrew Scheer hinting that he wants politicians to direct the RCMP to enforce those court orders right away (which is a very bad idea and has led to past flashpoints with Indigenous communities), Trudeau says he and his Cabinet are monitoring the situation but are content to let the provinces continue to handle those issues that are within their jurisdiction – as well he should. I suspect that one of the reasons why the RCMP and OPP are holding off on any enforcement actions just yet are because moving too soon will simply generate more sympathy for the protesters and possibly escalate the situation across the country, whereas waiting another day or two will lose those protesters any sympathy as the inconvenience becomes too much for most Canadians, and that most of the protesters will get bored and go home on their own before too long.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt remarks on the impossible situation that Justin Trudeau has been placed in by this situation, while Chris Selley wonders how we can be considered a grown-up country if we can allow the disruptions to continue without treating it like a serious situation that it is for many people affected by it. As well, here is an explainer from last year about the dispute within the Wet’suwet’en First Nation, and how that affects the duty to consult.

Teck Frontier mine

I wanted to point you to this piece, written by energy economist Andrew Leach and environmental law professor Martin Olszynski, which puts a lot more facts and context on the table regarding the Teck Frontier mine application and what is really being considered by Cabinet. In particular, because market conditions have changed so much since the project was first proposed in 2011, and the (flawed) economic impact analysis along with it, it means that the expected economic benefits are far, far less than what was initially promised (when they assumed oil at $95/barrel; it’s currently hovering around $50/barrel), and that will have to weigh in on the government’s decision. After all, the decision tends to boil down to how much economic benefit is worth the significant adverse environmental impact of the project – and it will be significant. And if the benefits are far below what they were initially sold to be, does that make it worthwhile to approve the project knowing that the benefits won’t necessarily outweigh the impact. It’s certainly worth thinking on – especially as the provincial government is now casting aspersions on the First Nation that is balking after the lack of ongoing engagement, and the rhetoric continues to heat up to outsized proportions.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No metric to measure success

Posted on by

The inevitable has happened with this government’s too-clever-by-half branding of their associate finance minister, and she has essentially been caught out by the easiest trap imaginable. The Conservatives submitted an Order Paper question asking for a definition of “middle class” by which the government could measure the success of its efforts at ensuring their prosperity, and lo, they were told that there is no measure that the government uses. Which is kind of embarrassing for a government that prides itself on data and metrics – that’s one of the reasons why they actually bit the bullet and decided on the Market-Basket Measure of poverty as their official definition, because that allowed them to track the success of their programmes in alleviating it (and yes, programmes like the Canada Child Benefit have had a measurable impact using these kinds of data). But what they can do for poverty, they can’t do for the Middle Class™.

Of course, we all know that it’s because “middle class” isn’t an economic definition to this government, but a feel-good branding exercise. It’s the Middle Class™ And Those Working Hard To Join It, because we all know that everyone thinks they’re middle class (whether or not they have ponies), and most especially people on the wealthier end of the scale in this country. It’s all about a feeling, or a hand-wavey metric about having kids in hockey (an upper-class pursuit in this country). And this lack of a definition is exactly why this minister is the Minister of Middle Class™ Prosperity®, because it means nothing. It’s a trademarked slogan, transparently winking to Canadians about how this is how they plan to address the discontent underlying the populist movements taking place across the government – hoping that if they can reassure these voters that they’re being care of and not left behind, that they’re being heard, that somehow, it’ll keep the populist forces at bay. I’m not sure that it will work, but it’s blatantly happening, so we should all be aware that this is part of their plan.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ambrose rules out a return

Posted on by

It was a day of a lot of movement within the Conservative leadership race, with big repercussions to come. Early in the day, we got word that two more names were added to the Conservative race – rookie backbencher Derek Sloan, and failed leadership candidate (and aspiring narcissist) Rick Peterson. Sloan has already come out and said that he’s open to having a debate over abortion, and he’s putting forward this absurd notion that they need to stop being apologetic about being Conservative – which would be great if the party actually put forward conservative ideas like market-based solutions to problems rather than just populist pandering. Shocking. Peterson, meanwhile, is continuing his schtick that his business success is going to translate to political success, even though he did abysmally in the last election and couldn’t secure a nomination to run in the election, which shows you just how profound his organizational skills are. Nevertheless, expect him to position himself as the “Western” candidate in the race.

And then the big bombshell – Rona Ambrose announced that she is officially out of the race. It wasn’t a surprise really, especially as word has been circulating in Conservative circles that she hasn’t made any phone calls or secured any kind of organization while she considered her options. Nevertheless, it now opens the race wide open because a lot of people who had been holding their breath and waiting for Ambrose to make a move can now make their own moves. It also means that currently, Marilyn Gladu is the only woman in the race, which can’t be healthy for the party either. (It also makes me wonder who the Red Tory in this race is going to be, because it’s not actually Peter MacKay).

And just minutes after Ambrose made her announcement, another would-be candidate, former staffer Richard Décarie went on Power Play to expound on his social conservative views. It went as well as can be expected.

While most of the other candidates quickly came out to condemn these comments, there are a few things to note here – Décarie is worth following because he has attracted some organizational heft, particularly from those who were behind Tanya Granic Allen in Ontario, and it’s not insignificant, and when you recall that Brad Trost did come in fourth the last time around. There is a particularly strong social conservative organization within the party, and they do a lot of fundraising and organizing, and that can’t be overlooked when it comes to a leadership race, where those to factors are going to count for a lot more.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The reality of negotiation

Posted on by

As was ever thus, the Twitter Machine erupted with fury and disingenuous outrage when health minister Patty Hajdu told reporters that she couldn’t guarantee that a national pharmacare programme would be in place at the end of the current parliament (for which we don’t know when that will be, as a hung parliament rarely lasts beyond two years.

“Some of that will be predicted by, predicated by, the responses of the provinces and territories,” said Hajdu, because *mind blown* healthcare is largely the domain of the provinces and any pharmacare system would have to be negotiated with them – in particular, a national formulary, which is going to be extremely complicated to ensure that existing plans don’t get left behind or that the new national plan isn’t worse off than any existing ones that it would replace.

What is especially irritating are all of the voices crying out that this just means the Liberals were lying on the campaign trail, which is false and ridiculous – Trudeau spent the campaign not overpromising on this file, but rather kept saying that it was contingent on negotiation with provinces, which is why their fiscal plan only called for a “down payment” on such a programme rather than the whole thing, but nevertheless, the promise was to go by the principles of the Hoskins Report, which they have bene doing thus far. The NDP, by contrast, insisted that this could be done by 2020, and whenever anyone brought up the fact that the provinces may object, the line was largely that why would anyone say no to federal dollars? It’s absurd, of course, because provinces are rightfully afraid that they would be stuck with an expensive programme to run if the federal government suddenly cut out transfers or funds to it because they suddenly had other priorities (which has happened in the past).

And to that end, we have a bunch of premiers who are balking at it, Quebec and Alberta want to be able to opt-out with compensation, and Ontario is instead insisting that the federal government pay for drugs to treat rare diseases – the most expensive kind, and the ones where costs are rapidly escalating. So of course they want the federal government to pay for them rather than to share the burden. It’s predictable, and for anyone to be shocked and appalled that the Liberals have to deal with this reality is really, really tiresome.

Continue reading →