Parliamentarians of the Year / Parlementaires De L'année
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
PARLIAMENTARIANS OF THE YEAR / PARLEMENTAIRES DE L’ANNÉE Every year, Maclean’s asks all 338 Members of Parliament to nominate candidates for Parliamentarian of the Year awards, in each of eight different categories. Below are the winners for 2020. This year, the ceremony was held virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Chaque année, Maclean's demande aux les 338 députés de proposer des candidats pour les prix « Parlementaire de l’année » dans chacune de huit catégories différentes. Voici les gagnants pour 2020. Cette année, en raison de la pandémie de Covid-19, la cérémonie se déroulera en mode virtuel. Parliamentarian of the Year / Parlementaire de l’année: Chrystia Freeland Former winners / Anciens gagnants: Garnett Genuis, Tom Mulcair, Irwin Cotler, Peter Stoffer, Elizabeth May, Bob Rae, John Baird, Jason Kenney, Nathan Cullen Hardest Working / Celui que a fait montre du plus d’ardeur du travail: Michelle Rempel Garner CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY GUIDE 2021 xiii PARLEMENTAIRES DE L’ANNÉE Best Orator / Meilleur orateur: Sean Fraser Most Collegial / Celui qui a fait le plus preuve de collégialité: Marilyn Gladu xiv GUIDE PARLEMENTAIRE CANADIEN 2021 PARLIAMENTARIANS OF THE YEAR Most Knowledgeable / Celui que connait le mieux ses dossiers: Elizabeth May Best Represents Constituents / Meuilleur travail dans sa circonscription: Shannon Stubbs CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY GUIDE 2021 xv PARLEMENTAIRES DE L’ANNÉE Rising Star / Talent le plus prometteur: Jenica Atwin Best Mentor / Meilleur mentor: Charlie Angus xvi GUIDE PARLEMENTAIRE CANADIEN 2021 PARLIAMENTARIANS OF THE YEAR Lifetime Achievement / Prix d’excellence: Jean Augustine Photographs provided by the Members of Parliament and the House of Commons © House of Commons Collection, Ottawa CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY GUIDE 2021 xvii HINDSIGHT IS 2020: A WALK THROUGH CANADIAN PANDEMIC POLITICS By: Tyler Downey, Consultant at Ensight Canada 2020 was a year that Canada and the world won’t soon forget. A year marked by economic and political upheaval, by protests, blockades, resignations, scandals, and all the trappings of a truly historic year. With lots of attention paid to our neighbours down south, and the status of the coronavirus worldwide, it’s important to remind Canadians of the political events that transpired in 2020, how they shaped the government’s COVID-19 and economic response, and what they could mean for the next federal election and beyond. In the 2019 election campaign, the Liberals were still focused on repairing the brand damage done to their party and leader after four years of governing in a majority. With slips ups and scandals like the Aga Khan vacation, Mr. Trudeau’s over-the-top trip to India, the SNC Lavalin affair, and the blackface scandal, the 2015 bloom had come off the Liberal-red rose. Despite these problems, the Liberals won the 2019 election, and the government had high hopes of getting to work on their key platform priorities, like more money for middle class families, real action to address climate change, and support for Indigenous peoples. After scraping by with a minority government on the strength of these priorities, and before COVID came to Canada, the government already had their hands full with other pressing issues, namely the Wet’suwet’en rail blockades, the ratification of the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement, and the controversial Teck Frontier Mine decision. Despite how many of us must feel, all these events happened only one year ago, and not ten. No doubt the three main platform planks are still policy directions the Liberals hold dear, but action on these files, even the evergreen urgency of climate change, have fallen to second, third, and fourth places behind the pandemic health and economic responses. So how has the Liberal government handled the political environment surrounding the single greatest challenge of their time in office? That depends on when you ask. In January 2020, early in the global pandemic, when news and case numbers from Wuhan, China showed the coronavirus to be a serious health risk, the Canadian government was watching closely, but would not be derailed from the full plate they already had. Staying on message is job number one for any political actor in government, and so trepidation over addressing an emerging disease half a world away is simply good politics, if perhaps bad policy. The opposition Conservatives would later seize upon this trepidation to accuse the government of inaction at a critical time, to some effect. The government would instead focus time and energy on assuring Canadians that the risk to our country was low. Whether this was true at the time or just wishful thinking, that claim would soon be proven terribly wrong. As February wore on, more information trickled out of China, and discussions began about the importance of handwashing, limiting contacts, and the possibility of requiring masks in public, which the government and Canadian public health officials opposed at the time. This was perhaps one of the biggest mistakes of the response, as international medical data had shown for years that, despite some possible issues with masking a population that wasn’t used to it, masks are effective at preventing disease spread. The political calculation was a tough one for the government: do we buck the trend of most western countries and force everyone to mask-up, skyrocketing public demand for PPE and creating resentment for this sudden and personal change, or do we wait and see? Choosing to acknowledge a crisis is tough, as CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY GUIDE 2021 xix HINDSIGHT IS 2020: A WALK THROUGH CANADIAN PANDEMIC POLITICS any crisis communications expert will tell you, but prompt acknowledgement gives way to quick action, which was sorely lacking in the early pandemic response. By early March, 114 countries had announced domestic cases of COVID-19, and on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 to be a global pandemic. Within five days, the government had issued guidance on travelling to and from Canada and began the process of rolling out aid. Another two days, and the border with the US would be closed. By this point, Wuhan was reporting no new cases, while western countries were just beginning to grapple with the new normal. By the end of March, in the thick of the pandemic and first lockdown, the government’s badly needed $240 billion aid package, the Prime Minister’s regular TV addresses, and the new investments put into vaccine and treatment research had all brought Mr. Trudeau’s popularity to a new high, particularly when compared to the lacklustre US response. Canadians broadly supported the Prime Minster’s direction, and even deficit-focused political observers found themselves unable or unwilling to effectively push back on huge deficit spending for the sake of health and the economy. The Liberals were clearly in their political element, spending big dollars and being commended for doing so - a political trend that would not last. Moving into the spring, the WHO would finally recommend wearing face masks in public, nearly a month after declaring a pandemic. Canadians would mostly follow this advice, leading to two of the Liberals’ biggest political challenges in the spring, namely procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE) and mask controversies. To their credit, the government’s messaging was clear and so consistent as to be monotonous: Wash your hands, wear a mask, stay at home, keep your distance. The government’s procurement ability, however, was seriously strained, with concerns arising over the quantities of PPE stockpiled in the National Emergency Stockpile System, leading to easy jabs from the Conservative opposition over resource mismanagement. All the complexities of procuring PPE in a highly competitive global environment are inconsequential when faced with the stark reality that Canada did not have enough PPE, and it was damaging the government’s reputation. Procurement was not the only headache for Mr. Trudeau. His party was also being accused of intentionally preventing Parliament from sitting, presumably to prevent scrutiny of their pandemic response. However, on April 20, Parliament returned as promised, with committees studying various aspects of the response. Regular political battles would return over these and other topics, including the government’s contact tracing app, availability of rapid testing, border closures, supporting supply chains, and the beginning of the federal vaccine procurement strategy. None of these topics would immediately prove to be political winners for the opposition, with the exception of now-Conservative Health Critic Michelle Rempel Garner’s relentless pursuit of transparency on rapid testing. By the start of summer, Canada would have crested the first wave, and Canadians were feeling like they had beaten the virus. So much so that the warm weather and faux confidence would entice many in population-dense areas to congregate at beaches and shopping malls, parties and bars, all without adequate contact tracing and sometimes even masks or social distancing. This, along with the relaxing of public health measures and the reopening of non-essential businesses, would accelerate the second wave of the pandemic. Politically, all Canadian governments were in another tight spot. With high levels of unemployment, bankruptcies, and business closures on top of COVID cases and deaths, governments needed to strike a balance between keeping the economy open just enough to prevent total collapse, while not seriously worsening public health outcomes. In short, an impossible task, which was made worse by the lack of coordination between the federal and provincial governments. Indeed, the fact that no single organization was responsible for the entirety of the country’s pandemic response led to serious data gaps, procurement challenges, funding issues, regulatory confusion, and simply mixed messaging on COVID xx GUIDE PARLEMENTAIRE CANADIEN 2021 HINDSIGHT IS 2020: A WALK THROUGH CANADIAN PANDEMIC POLITICS rules. The federal nature of our country, although a symbol of representative democracy, was now working against us.