Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

Roundup: The choices around Basic Income

Posted on by

Because I saw some news stories floating around this week yet again around Basic Income and the desire for the federal government to implement it, I wanted to point out that economist Lindsay Tedds has co-authored a book which was released yesterday on how to move beyond that discussion into better alternatives, drawing on her experience from the BC Basic Income panel that she was a part of.

To that end, here is Kevin Milligan providing some back-up on why this conversation involves choices that nobody likes to ever talk about. Funny that.

And yes, most Basic Income models keep gutting the supports for those who need them the most, and that is a problem.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1651260056866811904

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces pounded Bakhmut yet again, trying to destroy buildings so that the Ukrainians can’t use them as fortifications. Elsewhere, Ukraine was able to retrieve 44 POWs from Russian company, two of whom were civilians. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had an hour-long call with Chinese president Xi Jinping, which included talk of what role China could play in the peace process with Russia.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1651129503056379905

Continue reading →

QP: One aborted sing-along later…

Posted on by

The PM and all of the other leaders were present, which can sometimes set the stage for a good show, and it actually delivered—more or less—today. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, starting off with a recap of the allegations about the donations to the Trudeau Foundation from Chinese sources, and demanded that the prime minister allow his brother to appear at committee to answer about the donation. Trudeau stated that he hasn’t had any contact with the Foundation for a decade, and committees decide who they will call before them. Poilievre said that Trudeau was taking people for fools if he thinks people don’t believe he has nothing to do with the Foundation, and repeated his demand for the committee motion. Trudeau responded that he hasn’t had any contact with the Foundation, and the Conservatives were focusing on him while he delivers for Canadians. Poilievre pivoted to the strike and the increasing cost of bureaucracy while Canadians are getting less service, and wondered if taxpayers need to go on strike. Trudeau replied that they respect unions and that they are at the bargaining table. Poilievre repeated the question in English, and this time, Trudeau struck back harder with the Conservatives’ cuts to services and attacks on unions, while they respect unions. Poilievre then tried to start a singalong for “New York, New York,” in reference to Trudeau heading there after QP, before the Speaker stopped him, and when he was allowed to resume, wondered if Trudeau would pay for his own hotel room on the trip. Trudeau tried to pivot this into an answer about how his government was attracting investment from companies like Volkswagen. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, started with a plea for the Speaker to allow any singing, before he tried to once again conflate PMO and PCO with that meeting between five deputy ministers and the Foundation. Trudeau restated that he and his staff did not participate in that meeting, then got in a dig that maybe it was different under the Conservatives when they tried to politicise the civil service. Blanchet tried to spin this as the prime minster is deliberately being ignorant, but Trudeau said this was part of baseless attacks on people like David Johnston, which are unworthy of this place.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, said the government was showing an ugly face in not capitulating to the civil service union. Trudeau chided the NDP for not understanding how bargaining works, and said a new offer was on the table. Singh switched to English to demand the prime minister not jet off to New York and settle the strike first, but Trudeau repeated his jibe at the NDP not understanding bargaining.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The campaign leaders testify

Posted on by

Yesterday was the big day when top campaign officials from the Liberals and Conservatives appeared at the Procedure and House Affairs committee to talk about foreign interference allegations in the previous two elections, and we learned a couple of things. One of which is that Fred DeLorey, the Conservative campaign director, is eminently reasonable and acknowledges they don’t know if there was any actual interference in those ridings they lost, or if it was the result of other factors, like their hard-line rhetoric on China, or gun-control measures (as the Liberal campaign insists). Another thing we learned is that the reporting on the CSIS “warnings” about MP Han Dong were not described accurately, and that they didn’t insist the party drop him as a candidate—which never did make sense if you listened to the actual intelligence experts who said at the time that that didn’t sound right.

There was also talk about how it takes an incredibly high threshold for a party to be able to drop a candidate, so if intelligence agencies had concerns, they would need to come up with something pretty tangible for the parties to exercise that kind of power (and don’t forget that their spending caps are determined by how many candidates they’re running, so if they need to drop one after the cut-off point to replace a name on the ballot, that creates even more headaches). There was also talk about how there needs to be more ongoing dialogue between national security agencies and parties, particularly between election cycles, because these agencies didn’t seem to understand how parties operated, which makes it hard for them to be making determinations about how any interference might be happening (and again, considering that the reported leaks had a bunch of details that didn’t make any sense, this could be the reason why).

Suffice to say, these were the people who should have been testifying the whole time rather than the dog and pony show we had with Katie Telford, which was just a waste of time and resources.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian missile struck a museum in Kupiansk, in the Kharkiv region, killing one civilian and wounding ten others. As well, a woman died from shelling in nearby Dvorichna, and two others in the eastern Donetsk region. Elsewhere, Ukrainian forces staged raids on the east side of the Dnipro river in order to degrade Russian capacity, particularly in their shelling of Kherson, in a sign that the counter-offensive is near. Ukraine is planning on a “complete transformation” of six war-torn cities that were badly damaged in the invasion, to be rebuilt under an experimental programme according to “new principles.”

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1650769182286331905

Continue reading →

QP: Rocketing up the repetitive talking points

Posted on by

Not only were the prime minister and his deputy present, so were all of the other leaders, and the benches were full. This while we had astronauts—the crew of Artemis II—in the Gallery to watch proceedings, along with the head of NASA, the US Ambassador to Canada, the head of the Canadian Space Agency, and other handlers. Even though MPs aren’t supposed to call attention to people in the Gallery, the final Members’ Statement of the day did praise said astronauts, and they got much applause, and the Speaker let this breach of the rules slide.

Pierre Poilievre led off in English for a change, comparing that the costs of the bureaucracy are “rocketing up,” and then lamented the civil service strike, wondering how much it would cost to end it. Justin Trudeau said that they believe in the importance of the bargaining table, which is why they are negotiating to reach an agreement that is good for civil servants and fair to taxpayers. Poilievre repeated the question in French, minus the pun, and Trudeau reiterated his response. Poilievre returned to English, and listed a serious of events that he incredulously wondered how anyone he could believe Trudeau was not involved with the Trudeau Foundation. Trudeau stated that he hasn’t had any contact with the Foundation, directly or indirectly for ten years. Poilievre focused on that meeting with the Foundation members and deputy ministers, and Trudeau recited his too-worn line that while the opposition focuses on him, he is focusing on Canadians. Poilievre quipped that nobody focuses more on the Trudeau than Trudeau himself, and that he seemed to think people were too dumb to see the links with the Foundation. Trudeau said that it was amazing to see the lengths to which the Conservatives would go to avoid talking about the budget, and listed about how great it was.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, recounted a storybook character that reminded him of Trudeau, and went after that PCO meeting again. Trudeau shrugged off the attack and said that he was focusing on helping Canadians. Blanchet insisted that there was all kinds of coordination in an office to have five deputy ministers hold a meeting os he must have known it was taking place, and Trudeau again listed the measures in the budget that was helping people.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded the prime minister “show leadership” and capitulate to the public sector union demands. Trudeau praised the work of civil servants but said that taxpayers also need to be respected, which is why they were at the negotiating table. Singh repeated the question in English with added emphasis, and Trudeau gave a more robust and melodramatic version of the same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: No authority to examine

Posted on by

It was not unexpected, but the Auditor General did confirm yesterday that she wasn’t going to be looking into the Trudeau Foundation’s private donations because it’s not within her wheelhouse. Which is what I’ve been saying for over a week now—the Foundation isn’t a Crown corporation, its only reporting relationship to the Industry Minister is around the status of the initial endowment, and the Conservatives put them under the Access to Information and Privacy regime in 2007 because they put all kinds of organisation with a tangential relationship to government under the regime during their performative toughness. It doesn’t fall under the Financial Administration Act, so there is no basis for the AG to examine their books.

This news of course has the Bloc somewhat apoplectic, and they insist that if she doesn’t have the authority to look into their books, then Parliament should give her that authority. Which is, frankly, boneheaded. She already has more than enough work to do. The very last thing we need to do is turn her into some kind of roving commission of inquiry for MPs to sic her upon anyone who turns their ire (through a motion in the House of Commons that she would “consider”), especially because she’s already unaccountable for her parliamentary audits. Extending those into past Parliament or Crown corporations would be a disaster.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have bene trying to weaponise the Public Accounts Committee into looking into the Foundation, which again, is beyond their ambit. It’s especially beyond their ambit because the Auditor General hasn’t produced a report on them, and she won’t—because she has no authority to—so that particular committee has no authority to look into it. And yet, they voted on doing just so, but with the caveat of not calling any elected officials or members of the Trudeau family to testify. I can’t believe that the committee clerk didn’t warn the Chair this is out of bounds, but this is an opposition-chaired committee—in this case, Conservative John Williamson—and it sounds like he opted to ignore that warning and proceed anyway, which is incredibly poor form, especially since this whole exercise is about little more than letting Garnett Genuis perform for the cameras. And once again, we prove that ours is not a serious Parliament.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Estonia’s prime minister met with president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the northwestern city of Zhytomyr, and said that she supports Ukraine’s accession to NATO “as soon as conditions allow” (which means the war has to be over and Russian forces no longer occupying territory).

Continue reading →

QP: Deliberately conflating PCO with PMO

Posted on by

The prime minister was busy entertaining the German president, while his deputy was in southwestern Ontario talking about electric busses. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he repeated his line from last week about the “special kind of incompetence” for increasing the size of the civil service while still allowing a strike to happen, and lamented especially the soldiers suffering from heating plant shutdowns and new delays for passports. Mona Fortier praised the work of civil servants and stated the commitment to reach a negotiated solution, but that PSAC’s demands are unaffordable. Poilievre repeated the same in English, and Fortier gave the same response, before Poilievre changed topics to the news story about Trudeau foundation members meeting at PCO. Mark Holland noted that this was a meeting between public servants in a government building and not PMO, and this was just an attempt at being partisan. Poilievre tried to insist that there was a whole strange series of coincidence  that the prime minister didn’t know about it, and insisting this wasn’t credible. Holland started off on a response about Poilievre plugging cryptocurrency, but after heckles and the Speaker calming things down, Holland insisted that Poilievre was delivering a confusing mess that was full of things that weren’t true. Poilievre tried again in French, and Holland reiterated there has been no link between the prime minster and the Foundation for a decade.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he too tried to link the prime minister to that 2016 meeting between the Foundation and five deputy ministers, and Holland repeated that the prime minister was not involved and the implication is ridiculous. Therrien insisted that the Foundation was giving preferential access to the prime minister (never mind that senior officials are not the PM), and demanded a public inquiry. Holland repeated yet again that the prime minster has not had any ties to the Foundation for a decade.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he thundered about the civil service strike and demanded the government capitulate to the union. Fortier read that of the 570 demands from the union, only a few are remaining. Rachel Blaney repeated the same in English, and Fortier repeated her same response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Few details on the Canadian coronation

Posted on by

As the coronation fast approaches, we’re still waiting for details in Canada about what we’re doing here, or what the events happening in Ottawa will be, or who is part of the delegation going to London for the event itself. The level of secrecy is a bit weird, but I have my suspicions that this is trying to be downplayed from the top, meaning PMO.

As for King Charles III himself, the early signs are that he’s looking to be a bit more involved and less removed than his mother tended to be, in part because that was the generation she came from. And what does that mean for Canada? Well, that’s dependent entirely upon the prime minister, because the King can only act on the advice of the PM. And this PM, well, doesn’t like it when the spotlight is away from him. He likes the “ceremonial” aspects of the job, and a lot of that stuff is what the Crown and the Governor General does. So while we’ve just had some incredibly important events in our country as a constitutional monarchy—the loss of the Queen who had been our sovereign for seventy years, and now the installation of the new King—it’s being downplayed in ways that are not healthy for us as a country, but our civic literacy about this is at terrible lows, and there is an organised campaign of misinformation about the role and nature of the Crown in this country, and Trudeau could do something about that, but he won’t, and it erodes the nature of our democracy even more.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian Forces are yet again claiming to have achieved more of a foothold in Bakhmut, while Ukrainian forces continue to insist they’re holding the line. There are also a bunch of denials as to whether or not the Ukrainians have established a foothold on the eastern bank of the Dnipro river in the south of the country. Russian forces are also claiming to have repelled a drone attack against their Black Sea fleet in the Crimean port of Sevastopol.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1650111231196536832

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1650012022371753984

Continue reading →

Roundup: Angst over a poor metric

Posted on by

A lot of ink (or, well, pixels, I supposed) has been spilled over the past week about those leaked documents where Justin Trudeau allegedly told NATO leadership privately that Canada will never reach the two percent of GDP defence spending target, which shouldn’t be a shock to anyone who has paid a modicum of attention. And while we get these kinds of analysis pieces that try to dig more into the two percent target and its significance, we have to remember that it’s a lousy metric. Greece has been above it for years because of a stagnant economy and including military pensions in their calculations—and you can easily get to 2 percent of GDP by tanking your economy, while growing your economy makes that spending target increase impossibly. The other thing that the two percent metric doesn’t capture is engagement—Canada routinely steps up to meet its NATO commitments even without reaching the spending target, while certain European countries may meet the spending target but don’t participate in these missions (again, looking at you, Greece, but not just Greece).

Part of the problem is that while this is a conversation that requires some nuance, the two percent target is too easy for journalists to focus on, and that becomes the sole focus. It’s a problem because We The Media keep reducing this to a single binary “are we meeting/not meeting that two percent” rate, which doesn’t help advance the conversation in any way, but most of us refuse to learn because a simple binary is easier to understand/convey.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Fighting continues in the western part of Bakhmut, as Wagner Group mercenaries are worried about the coming Ukrainian counter-offensive. Ukraine’s minister of digital transformation says that new technologies are going to help them win the war, particularly as they enhance the accuracy of modern artillery.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1649397099300093954

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions on regulatory efficacy

Posted on by

The Environment Commissioner released a series of reports yesterday, and I have some questions about a couple of them. His first report looks into the plan to plant two billion trees and states that it won’t be achievable unless there are big changes, citing that last year’s targets weren’t met, and that the agreements with provinces and territories around this are still being worked out. While I did notice that his graph about the plans for planting these trees does backload much of it because it will take time to grow enough saplings to plant, I’m not sure that one year’s data is enough to declare imminent failure. Maybe I’m just being optimistic.

One of his reports also criticises that the government can’t track which regulations reduce how many emissions, which makes it hard to assess their efficacy. I’m just not sure how a government would go about doing so, because there are so many overlapping measures including the carbon price, and emissions have started to bend, so that we’re slowly dropping below pre-pandemic and 2005 levels, particularly as the economy is growing, which is a good sign that measures are working overall, but there is more to do. And while I appreciate what he’s trying to say, I’m just not sure how someone goes about calculating how much the inventory changed for each regulatory measure. He did also talk about how many missed targets there were, but didn’t differentiate between which stripe of government was in power, and how the previous government set targets that they deemed “aspirational,” meaning that they did nothing to attempt to meet them, while the current government’s targets are for 2030, and they could very well still meet them if they continue their current trajectory. I’m sure he doesn’t want to get into that difference as part of his role as non-partisan quasi-Officer of Parliament (he is not a standalone officer but is part of the Auditor General’s office), but it is relevant to the state of the discussion.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces had a misfire, and accidentally bombed their own city of Belgorod, near the Ukrainian border. Oops. Meanwhile, the head of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, visited president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv, and declared that Ukraine’s future is in NATO (but that can’t happen under NATO rules so long as they have Russians occupying their territory). Ukraine has trained eight storm brigades worth 40,000 troops for the upcoming counteroffensive. Treason charges are being laid against several Ukrainian servicemen for giving away information to Russian force during an unauthorised mission, and those Russians damaged a Ukrainian airfield as a result.

https://twitter.com/euromaidanpress/status/1649030309109813248

https://twitter.com/minpres/status/1649093237632647179

Continue reading →

QP: A special kind of incompetence to read the same script over and over

Posted on by

Neither the prime minister nor his deputy was present today, but neither were any of the other leaders, so that didn’t necessarily bode well from the start. Pierre Paul-His got things started in French, and he repeated Pierre Poilievre’s lead talking points from yesterday—that the prime minister has a “special kind of incompetence” for increasing the cost of the bureaucracy while still allowing them to go on strike, and demanded he fix what was broken. Mona Fortier praised the work of civil servants, and that they continue to bargain in good faith for a fair agreement. Paul-Hus demanded to know why the prime minister wasn’t answering, speculating that it was because he was too busy planning his next vacation, to which Mark Holland somewhat crankily responded that for the third day, yes the prime minister took a vacation with his family, and they stayed at the home of a family friend. Jasraj Hallan took over in English, and repeated the same “special kind of incompetence” talking points with an angrier tone, and Fortier repeated her same points about praise and good-faith negotiations. Hallan then insisted that the only people getting ahead are “crony insiders,” blamed the government for inflation, and turned this into a rant about the “scam” of the carbon price. Holland noted a lot of hypocrisy in the question, then listed the ways in which the leader of the opposition avails himself of government funding—house, car, office, staff—before he talks on the phone with American billionaires to try and destroy the CBC, and wondered if Poilievre should have a Twitter label that notes he’s 99 percent government-funded. Hallan got indignant, and said that nobody believes the government, before he completely mischaracterised the PBO’s report on carbon prices, and Holland needled back and wondered how the Conservatives are trading in conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he tried to insist that appointing people who have connections to the Trudeau Foundation could mean that the prime minister has nothing to do with it. Holland got up and recited that Trudeau has not been associated with the Foundation for ten years. Therrien went on a tear about Beijing-backed donations and demanded a public inquiry. Holland insisted that foreign interference is concerning for everyone in the Chamber.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and ranted about contracts to consultants rather than giving civil servants a good deal. Helena Jaczek stated that there is a need for flexibility but they are keeping an eye on contracts. Gord Johns repeated the same accusation in English, and Jaczek stated that the budget had plans to reduce that kind of consultant spending.

Continue reading →