Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

Roundup: Target 2032

Posted on by

The government’s slow rollout of NATO announcements continued apace yesterday with the formal announcement that their roadmap to meeting the defence spending target of two percent of GDP was expected by 2032, at which point that would include not only the submarines, but some other air defences as well. But because the details on that roadmap remain scarce, it allowed the usual narratives to carry on, while the Conservatives took to their socials to insist that the government had no intention of really following through on this promise, with no evidence at all (unless it was an admission that they have no intention of sticking to any of these plans, because they have already admitted that they have no intention of meeting the two percent target, merely “working toward it.”)

There was also an announcement that Canada and the US would work with Finland on icebreaker capability, with the details to be worked out in the next six months.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched two missiles and six drones at Ukraine, mostly at the Sumy and Mykolaiv regions. US intelligence reports that Russian agents tried to assassinate the CEO of a German arms manufacturer sending weapons to Ukraine. And Ukraine’s former army chief, who clashed with president Zelenskyy, has begun his new role as ambassador to the UK.

Continue reading →

Roundup: New subs on the menu

Posted on by

We all knew it was coming, but the day finally arrived—the announcement that yes, Canada is officially embarking on a new submarine fleet, that we’re planning for up to twelve (from the current four), and that they will be conventionally powered and not nuclear (so no, we won’t be getting into the AUKUS nuclear subs club).

This is going to push us past the two percent spending target for NATO, but it does amaze me that the government waited until this long at the NATO conference to announce it, after they spent the past two days being punching bags for American congressmen and senators who want to look tough and make a point, while also feeding the bullshit narrative back home that the Elder Pundits have decreed we must follow. You would think that the supposed communications geniuses that this government purports to employ would get ahead of the entire situation, but no, that is apparently beyond their capabilities. Hermes wept; this government is so gods damned incompetent at these kinds of things that should be absolute gimmes. Cripes.

Meanwhile, the CBC tried to pin down the Conservatives on their totally serious plan to both “move toward” meeting the NATO target (note the hedging language that does not say they promise to meet it—remember, the Conservatives love “aspirational” targets that they can pay lip service toward with no intention of ever meeting), while cutting the budget overall (that means cuts at defence because that’s the easiest target and most able to push back capital expenditures). Unsurprisingly, the Conservative wouldn’t actually give direct answers, nor would they say what they mean by restoring “warrior” and not “woke” culture in the Forces. Of course, that’s generally code for the culture of toxic masculinity that got the military into so much trouble in the first place, with both sexual misconduct and abuse of power, but these guys are up late watching bro culture videos on YouTube, so they know all about “warrior culture.”

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile strike in the Mykolaiv region has killed one and injured eight including a local mayor. A combined drone and missile attack on Odesa has killed two and damaged port infrastructure. Russian forces also claim to have taken control of Yasnobrodivka in the Donetsk region, which Ukraine won’t confirm. Ukraine’s top prosecutor alleges that Russians killed two prisoners of war from the Zaporizhzhia region. Here’s a look at why the incoming F-16 fighters likely won’t have an immediate impact on the war.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The usual NATO narratives

Posted on by

Because the NATO summit is happening right now in Washington DC, you may have noticed that the entire media narrative in Canada is around the two-percent-of-GDP defence spending target (which is a stupid metric!) and how Canada has not managed to miraculously achieve it, and tossing around words like “free-rider” and “unserious.” The Elder Pundits have declared that this is the narrative by which the entire event must be framed by, and ignore absolutely all other context or counterfactuals.

Indeed, we shall not mention that the GDP denominator is a much bigger hurdle for Canada because of the size of our economy relative to many other NATO member countries, and that because our economy is growing, that pushes our spending requirements even higher. (Conversely, if we crashed the economy, we could reach that two percent target really quickly). We shall not mention that Canada contributes to NATO operations in a meaningful way, unlike many other NATO countries who may be meeting the two-percent spending target—holding the fort in Kandahar when no one else would, hitting moving targets in Libya, managing one of the most difficult missions in the Baltics right now (being the Latvian mission) as well as training Ukrainian troops into being effective soldiers who were able to hold off the invasion. Nor shall we mention that other countries claiming to reach their two percent targets have only done so through the accounting trickery of front-loading their capital spending (meaning future spending will drop off), or promising the spending in spite of constitutional restrictions around the size of deficit spending. None of these facts matter to the Elder Pundits and the narrative they have decided upon.

Yes, Canada needs to spend more, but you can’t just throw money at National Defence—they haven’t had the capacity to spend their full budget, which is why the spending lapses (which the PBO did get right in his report). It is taking time to build the capacity back up to spend the money, and part of that is fixing the recruitment and retention crisis (which has gone very, very slowly). But they are recapitalising the Forces in a significant way, and once we get to the submarine procurement, those numbers are going climb precipitously, but again, we want to do that cautiously to avoid the procurement problems of the past. Minister have been saying that we need there to be something to show for the increased spending, which media and the Elder Pundits have had a hard time comprehending. So, when you hear the usual “free rider” nonsense, remember that we are actually contributing, unlike a lot of other member countries.

https://twitter.com/journo_dale/status/1810866983534997849

Ukraine Dispatch

Here are more accounts from the bombing of the children’s hospital in Kyiv on Monday. Russia claims that the hospital was hit by Ukrainian fire, but offers no evidence, while the UN assessment is pretty sure it was the Russian missile that was observed. From the NATO Summit in Washington, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy called on Americans to keep funding Ukraine’s war effort rather than waiting for the election results in November.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1810640148444709169

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giroux tries his hand at semantics

Posted on by

Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux is at it again, deciding that he wants to play talking head pundit rather than sticking to the confines of his job. Case in point was his report on the proposed Digital Safety Office, and his calculations around staffing and the costs thereof (which the Conservatives have disingenuously suggested was reason to kill said office should they form government, when we know it has nothing to do with the costs). But Giroux has decided to make some utterly incomprehensible musings, talking about how “Canadians need to decide” if this is just “bureaucracy” or “enforcement” of the Act.

I’m not even sure where to start here. For one, of course it’s enforcement—that’s the whole gods damned point of the office. And there will be cost recovery in the way of fees and fines from the web giants, but Giroux didn’t bother to calculate what those could look like, because apparently, he can only pull certain methodologies out of his ass, but not others. But to try and play semantic games about whether or not this is “bureaucracy” is frankly baffling. What exactly is he trying to say? How is this at all related to his statutory responsibilities of providing economic and macro-economic analysis? It’s not, and Giroux should know that if he wants to be a pundit, he should resign and actually go do that.

But that’s not all. Giroux put out another report that is disputing Canada’s defence spending vis-à-vis GDP, so that he can weigh in on the Narrative about our commitments to NATO (without any actual context). Giroux claims that we’ll be below because the Canadian Forces has been lapsing certain levels of spending (which is true, and also a sign why we can’t just budget even more money that they can’t spend), but beyond this, he also decided he was going to use his own calculations for the GDP denominator instead of the OECD calculation that NATO uses, because he knows better, apparently. I mean, why have an apples-to-apples comparison that’s actually useful when you can pull a bespoke method from your ass in order to make a point, which again, is not within his remit to be doing. I’m going to be generous and say that there is a legitimate point about lapsing spending, but whatever he’s trying to do here is hardly within the confines of his job description, and more in line with his desire to be a media star.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched a daytime airstrike against Ukraine that hit a children’s hospital in Kyiv, and which killed at least 41 civilians in total. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in Warsaw to meet with the president of Poland to discuss strengthening air defences, as well as signing a bilateral defence cooperation agreement. Zelenskyy vowed retaliation for the strike, and called on allies to stand with him. Russia is claiming that Ukraine launched tens of drones at them, and that two power substations and an oil depot caught fire as a result.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another far-right defeat

Posted on by

The news out of France this weekend was that the far-right was not the victors in their legislative elections, but rather that the left-wing alliance came in with the highest seats, followed by Emmanuel Macron’s centrists, denying the far-right the victory they had been hoping for. This isn’t great for Macron in that his prime minister has resigned and he will have a hard time getting his agenda through the National Assembly, but nevertheless, his gamble did somewhat pay off in that he thwarted the far right from making any further advances. This, along with the fact that Labour won a resounding victory in the UK days earlier, has plenty of people talking about how hopefully the US and Canada will be next to reject the far-right. I am not wholly mollified.

The US remains the big question mark, particularly given all of the attention on president Biden’s fitness to carry on for another term, and we cannot get too complacent here in Canada. While our own far-right is still marginal, the bigger danger remains that the Conservatives continue to try and court those far-right actors and are increasingly taking pages out of the authoritarian playbook. Nevertheless, the Elder Pundits in this country insist that there’s nothing to see here, that things can’t be that bad under Poilievre, or that the concerns of women or LGBTQ+ people are mere exaggerations. They’re not, and we can’t let our guard down at this critical juncture.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces shot down three out of six missiles fired by Russia over the central regions of the country. Russian drones hit an energy facility in the Sumy region on Saturday. Ukrainian drones hit a munitions depot inside Russian territory, causing a massive explosion. Russians claim that Ukrainians were thwarted trying to hijack one of their strategic bombers, but there is no verification of that claim.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Impossible to extrapolate

Posted on by

As with so many elections these days, it brings out the electoral reform fetishists, and they get self-righteous and say dumb things all over social media, and this week’s general election in the UK is no different. And lo, those fetishists are again making pronouncements about things like “voters’ wishes” because they’re trying to find a grand narrative that confirms their priors, and I fear I may lose my gods damned mind over this.

Once again, let us remember what this election is—650 separate and simultaneous elections, each one for a specific seat. So yes, the voters’ wishes are reflected because they chose who filled each seat. As well, I will once again remind you that the so-called “popular vote” is a logical fallacy because there is too much variation between each electoral contest to make any kind of grand aggregate that is meaningful—particularly in the UK, where the smaller countries have regional parties that England doesn’t, and yes, that does distort the “national picture” (as what happens in Canada with the Bloc). And no, every vote that is cast does not deserve their own seat. That’s not democracy, and it’s actually sore loserism if you believe that your vote doesn’t count if the person or party you prefer doesn’t win.

This is the other aspect of these fetishists spouting off and producing their own graphs of how they claim that Parliament “should” look if they had a PR system, erm, except they seem to always insist that it would be pure-PR (which is almost entirely unlikely), and it discounts that voting behaviour would change, but so would party formation under a system that no longer rewards big-tent brokerage in favour of post-election negotiation for coalitions. In no possible way can you extrapolate a vote like Thursday’s and come up with what a Parliament “should” look like, but that won’t stop the fetishists from trying.

Oh, and if one of these fetishists also tries to bring up lines about how the current single-member plurality system is “bad for democracy,” I’m not sure that PR is having a great run right now, as it legitimizes far-right and extremist parties that is almost impossible under SMP, and that legitimacy afforded to them is allowing them to grow across Europe. The situation in the Netherlands is also cause for concern, given that the far-right parties there have taken months to try to cobble together some sort of working coalition and may prove completely unworkable or ungovernable, and that’s not good for anyone.

Ukraine Dispatch

The Russian advance toward Toretsk in the Donetsk region means that time is running out for any Ukrainian citizens that want to flee. While Ukraine managed to destroy all 32 Russian drones launched Friday night, early Saturday morning was another story—drones hit an energy facility in Sumy, and hits on Selydove and Komar killed eight combined. Meanwhile, the head of Ukraine’s navy says that Russia has  nearly re-based all of its combat-read warships from occupied Crimea, because of the number of successful Ukrainian strikes on the region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: It’s not logistically impossible

Posted on by

For the past week-and-a-half, it has been nothing but handwringing over the Toronto—St. Paul’s by-election results, and the demands that Justin Trudeau either step aside, or to at least meet with his caucus. I took a full week for Trudeau to finally take questions from the media and said that he’s “committed” to staying on the job. And in response to the demands for an in-person caucus meeting now and not in September, Trudeau said he’s having one-on-one conversations with members of the caucus, and some of them are saying he needs to change “key players.”

And then comes along Liberal caucus chair Brenda Shanahan, who insists that it’s “logistically impossible” to have an in-person caucus meeting before September, to which I call bullshit. MPs can all get on a plane to Ottawa at any point, even if it means they have to cancel a barbeque appearance at some point. It’s not impossible, it’s a choice, and that choice is to not respect the members of the caucus, because frankly the leader doesn’t feel the need to be afraid of caucus because we have trained MPs to believe the falsehood that they are powerless and that the leader can push them around. That’s not actually true, and the caucus collectively has the power to vote non-confidence in the leader if they actually had the intestinal fortitude to do so. But therein lies the problem.

I’m also going to point out that all of the breathless reporting on Thursday about Chrystia Freeland saying that the Cabinet is fully behind Trudeau—of course they’re fully behind him. If they weren’t, they’d be out of a job. This isn’t rocket science, guys.

In case you missed them:

  • My weekend column where I talked to the author of the book Theatre of Lies about the situation we find ourselves in Canadian politics and what to do about it.
  • My column points out that one of the problems the Liberals face is how they choose their leaders, and that a proper Westminster system would have solved this by now.
  • My Loonie Politics Quick Take wonders just what Danielle Smith thinks she wants to “opt out” of around dental care.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces shot down 21 out of 22 Russian drones overnight Thursday. Ukrainian troops were forced to retreat from one neighbourhood in Chasiv Yar after their defensive positions were destroyed, risking further casualties. A Russian missile strike in Odesa killed a woman, while a guided bomb in Kharkiv region killed a man. Russians have started targeting Ukrainian air bases in advance of the delivery of F-16 fighter jets. Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán went to Kyiv for a frosty meeting as Hungary assumes the rotating presidency of the EU. Orbán then headed to Moscow, no doubt to get fresh orders from Putin.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Electoral reform tries to take the spotlight

Posted on by

In addition to the constant wanking of pollsters and polling analysts, while the Elder Pundits continue to pronounce the end of Justin Trudeau’s political career, there has been an entire sub-category of commentary that is trying to tie this by-election loss to the failure to enact some kind of electoral reform, even though Trudeau has won two elections since then. Justin Ling wrote up a whole op-ed about this for the Star yesterday, given that the 84 candidates on the by-election ballot were because of a tantrum by electoral reform group to use the stunt to call attention to Trudeau’s broken promise. And Ling makes some wild assertions along the way.

This notion that MPs are more beholden to the party than to their constituents would not be fixed by changing the electoral system. In fact, the current system is the one that most empowers MPs to be beholden to their constituents, as most PR systems rely on party votes, and party lists to fill “proportional” seats, and that makes those MPs even more beholden to the leader because they don’t have the connection to a riding as a result. That’s an even worse outcome, and hands even more power to the leader to centralise, worse than they already do. The ability to be independent under such a PR system is even less than under the current system, so I have a hard time fathoming why anyone thinks that this solves any of those problems.

The current dysfunction that Ling complains about in the piece is not a result of the electoral system—it’s because of the perverse incentives that have developed, compounded by the Trump Effect, that have made rational discourse impossible because everything is about driving engagement over social media, not in the Houses of Parliament. Changing the electoral system wouldn’t change that—in fact, it could make it worse as parties fragment and fragile coalitions emerge that rely on extremists to play kingmaker, forcing parties to behave in even more outrageous fashions. Electoral reform doesn’t solve problems—it takes an existing set of problems and replaces them with a new set of problems. Resurrecting this debate in order to once again flog this dead horse is not helping anyone, and if anything, is just distracting from the actual frank conversations that parties need to be having amongst themselves with their members about how to meet the moment to solving the problems this country faces. PR won’t make that happen, and we have to stop entertaining the notion that it somehow will.

Programming Note: I’m taking the long weekend fully off of blogging, as well as a few days next week in order to work on another project.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces say that they have forced Russian troops out of part of Chasiv Yar. Some Ukrainian commanders are complaining that the Canadian-built Senator armoured vehicles aren’t built for off-road capability, break down too often, and aren’t well suited for the front lines. With the EU security pact now signed, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy called on European allies to fulfil their promises around arms and supports.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1806344642041917773

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1806321424446951489

Continue reading →

Roundup: Nothing to opt out of

Posted on by

Breaking through the endless wank-a-thon of the pundit class declaring that Justin Trudeau needs to go was a story where Danielle Smith had sent a letter to Trudeau declaring that Alberta will “opt out” of the dental care plan, and that they want to negotiate “compensation” that they would apply to their own provincial low-income dental assistance programme, but this seems to completely misunderstand how the programme works. It is very literally an insurance programme. Dental offices bill Sun Life through a portal, and the federal government then reimburses Sun Life. Yes, the rollout was poor and confused (because the whole implementation of this programme has been a bit of a gong show, thanks entirely to the NDP), but this is not a federal transfer programme. There is nothing to compensate the province for because this is a 100 percent federal insurance scheme.

The reason it’s structured this way is because the NDP demanded, as part of the Supply and Confidence Agreement, that this needed to be a fully federal programme, and not cost-shared like early learning and child care, and because dental care is ostensibly provincial jurisdiction, it had to be structured as insurance, and the model they would up choosing was to get Sun Life to do it, and they just pay Sun Life, rather than stand up a federal bureaucracy to administer this. This should have been a federal-provincial transfer so that provinces could bolster their existing dental programmes to federal guidelines, but no. As a result, I don’t see just what Smith can “opt out” of, let alone be compensated for.

Of course, federal health minister Mark Holland didn’t help matters by going on Power & Politics and not explaining how the programme works, and instead suggested that she could opt out if she could guarantee the same or better coverage, but again, opt out of what? The province isn’t billing Sun Life. They are out of the equation entirely, and Holland should have pointed this out, rather than just trying to sound conciliatory and saying he doesn’t want a fight, and repeating the same lines about how many tens of thousands of seniors have availed themselves of the programme to date. Smith doesn’t appear to understand how the programme works, and has created a strawman around it to make it look like she’s standing up to Trudeau (at the expense of her population), and claiming they already have a great dental care programme and that this is duplicative (it’s not—the Alberta programme covers very few people and is a burden to administer).

There is an added issue here with how the media have covered this. CBC, CTV, The Canadian Press, all ignore the programme structure and just retype Smith’s letter, and then get comments from the provincial dental association about either their disagreement on the federal programme or some minor pushback about Smith’s comments about the existing provincial programme, but the fact that this is an insurance company where the dentists bill Sun Life and the province has no involvement at all is a pretty crucial part of the story, which nobody mentions. This should not be rocket science, and this would show that Smith is engaging in bad theatre, but of course they don’t do that, and readers are being given a disservice as a result.

Ukraine Dispatch

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited troops on the front lines in the eastern Donetsk region. Zelenskyy is expected to sign a security agreement with the EU later today.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1805883881356186102

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pledging to do things differently—really!

Posted on by

If by some chance you managed to survive the complete and utter wank-fest of pollsters, poll analysts and Elder Pundits doing the media rounds yesterday without straining your eyeballs as they rolled endlessly, well, good for you. Just don’t expect anything but this to dominate the media landscape for the next several weeks to come, because going into this, the Elder Pundits declared that this was a sign that Trudeau needs to go, and they feel themselves perfectly vindicated, and they want you to know it. (Such a healthy media ecosystem we have in this country). So, while the entrails of this by-election get picked over, expect nothing but demands for a leadership review (which the Liberal Party’s constitution only allows for after a general election loss), for Trudeau to step down, and for successor chatter to spin up, with Mark Carney’s name all over the place in spite of all evidence to the contrary. (Gretchen, stop trying to make Mark Carney happen. It’s not going to happen).

Of course, Trudeau isn’t going to step down. He has convinced himself that he’s the one who can stand up to Poilievre, and that he wants to keep doing the work. Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland and Karina Gould were all making the point that they have to listen more and work harder to regain trust, but the one that stuck out for me the most was Gould telling Power & Politics that they need to “do things differently,” but therein lies the problem with Trudeau. They don’t do things differently, starting with the fact that Katie Telford is still on the job and hasn’t decided that she needs to do something more with her life that just this, and being the central person by which everything flows (becoming part of the bottleneck of files this government needs to address). They are still communicating the same way after having been told time and again that it’s hindering them, and the most they’ve done is get some Gen Z staffers to put them in cringey TikToks (from their personal phones!) in addition to the same pabulum that they keep feeding us. They continue to pat themselves on the back for declaration over actions to implement those declarations. I get that they are trying to say the right things right now, but I have yet to see any desire on the part of Trudeau to do things differently, and maybe that should be the lesson here.

And in reaction, we have Susan Delacourt pointing out why this becomes a problem for Poilievre’s expectations management. Jen Gerson mockingly declares Trudeau to be dead in the water, because of course she does. Paul Wells also makes the observation that Trudeau will espouse making changes but won’t, and will just keep doing what he’s been doing the whole time.

Ukraine Dispatch

The shells obtained by the Czech initiative are starting to arrive in Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia exchanged 90 prisoners of war. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy welcomed an International Criminal Court warrant for two more Russian military leaders.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1805173797705728292

Continue reading →