Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: Boycotting NSICOP for theatre

Posted on by

Because we cannot trust our current political parties to do their jobs of accountability, Erin O’Toole has announced that he won’t name any MPs to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, citing the Winnipeg Lab documents and completely false insinuations that the committee is a tool of the prime minister’s office to obscure information. It’s bullshit, but it’s bullshit that the party has committed itself to for the sake of political theatre over serious work.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1473261482624397319

To throw a strop over these documents when a) the committee that ordered them no longer exists and won’t be reconstituted; b) the order the committee gave to produce those documents does not exist; and c) the government has offered other compromises to release those documents, both in releasing the unredacted documents to NSICOP, and in proposing an ad hoc committee duplicating the process from the Harper-era Afghan detainee documents, which the Conservatives also rejected for handwavey reasons. Do you see how none of this is adding up to anything coherent, and why the government’s many attempts to release the documents in an unredacted form that will still satisfy national security requirements keep getting rejected for performative reasons?

If NSICOP were really a tool of the PMO to hide information, then its members from both the opposition parties in the Commons and in the Senate would have resigned in protest long ago, and lo, that has never happened, because it’s not a tool of the PMO. O’Toole’s objections are theatre, and nothing more. It would be great if more people would call this theatre out for what it is, rather than just tut-tutting about secrecy. Our MPs have proven time and again that they’re not serious about accountability over national security and intelligence matters, and that they can’t be trusted with the information, and they have proven that the concerns of our national security and intelligence agencies are right, time and again.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A fundamental misunderstanding of the profession

Posted on by

Because this is sometimes a media criticism blog, it’s time once again to look askance at some particularly poor reporting choices by a particular CBC reporter. He has developed quite a pattern and reputation for writing stories about judicial appointments which are skewed toward a certain predilection for creating moral panics, and this really false notion that people are essentially buying judicial nominations with party donations, which is both absurd and not how the system works. And along the way, he mischaracterised comments made by the then-president of the Canadian Bar Association, which I had to go about correcting.

In this particular instance, he is remarking that a new judicial nomination Quebec is a lawyer who argued the case on behalf of opponents of Bill 21 in the province (and didn’t win because the judge noted that the provincial government pre-emptively applied the Notwithstanding Clause). But the entire framing of the story and its implicit narrative is that this is a political appointment for the intention of either tweaking at François Legault, or of signalling federal opposition to the law, which is again absurd, and a completely bizarre understanding of how things work in the legal system.

Let me offer this reminder: lawyers make arguments on behalf of their clients. They don’t need to believe those arguments or subscribe to the beliefs of their clients—they simply need to argue on their behalf. The fact that this lawyer argued on behalf of these clients in opposition to this law should be immaterial to the fact that he applied to be a judge, and it should not be a determining factor in the decision to appoint him. But it does fit the narrative that this particular reporter likes to portray about how judicial appointments work, and the fact that the gods damned CBC is letting him spin this particular narrative and not squashing it for being both wrong and unprofessional is troubling, and makes me wonder what the hell is going on with their editorial standards.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rota says no problem here

Posted on by

CBC checked in with House of Commons Speaker Anthony Rota over the weekend, and well, it was about as trite and saccharine as one might expect from Rota, particularly given the current era of hybrid sittings. Everything’s under control. Situation normal. We’re all fine now here, thank you.

It’s not fine. They haven’t solved the problem where the interpreters are suffering extremely high rates of injuries (and I have spoken to one interpreter who says part of the problem is the House of Commons’ system itself, not just the Zoom platform), but they are extremely concerned about the possibility of permanent hearing loss from these injuries. I haven’t seen Rota or any of the House leaders aware or even speak to the problem. Meanwhile, Peter Julian thinks the solution is just to hire more interpreters—but there aren’t any more. This year’s class at the University of Ottawa will graduate four new interpreters, which isn’t even enough to replace those who are retiring. There is a looming crisis coming that will have a very detrimental effect on our Parliament, particularly if we want to continue operating in a bilingual capacity. Hybrid sittings are only making it worse because the existing interpreters are burning out at a rapid rate, they’re not adequately compensating the limited number of freelancers who are filling in, and if they decide that the possibility of permanent hearing loss from these injuries isn’t enough to bother continuing, well, Parliament is going to be screwed for a decade to come, because they were too self-absorbed to take the adequate precautions to meet in person, while patting themselves on the back for “setting a good example” of meeting remotely. Never mind the human cost of that “good example.”

I have said it before, and I will keep saying it—there is no moral justification for hybrid sittings given the human cost this is taking. And it would be great if the gods damned Speaker could actually speak up on behalf of the interpreters and make that case rather than simply grinning and gently chiding the MPs who keep making their lives difficult.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Feeling like March 2020 all over again

Posted on by

It’s definitely starting to feel like March 2020, as provinces all started increasing restrictions in advance of Christmas—some of them insufficient, and too late, but they are taking some actions nevertheless. (That, and they’re not all honest about what has been happening with rapid tests—looking most especially at the incompetent murderclown Doug Ford). Federally, the border measures are getting even tougher with negative PCR tests being required even for trips that are less than 72 hours in duration (and those PRC tests need to have been done out-of-country), while the travel ban on those ten African countries is now lifted as omicron has already achieved community spread in Canada and such a ban is now useless.

Prime minister Justin Trudeau is trying to offer some reassurances that we have the benefit of knowledge that we didn’t have during the first wave, and that Canadians know enough to do what it takes to curb the spread of the virus. I suspect that may be a bit overly optimistic considering that too many people will do what the government allows them to, so don’t take all of the precautions necessary to actually curb the spread.

Meanwhile, here’s an exploration of some of the psychological reactions that are being seen and felt to the rapid onset of omicron, where fatigue of the “new normal” is starting to overtake compliance to health measures, and the need to start thinking about what the world looks like if we have COVID forever now.

Continue reading →

Roundup: At long last, the mandate letters

Posted on by

On what turned out to be the final sitting day of 2021 for the House of Commons, the prime minister finally released the mandate letters for his ministers, nearly three months after the election, and two after they were sworn in to their new jobs. I’m not sure how well I can articulate the utter absurdity of the situation, because there is really no excuse why it took this long (let along why it took him as long as it did to swear in his Cabinet or to summon Parliament). The fact that they were released after the House agreed to rise at the end of the sitting day means that there can be no interrogation of these letters by the opposition until January 31st, which is way too long.

As for the letters themselves, there is a theme among them about building a more inclusive and fair country, and for tangible results to be better communicated to Canadians (you think?). Some of the highlights include:

  • Ordering several ministers to take a harder line on trade tensions with the US
  • Resurrecting legislation on CanCon requirements for the internet and having web giants pay news outlets, as well as modernising the CBC
  • Renewed action to fighting systemic racism, along with a number of initiatives directed toward the Black community
  • Implementing UNDRIP in all decisions
  • Developing a new cyber-security strategy

No doubt more attention will be paid to these letters over the coming days, and we’ll see how much misunderstanding comes from them (recall the line about not creating new permanent spending programmes from Chrystia Freeland’s previous letter which people took to mean all rather than in the context of COVID supports). It also looks like we’re getting talking heads grousing about inclusivity as though it were somehow a distraction from economic growth when inclusive growth is where the country needs to be headed to head off economic challenges plaguing us since before the pandemic.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1471544703212404736

Continue reading →

Roundup: The inflation stats and what’s behind them

Posted on by

Rounding out the big economic week was the Consumer Price Index report yesterday (made all the more difficult because Statistics Canada’s website is largely offline as they seal the cyber-vulnerability identified on Friday). The top line figure is that inflation remains at 4.7 percent for a second month in a row, meaning that it hasn’t accelerated into the much higher territory that places like the US are sitting at, and several of the price indicators were flat, which could mean that some prices are starting to stabilise. But it’s still early days, though when you drill down into the numbers, there are really three things that are driving inflation: gasoline, housing costs, and meat.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1471125492568838152

To be clear, as noted by StatsCan:

  • Oil production continues to remain below pre-pandemic levels though global demand has increased
  • Prices for fresh or frozen beef increased 15.4% year over year in November. Poor crop yields resulting from unfavourable weather conditions have made it more expensive for farmers to feed their livestock, in turn raising prices for consumers

https://twitter.com/stephen_tapp/status/1471120984702922757

https://twitter.com/stephen_tapp/status/1471172792351657992

So what is the takeaway here? That these are issues that the federal government has very little control over, and that the Bank of Canada raising interest rates won’t tackle either. And yet, we keep hearing demands for “concrete action” from the federal government on this, as though they could wave a want to fix it. Or if not a magic wand, then wage and price controls? Do we need to bring “Zap, you’re frozen!” out of retirement?

Continue reading →

Roundup: A rosier fiscal update

Posted on by

There was some drama around the delivery of yesterday afternoon’s fiscal update, as two members of Chrystia Freeland’s staff tested positive for COVID, and while she had not been around them recently, she decided that the prudent course of action was to stay isolated and deliver it virtually rather than in the Chamber. She also made it clear that this was not a budget or a mini-budget, but rather a look at where the nation’s books are, and it was a rosier picture than was anticipated in the spring’s budget.

There are no significant new spending promises in this document, aside from more money being set aside for COVID supports as the omicron variant bears down on us (which includes buying millions more rapid tests for the provinces to deliver—not that most have been good at it so far), as well as the $40 billion being set aside for compensation for Indigenous children in care and to fix the system going forward, and some money to help BC recover from their recent spate of natural disasters, and to reimburse seniors faced with GIS clawbacks. There are also some dollars being put toward reducing immigration backlogs, and helping ports deal with supply-chain snarls. But otherwise, it held the line, surprising some observers who like to chide this government’s profligacy. There was a gender section that laid out in stark terms how the pandemic affected women disproportionately.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1470867511021244418

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1470871367746686979

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1470873072383131648

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1470873990373601286

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1470875401253634050

As for opposition reaction, the Conservatives complain there’s nothing in there about inflation…which is the Bank of Canada’s job, and the only thing the federal government could do are wage and price controls. The NDP say there isn’t enough about the clawbacks in there, or not enough other support measures, but with the Bloc pretty much guaranteed to support it, they can afford to look tough in spite of being paper tigers.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland is setting her policy own agenda—oh noes!

Posted on by

The Globe and Mail had a strange hit piece out yesterday that was largely targeted at Chrystia Freeland, but it was kind of all over the place and seemed to be missing the mark on a few different tangents. It was framed around Michael Sabia, the new-ish deputy minister of finance, and the fact that he hasn’t made any headway in reining in spending or coming out with a “growth agenda,” as though we aren’t still in a global pandemic that has required extraordinary government fiscal measures in order to keep the economy from spiralling into a depression, or the fact that the last budget was a growth agenda, but it was focused on inclusive growth rather than tax cuts, which a particular generation cannot wrap their heads around (and the fact that the piece singles out the childcare plan is evidence of this fact).

What was particularly troubling about the piece was the fact that it couldn’t quite decide how it was attacking Freeland. On the one hand, it worried that she was too hands-off in the department, leaving Sabia to manage it while she dealt with big policy items (for which she was attacked in absentia during Question Period yesterday), while at the same time, it is overly concerned that Department of Finance officials aren’t driving policy, but the government is. Which, erm, is kind of how things work in our system. The civil service is supposed to provide fearless advice but also do the work of implementing the policies and directives of their political bosses. That’s the whole point of a democracy—this is not a technocracy where the bureaucrats run the show, and if these sore Finance officials have a problem with that, perhaps they either need a refresher on how this works, or they need to find themselves out of the civil service.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1470409184076185600

None of this is particularly surprising, mind you—there are still too many pundits and journalists who still think it’s 1995 and will always be 1995, because that is the established media narrative by which they must always obey (and this hit piece also touches on the Cult of the Insider narrative as well with all of the anonymous inside sources). And the fact that Freeland is a woman holding the job, and is focusing on things like inclusive growth and not the usual “tax cuts=jobs” agenda frankly makes it too easy for the 1995 narrative to keep being circulated. But it’s not 1995, and perhaps it’s time that We The Media stop pretending otherwise, because this kind of hit piece was frankly something that should not have seen the light of day.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A big economic week ahead

Posted on by

It’s going to be a very big week in Canadian economics: Today is the day the Bank of Canada has their mandate to target inflation between one and three percent at an average of two percent gets renewed, with some additional language around employment in there (but not a dual mandate). Then Tuesday will be the government’s fiscal update, which isn’t expected to announce too many new things because there simply isn’t time for a budget implementation bill to accompany it. And then Wednesday, Statistics Canada will release the inflation figures for November, and it there remains a possibility it could go higher still before being expected to cool down by mid-next year. Because it’s largely about supply chains, and as the former governor of the Bank of Canada keeps reminding us, it’s not about the political situation or fiscal policy. The counterfactual is that if the government didn’t spend on pandemic supports and the Bank didn’t engage in quantitative easing, we would be in a deflationary depression cycle, and that would have left us all worse off.

With this in mind, here is economist Kevin Milligan with some added context:

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1470099272632733696

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1470100800261132288

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1470102174076006401

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1470103387714637827

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1470104572261638146

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1470105479288262657

Continue reading →

Roundup: Limited federal options on Bill 21

Posted on by

So, the fight over Bill 21 in Quebec is gaining some traction now that there have been real-world consequences, and a bunch of MPs (mostly Conservatives) who previously said nothing about it—and who previously supported odious things like “barbaric cultural practices tip lines” and “Canadian values tests”—are now speaking up and recanting previous positions. Which is good, but while everyone is hoping for some kind of federal response or action on the legislation, I’m not sure there is an actual avenue. Consider this from constitutional law professor Carissima Mathen:

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1469013986142298114

This is essentially what Justin Trudeau has been saying—he’s opposed to it, but this isn’t the time for the federal government to step in. That time will be when the fight reaches the Supreme Court of Canada, because then they have a legitimate avenue to be an intervenor in the case. Until then, they can say they oppose it—and they have much more so than other parties—but they’re also not making wild symbolic actions that won’t mean anything. And while both Erin O’Toole and Jagmeet Singh say they are personally opposed (and Singh has a legitimate dog in this fight), Singh has been somewhat blank on actions a federal government could take, while O’Toole made it clear he wouldn’t interfere in any way because a) provincial jurisdiction, and b) he’s spent his entire leadership trying to suck up to François Legault and out-Bloc the Bloc, for all of the good it did him in the election. And there are demographic considerations that play into the political calculations as well:

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert, lays out the political calculations and options for Trudeau and O’Toole when it comes to challenging Bill 21. Paul Wells adds a boatload of more context to the situation both federally and in Quebec, and gives some sharper thoughts as to why the federal government has vanishingly few levers but nevertheless has options.

Continue reading →