Tag Archives: First Nations

Roundup: Mandatory vaccination is Canadian

Posted on by

There’s been some nonsense going around the pundit-sphere over the weekend about mandatory vaccinations being “against what Canada stands for.” Erm, except we’ve had mandatory vaccinations since around 1885, because public health concerns are public health. Seriously. This is not that difficult, people.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A late start isn’t an extra week off

Posted on by

I’m not sure whether it’s because it’s a very, very slow news season, or if the basic knowledge of how Parliament works is that lacking, but we got a lot of really bad headlines yesterday about how the Senate plans to take an “extra week off.” Which is not actually true, and distorts the situation. And in some cases, it’s being spun this way by certain media suspects completely out of bad faith, because anytime they can badmouth the Senate they’ll grab the opportunity and run.

To clarify: The Senate does not have a fixed sitting schedule the way the House of Commons does, and in no way are they bound to match the sitting schedule, because they do different work, and the timelines are different. The Senate frequently doesn’t convene at the same time as the House of Commons after the winter or summer break because they simply don’t have enough work on their Order Paper to justify it. They passed all of the bills that the Commons sent to them before they adjourned for the break, so coming back at the same time makes no sense—especially when they are competing for IT resources and interpreters with the Commons in the current hybrid context (which has, frankly, screwed the Senate over, but they’ve also allowed it to happen). More to the point, there are many years where the Senate will sit for weeks after the Commons rises for its break, and they will have break weeks out of sync with the Commons every now and again because their workloads are different. But this isn’t communicated effectively, either by the Senate itself, or by the media reporting on it—and it most especially isn’t communicated or even mentioned by the bad faith actors whose only agenda is to paint the Senate in a bad light. It’s disappointing, but not unexpected.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Recalling a committee for a dog and pony show

Posted on by

The House of Commons’ access to information, privacy and ethics committee will be recalled for emergency meetings after the Conservatives were “alarmed” to hear that the Public Health Agency used anonymised mobile data to see how Canadians were responding to public health measures. The point of the data collection is to get a sense of travel patterns during these kinds of measures, and to see whether people stay at home, or how far they go, and because its anonymised, nobody can see who is doing what individually—they’re looking at patterns.

But this kind of wailing and gnashing of teeth over anonymised data is nothing new for Conservatives, who have sounded this particular alarm before when Statistics Canada was hoping to use anonymised bank data to track Canadians’ purchasing habits in a more robust and accurate way than shopping diary surveys can, and lo, that project got iced. Of course, because irony is dead, the Conservatives’ election platform had their “carbon points” plan, which would require so much itemised consumer data that it puts this kind of anonymised data to shame, but why worry about consistency or logic?

Because this is a House of Commons committee, we are guaranteed that this is going to be nothing more than a dog and pony show. If they agree to hold a study on this—which it’s not yet guaranteed—it’s going to be hauling public health officials before committee and subjecting them to ridiculous questions that have little to do with this particular issue, in the hopes of catching them out on something, and attempts to build some kind of conspiracy theory that the government was trying to play Big Brother during the pandemic, and it will balloon from there until the point where the government has had enough and starts filibustering the increasingly unreasonable demands by opposition members, and the committee will grind to a halt. Because that’s how this kind of thing happens every time, because our MPs are more concerned with being partisan dicks on committees than actually doing their jobs of accountability. But maybe I’m just getting cynical about the current state of affairs in federal politics.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The healthcare debate needs to include strings

Posted on by

Our healthcare system is the topic du jour across much of the media, with a lot of “told you so,” and handwringing about how provincial governments drove “efficiencies” over the past number of decades that left almost no surge capacity­—Ontario most especially—while not doing anything about its robustness. And through it all, there are a number of opportunists saying “See! We need more private options!” which in turn leads to accusations of “See! You want American-style healthcare!” and the argument goes binary and unhelpful. (And here is some perspective on the American system amid COVID, which had more capacity, but is similarly overburdened now and some hospitals are declaring bankruptcy because they have had to cancel elective surgeries).

What I find particularly curious, however, is that in none of the pieces I read over the weekend was it ever acknowledged that over the decade that the health transfer escalator was at six percent annually, that provincial health spending didn’t match that growth, and that the money was being spent elsewhere. Provincial governments should be held to account for the fact that they were given money to fix their healthcare systems, and they didn’t, which has led us to this situation, and while my reply column on Twitter likes to insist that this is just conservative governments, no, it was common to governments of all stripes for decades now. This is why we need all future federal transfer agreements to come with hard strings, and compliance measures to ensure that we actually use those federal dollars to fix the system, not paper over cracks while they use the money to lower taxes elsewhere.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The limits of federal capacity to help

Posted on by

As the omicron variant continues to surge and stress hospital systems around the country, the federal health minister has started issuing a warning to provinces—the federal government’s resources to help provinces are finite, and that provinces are going to need to do more to bend their curves and reduce caseloads, because the federal government is about tapped out. That could include stricter vaccine mandates within provinces, because they may not have a choice as the unvaccinated continue to swamp the healthcare system. (This is where Jason Kenney and his mini-me, Scott Moe, immediately declared that it wasn’t going to happen in their provinces).

The Canadian Forces’ own medical abilities are very finite, and even before the pandemic, they were already short thousands of bodies necessary to do all of the work they’re supposed to be doing. The pandemic has very much not helped this situation, and between pandemic needs and natural disasters (wildfires and floods), the military is having a hard time doing its own job and preparing soldiers for possible combat deployments when provinces keep demanding more military help—and there is talk that Ontario should bring in more military personnel to deal with the crisis that is yet again brewing in its long-term care homes. This is not only not sustainable, but I suspect there is also a troubling willingness on the part of provinces to simply turn to the federal government (and federal dollars) because it’s easier than doing the hard work on their own, in their own backyards.

Yes, the federal government is doing what it can, but at this point in the pandemic, a lot of bad decisions by provinces are catching up with them, but we already know that the blame is going to fall on the federal government because they couldn’t do enough to fix the premiers’ mistakes (and really, they have neither the jurisdiction, the capacity, or the necessary competence to do so). But too many bad actors are willing to blame the federal government because it suits there purposes to do so, and I will bet you that virtually nobody in the media will bother to correct them because too many of them believe the maxim that “nobody cares about jurisdiction in a pandemic,” even though real life doesn’t work that way, and no amount of political willpower (or Green Lantern rings) can change that fact. And premiers whose bad judgment cost thousands of lives will get away with it, because we have an allergy to holding the right people to account in this country.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Badmouthing the CBC for grift

Posted on by

Because this is occasionally a media criticism blog, I will mention that piece circulating from former CBC producer Tara Henley, who made a splash by quitting her job and starting a Substack blog (with paid subscriptions!) by badmouthing the CBC on her way out the door. While I was initially planning on not mentioning this, because the complaints she makes in the piece merely reflect poorly on her rather than the CBC, but it attracted some bizarre traction yesterday, from the likes of Jody Wilson-Raybould, and Erin O’Toole, who invited her to call him about plans to reform the CBC (as he promised to slash its budget).

But the piece itself (which I’m not going to link to, but I did read when the National Post reprinted it) was not the stunning indictment she claimed it to be, or the usual cadre of CBC-haters have been touting it as. When you get through all of her prose, it seems that her biggest complaint is that the CBC asked her, as a producer, to ensure there were more diverse guests on panels or interview segments. In Henley’s recounting, this was the booming klaxon of “The Wokes are coming!” and how this is some kind of Ivy League American brain worm/neural parasite import that has destroyed the CBC’s reporting over the past 18 months. Reality is most likely that what she considered “compromising” to the reporting was being asked not to use the same six sources on all of the panels or packages she was responsible for—because that is a very real problem with a lot of Canadian news outlets, where they have a Rolodex of usual suspects who have a media profile because they answer phone calls and make themselves available. There are a number of people, whose credentials are actually terrible and who have zero actual credibility or legitimacy, but because they are easy gets for reporters or producers, and they say provocative things, they are go-to sources time and again. That the vast majority of them are heterosexual white men is problem when a news outlet has had it pointed out to them repeatedly that they need more diverse sources. Henley appears to have balked at that.

There are a lot of problems with CBC’s reporting these days—much of it is either reductive both-sidesing, or its credulous stenography that doesn’t challenge what is being said, even if what is being said is wrong or problematic but has a sympathetic person saying it. There are a lot of questionable editorial choices being made in terms of who they are granting anonymity to and who they are not, particularly if it counters the narrative they are trying to set with the particular story (and there was a lot of this in their reporting on the allegations around House of Commons Clerk Charles Robert). There are problems with its mandate creep around their web presence, and yes, they have made very questionable decisions around some of their editorial pieces—and attempts to alter them once published. None of its problems have to do with the fact that Henley was asked to get more diverse voices. But Henley also knew that there is an audience for her recitation of the “anti-woke” platitudes, and she has a book she wants to sell, and figured that a paid Substack was more lucrative than the Mother Corp. And the fact that O’Toole and others are reaching out seems to indicate that she gambled on media illiteracy for this particular grift, in the hopes it might pay off.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, an electoral agreement won’t work

Posted on by

Because Doug Ford and his merry band of incompetent murderclowns have decided to make Ontario miserable again with eleventh-hour changes and nonsensical measures (sorry, guys, but I am going to be insufferably bitter about the gyms being closed down again), there is once again talk about how the provincial Liberals and the NDP need to come to some kind of agreement in order to get Ford out. Which is insane.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1478063212281085953

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1478064242985246720

The Liberals and NDP, provincially and federally, are not the same party, don’t have the same positions, and even if they both err on the side of progressivity, and frankly, it’s a major betrayal of local democracy if you’re telling your riding associations not to run candidates because of some cockamamie plan that involves dubious polls or results from an election three-and-a-half years ago with other factors in play which are irrelevant to the current context. Sorry, but no. The opposition parties need to come up with a coherent message and plan to sell to the people of Ontario, and to be steadfast in holding Ford to account rather than letting him get away with his folksy aw-shucks routine. It means the parties need to organise their ground game. It means a proper electoral contest, not a theoretical exercise based on bullshit reasoning.

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 →

QP: Deception about deflation

Posted on by

For the final Question Period of 2021—which was still undetermined as things got underway, as the House Leaders were engaged in a game of chicken—neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present, but the latter would appear virtually. Erin O’Toole led off, script in front of him, and he immediately started off with a lie about deflation, which did happen, and he was presuming it to be a good thing because it would lower prices, when in fact it would have led to a spiral that turned into a depression as businesses couldn’t service their debts. Chrystia Freeland, by video, called this out as misinformation, and noted that Stephen Poloz cited that the government’s actions averted a second Great Depression. O’Toole railed about Freeland’s alleged misinformation during the election campaign and compared her to Donald Trump, and Freeland called O’Toole the leader of flip-flops, and noted that in the election the Conservatives promised even more spending while they were currently railing against it, and that a consistent position might be nice. O’Toole repeated his first question in French, and Freeland repeated the Poloz comments in French. John Barlow got up and railed about the export ban on PEI potatoes and wondered why the agriculture minister was not currently in Washington resolving the situation. Freeland assured him the federal government was working to resolve if and noted she was next to the prime minister when he raised it with Biden, while Conservatives advocate capitulation. Barlow insisted that this has basically destroyed PEI, and Freeland dismissed this as scaremongering, and reassured farmers they were working on it like they did with previous disputes they won on.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and blamed the Quebec teacher who was reassigned for wearing a hijab, railing that she knowingly broke the law and saying otherwise was Quebec bashing. Freeland calmly recited that they stand with Quebeckers who stand up for individual rights and freedoms. Therrien railed that mayors are funding court challenges, accusing them of not understanding secularism or democracy, and Freeland gave some fairly disarming reassurances that the federal government works well with Quebec and the Bloc shouldn’t pick fights.

Peter Julian rose for the Bloc, and in French, he worried that omicron could lead to lockdowns with no supports, to which Freeland made a pitch for MPs to pass Bill C-2 to provide necessary supports. Julian shouted the same question again in English, and Freeland repeated her response in the other official language. 

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 →