Tag Archives: Jagmeet Singh

Roundup: An unearned victory lap amidst the Court’s repudiation

Posted on by

Yesterday morning, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal Impact Assessment Act is partly unconstitutional, and that the federal government was over-broad in the criteria they used to trigger a federal environmental assessment. Ironically, while Jason Kenney and the federal Conservatives liked to call the legislation the “No More Pipelines Bill,” the section that governs pipelines was found to be entirely constitutional, so it was fairly laughable as they started crowing over social media about their supposed victory. It might have helped if they had actually read it and not just the headlines.

The more important part of the decision, however, was the fact that while it did find part of the federal legislation ultra vires Parliament, it also explicitly repudiated the arguments that the Alberta government and the Alberta Court of Appeal were making, in claiming that the province somehow has interjurisdictional immunity for so-called “provincial” projects. That’s not true, and the Court said so, which means that when Danielle Smith and Pierre Poilievre were claiming that the Supreme Court “affirmed” that provinces have the exclusive right to develop their own resources, that’s wrong. It’s not what the Court said, and in fact they said the opposite of that. Alberta’s “victory” was a pretty hollow one because the Court affirmed the federal role in environmental assessments and that they can assess whatever they want once their ability to make said assessment is triggered—the only real issue was the criteria for the trigger, which needs to be narrowed. The federal government has pledged to do just that, and because this was a reference opinion by the Court and not a decision on legislation, it has not been struck down. In fact, because there don’t seem to be any projects under assessment that would be affected by the decision, it seems to show that the law is carrying on just fine, and that the amendment will be a fairly surgical tweak (and yes, I spoke to several legal experts to that effect yesterday).

Meanwhile, the reporting on the decision largely ignored this repudiation of the provincial argument. The Canadian Press, the National Post, and the Star all missed that point entirely in their reporting. Only the CBC caught it—in the main story it was given a brief mention amidst the egregious both-sidesing, but Jason Markusoff’s more nuanced analysis piece did get a little more into it, but again, it did not really point out that Kenney’s crowing over social media was for naught, and that Smith’s victory lap was not really deserved. (Smith later went on Power & Politics and lied about what projects that the Act supposedly impacted, such as the Teck Frontier mine—that project was assessed under the Harper-era regime, and was shelved because the price of oil couldn’t justify the project’s viability). It would be nice if we had more journalists actually talking to more experts than just one while they both-sides the ministers and Smith, because they would find that they missed a pretty significant part of the decision. (My own story that does precisely this analysis was delayed in publication, so it should be up on Monday).

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces pounded Avdiivka in the Donbas region for a fourth day in a row as they try to make gains in that area. Ukrainian authorities say that Russians have destroyed 300,000 tons of grain since they started attacking Ukrainian port cities in July (because they’re trying to weaponise hunger).

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1712871747672744431

Continue reading →

Roundup: A rate hold and inappropriate reactions

Posted on by

The big news of the day was that the Bank of Canada opted to maintain their headline rate at five percent, but warned that future rate hikes are still possible, depending on how the data look with future decision dates. This was a decision based entirely on the data—and the very mild contraction in the second quarter are certainly pointing to the fact that the economy is finally starting to slow so that maybe it can start to take the air out of excess demand. Nevertheless, I’m still expecting those three premiers who sent open letters to do a victory lap as though they had any say in the matter.

The bigger problem was Chrystia Freeland putting out an official statement saying that she was pleased with the decision, and while she respects the Bank’s independence, the government will use all of its tools to help bring inflation down (though one is a bit more dubious about that part). Why Freeland’s statement is a bigger problem is because she has a much bigger stick to wield with the Bank, and she has the tools that could force the governor to resign, which we haven’t seen since the Coyne Affair in the fifties, which led to the Bank shoring up its institutional independence. Freeland should know better, but I suspect that with all of the attention being paid to those premiers and their boneheaded open letters that she felt she needed to say something, and to offer some kind of reassurance to the public about the slowly improving state—because this government loves nothing more than reassuring pabulum. To compound that, every gods damned talking head over the past few days has been saying how great it was that the premiers were grandstanding like they way they are, because messaging politics just corrodes and rots our system.

Meanwhile, Jagmeet Singh decided he wasn’t getting enough attention, so he decided to embarrass himself and insist that the federal government can order the Bank to stop raising rates, because he thinks that interfering with an independent institution and forcing the resignation of the governor (which would be the outcome of such a move) are somehow winners for the economy. Singh would also apparently rather see inflation continuing to rip through our economy rather than the short-term pain in wresting it back down, because that is the counterfactual here. His “greedflation” insistence doesn’t bear out in the data, and a windfall tax won’t solve inflation. His suggestion here is beyond amateur hour, and shows that he remains unprepared for prime time.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians attacked a market in the eastern city of Kostiantynika yesterday, killing at least 17 people. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has recorded 26,717 civilian casualties in Ukraine so far, including 9,511 deaths. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Kyiv, and praised the progress in the counteroffensive to date.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1699405764983415077

Continue reading →

Roundup: A resignation that won’t solve the problem

Posted on by

A couple of days after everyone declared ministerial responsibility dead for Ontario housing minister Steve Clark’s refusal to resign over the Integrity Commissioner’s report and his own gross negligence and dereliction of his duties, Clark did resign, at 9 AM on Labour Day, pointing to an attempt to take the sting out of the messaging. Ford later announced changes to his Cabinet which would put Paul Calandra in the housing file, in addition to Calandra’s existing role as House Leader.

Ford, however, insists that the tainted process for those Greenbelt lands will carry on, and while he is promising a “review” of the process, he won’t do the one thing the Auditor General and Integrity Commissioner have said, which was to cancel this process and start over. In fact, yesterday morning, Ford left open the possibility of reviewing all Greenbelt land and opening it up for development, which is unnecessary for housing needs—he hasn’t even implemented the recommendations of his government’s own housing task force, which explicitly stated they don’t need to develop those lands because there are fifty other things they should be doing instead.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1699015630316360078

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1699103206893056279

And that hasn’t been all. As this sordid affair continues to drip out, the identity “Mr. X” from the reports has been identified as a former mayor and developer who Ford has ties with, and his operation is practically stuffed with Batman villains. The jokes write themselves, but just make the corruption all the more hard to take.

My latest:

  • My weekend column looks at how ministerial responsibility changed in the age of message discipline, but how Doug Ford and Steve Clark can’t do the bare minimum.
  • At National Magazine, I look at the number of “secret trials” that we have seen come to light recently, and what could be behind them.
  • Also at National Magazine, I get some reaction to the Competition Tribunal’s cost award to the Bureau and the signals that they are sending by it.
  • My column points out just how inappropriate it is for premiers to write open letters to Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem, and how it corrodes our system.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian strikes damaged more grain warehouses at the Danube port of Izmail. Ukrainian forces say that they have taken more ground in both the eastern and southern fronts, as president Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited two front-line areas. Ukraine’s defence minister is being replaced by Rustem Umerov, a Crimean Tatar, who headed a privatization fund. Ukraine’s parliament passed an anti-graft law that contains a loophole, and many are urging Zelenskyy to veto it as a result. A parts shortage and a dispute over intellectual property rights is hobbling the ability to repair the Leopard 2 tanks we sent to Ukraine. And Ukrainian intercepts show Russian soldiers complaining about poor equipment and heavy losses.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Singh’s curious housing assertions

Posted on by

It looks like Jagmeet Singh is going to make another attempt at overplaying his hand, as he promises to use his “leverage” to try and squeeze more concessions from the government, particularly around housing. And sure, he can try, but part of this is going to go back to his absolute inability—or unwillingness—to understand how process works, and that’s kind of a big deal when you’re trying to demand the federal government do things.

For example, Singh was on Power & Politics the other day and insisted that the federal government can “rapidly” build new affordable houses, because they have “the land, the money, and the power” to do so. But I’m not sure this has entirely been thought through. Yes, the government has been going through their property portfolio to identify lands that can be sold for housing purposes, but that’s been ongoing for a couple of years and there hasn’t been a lot of traction because I suspect there isn’t a lot that’s available that is suitable for housing, and even if there was a glut that could be released, could they get it re-zoned for housing in short order by municipalities? I have my doubts. Yes, they have money, but that’s not infinite, and spending too much can have impacts on inflation, which they are trying to bring down (which is not helped by Singh’s stubborn insistence that only corporate greed is fuelling inflation, which is not true, and that a windfall tax will fix it, which is also not true). I’m also not sure what he means by the “power” to build homes—housing is primarily a provincial and municipal jurisdiction, where the federal contribution is mostly financial. Does he envision that they tender the construction of these houses? Because if that’s the case, a federal procurement process is neither simple nor quick (and just wait for the losing companies to sue the government, like what happens with defence procurement). Do they hire site planners, architects, and construction workers directly? Again, do you know what a federal hiring process looks like? And more to the point, there is a very tight labour market, which means that this will increases costs (and money is not infinite).

So, again, what process does he envision that the federal government can use to “rapidly” build these houses? Because remember, the timelines that the NDP are insisting on with their supply-and-confidence agreement have created their own problems, such as with the construction of the dental care programme, which has relied on a very poor kludge to get out the door within the deadline, and bad programme design just creates headaches, especially if it’s to meet an arbitrary deadline. Pharmacare is going to be similar—they’re insisting on particular timelines, but even if enabling legislation is passed this year, it’s not really going to matter unless nine other premiers sign on (and I haven’t seen Singh publicly haranguing NDP premier David Eby to do so). Process matters, and Singh pretending it doesn’t is a sign he’s not a serious person.

(As an aside, could every gods damned person who interviews Singh please stop asking why he hasn’t taken the nuclear option of tearing up the agreement as their first question? Seriously).

Ukraine Dispatch:

A combined overnight drone and missile attack on Kyiv killed two people, while an overnight drone attack, purportedly from Ukraine, struck military targets inside Russia and allegedly damaged four transport planes. Even more curious is that some of these Ukrainian drones appear to be made out of cardboard—for real!

Continue reading →

Roundup: The sound and fury of a special committee

Posted on by

NDP MP Niki Ashton sent out a press release yesterday calling on the minister of national revenue to create a special committee to crack down on tax avoidance by billionaires. I have my doubts about just what a parliamentary committee could do on its own. Asking them to recommend solutions seems like a fairly inefficient way to go about it because there are changes put forward every year to close loopholes, and the tax avoidance experts find new ones. 🎶It’s the circle of life! 🎶

My deeper suspicion is that this is mostly just about performing for the cameras, which MPs are increasingly using committees to do rather than doing serious work, and Jagmeet Singh was trying to get in on that in a big way over the past few months, such as his little dog and pony show with the stack of papers that were supposedly all questions he was going to ask Galen Weston, and then promptly did not. Additionally, however, parliamentary resources are constrained because of hybrid sittings, and the injury and burnout rate for interpretation staff, and in the most bitter of ironies, Ashton is one of the worst offenders for abusing hybrid rules, and has pretty much opted to almost never show up in Ottawa. (She may deign to visit once every six to eight weeks, and only if she is required for some kind of media event).

Because economist Lindsay Tedds is one of the foremost tax policy experts in the country, I pointed this out to her, and well, she had thoughts.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1695109929902993636

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1695104974353842372

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian officials say that Russian forces are regrouping in occupied territories in the country’s east, and will likely try another offensive push. Ukraine is also saying they hit a Russian military base deep in occupied Crimea as part of their operation earlier in the week. The Ukrainian government has also dismissed the head of its State Emergency Service after an inspection, but haven’t said what the reason was.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1695094695855116732

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cabinet retreat missives

Posted on by

We are starting to see the parade of ministers being trotted out to the media from the Cabinet retreat in Charlottetown, PEI, and first up on everyone’s mind is housing and what the federal government should do about it. And they did hear from experts like Mike Moffatt yesterday, which is good, so we’ll see if anything comes of it. But of course, legacy media has glommed onto the issue of international students and whether they will cap them, without also exploring how that has become a necessary revenue stream for universities after provincial cutbacks and freezes, or the fact that there are a plethora of private colleges that the provinces are supposed to be regulating who have been abusing their ability to bring in international students basically to defraud them of hundreds of thousands of dollars while providing them a substandard education. That should be where more attention is being paid, but we all know that legacy media loves to blame the federal government instead of the provinces, so here we are.

We also heard from Dominic LeBlanc who again gave assurances that a public inquiry into foreign interference is in the works, but they are now trying to find a sitting judge who can lead it, because apparently all of the retired ones and other eminent Canadians who could do the job have all told them no—because who wants to subject themselves to partisan character assassination day-in-and-day-out? Of course, I half suspect that they’re going to get some pushback from the chief justices of the provinces about who could be made available considering that the federal government has been slow to make appointments and it’s contributing to delays and backlogs in the system as is, and taking someone out of circulation for another eighteen months doesn’t help the situation any.

Other ministerial soundbites include Chrystia Freeland insisting that they remain focused on the economy.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say they have retaken a strategic south-eastern village as part of the counteroffensive, which continues its southward push. In addition to advanced Western weapons, the Ukrainians have developed a “mini-Grad” rocket launcher made up of old Soviet parts. In Athens, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with Balkan leaders, as well as European Commission president Ursula Von der Leyen. Ukrainian media is reporting that a group of saboteurs coordinated with Ukrainian military intelligence services to carry out drone attacks on air bases deep inside Russia, destroying and damaging aircraft. In Denmark, eight Ukrainian pilots have begun their F-16 fighter training.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The ugly discourse that won’t be disavowed

Posted on by

As the housing debate rages on, there is a particularly ugly strain of the discourse that is revealing itself throughout, which has to do with the rapid immigration increases in relation to the housing crunch/crisis, and that there is no real way for there to keep pace. This has led to some people lamenting that it’s too bad that the decades long, multi-party consensus on immigration is unravelling because governments haven’t been serious about housing. I’m not really buying it, though. My sense is that a lot of this is just dog-whistling and concern trolling—that these are largely the people who opposed immigration to begin with and who are taking the opportunity of the housing crisis to have a “legitimate” reason to blame immigrants for something.

Mark Miller is pushing back on this narrative, at least somewhat, pointing out that demographically and economically we can’t really cut back on immigration levels, adding that “The wave of populist, opportunist sentiment that does at times want to put all of society’s woes on the backs of immigrants—I think we need to call that out when we see it.” And he’s right. But he also needs to be far more vocal on the kick in the ass to provinces and municipalities about building more housing (which is their jurisdiction), because they also need these immigrants and have the responsibility of ensuring they have places to live.

What I think has been particularly telling is that Pierre Poilievre has been hinting at this, saying that the immigration system is “broken,” but he also won’t say what he would do differently, or what he would adjust the levels to. It’s the same kind of stupid game he’s trying to play on all of his files—saying just enough about a particular issue that the loudmouths and far-right extremists can read into it the awful things they think, and Poilievre will do almost nothing to dissuade them, so as to get them to think he’s on their side (even though, deep down, he’s not really, and some of them have already figured that out) and to hopefully cash in on their votes. And when you try to corner him on these issues, he will fight straw men or make the attacks personal instead of answering. It’s some of the most cynical of ploys, it’s absolutely corrosive to democracy, but he seems to think the ends justify the means, so he’s going to go for it, consequences be damned.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian drones have pounded grain storage and facilities at the Danube river ports in western Ukraine, which puts further grain shipments in jeopardy. Ukrainian forces say that they have reclaimed the village of Urozhaine in the southeast, but are admitting that the front in the north eastern region near Kupiansk is becoming more difficult.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Smith can’t get her story or timeline straight

Posted on by

Danielle Smith took to the microphones yesterday to thump her chest about the proposed clean electricity regulations, but what wound up happening was a series of wrong facts about her government’s “pause” on approvals for new clean electricity projects. Smith claims that the moratorium came at the request of the Alberta Utilities Commission and the Alberta Electric System Operator, except neither requested it, the timelines don’t add up, and it looks a lot like Smith’s government has been going out of their way to screw with clean energy stakeholders.

Receipts are all below.

Smith also refused to say whether our record wildfire season across the country is related to climate change, but insisted that most of the fires in her province were set by humans. That’s also a lie, but that’s Smith’s modus operandi.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia launched a large-scale air attack against western Ukraine including the city of Lviv, which was the largest attack on the city since the start of the war. There were missile and drone strikes against Odessa which wounded three in the early hours of Monday. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited troops near the eastern front line yesterday.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The reason we don’t have a “First Lady”

Posted on by

In a bid to find an angle on the Trudeau separation story, the CBC gave us a look at how in Canada, the position of prime minister’s spouse is untitled and unofficial—which is true. But nowhere in the piece does it mention the reason why, which is because we’re a constitutional monarchy. That’s pretty much the whole reason why the spouse of the prime minister has no official title or role, because as head of government, the prime minister doesn’t merit the same symbolic weight of a president in a republic, who is their head of state. Hence, their spouse because the “First” lady/gentleman, because they occupy that symbolic position. And there is good reason for why we organise our government like this, because in our system, it keeps prime ministers in check by not assigning them the symbolism or honours, and prevents them from creating cults of personality around it. The arrangement is that our head of state—or more properly, our sovereign—has the power, and the prime minister “borrows” or exercises it on their behalf, and that helps to keep them in check.

To that end, our sovereign is King Charles III, so if we had a “First Lady,” it would be Queen Camila. And could this CBC piece actually point this out or acknowledge it? Of course not. The piece did note that spouses of the Governor General are also granted the use of the title of “Your Excellency,” but it also omitted that there was a practice where we gave the spouse of the Governor General the title of “Chatelaine of Rideau Hall” when it was only women in the role, but it has fallen into disuse. I think we should absolutely revive it, and employ something like Châtelain or Castellan for a male spouse, particularly because they tend to play a fairly active role, unlike the spouse of a prime minister.

One of the good things about the fact that the role of a prime minister’s spouse is that it gives them the flexibility to be as involved or uninvolved as they choose to be. Laureen Harper preferred to remain out of the spotlight and kept her advocacy to things like fostering homeless cats. Sophie Grégoire Trudeau had a public profile of her own before her high-profile marriage and his becoming prime minister, so she could use that profile to pursue her own projects around mental health and wellness that didn’t have to be tied to the government. She did complain that she needed more staff to deal with the volume of requests being asked of her, but I would hesitate before we put some kind of formal mechanisms into place to make this a more official role because we’re not Americans, and these are roles that the Queen and the Governor General and their spouse should be doing more than the spouse of a prime minister.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine is investigating the attacks on grain port infrastructure as possible war crimes. Here is a look at the de-mining work that Ukrainian forces need to undertake on the front lines as Russians have booby-trapped everything, including the bodies of their own dead. And audits have uncovered corruption at Ukrainian military recruitment centres, which president Volodymyr Zelenskyy calls “revolting.”

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1687124892951408641

Continue reading →

Roundup: A stupid fight over housing jurisdiction

Posted on by

There is a really, really stupid fight brewing around whose jurisdiction housing is, and I am very nearly at the end of my patience for this. On Monday while in Hamilton, the prime minister said—correctly—that housing is primarily not a federal jurisdiction, but that they are trying to do what they can to support municipalities. And so yesterday, Pierre Poilievre held a press conference to insist that it must be a federal responsibility because immigration, infrastructure and taxes affect housing, and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is federal (erm, except it’s an arm’s-length Crown corporation). But while there are federal policies that can affect housing, that’s not actually a federal responsibility. He knows this, but is trying to muddy the waters in order to blame Trudeau for the problems that provinces and municipalities have created for themselves.

And to put a cherry on this particular sundae, the gods damned CBC comes along and simply both-sides this stupid fight without actually pointing out that under the constitution, housing is a gods damned provincial responsibility. And there is a certain other outlet that shall not be named running a piece about how Trudeau says that housing’s not a federal responsibility while standing behind a lectern with a sign about building houses faster as though that’s some kind of smoking gun and not simply the federal government patting itself on the back for dispersing money—which is not actually an indication of constitutional responsibility. This shouldn’t be rocket science, and yet they also do this with healthcare. Nor is this new—provinces have been shrugging off this responsibility since at least the 1950s, because they know they can get away with it because credulous media outlets in particular let them.

This being said, I am also rapidly losing patience with the whole thing about people angry that Trudeau has correctly pointed out that he is not primarily responsible, and that he should somehow “show leadership” through handwavey means. This makes as much difference as people getting angry that Trudeau hasn’t fixed healthcare. Yes, there are things the federal government can do around the margins to affecting housing, but again, they cannot force municipalities to zone for density. There are stories about how hundreds of millions of federal dollars for affordable housing are languishing in cities like Vancouver because the municipalities can’t get their permitting through. Trudeau doesn’t have the constitutional levers to change that, or a Green Lantern ring to willpower more housing construction. Meanwhile, the premiers sit back and let Trudeau take that blame while they continue to do nothing about the problems, and the media won’t hold them to account. Isn’t federalism just grand?

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1686292418344239104

Ukraine Dispatch:

In the early morning hours, drone debris has hit Kyiv as attacks were thwarted. There were also more attacks on the port city of Odessa and the grain storage there. Russians also shelled a hospital in Kherson, which killed one doctor. Meanwhile, that same office tower in Moscow’s financial centre got hit by another drone attack (and again, Ukraine is not claiming responsibility).

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1686410208338464768

Continue reading →