Tag Archives: Jagmeet Singh

Roundup: Wondering who the real winner of the confidence agreement is

Posted on by

We are now on day twenty-eight, four weeks into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like Russia’s attempts at occupying Mariupol continue to be thwarted, though the city is being reduced to rubble. As well, Ukrainian forces retook a strategic suburb of Kyiv, so that is as good of news as can be hoped for in the situation. Remember how Russia thought it was a matter of marching?

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1506296240438452232

Back in Canada, the supply and confidence agreement between the Liberals and NDP was made official, and boy were there a bunch of reactions. Some of them were expected, like the Conservatives abusing the term “coalition” (it’s not a coalition) and claiming it’s a “power grab” rather than a legitimate exercise of cooperation in a hung parliament as happens not infrequently in Westminster systems. Oh, and she said that this ultimately benefits Putin. No, really—she said that. Even more problematic were certain CBC reporters pushing this bizarre notion that Canadians “elected a minority government” and that this agreement somehow violates it, which no, is not how things work. We don’t elect governments, and there is not majority/minority option on the ballot, and it’s been just as much a recurring narrative in the past two parliaments that a hung parliament means that “Canadians want us to work together” (which is just as silly a notion, frankly), but honestly, I expect better from the CBC than to push this kind of nonsense, and it’s embarrassing for them as the national broadcaster to be pushing this nonsense.

https://twitter.com/SusanDelacourt/status/1506273770176188427

In the meantime, there is a bunch of pearl-clutching that this agreement somehow means that we won’t be increasing defence-spending, even though the NDP has no veto on budgets, and the fact that we can’t even spend the current allocation so it’s way too soon to worry about this. The early indications of the outlined dental care plan could help millions—but it’s light on details and the actual mechanism that will be used given that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction (but some good perspective threads from economist Kevin Milligan here and here). The consensus seems to be that the Liberal are the real winners here and not the NDP, but others argue that the Conservatives could be the real winners because it will give the next leader time to rebuild the party and establish themselves given that the next election will be more than three years away (maybe). And then there is the question about whether this agreement gives Trudeau the runway to accomplish a few more things before turning it over to his successor, though he says otherwise when asked (which of course he will, because saying he won’t run again makes him lame duck instantly). It does make for a different dynamic for the next couple of years in any case, so we’ll see how it shapes up.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unpacking the rate decision

Posted on by

The Bank of Canada released their interest rate decision yesterday morning, and held firm…mostly. More significantly, they removed their extraordinary forward guidance, meaning that they have sent the warning that rates are going to rise. Why they didn’t raise them this time is because they had that guidance in place, which essentially said that they weren’t going to raise rates until later in 2022 as a way to help the economy recover from the pandemic—but it has largely recovered, albeit unevenly. With omicron still having an effect, there is still an abundance of caution being exercised—not to mention the fact that raising interest rates won’t actually have an effect on what is currently driving inflation, so it has the potential to do more harm than good right now.

The Monetary Policy Report was also released yesterday, which highlighted how transportation bottlenecks, labour shortages and the difficulty in sourcing key inputs are having an impact on the Canadian economy. More to the point, there has been good economic momentum heading into 2022, and the “slack” in the economy has been absorbed, meaning that the extraordinary measures that were brought in to stimulate the economy at the start of the pandemic can more readily be wound down now, which is another key indicator of why rates are going to start rising again. They also see inflation winding down later over this year, providing that supply bottlenecks and cost pressures don’t carry on for longer than anticipated.

Meanwhile, here’s Kevin Carmichael with his read of the rate decision, the MPR, and what signals the Bank of Canada is sending.

Continue reading →

Roundup: New NSICOP line-up, sans Conservatives

Posted on by

Because the issue of NSICOP/Winnipeg Lab documents refuses to die, yesterday’s iteration was that the prime minister announced the new composition of NSICOP, and it didn’t include any Conservatives, either MPs or senators, because they refused to put any names forward. Erin O’Toole then tweeted that this was because it was somehow hiding documents, which is a complete and utter falsehood.

To recap: those Winnipeg Lab documents were released in an unredacted form to NSICOP to review. The Conservatives withdrew from NSICOP because it didn’t suit their needs to actually review the documents—the whole point was the song and dance about a “cover-up.” If, during the years that NSICOP has been operating, any of its reports were unfairly redacted and information was being hidden from the public that its membership felt was important, they would have resigned in protest. That did not happen because it was working. And even if it were a full parliamentary committee, redactions still happen because it’s still national security.

O’Toole is acting in bad faith so that he can wink and nod to conspiracy theorists and put on a show that doesn’t reflect reality. He knows it, and he should be called out on it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Holland breaks out the passive-aggressive open letter tactics

Posted on by

The drama over the Winnipeg Lab documents took another turn yesterday as Government House Leader Mark Holland sent a four-page open letter to the Conservative House Leader, urging him to reconsider rejecting the government’s offer to create a new ad hoc panel to have the documents vetted behind closed doors with a panel of three former judges to adjudicate any disputes. In said letter, Holland name-checks nearly every national security and intelligence expert who has weighed in on the topic of the past few weeks, with a couple of exceptions.

While Holland didn’t name Philippe Lagassé’s piece, it’s fairly irrelevant to the concerns at hand. Whether NSICOP gets turned into a full-blown committee or not, it won’t make a material difference because the Conservatives’ objections are not based on any particular matter of principle or specific objection. As I point out in my column, they are merely acting in bad faith in order to be theatrical and try and score points by winking to conspiracy theories in order to paint the picture that the government is hiding something for the benefit of the Chinese, or some other such nonsense.

I don’t expect Holland’s letter to do anything other than look passive-aggressive and ham-fisted as the issue continues to fester—not that there is an order to produce documents any longer, and the committee that made said order no longer exists either (though O’Toole has been under pressure to restore it, as though it actually did anything meaningful other than be yet another dog and pony show). We’ll see if the other two opposition parties come to some kind of agreement, but so far this issue continues to just make everyone look like our Parliament is amateur hour. Which it kind of is.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fuzzy logic, rank innumeracy, and outright lies

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole has apparently decided he’s going all-in for the unvaccinated, and wants “reasonable accommodations” made for them while they continue to flood the healthcare system and push it to the point of collapse, and lo, he wants the federal government to halt their vaccine mandate for truck drivers citing the fragility of the supply chain. (Erm, so when the virus rips through the unvaccinated drivers, that won’t further disrupt the supply chain?)

Logic doesn’t seem to be penetrating O’Toole’s rhetoric—nor the simple fact that premiers are responsible for the management of the pandemic, not the federal government. There are no “reasonable accommodations” because rapid tests are not actually passports that allow the unvaccinated free licence to go out in public (unlikely to be masked either, because the Venn diagram of anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers is nearly a perfect circle). All it does is prolong the pandemic and the strain on the healthcare system which is leading to the mockdowns across the country—which again, O’Toole is trying to pin on Trudeau because the federal government continues to offer pandemic supports, and he claims that this is “normalizing” them. (He also calls them lockdowns when they are nothing of the sort). He’s tried to claim that the federal government should have been able to increase bed capacity in hospitals (physical beds are not the problem—the problem is trained staff to tend to the patients in those beds). It’s just a bunch of fuzzy logic, rank innumeracy, and outright lies, and O’Toole knows it, but he’s decided that this is the path that he can exploit politically, and there frankly aren’t enough people, particularly in the media, calling him on his bullshit (because both sides! *jazz hands*).

Meanwhile, O’Toole is also calling for emergency meetings of the health committee to examine the “critical gaps” in the federal government’s ability to manage the pandemic in the omicron wave. Which is…not the federal government’s fault. They provided the vaccines, and the rapid tests when asked, and are deploying military help across the country when provinces ask (never mind that the military is stretched beyond capacity and they can’t do their actual jobs right now). No, what O’Toole has decided we all need is a dog and pony show to deflect from the failures of the premiers so that he can try and pin this all on Trudeau. It would be risible if we hadn’t already seen the Conservatives abuse that very same committee in the previous parliament, for the sake of a few headlines.

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: Unable to read the signs about Freeland

Posted on by

Just a quick note because a lot of talking heads have been mentioning it over the past few days, which was about that Globe and Mail article from a couple of days ago (which I’m not going to link to) that proclaimed Chrystia Freeland’s leadership ambitions because…she is the subject of an unauthorized biography, and she wrote that letter to the board of Air Canada. No, seriously—that was the sum total of the Globe’s evidence.

And yet, on Power and Politics, The Line and other places, everyone is treating this biography as though it were a) an autobiography, which is what many party leaders will release ahead of an election, not ahead of a leadership vote; or b) a book that she commissioned herself, when in fact someone else is writing it, and Freeland has apparently not even agreed to be interviewed for it, or cooperate with it in any way. Nevertheless, the conflation by all of these outlets continues to paint a picture that is not actually there.

As for the letter to the board of Air Canada, the federal government is one of the largest shareholders with six percent of the company’s stock, which Freeland mentioned in the letter. Add to that, Air Canada is a repeat offender when it comes to violating their obligations under the Official Languages Act, so as finance minister, Freeland has particular obligations to remind the Board of this when their CEO did something as impolitic (and frankly stupid) as the comments he made. This wasn’t something that she did on a whim because she wants to build up her Quebec cred for the (eventual) leadership bid.

I get the desire to stir the pot and create some drama, but come on. Yes, Freeland no doubt has ambitions, and she is likely going to be the next prime minister. But if you’re a serious news outlet, at least get your basic facts and context right before you start making these kinds of proclamations. You don’t look very credible with this kind of nonsense.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Nothing unexpected in the Speech from the Throne

Posted on by

In amidst all of the pomp and ceremony, there was very little that was unexpected out of yesterday’s Speech from the Throne, where Governor General Mary May Simon read the government’s planned agenda, talking about the fact that the pandemic is not yet over, and making high-level promises around climate action, reconciliation, and a nod to the rising cost of living. In a little over half an hour, it was over, and MPs returned to the House of Commons.

Two media narratives largely dominated the coverage the rest of the day: 1) this is basically the election platform, which erm, hello, is pretty much the point, and putting something shiny and new in there while in a hung parliament would be difficult and asking for trouble; and 2) daring the opposition parties to bring down the government, which they won’t do, but reporters will ask leading – if not goading – questions all the same. And because of the requisite chest-thumping that goes along with a hung parliament, we saw both the Conservatives and NDP talking tough about not supporting it (well, the NDP said that the Liberals shouldn’t take their votes for granted even though they pretty much can because the NDP are in no shape to back up their words), and the Bloc essentially acknowledging that they would support it because of course they will. Nobody is going to bring the government down over this and go to another election (because no, there is no other possible government formation possible with the current composition of the Chamber), so the Liberals will pass this, and their fall fiscal update, and one or two of the bills on their priority wish list before they rise for the holidays, and the Conservatives and the NDP will huff and puff about it, but that’s about as much as will happen.

Once the speech was over, the Conservatives immediately launched into a renewed round of procedural shenanigans once they got back to the House of Commons, and before Erin O’Toole read his response to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. First it was a point of privilege on the unresolved issue from the previous parliament on the Winnipeg Lab documents, in spite of the fact that the committee that wanted them doesn’t exist and the order they made also no longer exists. Then they went after the Clerk and the scurrilous allegations of partisanship (which, according to everyone I’ve spoken to – including Senate Conservatives – is ridiculous and office politics run amok in the House of Commons’ administration). The Speaker tried to cut that off, insisting that it should be dealt with at BoIE, especially as the Clerk cannot defend himself in the Commons, but they kept going after it, which is poor form and a signal that they want blood and they don’t care if they hurt the Clerk in the process. And after that, it was the vaccine mandate and the use of the Board of Internal Economy, demanding a vote on it – erm, which would just expose those who object to said mandate and tar those who object to the procedural use of the BoIE with the same brush, which seems politically foolish to me, but what do I know? (Affirming the vaccine mandate is part of the Liberals’ omnibus motion that would also restore hybrid sittings, for what it’s worth).

Continue reading →

Roundup: No undoing these elections

Posted on by

In Alberta, the province’s municipal affairs minister has declared that he can’t vacate a seat on Calgary’s city council given the revelations that surfaced against one councillor from a time before his election, when he was a police officer. And this is actually a good thing – you do not want to give provincial governments the power to suddenly start vacating seats on municipal councils in their province, because that can very, very easily be weaponised to settle scores, particularly when there is friction between the municipal and provincial governments. (Seriously, given the rank incompetence of several provincial governments, you do not want them to have this power, no matter that it may sound nice for this particular circumstance).

There is a certain amount of resonance in this with the situation around ousted Liberal candidate and now independent MP Kevin Vuong, While there is some social media backlash over his visit to a local business that needed their MP’s help on a CRA issue, there are plenty of people who are demanding that something be done about his election, be it having the Speaker declare his seat vacant or the like, but I worry about that because of the implications for what it means as a precedent (especially given the fact that charges were not pursued in the allegations against him, which a gulf from the kind of conviction that would ordinarily be used as an excuse to declare such a vacancy). There needs to be a very high bar because this is democracy, and one of the things that happens in a democracy is that sometimes the people get it wrong for whatever the reason, and in this case, there is the added issue that the party did a closed-door acclamation process rather than an open nomination, so they have to wear this as well.

In both of these cases, there is something of an object lesson about why it’s important to get things right when you’re considering who you’re voting for (and why local journalism matters). There is nobody who can swoop down and save you from your bad choices, so it’s very, very important that you choose wisely.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Moe defends the Saskatchewan Nation

Posted on by

Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe is in trouble. The COVID numbers in his province are still out of control, five of the patients that they had to airlift to Ontario because they didn’t have enough ICU capacity have died, and his approval ratings are plummeting. So what does Moe think the solution to his problems is? Taking a page from Jason Kenney’s playbook and trying to pick fights with Ottawa, and in keeping with Kenney’s playbook, Moe has decided to also try adopting a tactic of “We want what Quebec has!” and wants Saskatchewan to be declared a “nation within a nation.”

That’s right – the nation of Saskatchewan, which is defined not by language (though they do call hoodies “bunny hugs” there, so that counts, right?) or by culture (going to Roughriders games is a distinct culture from the rest of Canada, right?), but by…well, he won’t exactly say. Which is pretty much where the rationale for his argument falls apart entirely. Because he doesn’t actually know what the hell he’s talking about, he is aping talking points from Kenney and company, and spouting a random sampling of phrases from Quebec nationalists, and hoping it gives him credibility. Rest assured, it doesn’t.

The other thing that Moe seems to forget that this kind of nationalism/separatism talk has consequences. In Quebec, it devastated their economy in the seventies and eighties as head offices departed for Toronto, and the former financial capital of the country, Montreal, was a corporate graveyard. Not sure that this is an outcome that Moe is gunning for, but hey, those who fail to learn history correctly… Moe seems to think that he can get more autonomy from the federal government in this way, but he doesn’t actually make any case for it. He brays that Quebec has their own immigration deal with the federal government (because they are prioritizing francophones – and they are now facing labour shortages because they have been overly restrictive), or that they got a special deal around national childcare (because they already had a system in place that meets the criteria where Saskatchewan does not), but doesn’t acknowledge the reasons why, and is simply playing people for idiots. But really, this is all Moe just being Jason Kenney’s Mini-Me, and it’s not going to work.

Continue reading →