Tag Archives: Justin Trudeau

Roundup: Fiscal update spin incoming

Posted on by

This week is the federal government’s autumn fiscal update, and we’ve already seen a pre-emptive push by the Conservatives to try and set a narrative about the government’s deficit. Andrew Scheer took time out yesterday to hold a press conference to say that he plans to force a vote that would demand that the government set a date for a balanced budget. And yes, the shitposts over social media have already begun.

So, a few things to keep in mind this week about the narratives that will be spun:

  • The Conservatives will insist that they left the Liberals with a surplus and a “strong economy.” That’s not entirely true – the “surplus” was on paper and it included a lot of “savings” that the Conservatives falsely booked that never came to pass (e.g. Shared Services Canada, Phoenix). The Liberals will also point to stagnant growth rates.
  • There was a $70 billion hole between the fiscal situation that the Liberals found themselves in compared to the 2015 budget the Conservatives ran the election on. This would have been there regardless of who won the election. The Liberals had a choice to make – honour their spending promises, or honour their promise to balance the budget. They chose the former, and their spending has been largely in line with what was promised.
  • There is no debt crisis looming. The debt-to-GDP ratio is declining, and is the best in the Western world. Government debt is not like credit card debt, so equating the two in shitposts like Scheer does only serves to sow confusion and is a dishonest attempt to look like the government is “bankrupt.” Also remember that much of the deficit spending under this government has been at a time when interest rates were at historic lows, which is not credit card interest rates.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1064271285511811072

You can also expect a bunch of calls this week to cut corporate taxes like they did in the US, citing competitiveness, but again, there are things to remember about those US tax cuts – namely that their deficit is currently around $1 trillion, that those cuts are the economic equivalent of a sugar rush for which there are few long-term gains being made, and most of those cuts resulted in larger corporate dividends and share buy-backs rather than re-investment in companies or workforces. There’s a reason why Bill Morneau hasn’t jumped on this, and we’ll see what his response will be.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Endorsing the Brexitshambles

Posted on by

In case you haven’t been paying attention, Britain is currently in a state of utter omnishambles as they try to deal with Brexit. A potential deal that was reached resulted in Cabinet resignations, and some very real threats not only to Theresa May remaining as PM, but possibly toppling the government as a whole. It’s lunacy over there right now. Back here in Canada, Andrew Scheer has decided that this was the right time to reiterate his support for Brexit. Because “sovereignty.”

While Scheer can bang on about how much control the UK gave up to the EU, and repeating falsehoods like the canard about the EU having regulations around the curvature of bananas, he both ignores that the EU has created a peace that has been unknown in Europe for centuries, and the fact that much of the Brexit campaign was fuelled by straight-up xenophobia. It’s this latter aspect that is particularly relevant because it’s part of a pattern we’re seeing with Conservatives, as John Geddes pointed out a couple of months ago – that they have this inability to orient themselves in a plausible way with the current nationalist populist trends in conservatism globally. Add to that, there is this naïve notion that they can somehow play with just enough extremism without it going into outright xenophobia or racism (and we’re especially seeing this playout with Maxime Bernier who blows the xenophobia tuba and then acts bewildered that white nationalists start showing up in his new party). But you can’t play with “just enough” extremism, because you can’t actually contain it. And when you wink about things enough times, you can’t act shocked and surprised when your adherents spell out what you were saying – like that post from a riding association Facebook account that posted Harjit Sajjan’s photo with the tagline “this is what happens when you have a Cabinet based on affirmative action.” They’ve only stated repeatedly that ministers in the Liberal cabinet are only there to fill quotas (whereas everyone in the Conservative Cabinet was there “on merit,”) but the moment someone puts Sajjan’s face next to that, well no, that’s totally not what they meant at all. Sure, Jan. And that’s why you can’t actually claim that Brexit is all about “sovereignty,” because it absolutely wasn’t. You can’t divorce the inflated sovereignty concern trolling from the xenophobia – it’s the same mentality as trying to assert that you can use “just enough” extremism for your political ends, but not go all the way.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne remains boggled by Scheer’s continued endorsement of Brexit, and wonders if he’s trying to appropriate some of its populist nationalism (the aforementioned “just enough” extremism).

Continue reading →

Roundup: An odious historical comparison

Posted on by

While crude prices in Western Canada continue to take a beating (in part because there is a global supply glut in the market and there are questions about why oil prices got as high as they did recently given market conditions), there are other concerns about investors fleeing the country. Not all, mind you – there are still a number of big-ticket energy projects being signed in the country which defies this narrative that’s going on, but I have to pause on some of the overheated rhetoric being bandied about here, because we need to inject some perspective into the conversation.

For one, the lack of infrastructure to tidewater is because there simply wasn’t an economic case for it until recently. It’s hard to complain that we don’t have it when there was no proper rationale for its existence. Same with refineries – it’s a low-margin exercise and refineries cost billions of dollars to build, and the economic case for building more of them has largely not been there. It’s not just because we have tough environmental regulations in Canada that these projects don’t exist – there weren’t the market conditions.

The other thing that really sets off my alarm bells is this pervasive talking point among oil industry boosters that Canada once built railways, so we should therefore be able to build pipelines. This kind of talk should be utterly galling to anyone who has a modicum of understanding of history in this country, because the railways were built by virtual slave labour from China, following the relocation of Indigenous tribes across the prairies due to starvation and inadequate government aid (while there is some debate over how deliberately starvation was used to force compliance). This is not the kind of thing you want to be touting when it comes to building pipelines, particularly if those opposing construction are other Indigenous communities. And as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, it’s not the high bar of environmental regulations that are killing projects – it’s the fact that successive governments and proponents have tried cutting corners to weasel out of their obligations, and that’s what hurts them, not the minimal additional work it would have taken to properly fulfil those obligations. I get that they’re looking for scapegoats during these trying times for the energy sector, and that nobody wants to look in the mirror, but honestly, trying to compare the railways to this current situation is borderline offensive to anyone who has a modicum of historical knowledge.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Looking for a domestic MS-13

Posted on by

Over the past week, Andrew Scheer has been touting his latest pre-election policy plank, which promises to tackle the problem of gang violence – except it really won’t. His proposals are largely unconstitutional and fall into the same pattern of “tough on crime” measures that are largely performative that do nothing substantive about the underlying issues with violent crime, but that shouldn’t be unexpected. The measures go hand-in-hand with their talking point that the government’s current gun control legislation “doesn’t include the word ‘gangs’ even once,” and how they’re just punishing law-abiding gun owners. And while I will agree with the notion that you can’t really do much more to restrict handgun ownership without outright banning them, it needs to be pointed out that the point about the lack of mention of gangs in the bill is predicated on a lie – the Criminal Code doesn’t talk about “gangs” because it uses the language of “criminal organisations,” to which gangs apply (not to mention that you don’t talk about gangs in gun control legislation – they’re separate legal regimes, which they know but are deliberately trying to confuse the issue over.

I have to wonder if the recent focus on gangs as the current problem in gun crime is that they need a convenient scapegoat that’s easy to point a finger at – especially if you ignore the racial overtones of the discussion. Someone pointed out to me that they’re looking for their own MS-13 that they can demonise in the public eye – not for lack of trying, since they focus-tested some MS-13 talking points in Question Period last year at the height of the irregular border-crossing issue when they were concern-trolling that MS-13 was allegedly sending terrorists across our borders among these asylum seekers. The talking points didn’t last beyond a week or two, but you know that they’re looking to try and score some cheap points with it.

With that in mind, here is defence lawyer Michael Spratt explaining why Scheer’s latest proposal is a house of lies:

Or as another criminal defence lawyer, Dean Embry, puts it, if you’re going to make stuff up on this issue, then why not go all the way?

https://twitter.com/DeanEmbry/status/1062102941123907590

Continue reading →

Roundup: A diminishing vision of a regulator

Posted on by

The Supreme Court of Canada returned their reference decision on the constitutionality of the proposed national securities regulator yesterday, and it was a unanimous green light – because this is a voluntary system, it’s constitutional. You may recall that a previous attempt to create such a national regulator to be imposed by the federal government was found to be unconstitutional, and lo, it didn’t happen. When the previous Conservative government constructed this new voluntary model, Quebec appealed to the SCC, and as we can see, didn’t win the day. And even with this decision, Quebec still says they’re still going to stick with their provincial regulator, thank you very much, and that’s that.

There are a few things to think about in this decision, and in the system as it’s being designed. One of them is that part of the mechanism that makes it acceptable to the Supreme Court is that the regulatory authority is being delegated to a council of ministers, but that may come with more challenges. Because the wait for this decision essentially stalled the work of the new regulatory body, it remains to be seen as to how long it will take to get the new system up and running.

While Andrew Coyne makes the point that this system really makes no sense because it’s not able to deal with the issue of systemic risk, it may be worse than that. I wrote about this proposal for Law Times back in the spring, and even proponents of the national regulator had started to sour on the concept because the proposed system as it was being built essentially let provinces maintain their own particular carve-outs, which increases the complexity and reduces the uniformity of the system across the country. Even more alarming, according to one lawyer I spoke with, is the fact that this sets up a system that is unaccountable, that makes up and enforces its own rules and is self-funding, which seems to go against most good governance norms. So we’ll see where this goes, but the final result certainly looks to be far less than what was initially promised.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sexts and extortion

Posted on by

Conservative MP Tony Clement has resigned from Conservative shadow cabinet and his parliamentary duties (but not from caucus) after he was victim to an attempted extortion after sharing “sexually explicit images and video” with someone.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1059976854415659008

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1059982799095050240

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1059986660748812288

Some observations:

  • Clement is part of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which is of the highest security classification. Being a target for blackmail on that is a Very Big Deal, and can’t be excused by those who don’t want to be involved in any kind of shaming for sexting. Clement apparently notified PCO about this a few days ago, so this is serious in how it affects his role with NSICOP, and now they will need to find a new member to fill that vacancy.
  • This is likely to get bigger. Already a number of women are coming forward over social media about his creepy behaviour on Instagram and this kind of thing has apparently happened before (sans extortion attempt).
  • The Conservatives can stop being so smug about the fact that they haven’t had to boot anyone from caucus for being sexually inappropriate. Clement is still in caucus for the moment, but we’ll see how this grows in the next few days.
  • Clement says that he’ll be “seeking treatment,” which is the really gross part here, because it employs the language of trying to medicalise sexual harassment or inappropriate behaviour. And when you try to medicalise it, you try to diminish personal responsibility – as this Tracey Ullman sketch so amply demonstrates.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A StatsCan privacy check

Posted on by

While the ongoing issue of Statistics Canada looking for financial transaction data continues, the actual privacy practices in the institution aren’t being adequately explained to Canadians – and they certainly aren’t being represented accurately by the opposition. So with that in mind, here’s professor Jennifer Robson to explain just what she has to go through in order to access data for her research at StatsCan, in order to give you a better sense about how seriously they take this kind of thing.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1059641954021990400

This is why the complaints that the data won’t be secure as it’s being anonymized is pretty specious, and the pearl-clutching that StatsCan would have a person’s SIN is also overblown considering that they already have it – they matched up people’s tax returns with their census forms to ensure that they had accurate data regarding household incomes, and lo, nobody made a peep about that when it happened. Again, this overblown rhetoric around what is being planned about this financial transaction data is not only risible, but it’s actively mendacious (particularly when Conservative MPs keep saying things like this is a project by the Liberal Party or by Justin Trudeau himself). And yes, StatsCan has done a woeful job as to explaining what it needs these data for, and this government is largely too inept to communicate any of that information either. And yet here we are.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne points out that while the Conservatives have been spending years attacking StatsCan, the real privacy threat comes from the unregulated use of personal information by political parties, not the country’s statistical agency.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On MPs’ sanctimony

Posted on by

My patience for self-aggrandising bullshit is at an all-time low, so you can image just how hard my eyes rolled when I heard that Justin Trudeau was telling a school group that was touring Parliament that his side is “serious and respectful” and the other guys like to shout, and how it was because when a there isn’t a lot that they can go after the government on, they make noise instead. Trudeau’s capacity for sanctimony is practically legendary, but this was gilding the lily more than a little. Now, I will grant you that since he’s been in charge, the Liberals have been far better behaved in QP than they used to be, and the clapping ban has lowered the level of din in the chamber by a great deal (though said ban is not always honoured). And yes, the Conservatives do yell and heckle a lot, but some of it is deserved when you have ministers or parliamentary secretaries who read non sequitur talking points rather than doing something that resembles answering a question. (They also yell and heckle to be childish and disruptive as well, but it bears pointing out that it’s not entirely undeserved). It’s also cheap theatre, and there is a time and a place for that in politics, and if we didn’t have it during QP, then I daresay that there might be an outbreak of narcolepsy on the Hill. But as with anything, it should be done judiciously and cleverly, and that’s not something that these guys are any good at, and so we return to the sounds of jeering, hooting baboons no more days than not, but that’s no excuse for sanctimony. There are no saints in that chamber.

With that in mind, my tolerance for the whinging and crying foul over the removal of Leona Alleslev as chair of the NATO Parliamentary Association is also mighty thin, for the sheer fact that when she crossed the floor, she wouldn’t be able to chair a parliamentary association. The way these things work is that a government MP chairs, and an opposition MP vice-chairs, and lo, the Conservatives already had a vice-chair on said association. Her removal was not retaliation, but it is a consequence. Now, there are definite questions that can be asked about the timing of said removal – two weeks before a NATO meeting that she has worked toward, and weeks after she crossed the floor (but I don’t know how often this association meets, so this may have been the first opportunity) – but that is far different from the caterwauling from the Conservatives about how the “supposedly feminist” prime minister was being mean to a woman and a veteran. (As an aside, could we please stop with this policing of the PM’s feminism? 99 percent of attacks attached to said policing have nothing to do with feminism). This attempt to claim the moral high ground is exasperating.

To add to all of this, the meeting where the removal happened was met with a bunch of disruptive, juvenile behaviour by Conservative MPs and staffers that included butchered singing, and *gasp!* drinking! Oh noes! Nobody behaved admirably in this situation, and nobody has any high ground to claim, so maybe we should all behave like adults around this.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Proposing a debate commissioner

Posted on by

Yesterday the government unveiled their plan to establish an election debate commissioner, who would set about coordinating leaders’ debates during the next election, along with proposed around which party leaders could participate – rules that would give Elizabeth May an in, but could exclude Maxime Bernier unless he gets an awful lot of candidates in place, and his polling numbers start to rise. The proposed Commissioner is to be former Governor General, His Excellency the Rt. Hon. David Johnston, who is a choice that nobody is going to want to dispute.

Of course, that hasn’t eliminating the grumbling and complaints. The NDP are complaining that they weren’t consulted before Johnston was nominated (not that they’re complaining it’s him), and the Conservatives are calling this a giant affront to democracy and add this onto their pile of complaints that Justin Trudeau is trying to rig the election in his favour. (Not sure how this does that, and it seems pretty cheeky to make these claims when their own unilateral changes to election rules in the previous parliament were panned by pretty much everyone). And Elizabeth May is overjoyed because the proposed rules would include her. Of course, Johnston still needs to be approved by Parliament, and he will appear before the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, but all of this having been said and done, there remain questions as to why this is all necessary. Gould went around saying that this was because Harper didn’t want to do debates in 2015, except that he did debates – he simply didn’t want to do the same “consortium” debates that are usually done and decided by the TV broadcasters, and he most certainly didn’t want to have anything to do with the CBC. The key point they seem to be making is that the 2015 formats saw far fewer viewers than the consortium debates typically attract, for what it’s worth. Is this a reason to implement a new system, that neither compels leaders to participate or broadcasters to air? Maybe, and people will point to the debate commission in the United States.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1057344603861397506

To that end, here’s Chris Selley asking some of those very questions, looking at some of the problematic behaviour from broadcasters in response to the changed formats from the 2015 debates, and offering some suggestions as to how this all could be avoided.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Targeting the journalists

Posted on by

It has become increasingly clear that the Conservatives plan to wage war against the media as part of their election strategy, which you’d think is funny because We The Media aren’t running in the election. The problem is that this isn’t actually about the media, but rather about undermining the foundations of the institution and the trust that people place in it. Why? Because in the wake of the growing success of populist leaders and movements, they’ve decided to abandon all shame and simply straight-up lie. Most of the media won’t call them lies, because they tend to aim for both-sides-ism “balance” that tends to look like “one side says this, the other side says that, you decide” in its construction, and Scheer and company have decided to exploit that for all it’s worth. And if you do call them on those lies, well, you’re the one who is suspect, whose motives are driven by partisanship, or because you’re looking for some kind of government job, (or my favourite, that I’m allegedly performing sexual favours for the PM).

What I find particularly rich are the Conservatives operatives behind this campaign of harassment is how they insist that they don’t rise to Trumpian levels, but you could have fooled me. They may not say “fake news,” but they intimate it at every opportunity. And if you call them out on a lie (which doesn’t happen often), then they go on the attack. It’s happened to me on numerous occasions (and usually the attacks are themselves wrapped in more lies and distortions), but then again, I’ve also decided to call a lie a lie and not couch it in both-sides-ism. As much as they insist they’re just “pointing out specific inaccuracies” or “countering criticisms,” that’s another lie, and we all have the receipts to prove it.

In the meantime, they’ll content themselves with this sense of martyrdom, that they’re just so hard done byfrom the media, that the coverage of the Liberals is “glowing” while we do nothing but attack the Conservatives (have you actually read any reporting?) and that apparently the pundits are all taking the Liberals’ sides (seriously?) and that justifies their need to “go for the jugular.” But when you’re accustomed to blaming others to assuage your hurt feelings, you think that your attacks righteous, and that’s where we are. So yeah, this is going to get worse, it’s going to get Trumpian, and they’re going to keep insisting that they would never demonise the profession, but don’t believe them. It’s in their interests to undermine journalism, and they lack any shame in doing so.

Continue reading →