Tag Archives: Mélanie Joly

Roundup: Faux concern over a decades-old system

Posted on by

We’re now on or about day forty-seven of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Ukrainian forces are digging in and preparing for a renewed Russian offensive on the eastern and south-eastern portions of the country. UK prime minister Boris Johnson visited with president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv over the weekend, to show his support and solidarity in person. Elsewhere over the weekend, Ukraine was trying to ensure humanitarian corridors out of the Donbas region for Ukrainians to evacuate in advance of the coming Russian onslaught in the region.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1512858863728570369

https://twitter.com/NikaMelkozerova/status/1513190467743236103

Closer to home, we are being subjected to a bunch of nonsense around Canadian content regulations in the context of Bill C-11, which updates the Broadcasting Act to now include streaming platforms like Netflix or Disney+. The particular nonsense? The notion that the CRTC will define what qualifies as Canadian. Erm, except they have been doing this already. They’ve had a well-defined point system for what counts as CanCon since 1984. Nineteen gods-damned eighty-four. This is not new. Extending broadcast regulations to streaming platforms changes absolutely nothing about what counts as Canadian content, because the rules are platform neutral. For decades, production companies needed a 6/10 on the CanCon scale to qualify for tax credits. None of this is new.

The problem, however, is that in the debates over C-11 (and its predecessor in the previous parliament, Bill C-10) you had Conservative MPs trying to make this an issue (and Rachael Thomas, who was then Rachael Harder, was particularly vocal about this). She kept trying to propagate this insane notion that somehow these rules should be in the legislation, which is bonkers because that shouldn’t be the job of Parliament, nor is legislation responsive in the way that regulation is. We have arm’s-length regulators like the CRTC for a reason, which is to de-politicise these kinds of decisions. Sure, everyone comes up with supposedly scandalous examples of why certain things which may sound Canadian on the surface isn’t considered Canadian under the CanCon rules (such as The Handmaid’s Tale series), and it’s only until you look at the points system and think through the rules that you realise that these examples really aren’t that scandalous. The whole point is to ensure that our industry isn’t just a branch plant for American productions who can do it cheaper and get tax credits up here. It’s to ensure that there are incentives for things that are actually Canadian-led and produced, and under Canadian creative control, to get made. You can argue that the rules need to be updated, but let’s not pretend that there is anything new here (and really, The Canadian Press deserves a rap on the knuckles for this kind of framing of the issue).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not the first real test

Posted on by

We’re around day forty of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Ukrainian forces have retaken more territory, but that has come with some awful discoveries. In Bucha, outside of Kyiv, they have found mass graves and the bodies of civilians who were simply executed by Russian soldiers. At least 410 bodies have been found, traumatising witnesses, as they must now work with investigators who will put together the case for war crimes tribunals. In the meantime, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy says Russian obsession with capturing Mariupol has given them needed time in other parts of the country, where forces have had time to build up defences, and now reclaim areas where Russians have been though. Nevertheless, the human toll is staggering, and the atrocities are only now being uncovered, which may further spur more aid from Western countries given how graphic the scale of these atrocities are.

Closer to home, it’s budget week, so expect a veritable slough of thinkpieces about how this week is the “first big test” of the NDP-Liberal supply and confidence agreement, and its sub-variations of environmental policy, or defence spending. But that’s actually a little absurd, because this budget was always going to pass (it’s been too close to an election, and nobody is in shape to let the government fall), and frankly, the budget was already baked in and probably on its way to the printers when the confidence agreement was signed, so it’s not like Chrystia Freeland was going back to the drawing board to redraft the whole thing in light of the agreement. That was never a serious question (and frankly, most of the agreement is just about doing things the Liberals had already promised anyway).

The real test will be next year’s budget, when everyone has had a year to simmer, the Conservatives will have a new leader, and the NDP will have received the pushback from their own base. We’ll be out of the too-close-to-the-last-election safe zone, and the NDP will have a decision to make whether they think this still serves their purposes (because this agreement is only good as long as the either the NDP or the Liberals think they can still get something out of it). This budget was always a gimme—it’s the next one that things will start to get interesting.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Joly on a charm offensive?

Posted on by

We are now in day twenty-four of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and things continue to be in the same holding pattern—though there are continued air strikes, some now hitting Kyiv, one hitting an aircraft repair facility outside of Lviv. Some 6.5 million Ukrainians are internally displaced, and considering how many have headed to Lviv, the air strikes there are all the more concerning. In the meantime, negotiations with Russia continue, and there seems to be a bit of a shift in some of the tone. Meanwhile, President Biden had a two-hour video call with Chinese president Xi Jinping to sound out where China stands on this conflict, and to essentially warn the Chinese that there will be consequences if they side with Russia in this. As well, Russian and NATO commanders appear to be in constant communication to ensure that any mistakes made don’t wind up touching off a larger conflict by accident.

Elsewhere, in the wake of her comments about Canada being a middle power who was good at convening others, Mélanie Joly had a conversation with Janice Stein of the Munk School of Global Affairs yesterday that generated a number of pieces. In it, Joly acknowledged that the Canadian Forces need to be better-equipped, which tends to spiral into the trap of taking the NATO two-percent goal seriously (when it’s a terrible measure). But she’s not wrong about the equipment, as the pivot from Cold War tactics to fighting the Taliban has left the Canadian Forces largely under-equipped for the kind of situation facing Ukraine right now. As well, she praised the role American intelligence has played in helping Ukraine to thwart the Russian advance, and in uniting the West. Joly also says that she wants to position Canada as a leader in combatting propaganda and disinformation starting with social media, which is going to be a very big fight if the way that the conversations around amending the Broadcasting Act last year were any indication.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A middle power and a convenor

Posted on by

We are on day twenty-two of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the shelling and air strikes against civilian targets continue—an apartment building in Kyiv, a theatre where children were sheltering in Mariupol. Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the US Congress yesterday, invoking Pearl Harbour and 9/11 as part of his demand to close the sky” (which isn’t going to happen), and added that if America can’t do that, then to at least give Ukraine the planes so they can do it themselves. That was obviously a demand he couldn’t make of Canada (no, seriously—third-hand CF-18s would not be of much use to them), so we’ll see if that gets him any further aid from the US—hours after his address, Joe Biden signed an order authorising another $800 million worth of lethal aid, including anti-aircraft systems, so that presentation may have done its job.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1504186533791870984

Meanwhile, closer to home, Mélanie Joly’s comments that Canada isn’t a military power, but a middle power whose strength is convening to make sure diplomacy happens and convincing other countries to do more is rubbing a bunch of former military leaders the wrong way. We do contribute militarily, oftentimes more so than other allies who meet the stated NATO spending targets (which is one more reason why those targets are not a great measurement of anything), though our ability to do more is being constrained. That’s one reason why I’m getting mighty tired of the number of articles and op-eds over the last few days calling for more spending, while none of them address the current capacity constraints, particularly around recruiting.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about Putin’s motives

Posted on by

It’s now day twelve of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it appears to remain fairly stalled, but shelling continues. There had apparently been an agreement with Russia for a ceasefire to allow the evacuation of Mariupol, which they did not then live up to, making civilian evacuations all the more difficult in the area. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy worries that Odessa will be the next city to be targeted. And because Ukraine is considered Europe’s breadbasket, this is going to drive up the price of grain, further fuelling inflation, and there seems to be little idea of how this conflict could end considering where we are at currently.

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/1500103479687360520

Something else we’ve seen over the weekend are a number of analyses of what Putin might have been thinking when he made the decision to invade. While I would recommend you read this post from Dan Gardner, there is also this thread by a former Russian foreign minister which also sheds a bit of insight (not fully replicated below, but just some key highlights).

On a related note to this conflict is the hope or at least speculation that this will mean that we’ll finally be serious about our defence spending in this country, but that relies on some poor assumptions, one of which is that the current government hasn’t been spending. They have, and they can’t actually spend any more because of capacity constraints within the Forces, not only in terms of our fairly broken procurement process, but mostly because they simply don’t have enough personnel. We have a major recruitment shortfall, and that severely limits their ability to actually spend their budgets. But let’s hope this doesn’t derail the efforts to fix the culture within the Forces that is proving a detriment to recruitment and retention, because you know there will be voices calling for it.

Continue reading →

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 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: 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: Time to change the dress code?

Posted on by

NDP MP Randall Garrison is pushing for the House of Commons to update is dress code, in particular around the gendered rules that men need to wear a jacket and tie in the Chamber in order to speak and vote. Part of Garrison’s stated motivation is to make it easier for future trans and non-binary MPs, even though accommodations are already routinely made, such as allowing Indigenous MPs to wear beaded necklaces or other symbols in place of a tie. I don’t see why it would be any different to accommodate a trans or non-binary MP in a similar manner without any fuss – a mere notice to the Speaker would suffice.

On the one hand, there is a certain amount of archaic assumption in the “contemporary business attire” around jackets and ties for men, and only men – there is no dress code for women in the Chamber (and these rules apply to those of us who sit in the Press Gallery in the Chamber, incidentally). Business attire in the current context is starting to slide down the scale – particularly in this era of work-from-home – so I’m leery of loosening the restrictions too much, particularly as it is not beyond the realm of possibility that you would have a bunch of MPs in track suits, yoga or sweat pants, hoodies, and mom jeans (and I have seen male MPs in mom jeans with jacket and tie in the Chamber, which was not a pleasant sight). Printed t-shirts are also a very real concern, because we will immediately slip into them being used as props, particularly during Members’ Statements, and we do not want that to happen. On the same token, I wouldn’t have minded imposing a few more rules for women in the Chamber, such as mandating jackets as part of “business attire,” because sometimes the definitions of what constitutes “business attire” for some female MPs has been particularly…challenging. (Flashback to the old Megan Leslie Outfit Watch on my former blog).

I get that ties suck. I really do. I used to really hate them, but I’ve somewhat reluctantly grown to accept them and now I have no issue with it. And once we’re into late May and early June and the humidity starts to climb, wearing suits is not fun (and whereas I have threatened to show up to the Gallery in shorts and sandals – but with jacket and tie – one reporter has actually done so and was my hero for the day). But at the same time, I think there should be some kinds of standards, for both men and women, because frankly there can be a demonstrated lack of both maturity and good taste among MPs and there need to be some guidelines. Can they be loosened a little? Sure, that should be okay, and maybe we won’t require a tie at all times – within reason. It does merit a discussion in any case.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A refreshed Cabinet for a new parliament

Posted on by

So, that was the big Cabinet shuffle. It was extensive, and we saw three ministers dropped entirely (not the first time), a few promotions, a few demotions, and a lot more hybrid and chimeric ministries which will make governance a challenge to say the least. Nevertheless, here we are. Some observations:

  • This was not a new Cabinet or ministry – this was just a shuffle. It’s also not a third term or mandate, because we don’t have those in Canada – it’s the third parliament that the current ministry has spanned.
  • Marc Garneau’s exclusion from Cabinet has fuelled rumours he’s about to become ambassador to France. My presumption is that Bardish Chagger’s exclusion is because she is going to be the new Whip, as the old Whip and his deputy are now in Cabinet. Jim Carr’s departure may be health-related.
  • After Trudeau had rather bravely centralized all of the economic development agencies under one roof and didn’t have them beholden to local ministers and the corrupting influence that offers, he has relented and re-established the practice of regional economic development ministers again, and undone the work of trying to clean up the mess they create.
  • The most important portfolios – finance, defence, foreign affairs – are now all held by women. Anita Anand is the second woman defence minister in Canadian history (the first being Kim Campbell), and her background as a law professor specializing in governance can only help in a role where there has been a crisis in civilian oversight. As foreign affairs minister, Mélanie Joly will have to deal with the tensions between the US and China (and our general lack of a coherent foreign policy).
  • Splitting up Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was a good and necessary thing; giving Bill Blair emergency preparedness and not public safety is an even better thing because Blair was essentially at risk of capture in the role as a former police chief (with a questionable record around actions of the Toronto Police during the G20 to boot).
  • There are nine new faces in this configuration of Cabinet, and more diversity – the first Black woman since Jean Augustine, the first out lesbian minister, and the queerest Cabinet in Canadian history.
  • Putting Steven Guilbeault in environment may yet be a huge disaster given how badly he mismanaged Bill C-10, but Jonathan Wilkinson in natural resources will likely mean a steadier hand on some of those files where the two overlap.
  • Carving off an associate health minister portfolio for Carolyn Bennett to deal with addictions and mental health is a bit of a throwback to when she was the first minister of state for the newly-created Public Health Agency of Canada, back in the Paul Martin era. Jean-Yves Duclos in health – an economist who did a lot of work on poverty reduction – means he’s not going to be fooled by provinces trying to get more money out of the federal government that they plan to spend elsewhere.
  • Trudeau says he plans to lead the Liberals in the next election, but I’m not sure I believe him, and of course he’d say that now. He wouldn’t actually say he plans to leave until it comes time to do so, lest he turn himself into a lame duck without any moral authority to get anything done.

And now, the talking heads. Aaron Wherry hears from a Senior Liberal Source™ that the message of this Cabinet is the need for urgent delivery of promises. Heather Scoffield makes note of the activists leading the environment and housing files. Jason Markusoff highlights the squirming that Jason Kenney and others are doing now that Steven Guilbeault is the environment minister. Althia Raj sees some attempted legacy-building in Trudeau’s choices.

Continue reading →