Tag Archives: Nominations

Roundup: Explaining the intractable

Posted on by

Over at the Worthwhile Canadian Initiative economics blog, Stephen Gordon grapples with the problem of how to explain carbon taxes to Canadians in a way that’s more meaningful and easier to comprehend rather than economics jargon. It’s a perplexing problem, and one that some economists on social media are trying to address – something made more difficult by the constant narrative of lies put forward by the likes of Andrew Scheer and his provincial conservative allies, for whom the verifiable benefits of pricing carbon are lied about and derided as making life unaffordable, or that rebates won’t change behaviours. Except that we have data that they do, but communicating those data is a challenge, and possibly an intractable one.

I would add that oftentimes, journalists don’t help because we largely have an allergy to anything that looks like math. If it doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker, we immediately default to “it’s complicated” and shrugging, rather than figuring it out and communicating to people. I think we need to do better as well, and I try and to my part (for which I am rewarded with taunts that I am some kind of Liberal apologist, despite that carbon pricing is the favoured tool by virtually every single major economist and anyone who favours market solutions over government regulation), but it can be challenging, particularly when you are confronted by those who actively do not care about the truth. If we’re going to call out dishonesty in politics, we journalists need to do a better job of calling out these lies as we do with other false talking points – which means doing more than letting The Canadian Press write up a Baloney Meter™ article every now and again.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Closer examinations of Canadian populism

Posted on by

The topic of populism has been coming up a lot lately, in a variety of contexts, and there were a couple of interesting discussions around it in the Canadian context over the past couple of days. One is an examination by Frank Graves and Michael Valpy that looks at some of the demographic factors in Canadian populist sentiment, and digs out some interesting things like broader support among male millennials, and even some immigrant communities (though I would note that it’s not that difficult to get immigrant communities to turn against other newcomers – particularly asylum seekers – a technique that Jason Kenney tried very hard to exploit when he was federal immigration minister. The piece is worth digging into, and I had to read it a good two or three times before I started to appreciate a lot of what was contained within.

Another interesting piece was a look at the construction of Alberta conservatism, which goes beyond fiscal and social conservatism – indeed, when polled on values, much of the province actually skews toward fairly centrist values – and yet they disproportionately gravitate toward conservative parties out of a sense of brand identity, which is particularly curious, though one should note that political parties have been losing their ideological bases in favour of left-and-right flavoured populism over the past number of years. And populism is very much a factor in the Alberta voting populace, as the examination shows, which includes the distinction of populism as something that appeals to the “pure” homogeneity of a “people.”

To that end, here’s a good thread that digs into what sets populism apart from democracy, and why it’s something we need to pay attention to as this becomes an increasingly important part of the Canadian discourse.

Continue reading →

Roundup: StatsCan’s self-inflicted wounds

Posted on by

The furore and histrionics over the planned administrative data scoop by Statistics Canada continued to boil over the weekend, and there were further interviews with the Chief Statistician, and some other analysis, such as this look at how the agency’s current data collection with long-form surveys are becoming increasingly unreliable, and this private sector view that warns that because of the European Union’s increasingly stringent privacy laws that it could somehow affect our trade or business ventures with European countries.

A few observations:

  1. The Chief Statistician is not a very effective communicator, and I’ve seen several interviews where the host of whichever political show he’s on has completely railroaded him. StatsCan hasn’t been good in demonstrating why they need the data, and what kind of value it holds, and this is important, and they need to better make the case that the way the data are being collected currently is becoming unreliable, and that hurts everybody. They could say that they already have our SINs, because they linked our census data to our tax forms, and lo, there were no problems (and we got more reliable data for it). But they’re not. That they’re leaving the explanation to the government, which can’t communicate its way out of a wet paper bag, compounds the problem.
  2. Most of the journalists and political show hosts out there are exacerbating the problem, worse than the politicians mendaciously framing the issue as one of mass government surveillance, because they’re muddying the waters and trying to get some kind of unforced error from the Chief Statistician or the government spokesbodies, rather than trying to clarify the issues. This in turn feeds the paranoiacs on the Internet (and seriously, my reply column is replete with them right now on the Twitter Machine).
  3. These worries about the EU’s privacy laws are likely overblown, or more likely concern trolling. More than a few EU countries rely on scooping up administrative data rather than using a census, so they will have an idea about how this kind of thing works. Which isn’t to say that perhaps our own laws need updating, but I think the fears remain a bit overblown here.
  4. It remains the height of hypocrisy for the Conservatives to stoke fears about using administrative data like this, because in their attempt to kill the long-form census on trumped up privacy and invasiveness grounds, they were promoting using administrative data in its place. That they’re concerned about it now as being too invasive (while simultaneously lying in their construction that this is somehow a surveillance directive of the Trudeau-led Cabinet that they are using StatsCan as cover for) is more than a little rich, and dare I say amoral.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Di Iorio’s bizarre tales

Posted on by

The tale of absent MP Nicola Di Iorio got even more bizarre yesterday as he started talking to the media, but remained secretive about what he’s been up to since he stopped showing up to Parliament. Di Iorio claims that when he announced his intention to resign in April, there was an outpouring of support from the riding that had him reconsider. Fair enough. He then disputed the reporting that an issue had arisen because he wanted to hand-pick his successor rather than run an open nomination…and then basically confirmed it by saying he wants a hand in picking the successor in the riding and not wanting it to be an open nomination, casting aspersions on the nomination process and claiming the nomination is the election (because it’s a pretty safe seat). So, points for that own-goal.

But wait – it gets even more bizarre. Di Iorio claims that he is on a special assignment from the prime minister that has work that keeps him busy in the riding – too busy to be in Ottawa. And he won’t say what that work is, other than it has something to do with “road safety.” And to add to that, PMO confirmed that he “agreed to continue his work to ensure a smooth transition in his riding and to work on specific files that are in line with his work experience and expertise,” and that he’s expected to announce his decision regarding his future in the coming days. I’m…unconvinced by this. In my ten years covering the Hill, I have never seen any MP disappear for months on a “special assignment” that is so demanding that they can’t show up in Ottawa. I’ve seen plenty of sick leaves, and one or two stress leaves, but never a “special assignment” that has them ignoring their actual duties in Ottawa, where they should be. And why the PMO is being vague about this as well is all the more odd, and smacks of trying to save some kind of face for the situation that Di Iorio has caused. I’m not convinced that any of this is legitimate, so we’ll see what he has to say in the “coming days.”

Meanwhile, here’s Katie Simpson talking about her interview with Di Iorio yesterday.

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: Dredging up deficit panic

Posted on by

We’ve seen a return of questions in the past few days about the federal deficit – while the Public Accounts have shown that it was a little smaller than projected, it’s still there. The Conservatives hope to make hay over this in the next election, and as part of his “one year to go” speech over the weekend, Andrew Scheer repeated the lines that Stephen Harper mockingly performed over the election about how the Liberals promised just a “tiny little deficit” and well, it doesn’t look like they’ll make balance next year like they initially promised. Mind you, Scheer and his crew also ignores the fact that the Liberals were handed a $70 billion hole in GDP when they took over, so their spending promises are pretty much in line with their promises, but they made the choice to simply borrow to make up the difference – and yes, governing is about choices. Kind of like how the Conservatives chose to underfund a number of major projects in order to achieve the illusion of a balanced budget, that the Liberals had to then pick up the pieces on (Phoenix, Shared Services), and that’s also part of why they’re in the red. But you know – details.

In light of all of this fear-mongering, Kevin Milligan does the math on deficits, and well, it’s not quite the doom we’ve been thinking, as the debate remains trapped in the nineties and isn’t catching up to current realities.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053691438829985794

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053692158564163585

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053694039445274624

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053695340774223872

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053696086911541249

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1053697398403358721

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne worries about the deficits, with the recall about how the not-so-big deficits of the seventies suddenly metastasized out of control in the eighties, but he doesn’t math out his fears either.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not a Nordic friendship group

Posted on by

The ouster of a UCP candidate in Alberta over his posing with members of the Soldiers of Odin, and then excusing it by saying that they’re polite, continues to reverberate as the provincial NDP are looking to make hay of it, and premier Rachel Notley pointing out (entirely correctly) that you can’t keep blowing into dog whistles and then looking surprised when these people show up. And even the other two candidates who posed and then disavowed knowledge of who they are isn’t entirely credible because these people showed up in badges and vests, looking not unlike motorcycle gang members, and that should have clued them in that maybe photos were a bad idea. And as a friend of mine pointed out, you can bet that if a group of drag queens showed up and wanted to pose with them, someone would have put a stop to that right away. And so here we are.

While casting the UCP as bigots is familiar political territory to tread, it’s not like there isn’t enough history to show that they need to be careful with their associations, and in showcasing the dangers of too much free speech in the political arena. Recall that it was the “lake of fire” comments from Wildrose candidates that sunk that party’s chances in a previous election, and when then-leader Danielle Smith didn’t come out to denounce the comments, it cost her and the party. And while the UCP’s spokesperson came out to give the denunciation, Kenney himself has been silent on this, which will risk his looking like either tacit endorsement or that he’s not taking white nationalism seriously enough. And while people say that nobody could accuse Kenney of such a thing, given his history of being the Minister of “Curry in a Hurry” and attending every buffet by an ethnocultural minority back when Stephen Harper gave him the citizenship portfolio, what that ignores is the fact that Kenney also played very cynical games with those newcomer communities, putting them against each other (particularly immigrant communities against refugee claimants), and focusing on those communities where he felt he could exploit their social conservatism for his benefit. That did get noticed in some of those communities, and it’s in part why the supposed shift in immigrant votes didn’t actually happen outside of a pervasive media myth that wasn’t born out in fact.

The point has been made that if we don’t want to ensure that all politicians and candidates are in bubbles that this sort of thing will keep happening – particularly if groups like these show up and events and pose with politicians in an attempt to legitimate themselves, and as Paul Wells pointed out on Power & Politics (at 46:20 on the video), there is a whole cottage industry of Conservatives who search for photos of questionable people who have posed with Trudeau and company doing the very same thing (recall Jaspal Atwal doing the very same thing, leading to the overwrought denunciations of the India trip). This is true, and it shows that there is fallibility in any kind of “vetting” of people who pose with photos – and the fact that “vetting” these things is less of an organized thing than people, including in the media, seem to think. But this being said, when the group looking to pose with you seeks legitimation, it’s incumbent on the politicians to denounce what they stand for, and if it keeps happening (like what is going on here) that the leader should say something – but it also should give pause to reflect on what it is they’re saying that is attracting these sorts. Just saying “we don’t agree with xenophobes” while playing the xenophobia tuba, like Maxime Bernier, can’t cut it either. We’re not fools, and shouldn’t be treated as though we are when things like this happen, and keep happening.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carbon tax opportunism

Posted on by

The latest round of carbon tax drama has the Conservatives drunk with glee, as Manitoba premier Brian Pallister’s decision to scrap his own carbon tax plans has them thinking that they now have a national momentum against carbon taxes. It’s not likely to be that simple – and they may find out that it may blow up in their faces. Pallister says he changed his mind about it after meeting with Trudeau, and found Trudeau intransigent on letting Manitoba keep their tax at a flat $25/tonne when everyone’s else was ramping up to $50/tonne, which sounds like a no-brainer – you want a consistent carbon price across the country to prevent leakage and to keep a level playing field. (Pallister also claims that their plan was so comprehensive, but in interviews would point to things like remediating mines and recycling programmes, which are not about addressing climate change, and his deliberate misinformation should be called out as such). But it also smacks of opportunism, given that small-c conservatives across the country are taking the election of Doug Ford in Ontario as some sign that there is an uprising against carbon taxes when that was very likely not the cause of his election, but rather it was the impetus for change from the province’s tired Liberal government. Overreading Ford’s “mandate,” if we’re going to use that word, is dangerous for them to do. Meanwhile, Ford was yukking it up with Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe in their insulting the federal carbon tax, each believing their mutual court challenges are going to go somewhere (they’re likely not), and Ford would say things like a carbon tax is the worst thing in the world and will do nothing for the environment – complete falsehoods, and all he has to do is look at BC to show the complete opposite.

The federal government, meanwhile, hasn’t been terribly eloquent in their response, on the one hand decrying Pallister’s “flip flop” and worrying that conservatives want pollution to be free, while also pointing out that when the federal backstop comes in, people will be getting cheques in the mail. And that’s going to be the Achilles heel of the federal Conservatives’ belief that the country is going to rise up against carbon taxes. They keep pushing the narrative that it’s a tax grab to feed the Liberals’ “out of control spending” when it’s in the enabling legislation for the carbon tax that the funds will be rebated. But the government hasn’t been eloquent – and has been barely competent – when it comes to any kind of messaging on this file, and that’s the part that will probably hurt them the most, and it’ll be a self-inflicted wound, which makes you just shake your head watching it all go down.

Continue reading →

Roundup: All about the New NAFTA

Posted on by

So, now that we have some more information about just what is in this renewed NAFTA agreement (no, I’m not going to call it by Trump’s preferred new title because it’s ridiculous), we can get some better analysis of what was agreed to. Here’s a good overview, along with some more analysis on the issues of BC wines, online shopping, intellectual property, Indigenous issues (though not the whole chapter they hoped for, and the gender chapter was also absent), and an oil and gas bottleneck issue whose resolution could now save our industry as much as $60 million. There is, naturally, compensation for those Supply Management-sector farmers who’ve had more access into the market granted (though that access is pretty gradual and will likely be implemented in a fairly protectionist manner, if CETA is anything to go by). There is, however, some particular consternation over a clause that gives the US some leverage over any trade we may do with a “non-market” country (read: China), though that could wind up being not a big deal after all and just some enhanced information sharing; and there is also the creation of a macro-economic committee that could mean the Bank of Canada may have to do more consultation with the US Federal Reserve on monetary policy (though I have yet to find more details about this change). But those steel and aluminium tariffs that Trump imposed for “national security” reasons remain, as they were always unrelated to NAFTA, and their removal will remain an ongoing process.

With the news of the deal also comes the behind-the-scenes tales of how it all went down, and we have three different versions, from Maclean’s John Geddes, the National Post’s Tom Blackwell, and CBC’s Katie Simpson.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1046750795461357568

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne posits that the damage in this agreement is slight but there was no hope for a broader trade agreement given that there were protectionists on both sides of the table. Likewise, Kevin Carmichael notes that the deal limited the potential harm that was looming, but didn’t really break any new ground. Andrew MacDougall says that the deal gives Trump the win he needed before the midterms, while it will also make it hard for Andrew Scheer to stick anything on Trudeau around the deal. Chantal Hébert agrees that if Trudeau loses the next election that it won’t be because of this trade deal. Paul Wells, meanwhile, takes note of how the Conservatives are playing this, trying to lead observers by the hand to show them that Trudeau “failed” in these talks, while glossing over all of the actual context around why these negotiations happened in the first place.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Effacing labour

Posted on by

Yesterday having been Labour Day, there were a couple of topical stories out there – that the government’s look at updating the Canada Labour Codemay look at more measures to help with work-life balance, and that there are ideas on the table to look at taxing robots who replace workers with automation (though this seems fraught with all manner of complications). There is even talk about how this government has given the labour movement a seat at the table with trade negotiations (though there is some talk about how it’s all for show, and that they have little actual impact). But all of this having been said, I found the statements by the leaders to be interesting.

https://twitter.com/MinWorkDev/status/1036629441517182984

https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/1036677765250965504

Trudeau’s tweet was fairly standard, spoke about the labour movement, and the attached statement went into more detail about the achievements of the aforementioned labour movement. His minister of labour, Patty Hajdu, had a video message that talked about ways they are working on improving the current conditions, with a focus on harassment and coming pay equity legislation. Jagmeet Singh, true to NDP form, spoke about the focus on workers. But Andrew Scheer?

Nothing about the actual meaning of Labour Day. Nothing about the gains made by the labour movement, or the safety of workers, or the eight-hour work day, or weekends. Nope. It’s a holiday before getting “back to the grind.” Now, the previous government was no friend to labour, with vexatious legislation designed to make certification harder, impose onerous financial reporting requirements, the fight with public sector unions over sick days, and numerous back-to-work bills. But to not even mention the history of the movement and the gains made, whether it’s with occupational health and safety, weekends, pensions, anything? It smacks of pettiness, and of effacing history – you know, something he gets riled up when it’s a statue of Sir John A. Macdonald, but apparently not the Winnipeg General Strike.

Continue reading →