Tag Archives: Privacy

Roundup: Poilievre wants to lie to you about inflation

Posted on by

StatsCan released the April inflation figures yesterday morning, and for the unprepared, they look bad – a 3.4 percent increase year-over-year, when the Bank of Canada’s inflation target is around two percent. This may look alarming, but there is a very simple explanation for why it looks high, and it’s something they call the base effect – meaning, when you compare it to last year’s figures, you need to put those figures in context. In this case, when you look at the April 2020 figures, we were actually suffering deflation in the early throes of the pandemic, when the first real lockdown started, and everyone was being sent home. We’ve had a fair degree of economic recovery since then, and inflation is really still running a little below target, but that gets obscured by the base effect, and that will likely carry on for another couple of months.

The problem, of course, is that you have media outlets that won’t properly contextualise this, looking at how much year-over-year prices like gasoline have spiked – which again, ignores that a year ago, gasoline prices dropped to an eleven-year low because demand cratered as a result of the pandemic. It’s a better headline to talk about “price surges” rather than explaining that base effect. And to be fair, some prices have gone up for a variety of factors, while others haven’t – it’s why the consumer price index looks at a basket of goods and provides an average, where some prices rise and some fall, and they provide additional measures that will strip out some of the volatile indicators to see how the more stable ones are faring. And more to the point, the Bank of Canada knows what they’re doing, and if they see runaway inflation starting, they will tamp it down with the tools available to them, such as interest rates.

But more than just media outlets, we have the Conservatives and Pierre Poilievre in particular who are determined to light their hair on fire and lie about the inflation figure in order to denounce the government (blaming it on deficit spending) or by saying that the Bank of Canada is in cahoots with them (when they are independent of government and kept at arm’s length). And lo, Poilievre even produced a video that railed about the price of lumber to make his point – err, except the price of lumber isn’t increasing because of the monetary supply or deficit spending. It’s rising because there is a housing boom, particularly south of the border, and lumber exports can’t keep up with demand, hence the price increases. That’s basic economics, which you think that the party that bills itself as “good economic managers” and the “party of the free market” would understand, but apparently not. And more to the point, we can be assured that Poilievre will neither a) read a gods damned report from Statistics Canada beyond the headline to understand what’s going on; or b) tell the truth when he can whip up hysteria for the sake of scoring points. And because they will quote statistics in a way that strips it of its context, they will lie to the public, and the media will do very little about it – at most, both-sidesing the comment rather than calling out the simple falsehoods.

Meanwhile, Poilievre’s antics were perfect to turn themselves into memes. It’s probably just as well.

https://twitter.com/maxfawcett/status/1395103214681300992

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau cleared, Morneau not

Posted on by

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner released his reports on Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau’s involvement in the WE Imbroglio yesterday, and came to two different results – the prime minister was cleared, but Morneau was found to have breached three sections of the Act, because he was not only personal friends with the Kielburgers (which Trudeau was not), but Morneau gave them a lot of access to his department as a result of that friendship, and offered them very preferential treatment.

On the one hand, this defused a few of the prepared talking points, but it didn’t disarm all of them. The Conservatives insist that even if he wasn’t found to have broken the rules, the system is still “broken” and needs to be made even tougher, which they are going to regret when every interaction becomes a minefield and their own members start getting caught up in impossible situations should they form government, and it misses the mark of what the current problems are. The NDP, predictably, say that this proves the Liberals only care about their “rich friends,” which I’m not sure the Kielburgers really qualify as for obvious reasons.

Of course, as I have written before, the problem is not that the rules are too lax, but rather that the Liberals in their current incarnation have a culture that believes that so long as they mean well, that the ends will justify the means. No amount of tinkering or toughening up the rules can change that because it’s a cultural problem. It also doesn’t help that the definition of “corruption” has become so broad in the Canadian discourse that penny ante bullshit is treated as a capital crime, though very curiously, grift that is out in the open in places like Queen’s Park or the Alberta Legislature are not treated with the same kinds of howling denunciations that the WE Imbroglio has been. I also have to wonder what these same howlers would do if they saw the actual corruption that takes place in other countries, because it’s on a whole other level than anything that has happened here. And on a final note, this report does not mean that WE Charity was “destroyed” for nothing. The charity hasn’t been “destroyed,” and its dubious activities were brought to light by good reporting, not Charlie Angus’ antics at committee, and that’s a good thing. This incident helped to shine that spotlight. Let’s not confuse Trudeau’s exoneration with anything else that has happened to WE in the interim.

Continue reading →

QP: Freeland vows to protect free expression

Posted on by

The Commons was a little emptier than the new normal of late, but as our rock of stability, Mark Gerretsen was again the only Liberal on the Chamber. Again. Candice Bergen led off in person, with a script in front of her, and she complained that Americans were getting together and attending packed sports stadiums while most Canadians were still “locked down,” and blamed the federal government’s inability to procure vaccines out of thin air. Chrystia Freeland reminded her that over twenty million doses have already arrived, and more were on the way. Bergen then read a bunch of blatant falsehoods about Bill C-10, for which Freeland assured her that as a former journalist, she understands the importance of freedom of expression and they would never endanger it, which this bill does not do. Bergen then raised Guilbeault’s blunder about “Net Neutrality,” and accused the government of trying to control speech, and Freeland repeated her response. Gérard Deltell carried on raising Guilbeault’s many blunders, and Freeland reassured him that everyone was against censorship, but they were concerned with the cultural sector. Deltell raised that Guilbeault keeps needing to correct himself, and Freeland repeated that as a former journalist, she would never limit freedom of expression, which the bill does not do.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he crowed about the Quebec government tabling a bill on protecting French, and Freeland read that the federal government recognises that the situation of French in Quebec is unique, and that they would study the bill in depth. Blanchet was disappointed that Freeland was insufficiently thrilled with the bill, and demanded a promise that the federal government would not challenge that bill in court. Freeland would not give him such an assurance.

Jagmeet Singh raised the blood deferral for men who have sex with men, and demanded to know why the prime minister would promise to overturn the ban and then not do it. Freeland assured him they support overturning the deferral, but they respect the authority of independent decision-makers and science. Singh complained in French that this didn’t make sense, but Freeland repeated her answer.

Continue reading →

QP: Beware Big Arts and Culture

Posted on by

For the prime minister’s first appearance of the week, he had only Mark Gerretsen on the benches to keep him company (though Francis Drouin arrived after the PM left when the leader’s round ended). Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he wondered if the government filing an amicus briefing in American courts mere hours before the threatened closure of Line 5 was an admission of failure of diplomacy — not that the Michigan governor has the power or authority to shut down the pipeline. Justin Trudeau replied that they filed the brief and are continuing to engage and encouraging mediation between the parties involved. O’Toole asked the same question in French, got the same answer, and then he asked why Trudeau personally approved a raise for General Vance if his office was investigating him for sexual harassment, and Trudeau stated that his office did not investigate, but that was PCO, as political offices should never conduct investigations, before he gave some usual bromides about supporting men and women in uniform. O’Toole related the question in English, got the same answer, and then insisted that he caught out Trudeau in a lie, stating that Katie Telford was apparently “investigating” when she sought assurances the allegations didn’t pertain to a safety issue, but Trudeau shrugged off the allegation and repeated his usual assurances of taking all allegations seriously and following the same process the Conservatives did in 2015.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he groused about time allocation on C-19, insinuating that the prime minister wanted an election in a pandemic. Trudeau disputed that, stating that he doesn’t want one, but the Bloc and Conservatives obviously do because they voted against a confidence issue. Blanchet said he wasn’t afraid of an election but didn’t want one, and repeated the allegation, and Trudeau considered this far-fetched, but they need to be prepared in a hung parliament for a possible election, since the opposition apparently wants one.

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, and accused the government of sending the military to spy on Black Lives Matters protests, and Trudeau agreed that the reports were concerning and he was looking into them. Singh repeated the same question in French, as though Trudeau didn’t just deny involvement, and Trudeau repeated his same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Accusing your opponents of encouraging mass deaths

Posted on by

My patience for the current round of blame-shifting in the handling of this pandemic has pretty much reached its breaking point, and Alberta’s justice minister has crossed a line. Recall that a week ago, NDP MP Heather McPherson accused the prime minister of rather watching Alberta burn than help Jason Kenney – a statement that borders on psychotic and ignores the billions of dollars in federal aid that has been extended that Kenney has either sat on or declined. Of course, McPherson, like her leader Jagmeet Singh, seems to think that the federal government should be invoking the Emergencies Act and swooping in to take over the province, which is nothing more than a recipe for a constitutional crisis the likes we have never seen in this country. (Can you imagine the reaction in the province if Trudeau did this?)

Well, yesterday Alberta’s justice minister declared that the provincial NDP opposition, the federal government, and the media, were all cheering on a COVID disaster in the province, which is absolutely boggling. To think that your opponents literally wish death upon Albertans is some brain worm-level thinking, and yet here we are – and no, the minister would not apologise, citing that his opponents were trying to exploit the pandemic for political purposes. This is nothing short of insane, and yet this kind of thinking is clearly rearing its head as the provincial government flails, under attack by all sides, and frankly, reaping the unhinged anger that it has been sowing for years and thinking they were too clever to get caught by.

But in the midst of this, there was a column in Maclean’s yesterday which declared that it was “partisans” that were the cause of this blame-shifting, and then proceeded to pathologically both-sides the issues until my head very nearly exploded. It’s not “partisans” – it’s political actors who are to blame, and trying to pin this solely on people who vote for them is ridiculous. I will say that a chunk of the blame does rest on media, for whom they downplay actual questions of jurisdiction as “squabbling” and “finger-pointing,” thus allowing premiers in particular to get away with the blame-shifting and hand-waving away their responsibilities, and it’s allowed this obsessive fantasy about invoking the Emergencies Act to keep playing itself out – especially because most of these media outlets have been cheerleading such a declaration (so that they can fulfil the goal of comparing this to Trudeau’s father invoking the War Measures Act during the October Crisis). If media did a better job of actually holding the premiers to account rather than encouraging their narratives that everything can be pinned on the federal government (for whom they have some of their own issues they should be better held to account for), there may have been actual pressure on some of them to shape up long before now, and yet that doesn’t happen. Absolutely nobody has covered themselves in glory here, and it’s just making this intolerable situation all that much worse.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1391949740896657410

Continue reading →

Roundup: Keeping the minister away

Posted on by

The drip-drip-drip of revelations around the allegations surrounding former General Jonathan Vance continues to be felt, with emails showing that defence minister Harjit Sajjan’s former chief of staff emailing about the attempted investigation, but with the former ombudsman not providing any information that could be deemed actionable, we know it went nowhere until after Vance retired. The Conservatives are trying to use this to “prove” that PMO knew that something was up with Vance and are now engaged in a cover-up, but I am not entirely sure about that. A Liberal MP appearing on Power & Politics last night made the salient points that as soon as Sajjan was alerted to the allegations, he steered clear of them and turned PCO onto the case, because he needed to ensure that this did not become politicised, and if this is the case – and it sounds very plausible that it is – then it’s also quite plausible that these staff were trying to create that ringfence around the minister and prime minister to keep them from getting involved so as to avoid politicising any aspect of the investigation or its fallout.

This of course raises questions about what Sajjan should have done in leaving Vance in place knowing this allegation was out there, and whether or not he had an obligation to pursue the claim against his chief of defence staff. If he was trying to stay out and let the arm’s-length PCO process carry out, and it didn’t proceed because of a lack of actionable information, is that on Sajjan? Or should he have been more proactive in possibly accelerating Vance’s departure, given that he was already reaching what would have been the usual end of his term as CDS (and the fact that he stayed on for three more years meant that Vance became the longest-serving CDS in Canadian history)? Again, it’s a hard call to make because he was trying to keep that separation in place to avoid this being politicized.

Trudeau, meanwhile, says he still has confidence in Sajjan, which had everyone joking on Twitter that this essentially put a countdown clock over Sajjan’s head. But this is a mess that makes it very difficult to sort out because of the considerations at play, and the fact that a parliamentary committee is now digging into this will make it all the more partisan as the days go on. I will not be too surprised if Sajjan is made to fall on his sword about this in a few weeks’ time, but not before the Liberals put up a fight to say that he did all the right things, and that the real problem is that the accuser didn’t feel comfortable enough to want to make the allegations official or actionable – but that gets us back into something of a Catch-22. None of this will end well.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s risky, ideological experiment

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole met with the Toronto Star’s editorial board yesterday, and indicated that any election won’t be his doing, which would indicate that he’s in no rush to call non-confidence with this government – and why would he? Should he topple the government (in a pandemic), he would not only have to wear that decision, but also try to explain how he would do things differently around things like vaccine procurement – something which he won’t actually do because he knows that we don’t have the domestic capacity to produce them, and that the current delays are outside of this government’s control. He won’t say those things out loud, because he needs to create a narrative about this government “failing,” even though he couldn’t do any better, but the truth has apparently never been a barrier for O’Toole (nor his predecessor).

What O’Toole is trying to do is set up a competing narrative for the post-pandemic recovery, where he gets to frame the Liberals’ plans of “build back better” – focused on green and inclusive growth – as being some kind of risky, ideologically-driven “experimentation.” The problem with this, of course, is that his plans for getting the economy back to status quo is that the old normal led us to this point – including the thousands of deaths that happened as a result of this pandemic. It would seem to me that trying to get to the old normal is risky and ideological, because they have proven to have failed, and were stifling growth – remember that calls for inclusive growth predate the pandemic and were highlighted by those radical ideologues at the Bank of Canada as a necessary pathway if the Canadian economy was to continue growing at a point where we had reached “full employment” and future growth was going to be constrained. Nevertheless, O’Toole is pandering to a voter base (and, frankly, a pundit class) that fails to see that the future economic drivers are going to be the green economy and ensuring that we get more women and minorities into the workforce. For a party that likes to fancy itself as “good economic managers,” they seem to be completely blinkered on where the market is heading, and are trying to chart a path that everyone else is rapidly abandoning.

Meanwhile, O’Toole’s finance critic, Pierre Poilievre, has been putting on a big dog and pony show about our unemployment rate over the past few days, and thinks he has a winning line in talking about “paycheques versus credit card debt,” but he’s basing it on a false premise that unemployment figures are directly comparable – they’re not, and as a former employment minister, he knows that and is lying to you. (He also knows that places like the US have their economies opened with massive death tolls as a result, but those are just details, right?)

Continue reading →

Roundup: The COVAX conundrum

Posted on by

It was another day of less than optimal vaccine news yesterday – first a warning that there was going to be more fluctuation in future shipments including what appears to be another reduction in the next Moderna shipment (of which we’re still not sure the allocation yet), followed by news that we are in line for a shipment from the COVAX facility, which comes with its own particular special challenges.

Why? Because part of COVAX is to provide vaccines to the developing world, and it appears that Canada is accepting vaccines that would be going to them. Except that’s not the deal we signed – while we are funding vaccines for the developing world through COVAX (and will be sending our excess doses once our own population is vaccinated), part of the procurement diversification strategy was the stream under COVAX that we get some doses while also funding for the developing world. But of course, that wasn’t clearly explained – and the minister did have to do the media rounds to do that later in the day, by which it was too late, and you had everyone tut-tutting that we’re taking doses from those who need it more than we do. Which, incidentally, is happening at the same time that the government is being yelled at for not procuring more doses faster (as though yelling will make Pfizer’s retooling go faster or Moderna’s supply chain issues resolve themselves), and lo, we have doses that we paid for, but we’re going to look like jerks if we take them. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. Good thing this government can communicate effectively. Oh, wait…

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney would like his social licence

Posted on by

Things are frantic on the energy file, as the Biden administration threatens to kill the Keystone XL pipeline project, and Jason Kenney is floundering. In one breath, he has been demanding that federal government do something – never mind that Justin Trudeau has been championing this project to his American contacts since he was first made Liberal leader, and brought it up on his first phone call with Biden after the election – and he’s insisting that this would damage Canada-US relations – as though it could be much worse than the last four years of inscrutable and random policy changes. But perhaps the most fitting of all is that everything that Kenney is now reaping what he has been sowing over the past number of years in terms of his insulting those close to Biden, and all of the environmental policies he has been denigrating and fighting in court are precisely the kinds of social licence that he needs to try and convince a Biden administration to keep the permit alive. Funny that.

https://twitter.com/maxfawcett/status/1351220724921475074

Kenney has also threatened legal action if the permit is rescinded, but his chances of success on that venue look mighty slim.

The NDP and Greens, meanwhile, are cheering the planned cancellation, and insist that Canada should be focusing on creating green jobs instead – as though you can flip a switch and make it happen.

https://twitter.com/maxfawcett/status/1351354379853467649

Continue reading →

Roundup: The voices we privilege

Posted on by

There was an exchange over Twitter yesterday between economist Stephen Gordon that made me stop and think about what it represented. (The original tweet has since been deleted).

Why this gave me pause is because of what this exchange signals about whose voices we are privileging in the media as a matter of course. It’s rare to find a story that involves any kind of spending that does not include the CTF as a source being quoted, because they are reliable to give one “side” to the issue, whether it’s appropriate or not. And this also goes back to my Unifying Theory of Canadian Punditry, where most of the pundits and editors in this country still believe it’s 1995 and will always be 1995 on any fiscal matter – that the county is facing a debt bomb that will threaten it forevermore. That’s not the case, but these voices from the mid-nineties remain central – and indeed, that is where several of our political leaders hailed from, including Jason Kenney and Stephen Harper – and they still have sway because the editors and pundits of this country are also beholden to this era and its beliefs. It’s also about the language employed around the time, where citizens became “taxpayers” in their conception of the country. The CTF fits the ideological niche that these editors and pundits built for themselves, so their voices are privileged, regardless of whether they actually give truthful assessments or not.

Part of the reason also has to do with the media’s general preference to both-sides issues, and when you have a group that reliable offers one “side” – especially because they will always pick up the phone and have a quote for you when you’re on a deadline – then they get amplified. And it’s not just the CTF – it’s also Democracy Watch, and certain professors who are guaranteed to give an outraged quote on no matter the subject, and because they are reliable, they keep getting quoted, and get standing that they would not otherwise be afforded if we subjected their views to actual scrutiny. But this is one of the trade-offs that comes with the twenty-four-hour news cycle and constant deadlines to publish to the web. Journalists start to rely on voices who they know will always answer the phone and give a quote to one of the both-sides, so half the job is done.

This is one of the tells that I look for with many stories I read now – which voices are being privileged? Is it the CTF? Is it Dr. Jack Mintz? Is it Democracy Watch? The inclusion of those voices will pretty much indicate to you how much value to place on the story, because that helps outline what the framing of the piece is – and media literacy goes hand-in-hand with civic literacy.

Continue reading →