Tag Archives: Refugees

Roundup: States of public health emergency

Posted on by

States of public health emergency were declared in Ontario, Alberta, BC, and PEI yesterday, and no doubt more to come, while Justin Trudeau mused that there could be situations where the government may have to invoke the Emergencies Act, so things got pretty serious yesterday. Mind you, his ministers who also were facing the media yesterday also stated that they wouldn’t invoke the Emergencies Act without provincial consultation, and there was some explanation on one of the political shows that it would likely only be invoked because there was some kind of gap in the powers available to one level of government or another if the situation worsens. We’ll see. (Here’s more on what invoking it would mean). Trudeau also said that they may need to temporarily recall Parliament (almost certainly with a minimum quorum of 20 MPs) to pass this or any other particular EI or tax measures, so we’ll have to keep an eye out for that in the coming days. Also announced was up to $5000 loans for those who need help returning to Canada or who need assistance if they can’t get back (and some travel insurance is facing restrictions if people don’t return ASAP).

We’re also expecting the first tranche of stabilization or bridge funding today (not “stimulus”), which is expected to be in the range of some $25 billion. As well, the National Post is reporting that CRA will extend the tax filing deadline by a month, which should be also announced later today.

Meanwhile, Heather Scoffield says that Trudeau needs to act fast to help vulnerable workers, and that today’s aid package will determine just how serious he is about his pledge to have Canadians’ backs. Kevin Carmichael looks into the Bank of Canada’s rationale for the emergency rate cut, and the fact that they have thus far been carrying the weight of trying to reassure the markets while we wait for Bill Morneau’s aid package.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Competing economic illiteracy

Posted on by

As someone who covers a fair bit of economic stories, the absolute inability of this government to come up with a definition of “middle class” is exhausting – and those of you who read me regularly will know that I will instead use Middle Class™ as a means of showcasing that it’s a meaningless branding exercise. And lo and behold, when challenged to offer up a definition during one of his year-ender interviews, Justin Trudeau said that “Canadians know who’s in the middle class and know what their families are facing and we focus more on the actual issues.” And I died a little bit inside. For a government that keeps insisting they’re all about data, and evidence-based policy, their refusal to offer a meaningful measure of what their core narrative is all about is entirely about branding. By not offering a definition, they don’t have to exclude anyone – because everyone believes they’re middle class (whether they had ponies or not). And more to the point, by not offering a metric, they can’t measure whether they’ve succeeded for failed – it’s only about feelings, which makes their talk of data and evidence all the more hollow.

And then there’s Pierre Poilievre, who, when challenged about the definition of a recession, makes up a bullshit response and thinks it makes him clever. It’s as economically illiterate as the Liberals’ Middle Class™ prevarication, but the fact that the Conservatives keep cheerleading a “made-in-Canada recession” that no economist sees on the horizon, and which they can’t even fit into the actual definition of what a recession is (two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth) sets a dangerous path of spooking markets. It’s all so stupid, and reckless, but the party’s current path of pathological dishonesty makes them blind to the danger of it all.

On perhaps a related note, Trudeau’s director of communications, Kate Purchase, is leaving to become a senior director at Microsoft, and good luck to her – and she really is one of the nicest staffers and was actually helpful to media in stark contrast to the Harper crew. But I also hope that perhaps this means that her replacement can start ensuring that this government can start communicating its way out of a wet paper bag, because cripes, they have done themselves zero favours over the past four years.

Continue reading →

Roundup: That Video and worst instincts

Posted on by

For well over the past two days, the news cycle has been consumed with That Video, and the interpretations of what was said on it. And because so many members of our media act feel the need to be tattletales, narcs, and scolds, what was an interesting tableau turned into an international attempt to get someone – particularly Justin Trudeau – in trouble.

First, despite the fact that the scene was spotted by a CBC producer from the NATO pool feed, people started circulating that this was some kind of illegally obtained footage from Russian spies and circulated as disinformation on their Sputnik network. (Nope). Then came everyone interpreting it as some kind of mockery or high school gossip, when it turned out to simply be an animated recounting of the unscheduled press conference, and the surprise announcement that the G7 meeting was to be held at Camp David. And because everyone is a tattletale and a narc, they brought it up at Trump’s press conference with Angela Merkel, he responded by calling Trudeau “two-faced” and that he was just sore because he got called out for not spending enough on defence (that’s not how NATO works), and then he cancelled his closing press conference and went home – but not before remarking before reporters that the whole “two-faced” thing was a big joke to him. Meanwhile, all of the Canadian commentariat is having a meltdown, and all of them went on the air with fantasy versions of just what the conversation was in That Video, and everyone describing it as “disparaging” or “gossip,” when they simply didn’t have the context that Trudeau provided to them the next day when he was pressed about it in his own media availability. So, any serious conversation about the future of NATO was basically overshadowed because a bunch of excitable journalists watched a video, jumped to conclusions, and let their narc instincts get the better of them – and then wouldn’t shut up about it.

And then come the scolding pundits, as night follows day. Like Matt Gurney, who characterized Trudeau as “mocking” and “gossip” and who said that Trump was right about our not spending enough. (Reminder: DND can’t actually get all of the current spending out the door because they don’t have the capacity or manpower, and it will take years to get enough people trained up). Or Heather Scoffield, who is concerned that this could mean Trump will tear up the New NAFTA or start imposing new tariffs – as though he needed excuses anytime in the past. Much more sensible was Susan Delacourt who said that it was about time that world leaders didn’t walk on eggshells around Trump, and that world leaders should stop simply looking on silently as his constant rule-breaking goes on around them.

On top of this incident was the complete mischaracterization of a video of Princess Anne, the Queen, and the Trumps. While there was a longer video where Anne escorts the Trumps to the Queen’s receiving line, and at one point the Queen looks over to her and she shrugs – no one left in the line but me – and everyone carries on. But a shortened clip started circulating and certain journalists falsely characterised it as the Queen chastising Anne for not greeting the Trumps and Anne didn’t care. And yet the false version went viral.

We don’t need Russian disinformation bots. We’re perfectly capable of distributing all manner of breathless disinformation without them. Cripes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Don’t bug the LG. Ever.

Posted on by

In a move that is as brazen as it is utterly galling, Jason Kenney’s government legislated the province’s elections commissioner out of existence, after he levied tens of thousands of dollars in fines over the UCP leadership shenanigans. To make it all the more gob-smacking, Kenney and the minister in charge of the bill claimed that this wasn’t politically motivated, which earns a “Sure, Jan.” But even more appalling was the response from opposition leader Rachel Notley, for which I am about to suffer a rage-induced stroke.

https://twitter.com/Jantafrench/status/1196555704200351744

No. No, no, no, no, no. No. You DO NOT involve the lieutenant governor in this. She does not have discretion to accept or reject bills. She is not the “boss” of Jason Kenney. She cannot reject bills on the advice of the opposition, or her own recognizance for that matter. Her job is to accept the advice of the first minister who commands the confidence of the legislature, which Kenney does – even if the bill is unconstitutional. Her job is to act as a constitutional fire extinguisher, and we are a long way from there. Here’s Philippe Lagassé with more:

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1196608180488482818

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1196609606220500992

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1196610409521930240

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1196612302348464130

I’m going to add an additional point about this being an appalling lack of basic civic literacy from the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in the province, but it implicates the entire media ecosystem as a whole, particularly when they ignorantly act as though a vice-regal has discretion about things like government formation, as exemplified with the stories of the hung parliaments in BC and New Brunswick, and even when shows like Power & Politics wrongly said that Trudeau “asked permission” from Her Excellency, Julie Payette, to “form a government” when they were the incumbent and already had a government and didn’t need to form one, let alone the fact that her job is not to grant permission. But stories like that plant the idea in people’s minds that she or any other vice-regal has personal discretion and can decide who will or will not form a government and apparently allow or disallow legislation, much like the pervasive idea that you can write to the Queen and she’ll do something about whatever it is you’re complaining about. That’s not how the system works. This shouldn’t be rocket science, but apparently these very basics are not being understood by those who are supposed to know these things because it’s their jobs to.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A quasi-exit for May

Posted on by

The other, non-Senate big news on Parliament Hill yesterday was Elizabeth May’s decision to step down as Green Party leader – sort of. She said that she would stay on as the “parliamentary leader,” but give up the mantle of big-P Party leader, and that one of her appointed deputy leaders, Jo-Ann Roberts, would be interim leader until the party could have a leadership convention – next October. May fully intends to stay on as an MP and run again as an MP (and said that she would not run for Speaker this time, but would pursue it in the next Parliament).

This particular kind of leadership dynamic is part of what ails Canadian democracy right now – this notion that there should be year-long leadership races, and that someone who doesn’t have a seat in Parliament should be leading the party in any capacity. The fact that the leader is not selected by caucus alone is one of the biggest problems with our system – it has allowed leaders to centralize power and when they get into power, that centralization rests in the PMO. And with May stepping back, and new MPs Jenica Atwin and Paul Manly also eschewing running for the role, they will again be a party where their leader is outside of Parliament, and who may or may not run for a seat anytime a byelection comes around, and they will face some of the challenges that Jagmeet Singh became all too familiar with.

There needs to be a rebalancing of leadership roles in our system, and we need to keep the party leader’s focus back on parliament, with the rest of the leadership better handled by the Party president. But what the Greens are doing now is just perpetuating what is horribly wrong with our system.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt remarks on how May left on her own terms, while Paul Wells sees the end of May’s leadership as a chance for her party to overhaul its message and its organizational abilities.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Voting and dreaming big

Posted on by

Despite it being the Thanksgiving weekend, most of the campaigns were in full swing. Andrew Scheer took the day off, but Justin Trudeau was undaunted by the security issue of the previous evening, and went to York to pack Thanksgiving hampers along with the coach of the Toronto Raptors and got his endorsement. During the media availability, Trudeau insisted that the security scare would not change the way he campaigns – even though the whole bulletproof vest was unprecedented in Canadian politics. Trudeau then went to Newmarket where the crowds were so thick they closed the streets, and ended the day in Richmond Hill.

Jagmeet Singh was in Surrey, BC, where he held a rally and told the crowd that strategic voting prevents people from dreaming big. (Counterpoint: Dreaming big is all well and good but implementation matters). Singh also said he’d be willing to enter into a coalition with the Liberals in order to stop the Conservatives, which seems premature at this point in the game.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hand-waving through a plan doomed to fail

Posted on by

It’s the final debate day of the election, so expect a couple of brief photo-ops, then a quiet day as the leaders do their final prep. Yesterday, Andrew Scheer went to the Roxham Road irregular border crossing in Quebec to pledge that he would end said border crossings – and then hand-waved through just how he planned to do so, given that the Safe Third Country Agreement is a treaty with the Americans and we can’t do anything without negotiating with them, and they are not exactly big on taking in asylum claimants right now and would be happy to see them wind up in Canada. And their “other options,” such as trying to declare the entire border an “official point of entry” for the purposes of the agreement won’t work, and will simply drive more asylum seekers to more remote crossing points where there are fewer controls, and more likelihood of death or injury. In other words, he was misleading about his plans to address the issue, and more than that, he invoked the spectre of MS-13 (which is an American border issue, not a Canadian one), gave the false notion that these crossings somehow let migrants “jump the queue” unfairly (there is no queue for refugees, and they don’t impact those we are bringing in from refugee camps), made the ludicrous promise to move more citizenship judges to the border to process claims faster (proximity has nothing to do with it, and trying to speed up claims has failed in the past because we still need to have procedural fairness and adherence to Charter rights). Immigration and refugee experts have thus proclaimed that Scheer’s pledge today is doomed to failure. On a related note, Scheer keeps saying his full platform will be out in “plenty of time” for people to make an informed decision, but advance polls have already opened on university campuses, and for everyone else tomorrow, so that’s not exactly time for people to start making informed decisions – and leaving Scheer open to the criticism that he plans to replicate the Doug Ford tactic of not releasing a platform and preferring to coast in on anger instead. And while we’re on the subject of Scheer’s dishonesty, he claimed that Elections Canada gave the okay for his campaign director, Hamish Marshall’s ad company to also be producing election ads for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers – but Elections Canada said that’s not true. So chalk that up to yet another lie on the tally.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1181961842291281923

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1181961052390600707

Justin Trudeau was in Markham, promising that the first thing he would do if re-elected would be to cut taxes for the middle class, which was essentially just a reannouncement of their basic personal amount cut. When answering questions, he offered some clarity to the situation around the spat between the Canadian Forces and provincial healthcare systems, which stems from the Canadian Forces being billed for higher rates than they would be normally for those services.

Jagmeet Singh, meanwhile, was in Montreal to address CUPE convention, with promise to fight privatization, in the hopes of winning back the labour vote.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hypothetical subways and more traffic

Posted on by

It was a quieter day, post-debate, but the leaders were all back on the road, mindful that there is still another debate later in the week. Andrew Scheer in Markham to promise funds for two Toronto subway projects – while lying about the Liberal record on said funding (the funds haven’t been released because there isn’t an actual plan for those lines yet) – and to further promise that he would fund any infrastructure project designed to ease congestion. Erm, except that this is a promise to induce demand because all of the data show that if you build more traffic infrastructure, that traffic just grows to fill it. It doesn’t actually relieve congestion – it just contributes to making it worse.

Jagmeet Singh was in Toronto to talk student loans, and when pressed about Bill 21 by the media, he said that if it made it to the Supreme Court of Canada that the federal government would “have to” take a look at it then – which isn’t really true, and they could put arguments forward at any court case along the way. This makes Singh’s position to basically punt the problem down the road for a few years, for apparently little electoral gain.

Justin Trudeau, meanwhile, went to Iqaluit in Nunavut, where he spoke about the North being on the “front lines” of climate change, and to meet with elders in that community. It also lets Trudeau make the claim that he’s the only leader to have visited the North during the campaign, for a few hours in any case.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No real winner, except TVA itself

Posted on by

The morning was full of Montreal photo-ops in advance of the TVA debate, with Justin Trudeau going to a famous boxing gym, and Jagmeet Singh going to Atwater Market to “pick up snacks” for debate prep – only to be greeted by a racist incident. While Scheer was not to be seen, he dispatched Alain Rayes to make a reannouncement about the red herring of raw sewage that gets dumped into waterways.

And then the TVA debate. If there was a winner of the night, it was the debate format itself, which offered a lot more substantial exchanges between leaders than other formats, and there was significantly less cross-talk or interruption. That said, the night got off to an early start with the three other leaders ganging up on Scheer to demand answers about his personal feelings on abortion, same-sex marriage and medical assistance in dying (one of the few bits of news out of this whole exercise being that Trudeau said they wouldn’t appeal a Quebec court decision that said that the current guidelines are too restrictive – something that Trudeau initially stood behind Jody Wilson-Raybould over). Most of the lines of attack against one another were well-worn, and Scheer kept insisting that his “national energy corridor” project would be a win-win for everyone, while Singh praised himself as the only leader on the stage with an excess of courage. Trudeau held his own and wasn’t the subject of nearly as many attacks as I might have thought, and the host even tossed him something of a gimme toward the end where Trudeau got the chance to declare that he was standing up for SNC-Lavalin jobs, which is a position that gets better play in Quebec, while Scheer in particular was buttonholed as to whether he would have protected those jobs. In terms of the quality of French, Scheer’s was the shakiest, while Singh largely held his own, but as he did in the Maclean’s debate, Singh hewed to well-worn talking points, including the “I was just talking to someone about…” whatever the issue was. The Bloc leader, Yves-François Blanchet was naturally the commanding presence in the French debate, as any Bloc leader tends to be, and Blachet was the first non-Gilles Duceppe Bloc leader on the stage for the first time in about 17 years – and his calm and polished demeanour didn’t even give way to his reputation in the province as being Pauline Marois’ thug from his time in her Cabinet. (More from Paul Wells on the debate here).

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1179615170944856065

Scheer did try to get one new line of attack in the debate, which was to accuse Trudeau of having two campaign planes – which is actually true in the sense that they have a second, cargo plane that goes in advance to locations with audio-visual equipment to get things set up before the rest of the team and the media arrives. Scheer snidely said this plane was for Trudeau’s “costumes and canoe” (which makes no sense as Trudeau has appeared in a shirt and tie at every single campaign event), and while Trudeau quickly stated that they purchase carbon offsets for both planes, the Conservatives were in full shitpost mode over social media to insist this was climate hypocrisy. [insert wanking motion here]

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Liberal platform and a changing economic narrative

Posted on by

While Andrew Scheer took the day off of campaigning, and Jagmeet Sing was in Surrey to promise $100 million in new federal funding for gang prevention, Justin Trudeau was in Mississauga to unveil both the full platform (including costing) as well as a specific announcement around enriching student grants and deferring student loan repayments for longer, and from those who don’t make enough money or who have just had babies.

But the platform is the big news, and it’s probably unsurprising that most of the media questions involved the fact that it has given up promising a balanced budget in favour of the new fiscal anchor of a declining debt-to-GDP ratio, which the new plans continue to show, albeit at a slightly flatter trajectory than we have seen in recent years. That said, I think it bears pointing out that much of the rhetoric and narratives from media remain those stuck in the frames of the mid-1990s (see: headlines here, here, and here) when the debt situation was far more dire than it is today. We should be having a more robust conversation around current fiscal realities, and what the opportunity costs are for slavishly getting toward a balanced budget when there are way to invest with the fiscal room that the government has now – something they have pointed out (in their irritating way of not being able to communicate their way out of a wet paper bag). And it also means that we’re not calling bullshit when Scheer says things like today’s deficits are tomorrow’s tax increases (they’re not). While there are certain parts of the platform that I’ll elaborate more on in the coming days over other venues, here are some economists with some very good insight, plus threads from Lindsay Tedds and Jennifer Robson.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1178385323975270400

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1178386937209425920

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1178403847951093760

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1178385088104599554

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1178386395804717057

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1178386998438039556

Continue reading →