Tag Archives: Space

Roundup: Unleash the year-ender interviews

Posted on by

It’s year-end interview season, and prime minister Justin Trudeau had a number of them yesterday, so let’s dig through what he had to say in them. To CityTV, Trudeau said that if he could do anything over again, it would be that he would act faster on procuring more personal protective equipment for front-line workers (and here I would have thought he’d say he’d step back from the whole WE Charity/Canada Student Grant decision). This also appears to have been an influence in the decision to hedge bets when it came to vaccine procurement and get options on a wide variety of options from a variety of suppliers in a wide variety of countries. When asked when he planned to get the vaccine, he said that he wouldn’t until they open it up for healthy people in their 40s.

To The Canadian Press, Trudeau hinted that provinces who don’t sign on for national standards to long-term care won’t get additional funding to meet those standards, which sounds like a much tougher stance than the provinces are hoping to get away with. Of course, we have enough instances in recent memory of provinces who took health transfers and spent them on other things, or other transfers to address “fiscal imbalances” that got turned into tax cuts, so you can bet that federal governments are going to be gun-shy about provinces who think that they should get money without strings attached. On the subject of the next Chief of Defence Staff, Trudeau said that he expects their priority will be to address systemic racism in the Forces, which sounds about right.

Finally, the year-ender for Global’s West Block won’t air until this weekend, but they released a preview clip wherein Trudeau says he’s hoping for good news on the two Michaels in Chinese custody before the year is out. I’m pretty sure that’s not going to happen, but it’s certainly on-brand for Trudeau to try and strike an optimistic note about it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Self-harm by way of platitude

Posted on by

I try not to make a habit of re-litigating my Twitter disputes in this space, but in this particular case, I find it’s a perfect illustration of how this government’s inability to communicate its way out of a wet paper bag, and why that harms them. To wit: A Global News piece declares that Trudeau won’t commit to ending boil-water advisories on First Nations by 2021 as is the current promise. It uses the recent evacuation at Neskatanga First Nation as an illustration of problems with boil-water advisories. It quotes Trudeau giving a bland talking point about “more work to do,” and way down at the bottom of the story is reference to the fact that in Neskatanga, not only has money been approved and delivered, but the new water treatment facility is nearly completed construction.

So why is this a problem for the government? Because if they had the slightest bit of candour, they could have explained that capital projects like these take time, particularly in the kinds of remote and fly-in communities like these particular First Nations. Twitter is filled with people who are seriously asking why the government hasn’t solved these issues if they’re showering money around, without having the slightest clue about what he actual problems with these boil water advisories are, and accustomed to situations where they can simply throw money at a problem and it will go away. That’s not the case, and not understanding the logistical and capacity issues at play means that we get this ongoing confusion. For example, many of these reserves are only accessible to bring equipment up with ice roads for a couple of months of the year, which slows the ability to make timely solutions. (This is also an issue with housing on many reserves – small windows by which to bring in building supplies, and those windows are getting ever shorter because of climate change). This has been made even worse in the pandemic, because many communities won’t let the people who are building these new facilities into the community in an attempt to keep COVID out (which Trudeau made vague reference to, but folded it into his platitude so it gets lost). In some communities, it’s not a question of the equipment but of maintenance – as soon as they find and train someone local to do the work, they get headhunted and given a better offer, and the community has to start over again, as the equipment once again breaks down. And it would be great if Trudeau or one of his ministers could actually articulate these challenges, but they won’t. Instead, they fall back on their platitudes about “doing better,” and not giving people a clue about what the actual challenges are.

The government also assumes that these reporters will do the work to find out what the challenges are, but they won’t. Pressed for time, and under the constant pressure to produce, most of them will only both-sides the quotes and move on (as happened in this particular case). Most don’t understand the background or the actual challenges, so it doesn’t get reported – only the platitudes in face of the complaints. Actual candour from Trudeau and the Cabinet would fix this – easily! But they won’t do it. It’s maddening, and they’re just shooting themselves in the foot, over, and over, and over again.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s “cancel culture” performance

Posted on by

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole is making obligatory right-flavoured populist noises, decrying “cancel culture” because Queen’s University’s board voted to consider changing the name of their John A. Macdonald building, as is much the flavour of the day. It’s this juvenile, performative noise, but this is the kind of thing that O’Toole built his leadership around, without any critical thinking whatsoever, so here’s @moebius_strip to point out the sheer absurdity of it all.

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1316454539596234753

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1316465701100552192

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1316465838468198401

Meanwhile, there is consternation because the Library and Archives websites haven’t yet updated their biographies of prime ministers like Macdonald and Laurier to adequately convey that they had racist policies, and lo, cookie-cutter journalism gets the same four voices to decry this that appear in every other story. Never mind that Library and Archives says that they are doing consultations in order to do the work of reconciliation, and that there will be updated versions coming – it’s not good enough because this all needed to be done yesterday.

Part of the problem here, however, is that it will take time to get a properly nuanced version of history that both acknowledges their contributions to building the country while also acknowledging the racism of the era – particularly because it’s not simply black-and-white, and anyone who has read Macdonald’s biography will find it hard to simply pigeon-hole him as some kind of cartoon racist, which is certainly what some of the online dialogue would have us do. Yes, he’s a complex and problematic figure, but he was also a moderating influence, and his racist policies were actually the less-bad ones that were being demanded by a lot of voices of the era, which I doubt is going to be acknowledged to the satisfaction of his modern-day critics. It’s not a simple conversation, but that seems to be what is being demanded.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Getting the deficit vapours

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau was back making the media rounds yesterday, and one of the things he spoke about was the “ambitious green agenda” to be laid out in the Throne Speech, which has every pundit in the country clutching their pearls about the state of the deficit. Why? Because in Canadian punditry – and many government departments, finance especially – it is 1995 and will always be 1995. And some of that comes with the usual ridiculous assertions about comparing the nation’s finances to a household’s, or that of a business.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1301527104383848449

And then there was one column in particular which doubled down on not only the usual deficit vapours, but the notions that somehow inclusive growth isn’t a real strategy, which credible economists – and not just those on speed dial for certain media outlets who have one answer for every problem – will tell you is a bogus argument. But hey, it’s 1995 and will always be 1995.

https://twitter.com/twitscotty/status/1301505825366773762

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1301496695814004736

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1301500044315693058

Continue reading →

Roundup: A confirmation on uttered threats

Posted on by

We got a better read of the charges against the Rideau Hall intruder from last week, including more specifics on the weapons charges – a restricted revolver, a prohibited rifle, and two legal shotguns – as well as confirmation that the uttering threats charge was indeed directed toward the prime minister. This is, of course, in direct contravention to what RCMP sources were leaking to certain journalists last week that he didn’t intend to harm anyone, which never actually was credible at the time, and yet they dutifully reported it anyway.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1278788951885721602

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1278809780392427520

What is especially galling is that the RCMP seems to have zero self-awareness that this sort of thing fuels the calls about systemic racism in their organization – doing proper de-escalation and then floating this “not intending to harm” fiction when it’s a white guy with guns as opposed to a Black, Indigenous or otherwise person of colour where they will beat, taze, or outright kill them when they are unarmed. The contrast had been made to the arrest video of Chief Allan Adam video where he was tackled and pummelled for merely mouthing off after police outright harassed him for expired licence plate tags, whereas the intruder was armed and had intent to threaten the prime minister (if not outright assassinate him – that remains for the investigation to conclude and the courts to decide), and he was apparently unharmed after a ninety-minute conversation. The fact that they would float that “no harm” notion when the guy was armed and rammed through the gates pretty much confirms in everyone’s minds that white perpetrators of violence get treated separately and less lethally than anyone else – but they remain oblivious to it. Incredible.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The limits of Trudeau’s patience

Posted on by

Late in the day yesterday, Justin Trudeau announced that he had come to the limit of his patience, that his calls for dialogue were not being heeded, and that it was time for the barricades to come down – something that was hinted at during Question Period a couple of hours earlier when the parliamentary secretaries sent to recite scripts said that “dialogue has its limits.” Trudeau did not say how those blockades were to come down – he wasn’t issuing orders to police, given that the enforcement was a matter of provincial jurisdiction, but part of the call was for Indigenous leadership to basically get their own people to stand down (though that didn’t seem to go so well on Wednesday after one Mohawk grand chief had to walk back his calls for de-escalation). And while some of the premiers, Scott Moe included, said they were pleased by the changed message, Doug Ford continued to blame Trudeau for things happening in his own backyard.

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1230971079092514816

In the hours after the press conference, one sympathetic blockade south of Montreal was abandoned when riot police showed up to enforce the court injunction there. And in BC, the province’s Environmental Assessment Office suddenly told Coastal GasLink that they needed to engage in further consultations with the Wet’suwet’en people, since deficiencies in their previous efforts were pointed out to them over the course of the past couple of weeks, and were given 30 days to do so, which could further de-escalate the situation as the RCMP are moving out of their enforcement operations. But at the same time, that same group of hereditary chiefs has been shifting their demands, so that one minute on TV they’re saying the RCMP physically removing themselves from those operations was enough to start talks, the next minute putting out a press release saying that the RCMP needed to be out of their territory entirely, including routine policework, and then telling a radio station that because of Trudeau’s statement that they’re going to delay talks even further – all things that seem to me to further bolster Trudeau’s position that he’s been the reasonable one and the other side hasn’t been. And as for all of those people who insist that Trudeau is simply saying what Scheer did four days ago are ignoring the very important nuances of what has happened, as Andrew Coyne points out below.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1230958409530429440

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1230958637696344064

As for the handwringing by the likes of Scheer and Jason Kenney that these protests send a signal that things can’t get built in Canada, perhaps the signal is that things can’t get built the same way, cutting corners and running roughshod over these First Nations like they used to be able to. It’s like people who lament that we couldn’t build the railways these days, who seem to blithely ignore that said railways were built by displacing First Nations along its path, and importing virtual slave labour from China to do the work. If they think that’s the kind of thing that would fly today, then perhaps they need to give their heads a shake.

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert worries that these protests were the “dress rehearsal” for future protests against the Trans Mountain construction, however I have a feeling that there are enough points of difference between the facts related to Wet’suwet’en territory and the Trans Mountain route that it will wind up playing very differently if that were to happen. Matt Gurney delves into the logistics and supply chains that depend on the rail corridors in this country, and how vulnerable the blockade has made us. Gurney also has a very good three-part series on Wet’sewet’en law and how it relates to the situation, which is well worth your time (parts one, two, and three). Paul Wells is dubious about Trudeau’s four-day limit to his patience, and the signals that it sends.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cuts and capacity

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer made a defensive manoeuvre yesterday by sending letters to each of the premiers promising that he wouldn’t cut health or social transfers if he formed government – his way of heading off attacks from Justin Trudeau that are trying to paint Scheer with the same brush as Doug Ford, as Ford continues to make ill-considered cuts across Ontario without regard for logic or reason (while, oddly enough, his government’s spending continues to increase). There is an added bit of significance to this in that Ford has spent the past year trying to sell the message that Ontario’s books are such a basket case that the province is in the road to bankruptcy – which is a complete and total fabrication. While yes, Ontario does have a high debt-to-GDP ratio, we also have to remember that the previous government was borrowing money where interest rates are below the rate of inflation – essentially they are getting free money that they could use to invest in the province.

Enter Kevin Carmichael at the Financial Post, who wrote a must-read contemplation of the state of the federal books yesterday. It’s an adult conversation about the actual state of our finances – contrary to Scheer, our books are in great shape and the deficit is miniscule, and contrary to Trudeau and Bill Morneau, the deficits are coming in smaller than projected and growth is greater than projected and with no new increases in spending, we could be back in surplus before the 2023 election (thought that is always this government’s problem). And with that in mind, he poses the question – do we need to sock away surpluses in anticipation of a future recession even though we already have the capacity to deal with it, or do we spend our current capacity on something that would have lasting changes for our economy, like national childcare? It’s the kind of grown-up conversation that we should be having, but we’re not as parties snipe at one another over who is more “divisive.”

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1157119930434609153

Continue reading →

Roundup: Untenable ideas that get print

Posted on by

There were a couple of pieces over the weekend that had me scowling a little, mostly because they don’t seem terribly well thought-through when you actually delve in a little. One of them was a piece in Maclean’s that used polling data to posit the idea of a Green Party-NDP merger which is a bit silly because the parties are nothing alike in the slightest. The premise that they both claim to care about the environment and appeal to youth is flimsy on its face, because the Greens aren’t really that “progressive” of a party seeing as the federal party came into being with a lot of disaffected Red Tories in their mix, and if you delve into some of their non-environmental policies, there’s not a lot of millennial progressivity in there. (Seriously, it’s a dog’s breakfast of things, as they discovered in the last election when it turned out that a bunch of their social policies were written by men’s rights activists, given that there is a lack of adult supervision when it comes to policy development in that party). Add to that, the party cultures are essentially night and day – the NDP are centralizing and are about solidarity at all costs (and they rigidly enforce it), while the Greens are decentralized to the point of practical incoherence. I get that there is going to be a bit of a fad in political circles right now that believes that Alberta “proved” that mergers work given the Progressive Conservative + Wildrose Alliance “merger” into the UCP was prototypical, but that would be looking at quantitative data over qualitative – and the UCP is still young.

The other piece that deserves some consternation was Justin Ling’s op-ed that suggested that co-leaders would be a great thing for parties to deal with the problem of presidentialised leadership politics, and look how great it’s working for Quebec Solidaire. Err, except the solution to our presidentialised leadership politics in this country isn’t to share power, but rather to restore the selection and firing process to the hands of caucus. The biggest flaw in Ling’s argument, however, is that it’s antithetical to the way in which our system is structured, which is that it’s about giving advice to the Queen (and by extension, the Governor General/lieutenant governor). That requires a single voice – which is why Cabinet Solidarity is a Thing – and it’s also to create a single point of accountability. If you have dual leadership, then it becomes harder to pin blame. It also has more than enough potential to create factionalisation within parties more than we have already, as different parts of the caucus align themselves behind one co-leader or the other in power struggles. As with so many of these kinds of reform ideas, they sound interesting on the surface, that’s about it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: In the testimony’s aftermath

Posted on by

Yesterday was the day for performative outrage, as the Conservatives demanded – and got – an “emergency debate” on their call for Justin Trudeau to resign. Of course, given the reality of how our parliament works these days, “debate” is a term to be used very loosely, and it was more like several late-night hours of stilted speeches being read to one another for the sake of looking tough. Woo. On the committee front, Gerald Butts offered to testify on his own behalf, which was accepted, and both Michael Wernick and the deputy minister of justice are on their way back for another round, though none of the other staffers mentioned by Wilson-Raybould are (though that is also because they shouldn’t appear before committee, under the doctrine of ministerial responsibility – it’s for ministers and deputy ministers as accountability officers to appear as they are responsible for them). Ministers of the Crown were also doing the media rounds, including Bill Morneau and Chrystia Freeland, and most of them were offering variations of the line that while they thought that Jody Wilson-Raybould was telling the truth as she saw it, they also believe the PM in that he would never be inappropriate or cross a line, which made most of the pundit class’ heads implode – never mind that the crux of this whole matter is that it’s a subjective test as to what kind of pressure is or is not appropriate. (On a related note, the Liberals really, really need to put Carla Qualtrough out more. She is easily one of the best communicators that they have in Cabinet, but she never gets out there enough on items other than Phoenix, which is too bad because they desperately need someone with her communications skills out in public). And we’ll see how this continues to play out in the caucus as well, given that the usual suspects are not remaining so silent, and the not-so-usual suspects have openly stated things like “sour grapes” (before being made to apologise).

https://twitter.com/WayneLongSJ/status/1101160075023011840

For context, here is a comparison between what Wilson-Raybould said, and what Michael Wernick testified before the committee. Here’s a look at whether the Ethics Commissioner really can get to the bottom of this whole mess. Here’s the who’s who of everyone Wilson-Raybould named in her testimony. Here’s a roundup of how the Quebec press is treating Wilson-Raybould’s testimony.

In punditry, Susan Delacourt looks at how nervous the Liberal caucus seems by this whole affair, and what that disaffection may be doing to the party in the longer term. Robert Hiltz suggests that Trudeau take a long, hard look at himself and his government, given what this situation has revealed about them. Chris Selley points out that the Liberal treatment of not being Stephen Harper as a virtue is going to be something that ends up costing them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another solution in search of a problem, by-election edition

Posted on by

The good folks at Samara Canada have penned an op-ed in the Globe and Mail to call for legislation that demand swifter by-elections than currently exists, and would seek to remove the discretion of the prime minister in calling them. To this I say nay, because much like fixed election dates, this is a solution in search of a problem. Indeed, the piece entirely ignored that fixed election dates are not only antithetical to our system, which is based on confidence, but that it created a whole host of new problems and solved none. It used to be the big concern that prime ministers would call “snap” elections when it was deemed politically suitable, and that it wholly disadvantaged opposition parties. Of course, that’s entirely a myth that doesn’t survive actual scrutiny (recall that governments in this country were punished when they called elections too soon because they had good poll numbers), and fixed election dates instead created interminable election campaigns that required even more legislation to crack down on spending and advertising in defined pre-writ periods – something that wouldn’t need to exist under the proper system of ministerial discretion.

Throughout the recent round of braying to call by-elections, none of the arguments has convinced me that this is anything more than a moral panic. While the op-ed does correctly point out that MP offices remain staffed and operational, reporting to the party whip instead of the departed MP, the op-ed laments that there is no MP to push files through the bureaucracy – something that is not only not an MP’s job, but is something we should actually be discouraging because it sets up a system that starts to look corrupt, when it becomes who you know that will get action on your files. If anything, parties should actually take advantage of the fact that when a by-election hasn’t been called yet, it gives the riding associations ample time to locate a good candidate, run an effective nomination process, and then start door-knocking. If parties got their act together, they’d have more time to do this, rather than waiting months, and trying to get a hint as to when the by-election might be called before they even start their nominations – something that is absolutely boggling. Jagmeet Singh should have used the time to do the door-knocking at every available opportunity, and yet that didn’t seem to be the case for the months he was complaining that the by-election hadn’t been called.

You don’t have to convince me that it’s important to run these by-elections in a timely manner, and that having an MP in place as soon as possible is the right thing to do. It absolutely is. But more legislative constraints on executive discretion won’t solve any problems, and only creates more of them. We keep seeing this time and again, and yet we keep coming back to yet more proposals for even more of them, creating a spiralling cycle of more rules to fix a problem that was never actually a problem in the first place. Time to step off this merry-go-round.

Continue reading →