Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Roundup: Kabuki theatre around the Elections Act changes

Posted on by

There are days when the state of our parliament achieves the level of farce, and we appear to be having another of those moments. Minister Dominic LeBlanc sent a letter to opposition party leaders – which seems to be a more common occurrence the days – urging them to pass the bill that would allow for pandemic-related changes to the Canada Elections Act per the request of the Chief Electoral Officer. This bill was tabled back in December, and we have just exhausted the sitting weeks in March, and it still has not even made it to committee, in part because the Conservatives have spent weeks using procedural tactics to delay debate on most every piece of legislation on the Order Paper.

LeBlanc apparently mentioned the upcoming budget in the letter, because that is a confidence measure and this is a hung parliament, so it is possible that the government could face a non-confidence vote and trigger an election at pretty much any point. And so during what debate there has been on this bill, the opposition MPs keep saying that there’s no imminent election unless the Liberals plan on calling one, and the NDP are going so far as to say that they simply need to work together to avoid one. Essentially, they get to accuse the government of opportunism for trying to do their due diligence at the request of the Chief Electoral Officer, which is cute for everyone involved.

But here’s the real kicker that makes this all a farce – the bill has an implementation period of 90 days after royal assent. The House isn’t sitting for the next two weeks, and even if they managed to have a Second Reading vote, speed it through committee and rush it to the Senate, I don’t image that it could be passed both chambers before the 23rd of April at the earliest, and only then would that 90-day clock start. That means that the changes couldn’t be fully implemented until the very end of July, meaning that even if the budget were the crux by which the government could fall (those votes would likely happen sometime in early May), there is no way that these changes could pass before a spring election could be called (considering the usual writ period of about six weeks). Any party pushing for an election without these changes would be suicidal. The government really has no interest in calling an election (seriously, and I’ve spoken to ministers who lament the number of items they have on the Order Paper that they need to see passed), especially because we are now into a Third Wave of this pandemic and there is no possible way we can vaccinate our way out of it without a time machine, so all of this chest-thumping by parties (and pleading by bored pundits) is for naught. This is all a bunch of Kabuki theatre for the sake of scoring points. We are not a serious country.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not a tax but a regulatory charge

Posted on by

The big news yesterday was that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 6-3 that the federal government’s carbon price backstop was indeed constitutional, and included in that ruling was that the price was not a tax, but a constitutionally valid regulatory charge. This is important for a couple of reasons – taxes go to general revenue, whereas regulatory charges must be cycled for specific purposes, and in this case, they are rebated to the provinces in which they are collected, and under the federal backstop, if a province doesn’t have a revenue recycling mechanism, these carbon charges are rebated at a rate whereby most households will get more back than they paid into it owing to the fact that institutions who pay the prices don’t get those same rebates.

Of course, you wouldn’t know it based on a bulk of the coverage in this country, for whom the common headline was “Supreme Court declares carbon tax constitutional.” CBC, iPolitics, The Globe and Mail, Global TV, the Postmedia chain – all of them using “carbon tax” throughout to describe the very ruling that says it’s not a tax. This matters for a couple of reasons – one of them is that calling it a tax is actively misleading as this charge does not go into general revenue. Why is that important? Recall that in the lead-up to the last election, then-Conservative leader Andrew Scheer kept declaring that the federal “carbon tax” would keep increasing because the government needed the revenues to pay for their deficits – a lie because it’s not a tax, and those revenues got rebated to household. But he almost never got corrected on that, because people kept using “tax.” Erin O’Toole keeps offering the lie that this “tax” is punishing low-income households, again misleading because of the rebates, which again, few people correct him on.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1375152876641746947

The other reason it matters is because using “tax” fits it into a particular ideological framing device for which “taxes” are a bad thing. “Taxation is theft,” and all of that particular bullshit, but this is a particular frame that serves those narratives. Journalists should be under no obligation to carry water for those interests, and if anyone says “calling it a tax is just easier,” then you are party to misinformation. And I am starting to wonder how many of my journalist colleagues either didn’t pay attention or skipped the class in journalism school where we discussed framing devices and how they influence coverage. A few outlets were able to get the nomenclature correct – that others couldn’t is a problem.

Meanwhile, Jason Markusoff makes note of what certain premiers did and did not say about the result, given that this is now a reality that they will be forced to contend with. Heather Scoffield considers the decision the stake to the heart of governments’ ability to drag their feet on tackling climate change. Colby Cosh takes a deep dive into the ruling’s exploration of the Peace, Order and Good Government provisions of the constitution.

Continue reading →

QP: Those aren’t the transfers we’re looking for

Posted on by

On a slightly muggy Thursday in Ottawa, in the House of Commons, the Liberal benches were back down to three MPs, including two ministers, because we can’t have nice things. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and he decried delays in vaccines that have not materialised — mere rumours thereof — and he demanded a plan to end lockdowns. Rachel Bendayan reminded him that we are actually ahead of schedule on vaccine deliveries, and we had assurances from the European Commission. O’Toole raised the dosing directives — which is not a federal responsibility — for which Patty Hajdu launched into a spiel about science and evidence and how those evolve. O’Toole switched to French to repeat his first question, and Bendayan repeated her answer in French. O’Toole then returned to English to cite the Auditor General saying that this government shut GPHIN down, for which Hajdu countered with the expert panel report that said that problems with GPHIN did not affect when were alerted to the possible pandemic. O’Toole then repeated the question in French, and Hajdu spoke about the expansion of the Public Health Agency, and exhorted him to pass Bill C-14, which has more public health supports in it.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he declared that the announced one-time transfer to the provinces was not good enough, and he repeated their original demand of $28 billion without strings. Patty Hajdu reminded him of the other transfers and federal supports already given. Therrien was not mollified and demanded more, and got much the same response.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, raised the loss of seven women in Quebec over the past seven weeks to domestic violence, and demanded an end to this femicide. Maryam Monsef assured him that the government takes this seriously and listed some actions taken. Singh switched to English to decry that the government was not doing enough for climate change, for which Jonathan Wilkinson raised this morning’s Supreme Court of Canada ruling, and stated that the plans laid out are some of the most comprehensive in the world.

Continue reading →

Roundup: CBC’s baffling mandate talk

Posted on by

There are some pretty questionable narratives that circulate in Canadian media for a lot of very dubious reasons, and we had another winner yesterday, when Justin Trudeau was on Peter Mansbridge’s podcast. Bafflingly, he was asked if he needed to go through an election to get a “mandate” to implement his upcoming budget, and I cannot even.

I. Cannot. Even.

Trudeau – semi-correctly – noted that he does not because he already one.

This notion that we somehow have “mandates” in our system is completely divorced from reality. We don’t have mandates – governments operate on the basis of confidence. They are appointed by the Governor General based on their ability to maintain the confidence of the Chamber – they are not popularly elected. They do not need to solely operate on what was in the election, because a) events, dear boy, events, and b) they operate on the basis of confidence. If the legislature has a problem with the government’s agenda, they will let them know. It’s also incredibly difficult to claim a “mandate” in our electoral system given that we operate by plurality, and even more especially when we have a hung parliament. (More on this from Philippe Lagassé here).

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1374805012120014862

Even more to the point, why the gods damned CBC would write up 800 words on this interaction for a dynamic that does not exist in a Westminster parliamentary system like ours is boggling.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A nuanced conversation post-interview? Hardly.

Posted on by

I’ll say right off that I did not watch That Interview last night because I was trying to have what little life I have available to me in these pandemic times, but judging from the reaction over the Twitter Machine, I have a feeling that we’re in for a week full of boneheaded op-eds and “tough questions” about being a constitutional monarchy, or whether we should abandon the monarchy. Well, good luck with that, because we’d need to rewrite the constitution from top to bottom, because the Crown is the central organising principle, and good luck deciding on just what we would replace the monarchy with. No, seriously – good luck, because that exercise went so poorly in Australia that not only did their republican referendum failed, but support for the monarchy has been on the rise since.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1368770788128620544

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1368771249464348677

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1368771778047262727

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1368772293552267270

And lo, some of our country’s Serious Journalists are already Asking Questions™. And it’s going about as well as you can expect.

So, yeah. That’s what we can look forward to this week. I can’t wait, because I’m sure it’ll be even dumber than we expect.

https://twitter.com/tomhawthorn/status/1368818526564229121

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not calling out conspiracy theories

Posted on by

Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant has been spreading conspiracy theories about the Liberals on her YouTube channel, and in conversations with campus conservative clubs, and how does The Canadian Press frame it? “Tory MP Cheryl Gallant accused of peddling ‘deranged conspiracy theories’ by Liberals.”

No.

Gallant outright peddled batshit lunacy, and CP went and both-sided the it rather than point out what Gallant was up to. “The Liberals say this. The Conservatives say this. Who’s right? You decide!” No, that’s not good enough. This is exactly the reason why political leaders realised that they could get away with outright lying to people – because they’re not being called out on it, since these outlets feel the need to be performatively “objective” and “fair,” and both-sides rather than be objective in pointing out that the kinds of things Gallant is saying are outrageous falsehoods in the headline and lead paragraphs. And speaking of leaders who lie, what was Erin O’Toole’s response when this was brought up? That this was just the Liberals trying to create a distraction. Seriously, that’s what he said. So, he’s tacitly endorsing that this is the kind of thing that’s okay in his party. Then again, he’s been fine with the outrageous lies being told by his MPs in Question Period and on social media, and has contributed more than a few of them himself, so I’m not sure why I’m surprised that he hasn’t drawn the line at behaviour like Gallant’s.

Another case in point of how media is doing active harm has been the way the COVAX Facility has been framed, as every single outlet calls it a way to give vaccines to poor countries as though it’s some kind of charity. It’s not, and that framing is wrong, and actually undermines the programme. (Case in point here). The whole gods damned point of COVAX is for wealthy countries like Canada to sign up and get doses from them so that it encourages them to invest and use their capital to leverage vaccine manufacturers to scale up production, and gives heft to the bulk purchases so that low-income countries can get equitable access. Yes, it has a separate arm that is solely about donations, but the main programme relies on countries like Canada to buy doses from there, not just donate money. And yet you wouldn’t know it ready or listening to any media outlet in this country. (And seriously – the reason other G7 countries have not taken their doses is because the only vaccine available through COVAX at this point is the AstraZeneca vaccine, which those countries are apparently producing for themselves so they don’t need that vaccine.) But hey, there is an established narrative that the media consensus has decided to feed into rather than taking ten minutes to read the gods damned GAVI website to understand how it works so that they can describe it properly, and we must service the narrative, right?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ford is steering Ontario into the third wave

Posted on by

Ontario is seeing the biggest rise in the B117 variant of COVID – known colloquially as the UK variant – and yet Doug Ford is promising to start lifting restrictions later this week. We’ve only just gotten first doses to residents of long-term care facilities, and even those vaccinations won’t have a dent in ICU admissions, and yet, Ford and company are barrelling ahead with nonsensical plans. Another example was to delay March Break until April, ostensibly to prevent travel (because there is always travel over holidays), but it seems to also fly in the face of measures related to closing schools to prevent more spread, and that it could have had that utility.

Nevertheless, the province’s own modelling shows a disastrous third wave oncoming because of these more transmissible variants, and point to the need to keep up current restrictions. Ford plans to go ahead with loosening them. And then there was this remarkable exchange where a TVO reporter asked if the province was headed for disaster on this current course, and the public health officials essentially confirmed it.

Ontario is being governed by a group of murderclowns. There is no other explanation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s use of stock photos is telling

Posted on by

You may have noticed that Erin O’Toole has been launching a new social media campaign about the dire state of our economy, using stock photo images to illustrate his points. Over my years in journalism, I have come to be very wary of the use of stock images by parties in their advertising, because much of it is inherently deceptive or manipulative (aside from being cheap to slap into their products) – and I will fully credit Glen McGregor for this.

So, what have we seen with two of O’Toole’s posts? One of them was about January’s brutal job numbers, accompanied by a stock photo of a young white guy in a hoodie, looking somewhat distressed. The problem? Those same job numbers showed disproportionate losses among women and visible minorities because the most affected sectors were wholesale and retail trade, as well as accommodation and food services – which makes sense given all of the closures in the second wave. In other words, the images he put up was not only tone deaf, but speaks to just who he thinks his voter base will respond sympathetically to, which says a lot. (The only upside here is that he model was actually Canadian and not a Romanian, but when said model found out about it, he chimed in).

https://twitter.com/TunaPhish09/status/1359408430264377347

O’Toole posted another one yesterday about standing up for Canadian workers, using a photo of a (white) construction worker. But again, if you look at last month’s job numbers, construction jobs were actually up – they were the main driver of goods-producing jobs (which were a net gain rather than a net loss on the month). Again, though, this is about what O’Toole is signalling what kinds of jobs he thinks matters, and it’s not where the losses have been. As he starts to make a lot of noise about his recovery plans and supposed economic dream team, he is sending very loud signals about what he thinks the recovery should look like, and it appears to be pretty divorced from what everyone else thinks it should look like, and that is something worth paying attention to.

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: Not another Supreme Court reference

Posted on by

The medical assistance in dying bill is finally before the Senate’s legal and constitutional affairs committee, as the (extended) deadline approaches for it to be passed to comply with a Quebec court ruling, and we have justice minister David Lametti saying that there is always the possibility that they could yet refer this bill to the Supreme Court of Canada to get their judgment on whether it will meet the courts’ requirements. And I just cannot with this.

This is part of a pattern in this country where anytime there is a contentious or “moral” issue, parliamentarians of all stripes get afraid to put their necks on the line for something – no matter how right the cause is – and insist that the courts weigh in so that they can do the performative action of looking like they were dragged, kicking and screaming, into complying. They did this with lesbian and gay rights, they did this with safe injection sites, they did this with prostitution laws, and they did this with assisted dying – and in the cases of both prostitution laws and assisted dying, the laws drafted to replace those that were struck down were not going to comply with the court’s rulings, and yet they went ahead with them anyway so that they could force a new round of court challenges to really put on a show of kicking and screaming. It’s spineless, and it causes so much more unnecessary suffering (and in some cases, like with prostitution laws, deaths) when better laws could and should be drafted, but those MPs and senators who push for full compliance get sidelined by the skittish majority. And in the case of assisted dying, so many of those pushing to go back to the courts are simply seeking to re-litigate the action, which is not going to happen. A unanimous decision is not going to be scaled back on a second hearing.

While I am encouraged that Lametti did try to say that this option is not the best one, and his office later clarified that they have no plan to have yet another reference on assisted dying, but the fact that you have his clamour of people who don’t want to either make a decision, or who want to re-litigate the same issues, clamouring to send this back to the Supreme Court is disappointing. That parliament can’t respond to the Court’s ruling in a reasonable manner is one of the most irritating things about how we run this country, and it would be great if our MPs (and some senators) could forego the theatrics.

Continue reading →