Tag Archives: Trade

Roundup: Proposing to ignore the virus

Posted on by

In the wake of the demands by extremist-led “protests” to lift all vaccine mandates around the country, nowhere as this demand been capitulated to as fast as in Saskatchewan and Alberta, where both provinces are pretty much eliminating their mandates as soon as possible, with no consultation, and while their hospitals are still full. Federally, the Conservatives are making the same demand for this capitulation, and they’re using a bunch of specious arguments, like listing countries that are lifting their restrictions already, never mind that in most of those countries, they have better healthcare capacity than we do, and they are further along in their omicron waves than we are. Fortunately, Ontario is not rushing to join them for a change, so that’s one small favour.

What is more concerning, however, is this talking point about “learning to live with COVID,” but in abandoning all public health measures, including mask mandates, they’re not actually planning to live with COVID—they’re planning to ignore it, to let it rip, to capitulate to the virus as much as they are eager to capitulate to the extremists claiming to protest. Learning to live with the virus would mean adequate and sustainable precautions, better focus on indoor ventilation, ongoing mask mandates in indoor spaces, and so on—and the ongoing insistence on vaccination, because that’s what will save us in the long run. But that’s not what they’re proposing, because they are so keen to return to the old normal, never mind that said world no longer exists by any measure. And it’s not “following the science” to take the notion that we need to just let the virus rip at this point—it’s being intellectually dishonest and pandering to selfish instincts.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Lightbound goes rogue

Posted on by

It was something of a spectacle yesterday to watch Liberal backbencher Joël Lightbound call a press conference to denounce his party’s handling of the pandemic, and to call for a roadmap to end public health measures—never mind that the vast majority of those measures are provincial in nature—and to deploy the farcical Conservative talking points about how “divisive” the prime minister has been about vaccine mandates. (Full transcript here). Some of it made little sense—this virus doesn’t operate on timetables, mandates were deemed necessary because carrots weren’t working anymore and governments needed to employ more sticks to drive up vaccination rates because we still need more people to get fully vaccinated if we want to have any hope of achieving some level of herd immunity, and yes, there are some deeply selfish people who refuse to get vaccinated, and we should absolutely call them out on that fact. (And to the point about complaints of the prime minister’s alleged name-calling around the grifter convoy, he clocked them for what they were, and if a few credulous numpties attaching themselves to this band of grifters, extremists and conspiracy theorists gets offended, they should take a hard look at the company they keep).

This being said, we need to ensure that there is room for MPs to dissent, and the Liberals have been better than most about that in their current incarnation. They have a handful of MPs who routinely go rogue, though generally in not so spectacular a fashion as Lightbound did yesterday. This being said, the comparisons to Jane Philpott and Jody Wilson-Raybould have been circulating, but I don’t find the circumstances remotely similar. Wilson-Raybould had begun a media campaign against the prime minister, and the revelation of the recordings she made of private phone calls was a signal that she was unlikely to be trusted again, which is a huge problem. Philpott, on the other hand, was naively trying to run her own media campaign, cleverly trying to dole out tidbits to various outlets in a coordinated strategy, while she was also found to be taking notes in caucus (which is forbidden—they take away your phones and materials because caucus confidentially needs to be enforced), and again, that led to issues of trust because her media strategy was in the open. That is not the case here, and Lightbound says he continues to have confidence in the government, but felt the need to speak out. While he resigned his position as the party’s Quebec caucus chair, we’ll see if he retains his post as industry committee chair, or if he gets sent off to scrutiny of regulations to cool his heels for a while.

Meanwhile, Althia Raj wishes that we saw more MPs going rogue like Lightbound, while Paul Wells delves deeper into Lightbound, the dynamics at play, and the problem that this government has in its inability to communicate or manage issues.

Continue reading →

QP: In the shadow of O’Toole’s demise

Posted on by

In the wake of the vote ousting Erin O’Toole as Conservative leader, he was absent from the Chamber, as one would very well expect. As well, because Justin Trudeau was still in COVID isolation, he would be answering everything by video. Candice Bergen led off, with her script in front of her, and she demanded that the prime minister bring resolution with the grifter occupation and let them know that they are being heard. Trudeau, by video, first thanked O’Toole for his service, before reminding them that there was an election where vaccine mandates were an issue. Bergen repeated that these grifters need to feel like they’re being heard (you do know that their demand is to overturn democracy, right?), and Trudeau recited that they are engaged in encouraging people to get vaccinated. Bergen worried about the supply chains as a result of this vaccine mandate, and Trudeau reminded her that the mandates have not impacted the supply chain, but COVID has, which is why they need to be vaccinated. Gérard Deltell took over in French and said a bunch of nonsense about the PBO blaming government spending on inflation, which Trudeau disputed given that COVID has ultimately been the cause. Deltell gave a somber recitation about food inflation and insisted that this was not a global problem but because of government spending—a complete falsehood—and Trudeau reiterated that this is a global issue, while they are there to help families.

Yves-François Blanchet, the only leader in person today, rose for the Bloc, and he too paid brief tribute to O’Toole, before worrying about the grifter occupation and wanted concrete action to end it. Trudeau reminded him that politicians do not direct police forces, but they would provide all resources necessary for law enforcement. Blanchet that Trudeau wasn’t taking action and wanted a timeline, and Trudeau noted that he did tell them that they had been heard and that it was time to leave, and that they would continue to work with law enforcement agencies.

Jagmeet Singh appeared by video, and he wondered why the laws to protect healthcare workers are not being enforced—because he just heard that governments don’t direct police, right? Trudeau recited about how they passed that law and that healthcare workers deserve a safe workplace. Singh then made a brief thanks to O’Toole for his service before repeating his question in French, and Trudeau repeated his response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole tells challengers to bring it on

Posted on by

It’s all coming undone. Erin O’Toole’s grip on the leadership of his party is even more tenuous, as a third of the caucus has now signed a letter calling for a vote on a leadership review. While “sources” insisted that Garnett Genuis was one of the ringleaders of this group, in part over anger for the way in which the conversion therapy bill vote was handled, Genuis denies this and says this is an attempt by O’Toole to smear him. Others sources say this is because the party is angry that the Conservatives allowed too many bills to pass unopposed before the end of the year, but we’ll see what other narratives emerge as more MPs start leaking.

https://twitter.com/BobBenzen/status/1488308784703414272

O’Toole responded late in the evening, essentially saying bring on the vote, apparently confident that the other two-thirds of caucus will be with him, but that’s a pretty risky gamble to be making when he’s this weakened, and there is blood in the water. Also, the fact that O’Toole tried to bring up Derek Sloan is very curious considering that he initially protected Sloan when there was a move to expel him from the party after he made racist comments about Dr. Theresa Tam, only to turn against him once O’Toole had secured the leadership thanks to using Sloan’s voters to his advantage. It’s like he doesn’t think anyone can see his blatant opportunism staring them in the face. Oh, and the notion that Andrew Scheer wants to be interim leader is just the chef’s kiss in all of this—one presumes he misses Stornoway and the perquisites that come with it. Scheer is denying it (but it’s not like he’s a paragon of truth either)

Meanwhile, Paul Wells relays more of what he’s hearing from his Conservatives about O’Toole’s likely chances (not good), and fits it into the broader pattern of the party and its predecessor’s leaders going back three-quarters of a century.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Why Canadian MPs resist security clearances

Posted on by

Talk of reforming NSICOP into a full-fledged parliamentary committee is circulating, and it’s all just as well. While I have a full column on this coming out later today, I wanted to post this thread from professor Saideman to set some of the context for that, and to explain part of why we’re in the state we are in Canada when it comes to these things.

https://twitter.com/smsaideman/status/1483076151417389057

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ignoring the broader privacy concerns

Posted on by

The House of Commons Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee met yesterday to discuss the Public Health Agency of Canada’s use of anonymised mobile phone data to assess the efficacy of public health orders. As expected, this was little more than a partisan dog and pony show wrapped up in a bow of concern trolling that ignored the actual privacy issues involved in favour of trying to score points. Which is pretty much how we knew this was going to go down.

There could be actual privacy issues that they could discuss, and summon witnesses from telecom companies that sell this data, or the health companies that use it and track it, but no, they’re going to bring in the minister and Chief Public Health Officer to grill them about the programme, because accountability. And yes, the minister would be accountable politically, but that solves none of the actual issues that might be at fault here, but hey, this is about putting on a show rather than doing something useful, so good job with that, guys.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A plan to tax the unvaxxed

Posted on by

By all accounts, it sounded like Quebec premier François Legault was spit-balling policy when, at the press conference to announce the province’s new chief public health officer, he proposed that the province impose additional costs on the unvaccinated in the form of some kind of surtax that would be “significant,” meaning more than $100. There were no details, which is kind of a big deal, but you immediately had other political leaders worried about “slippery slopes,” as though we don’t have other sin taxes on things like alcohol and cigarettes which impose their own significant public health burdens, as well as concerns that this will further disenfranchise those who are already marginalised. And fair enough.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1481062196314624000

The concerns about whether this somehow contravenes the Canada Health Act seem to be overblown, as it’s not charging for healthcare services, but other concerns about just how this might be implemented remain, as professors like Jennifer Robson articulate below.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Badmouthing the CBC for grift

Posted on by

Because this is occasionally a media criticism blog, I will mention that piece circulating from former CBC producer Tara Henley, who made a splash by quitting her job and starting a Substack blog (with paid subscriptions!) by badmouthing the CBC on her way out the door. While I was initially planning on not mentioning this, because the complaints she makes in the piece merely reflect poorly on her rather than the CBC, but it attracted some bizarre traction yesterday, from the likes of Jody Wilson-Raybould, and Erin O’Toole, who invited her to call him about plans to reform the CBC (as he promised to slash its budget).

But the piece itself (which I’m not going to link to, but I did read when the National Post reprinted it) was not the stunning indictment she claimed it to be, or the usual cadre of CBC-haters have been touting it as. When you get through all of her prose, it seems that her biggest complaint is that the CBC asked her, as a producer, to ensure there were more diverse guests on panels or interview segments. In Henley’s recounting, this was the booming klaxon of “The Wokes are coming!” and how this is some kind of Ivy League American brain worm/neural parasite import that has destroyed the CBC’s reporting over the past 18 months. Reality is most likely that what she considered “compromising” to the reporting was being asked not to use the same six sources on all of the panels or packages she was responsible for—because that is a very real problem with a lot of Canadian news outlets, where they have a Rolodex of usual suspects who have a media profile because they answer phone calls and make themselves available. There are a number of people, whose credentials are actually terrible and who have zero actual credibility or legitimacy, but because they are easy gets for reporters or producers, and they say provocative things, they are go-to sources time and again. That the vast majority of them are heterosexual white men is problem when a news outlet has had it pointed out to them repeatedly that they need more diverse sources. Henley appears to have balked at that.

There are a lot of problems with CBC’s reporting these days—much of it is either reductive both-sidesing, or its credulous stenography that doesn’t challenge what is being said, even if what is being said is wrong or problematic but has a sympathetic person saying it. There are a lot of questionable editorial choices being made in terms of who they are granting anonymity to and who they are not, particularly if it counters the narrative they are trying to set with the particular story (and there was a lot of this in their reporting on the allegations around House of Commons Clerk Charles Robert). There are problems with its mandate creep around their web presence, and yes, they have made very questionable decisions around some of their editorial pieces—and attempts to alter them once published. None of its problems have to do with the fact that Henley was asked to get more diverse voices. But Henley also knew that there is an audience for her recitation of the “anti-woke” platitudes, and she has a book she wants to sell, and figured that a paid Substack was more lucrative than the Mother Corp. And the fact that O’Toole and others are reaching out seems to indicate that she gambled on media illiteracy for this particular grift, in the hopes it might pay off.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Boycotting NSICOP for theatre

Posted on by

Because we cannot trust our current political parties to do their jobs of accountability, Erin O’Toole has announced that he won’t name any MPs to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, citing the Winnipeg Lab documents and completely false insinuations that the committee is a tool of the prime minister’s office to obscure information. It’s bullshit, but it’s bullshit that the party has committed itself to for the sake of political theatre over serious work.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1473261482624397319

To throw a strop over these documents when a) the committee that ordered them no longer exists and won’t be reconstituted; b) the order the committee gave to produce those documents does not exist; and c) the government has offered other compromises to release those documents, both in releasing the unredacted documents to NSICOP, and in proposing an ad hoc committee duplicating the process from the Harper-era Afghan detainee documents, which the Conservatives also rejected for handwavey reasons. Do you see how none of this is adding up to anything coherent, and why the government’s many attempts to release the documents in an unredacted form that will still satisfy national security requirements keep getting rejected for performative reasons?

If NSICOP were really a tool of the PMO to hide information, then its members from both the opposition parties in the Commons and in the Senate would have resigned in protest long ago, and lo, that has never happened, because it’s not a tool of the PMO. O’Toole’s objections are theatre, and nothing more. It would be great if more people would call this theatre out for what it is, rather than just tut-tutting about secrecy. Our MPs have proven time and again that they’re not serious about accountability over national security and intelligence matters, and that they can’t be trusted with the information, and they have proven that the concerns of our national security and intelligence agencies are right, time and again.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A fundamental misunderstanding of the profession

Posted on by

Because this is sometimes a media criticism blog, it’s time once again to look askance at some particularly poor reporting choices by a particular CBC reporter. He has developed quite a pattern and reputation for writing stories about judicial appointments which are skewed toward a certain predilection for creating moral panics, and this really false notion that people are essentially buying judicial nominations with party donations, which is both absurd and not how the system works. And along the way, he mischaracterised comments made by the then-president of the Canadian Bar Association, which I had to go about correcting.

In this particular instance, he is remarking that a new judicial nomination Quebec is a lawyer who argued the case on behalf of opponents of Bill 21 in the province (and didn’t win because the judge noted that the provincial government pre-emptively applied the Notwithstanding Clause). But the entire framing of the story and its implicit narrative is that this is a political appointment for the intention of either tweaking at François Legault, or of signalling federal opposition to the law, which is again absurd, and a completely bizarre understanding of how things work in the legal system.

Let me offer this reminder: lawyers make arguments on behalf of their clients. They don’t need to believe those arguments or subscribe to the beliefs of their clients—they simply need to argue on their behalf. The fact that this lawyer argued on behalf of these clients in opposition to this law should be immaterial to the fact that he applied to be a judge, and it should not be a determining factor in the decision to appoint him. But it does fit the narrative that this particular reporter likes to portray about how judicial appointments work, and the fact that the gods damned CBC is letting him spin this particular narrative and not squashing it for being both wrong and unprofessional is troubling, and makes me wonder what the hell is going on with their editorial standards.

Continue reading →