Tag Archives: Trade

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 →

Roundup: Rota says no problem here

Posted on by

CBC checked in with House of Commons Speaker Anthony Rota over the weekend, and well, it was about as trite and saccharine as one might expect from Rota, particularly given the current era of hybrid sittings. Everything’s under control. Situation normal. We’re all fine now here, thank you.

It’s not fine. They haven’t solved the problem where the interpreters are suffering extremely high rates of injuries (and I have spoken to one interpreter who says part of the problem is the House of Commons’ system itself, not just the Zoom platform), but they are extremely concerned about the possibility of permanent hearing loss from these injuries. I haven’t seen Rota or any of the House leaders aware or even speak to the problem. Meanwhile, Peter Julian thinks the solution is just to hire more interpreters—but there aren’t any more. This year’s class at the University of Ottawa will graduate four new interpreters, which isn’t even enough to replace those who are retiring. There is a looming crisis coming that will have a very detrimental effect on our Parliament, particularly if we want to continue operating in a bilingual capacity. Hybrid sittings are only making it worse because the existing interpreters are burning out at a rapid rate, they’re not adequately compensating the limited number of freelancers who are filling in, and if they decide that the possibility of permanent hearing loss from these injuries isn’t enough to bother continuing, well, Parliament is going to be screwed for a decade to come, because they were too self-absorbed to take the adequate precautions to meet in person, while patting themselves on the back for “setting a good example” of meeting remotely. Never mind the human cost of that “good example.”

I have said it before, and I will keep saying it—there is no moral justification for hybrid sittings given the human cost this is taking. And it would be great if the gods damned Speaker could actually speak up on behalf of the interpreters and make that case rather than simply grinning and gently chiding the MPs who keep making their lives difficult.

Continue reading →

Roundup: At long last, the mandate letters

Posted on by

On what turned out to be the final sitting day of 2021 for the House of Commons, the prime minister finally released the mandate letters for his ministers, nearly three months after the election, and two after they were sworn in to their new jobs. I’m not sure how well I can articulate the utter absurdity of the situation, because there is really no excuse why it took this long (let along why it took him as long as it did to swear in his Cabinet or to summon Parliament). The fact that they were released after the House agreed to rise at the end of the sitting day means that there can be no interrogation of these letters by the opposition until January 31st, which is way too long.

As for the letters themselves, there is a theme among them about building a more inclusive and fair country, and for tangible results to be better communicated to Canadians (you think?). Some of the highlights include:

  • Ordering several ministers to take a harder line on trade tensions with the US
  • Resurrecting legislation on CanCon requirements for the internet and having web giants pay news outlets, as well as modernising the CBC
  • Renewed action to fighting systemic racism, along with a number of initiatives directed toward the Black community
  • Implementing UNDRIP in all decisions
  • Developing a new cyber-security strategy

No doubt more attention will be paid to these letters over the coming days, and we’ll see how much misunderstanding comes from them (recall the line about not creating new permanent spending programmes from Chrystia Freeland’s previous letter which people took to mean all rather than in the context of COVID supports). It also looks like we’re getting talking heads grousing about inclusivity as though it were somehow a distraction from economic growth when inclusive growth is where the country needs to be headed to head off economic challenges plaguing us since before the pandemic.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1471544703212404736

Continue reading →

QP: Deception about deflation

Posted on by

For the final Question Period of 2021—which was still undetermined as things got underway, as the House Leaders were engaged in a game of chicken—neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present, but the latter would appear virtually. Erin O’Toole led off, script in front of him, and he immediately started off with a lie about deflation, which did happen, and he was presuming it to be a good thing because it would lower prices, when in fact it would have led to a spiral that turned into a depression as businesses couldn’t service their debts. Chrystia Freeland, by video, called this out as misinformation, and noted that Stephen Poloz cited that the government’s actions averted a second Great Depression. O’Toole railed about Freeland’s alleged misinformation during the election campaign and compared her to Donald Trump, and Freeland called O’Toole the leader of flip-flops, and noted that in the election the Conservatives promised even more spending while they were currently railing against it, and that a consistent position might be nice. O’Toole repeated his first question in French, and Freeland repeated the Poloz comments in French. John Barlow got up and railed about the export ban on PEI potatoes and wondered why the agriculture minister was not currently in Washington resolving the situation. Freeland assured him the federal government was working to resolve if and noted she was next to the prime minister when he raised it with Biden, while Conservatives advocate capitulation. Barlow insisted that this has basically destroyed PEI, and Freeland dismissed this as scaremongering, and reassured farmers they were working on it like they did with previous disputes they won on.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and blamed the Quebec teacher who was reassigned for wearing a hijab, railing that she knowingly broke the law and saying otherwise was Quebec bashing. Freeland calmly recited that they stand with Quebeckers who stand up for individual rights and freedoms. Therrien railed that mayors are funding court challenges, accusing them of not understanding secularism or democracy, and Freeland gave some fairly disarming reassurances that the federal government works well with Quebec and the Bloc shouldn’t pick fights.

Peter Julian rose for the Bloc, and in French, he worried that omicron could lead to lockdowns with no supports, to which Freeland made a pitch for MPs to pass Bill C-2 to provide necessary supports. Julian shouted the same question again in English, and Freeland repeated her response in the other official language. 

Continue reading →

QP: Ignoring the threats of a trade war

Posted on by

In advance of the fall fiscal update, neither the PM nor the finance minister were absent, but so were all of the other leaders. Michell Rempel Garner led off for the Conservatives, and grumbled that the Americans want Saudi and Iranian oil over Canadian imports, for which Steven Guilbeault reminded her that the world of energy is changing, and that the future was in renewables, and that the record investments were happening in Alberta. Garner needled that she wanted Mary Ng to answer instead of a man to answer for her, for which Ng stood up and took exception to how the question was framed, before asserting that she always stands up for Canadian workers. Rempel Garner accused the government of being happy to offshore jobs to climate destroying countries, and this time François-Philippe Champagne stood up to praise their leadership in clean energy sectors. Gérard Deltell took over in French, and he worried about the American EV tax credit and stated that the government was doing nothing about it, to which Ng reminded him of their threat of retaliatory tariffs that they delivered to the US. Deltell again accused the government of doing nothing, and Ng listed how they have engaged with the US administration.

Alain Therrien rose for the Bloc, and complained that Trudeau was not currently interfering in the fight against Bill 21, and then demanded no interference in court challenges, for which David Lametti recited that nobody should lose their job for how they dress or their religion, and noted the were protests in Chelsea, Quebec, about the removal of a teacher. Therrien then railed that UN Ambassador Bob Rae said that Bill 21 defies the UN Declaration of Human Rights and wanted him recalled, for which Lametti simply asserted that they were monitoring the situation.

Jagmeet Singh suddenly appeared and complained about inflation and the GIS clawbacks, for which Kamal Khera read her talking points about supporting senior and working toward a solution on the clawbacks. Singh then to French to repeat the question, and this time Randy Boissonnault recited a litany of their support programmes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland is setting her policy own agenda—oh noes!

Posted on by

The Globe and Mail had a strange hit piece out yesterday that was largely targeted at Chrystia Freeland, but it was kind of all over the place and seemed to be missing the mark on a few different tangents. It was framed around Michael Sabia, the new-ish deputy minister of finance, and the fact that he hasn’t made any headway in reining in spending or coming out with a “growth agenda,” as though we aren’t still in a global pandemic that has required extraordinary government fiscal measures in order to keep the economy from spiralling into a depression, or the fact that the last budget was a growth agenda, but it was focused on inclusive growth rather than tax cuts, which a particular generation cannot wrap their heads around (and the fact that the piece singles out the childcare plan is evidence of this fact).

What was particularly troubling about the piece was the fact that it couldn’t quite decide how it was attacking Freeland. On the one hand, it worried that she was too hands-off in the department, leaving Sabia to manage it while she dealt with big policy items (for which she was attacked in absentia during Question Period yesterday), while at the same time, it is overly concerned that Department of Finance officials aren’t driving policy, but the government is. Which, erm, is kind of how things work in our system. The civil service is supposed to provide fearless advice but also do the work of implementing the policies and directives of their political bosses. That’s the whole point of a democracy—this is not a technocracy where the bureaucrats run the show, and if these sore Finance officials have a problem with that, perhaps they either need a refresher on how this works, or they need to find themselves out of the civil service.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1470409184076185600

None of this is particularly surprising, mind you—there are still too many pundits and journalists who still think it’s 1995 and will always be 1995, because that is the established media narrative by which they must always obey (and this hit piece also touches on the Cult of the Insider narrative as well with all of the anonymous inside sources). And the fact that Freeland is a woman holding the job, and is focusing on things like inclusive growth and not the usual “tax cuts=jobs” agenda frankly makes it too easy for the 1995 narrative to keep being circulated. But it’s not 1995, and perhaps it’s time that We The Media stop pretending otherwise, because this kind of hit piece was frankly something that should not have seen the light of day.

Continue reading →