Tag Archives: Bank of Canada

Roundup: A “debate” spectacle sans substance

Posted on by

It is now around day seventy-eight of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like the Ukrainians have made some gains in the eastern part of the country, pushing Russian forces out of four villages near Kharkiv. Meanwhile, a team of Ukrainian soldiers has been tasked with revisiting recent battlefields around Kyiv to gather the dead, and have recovered the remains of around 200 Russian soldiers thus far. It sounds like they may try to return these bodies to Russia in exchange for prisoners, but we’ll see if those kinds of deals hold.

Closer to home, it was the first official English debate of the Conservative leadership race, and it was…an experience. While it was not the hostile snipe-fest that was the Conference Formerly Known As the Manning Conference debate, it was a strange format where they tried to have limited engagements between candidates, to control the temptation to talk over one another, and then insisted that the audience not clap or boo, which…defeats the whole point of a live audience, and it was a real choice to try and control their reactions. And it had a sad trombone sound. No, seriously. Not every segment was on policy—some of it were personal, asking candidates what they’re reading, or the kinds of music they like, which is fine and humanizes them a little. (But seriously, Roman Baber choosing Amy Winehouse? Has he ever listened to what she has to say in her lyrics?)

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1524548247456559104

Some observation on each candidate, in the drawn order of their opening statements:

  • Scott Aitchison: While he is aiming to be the reasonable, middle-of-the-road candidates, there are plenty of places where he displays the intellectual heft of the truck commercial he launched his campaign with. A lot of what he offered is not really credible, particularly on environmental or resource development files.
  • Roman Baber: I’m not going to mince words. Honestly, this guy is a moron. He says a lot of things that he’s picked up in the online discourse, but none of it makes any sense, most of it is contradictory, and he’s utterly vacuous—but nobody would call him on that.
  • Patrick Brown: While he kept insisting that he’s the only one who can deliver the suburbs like in the GTA, Brown also made some particular missteps, like insisting he would advance a no-fly zone over Ukraine (essentially committing Canada to a shooting war with a nuclear power), or that the point of reconciliation with Indigenous people is so that we can build more pipelines.
  • Pierre Poilievre: Aside from just using “freedom!” in as many answers as possible, he opened by outright attacking the Bank of Canada and saying he would replace the governor if he were to form government, which is a pretty big bomb to drop. He lied and prevaricated about his previous statements and positions, particularly during the Bitcoin portion of the evening. But the longer the evening went on, the more it became clear that he was just going down the right-wing populist checklist and name-checking every item on it, whether it was saying he’s reading Jordan Peterson’s book, or that he wants to fight “government censorship.” He displayed no principles, just virtue-signalling to the crowd he is courting.
  • Leslyn Lewis: Mostly said a lot of hyperbolic things about how “divided” the country is because of COVID, and that she is somehow going to heal the divides between people who believe in science and evidence, and anti-vaxxers who don’t care how many people they infect because they refuse to wear a mask or stay home. How does plan to heal those divides? Who knows?
  • Jean Charest: Charest was more pugnacious and was willing to break debate rules in order to how do you do, fellow kids?, and insist that he’s the only one who can unite east and west…but he too made a bunch of fairly questionable pronouncements. Like private healthcare delivery could have avoided lockdowns (erm, you saw the States, right?) or that he would cut income taxes to fight inflation (which is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline).

It was an event that begged for booze (which I did not imbibe in, because I had this post to write). But I will leave you with Paul Wells’ suitably acerbic take on the event, which sums the lunacy of it up nicely.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau visits Kyiv

Posted on by

It is now on or about day seventy-five of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like all of the civilians have been evacuated from under the steel plant in Mariupol. Up next to be evacuated are the wounded and medics, presuming that the agreement continues to hold, while the remaining Ukrainian forces under that plant make a final stand. As well, Ukraine’s counter-offensive near Kharkiv continues, as it remains the target of Russian shelling. The heavy weapons arriving from the West could be the key to turning the tide of this particular front. Russians also targeted a school being used as a shelter in Zaporizhzhia, where sixty people are feared to be dead. Also this weekend, US First Lady Jill Biden was in the region to hear from mothers who had evacuated to Romania, and later went into Ukraine and met with Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s wife, Olena Zelenska, as a show of support.

The big news for us, however, was the arrival of Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland, and Mélanie Joly in Ukraine, first to visit the Kyiv suburb of Irpin, where they witnessed the devastation at Russian hands for themselves, before heading into Kyiv to raise the flag and reopen the Canadian embassy, and then to meet with Zelenskyy. Trudeau announced a new round of supports and sanctions, and was soon after followed by a declaration from G7 leaders to pledge solidarity with Ukraine, with the added symbolism that it was Victory in Europe Day, which marked the end of the Second World War.

https://twitter.com/PaulCTV/status/1523303970571452416

Continue reading →

Roundup: Boxing in the Conservatives on abortion

Posted on by

It is approximately day seventy of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russian forces appear to be storming the steel plant in Mariupol, after a handful of civilians were evacuated and made it to Kyiv-controlled areas. As well, UK prime minister Boris Johnson addressed the Ukrainian parliament (and I can’t wait for the usual suspects in this country to start demanding Justin Trudeau to do the same, just because).

Closer to home, that US Supreme Court leak about the potential overturning of their abortion jurisprudence has galvanized politicians in Canada in a number of ways. For the Bloc, they decided to engage in mischief by moving a unanimous consent motion after Question Period about a woman’s right to choose, which was explicitly designed to box the Conservatives into a corner, and they dutifully marched into it—right after Candice Bergen sent out orders to the caucus not to discuss it. Of course, several MPs made their comments on their way into the West Block, while most of the leadership candidates made their feelings known.

This raises questions as to whether this could happen in Canada, and it’s theoretically possible, but not under the current configuration of the Supreme Court of Canada. Of course, the more likely course is for a future government to attempt to criminalise it via the Criminal Code, which they have been attempting to in piecemeal form, either via “sex-selective abortion” legislation, or bills that give rights to foetuses, which undermines the Canadian legal jurisprudence that rights begin at birth. The bigger problem in Canada is uneven access, whether between rural and urban areas within a province, or between provinces, particularly in places like New Brunswick and PEI, and the fact that the federal government has been fairly impotent when it comes to clawbacks of Canada Health Transfers related to not providing this service (which Conservatives don’t insist on federally, but Liberals do, when they are in power). I also think it’s an issue that this “feminist federal government” simply refunded the clawbacks from New Brunswick when the pandemic began so that they couldn’t be cast as the bad guy, instead of being seen to stand up for principles and for access. And lo, we may soon need to be providing access to Americans who come to Canada for the procedure, and that may cause capacity challenges, depending on the province. So we have our challenges, but they’re different ones from the US.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unchecked officers want unchecked financing

Posted on by

It is now on or about day sixty-six of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and there has been a crackdown on “traitors” in the country who have been helping Russian forces, sometimes to their own regret later on. Some 400 people have bene detained in the Kharkiv region under anti-collaboration laws, and because of martial law, due process is not always being followed. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s wife, Olena Zelenska, says the war has not changed her husband, but has revealed his determination to prevail, and that he’s someone you can rely on. Elsewhere in Europe, a pipeline between Greece and Bulgaria that was built over the pandemic is getting ready to come online, which will help relieve the situation of Russia cutting off gas to that country.

Closer to home, I read with interest this piece by Kathryn May about the various independent officers of Parliament trying to establish a funding mechanism for their offices that essentially bypasses government, in the name of “independence.” I am dubious, because as it stands, these officers already have no accountability, and their asking to remove what few mechanisms that either parliament or the government can rein them in is worrying. We have seen how New Brunswick’s particular independent officers are trying to organise the ability so that they can essentially write their own enabling legislation (the column I wrote on this is here), which one has little doubt that the ones in Ottawa are eying with particular interest because they will want to do the same, because “independence.”

As I note in the column, these officers have moved away from their intended goal of serving Parliament and expanding the investigative capacity of MPs and using their expertise to assist with legislation and government programmes, and have instead become external bodies that rely on public opinion to mount pressure on Cabinet to act. This diminishes Parliament rather than enhances it, and it’s one reason why I really do not think it’s wise to allow these officers to accumulate any more unchecked power—especially as they have entranced the media, who not only venerate them, but refuse to believe they can be at fault, which is again a problem because it means that what these officers say is repeated uncritically, no matter how problematic some of it is (looking at you most especially, PBO). We have a problem with our independent officers, but we refuse to admit it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions on the inquiry terms

Posted on by

It is now on or about day sixty-two of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and there were missile strikes throughout the country as Russian forces targeted Ukraine’s rail infrastructure, with a particular eye toward disrupting the ability to move weapons coming in from allied countries in the west toward their positions in the eastern part of the country. (This is the kind of operational security that is at stake when our government won’t give specifics about their weapons shipments). As well, the American officials who just visited Kyiv have said that more weapons are on the way, and that they are hoping to resume activity in their embassies within the country within the next few weeks, and hopefully in Kyiv itself, which would be a major symbolic move (and yes, Canada is making its own considerations for resuming activities, depending on the security situation).

Closer to home, the government waited until the very last moment to launch the public inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act, as the Act stipulates. Justice Paul Rouleau of the Ontario Court of Appeal will head the inquiry, and has 300 days to table his final report in Parliament. While I have a column that delves further into this, I did want to put a few comments here, from national security experts Jessica Davis and Leah West, about particular observations they have about the terms of reference for this inquiry:

Continue reading →

QP: Resurrecting a five-year-old scandal

Posted on by

After a number of tributes for Guy Lafleur, and one for former astronaut Bjarni Tryggvason, things got underway after the two-week break. While he was in town, the prime minister was absent, but his deputy was present, so that was something, though no other leaders were present either. Luc Berthold led off in French, and he he decried the budget, accusing the prime minster of being out of touch. Chrystia Freeland replied that Canadians understand that inflation is a global phenomenon, and she listed some international comparisons to show that Canada was lower, citing the reasons as COVID and Putin. Berthold then pivoted to the story in the Globe and Mail about the RCMP considering laying a fraud charge against the prime minister for the trip to the Aga Khan’s private island, to which Mark Holland stood up to say that this matter was settled years ago. Berthold insisted this proved Trudeau’s lack of judgment, and decried the loophole in the law, and demanded to know when Trudeau last met with the RCMP, and Holland repeated his response. James Bezan repeated the question about the story in English, and he wondered if the prime minister gave himself the power to break the law, and Mark Holland got back up to recite in English that this was settled five years ago and that the Ethics Commissioner had a report. Bezan repeated his question, and Holland sang the praises about the government’s economic actions.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he led with this dubious court decision of the appointment of a unilingual lieutenant governor of New Brunswick, saying it demonstrates that the government treats francophones as second-class citizens, and Ginette Petitpas-Taylor insisted that the LG was taking French lessons, and why they were modernising the Official Languages Act. Therrien kept after this, and added to his outrage the appointment of a unilateral anglophone board of directors at CN Rail, and Omar Alghabra insisted that this board would be rectified in the next round of appointments.

Rachel Blaney rose for the NDP, and she raised the fact that the seniors reimbursed for GIS clawbacks were subjected to a time limit, for which Kamal Khera rose to recite her praise for the government’s actions on seniors. Don Davies raised the fact that the government was backing down on some PMPRB regulatory changes for drug pricing, and Adam van Koeverden read a statement about balancing access for new medicines and lowering drug prices.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Undermining the central bank to score points

Posted on by

It is now approximately day sixty-one of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and after saying that they would blockade the remaining Ukrainians trapped in Mariupol, the Russians have instead tried to storm the steel plant where they are holed up. As well, over Orthodox Easter weekend, they have shelled residential areas of Kharkiv, and fired missiles at Odessa, so that’s concerning. As well, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had a meeting with two US cabinet members, where Zelenskyy is expecting more arms and security guarantees.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1518192560816201728

Closer to home, as the narratives around inflation get more ridiculous the longer they go unchallenged, remember that this both undermines the ability of the Central Bank to do its work, and ultimately it undermines its independence because they have to fight political narratives about them without actually fighting them, which is a hell of a thing to try to do.

And the longer the nonsense goes unchallenged, and my media colleagues try to be cute about “heehee, everyone is a little bit right!” as they both-sides the nonsense, the closer I’m getting to this particular Effin’ bird:

Continue reading →

Roundup: Legitimizing lunatic narratives about inflation

Posted on by

We are now around day fifty-nine of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like Russia is shifting more units to attacking cities in Eastern Ukraine, and what could be a battle to control the country’s industrial heartland. We also have satellite images that show Russians digging mass graves around Mariupol to try and hide evidence of their war crimes and atrocities against civilians in that city. In Russia, the regime is cracking down harder on its critics, including Vladimir Kara-Murza, who is being charged under the new law that criminalises spreading “false information,” and could be imprisoned for up to 15 years as a result.

Closer to home, I have about lost all patience with the way that the inflation numbers are being reported on, particularly because it’s primarily a lot of both-sidesing without actually reading the gods damned Consumer Price Index from Statistics Canada, even though it’s right there, and spells out what the drivers are. But because our media outlets—and both the CBC and The Canadian Press are especially bad about this—are more invested in the appearance of fairness for political messages than actually calling out falsehoods, simply give equal time to all of the messages. This particular piece on the CBC’s site yesterday, that goes and very gently debunks the messages that different political parties are spreading, is a lot more both-sidesing because it’s still giving equal weight to all of these messages, even if it’s getting experts to push back a little bit (but in some cases, still framing it as though some of these messages are still “a little bit right,” which is the cute trick that they’ve been relying on to not look like they’re biased against any party). And how much room is given to explaining the actual drivers? A single, small paragraph that lists a few of them in general terms, rather than laying out the issues of energy production and fuel shortages in certain countries, or the global supply shortage of semiconductor chips, or most importantly, the fact that we’ve had a lot of droughts in food-producing regions, including in Canada, and that is having a huge impact on food prices because the supply simply isn’t there.

Why this becomes even more important is because you have Pierre Poilievre saying flat out that the Bank of Canada’s economists are “financially illiterate,” because he learned better from the crypto bros on YouTube. It’s alarming, and if the mass media can’t push back against this utter lunacy, but instead soft-pedals it and frames it like “everyone is a little bit right” when they don’t actually bother to go to the gods damned statistical data, it lets this utterly bogus narrative gain traction and legitimacy. This is a problem for our democracy and our society in general, because they’re afraid that Poilievre’s bot army will be mad at them. They’re going to call you biased whatever you do, so why not show a bit of fortitude and call the lies what they are?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Incoherent housing plans

Posted on by

We are now on or about day fifty-eight of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russia has declared victory when it comes to their siege of the strategic city of Mariupol, and has ordered its troops not to storm the last pocket of resistance there. But hey, they’ve “liberated” the city by shelling it to rubble, so good job there. It is estimated that some 2000 Ukrainian troops remain on site, spread out in a network of tunnels and bunkers, along with several thousand civilians. Of course, this also means that Russian forces are likely going to simply try and wait out those remaining troops and civilians as they run out of food and supplies, and trap them inside.

Closer to home, Pierre Poilievre has been unveiling more of his housing platform, but…it’s pretty incoherent, in a lot of ways. There isn’t that much financial leverage that the federal government can wield when it comes to ending NIMBYism and seven decades of market incentives for single-family homes that are unsustainable and which only continue to exacerbate the affordability crisis (not to mention the climate crisis). Oh, and Poilievre is defending his own rental property portfolio, citing that he’s providing affordable rental accommodations to two “deserving families.”

The last point on that list is pretty critical—it would undermine central bank independence, and one imagines could actually create a deflationary spiral in the right circumstances that would create a depression, which is precisely what they were avoiding when they engaged in quantitative easing during the pandemic recession. Jennifer Robson has even more concerns about the incoherence of the plan in this thread. Meanwhile, I would also recommend checking out this thread by Mike Moffatt about just how complex the drivers of the housing situation in Ontario is. It’s not just one thing—it’s a lot of moving parts that got us to where we are now.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1517214855572320256

Continue reading →

Roundup: Higher inflation than expected

Posted on by

It is now day fifty-seven (or so) of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and hope is waning for the remaining defenders of Mariupol, and the civilians still sheltering there. As the fighting intensifies in the eastern part of the country, there are also concerns that it will devolve into a war of attrition, which Russia has historically been more able to withstand. We have also learned more about what happened when Russian troops occupied Chernobyl, where staff were working at gunpoint, and sleeping three hours a night in order to safeguard the site and ensure that Russians didn’t tamper with any of the equipment there.

Closer to home, the inflation numbers were released yesterday, and they were much higher than expected, as conflict inflation brought on by the aforementioned invasion of Ukraine is hitting. And of course, most media outlets were useless in explaining the causes of it, while the parties were equally useless in their own reactions. The government keeps focusing on their talking points about things like child care and dental care, and the fact that they indexed benefits, rather than actually explaining the drivers. The Conservatives are railing about “printing money” (which, to be clear, nobody is actually doing) and insisting that the government should declare a GST holiday, which would a) do nothing for grocery prices as most groceries are GST-exempt; and b) would have a stimulative effect and just fuel even more inflation, especially as people would be likely to use said GST holiday to buy big-ticket items. And the NDP, predictably, chalk this up to greed and want higher wealth taxes, which again, do very little about the drivers of inflation.

And then there’s the Bank of Canada, who will be forced to respond with higher rate hikes, but the question becomes whether they’ll keep the increases more gradual—another 50 basis points at the next meeting in June—of if they’ll go even higher as a way of demonstrating that they are really taking this seriously and that the system of inflation control that they’ve been responsible for since the 1990s will prevail. It doesn’t directly address the drives, but it could be that the signals are more important than the actual policy at this point, because the bigger worry is the expectation that inflation will continue, which will turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy—something they are very, very keen to avoid.

Continue reading →