Tag Archives: David Lametti

Roundup: The wrong people taking credit for disinflation

Posted on by

Statistics Canada released the January Consumer Price Index data yesterday, and lo, it shows that inflation is dipping back into the control range at 2.9% annualized, which was lower than anticipated, and fairly broad-based including food prices decelerating to just above the headline number, meaning prices are stabilising finally, and yet somehow, with carbon prices still in place, and the grocery oligopolies not having been subjected to punitive windfall taxes. Imagine that!

In all seriousness, because there were month-over-month price drops in fuel prices in Manitoba thanks to Wab Kinew’s decision to pause gas taxes, and Saskatchewan not collecting the carbon levy, we got a bunch of people who should know better saying stupid things about carbon prices and inflation. Kinew, who has economics training, should especially know better.

Inflation is a year-over-year measure. Carbon prices have a negligible impact on it because it rises at the same level every year, so it’s not inflationary. A one-time drop in prices is also not deflationary or disinflationary because it’s a one-time drop, not sustained or pervasive. If you need a further explainer, economist Stephen Gordon has resurrected this thread to walk you through it.

On the subject of things that are unfathomably dumb, it looks like the CRA has decided to buy Saskatchewan’s transparent legal fiction that the provincial government is the natural gas distributor for the province, in spite of it being against the clear letter of the federal and provincial law, which means that consequences for the province not remitting the carbon levy on heating will be borne by Cabinet and not the board of SaskEnergy. What the hell?

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian attacks on the northern part of Ukraine killed seven on Tuesday, while Ukraine’s forces say they destroyed 13 out of 19 drones launched by Russia on Wednesday. Ukrainian officials are investigating the Russians shooting three soldiers captured on Sunday. Here is a look at the shattered ruins of Avdiivka. Ukraine’s state arms producer has signed an agreement with a German arms manufacturer to help produce more air defences domestically.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1759942168989360468

Continue reading →

Roundup: The crybully edit

Posted on by

Because yes, everything is that stupid, the Conservatives are crying that Justin Trudeau is racist because in his speech to caucus, he referred to Conservative candidate Jamil Jivani as a “twofer,” and then immediately says that it’s because Jivani is an “insider and an ideologue,” and went on to talk about how he’s a parachute candidate in the Durham by-election. Not sure why this was a topic in said speech to caucus, but it was.

Jivani then edited the video and just used the part where Trudeau referred to him as the “twofer,” said he didn’t know what that was supposed to mean—even though he deliberately edited out the part where Trudeau spelled it out—and then recited the Pierre Poilievre slogan checklist. Partisans posted a purported definition of “twofer” as a person from an underprivileged background who can fulfil two quotas or appeal to two political constituencies—a definition I have never heard in my life—and started screaming racism, and revived the whole Blackface thing, because of course they did.

The point here is that this is yet another example of the very same Conservatives who mock the “snowflakes” on the left who need their trigger warnings, and trying to play crybully at the very same time. They did it to me when I said that a joke was lame, and tried to insist that I threatened to shoot one of their MPs (which they know full well is not what I said). They are so quick to play the victim because they think that it works for “the left,” and so therefore it should work for them equally, which is dumb, and completely doesn’t get the point that people on the left make about oppressive language, or structural racism, or what have you. They make this big song and dance about how censorious the “left” is (and yeah, some of them are), but then immediately try to replicate it while at the same time try and insist that they’re the ones who are all about free speech and so on. It’s childish, it’s dishonest, and when they have to edit video and lie to try and make their crybully point, it’s even more obnoxious.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians continue to insist that Ukraine shot down that plane that allegedly contained POWs, but won’t provide evidence or access to the crash site (making it even more likely that this is an info op). There is also word that president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has invited Xi Jinping to the forthcoming peace talks in Switzerland.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Just what farm emissions are subject to the carbon levy?

Posted on by

While Pierre Poilievre continues to insist that the federal carbon levy is driving up food prices, he provides no proof of that other than his “common sense” reckon that the levy increases the price of everything.

It doesn’t really, but Poilievre likes to make you think it does. So, University of Alberta’s Andrew Leach has crunched the numbers, and lo, the carbon levy is exempt on very nearly all farm emissions, and contributes but a fraction to other expenses, like transportation. Of course, Poilievre is lying to make you angry, but it’s nice to have some receipts to know just exactly what the lies are.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The fallout of that Russian plane downing that allegedly carried Ukrainian POWs continues to reverberate, as Russia claims they gave Ukraine a 15-minute warning about said plane, which Ukraine denies; as well, Ukraine’s human rights commissioner says that he believes this is an information op because the list of supposed POWs provided included several names on it that had previously been swapped. Several Ukrainian state organisations are reporting that they are experiencing cyber-attacks. Russia is also claiming that Ukrainian drones are responsible for an attack on an oil refinery in Russia’s south.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another missed opportunity for the Senate

Posted on by

A mere day after the House of Commons rose for the summer, the Senate did the same after a marathon day of passing most of the bills on its Order Paper, but leaving several key pieces of legislation to languish over the summer. As I do every summer, I remind readers that it used to be normal for senators to sit for at least an extra week in the summer to clear their Order Paper, and at this particular juncture, it would make even more sense for them to do so because they no longer have to compete with the House of Commons for resources, and most especially interpreters.

The biggest bill in question is the gun control bill, which they sent to committee, where it will sit over the summer. What they should have done was use the time and resources that they have now in order to hold a week’s worth of committee hearings, and do the job of scrutinizing the bill. And sure, you’ll get a certain cohort of senators insisting that it “doesn’t make sense” for them to sit when the Commons isn’t, in case they need to make amendments, to which I will remind them that it doesn’t matter if the Commons has risen. If the Senate wants to propose amendments, they can do the study now, propose them, and send it to the House for when they get back in September. If the Government House Leader on the Commons side wants to bellyache and moan that the Senate wants the House to recall at so many tens of thousands of dollars a day, well, too bad. They don’t have to recall. They can deal with the Senate amendments in September. And I will reiterate—it would make much more sense for the Senate to deal with a bill this big and contentious now, when they’re not competing for resources, rather than letting it drag out for months in the fall like they did with a couple of other big and contentious bills.

This is a better use of the time and resources available, and it shows that the Senate isn’t afraid to work hard when the MPs have gone home. It’s too bad nobody can see this plain and obvious PR win for the Senate that’s staring them in the face.

Ukraine Dispatch:

There were overnight missile and drone attacks, largely targeted to Odesa and Kryvy Rih, hitting homes in the latter. Ukrainian forces are reporting “partial success” in their southeast and east operations, as fighting continues. An explosion has damaged the bridge between occupied Crimea and Kherson province, which is partially occupied. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that their intelligence services have information that Russia is planning a “terrorist” attack at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant and that it will involve the release of radiation, and that Russia is hiding the bodies of those killed by the breach of the Kakhovka dam. Meanwhile, the EU says that Ukraine has completed two of the seven steps necessary for membership, with progress made on other reforms, but tackling corruption remains a concern for Europe.

https://twitter.com/rubrykaeng/status/1671855902830329857

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1671756814814265344

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s farewell hypocrisy

Posted on by

Former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole gave his farewell speech to the House of Commons yesterday, and it’s been a while since I’ve heard something as grossly hypocritical as that. Using his sombre voice (which has the benefit of completely beguiling the pundit class), he decried “performance politics,” where they chase social media algorithms, using the Chamber to generate clips, and fuelling polarisation, and replacing discussion with “virtue signalling”—which is his way of whataboutery to insist that the Liberals and NDP are just as bad. He also decried the use of conspiracy theories around things like the United Nations.

The problem? He hired a professional shitposter, Jeff Ballingall, to chase those very social media algorithms he is decrying. He fully used the Chamber to generate clips, he fully endorsed a number of conspiracy theories, whether it was about the firing of the scientists at the Winnipeg Lab, or around the United Nations when he was pretending to be a “true blue conservative” during the leadership. And while this has been seen by some as a rebuke of Poilievre, there was absolutely no contrition about any of what he did, from the serial lying, to his autocratic power games at the end of his leadership. The most he said was “too many members on all sides of this Chamber, and from time to time I have been guilty of it myself, are becoming followers of our followers when we should be leaders.” That was it. That was his contrition to how much he has done all of the things he is decrying as he exits, the bravery of someone who no longer has to live with the consequences of his actions.

https://twitter.com/dwjudson/status/1668484357089099777

It amazes me that the pundit classes, who have been falling all over O’Toole’s speech, keep memory-holing the entire tenure of his leadership and what an absolute lying, tyrannical disaster that he was throughout. Ignoring who he proved himself to be in favour of the image that pundits so desperately want him to be is a choice. And as he heads off to spend more time in his basement podcast studio, it would be great if we could be clear-eyed about just who O’Toole is, instead of just falling for his sombre-voice trick.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine says it has liberated seven villages in Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia provinces, as the counter-offensive gets underway. Russians, meanwhile, have been shelling Kharkiv, as well as nine towns and villages in Donetsk. They also launched an overnight attack against the central city of Kryvyi Rih, and there are reports of dead and wounded.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1668246754540630017

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, David Lametti isn’t threatening to tear up the constitution

Posted on by

You may have noticed that the Conservatives engaged in a lot of rage-farming over the long weekend, sometimes to the point of flailing and reaching. There was one particular bad-faith episode (well, they’re all bad faith episodes) that was particularly egregious, and roped in several premiers, who were also engaged in their own bad faith. Late last week, justice minister David Lametti attended a special chiefs’ assembly of the Assembly of First Nations, and was asked about the Natural Resources Transfer Act of 1930, and how these treaty nations were not benefitting from them, and Lametti said he’d look at it, but acknowledged this would be controversial.

And how! Immediately, Danielle Smith, followed by Scott Moe and later Heather Stefanson insisted this was a plan to “tear up the constitution” and nationalise the control over natural resources, and before long, Pierre Poilievre got in on it, along with a chunk of his caucus who insisted this was some sinister federal plan. It’s not, and this is more bad faith bullshit (which, of course, the gods damned CBC just both-sidesed, because they still think you can both-sides bad faith).

It’s actually in the legislation that the federal government can give back land to the First Nations to honour treaty obligations, and that’s at the heart of this. It’s their land. The treaties are to share the wealth, and, well, we haven’t been. They have a legitimate point here and the government has an obligation to at least hear them out on this. Is that going to cause a fuss? Yeah, probably, because settler governments, particularly in provinces, particularly those who are dependent on resource revenues, are not going to want to share that wealth. But the time is coming, sooner or later, when these conversations need to be had, because economic reconciliation means more than just dangling bribes to affected First Nations when resource extraction projects happen on their lands. Not that bad faith actors like Danielle Smith, Scott Moe or Pierre Poilievre will acknowledge this reality.

Ukraine Dispatch:

In what seems to be a repeating story, Russian Wagner group mercenaries claim—again—that they control most of Bakhmut, while Ukrainian forces claim, again, that they are holding firm. Not far away in Avdiivka, it is estimated that some 1800 people are still living in the city as Russian forces pound it. There was a prisoner swap of about 200 Russians and Ukrainian soldiers on Monday. Ukraine also resumed electricity exports to Europe now that they are able to meet their domestic demand after Russia targeted their energy infrastructure late last year.

https://twitter.com/denys_shmyhal/status/1645857297955192848

Continue reading →

Roundup: Opposing amendments at committee

Posted on by

I find myself amused by the ongoing stories that some Liberal MPs may vote against the official languages bill when it comes out of committee as amended, and the constant oh noes! Trudeau is losing control of his caucus! narrative that accompanies it. This said, there are egregious amendments that I have a hard time believing that they’re in order, because they reference provincial legislation in Quebec. For example, the change to the preamble of the bill to acknowledge Quebec’s Law 96 should have no place in federal legislation. There is also an amendment that says that if federal and provincial language laws come into conflict, the provincial law (especially Quebec’s Law 96) takes precedence, which is against every single constitutional practice and statutory interpretation principle in this country, and beyond that, it sets an absolutely terrible precedent for other areas of the law where one level of government tries to impose something on another jurisdiction, and because this one went unchallenged its okay. Yeah, we don’t want that to happen.

As mentioned, these are a result of Conservative and Bloc amendments, and the Conservatives are back to pandering to Quebec voters (and François Legault) by being as shameless as possible in trying to out-bloc the Bloc, and in some cases, they are being supported by the NDP’s Niki Ashton. It stands to reason that if the government objects to a number of these amendments, they can vote them down during report stage debate, and that would mean the whole chamber is voting, not just the Bloc and the Conservatives, so it could be enough votes to ensure that these amendments are left out of the final bill, which would mean this “rebellion” by a few Liberal MPs has done its job. There are still a couple of meetings left for this bill in committee, so we’ll see what the final shape of the bill looks like.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 358:

Russian troops are mounting constant attacks, and are claiming to have broken through two fortified lines in the Luhansk region (but they make lots of claims that aren’t true), while the regional governor denies that Ukrainian troops are in retreat. The Russians have been changing their tactics at Bakhmut, moving in smaller groups, without the support of tanks or armoured personnel carriers, and the Ukrainians are adapting to the new tactics. Reuters has a photo essay of one family’s evacuation from the area near Bakhmut, during which their grandmother died in the van.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1625861957549948929

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: A curious case for declaratory legislation

Posted on by

A curious story showed up on the CBC website yesterday, wherein justice minister David Lametti stated that if it looked like pandemic delays were going to cause criminal trials to essentially “age out” of the court system as a result of the Jordan decision – meaning that once they reach a certain point, they are deemed to be stayed because they took too long and have become unconstitutional – that he would introduce legislation to “clarify” how the Supreme Court’s Jordan decision was to be clarified. It’s curious because it seems to be a bit of a made-up issue – the Jordan decision already stated that the 30-month timeline allowed for exceptional circumstances, and we can all agree that a global pandemic is by definition an exceptional circumstance. This isn’t to say that declaratory legislation isn’t a valid exercise, because it can be – but it just seems wholly unnecessary in this case, when there are other ways that the government could be better dealing with the criminal justice system and juries than worrying about the Jordan timelines.

In any event, here is defence lawyer Michael Spratt with some thoughts on the story:

Continue reading →

Roundup: More questions about the WE contract

Posted on by

It was another campaign stop – err, media availability field trip for prime minister Justin Trudeau, where he headed to a local brewery that has converted part of their production line to produce hand sanitizer to both highlight that the country is now nearly self-sufficient in the production of personal protective equipment, but also to once again highlight how great the wage subsidy is, and please, for the love of the gods, would employers take advantage of it (and get people off of CERB). He mentioned Thursday’s teleconference with the premiers and the $14 billion that the federal government has put on the table, but the fact that they haven’t apparently taken him up on it would seem to me that this is a bit of public diplomacy on Trudeau’s part to try to get the premiers to take it with the strings attached. From there, he said that the Canadian Forces personnel would start withdrawing from some of the long-term care facilities in Quebec where the Red Cross could step in, but also that the Forces were going to stabilize four more residences. And finally, he gave a shout out to Pride, which is no longer happening in Toronto this weekend because of the pandemic, but it is still nice to have a prime minister that acknowledges it.

During the Q&A, Trudeau said that changes to the wage subsidy were on the way so as not to be a disincentive for companies growing beyond the qualifying criteria – but we’ll see what “soon” means. He stated that they did have a plan in the works to help the Royal Canadian Legion branches that are in danger of closing because of the pandemic, and when asked about the anti-racism statement that all of the First Ministers put out earlier in the week, Trudeau said that they didn’t come to an agreement on systemic racism, but that reporters would have to ask the premiers which ones they were. (Spoiler: It’s Quebec). And then there were the questions about the service grant contract being given to WE Charities. Trudeau said that it was about creating opportunities, and that they needed to have a partner with established networks, and very clearly annunciated that it was the civil service that recommended WE as the only organization capable of delivering those networks on the scale being asked. He also said that while they were covering WE’s costs, the organization wouldn’t be profiting. It’s still pretty dubious, and here’s Alex Usher laying out some of the questions that remain outstanding on this whole affair.

Continue reading →