Tag Archives: Dental Care

QP: Crowing about dental care

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town, he was not in QP today, though his deputy was present. None of the other leaders, aside from Pierre Poilievre, were either. Poilievre led off in French, and he spoke about the doubled cost of housing, and that rent has gone up in Montreal by 14 percent—which is strictly a provincial issue—and demanded the government follow his “common sense” plan. Karina Gould responded in English, quipping that it was nice to see Poilievre show up for work today rather than going to another fundraiser, and called last week’s vote-a-thon a right-wing Republican tactic. Poilievre then raised the report that food prices could increase by $700 next year for an average family, and blamed it on the Bloc for supporting the carbon price (because that makes sense). Diane Lebouthillier listed things that the Conservatives voted against last week, and asked if hurting vulnerable Canadians makes him feel stronger. Poilievre switched to English to declare that they were proud to vote against more “wasteful, inflationary spending,” and then repeated his worry about food bank use and said report on food price increases next year. Chrystia Freeland got up to decry that the Conservatives voted against Operation Unifier on Friday, which was unbelievable. Poilievre insisted this was “spreading fear and falsehoods about matters in other countries” to distract from their record, and this time, Sean Fraser listed more measures that they voted against on Friday. Poilievre doubled down on his insistence this was a distraction from the government doubling housing prices. Karina Gould pointed out that they voted against the new suicide prevention hotline, to much shouting on both sides.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he accused the government of incompetence and accused them of picking fights with Quebec around dental care. Mark Holland says this isn’t a matter of jurisdiction but a matter of healthcare (erm…), and said that this as a matter of health and prevention. Therrien said that Quebec already has a system that could have been improved with more money, and wondered why they created a system that was incompatible with Quebec’s. (Blame the NDP, guys!) Holland said this was about filling in the cracks and expects his same points.

Don Davies got up for the NDP to thunder about taking praise for the dental care programme, and Mark Holland gave some enthusiastic praise for it. Alexandre Boulerice read the French version of taking praised and Holland repeated his boasts in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some good news on emissions reductions

Posted on by

As the end of COP28 approaches, and all of the ensuing insanity that surrounds it, there was a bit of good news closer to home, where Environment Canada says that the latest modelling shows that we are on track to meet our interim targets on the way to the 2030 targets. That’s not the enhanced targets, mind you, and there is still a log of work to do, but this is at least a bit of good news that yes, the emissions curve is bending downwards now, and it’s further proof that the Conservatives’ usual defeatist complaint that the government hasn’t reduced emissions (outside of the height of the pandemic) isn’t true, and that yes, the carbon price is working, so their demands to lift it would be even more self-defeating.

Ukraine Dispatch:

It appears that there has been another attempted Russian airstrike over Kyiv, but that air defences are working, but four people were injured by falling debris. There was also a drone attack in the southern Kherson region on Saturday that killed one civilian. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy attended the presidential inauguration in Argentina (where he was sat next to Viktor Orbán and appears to have given him a talking-to).

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, you can’t challenge a censure motion in court

Posted on by

Ontario MPP Sarah Jama has written to Doug Ford to ask him to retract his motion in the legislature to censure her and prevent her from speaking until she offers an apology for the comments she made at the start of the Israel-Hamas conflict. In it, Jama says that if Ford doesn’t, she’ll take the matter to the courts. The problem? The courts won’t touch any kind of legislative censure motion because it falls under the issue of parliamentary privilege and the separation of powers.

We have to remember that Parliament and the legislatures are self-governing, as they should be. That’s what keeps them independent of the powers of the King—and yes, the courts to count as the powers of the King, as the King is the fount of justice, and justice is carried out in his name. (That’s also why we have a doctrine by which the King can do no wrong, but rather, can merely act on bad advice, and the minister who offered that is responsible for it). Part of that self-governing power is the legislature’s ability to discipline its members, which is important because you don’t want an external authority able to do that, because it can create a great deal of interference in the workings of your legislature.

This being said, the fact that she was censured at all is a problem, and as I wrote in a column a couple of weeks ago, is part of a broader pattern that his happening that is extremely concerning (and is almost always hypocritically done by parties who claim to be all about free speech, but reveal themselves to only be pro-speech they like). And it should be up to voters to discipline parties that are abusing these powers to punish those they disagree with, but that also means keeping up the pressure on them so that they know that they are going to be punished for it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine says that in spite of that Liberian-flagged ship getting hit by a Russian missile, their alternative Black Sea corridor is working. Really! President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is also hoping for a conference next month on a joint weapon production agreement with the US and defence contractors.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1722903820684947654

Continue reading →

Roundup: A rate hold and inappropriate reactions

Posted on by

The big news of the day was that the Bank of Canada opted to maintain their headline rate at five percent, but warned that future rate hikes are still possible, depending on how the data look with future decision dates. This was a decision based entirely on the data—and the very mild contraction in the second quarter are certainly pointing to the fact that the economy is finally starting to slow so that maybe it can start to take the air out of excess demand. Nevertheless, I’m still expecting those three premiers who sent open letters to do a victory lap as though they had any say in the matter.

The bigger problem was Chrystia Freeland putting out an official statement saying that she was pleased with the decision, and while she respects the Bank’s independence, the government will use all of its tools to help bring inflation down (though one is a bit more dubious about that part). Why Freeland’s statement is a bigger problem is because she has a much bigger stick to wield with the Bank, and she has the tools that could force the governor to resign, which we haven’t seen since the Coyne Affair in the fifties, which led to the Bank shoring up its institutional independence. Freeland should know better, but I suspect that with all of the attention being paid to those premiers and their boneheaded open letters that she felt she needed to say something, and to offer some kind of reassurance to the public about the slowly improving state—because this government loves nothing more than reassuring pabulum. To compound that, every gods damned talking head over the past few days has been saying how great it was that the premiers were grandstanding like they way they are, because messaging politics just corrodes and rots our system.

Meanwhile, Jagmeet Singh decided he wasn’t getting enough attention, so he decided to embarrass himself and insist that the federal government can order the Bank to stop raising rates, because he thinks that interfering with an independent institution and forcing the resignation of the governor (which would be the outcome of such a move) are somehow winners for the economy. Singh would also apparently rather see inflation continuing to rip through our economy rather than the short-term pain in wresting it back down, because that is the counterfactual here. His “greedflation” insistence doesn’t bear out in the data, and a windfall tax won’t solve inflation. His suggestion here is beyond amateur hour, and shows that he remains unprepared for prime time.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians attacked a market in the eastern city of Kostiantynika yesterday, killing at least 17 people. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has recorded 26,717 civilian casualties in Ukraine so far, including 9,511 deaths. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Kyiv, and praised the progress in the counteroffensive to date.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1699405764983415077

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, it’s not another carbon tax

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre is currently on a tour of Atlantic Canada, braying about the increase in the carbon price, and the incoming clean fuel standard regulations, which he has mendaciously dubbed “Carbon Tax 2.” Poilievre claims will be a combined hike of 61 cents per litre of gasoline. He’s wrong—the figure comes from future carbon price increases plus a dubious Parliamentary Budget Officer report on the clean fuel standard pricing effects, which were based on a lot of assumptions that may not happen, and the figure from that report that Poilievre is citing was an estimated price effect from 2030, which again, he falsely implies is coming right away.

While I’m not going to say much more, because I will probably write about this later in the week in a more comprehensive way, it was noted that a columnist at our supposed national paper of record not only fully bought into Poilievre’s bullshit, but he couldn’t even be bothered to check his facts on these prices. Here’s energy economist Andrew Leach setting the record straight:

As a bonus, here is Leach throwing some shade at Michael Chong as he tries his own brand of bullshit about what is happening with Norway.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The counteroffensive moves “slowly but surely,” not only in regaining a cluster of villages in the southeast, but also around Bakhmut, while Russians are bringing in their “best reserves.” Ukrainian forces also have to contend with low-cost suicide drones that are difficult to defend against, as these drones target valuable equipment. Meanwhile, in a speech to parliament, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy ruled out any peace plan that would turn the war into a frozen conflict.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1674074924124631041

Continue reading →

Roundup: May inflation shows it’s cooling faster

Posted on by

Statistics Canada released the May inflation numbers yesterday, and they were well down from the month previous, the headline number now down to 3.4 percent, which is in line what the Bank of Canada is predicting about it returning to about three percent by the end of the year. Part of this is because year-over-year gasoline prices fell, meaning that there is a base-year effect in play, but food inflation remains high (in large part because of climate change affecting food-growing regions and the difficulty in getting Ukrainian grain to market continues to keep those prices high), and mortgage interest rates are one of the factors fuelling this. Unfortunately, you have certain economists like Jim Stanford who think that this is the Bank causing this inflation, when in fact if they hadn’t raised rates when they did, higher inflation would still be ripping through the economy. (Seriously, stop listening to Jim Stanford).

Additionally, these numbers continue to prove that Pierre Poilievre’s narratives about inflation are specious at best, but are pretty much bullshit he is squeezing into whatever the headline seems to be. Last month, when there was a 0.1% uptick in inflation, Poilievre blamed it on the news of the budget deficit, and that this was proof that the deficit was “pouring gasoline on the inflationary fire.” That was wrong, and the Bank of Canada said that the trend was that inflation was still decreasing (and that the government’s fiscal policy was not having an effect on that decelerating inflation). And lo, inflation is still decelerating, in spite of the budget deficit. It’s like Poilievre has no idea what he’s talking about.

Meanwhile, economist Stephen Gordon has a few thoughts the numbers.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Two Russian missiles hit the eastern Ukrainian city of Kramatorsk, killing four and destroying a cafe that was fairly well known. Meanwhile, a UN human rights report shows that Russian forces carried out widespread and systematic torture of civilians they detained before executing them, but also found that Russians troops detained by Ukrainians also alleged torture and mistreatment.

https://twitter.com/united24media/status/1673784944798191617

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1673769121450696724

Continue reading →

Roundup: Angst over a poor metric

Posted on by

A lot of ink (or, well, pixels, I supposed) has been spilled over the past week about those leaked documents where Justin Trudeau allegedly told NATO leadership privately that Canada will never reach the two percent of GDP defence spending target, which shouldn’t be a shock to anyone who has paid a modicum of attention. And while we get these kinds of analysis pieces that try to dig more into the two percent target and its significance, we have to remember that it’s a lousy metric. Greece has been above it for years because of a stagnant economy and including military pensions in their calculations—and you can easily get to 2 percent of GDP by tanking your economy, while growing your economy makes that spending target increase impossibly. The other thing that the two percent metric doesn’t capture is engagement—Canada routinely steps up to meet its NATO commitments even without reaching the spending target, while certain European countries may meet the spending target but don’t participate in these missions (again, looking at you, Greece, but not just Greece).

Part of the problem is that while this is a conversation that requires some nuance, the two percent target is too easy for journalists to focus on, and that becomes the sole focus. It’s a problem because We The Media keep reducing this to a single binary “are we meeting/not meeting that two percent” rate, which doesn’t help advance the conversation in any way, but most of us refuse to learn because a simple binary is easier to understand/convey.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Fighting continues in the western part of Bakhmut, as Wagner Group mercenaries are worried about the coming Ukrainian counter-offensive. Ukraine’s minister of digital transformation says that new technologies are going to help them win the war, particularly as they enhance the accuracy of modern artillery.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The thing about the interim ethics commissioner

Posted on by

The issue with the appointment of Dominic LeBlanc’s sister-in-law as the interim ethics commissioner has been nearly inexplicable, until you actually look at the position itself. The optics are absolutely bad, and a very real problem because of the whole issue around perceived conflicts of interest. The problem, however, is that they may not have had much choice in the matter given how the role is structured legislatively. While LeBlanc had no role in the decision, the PMO told CBC that the Privy Council Office—meaning the non-partisan civil service—is responsible for the decision, which no member of the government has stated to date, and you think they would have, if they could communicate their way out of a wet paper bag.

The legislated criteria for who can be the ethics commissioner is very restrictive—you need to be either a former judge, the formal head of a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal, or the former Senate Ethics Officer. Unspoken qualification is that you would also have to be bilingual, which limits your field even further, particularly for former judges. And while the salary was commensurate of that of a federally-appointed judge, the posting for the new commissioner cuts that by a third to bring it in line with other officers of parliament, which is going to make it all the more unattractive, particularly to former judges who are going to take one look at it and decide that they don’t need the aggravation for the amount of money they’re being offered.

There’s a reason why Mary Dawson’s term needed to be extended two or three times while they looked for a replacement. There’s a reason why they pretty much had no choice but to go with Mario Dion when he applied, because there was nobody else (and Dion was not the best choice on offer). And when Dion resigned the post suddenly (two years early) for health reasons, they were pretty much screwed because they couldn’t extend him until a replacement could be found. The solution was the most senior person in the office—said sister-in-law of Dominic LeBlanc—who has been there for ten years. And there is already an ethics screen in place regarding LeBlanc, to keep her out of any conflicts. It’s likely that PCO’s determination was that this was the best of a bad situation, but it’s not good. The interim commissioner doesn’t qualify to become the permanent commissioner, so this situation is temporary. But ultimately, this is a failing of the legislation, because MPs were trying to play tough when they brought it in, and wound up shooting themselves in the foot over it. And now there is an untenable situation because they boxed themselves in. Good job, guys. Your posturing has really paid off.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces report that the Russian advance on the outskirts of Bakhmut has been “halted—or nearly halted.” President Volodymyr Zelenskyy marked the one-year anniversary of the liberation of Bucha, and the discovery of the horrors left in the Russians’ wake, making another call for justice for war crimes.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1641810694852026369

Continue reading →

Roundup: No political interference, and an incompetent commissioner

Posted on by

The final report of the Mass Casualty Commission, arising from the Nova Scotia mass shooting, was released yesterday, and it is wholly damning on the RMCP, as well as on the state of gun control measures. While I have a column about RCMP reform coming out later today, there were a couple of other threads that I wanted to pick up on here. One is that Trudeau says that they’ll make changes to the RCMP, but I’m dubious. Like the column will point out, there’s almost nothing left to save, and I fear that inertia will carry the day—especially when Saskatchewan starts bellyaching about recommendations to phase out training at Depot in Regina, and provincialism will win the day.

The other is that the whole drama around allegations of political interference in the investigation have been resolved, and unsurprisingly, there wasn’t any. “[Commissioner Brenda] Lucki’s audio recorded remarks about the benefits to police of proposed firearms legislation were ill-timed and poorly expressed, but they were not partisan and they do not show that there had been attempted political interference,” the report concluded. Because the claims never made any sense. The gun control changes were not drawn up on the back of a napkin in the wake of the shooting—they had been worked on for months at this point, and were being finalised, and Lucki would have known that because she would have been consulted the whole way through. And there was no reason for the local detachment not to release that information because they knew where the guns came from, and there was no investigation to jeopardise. The report had a lot of things to day about the RCMP needing to be more transparent, and to learn how to admit mistakes, and yes, it did call out that they were actively lying to the public throughout the incident and its aftermath.

One of the other aspects yesterday that deserves to be called out even more is that the interim RCMP Commissioner was given the report the day before, and he couldn’t be bothered to read it, or to have an adequate briefing on its contents, before he went before the media. It’s rank incompetence, and all the more reason why the Force needs to be disbanded.

Ukraine Dispatch:

At least six Russian missiles hit the city of Kharkiv yesterday. Here is a look at Bucha, one year since its liberation.

Continue reading →

QP: Ignoring the Mass Casualty report

Posted on by

The prime minister was away in Truro, Nova Scotia, for the release of the Mass Casualty Commission report, while his deputy was on the west coast getting a head start on selling her budget to the public. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he accused the government censoring debate on a bill that would censor what people can watch online—which is a complete fabrication, because closure is not censorship, and Bill C-11 is about making web giants pay into CanCon funds and has nothing to do with censorship—saying that the bill would give “woke” Ottawa control over Quebeckers’ media, called out the Bloc for supporting the bill, and instead that only the Conservatives stand against censorship. Greg Fergus got up and insisted there is a consensus in Quebec that artists deserve to be paid, and only the Conservatives are offside. Poilievre insisted there was no culture without freedom of expansion, accused the government disinformation, said that Margaret Atwood opposes the bill (note: she did not understand what was in it, but was taken in by misinformation), he called the CRTC a “woke agency” (which is risible), said they could use algorithms to censor debate (false), and insisted that Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was not an instruction manual. Fergus insisted that these were just the same talking points of Big Tech, and that the Conservatives won’t stand against them. Poilievre insisted that the bill would shut down any voices they don’t like, and demanded to know why the prime minister was shutting down debate. Fergus insisted that web giants are not paying their fair share, and wondered why the opposition was against that. Poilievre tried to insist this was about free speech, and tried to use a prop before he got warned about it by the Speaker. Mark Holland got up this time, and used his sanctimonious tone to admonish the Conservatives for pretending that anyone in the Chamber doesn’t believe in free speech, and that they have the free speech enough to go around the country spreading misinformation. Poilievre insisted that he would keep beating the government in debate, before switching to the topic of carbon prices, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report on carbon prices and insisting it “proved” the Liberals were wrong (never mind they cherry pick figures and butcher the statistics and distributional effects). Terry Duguid recited the good news talking points about rebate in return. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he raised the money for countering foreign interference in the budget, and demanded a public inquiry. Maninder Sidhu read talking points about those line items. Therrien insisted that this was proof that they already had concluded what David Johnston would find and demanded a public inquiry, and this time, Mark Holland got up to sing Johnston’s praise.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and he raised the conclusion of Mass Casualty Commission report and demanded immediate funds for victims of domestic violence. Pam Damoff recited that they will examine the report and come back with actions in due course. Alexandre Boulerice took over in French, and demanded the government copy Joe Biden’s green industrial policy. Seamus O’Regan insisted that the projects will be built either by union jobs or paid prevailing union wages, which was proof they were on the right track.

Continue reading →