Tag Archives: Federalism

QP: The trauma of vaccine mandates

Posted on by

It was unusual but happened nevertheless—that Justin Trudeau was present for a third QP in a row. It’s been a long time since we’ve seen this, and one is forced to wonder if this is to put down the notion that he has been absent or in hiding because of the grifter occupation outside. Candice Bergen led off with her script in front of her, lamenting that the occupation has been there for two weeks, and requested a meeting with Trudeau to “end the impasse.” Trudeau called her out for encouraging the blockades and their fundraising, and said that they will see an end to the blockades, and called on the Conservatives to get on side. Bergen blamed the prime minister for the situation, and demanded their support for their Supply Day motion to capitulate to the occupiers and end all vaccine mandates, to which Trudeau expounded on the virtues of vaccines. Bergen gave some wounded faux confusion, and wondered if the prime minster wouldn’t lift mandates until there was 100 percent vaccination. Trudeau reminded her that vaccines are the way out of the pandemic. Luc Berthold took over in French to ask again if the prime minister wanted 100 percent vaccination rates, and Trudeau repeated his lines about the Conservatives going to bat for the occupiers. Berthold demanded a re-opening plan by all levels of government, and Trudeau said he was happy to hear the Conservatives calling for the occupiers to go home, and he hoped that the Conservatives would stop encouraging the other blockades.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he too demanded a meeting with the prime minster and all party leaders, for which Trudeau reminded him that he is in contact with all levels of government but he could arrange a briefing if Blanchet wanted. Blanchet said he wanted to hear from all of the leaders, before raising the other tactics the occupiers were engaged in, and Trudeau said they were working with other governments to minimise the impact of the illegal blockades. 

Jagmeet Singh appeared by video, and whinged that the prime minister was “hiding behind jurisdiction” and demanded he fix the mess—for which the Conservatives applauded. Trudeau noted that they have been furnishing resources to the municipalities affected, which is why they called on the Conservatives to call for the blockades to end instead of cheering them on. Singh repeated his question in French, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The many leaks from the Cumming Report

Posted on by

The Cumming report on the Conservatives’ election failure was released to caucus behind closed doors yesterday, and lo, leaks appeared in every news outlet in the country, so let’s go through some of them:

  • From Global: O’Toole’s performance got mixed reviews, with a strong finish but was “over-managed” by the end of the campaign. It was determined he needed to spend more time on the road and not in his studio, and they need to completely rebuild their voter-identification database.
  • From The Toronto Star: Party memberships should be free (which is a terrible gods damned idea), and that the party’s reputation is still suffering from the “barbaric cultural practices tip line” promise in 2015.
  • From the National Post: They were hobbled by party infighting, a lack of ethnic outreach, and the soft response to Quebec’s Law 21. As well, it concluded that O’Toole is still the “right person to lead the party.”
  • From CTV: The party needs more diverse candidates.
  • From CBC: The party failed to craft policy on some important issues, and apparently O’Toole didn’t respond well to criticism in the question-and-answer session following Cumming’s presentation. And they went nuts when Global’s leaks hit the wires while Cumming was still speaking.

I did note that while O’Toole told a press conference afterward that he takes responsibility and promises changes, it was remarked upon that O’Toole seemed to change his tune on the use of the studio, which they crowed about through the campaign and insisted it was better than in-person events because they could reach more people through their teleconferences, but changing his tune about something is nothing new (as we all saw during the election, over and over again).

Meanwhile, O’Toole told said press conference that he was going to meet with truckers, but also denounced extremists among them, which is an extremely hard circle to square considering that it’s the extremists who organised the whole bloody grifter convoy, and any legitimate truckers frustrated by vaccine mandates are going to be hapless nitwits in the bunch. The fact that O’Toole remained silent about the fact that the organisers of said grifter convoy are demanding that democracy be overturned in favour of some delusional Jacobin committee comprised of said convoy organisers and senators is also a problem, as is the fact that he wouldn’t address the fact that these same organizers are doxing MPs, and the Sergeant-at-Arms is warning that their Ottawa residences are being targeted. It does show that O’Toole has basically left objective reality behind, as his latest shitpost video essentially demonstrates.

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1486849795515953156

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1486850305757167622

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1486755945292124167

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mandatory vaccination is Canadian

Posted on by

There’s been some nonsense going around the pundit-sphere over the weekend about mandatory vaccinations being “against what Canada stands for.” Erm, except we’ve had mandatory vaccinations since around 1885, because public health concerns are public health. Seriously. This is not that difficult, people.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Recalling a committee for a dog and pony show

Posted on by

The House of Commons’ access to information, privacy and ethics committee will be recalled for emergency meetings after the Conservatives were “alarmed” to hear that the Public Health Agency used anonymised mobile data to see how Canadians were responding to public health measures. The point of the data collection is to get a sense of travel patterns during these kinds of measures, and to see whether people stay at home, or how far they go, and because its anonymised, nobody can see who is doing what individually—they’re looking at patterns.

But this kind of wailing and gnashing of teeth over anonymised data is nothing new for Conservatives, who have sounded this particular alarm before when Statistics Canada was hoping to use anonymised bank data to track Canadians’ purchasing habits in a more robust and accurate way than shopping diary surveys can, and lo, that project got iced. Of course, because irony is dead, the Conservatives’ election platform had their “carbon points” plan, which would require so much itemised consumer data that it puts this kind of anonymised data to shame, but why worry about consistency or logic?

Because this is a House of Commons committee, we are guaranteed that this is going to be nothing more than a dog and pony show. If they agree to hold a study on this—which it’s not yet guaranteed—it’s going to be hauling public health officials before committee and subjecting them to ridiculous questions that have little to do with this particular issue, in the hopes of catching them out on something, and attempts to build some kind of conspiracy theory that the government was trying to play Big Brother during the pandemic, and it will balloon from there until the point where the government has had enough and starts filibustering the increasingly unreasonable demands by opposition members, and the committee will grind to a halt. Because that’s how this kind of thing happens every time, because our MPs are more concerned with being partisan dicks on committees than actually doing their jobs of accountability. But maybe I’m just getting cynical about the current state of affairs in federal politics.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Limited federal options on Bill 21

Posted on by

So, the fight over Bill 21 in Quebec is gaining some traction now that there have been real-world consequences, and a bunch of MPs (mostly Conservatives) who previously said nothing about it—and who previously supported odious things like “barbaric cultural practices tip lines” and “Canadian values tests”—are now speaking up and recanting previous positions. Which is good, but while everyone is hoping for some kind of federal response or action on the legislation, I’m not sure there is an actual avenue. Consider this from constitutional law professor Carissima Mathen:

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1469013986142298114

This is essentially what Justin Trudeau has been saying—he’s opposed to it, but this isn’t the time for the federal government to step in. That time will be when the fight reaches the Supreme Court of Canada, because then they have a legitimate avenue to be an intervenor in the case. Until then, they can say they oppose it—and they have much more so than other parties—but they’re also not making wild symbolic actions that won’t mean anything. And while both Erin O’Toole and Jagmeet Singh say they are personally opposed (and Singh has a legitimate dog in this fight), Singh has been somewhat blank on actions a federal government could take, while O’Toole made it clear he wouldn’t interfere in any way because a) provincial jurisdiction, and b) he’s spent his entire leadership trying to suck up to François Legault and out-Bloc the Bloc, for all of the good it did him in the election. And there are demographic considerations that play into the political calculations as well:

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert, lays out the political calculations and options for Trudeau and O’Toole when it comes to challenging Bill 21. Paul Wells adds a boatload of more context to the situation both federally and in Quebec, and gives some sharper thoughts as to why the federal government has vanishingly few levers but nevertheless has options.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cynicism and paid sick days

Posted on by

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made a couple of election promises yesterday that felt a bit cynical, and one of them is federally problematic. The first promise was to implement ten employer-paid sick days in federally-regulated workplaces. This was something that he should have done some 18 months ago, but given that they had mandated three employer-paid sick days previously – the highest in the country – they felt they were in good standing, and tried to persuade provinces to do the same. They did not.

After Trudeau made the announcement, Jagmeet Singh went on a tear about how “disgusted” he was that Trudeau had made this promise when he’d been calling for it for over a year. But there are differences here, and yes, they matter. Some of you may recall that Singh wanted the federal government to give paid sick leave to everyone in the country, but the federal government can’t do that. They can only mandate employer-paid sick leave – which is the best kind because it means that there are no interruptions on pay cheques and job security is maintained – in federally-regulated workplaces, which account for six percent of jobs in the country. That’s it. The provinces have to amend their own labour codes to cover the remaining workplaces, and Singh consistently refused to acknowledge that reality. Meanwhile, the government recognized that there were people who didn’t have access to employer-paid leave because they’re self-employed or part-time, so they created the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit, which was a kludge – you had to apply for it, and only after you missed half of the week, and it took more time for the money to arrive. Singh demanded that the federal government “fix” that programme, but there wasn’t much more they could do to it – there are limits to the federal back-end IT infrastructure used to administer the programme, so it couldn’t be seamless like employer-paid sick leave. And the premiers, for whom the other 94 percent of workplaces are under their jurisdiction? They balked, especially because business lobbies like the CFIB lobbied heavily against mandating more sick days, so they forced people to rely on the CRSB, or created their own temporary kludges to mimic the CRSB. For Singh to now claim that Trudeau is doing what he demanded is not true – yes, Trudeau should have mandated more employer-paid sick days federally, but this is not the same as CRSB, and the two should not be equated like he’s doing here (and yes, it is cynical politics for him to claim otherwise in order to drive disillusionment).

As for the promise around school ventilation, it’s too late for this school year, and at first blush it looks like a federal overreach into provincial jurisdiction. The backgrounder states that this is just extending the Safe Return to Class Fund from August 2020, and they’re basically giving money to provinces with the slenderest of strings attached, which I’m not really a fan of. Because we’re in an election, we’re back to the constant state of promises – from all parties – that rely on provincial cooperation, and there are a lot of loaded assumptions that they’ll play ball, which seems to be fairly rare (and before you raise child care, the success there is in part because there was too much money on the table for provinces to ignore, which is not how it has played out with pharmacare). The Liberals are mostly more careful in their language, citing things like “While a Liberal government will always respect provincial-territorial jurisdiction…” unlike the other two platforms, but this certainly isn’t being picked up on nearly enough by the reporting, and it creates expectations that perhaps it perhaps shouldn’t.

https://twitter.com/JenniferRobson8/status/1428860564676222981

Continue reading →

Roundup: A debasing “debate” on inflation

Posted on by

Because sometimes this is a media criticism blog, I find myself outraged at the hack job that Power & Politics has been doing on this bullshit story about inflation, and it’s turned to being completely irresponsible. Yesterday was a perfect example of how shows like this are more interested in horserace bullshit than they are in economics, and lo, for an MP panel, the host wanted each party to give a single example of how their party would tackle inflation, even if it’s a complex issue, and lo, each MP gave a pitch to their party’s platform. Nothing about monetary policy and the Bank of Canada and its mandate – nothing. Just parties serving up their talking points to one another. So enlightening! Later, during the “Power Panel,” said host kept saying “we’re not going to talk about monetary policy” when talking about inflation, and that makes about as much sense as talking about climate change while declaring you’re not going to talk about GHG emissions. It’s kind of central to the point.

More to the point, the show – and several other outlets – used a truncated quote from Justin Trudeau to frame his response in a misleading way. To wit, the question he was asked by Bloomberg:

 You mentioned the Bank of Canada’s mandate, that mandate is expiring at the end of this year. If re-elected, the review, or the extension of the mandate is probably the first big economic policy decision you will make after the election. There is some talk of allowing the Bank of Canada to make some tweaks to its mandate to give it the flexibility to tolerate higher inflation and help the economy a little bit more at this difficult time. Do you have a position on the mandate? Would you support a slightly higher tolerance for inflation?

And Trudeau’s answer:

I don’t know. When I think about the biggest, most important economic policy that this government, if re-elected, would move forward, you’ll forgive me if I don’t think about monetary policy. You’ll understand that I think about families. When we first got elected in 2015, the very first thing we did was raise taxes on the wealthiest one per cent so we could lower them for the middle class. Similarly, if re-elected, the Liberal government will continue to invest in supports for families, for students, for seniors. Investing in housing, because we know that it is not right that so many people right here in the Lower Mainland and indeed across the country can’t afford their first home. We know that these are the policies that make a difference in the growth of our country, in the jobs people get, and the opportunities people have to grow and prosper. That is what we will stay focused on.

The clear implication is that he’s not focused on the Bank of Canada’s mandate, but on his own affordability agenda. But all anyone picked up on was “I don’t think about monetary policy,” and turning that into him being flip, and the host of P&P went so far as to compare it to Trudeau saying that budgets balance themselves – itself a truncated quote, where the original line, when asked about a commitment to balancing the budget, was: “The commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself.” Which is true. Erin O’Toole is making the same pledge in his platform.

While I yelled at the TV over Twitter, my reply column filled up with assertions that the show was in the tank for the Conservatives, or that they were out to get Trudeau, but that’s not really the case. They’re not really in the tank for anyone – they want to get clips that will generate headlines and simplistic narratives, and that’s why they ask inflammatory questions designed to give explosive answers, and why they truncate quotes to be as sensational as possible. Part of this is the current host’s fault – she’s a reporter who is geared toward getting a “gold quote” out of people rather than a nuanced understanding of the situation. A bigger problem is the people who produce the show, who are more concerned with partisan talking heads giving simplistic and facile responses than actually understanding what is going on, and they’ve chosen the laziest, least-effort format to fill air time and generate some kind of spark of interest, which is usually partisans sniping at one another. Yes, it’s a big problem for our civic literacy, and it hurts our media literacy as well. Nobody was served by the “debate” on inflation, particularly as there was no context to what it was about, or what monetary policy means, and all it did was make everyone dumber. This kind of “journalism” has become a scourge.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some of the misconceptions around C-10

Posted on by

The other day, I made a somewhat snarky comment over Twitter in response to an op-ed in The Line, because people are still making stuff up about Bill C-10. Like, out of whole cloth, complete fiction, because they do not grasp the basic mechanics of regulation in this country.

So, with this in mind, here are a few reminders. Start by re-reading my piece in National Magazine about the bill. Individual content uploaders are not being regulated – only the platforms themselves. The CRTC is not going to takedown YouTube content, and it’s not going to regulate news. If it regulates Facebook, it’s not regulating the algorithm of timelines – it’s only regulating if Facebook is acting like a broadcaster of scripted content, or when they livestream baseball games (which they have done). The reason why YouTube as a platform, for example, is being targeted is because it is the largest music streaming platform in the world, and this is why they want to bring it into the ambit of CanCon regulations, governing both discoverability (so that the algorithm shows more Canadian artists in suggested playlists), and contributing financially to the system that helps provide grants and royalties for Canadian artists. People keep mentioning Instagram and TikTok, but they’re not really broadcasting platforms.

So how does the CRTC determine what counts as CanCon? Well, they have a formula that assigns points to it, and 6/10 or 8/10 points gets particular CanCon status. These are all determined by regulations under the Broadcasting Act. Remember that legislation is the framework and policy direction – the nitty-gritty rules get determined by regulation, and it follows a process of development that involves stakeholder engagement and consultation, and is done at the bureaucratic level. It’s not Cabinet pulling rules out of their asses, nor should it be. You don’t want Cabinet to be putting its thumb on the scale, which is why there is an arm’s length regulatory body, being the CRTC. And it’s not just the cabal of commissioners who are making these regulations either, in spite of what certain people are claiming.

https://twitter.com/G_Gallant/status/1395427604107300867

This brings me to my next point – the very notion that the CRTC is going to police the whole of social media is completely crackers on the face of it. They barely have enough resources to do their existing job (and if you listen to some of the reasoning around this week’s telecom decision, they seem to think they can’t handle doing the work of wholesale internet prices). If you think they’re going to somehow hire an army of bureaucrats to police your tweets, you should be certifiable.

Now, this isn’t to say that C-10 is without problems, because they are there. For one, the Broadcasting Act may be the wrong vehicle for this, as it was about regulating the limited bandwidth for TV and radio. It will be on platforms to adjust their algorithms to make CanCon more discoverable, which is going to be the high-level work, but there are particular concerns around meeting the objectives under the Act, which involve things like “safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada,” and whether these platforms will moderate content to try and fit those objectives, and that moderation will likely involve the use of AI, which is where we have particular concerns. And those are legitimate concerns, but they have nothing to do with the Orwellian picture being painted of moderated tweets, and newsfeeds being monkeyed with, or “takedown notices.” The level of complete hysteria around this bill, rooted in a complete ignorance of how regulatory bodies work – and a great deal of partisan disinformation – is making the debate around this bill utterly loony (at least in English Canada). Yes, it’s complicated, but don’t fall for easy narratives.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Getting called out by your deputy minister

Posted on by

This government’s problems with cleaning up the culture of sexual misconduct in the military continues to roll along, and the calls are definitely coming from inside the house. In the latest installment, the deputy minister of National Defence has taken to the radio waves to point out that the government didn’t make an effort to push the military on implementing the Deschamps Report, who wound up treating it like a kind of checklist that they could do the bare minimum with rather than actually implementing the systemic changes that it called for. This shouldn’t be a surprise, given everything we know, but the fact that the deputy minister is saying this is damning.

We also got another harrowing tale of harassment, and retribution when the civilian employee who was subjected to it complained. This isn’t a surprise given the culture, and as the piece points out, one of the reasons she was targeted is because she upset the status quo – which is part of why the military made a conscious effort not to really implement the Deschamps Report, because it called for systemic changes, and that is a definite upset of the status quo. That the government didn’t really recognize this or push back against it is an indictment.

Which brings me back to the key point – that the government, and in particular the minister, needs to wear this. The deputy minister called him out. That’s not good. And part of the problem is also that Sajjan was part of that culture, which is may explain why he was either blind to the problems, or was fine with not actually bothered that they weren’t upsetting the status quo. It’s one of the reasons why actual civilian control of the military is so important, and we haven’t had that under Sajjan. Regardless, this is his problem to wear, and he needs to take actual ministerial responsibility, and offer his resignation. There is no other option.

Continue reading →

QP: Inventing an “Internet Czar” out of whole cloth

Posted on by

For Wednesday, proto-PMQ day, Justin Trudeau was present, as was the usual Liberal placeholder, Mark Gerretsen. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he led off by accusing the government of moving the goalposts on vaccines, blamed him for not getting any last winter (when no one else in the world did), and Trudeau reminded him that they had stated the goals of three million doses by the end of March and they got well more than anticipated. O’Toole raised the CanSino conspiracy theory and accused Trudeau of wanting lockdowns until Thanksgiving, and Trudeau stated that by accelerating first doses means people can do more with one another in the summer, in advance of getting their second doses in the fall. O’Toole then accused the government of “stealing doses from COVAX” and of being late by trying to partner with CanSino, and Trudeau reminded him they have seven signed contracts and none were with a Chinese firm. O’Toole declared that we were in a third wave because of the CanSino non-deal, and Trudeau called out the misinformation and disinformation coming from the opposition. O’Toole then switched to French to repeat his first question, and got the same answer about first doses meaning a better summer.

Yves-François Blanchet led off for the Bloc, and he accused the government of wanting an election and invited all leaders to have a private meeting to come to a consensus, but Trudeau denied wanting an election while they were delivering for Canadians, and the Bloc are the ones who want an election by voting against a confidence motion. Blanchet repeated his invitation for a meeting to come to a consensus — which seems to be the opposite of an open legislative process — and Trudeau reminded him that all parties can reflect on the bill at committee, and repeated that he didn’t want an election.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in English, demanded “concrete action” on long-term care, for which Trudeau reminded him that there were $3 billion in the budget, and the government has been investing to create standards and to make permanent changes, but they need to work with provinces. Singh demanded more of the same, and Trudeau declared that the situation is deplorable, but they have stepped up as a federal government to assist the provinces, whose jurisdiction this is.

Continue reading →