Tag Archives: Foreign Aid

Roundup: Time allocation in perspective

Posted on by

There seems to be both a sense of amnesia and of performative wailing and garment rending as the government – with the cooperation of opposition parties – has moved time allocation on its budget implementation bill, and extended sitting hours for the final few days of the sitting. The sense of amnesia is that this kind of thing happens every June, every single year (and usually again in December), and that’s how things work. There is absolutely nothing unusual about this state of affairs, and its’ very strange that certain media outlets are making this out to be something unusual. It’s not – if anything, what’s unusual is that there are so few bills that they are trying to get over the finish line in the face of opposition that has spent an extraordinary amount of effort fighting these bills with lies, red herrings, concern trolling, and a complete lack of proportionality.

The fact that the government has imposed time allocation on its budget implementation bill is not unusual, and the fact that it’s ten hours – five at report stage and five more at third reading – is also a fairly generous amount of time, especially when considered in parliamentary terms. It’s essentially two more full days of debate for a regular Tuesday or Thursday sitting day. It’s also not really “debate,” and frankly Elizabeth May’s concerns here are a bit precious – it’s MPs reciting pre-written speeches into the record, with little interaction between them, and when it comes to report stage and third reading, there is specific purpose. The bill already had seven allotted days at second reading, which is bananas – second reading should take a single afternoon because it’s supposed to be where you discuss the overall principles of the bill, and then send it off to committee. It spent thirteen hours at committee of clause-by-clause consideration – which, again, is a fair amount considering that most committee sittings are two hours – where they heard from 65 witnesses in pre-study sessions. Five hours at report stage, to discuss whether or not to adopt the amendments agreed to at committee, is an awful lot of parliamentary time. Same again with third reading, where you are giving final consideration before final passage to the Senate, is more than generous – you are no longer debating the principle, or the details – those have all been agreed to.

This narrative that it’s a “gag” and “cutting debate” is overblown in the context of what is being offered here. This isn’t an abuse of time allocation, like we saw in previous parliaments – it’s a legitimate tool in the face of procedural obstruction, and given that this is a hung parliament, the fact that at least one opposition party is agreeing to the use of this tool makes the narrative a bit silly. But that seems to be the way these things get written up, because there is a general ignorance of procedure and what it all means.

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 →

QP: Hypocrisy and expletives

Posted on by

On a rainy Monday in the nation’s capital, and at the start of a fourth consecutive week of sittings where tempers were getting frayed, there as once again only a single Liberal MP in the Chamber — Mark Gerretsen, of course. Candice Bergen off by video, and she groused that the defence committee meeting was cancelled this morning, alleging a cover-up, then said that the prime minister wouldn’t answer if he would have dismissed General Vance if he knew the nature of the allegations facing him. Harjit Sajjan noted that he appeared at the committee for six hours, and that they also heard from Stephen Harper’s chief of staff about what happened in 2015 when they appointed Vance while he was still under active investigation. Bergen accused the prime minster of not taking the allegations against Vance seriously because of the groping allegations levelled against him around the same time, and Sajjan instead raised that when the investigation against Vance was dropped on 2015, it was because of “pressure” and we wondered who was applying it. Bergen then tried to bring in what the prime minister’s chief of staff knew, for which Sajjan repeated that they knew about rumours against Vance and still appointed him anyway. Gérard Deltell returned to the issue of the defence committee cancelling its meeting this morning, crying that there was a cover up, for which committee chair Karen McCrimmon stated that they were developing recommendations, and there would be another meeting later in the week. Deltell then asked if PMO emails raised the possibility it was an issue of sexual harassment, why they did nothing about it. Sajjan repeated that the leader of the opposition knew of a rumour of misconduct and the Conservatives still appointed Vance while he was under active investigation. 

Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, staying on the topic of the Vance allegations and accused Sajjan of contributing to the culture of silence in the military, and Sajjan recited this lines about taking the proper steps and alerting PMO. Therrien raised the appointment of Louise Arbour, while Sajjan insisted that politicians should not involve themselves in investigations. 

Rachel Blaney led for the NDP, and she too demanded action on the Arbour appointment over action, to which Sajjan repeated again that they are taking actions, including the appointment of a new officer in charge of culture in the military. Lindsay Mathyssen demanded that the recommendations of the Deschamps Report be implemented immediately, and Sajjan said that changing institutional culture is complex.

Continue reading →

QP: Duelling quotes on the Broadcast Act

Posted on by

For a Thursday in the Chamber, we had two Liberals present among the otherwise empty benches — Mark Gerretsen, and Francis Drouin. Erin O’Toole led off, scripts on mini-lectern, and he lamented the third wave and compared our vaccination rate to the US, asking why the government failed on vaccines. Anita Anand replied with a list of vaccine deliveries. O’Toole switched to French to repeat his preamble, but at the last minute, switched the question to the border, but Anand simply repeated her response. Still in French, O’Toole raised the question of what date Canada would achieve 75 percent first doses and 20 percent second doses. Patty Hajdu replied that Canada’s vaccination story was a good one as we are number two in the G20 for vaccines administered. O’Toole returned to English to raise some hyperbolic concerns over the Broadcast Act amendments, for which Stephen Guilbeault read back quotes from Conservatives who claimed the bill initially was not strong enough. O’Toole quoted Michael Geist’s criticisms of the the bill, for which Guilbeault quoted several other organisations who said these concerns were dangerously misleading.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he complained that people in hotel quarantine were getting EI, to which Carla Qualtrough insisted that this wasn’t possible under the rules. Therrien said that TVA reporting disputed this, and Pablo Rodriguez stated that this was a question written before they got the answer, and people who took a vacation could not get government assistance.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded that the most vulnerable get vaccinated first — which is provincial jurisdiction. Patty Hajdu listed assistance that were given to provinces, but did not point out that basic jurisdictional issue. Singh then dismissed jurisdictional concerns around paid sick leave and demanded a magical fix to the federal sickness benefit. Qualtrough responded that they have made programmes available to those who need it— but gave no correction around jurisdiction.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s hand-wavey five-point plan

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole gave his keynote speech at the Conservative convention, and it was…serviceable. It was no rhetorical or oratory feat, but it wasn’t the stumbling, breathy mess that Andrew Scheer tended to deliver either, so there was that. But while he laid out his “five-point plan” for economic recovery, it was mostly hand-wavey and gave no real indication of just what exactly he planned to do, or how. Or, as one description put it, it was all tell and no show. But for as much as saying that the country has changed and the party needs to doesn’t really say how. Reaching out to private sector unions? Okay, sure, but just telling a bunch of blue-collar workers that you’re not “woke” isn’t going to cut it when you’re arguing against better wages and benefits. Trying to appeal to Quebec by out-Blocing the Bloc? I’m not seeing exactly what kind of broader, more inclusive party he’s trying to build other than his usual lip service about wanting more Canadians to see a Conservative when they look in the mirror.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1373031101963382790

While you can see my thread responding to his speech here, the party put out a backgrounder on their “Canada Recovery Plan” shortly after the speech, it’s still pretty hand-wavey. In short:

  1. Jobs – What government doesn’t promise jobs? O’Toole promises to recover the million jobs lost by the pandemic, just as Trudeau has, and while O’Toole says that includes women and youth, he literally spent the rest of the speech deriding the Liberals’ inclusive growth plan as being “picking and choosing who gets ahead,” and a “re-imagining of the economy.” Pick a lane.
  2. Accountability – Promises for new anti-corruption laws miss the point. Stephen Harper rode in on the white horse of accountability, and all it did was drive away talent from political staff jobs. Trudeau’s “ethics scandals” have largely been penny ante, and stem from a belief that so long as they mean well that the ends justify the means. Even more laws aren’t going to change that, and this is just populist noise, trying to rail against “elites.”
  3. Mental Health – I will give O’Toole props for mentioning that this will require the cooperation of the provinces, but he’s also already promised increased health transfers with no strings attached. So, again, pick a gods damned lane. As for his “incentives for employers to provide mental health coverage,” we all know that means another tax credit. As for the national three-digit suicide prevention hotline, the Liberals already started this process, but it’s going to take up to two years to implement.
  4. Secure the Country – Partner with pharmaceutical companies to increase capacity for medicines and vaccine production? Erm, what are you willing to capitulate to them? Blow up PMPRB? Give them longer timelines for intellectual property to keep out generics? These kinds of measures would increase drug prices, and would hugely impact provinces and health plans. More domestic production of PPE? You’re talking about subsidising industries to do that, which doesn’t sound very Conservative, and it sounds like picking winners and losers.
  5. Economy – Winding down emergency supports and targeting stimulus are pretty much exactly what the Liberals are promising. There is no daylight here. As for promising to “grow the economy again” and claiming there was slow growth under the Liberals is 100 percent fiction – the Liberals needed to provide some kind of economic stimulus because Conservative austerity was dragging economic growth. This claim is complete bullshit.

Meanwhile, Paul Wells is heartened that O’Toole has woken up to the reality that his party can no longer continue being a cargo cult for Stephen Harper – but also notes that his plan is light on calories, for better or worse at this stage.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chalk up a couple of own-goals

Posted on by

Political own-goals can be painful but also hilarious, and we saw two of them happen yesterday. The first was courtesy of the federal Conservatives, whose intended shitpost went awry when they wound up praising the Liberal government. It was obviously deleted within an hour or so, but the damage was done, and the day was spent with Liberals tweeting that the Conservatives told the truth for once. Oops.

The other was in Alberta, where a committee was examining the Energy Department’s budget, and questions arose about the spending on the province’s “war room,” whose job is supposed to be pushing back against the supposed “falsehoods” about their energy sector. You may have heard that last week, said war room decided to do battle against an obscure Netflix film called Bigfoot Family that shows a battle against an oil magnate seeking to blow up an Alaskan wildlife preserve. As a result of the war room’s ham-fisted campaign, the movie made the top ten streamed films, and had pretty much the opposite effect of what was intended. Nevertheless, the province’s energy minister, Sonya Savage, defended the attack against the film, and some UCP MLAs were praising the war room’s ability to make a film reach the top ten to be “pretty awesome.” Erm, they achieved the opposite and had more people watch the film they wanted to censor, guys. It’s so mind-numbingly dumb, and I just cannot even.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fuelling the cynicism over pharmacare

Posted on by

It appears that Jagmeet Singh is attempting to play a particular kind of political long game, designed solely to increase the level of cynicism among voters through a series of cute legislation, disingenuous moves, and outright mendacity. Case in point was the party’s “pharmacare bill,” which died at Second Reading yesterday – something that was always inevitable, and it was planned as a ham-fisted trap for the Liberals, to be amplified by an incurious media that only both-sides issues rather than calls out bullshit when they see it.

To wit – the NDP’s “pharmacare” bill was shenanigans. Private members’ bills cannot spend money (as that is the sole domain of the government), and the NDP thought they were going to be super clever and instead of outright making a spending commitment in the bill, it would build a framework that would then obligate the government to pass a second bill that would have the spending commitment, but I have particular doubts that this could possibly be considered kosher without a Royal Recommendation, because it tries to bind the government into a spending obligation. Add to that, this particular framework is essentially a top-down imposition on provinces that dares premiers to say no to “free money,” which is a) not free, and b) fraught with complications. Both of those particulars make this bill essentially unconstitutional, and if it’s not, then it’s empty political theatre.

The bill was designed to fail. Singh knew that the Liberals were committed to the process laid out in the Hoskins Report, which they have been pursuing with negotiation with premiers, as well as the establishment of the Canadian Drug Agency, which got funding in the 2019 budget. And the Hoskins Report is quite clear that this could take as long as seven years to negotiate the national formulary as part of this process. It’s not going to happen overnight – but that’s what Singh is trying to claim, that all the federal government has to do is cut cheques to provinces if they pay for all prescription drugs. That’s not how a pharmacare plan works. Singh also claims that the Liberals were voting against the Hoskins Report by killing this bill, which dishonest – yes, the report says a federal statute would need to be drafted, but that is the end-point of negotiations, not the beginning.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1364786672265814021

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1364787372098007049

And this is the thing – because this was designed to fail, it was an attempt to paint the Liberals as betraying their promise to implement universal pharmacare, when they’re already doing the hard work to make it happen. This is solely about breeding cynicism, pretending that there are magic wand solutions, or that you can force things on provinces by sheer force of will. Singh likes to make promises he can’t keep, and by trying to paint the Liberals as betraying their promises – which they are keeping, but which take time to implement because federalism is hard – he is just breeding unrealistic expectations and disappointment that will fuel disengagement. There has not been any honest discourse over this bill – and attempts to point out the truth are met with hostile responses, including a bunch of straw man arguments that pointing out that this bill is unconstitutional is Trudeau priming to declare the Canada Health Act unconstitutional, which is batshit crazy logic – and that just poisons the well for everyone. Well done, guys. I had not gauged the level of sheer cynicism that Singh possesses for the political process, but he’s made it abundantly clear.

Continue reading →

QP: Hotline blues

Posted on by

Monday, and there were a mere two Liberals in the Chamber. Candice Bergen led off for the Conservatives by video, railing that vaccines were not being distributed fast enough, and demanded a plan from the government. Anita Anand reminded her that the plan is in place, and that over half a million doses are arriving this week. Bergen went two more rounds of the same, and got the same response both times. Gérard Deltell then took over in French, and demanded the government to declare how they would vote on the Uyghur genocide motion, for which Marc Garneau cited the government’s concern with the situation and their actions to try and get verification with international partners, but did not answer the question posed. Deltell cited that the Americans have made a declaration — which is meaningless because they don’t subscribe to the International Genocide Convention — for which Garneau repeated his response.

Alain Therrien rose for the Bloc, citing the hours-long wait times on the government’s hotline for hotel quarantines, for which Patty Hajdu praised their border measures and hotel quarantine making it more robust. Therrien then demanded stronger quarantine measures, for which he got the usual reassurances from Hajdu.

Rachel Blaney led for the NDP, and she complained that the UNDRIP bill had only received two hours of debate — ignoring the winter break and the shenanigans of the opposition in forcing debate on committee reports over bill debates. David Lametti reassured her that they felt the bill was important and hoped it would move along soon. Charlie Angus the railed about companies with poor track records getting contracts for First Nations water systems, for which Marc Miller pointed out that the First Nations choose the contractors, and the department works with them to get results.

Continue reading →

QP: Virtual PMQs in an empty chamber

Posted on by

It was not only a very late start to QP, but there was once again only a single Liberal in the Chamber, and it wasn’t the prime minister, despite it being the designated day he answers all questions. Erin O’Toole led off, and he thundered about the CanSino deal falling apart a week after it was struck. Justin Trudeau, appearing by video, reminded him that they cast a wide net with several possible candidates in case one didn’t pan out, like CanSino. O’Toole wondered about Providence Therapeutics’ made-in-Canada candidate, to which Trudeau assured him they follow the advice of the immunity task force, and that they have given Providence new funds to complete trials. O’Toole then railed about the fact that we are not producing any in Canada, and again, Trudeau reminded him that their “strong and aggressive plan” got us vaccines as soon as possible. O’Toole switched to French to worry about the vaccine protectionist noises coming out of the European Union, to which Trudeau assured him he just spoke to the president of the European Commission, who said that these transparency measures would not affect Canada. O’Toole then accused the government of not telling the truth about vaccine deliveries, and Trudeau took exception to that, insisting that he has been transparent with all of their dates. Yves-François Blanchet was up next for the Bloc, and demanded that health transfers would be increased in the budget, to which Trudeau reminded him that they have sent billions to the provinces already (and several provinces continue to sit on those funds). Blanchet repeated the demand, and Trudeau asked him in return why Blanchet was resisting pan-Canadian standards on long-term care. Jagmeet Singh took over for the NDP, and in French, he blamed the lack of vaccines on deaths, before demanding laid sick leave (which is 94 percent provincial jurisdiction), and Trudeau reminded him of the sickness benefit they put into place, but he hoped the provinces would agree to implement them, especially as the federal government has spent eight or nine out of every ten dollars in this pandemic. Singh tried again in English and got much the same response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The weekend year-enders

Posted on by

The main networks had their year-enders with prime minister Justin Trudeau air over the weekend, and I’m not sure that we’ve learned too much more that’s new, but nevertheless, here we are. To CBC, Trudeau said that they need to be ready for an election regardless, given that it’s a hung parliament, even if he doesn’t want one, but wouldn’t rule out calling one himself (which is fair, given that there may be a situation where he may not have a choice to clear a logjam in Parliament. Things happen). He also says that it’s possible that he did contract COVID when his wife had it, but he was asymptomatic the whole time and was in self-isolation throughout.

To CTV, Trudeau defended his vaccine strategy given the scramble for PPE early on, slammed the NHL trying to jump the queue for vaccines, gave some more explanation as to the rationale behind the planned stimulus spending once the pandemic ends (and again promised to balance the budget after temporary benefits programmes are wound down), deflected on his ethical blind spots, and stated that he wasn’t ready to decriminalise all drugs yet, despite some sectors calling for it as a way to deal with the opioid epidemic.

Meanwhile, the PM’s private photographer, Adam Scotti, offered his year-in-review, and there are some amazing photographs in there. Take some time to wander through them and it will take a while, because there is a lot to go through from the year that was. I think what I was most taken with were the photos of the full House of Commons from early in the year, and how strange that looks now given the current circumstances. Highly recommended overall.

Continue reading →