Tag Archives: Haiti

Roundup: David Johnston, special rapporteur

Posted on by

The “unimpeachable” eminent Canadian chosen to be the special rapporteur on allegations of foreign interference is former Governor General David Johnston, and it took mere minutes for the Conservatives to start denouncing him, citing that he was affiliated with the Trudeau Foundation, and that his role on the election debate commission saw Rosemary Barton ask questions during the last debate when she “sued” the Conservatives (note: she did not sue them, but the CBC sued the party in her name for unauthorised use of footage; also, I don’t believe Johnston chose the moderators or questioners, considering that it was a demand of the broadcast consortium that their talent each be allowed to have time during the debate), and on and on it went. The pundit class largely insisted that Johnston should have recused himself right away because he is too closely associated with Trudeau, and others insisted that if it was truly a non-partisan appointment then Pierre Poilievre and Jagmeet Singh should have been part of the process and naming him, and anyway, the whole special rapporteur thing was stupid and so on.

https://twitter.com/SusanDelacourt/status/1636102797623009281

I mean, I understand why Trudeau decided to go this route—not everyone agrees that a public inquiry is the best route to go, because it could go for years and that could mean delaying action that should be taken now. Even if it is the route we want to go (and several Liberals are now saying that it’s the only option at this point), it would still be Trudeau and Cabinet setting the terms of reference, which is also part of the rationale—Trudeau says that he would leave that determination up to Johnston, and he’d follow his recommendations, thereby trying to put some measure of distance between himself and any such task. I do say that it mystifies me that everyone demanding an inquiry right now if not yesterday never seems to care about this very point, even though we all damned well know that they would immediately cite these points as to why the inquiry is illegitimate.

But honestly? Canada is a small pond. There are not too many “eminent Canadians” who have the track record to take on this kind of task, and who don’t have some kind of perceived conflict, no matter how unrealistic it is. But that’s the whole thing with perceived conflicts, and this notion of “smell tests” that don’t actually mean anything but which get the chattering classes frothing. Is Johnston the best choice? Maybe, maybe not. The likely other option was a former Supreme Court Justice, which has become a running joke in Canadian politics these days. Regardless, the fact that this is just more partisan fodder is all the more proof that parties are not actually taking this seriously, and would rather be out to score points instead.

Ukraine Dispatch:

American intelligence suggests that the Russians are making small advances toward Bakhmut, but at great cost. Further north near Kreminna, similar battles are playing out, with the Russians making unsuccessful attacks, but they worry that the attempts to surround Bakhmut could have repercussions for their section of the front, while fatigue is starting to set in.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The frustrated Commissioner was part of the problem

Posted on by

The outgoing Ethics Commissioner is starting to do exit interviews, and he’s expressing frustration that these kinds of ethics violations keep happening, despite the law being in place for 17 years now. To that I say two things:

1) No matter how many rules you put in place, it won’t matter because the Liberals under Trudeau fundamentally believe that so long as they mean well, the ends will justify the means, and that it’s better to simply apologise after having broken rules than it is to scrupulously and slavishly adhere to them in the first place. You can’t just put new rules to stop them from that particular belief, and no amount of training from the Commissioner’s office is likely to shake them from such beliefs.

2) Our ethics regime sucks, in large part because so much of it is predicated on the whims of the Commissioner, and this Commissioner had a lot of whims. His predecessor had a habit of reading her mandate so narrowly that nothing ever applied, except for a small handful of cases, one of which was Trudeau’s vacation with the Aga Khan, in which she made up rules around what a family friendship entails. The current Commissioner has been the opposite, reading his mandate very, very expansively so that things it should not encompass, it does (like the SNC-Lavalin issue). He has made up statutory interpretation from whole cloth, such as the definition of what constitutes “family” under the Act, and capturing relatives through marriage that no other statute in the country captures in its definitions (the issue with Dominic LeBlanc). There is no consistency, and even when they believe they are within the law, he will make up a rule that says they’re not.

I’m not suggesting the Liberals are blameless, because they’re not (see the part about them not caring about rules), but the statue itself is a problem, as are the perceptions around it, and the apocalyptic language being used to describe minor transgressions. They keep talking about the transgressions making it hard to have trust in politicians, but when the system itself fails them because it’s poorly designed and poorly administered, it’s just one vicious circle that nobody wants to show a way out of.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 359:

Russia launched 36 missiles early in the day and struck the country’s oil refinery, while also shelling two dozen settlements in the east and south of the country.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1626479351045804032

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: A ten-year health “deal”

Posted on by

Before the big meeting between Justin Trudeau and the premiers, Trudeau had a one-on-one meeting with Alberta premier Danielle Smith, and it was…awkward. From her limp handshake to her hectoring about the “just transition” term, it was certainly something.

When the big meeting did happen, Trudeau and his ministers kept the attention on the big number: $198 billion over ten years, of which $46.2 billion is new funds, beyond planned increases in the Canada Health Transfer, and other promised funds for things like boosting the pay of long-term care workers and to hire front-line health workers. I am curious about this immediate $2 billion with no strings attached, intended to help meet things like surgical backlogs, but which you know premiers are going to use elsewhere (at least two of them have imminent elections) because they will immediately cry that this is one-time funding and not stable, long-term predictable funding. The increase to the transfer is tied to better data and increased digitization (which, frankly, was supposed to have been completed by now), plus $25 billion for the one-on-one deals with each province to meet specific needs, and finally another $2 billion over ten years for Indigenous health outcomes.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1623077585847726080

Of course, premiers aren’t happy because it wasn’t as much money as they wanted, and there are strings. Some, like Doug Ford, kept trying to spin this as “a down payment” when the federal government was pretty quick to say this money is it. And then you get former premiers like Jean Charest coming out of the woodwork to insist that strings attached is “risky,” while he repeats the straw man arguments that the federal government is trying to “run emergency rooms,” which absolutely nobody has ever stated, while the federal government just wants health dollars to be spent on healthcare. Nevertheless, the message from the federal ministers is that they expect these one-on-one deals with provinces to be signed in weeks, not months, because they want this all done before the federal budget. The Star has a look at how the logjam broke down, a little at a time.

“Losing control”

One of my perpetual pet peeves of mainstream media in this country is this insistence that we want MPs to be more independent, but the moment they show a glimmer of independence, we rend our clothes and wail that the leader is “losing control” of his or her caucus, and lo, it’s happening again. The story is about a group of Liberals, mostly from Montreal, who have taken exception with the preamble of the official languages legislation which recognises Quebec’s provincial language laws, which they object to both because it restricts anglophones in the province, but because a federal bill shouldn’t enshrine a provincial law in federal statute, and it was a dumb move by the federal drafters to put that in the bill. And one of the Liberals’ Franco-Ontarian MPs is pushing back. OH NOES! Trudeau is “losing control” of his caucus, as opposed to “he drafted a sloppy bill,” or “the minister didn’t consult her own gods damned caucus first.” The narrative is “losing control.” Zeus wept.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 350:

Ukrainian forces are claiming to have killed 1,030 Russian troops overnight on the front lines in the eastern part of the country. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has thanked parliament for approving his new cabinet picks as he shuffles up his ministers, including the defence minister.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Concerns divorced from reality in C-11

Posted on by

The continuing discourse around Bill C-11—the online streaming bill—continues to plumb new depths of utter idiocy, and this weekend, the Globe and Mail dragged Margaret Atwood into it, where she said some things that have absolutely nothing to do with the bill at hand. Why? Because Senator David Richards, a novelist who has been little more than a crank during his time in the Senate, gave a speech last week (around 1530 in the Hansard) that was pretty much complete and utter nonsense in which he accused the government and the CRTC of being Goebbels-like propagandists because of this bill, and people have glommed onto the debate without knowing anything about it.

If anything, the Globe story was complete journalistic malpractice, because it didn’t give sufficient context to the bill or what it actually says, and Atwood admitted she hadn’t read the bill, and they ran the story about her comments regardless.

I have done several stories on this bill and its predecessor in the previous Parliament (here and here). In spite of the Conservative narrative that this was “Orwellian” and that an “Internet czar” was going to censor your tweets, the bill is nothing about that. It’s about ensuring that streaming services like Netflix and Disney+ play by similar rules as other conventional broadcasters, particularly in using part of their revenues to continue to Canadian content media funds. YouTube was included for that reason—as the largest music streaming service, it should also disclose its Canadian revenues and submit the same proportion to media funds for artists that radio does. That’s it. The CRTC has been determining what counts as “Canadian Content” for those purposes, as well as for tax credits, for decades. The current point system has been in place since 1984. None of this is new or novel, and none of this is the Minister of Heritage telling people what to produce, and absolutely none of this is “government censorship,” and if people believe that, then they don’t understand the meaning of the word. And yet, these narratives have been allowed to perpetuate in the mainstream media, either because the journalists in question are too lazy to actually read the bill, or they are content to both-sides the debate, and when one of those sides are outright lying, or are free speech zealots who object to CanCon regulations on principle, and on the other side you get ministerial pabulum, you’re not exactly cutting through any of the bullshit. We have been so let down by the media over the course of this interminable debate, and we are all the worse off for it because people aren’t doing the jobs.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 348:

Russian missiles struck Kharkiv over the weekend, destroying residential buildings, while a fire caused a blackout in Odessa. Russia and Ukraine also traded almost 200 prisoners of war in a prisoner exchange on Saturday. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s defence minister is being shuffled to a new portfolio as part of the government shake-up in light of combatting corruption allegations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reducing chances of a wage-price spiral

Posted on by

There have been a lot of misleading things said about the Bank of Canada’s concerns around a potential wage-price spiral, most of them from left-wing economists or union leaders (as well as Jagmeet Singh and Pierre Poilievre), who have wrongly said that either governor Tiff Macklem was blaming wages for inflation (false), or that he told business leaders not to raise wages (also false). What Macklem said was that when negotiating contracts, to remember that they were determined to get inflation back to two percent as quickly as possible, so don’t keep high raises out for too long, because that is what could drive a wage-price spiral. What that means is that because wages would be above the rate of inflation, it means that prices—particularly for services—would need to be raised to pay for those wages, which then keeps inflation higher for longer. It’s also why it’s not just price controls that have happened in the past, but wage and price controls, to try and keep that impetus in check.

Payroll data has been released, which demonstrates why the concerns about a wage-price spiral are abating. Kevin Milligan explains:

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1618678055396081665

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1618679010099359744

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1618680872106086402

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1618691478653644800

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 338:

Russians fired more missiles at Kyiv and places like Zaporizhzhia, killing eleven civilians in the process.

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1618859295851921409

Continue reading →

Roundup: On Trudeau’s feeling re-energized

Posted on by

The CBC’s Aaron Wherry has a longread out right now about Justin Trudeau’s time in office, and the sense that he’s feeling re-invigorated and is almost certainly going to run for a fourth election, likely in 2025, which some of us (myself included) have not been so sure about. But there is a lot of observation from insiders and observers that he does seem to have the fight back (indeed, I heard from some people in the know of the funk he found himself in at one particular point), and that it’s not necessarily Pierre Poilievre’s presence that is doing it, but that he has a sense of unfinished business, of promises yet to be fulfilled.

To that end, the piece notes that Cabinet and caucus have been told to focus on four Cs: competence, confidence, contrast and campaign-readiness (in that order), of which the first is going to be incredibly important when it comes to trying to dispel this notion that “everything feels broken,” particularly when there is a pervasive sense that government can’t even get the little things right (though I would note that some of the “little things” are more complex than they may appear on the surface, and a lot of what people are complaining about is not the job of the federal government to fix, no matter that they may try to claim some kind of policy ownership, such as investing in housing when those funds are the only policy lever they have available). And yeah, some of it is their own fault (see: judicial appointments), where they decided on processes that hampered them more than it helped them, and absolutely their inability to communicate their way out of a wet paper bag is one hundred percent one of their biggest own-goal problems, which they seem resolutely unwilling to do anything about.

I know there is also a lot of talk about the “smell of death” on this government, and I will probably write something longer about that elsewhere, but nevertheless, it was interesting to read Wherry’s piece and put some of it into the context of these conversations that are being had around the pundit sphere. There are a lot of things to consider about this government, and little of it can fit into some of these fairly facile narratives.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 327:

There was a fresh round of Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure across Ukraine on Saturday, and one missile struck a nine-story building in Dnipro, killing at least twelve people, while another 30 to 40 people are still missing and could be trapped under rubble. The missile—the kind used to strike warships—may have been aimed at a nearby power station. This as Ukrainian officials continue to insist that the battle for Soledar is not lost, and this certainly takes the attention away from that. CBC also heard from a Russian conscript who was at the site of the Makiivka counter-attack, which struck Russian barracks.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Encouraging noises on health transfers

Posted on by

There seems to be a noticeable shift in tone coming from several premiers when it comes to the federal government’s demands that there be more strings attached to future federal health care transfers, and that they seem to be realizing that their time-old tactics of simply blaming the federal government isn’t working as well as it used to. In part, I think that Justin Trudeau has stepped up his game on communication around this issue more than he usually does, and made effective use of his round of year-end interviews on this file, and showed that he was willing to give them more money, but that there needs to be changes rather than putting money into a broken system that won’t get meaningful results. I also think that shit is getting real for the premiers as we are now seeing an increasing number of deaths in ERs that should have been preventable, and that the patience of the population when it comes to children’s hospitals in particular is now gone, and they are being forced to wear it more than they would normally have had to in the past.

So, this sounds like an increased willingness to rebrand federal strings as “shared priorities,” and that’s a climbdown that premiers seem to be increasingly willing to live with. But then again, I wouldn’t trust all of the premiers, and in particular Doug Ford, whose math about new beds is false advertising, and who is hilariously claiming that new private surgery clinics won’t cannibalise hospital staff or resources, because of course they will. That’s the whole gods damned point. His “safeguards” will be as effective as toddler gates whose latches can be figured out and overcome within seconds. So, while it’s good to hear the shift in tone, I wouldn’t count any unhatched chickens just yet.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 325:

Russians are once again claiming that they are now in control of the remains of Soledar, but the Ukrainians continue to say their units are still there and still fighting.

https://twitter.com/bachyns/status/1613939963237732365

Continue reading →

Roundup: Prepared to cooperate with a committee probe

Posted on by

The simmering issue over the McKinsey contracts carried on yesterday as Justin Trudeau told a press conference that he has tasked ministers Mona Fortier and Helena Jaczek with looking into those contracts, and that they will cooperate with any committee investigation that may happen around them. Fortier was also on Power & Politics to praise transparency and accountability, but didn’t entirely push back when asked why Radio-Canada couldn’t see the reports when asked, though that’s unlikely to happen for most of them given that they are meant for internal consumption and not for the public, though there should be some kind of better accounting for them, such as possibly releasing an executive summary.

Meanwhile, Alex Usher has some good observations about civil service capacity and these kinds of consultants, and they’re salient. Subject matter expertise in the civil service has been waning for a while, and most civil servants now jump from department to department in search of career advancement, and executives get shuffled from department to department all the time, so you no longer have someone in an executive position who has been in that department their whole careers. That can matter in the end.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 323:

The battle around Soledar appears to continue, as the claims by Russia and the mercenary Wagner Group continue to be disputed by Ukrainian forces who insist they are holding out and Russia is merely trying for a propaganda victory. Elsewhere in the country, Ukrainian soldiers are engaged in war games exercises near the Belarus border, amid rumours that Russian forces may try to make another attempt to cross through those borders.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The mounting spending on McKinsey consultants

Posted on by

There is a report out from Radio-Canada about the current government’s increasing reliance on consulting reports from McKinsey, with an explosion of contract spending on them. And it’s not good—it’s expensive, it’s corrosive to the capabilities of the civil service, and it undermines the ability for there to be transparency in these kinds of consultations. There is an attitude that anything coming from outside government is better, and the civil service (rightly) feels put out by it without also recognising that some of their own dysfunction has contributed to these attitudes.

I would note, however, that the story does leave out some of the context around the increasing use of external consultants and the history, particularly under the previous government. While the focus of this story was on McKinsey and how this government seems to be relying on them more, we have to also remember that a lot of this outsourcing of work that should be done by the civil service sharply increased under the previous government, particularly as they cut capacity and capability in the civil service, and then found it from external sources, where it was easier to be told what they wanted to hear. (That, and it was a tactic in their outright war on the civil service). This isn’t to say that the civil service is still a bastion of telling truth to power, because it hasn’t been for a while now, and the dysfunction of the relationship between government and the professional civil-service is a real problem that has no easy solutions. But it’s getting worse and not better, even under this government that promised to restore that relationship (though interviews I’ve done for other stories suggests that they didn’t have any idea about how bad things were in the civil service when they made that promise). It would be great if ministers could actually listen to their departments rather than hiring these outside consultants, but it’s not like this government is a fount of political courage in doing things all that differently when it comes down to it.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 316:

As Russian missiles have struck civilian targets in Kramatorsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that Russia is planning a new mobilization in order to delay their inevitable defeat. Meanwhile, Canadian-made LAVs are now reaching the battlefield in Ukraine.

Continue reading →