Tag Archives: Jagmeet Singh

Roundup: Legitimizing lunatic narratives about inflation

Posted on by

We are now around day fifty-nine of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like Russia is shifting more units to attacking cities in Eastern Ukraine, and what could be a battle to control the country’s industrial heartland. We also have satellite images that show Russians digging mass graves around Mariupol to try and hide evidence of their war crimes and atrocities against civilians in that city. In Russia, the regime is cracking down harder on its critics, including Vladimir Kara-Murza, who is being charged under the new law that criminalises spreading “false information,” and could be imprisoned for up to 15 years as a result.

Closer to home, I have about lost all patience with the way that the inflation numbers are being reported on, particularly because it’s primarily a lot of both-sidesing without actually reading the gods damned Consumer Price Index from Statistics Canada, even though it’s right there, and spells out what the drivers are. But because our media outlets—and both the CBC and The Canadian Press are especially bad about this—are more invested in the appearance of fairness for political messages than actually calling out falsehoods, simply give equal time to all of the messages. This particular piece on the CBC’s site yesterday, that goes and very gently debunks the messages that different political parties are spreading, is a lot more both-sidesing because it’s still giving equal weight to all of these messages, even if it’s getting experts to push back a little bit (but in some cases, still framing it as though some of these messages are still “a little bit right,” which is the cute trick that they’ve been relying on to not look like they’re biased against any party). And how much room is given to explaining the actual drivers? A single, small paragraph that lists a few of them in general terms, rather than laying out the issues of energy production and fuel shortages in certain countries, or the global supply shortage of semiconductor chips, or most importantly, the fact that we’ve had a lot of droughts in food-producing regions, including in Canada, and that is having a huge impact on food prices because the supply simply isn’t there.

Why this becomes even more important is because you have Pierre Poilievre saying flat out that the Bank of Canada’s economists are “financially illiterate,” because he learned better from the crypto bros on YouTube. It’s alarming, and if the mass media can’t push back against this utter lunacy, but instead soft-pedals it and frames it like “everyone is a little bit right” when they don’t actually bother to go to the gods damned statistical data, it lets this utterly bogus narrative gain traction and legitimacy. This is a problem for our democracy and our society in general, because they’re afraid that Poilievre’s bot army will be mad at them. They’re going to call you biased whatever you do, so why not show a bit of fortitude and call the lies what they are?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chalk up another Conservative disinformation campaign

Posted on by

We’re now on or about day fifty-one of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and has been confirmed that Russia’s Black Sea flagship, the Moskva, has sunk, which is a huge loss for Russia (particularly as Turkey is blockading the entrance to the Black Sea to military vessels, so there will be no replacement for it anytime soon), and it will no longer be able to support Russian ground forces, or to shell cities from afar. In the meantime, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy continues to show that he is a master communicator for his country and his cause.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1514681561412780035

Closer to home, yet another pernicious bit of disinformation has started circulating, courtesy of the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation, who read the Emissions Reduction Plan (which was prepared by an arm’s-length advisory panel), found a reference to a proposal to add a surtax to certain kinds of gas-guzzling vehicles, and then wrote an op-ed in the Toronto Sun that declared this was the government’s plan. Jason Kenney picked up on this and decried it, as has the Conservative Party writ-large and several of its leadership contenders. Of course, there are no actual plans for such a tax, but why does the truth matter? This was the tactic they’ve been using on the supposed plans for a capital gains tax on primary residents, which doesn’t exist and never will exist (even if it’s actually decent public policy). This also compounds with the selective quotes they’ve been using from the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s recent report on carbon pricing, which has been torqued into more disinformation.

There’s so much disinformation and lies floating about, as though there weren’t enough actual things that you could absolutely excoriate this government for, and yet they resort to fiction. Utterly boggling.

Programming Note: I will be taking a long weekend off from the blog, because I am exhausted after the past few weeks. See you Tuesday!

Continue reading →

Roundup: The emergency measures votes were a test

Posted on by

I believe we are now in day thirty-three of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and there are fears in the northern city of Chernihiv that they may become the next Mariupol, as the city undergoes shelling from Russian forces. Meanwhile, those Russian forces seem to be shifting away from trying to encircle Kyiv, and are instead moving toward the eastern Donbas region to try and consolidate gains there, leading to fears that Russia may be trying to split the country. Elsewhere, the International Committee of the Red Cross is asking Canada not to lump its humanitarian promises in with sanctions and military aid, as it threatens the neutrality of their organisation. Here is a look at some more actions the West could be taking to help Ukraine that aren’t a no-fly zone. It has also been announced that Justin Trudeau and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will co-host an international pledging event for “Stand Up For Ukraine” on April 9th.

Closer to home, the weekend saw a couple of different versions of the “inside story” of the Liberal and NDP supply and confidence agreement, from both Susan Delacourt and Aaron Wherry. The two recounting largely align, talking about how initial talks post-election quickly ended as everyone was still too raw from the vote, how Trudeau reached out to Singh after the birth of Singh’s daughter, that most of the talks happened virtually and close to the vest to avoid leaks, and that their face-to-face meeting was at Rideau Gate, which usually hosts dignitaries (but was where Julie Payette lived when she was GG rather than in Rideau Hall, along with her Secretary, Assunta DiLorenzo). What was particularly interesting was how the vote on the Emergencies Act became the test for the NDP that they could be trusted in this agreement, and how the Liberals were willing to provide security briefings to secure that support, and that when the NDP proved themselves, the deal could go ahead.

On that note, it’s interesting (but perhaps unsurprising) that Elections Canada said that they got no prior notice about the portions of the agreement that call for the exploration of three days of elections, allowing people to vote at any polling place in the riding, or improving the process of mail-in ballots. Some of those may be unwieldy or impossible, but the agreement’s language does specify that they would “work with Elections Canada to explore ways to expand the ability for people to vote,” so these ideas are not iron-clad. On the reconciliation front, there are hopes that the promise of stability that the agreement provides will help accelerate some timelines toward progress.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wondering who the real winner of the confidence agreement is

Posted on by

We are now on day twenty-eight, four weeks into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like Russia’s attempts at occupying Mariupol continue to be thwarted, though the city is being reduced to rubble. As well, Ukrainian forces retook a strategic suburb of Kyiv, so that is as good of news as can be hoped for in the situation. Remember how Russia thought it was a matter of marching?

Back in Canada, the supply and confidence agreement between the Liberals and NDP was made official, and boy were there a bunch of reactions. Some of them were expected, like the Conservatives abusing the term “coalition” (it’s not a coalition) and claiming it’s a “power grab” rather than a legitimate exercise of cooperation in a hung parliament as happens not infrequently in Westminster systems. Oh, and she said that this ultimately benefits Putin. No, really—she said that. Even more problematic were certain CBC reporters pushing this bizarre notion that Canadians “elected a minority government” and that this agreement somehow violates it, which no, is not how things work. We don’t elect governments, and there is not majority/minority option on the ballot, and it’s been just as much a recurring narrative in the past two parliaments that a hung parliament means that “Canadians want us to work together” (which is just as silly a notion, frankly), but honestly, I expect better from the CBC than to push this kind of nonsense, and it’s embarrassing for them as the national broadcaster to be pushing this nonsense.

https://twitter.com/SusanDelacourt/status/1506273770176188427

In the meantime, there is a bunch of pearl-clutching that this agreement somehow means that we won’t be increasing defence-spending, even though the NDP has no veto on budgets, and the fact that we can’t even spend the current allocation so it’s way too soon to worry about this. The early indications of the outlined dental care plan could help millions—but it’s light on details and the actual mechanism that will be used given that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction (but some good perspective threads from economist Kevin Milligan here and here). The consensus seems to be that the Liberal are the real winners here and not the NDP, but others argue that the Conservatives could be the real winners because it will give the next leader time to rebuild the party and establish themselves given that the next election will be more than three years away (maybe). And then there is the question about whether this agreement gives Trudeau the runway to accomplish a few more things before turning it over to his successor, though he says otherwise when asked (which of course he will, because saying he won’t run again makes him lame duck instantly). It does make for a different dynamic for the next couple of years in any case, so we’ll see how it shapes up.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unpacking the rate decision

Posted on by

The Bank of Canada released their interest rate decision yesterday morning, and held firm…mostly. More significantly, they removed their extraordinary forward guidance, meaning that they have sent the warning that rates are going to rise. Why they didn’t raise them this time is because they had that guidance in place, which essentially said that they weren’t going to raise rates until later in 2022 as a way to help the economy recover from the pandemic—but it has largely recovered, albeit unevenly. With omicron still having an effect, there is still an abundance of caution being exercised—not to mention the fact that raising interest rates won’t actually have an effect on what is currently driving inflation, so it has the potential to do more harm than good right now.

The Monetary Policy Report was also released yesterday, which highlighted how transportation bottlenecks, labour shortages and the difficulty in sourcing key inputs are having an impact on the Canadian economy. More to the point, there has been good economic momentum heading into 2022, and the “slack” in the economy has been absorbed, meaning that the extraordinary measures that were brought in to stimulate the economy at the start of the pandemic can more readily be wound down now, which is another key indicator of why rates are going to start rising again. They also see inflation winding down later over this year, providing that supply bottlenecks and cost pressures don’t carry on for longer than anticipated.

Meanwhile, here’s Kevin Carmichael with his read of the rate decision, the MPR, and what signals the Bank of Canada is sending.

Continue reading →

Roundup: New NSICOP line-up, sans Conservatives

Posted on by

Because the issue of NSICOP/Winnipeg Lab documents refuses to die, yesterday’s iteration was that the prime minister announced the new composition of NSICOP, and it didn’t include any Conservatives, either MPs or senators, because they refused to put any names forward. Erin O’Toole then tweeted that this was because it was somehow hiding documents, which is a complete and utter falsehood.

To recap: those Winnipeg Lab documents were released in an unredacted form to NSICOP to review. The Conservatives withdrew from NSICOP because it didn’t suit their needs to actually review the documents—the whole point was the song and dance about a “cover-up.” If, during the years that NSICOP has been operating, any of its reports were unfairly redacted and information was being hidden from the public that its membership felt was important, they would have resigned in protest. That did not happen because it was working. And even if it were a full parliamentary committee, redactions still happen because it’s still national security.

O’Toole is acting in bad faith so that he can wink and nod to conspiracy theorists and put on a show that doesn’t reflect reality. He knows it, and he should be called out on it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Holland breaks out the passive-aggressive open letter tactics

Posted on by

The drama over the Winnipeg Lab documents took another turn yesterday as Government House Leader Mark Holland sent a four-page open letter to the Conservative House Leader, urging him to reconsider rejecting the government’s offer to create a new ad hoc panel to have the documents vetted behind closed doors with a panel of three former judges to adjudicate any disputes. In said letter, Holland name-checks nearly every national security and intelligence expert who has weighed in on the topic of the past few weeks, with a couple of exceptions.

While Holland didn’t name Philippe Lagassé’s piece, it’s fairly irrelevant to the concerns at hand. Whether NSICOP gets turned into a full-blown committee or not, it won’t make a material difference because the Conservatives’ objections are not based on any particular matter of principle or specific objection. As I point out in my column, they are merely acting in bad faith in order to be theatrical and try and score points by winking to conspiracy theories in order to paint the picture that the government is hiding something for the benefit of the Chinese, or some other such nonsense.

I don’t expect Holland’s letter to do anything other than look passive-aggressive and ham-fisted as the issue continues to fester—not that there is an order to produce documents any longer, and the committee that made said order no longer exists either (though O’Toole has been under pressure to restore it, as though it actually did anything meaningful other than be yet another dog and pony show). We’ll see if the other two opposition parties come to some kind of agreement, but so far this issue continues to just make everyone look like our Parliament is amateur hour. Which it kind of is.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fuzzy logic, rank innumeracy, and outright lies

Posted on by

Erin O’Toole has apparently decided he’s going all-in for the unvaccinated, and wants “reasonable accommodations” made for them while they continue to flood the healthcare system and push it to the point of collapse, and lo, he wants the federal government to halt their vaccine mandate for truck drivers citing the fragility of the supply chain. (Erm, so when the virus rips through the unvaccinated drivers, that won’t further disrupt the supply chain?)

Logic doesn’t seem to be penetrating O’Toole’s rhetoric—nor the simple fact that premiers are responsible for the management of the pandemic, not the federal government. There are no “reasonable accommodations” because rapid tests are not actually passports that allow the unvaccinated free licence to go out in public (unlikely to be masked either, because the Venn diagram of anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers is nearly a perfect circle). All it does is prolong the pandemic and the strain on the healthcare system which is leading to the mockdowns across the country—which again, O’Toole is trying to pin on Trudeau because the federal government continues to offer pandemic supports, and he claims that this is “normalizing” them. (He also calls them lockdowns when they are nothing of the sort). He’s tried to claim that the federal government should have been able to increase bed capacity in hospitals (physical beds are not the problem—the problem is trained staff to tend to the patients in those beds). It’s just a bunch of fuzzy logic, rank innumeracy, and outright lies, and O’Toole knows it, but he’s decided that this is the path that he can exploit politically, and there frankly aren’t enough people, particularly in the media, calling him on his bullshit (because both sides! *jazz hands*).

Meanwhile, O’Toole is also calling for emergency meetings of the health committee to examine the “critical gaps” in the federal government’s ability to manage the pandemic in the omicron wave. Which is…not the federal government’s fault. They provided the vaccines, and the rapid tests when asked, and are deploying military help across the country when provinces ask (never mind that the military is stretched beyond capacity and they can’t do their actual jobs right now). No, what O’Toole has decided we all need is a dog and pony show to deflect from the failures of the premiers so that he can try and pin this all on Trudeau. It would be risible if we hadn’t already seen the Conservatives abuse that very same committee in the previous parliament, for the sake of a few headlines.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A fundamental misunderstanding of the profession

Posted on by

Because this is sometimes a media criticism blog, it’s time once again to look askance at some particularly poor reporting choices by a particular CBC reporter. He has developed quite a pattern and reputation for writing stories about judicial appointments which are skewed toward a certain predilection for creating moral panics, and this really false notion that people are essentially buying judicial nominations with party donations, which is both absurd and not how the system works. And along the way, he mischaracterised comments made by the then-president of the Canadian Bar Association, which I had to go about correcting.

In this particular instance, he is remarking that a new judicial nomination Quebec is a lawyer who argued the case on behalf of opponents of Bill 21 in the province (and didn’t win because the judge noted that the provincial government pre-emptively applied the Notwithstanding Clause). But the entire framing of the story and its implicit narrative is that this is a political appointment for the intention of either tweaking at François Legault, or of signalling federal opposition to the law, which is again absurd, and a completely bizarre understanding of how things work in the legal system.

Let me offer this reminder: lawyers make arguments on behalf of their clients. They don’t need to believe those arguments or subscribe to the beliefs of their clients—they simply need to argue on their behalf. The fact that this lawyer argued on behalf of these clients in opposition to this law should be immaterial to the fact that he applied to be a judge, and it should not be a determining factor in the decision to appoint him. But it does fit the narrative that this particular reporter likes to portray about how judicial appointments work, and the fact that the gods damned CBC is letting him spin this particular narrative and not squashing it for being both wrong and unprofessional is troubling, and makes me wonder what the hell is going on with their editorial standards.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unable to read the signs about Freeland

Posted on by

Just a quick note because a lot of talking heads have been mentioning it over the past few days, which was about that Globe and Mail article from a couple of days ago (which I’m not going to link to) that proclaimed Chrystia Freeland’s leadership ambitions because…she is the subject of an unauthorized biography, and she wrote that letter to the board of Air Canada. No, seriously—that was the sum total of the Globe’s evidence.

And yet, on Power and Politics, The Line and other places, everyone is treating this biography as though it were a) an autobiography, which is what many party leaders will release ahead of an election, not ahead of a leadership vote; or b) a book that she commissioned herself, when in fact someone else is writing it, and Freeland has apparently not even agreed to be interviewed for it, or cooperate with it in any way. Nevertheless, the conflation by all of these outlets continues to paint a picture that is not actually there.

As for the letter to the board of Air Canada, the federal government is one of the largest shareholders with six percent of the company’s stock, which Freeland mentioned in the letter. Add to that, Air Canada is a repeat offender when it comes to violating their obligations under the Official Languages Act, so as finance minister, Freeland has particular obligations to remind the Board of this when their CEO did something as impolitic (and frankly stupid) as the comments he made. This wasn’t something that she did on a whim because she wants to build up her Quebec cred for the (eventual) leadership bid.

I get the desire to stir the pot and create some drama, but come on. Yes, Freeland no doubt has ambitions, and she is likely going to be the next prime minister. But if you’re a serious news outlet, at least get your basic facts and context right before you start making these kinds of proclamations. You don’t look very credible with this kind of nonsense.

Continue reading →