Tag Archives: National Security

Roundup: Figures without context for outrage

Posted on by

You may have noticed that the Conservative Party’s Twitter feed recently is trying to make “100 days of Trudeau fails” a Thing – because their overriding narrative has been to put “Trudeau” and “fail” in the same sentence for the past two years now, but it still feels a lot like trying to make “fetch” happen. But as they essentially regurgitate old headlines as part of this campaign, you will find that most of the posts are missing key context, which ensures that it’s often a big figure with nothing to support it. Given that We The Media have trained Canadians with our fixation on cheap outrage stories, I’m sure this is a tactic that they feel is a slam dunk, but in any case, here are a few examples from the past few days. In other words, don’t take anything at face value, but remember that there is context (that is easily Googled) to what they are posting, and most of it makes them look pretty petty – particularly the repairs and upgrades to the official residence at Harrington Lake, given that Trudeau has been entertaining foreign leaders there as they can’t do it at 24 Sussex.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Affordability truthers

Posted on by

As expected, talk of the cost of living crept up again online today, with some more hyperbolic nonsense coming from one of our favourite Conservative talking heads. But this time, economist Stephen Gordon stepped in to provide a reality check – only to find more StatsCan “truthers” coming out of the woodwork. Remember, for populists, they don’t like data that contradicts their narratives, so they try to insist that the data is somehow biased or wrong. Gordon sets them straight, and makes the even more salient point that if the Conservatives (and by extension the NDP) are so concerned about cost of living increases that are within the rate of inflation, then perhaps they need to articulate what their monetary policy goals are – which is what the targeted rate of inflation amounts to. Plenty to think about and remember here.

Continue reading →

Roundup: What high cost exactly?

Posted on by

As people talk more and more about the upcoming election, the notion about the “high cost of living” is a theme that keeps recurring, and it’s fairly interesting because it’s something that, well, doesn’t really bear out in the data. Inflation has held relatively steady for decades now, and in the past few years has remained within the target range (between one and three percent, with two percent being what they generally aim for), and was on the low side of it for a while, briefly flirted with the high side of the target range and has been back to two percent.

As part of populist rhetoric, all parties have been trying to make this a selling feature – the Conservatives with promises to cut carbon pricing (even though that has not had a significant effect on inflation or even gas prices) and the restoration of boutique tax credits (that don’t benefit low-income people), the Liberals through the Canada Child Benefit, and the NDP through promised massive spending programmes (that have zero details on implementation). So it’s worthwhile asking just what exactly they’re referring to when they rail about the high cost of living, because it can refer to specific things that have specific solutions that they may or may not be advocating.

Housing prices are one thing that are lumped into cost of living, but isn’t really, and again, that’s very dependent on which market you happen to be in. Toronto is coming back to normal after being on a housing bubble, but Vancouver is still high in part because of housing supply. Alberta and Saskatchewan are depressed because of the oil market, but other parts of the country? Not really an affordability issue, and some plans to deal with housing affordability will just drive up prices by the amount of the incentives and not deal with the structural problems (which is what the Liberals tried to circumvent with their shared equity plan in the last budget). Essentially, when the parties start talking about dealing with the “high cost of living,” we should be pushing back and asking what, specifically, they’re referring to. There is enough populist bilge out there that means nothing and promises snake oil, so unless you can get specifics, don’t trust that they will deliver anything of substance.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Intelligence and context

Posted on by

There was a lot of flurry yesterday about supposed revelations made in Federal Court that CSIS has been spying on peaceful environmental groups. Except, people who used to be at CSIS, will tell you that’s exactly not the case. And the reporting on this hasn’t exactly helped either because it’s in a very defined frame with tropes that somewhat credulously take what these groups are saying and putting it with the redacted documents and drawing conclusions, that again, people who used to work there, will dispute, and those voices aren’t in the reporting. So here’s Stephanie Carvin and Jessica Davis, both of who used to work at CSIS, offering some proper context for what those documents say.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1148217645986131969

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1148217647852642304

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1148233105825812480

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1148235622529818625

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1148235624580833283

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1148235626380181505

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1148301752770408448

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1148222236832215040

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1148230145968418817

Continue reading →

Roundup: Nepotism versus Responsible Government

Posted on by

As the nepotism scandal in Ontario picks up steam, with revelations that there were appointments made to lacrosse players and an MPP’s father, and more demands that there be a more independent review of the appointments that have been made, I think it’s time for a bit of a civics and history lesson about patronage appointments. In many ways, patronage appointments are how we wound up with Responsible Government in the colonies that became Canada in the first place – the local assemblies wanted control over who was being appointed to these positions rather than them going to people from the UK who would then come over to carry them out, and eventually we won that right as part of Responsible Government. It was also understood at the time that it was fine if the party in power put their friends into patronage positions because when fortunes turned and their rivals formed government, they would be able to do the same with their friends. That particular view we have, fortunately, evolved from.

Regardless of this evolution, the core fact remains – that under Responsible Government, it is the first minister and Cabinet who makes these decisions as they are the ones who advise the Governor General/lieutenant governor to make said appointment. It also means that they are accountable to the legislature for that advice, which is where the current nepotism scandal now hangs. There are going to be all kinds of Doug Ford apologists who say that this was all Dean French, that Ford didn’t know what was going on – even though he signed off on it. And that’s the thing. It doesn’t matter if this was French hoodwinking Ford because Ford is the one who advises the LG about the appointments, and Ford is responsible to the legislature for making those appointments (and for hiring French, when you think about it). And if his party gets too embarrassed by this particular scandal, well, there could be a loss of confidence in the offing (likely from within party ranks than the legislature, but stranger things have happened).

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1143639086231633920

On that note of accountability, we should also point out that with the appointment of yet more ministers and “parliamentary assistants,” there are a mere 27 MPPs left in the back benches who don’t have a role, which means that they will see themselves as one screw-up away from a promotion (and this is more salient in the provinces, where regional balances are less of an outright concern, and this government in particular seems less interested in other diversity balances). That does erode the exercise of accountability by backbenchers. So does, incidentally, a chief of staff who would berate MPs for not clapping long enough, but maybe they’ll grow a backbone now that French is gone. Maybe.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A queen and her prime minister

Posted on by

It was Pride weekend in Toronto, and Justin Trudeau was in attendance once again this year, with several Cabinet ministers and his Toronto-area MPs. The only Conservative MP in attendance appears to have been Lisa Raitt, while Jagemeet Singh and Elizabeth May were also present.

But most importantly? This years RuPaul’s Drag Race runner-up from Toronto, the Queen of the North, Brooke Lynn Hytes was also in attendance, and got to meet her prime minister, as any good queen would.

https://twitter.com/AdamScotti/status/1142852635780927488

https://twitter.com/Bhytes1/status/1142870645673484294

Continue reading →

Roundup: A real climate sham

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer unveiled his long-awaited environmental plan yesterday, citing that it was a “real plan” because it was longer than the other parties’…but that was about it. After he listed a bunch of lies about the current Liberal plan, Scheer kept saying that carbon pricing didn’t do anything, which is both factually incorrect (as proven by peer-reviewed work), but it also completely ignores that the current plan hasn’t had a chance to sufficiently bend the curve. By removing carbon pricing from the market and instead forcing companies who exceed their emissions to caps, it is actually even less of a market-based plan than the Liberals’ plan, and there are no specifics in how any of it would work. Promising technological solutions without price signals to spur their development is just like counting on magic to lower emissions. It’s also like Scheer’s complete lie that this plan won’t cost Canadians – it will cost them, but those costs will be passed onto them and hidden, whereas the carbon price is transparent so that people can make better choices. Scheer also claims that his plan would have the best chance of meeting the Paris targets – without actually having targets, or articulating how they would be achieved. It’s replete with a bunch of boutique tax credits that are inefficient, and is generally a bunch of language that does very little. How he claims this is a “real plan” is somewhat of a farce.

And then there’s the global component, where Scheer says that Canada should be lowering global emissions by exporting “cleaner” Canadian energy like LNG – err, except that would grow Canadian emissions, and yet he wants us to get credits for those exports. And he says that China should use Canadian carbon capture and storage technology – except it’s hugely expensive, and is not really feasible unless you’re pricing carbon (not to mention that if the storage is not done properly, it can simply all be for naught). And Canada still has some of the highest per-capita emissions, which Scheer conveniently ignores in his arguments.

Amidst this, Scheer’s apologists are saying “it’s good that they’re admitting that climate change is real!” or “Look at how far the Conservatives have come since 2008!” Except that’s all spin. They can say they believe in climate change, but they also say that Canada’s contribution is so small that we shouldn’t do anything about it. Scheer and others tried to burnish themselves with the environmental reputations of previous conservative governments, except the old Conservative party is dead, and the current one is engaging in some egregious political necrophilia to cover for their own weakness. That those apologists could say these things with a straight face on television is astounding.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1141470545130729473

Continue reading →

QP: One last “PMQ”

Posted on by

It promised to be the last big show of the 42nd Parliament, with all of the leaders present for one last time. Andrew Scheer led off in French, worrying about the start date for the Trans Mountain expansion, studiously ignoring the Federal court of Appeal decision that revoked the permit. Justin Trudeau reminded him that Stephen Harper didn’t get any pipelines to new markets, while he ensured they got proper buy-in from Indigenous communities. Scheer switched to English to repeat his disingenuous lines, and Trudeau repeated that the only way to build energy projects was to work in partner with Indigenous people. Scheer got increasingly breathy as he accused the government of trying to phase out the energy sector, to which Trudeau replied that the Conservatives won’t take yes for an answer, and that they were succeeding in what the Alberta energy sector had asked for. Scheer shouted about all the things he would do to build pipelines and said the prime minister couldn’t get things done, and Trudeau calmly replied that the Conservatives still don’t understand why they failed the economy for ten years. Scheer rose one last time to assure Trudeau that a “real plan for the environment” would come at five o’clock, before he switched to some scattershot condemnation about the Liberals protecting corporate interests, and Trudeau listed off all the things that Scheer didn’t get about the environment. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and in French, he demanded the government spend on green projects instead of pipelines, and Trudeau took up a script to list off all of the measures they have taken to help the environment. Singh, in English, declared that the TMX would generate no profits — which is news to everyone — and he decried the government not protecting the environment. Trudeau picked up the English version of the script to list the measures that they have taken. Singh flailed around about measures for the environment, and Trudeau reiterated his previous response without a script, before he put it back to Singh that there were Indigenous communities supported the project. Singh switched to French to worry about the project some more, and Trudeau raised the fact that the pipeline was more responsible than moving oil by rail.

Continue reading →

Roundup: TMX is go

Posted on by

It wasn’t unexpected that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion was given the green-light by the government, with assurances that there would be construction this season – but there are still details to come. More accommodations were made as part of their Indigenous consultations, and it sounds like there may be more details to be ironed out, particularly around one First Nation who is concerned about the pipeline traversing their aquifer. More than anything, however, Trudeau made it clear that any profits from this pipeline – which could be $500 million per year – would go toward clean energy projects. (It also needs to be said that Trudeau came and faced the media for this announcement – something Harper never did with Northern Gateway).

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/1141060718743048192

None of this was good enough for Trudeau’s critics, however – Andrew Scheer made up a bunch of nonsense about how the government failed to get the project moving until now, Jagmeet Singh flailed about how this was contrary to climate goals, and Elizabeth May was in high dudgeon about how this made a mockery of all other climate actions (never mind the fact that oil would flow by rail without this pipeline, and this actually reduces emissions overall – crazy, but true). John Horgan promised to keep fighting the pipeline, while Jason Kenney promised to keep fighting every other environmental measure.

And then the hot takes – Aaron Wherry enumerates why this pipeline is the compromise that it is. Chantal Hébert doesn’t think that this approval will be the political problem that some think it will be. Jody Wilson-Raybould isn’t a fan of the approval, for what it’s worth. Don Braid waxes about how this entrenches the view of Alberta as a “resource bucket to pay for national dreams.” (Erm, isn’t that exactly what Kenney and company keep selling?)

Continue reading →

Roundup: Less helpful suggestions to fix QP

Posted on by

At this time of year, we’re starting to see a number of reflective pieces about the state of our democracy, and over on The Agenda, they gave a thinkpiece about the state of Question Period in advance of an episode on the subject. While the piece is geared toward the state of things at Queen’s Park, there is applicability to Parliament, and the suggestions that the polisci prof that they cite in the piece makes don’t really offer anything constructive, in my opinion.

For example, he wants more questions from more members and no supplementals. I disagree, because if we were running things properly, supplementals offer decent back-and-forth exchanges where you can get better accountability by drilling into answers (or non-answers) provided. And as demonstrated in Parliament, especially on Fridays, just having more MPs asking questions doesn’t necessarily improve things because they’re all reading the same scripts, so you just get more MPs asking the same questions – which in turn becomes fodder for them gathering clips to be distributed over social media. He suggests that the parties determine who asks questions for the first two thirds and then the Speaker determine for the final third – well, that doesn’t actually help with the ability of the Speaker to “not see” frequent misbehaving MPs, as they will be the ones the party puts on their list. It needs to be all or nothing. Having the Speaker rule on the relevance of answers and to police friendly backbench suck-up questions? Nice in theory, and if we could get MPs to give the Speaker the power to the determination, all the better, but if we’re not careful, it just creates an opportunity for parties to whinge about the Speaker. (I’m kind of in favour of empowering the Speaker in this way, but it needs to be done very carefully). Banning applause? Yes, absolutely.

What’s missing in this is the reliance on scripts, which we need to do away with entirely. Parties argue that they need to come up with plans and narratives and tactics, but to be frank, that’s bullshit. Plans and tactics don’t enhance the accountability function of QP – it just ensures that it will be theatre, and not good theatre at that. Banning scripts plus empowering the Speaker to choose who asks questions for the whole of QP (and sure, he can continue to divvy them up according to a set formula in the interests of fairness) is going to be far more effective than most of these suggestions – but the trick is to convince MPs to move to that system, which would involve their leaders giving up their powers to direct the show, and that is part of where the bigger problem lies.

Continue reading →