Tag Archives: Public Service

Roundup: A “debate” spectacle sans substance

Posted on by

It is now around day seventy-eight of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like the Ukrainians have made some gains in the eastern part of the country, pushing Russian forces out of four villages near Kharkiv. Meanwhile, a team of Ukrainian soldiers has been tasked with revisiting recent battlefields around Kyiv to gather the dead, and have recovered the remains of around 200 Russian soldiers thus far. It sounds like they may try to return these bodies to Russia in exchange for prisoners, but we’ll see if those kinds of deals hold.

Closer to home, it was the first official English debate of the Conservative leadership race, and it was…an experience. While it was not the hostile snipe-fest that was the Conference Formerly Known As the Manning Conference debate, it was a strange format where they tried to have limited engagements between candidates, to control the temptation to talk over one another, and then insisted that the audience not clap or boo, which…defeats the whole point of a live audience, and it was a real choice to try and control their reactions. And it had a sad trombone sound. No, seriously. Not every segment was on policy—some of it were personal, asking candidates what they’re reading, or the kinds of music they like, which is fine and humanizes them a little. (But seriously, Roman Baber choosing Amy Winehouse? Has he ever listened to what she has to say in her lyrics?)

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1524548247456559104

Some observation on each candidate, in the drawn order of their opening statements:

  • Scott Aitchison: While he is aiming to be the reasonable, middle-of-the-road candidates, there are plenty of places where he displays the intellectual heft of the truck commercial he launched his campaign with. A lot of what he offered is not really credible, particularly on environmental or resource development files.
  • Roman Baber: I’m not going to mince words. Honestly, this guy is a moron. He says a lot of things that he’s picked up in the online discourse, but none of it makes any sense, most of it is contradictory, and he’s utterly vacuous—but nobody would call him on that.
  • Patrick Brown: While he kept insisting that he’s the only one who can deliver the suburbs like in the GTA, Brown also made some particular missteps, like insisting he would advance a no-fly zone over Ukraine (essentially committing Canada to a shooting war with a nuclear power), or that the point of reconciliation with Indigenous people is so that we can build more pipelines.
  • Pierre Poilievre: Aside from just using “freedom!” in as many answers as possible, he opened by outright attacking the Bank of Canada and saying he would replace the governor if he were to form government, which is a pretty big bomb to drop. He lied and prevaricated about his previous statements and positions, particularly during the Bitcoin portion of the evening. But the longer the evening went on, the more it became clear that he was just going down the right-wing populist checklist and name-checking every item on it, whether it was saying he’s reading Jordan Peterson’s book, or that he wants to fight “government censorship.” He displayed no principles, just virtue-signalling to the crowd he is courting.
  • Leslyn Lewis: Mostly said a lot of hyperbolic things about how “divided” the country is because of COVID, and that she is somehow going to heal the divides between people who believe in science and evidence, and anti-vaxxers who don’t care how many people they infect because they refuse to wear a mask or stay home. How does plan to heal those divides? Who knows?
  • Jean Charest: Charest was more pugnacious and was willing to break debate rules in order to how do you do, fellow kids?, and insist that he’s the only one who can unite east and west…but he too made a bunch of fairly questionable pronouncements. Like private healthcare delivery could have avoided lockdowns (erm, you saw the States, right?) or that he would cut income taxes to fight inflation (which is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline).

It was an event that begged for booze (which I did not imbibe in, because I had this post to write). But I will leave you with Paul Wells’ suitably acerbic take on the event, which sums the lunacy of it up nicely.

Continue reading →

QP: Stop spreading information!

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau back in the House of Commons after his visit to Kyiv, only one other leader was actually present, which is curious in and of itself. Candice Bergen led off, with her script in front of her, and she decried the former Bill C-69, noted that the Alberta Court of Appeal declared it to be unconstitutional, and demanded the government repeal it. Trudeau read a script that noted the Act created stability after the previous government gutted environmental assessments (and simply turning everything to litigation), and stated that they would appeal that decision. Bergen pivoted to gasoline prices and demanded Action, but Trudeau was not done with the Impact Assessment Act. He noted that the same Alberta court found the national carbon price unconstitutional until the Supreme Court of Canada told them it was. Bergen then decried that the Canadians were suffering and that this government was raising taxes every year, and then demanded that the prime minister “stop spreading information.” Trudeau replied that he would indeed keep spreading information, especially about things like climate rebates. Luc Berthold took over in French, and accused the government of misinformation, insisting that the prime minister has not helped people, to which Trudeau repeated the points about climate rebates in provinces that participate. Berthold decried the rising prices in the grocery store—ignoring that the main cause of those rising prices is drought—and Trudeau read that they were helping by means like the Canada Child Benefit, which is indexed to inflation.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he accused the government of trying to anglicise Quebec by not applying the province’s language Charter. Trudeau read that their bill to modernise the Official Languages Act would protect French in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Therrien was not mollified and decried this supposed anglicisation, and Trudeau repeated his same script.

Alexandre Boulerice led for the NDP, and in French, he bemoaned profits in the oil sector and executive compensation, demanding the government do something. Trudeau reminded him that they already raised taxes on the wealthy and were adding taxes on big banks. Rachel Blaney repeated the question in English to demand the companies pay, to which Trudeau read the English version of the same response. 

Continue reading →

QP: Panic at the passport office

Posted on by

While the prime minster was in town, he was not present for QP, though his deputy was. No other leader was present either, for what it’s worth, and we did learn later in the day that Candice Bergen tested positive for COVID earlier in the week, and has been isolating. Before things got started, the Deputy Speaker returned to what happened yesterday regarding unparliamentary language, and said that reviewing the tapes found no definitive proof if the prime minister actually said anything amidst the noise, but he did hear unparliamentary things on both sides, and he cautioned MPs that it was not acceptable. He also noted that the question on abortion from Sophie Chatel did not have to do with the administrative responsibilities of the government, and such questions will be disallowed in the future. (Famous last words…) He also asserted that for those whose blood pressure is running a little high, it was a beautiful day outside and they should go take a walk.

Luc Berthold led off, worrying about delays at passport offices, and asserted the solution was to have civil servants back at work in their offices. Chrystia Freeland noted that they understand their responsibilities to Canadians, but she could not agree that everything was going wrong in Canada, and the IMF praised our growth. Berthold carried on with the complaints about delays, and again demanded civil servants go back to their offices. Freeland thanked civil servants for their efforts, and that she knew they worked diligently. Berthold insisted that Canadians expected service from civil servants, and once again demanded that civil servants return to their offices. Freeland again repeated that civil servants do exceptional work. Michael Chong took over in English, and worried about another court challenge against Line 5 in Michigan—ignoring that the challenge is coming from Indigenous groups—to which Freeland assured him that they understand the importance of Line 5 and that the government was standing up for our rights including treaty rights with the US. Chong wondered why Canada was in court to fight this challenge, and Freeland repeated the assurances that the government was on the case.

Claude DeBellefeuille led for the Bloc, and she repeated this week’s demand that the federal government turn over the responsibility for immigration to Quebec. Freeland recited the government’s lines that Quebec sets their own targets and that the federal government supports them. DeBellefeuille was not mollified, and repeated the demand, and Freeland repeated her assurances, with a few added figures to quote.

Jenny Kwan rose for the NDP, and she cited the MMIW inquiry listing housing as a contributing factor, blasting the government for not having a dedicated housing strategy for Indigenous women and two-spirit people. Freeland first recognised that today is Red Dress day, and that they agreed that housing is a problem and part of the solution, which is why it was a central part of the budget. Niki Ashton took over, and demanded immediate action in the MMIW inquiry’s calls to justice, and insisted it wasn’t in the budget. Freeland repeated her initial acknowledgment of the day in French, before returning to English to correct that there were investments in this budget.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Words with meanings and obligations

Posted on by

We’re now around day fifty of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and four European presidents—Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia—visited Kyiv to show their support yesterday. (Some photos of Ukraine here). Ukrainian forces also detained one of Putin’s oligarch allies, which has led to a new round of threats from Russia. The other thing that will make Russia angry? The fact that the Ukrainians sank Russia’s flagship for their Black Sea fleet—the same ship that fired upon the border guards at Snake Island. It’s almost poetic justice.

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/1514397710509559814

Meanwhile, we are getting into a frustrating debate about whether or not to call what’s happening in Ukraine a genocide, and what makes it frustrating is the fact that there are international obligations to do something about it if that’s indeed the case. There is no argument that there are crimes against humanity happening, and those are very, very serious. But “genocide” is a specific legal term with specific intent, and for President Biden to throw the word around and saying that lawyers can sort out the details later isn’t helping, when the term obligates the US to do something about it (which they have danced around in the past because they don’t want to be obligated). And then Justin Trudeau chines in and says it’s “absolutely right” to use the term, which would then obligate Canada to do something about it as well. But we need to stop using the most serious language for things for shock value, because words have meanings, and in this case, obligations as well.

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/1513890485970116614

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/1513902439556169733

Closer to home, the Bank of Canada raised its key interest rates by fifty basis points, and has hinted that more rate hikes are on the way, as they have to not only combat inflation with the only tool they have, but they have to fight the perception that they aren’t doing enough to cool inflation (and that latter part is the bigger part of the problem). I’ll be writing more about what’s in the Monetary Policy Report in the coming days, but in the meantime, here are some smart economists giving some reaction.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1514249461857366021

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sanctions take time to really bite

Posted on by

It’s now around day forty-nine of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it’s carrying on as Putin insists that they will continue until they meet their goals. This as there are unconfirmed reports that chemical weapons were used in an attack in Mariupol, while Russian spokespeople from Donbas were discussing the possibility. That could lead to another escalation in sanctions, and talk of “red lines,” though that didn’t seem to do much good when it happened in Syria. The mayor of Mariupol says that more than 10,000 civilians have been killed as the strategic port city continues being flattened by Russian forces. Ukrainian government officials also say that they have thwarted an attempt by Russian hackers to knock out power to parts of the country, and it’s worth noting that Canada has been providing cyber-security assistance to Ukraine.

On the subject of sanctions, there are lots of questions circulating about how effective they really are if the invasion continues, and it’s one of those things for which it’s not an easy answer. Yes, they’re hurting Russia, but Putin and his inner circle seem fairly insulated from some of the worst of it, in part because they managed to stop the ruble from collapsing entirely. That makes it even more imperative to provide military support to Ukraine so that they can defeat Russia on the battlefield, which will hurt Putin more. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t carry on with sanctions, because we should, but they’re at the point where they are hurting us as well, and we had Conservatives demanding exemptions for farmers last week who bought fertilizer from Russia before the conflict began and now don’t want to pay the tariffs associated. But for sanctions to be effective, they will hurt us as well, and people seem to forget that.

As well, this conflict is now going to have an effect on inflation globally, because of the effect of diverting from Russian oil and gas, and from the effect this war has on Ukraine’s ability to produce and export food, as the breadbasket of Europe. Of course, it’s going to continue to be blamed on government spending (never mind that it actually isn’t, and this is a global problem), and the Bank of Canada is going to hike rates this week if only because they need to be seen to be doing something about the problem even if it won’t actually address the root causes of these price increases. Things are messy, and it’s going to take time for everything to work itself out, but what will really help is for Russia to get out of Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau confirms that there are to be strings attached

Posted on by

It’s around day forty-eight of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it appeared to be a fairly quiet day. Well, as quiet as can be in a country where two-thirds of its children have been forced to flee their homes in the past six weeks, which creates plenty of problems for their safety and security as they may be exploited in the confusion. Meanwhile, Russia has tapped a new general to lead its forces in Ukraine, and he’s one with a reputation of particular brutality in leading the Russian troops that acted in support of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, leaving a trail of civilian deaths and human rights violations in his wake. As well, Austria’s chancellor met with Putin, the first European leader to do so since the invasion, and tried to convince him to end the invasion, but he walked away from the meeting without any optimism that the war will end anytime soon.

Closer to home, prime minister Justin Trudeau has confirmed that he’s looking to have strings attached to future health care funds from the federal government, because he’s well aware of the history of provinces that have taken more federal dollars and used them on other things, including tax cuts, and the healthcare system has been left to suffer. Which is the way it should be—if the federal government is giving you money for healthcare, it should be used for just that, and no, that doesn’t mean they’re micro-managing, it means they want accountability for the money they send.

We also got confirmation that provinces are dishonestly ignoring the fact that the agreement in the 1970s to transfer tax points to the provinces in lieu of health transfers. They continue to insist that the federal government only funds 22 percent of their health care systems, but with the tax points, it’s over 33 percent, which is not insignificant considering that provinces are demanding the federal government fund the systems to at least 35 percent—a 35 percent that they don’t count the tax points under. They need to count those tax points, and government and media need to make that clear, rather than media just repeating the premiers’ talking points and both-sidesing it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Faux concern over a decades-old system

Posted on by

We’re now on or about day forty-seven of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Ukrainian forces are digging in and preparing for a renewed Russian offensive on the eastern and south-eastern portions of the country. UK prime minister Boris Johnson visited with president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv over the weekend, to show his support and solidarity in person. Elsewhere over the weekend, Ukraine was trying to ensure humanitarian corridors out of the Donbas region for Ukrainians to evacuate in advance of the coming Russian onslaught in the region.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1512858863728570369

https://twitter.com/NikaMelkozerova/status/1513190467743236103

Closer to home, we are being subjected to a bunch of nonsense around Canadian content regulations in the context of Bill C-11, which updates the Broadcasting Act to now include streaming platforms like Netflix or Disney+. The particular nonsense? The notion that the CRTC will define what qualifies as Canadian. Erm, except they have been doing this already. They’ve had a well-defined point system for what counts as CanCon since 1984. Nineteen gods-damned eighty-four. This is not new. Extending broadcast regulations to streaming platforms changes absolutely nothing about what counts as Canadian content, because the rules are platform neutral. For decades, production companies needed a 6/10 on the CanCon scale to qualify for tax credits. None of this is new.

The problem, however, is that in the debates over C-11 (and its predecessor in the previous parliament, Bill C-10) you had Conservative MPs trying to make this an issue (and Rachael Thomas, who was then Rachael Harder, was particularly vocal about this). She kept trying to propagate this insane notion that somehow these rules should be in the legislation, which is bonkers because that shouldn’t be the job of Parliament, nor is legislation responsive in the way that regulation is. We have arm’s-length regulators like the CRTC for a reason, which is to de-politicise these kinds of decisions. Sure, everyone comes up with supposedly scandalous examples of why certain things which may sound Canadian on the surface isn’t considered Canadian under the CanCon rules (such as The Handmaid’s Tale series), and it’s only until you look at the points system and think through the rules that you realise that these examples really aren’t that scandalous. The whole point is to ensure that our industry isn’t just a branch plant for American productions who can do it cheaper and get tax credits up here. It’s to ensure that there are incentives for things that are actually Canadian-led and produced, and under Canadian creative control, to get made. You can argue that the rules need to be updated, but let’s not pretend that there is anything new here (and really, The Canadian Press deserves a rap on the knuckles for this kind of framing of the issue).

Continue reading →

QP: Selectively quoting a PBO report that selectively frames an issue

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau away—first to Mississauga to announce the child care deal in Ontario along with his deputy, then off to Vancouver, none of the other leaders bothered to show up in the House of Commons for Question Period today, so happy Monday to you all. Luc Berthold led off, script in front of him, and in French, he regaled the Commons with a tale of how people approached him in the grocery store about complaints about the rising cost of living, and demanded to now how the prime minister intends to feed Canadian families. Randy Boissonnault accused him of creating economic fiction, and recited Statistics Canada data on the growth of the GDP. Berthold railed about the price of gas and what it was doing for inflation, to which Boisonnault praised the child care agreement with Ontario as an affordability measure. Berthold then switched to health care transfers to provinces and the principles the government were attaching to them, to which Jean-Yves Duclos praised their measures to save Canadians’ lives. Kyle Seeback got up and in English, railed about the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report on carbon prices, selectively quoting a report that only selectively looks at a portion of the issue, to which Terry Duguid assured him that the PBO stated that most families will get more back in rebates than they pay. Seeback insisted this was wrong, that the PBO stated otherwise, and Duguid repeated his points.

Alain Therrien rose for the Bloc, and he demanded that health transfers have no conditions and blamed the federal government for underfunding provincial health systems, and Duclos recited some good news talking points about the $2 billion for surgery backlogs. Therrien listed federal failures to insist that they had no competence for healthcare, to which Pablo Rodriguez quipped that the Bloc should invest in shirt-making companies because they keep tearing their shirts every day.

Alexandre Boulerice appeared for the NDP by video and wondered about enforcement of sanctions in Canada, to which Mélanie Joly praised the sanctions and the assets that they froze. Heather McPherson repeated the question in English, and Joly repeated her assurances.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Asking the parochial questions

Posted on by

On day fifteen of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, they bombed a children’s hospital in Mariupol, at a time that it was supposed to be under a ceasefire. And it’s not surprising that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is still insisting on “closing the skies,” but that wouldn’t stop the shelling from artillery and missile batteries on the ground, and yes, it would draw the rest of NATO into a shooting war with a nuclear power. So while he’s justified in asking for the assistance, it would not actually improve the situation and would most likely wind up making things a whole lot worse. To make matters worse, a power outage at Chernobyl means that it could start leaking radiation unless power lines are repaired, which requires a cease-fire in the area, so that’s alarming. And all of the chaos is making it hard for aid efforts, including those by Canadian non-profits to reach those in the country who need it.

Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland, Mélanie Joly and Anita Anand were in Berlin yesterday for more meetings on the situation in Ukraine, and Trudeau vowed that Putin would face justice for his war crimes under the International Criminal Court. He also announced another $50 million worth of military aid being sent to Ukraine, and that he had invited Zelenskyy to address Canada’s Parliament, much as he did the UK’s earlier this week. On a related note, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg addressed the Ottawa Defence Conference yesterday and said that while Canada is playing a “leading role” in NATO’s response to the invasion, he is still calling for more military spending (which may not do any good given that our military doesn’t currently have the capacity or personnel to spend its current allotment).

And then, during a media availability with Freeland and Joly, a CBC reporter demanded to know why they were in Europe for “photo ops” rather than doing important work back home. And I can’t even—especially when he went on about the “taxpayer’s dime” when he tweeted about the exchange, trying to make himself sound put out by being smacked down about it. Aside from the “people are saying” framing, which is both ridiculous and telling, I’m not sure what pressing matters they should be attending to back home. The Commons is on March break this week and next. It’s just such parochial bullshit and the kind of cheap outrage/hairshirt parsimony that the CBC loves to engage in, and we wind up with poorer journalism as a result.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1501612357784686593

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1501614041118265345

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/1501694148642025476

Continue reading →

Roundup: A growing humanitarian crisis

Posted on by

We are now on day fourteen of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and some of the big concerns are the growing humanitarian ones—not only the inability to safely get civilians out of cities under bombardment, but the fact that in some of those cities, particularly Mariupol, people are trapped with no electricity, little food, running water, or medical supplies. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the British Parliament via video, and called on them for even tougher sanctions against the “terrorist state” Russia. The US has decided to ban all Russian oil and gas, while corporations like McDonald’s and Starbucks have decided to suspend operations in Russia (though more likely because the ruble is nearly worthless and not something they want to be doing business in).

Justin Trudeau was in Latvia for NATO meetings, where he announced that Canada’s mission there would be extended for several more years. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also made the point of warning Russia against attacking any supply lines supporting Ukraine within NATO territory, citing that it would trigger Article 5. Poland also floated the idea of sending fighter planes to a US/NATO base in Germany to then somehow send to Ukraine, but the Pentagon nixed the idea as unworkable.

All of this talk, of course, leads to yet more questions about military spending in Canada, and that “two percent of GDP” target, which is a very poor metric.

Continue reading →