Tag Archives: Saudi Arabia

Roundup: Dire stats as Parliament is recalled

Posted on by

It was a very busy morning – first, Statistics Canada released the March job figures, which were dismal – 1.01 million jobs lost, massive reductions in hours worked, but also (which everyone didn’t really report) that most of these jobs will likely come back once the pandemic measures are over with, which is significant. Following that, the federal Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, released some of the federal modelling on the course of the pandemic, which put everyone into a hot and bothered state.

When prime minister Justin Trudeau held his daily presser, he largely played the role of empathiser in chief – yes, these are all grim numbers, but we’ll get through them together. More to the point, we could be in this until summer, so it’s time to get used to our new normal, particularly if there are subsequent waves that follow this one (though those ones would likely not be as severe and wouldn’t require the same measures like the current lockdown – hopefully). He did also say that he respected parliament but then started making excuses for why he wanted a virtual one, and nope. Not going to fly, sorry.

It was announced later in the day that Parliament will be back on Saturday – 12:15 for the Commons, 4 for the Senate, which likely means Royal Assent by the time the day is over. That means that we’ll have yet more emergency legislation that gets maybe three hours of “debate” in the House of Commons, and that once again all of the negotiations have been done behind closed doors, and there will be no public record about what kind of amendments were requested and agreed to, which serves no one’s interests, particularly those of Canadians.

[Maclean’s has a new Q&A with Dr. Isaac Bogoch on questions people have about the pandemic]

Continue reading →

Roundup: Stop proposing bad rule changes

Posted on by

Sound the alarm, because MPs – and Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux in particular – are talking about changing the Standing Orders again. Lamoureux has apparently committed to bringing back Frank Baylis’ package of reforms, most of which were are either half-measures, or wrong-headed and will have unintended consequences that will simply make things worse. But as with anything, as soon as it’s been proposed, it becomes the politician syllogism – “Something must be done. This is something. Therefor we must do this.” Apparently, nobody learned a gods damned thing after Michael Chong’s garbage Reform Act, and we’re about to go through yet another attempted exercise that will wind up going badly. (I wrote about Baylis’ proposals last year).

There are a few things in the Lamoureux interview that I did want to highlight first, which is the talk about eliminating votes on Mondays and Fridays – that’s pretty much a given considering that they already don’t have votes on Fridays, barring exceptional circumstances like a vote-a-thon, and they rarely have them on Mondays either, and when they do, it’s usually in the evening, by which time most MPs should have arrived in Ottawa. I’m also going to give some major side-eye to MPs who complain that they could be doing more work in their ridings, because their jobs are in Ottawa. Their jobs are to hold the government to account by doing the work of things like scrutinizing the estimates, going through the Public Accounts, and studying legislation in committee. Their jobs are not actually about doing “casework” with constituents, most of which should be done by the civil service. An MP’s office is not supposed to be a Service Canada desk, and I wish that they would stop pretending that it was.

The other part that I’m getting increasingly irate with is the talk about developing a parallel chamber for the House of Commons, and dressing it up as “efficiency.” No. There is no reason for us to have one. It makes more sense in Westminster where they have 650 MPs, and there are fewer opportunities for them to have take-note debates on things in the main chamber, but we really don’t have either the need, or frankly the bodies to do it, because we already have enough of our MPs assigned to more than one committee outside of House Duty, so there are already not enough hours in the day for most of them. We also don’t need the hours for added “debate” on government bills – we need to reform how we’re structuring debate period. We don’t need additional time for private members’ business because it will only bottleneck in the Senate and die on the Order Paper anyway. There is zero rationale for it – but there is currently a romance with the notion, and so they keep proposing it. No. Stop it.

Continue reading →

QP: Cheerleading a recession

Posted on by

After this morning’s surprising announcement that Andrew Scheer was resigning as Conservative leader, the PM was in his office but not present for QP (even though he had been in the House to respond to Scheer’s resignation just a couple of hours earlier). After a lengthy ovation, Scheer lamented last month’s job numbers, which I remind you was 100 percent bullshit, particularly his warnings about a “made-in-Canada recession.” Bill Morneau reminded him that while monthly job numbers are important, they would continue to invest in Canadians as that created over a million jobs. In French, Scheer demanded an economic update, and Morneau responded was that one would happen in the coming days. Scheer switched back to English to carry on his lament for the stage of the economy, giving misleading G7 job stats, to which Morneau repeated that their plan to invest was working, and that the economy was on track for the second-highest growth in the G7. Leona Alleslev was up next, and in French, concern trolled about the New NAFTA, and demanded impact assessments for it. Chrystia Freeland reminded her that the existential threat to our economy was now past, and endangering ratification was simply threatening the economy. Alleslev switched to English to worry about “repairing” our relationship with the US, and Freeland stated that the most important thing was ratifying the agreement. Yves-François Blanchet was up next, and he spun a sad tale of steel workers in Ontario being protected but aluminium workers in Quebec were not, to which Freeland reminded him that they got the tariffs repealed, and that the new agreement had 70 percent North American aluminium content requirements. Blanchet sang the praises of economic nationalism, and Freeland warned of the dangers of partisanship. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and demanded the government stop the judicial review of the Human Rights Tribunal compensation order, to which Marc Miller started that they were engaging partners to see that there was the fairest and most comprehensive compensation offered. Singh tried again in English, and Miller listed new measures they are in compliance with, and said that they were sitting down to get compensation right.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Holding up a mythical threat

Posted on by

The first day of the new Cabinet, and Justin Trudeau, along with Chrystia Freeland and Jim Carr, had their first meeting as a group with Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi, who held up the now-former Bill C-69 as the source of much of the anger in Alberta, and his demands that it be changed. The problem here – and Nenshi acknowledged – is that the pre-existing system that Stephen Harper’s government put into place in 2012 did not work, and Nenshi could list projects being held up by it, which is all the more reason why his strident condemnation of the new assessment system is all the more baffling. Part of the problem here is that the bill – along with the now-former C-48 – have been used as scapegoats for the frustrated economic ambitions of the province. Never mind that C-48 was largely symbolic – there is no pipeline project that would head for the northwest coast of BC, nor is there going to be, and no, Northern Gateway is not going to make a comeback because the obstacles identified by the Federal Court of Appeal were almost certainly insurmountable. And C-69 is in no way a “no more pipelines” law.

I talked to a lot of environmental lawyers on both sides while C-69 was being debated, and the biggest source of unease on the proponent side was the uncertainty as to whether the legislated timelines would have the problem of issues stopping the clock – thus dragging out those timelines – much of which was alleviated when the draft regulations were released. Again, the talk about the carbon budget in the bill was clarified in the regulations, which also alleviated many of their concerns (and caused some on the environmental side ulcers). So while the government is now talking about tweaks to the regulations, that seems more than entirely appropriate for the reality of the situation, and their refusal to scrap the law is entirely rational and just.

The problem becomes fighting the narrative that has been created around this law, and the fact that it has grown into a mythological terror is what they will have to grapple with – and compounding this is the fact that this government has proven itself time and again to be utterly incompetent at communications. For as much as Catherine McKenna did some good work when she was the minister, she kept repeating the tired slogan of “the environment and the economy go together” and other nonsense talking points (and then insisting that she spoke like a regular person), which did nothing to counter the lies being promulgated by Jason Kenney, Andrew Scheer, and others, about what was actually in the legislation. And you can’t fight lies with canned talking points. I wish this government – and the communications geniuses in the PMO most especially – would get that through their heads, which is why trying to placate the anger when it’s being directed at the mythology and not the reality of this legislation is going to be an uphill battle.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Promising a tax cut

Posted on by

The day’s campaign began even before the day did, as Andrew Scheer assembled the reporters on his red-eye flight to Vancouver to tell them that he wasn’t going to re-vet candidates, and that he would accept their apologies for past statements (be they racists, misogynistic, homophobic, or what have you), with some wiggle-room for context. Essentially, his way of trying to head off the drip-drip-drip of future revelations that the Liberals will keep dragging out with every riding he visits. He also went on to slam the New NAFTA agreement and claimed he could have gotten a better deal (which presupposes that Donald Trump is a rational actor – when he’s not), but said he’d still ratify it anyway if he forms government.

In the morning, Scheer went to a suburban home in Surrey to stage an announcement about a promise to cut the lowest tax rate over the course of three years, which would have the effect of returning between $8 and $10 per week on most paycheques (a level probably too low for people to notice according to the research). Note that for a leader who is concerned about balancing the budget and who insists he won’t make massive cuts – and who says he can achieve balance by restricting new spending – he’s just announced a fairly large bite out of future revenues that would balance the budget. (For a good breakdown of the announcement, here’s a thread by Lindsay Tedds). In questions after the announcement, Scheer refused to address the apparent hypocrisy of demanding Trudeau dump candidates while he would accept an apology from his own, and he also refused to offer an apology for his 2005 statements on same-sex marriage.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1173305303317663745

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1173317003890679808

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1173321696645767168

Jagmeet Singh launched his “vision for Quebec,” which promised a final say on projects like pipelines crossing the province, money for immigration integration services (remembering this time that the province is demanding fewer immigrants in spite of their labour shortage), additional influence over trade deals (a sop to the Supply Management sector). Singh also started going on about Quebec being “forced” into a marriage with Canada under the constitution and wanted Quebec to be able to sign onto the constitution “under acceptable terms” (which holy cow is a loaded statement and ignorant of history).

Trudeau spent the day largely on the road, with a whistle stop in Coburg, before attending the Bianca Andreescu “She The North” rally in Mississauga in his capacity as prime minister – where he praised Andreescu and her parents in a very non-partisan manner. He ended the day with a rally at the Mid-Autumn Festival in Markham, where his fairly short stump-speech (wherein he again repeated the somewhat misleading line that Conservatives cut taxes to the wealthy – they didn’t so much as offered tax credits that disproportionately benefitted the wealthy, but that’s not the same as a tax cut) was peppered with specific Festival references.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Partisanship and thoughtlessness

Posted on by

There was an interesting piece out yesterday about a study that showed that those with strong partisan leanings were less likely to be able to correctly identify current events, and are likely using news to confirm their existing views rather than being well informed. It’s not too surprising in the current milieu, where partisanship it turning more toward tribalism as we are apparently trying to import America’s culture wars into Canada out of some misplaced sense of envy, however I worry that this will be the kind of study that will simply turn into an exercise in confirmation bias by all sides – partisans and supposed non-partisans alike.

Let us first recall that partisanship is not actually a bad thing – it’s fundamentally about a contest of ideas and values, which is a good thing in politics. While everyone likes to talk about “evidence-based policy” and doing what’s best for all, there are fundamental philosophical differences about what that may be – and that’s okay. That’s good for democracy! Let us also recall that party membership is of fundamental importance in our system of government, and it’s one that has been gradually been debased as leaders have grown too strong and have hollowed out their parties – in part because memberships have allowed it rather than jealously guarding their own powers. We need more people to be party members, because that’s where grassroots engagement happens. We should resist the temptation to turn this kind of a study into an excuse to debase this kind of engagement in the political process.

We should also note that a big part of the problem is a lack of media literacy – particularly as the study also points to people being unable to locate where how their partisan biases line up with media outlets (which is also not a surprise, because people will paint an outlet with bias if they don’t like a story that makes their team look bad). So long as people don’t have these media literacy skills, any partisanship gets conflated with their preference for their own “teams,” and that helps magnify the kinds of problems that this study points to. It’s a complex problem overall, but we can’t simply say “partisanship makes you stupid,” as will be the temptation. Partisanship on its own doesn’t make you stupid – but if it’s mixed with other kinds of ignorance, it adds fuel to the fire.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The source of the complaints

Posted on by

Carrying on with yesterday’s theme, Bill Morneau decided he would try and be too cute by half and release an open letter of his own, questioning Andrew Scheer’s promise to premiers to maintain the current health and social transfer system, and claimed that he was still advocating a cut. I’m not sure that it was quite right, but it was a novel attempt – and something Morneau rarely does, so there’s that. Scheer, meanwhile, keeps on his affordability message, claiming that he’s the only one worried about it while the Liberals keep raising taxes, etc.

The thing is, Scheer is wrong about that. He is fond of citing that Fraser Institute report that treats the cancellation of boutique tax credits as “raising taxes” – as it also ignores the tax-free Canada Child Benefit offered to most families as a replacement, and a more targeted one that will actually benefit low-income households at that – much like he’s fond of ignoring that the climate rebates will make most households better off in jurisdictions under the federal carbon pricing system. But beyond that, the data clearly shows that the federal taxes as a share of federal revenues also continues to decline under the Liberals. Scheer’s affordability narrative as it comes to taxes is bogus. Well, except for one particular group, who is not better off under the changes that the Liberals have made. And yet, as Kevin Milligan demonstrates with data and receipts below, it’s certainly not the average Canadians that Scheer claims to be fighting for. But then again, illiberal populists claiming to be looking out for average people while benefitting the wealthiest is getting to be a tired game by this point – and yet people still keep falling for it.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1157388641385062401

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1157390752697085952

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1157394371806785536

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1157396798412976128

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1157439654120923136

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ending a sitting on a witch hunt

Posted on by

Alberta’s legislature wrapped up its session last night, and it saw the passage of bills that included rolling back protections of LGBT students in schools, changing overtime rules and cutting wages for students, not to mention Jason Kenney spending millions of taxpayer dollars to promote conspiracy theories and to conduct a witch-hunt against people who say mean things about the oil industry. So much of it would be cartoonish if there wasn’t such a worrying trend of Kenney simply lying to keep his population angry. And if you pay close attention to this Postmedia wrap-up of the sitting, it doesn’t call out the moments when Kenney egregiously lied (especially around the stunt with the ear plugs) and the story just both-sidesed the whole thing. We’ve taught them that they can get away with lying, so they’re doing it with impunity.

Meanwhile, here’s Stephen Maher on the witch hunt public inquiry, and Andrew Leach has been throwing shade at the whole thing, which is always worth a read.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Federal Government 2, Provinces 0

Posted on by

It was not a surprise that the Ontario Court of Appeal told Doug Ford to go pound sand with regard to its objections to the federal carbon price, which is exactly what they did in a 4-1 decision, affirming the Saskatchewan decision that the price is not a tax but a regulatory charge, and that it’s not unconstitutional. Ford, predictably, vowed to take this to the Supreme Court of Canada, and given that they agreed to hear the Saskatchewan case, it’s likely these two will be heard together, where you can pretty much bet that the majority of the judges there will tell Moe, Ford, and the likes, to similarly go pound sand. As for the dissenting judge on the Ontario panel, well, he has a pretty interesting history of his legal philosophy, and was unusually appointed directly to the Court of Appeal from his being a law professor.

Meanwhile, here’s some analysis, with threads by Andrew Leach, plus Lindsay Tedds on the whole tax/regulatory charge difference.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1144706969493749761

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1144708330037874692

Meanwhile, the BC government’s lawyers were in Alberta court on Friday to argue for an injunction against the province’s blatantly unconstitutional “turn off the taps” legislation now that it’s been proclaimed, likening it to a loaded gun that they don’t want to go off accidentally. The hitch, of course, is the question of whether BC has standing to go to Alberta court over the case, so we’ll see what the judge decides there.

Continue reading →

QP: Petty diminution

Posted on by

The benches were largely, but not completely, full for caucus day, but not all of the leaders were present. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and in French, he complained that Canadian tax dollars were being used by China to extend their foreign influence by way of the Asian Infrastructure Bank, and Trudeau took up a script to read that Scheer was misleading Canadians, given that the investment bank had other Western partners, and that they had projects like preventing land slides in Sri Lanka, or flood management in the Philippines. Scheer repeated the question in English, and Trudeau read the English version of the same script. Scheer accused the government of not beating their chests enough, and demanded they pull the funding from said bank, and in response, Trudeau said that they were standing up for Canadians in the world and gave a plug for their new aid package for canola farmers. Scheer claimed it was a Conservative idea, and accused Trudeau of weakness on the international stage, and Trudeau hit back by the Conservative wanted to capitulate on NAFTA, that his government saved CETA and the TPP, that they were working on the canola problem for weeks when the Conservatives had bothered a about for days. Scheer claimed Trudeau was simply being dramatic and then he cued his caucus to join him in shouting that Trudeau had done “nothing!” Trudeau gave an equally forceful retort about a decade of Conservative failures. Brigitte Sansoucy led off for the NDP to rail about the Loblaws contract instead of helping people, and Trudeau reminded her about the middle class tax cut and the Canada Child Benefit that lifted children out of poverty while the NDP voted against those measures. Charlie Angus accused the government of trying to rig judicial appointments, and Trudeau reminded him that they put on a new, transparent and open process. Angus then railed that ten government wasn’t helping the people of Kasheshewan, and Trudeau reminded him that they have been engaged in the file, that they have selected a site and are making plans for the move, but in partnership with the community. Sansoucy repeated the question in French, and Trudeau read the same response in French from a script.

Continue reading →