Tag Archives: Stephen Poloz

Roundup: A StatsCan privacy check

Posted on by

While the ongoing issue of Statistics Canada looking for financial transaction data continues, the actual privacy practices in the institution aren’t being adequately explained to Canadians – and they certainly aren’t being represented accurately by the opposition. So with that in mind, here’s professor Jennifer Robson to explain just what she has to go through in order to access data for her research at StatsCan, in order to give you a better sense about how seriously they take this kind of thing.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1059641954021990400

This is why the complaints that the data won’t be secure as it’s being anonymized is pretty specious, and the pearl-clutching that StatsCan would have a person’s SIN is also overblown considering that they already have it – they matched up people’s tax returns with their census forms to ensure that they had accurate data regarding household incomes, and lo, nobody made a peep about that when it happened. Again, this overblown rhetoric around what is being planned about this financial transaction data is not only risible, but it’s actively mendacious (particularly when Conservative MPs keep saying things like this is a project by the Liberal Party or by Justin Trudeau himself). And yes, StatsCan has done a woeful job as to explaining what it needs these data for, and this government is largely too inept to communicate any of that information either. And yet here we are.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne points out that while the Conservatives have been spending years attacking StatsCan, the real privacy threat comes from the unregulated use of personal information by political parties, not the country’s statistical agency.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Deleting the message

Posted on by

The Conservatives decided to delete their tweet yesterday that depicted a black migrant crossing to Canada – over a bridge made of Trudeau’s #WelcomeToCanada tweet, and through a broken chain-link fence. There was backlash that the tweet was racist, and it certainly was intended to stoke the xenophobic tendencies that they have been flirting with. I will point out once again that their continued reliance on the talking point that this is about the “orderly” asylum system would probably make most of Europe laugh and pat them on the head condescendingly, because it’s pretty precious that they think Canada should get the special status of an “orderly” system that no other country gets.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1019323971274248193

Meanwhile, Maclean’shas a look at the history of the Safe Third Country Agreement, and how it’s basically just waiting for Donald Trump to blow it up if he actually learns about what it is and what it does. Chris Selley, on the other hand, points out the ways in which both the federal government and the new Ontario government are mishandling the whole file, which is fair criticism. But I do think we can’t take our eye off the fact that the Conservatives are flirting with xenophobic populism for partisan gain, and playing cute with it, pitting one group of newcomers against another, and patting themselves on the back for their “compassion” for certain groups of refugees that they use solely as props to hammer away at the regime they’re fleeing. This has been their modus operandi since Jason Kenney was immigration minister, but they’ve poured it on a little thicker since they saw that this kind of populist rhetoric worked for Trump and Brexit (never mind the fact that we have solid proof of election interference in both, and definitive proof of broken rules in the Brexit referendum). This is worrying for our democracy, and we should be very wary of their adopting these techniques.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Asylum claimant dust-up

Posted on by

So there was a bit of a testy exchange yesterday as federal and provincial immigration ministers met in Winnipeg, and Ahmed Hussen got into a bit of a spat with Ontario’s new minister, Lisa MacLeod. Hussen objected to MacLeod (and Doug Ford) using the rhetoric of “illegal border crossers” and ginning up the same rhetoric of the Federal Conservatives that somehow refugee claimants take make it harder for legal immigrants (despite the fact that they’re separate processes and systems). This objection is not new either – Hussen has been saying this for weeks, so for MacLeod to get offended about it yesterday is being performative in the extreme – which is what she wants. With Kathleen Wynne no longer in the picture for her party to pit themselves against, they now need to make Trudeau their straw man. And when Hussen called the behaviour “un-Canadian,” MacLeod and her defenders accused Hussen of “bullying,” which is childish. But wait – it gets better. MacLeod loudly announced that the federal government should pay for these asylum claimants, while Hussen has been saying for weeks that they need Ontario to step up and find places elsewhere in the province than just Toronto to house them, and hey, they’re providing money to do just that. And then, because this wasn’t theatrical enough, Saskatchewan’s minister also refused to sign onto the communiqué from the meeting and demanded that the federal government not only pay for these asylum seekers (of which Saskatchewan has received zero), but that they should pay the full cost of all other government-sponsored refugees. Couple of things: 1) This is starting to get alarmingly close to the kinds of xenophobic populist rhetoric we’re seeing south of the border, and we should be very alarmed by that; and 2) Remember how the federal Conservatives just a few years ago cut refugee health benefits as a “deterrence” mechanism (which the courts later called “cruel and unusual”), which simply downloaded those costs onto the provinces? These are your political brethren.

Also released yesterday were the latest figures for the number of irregular border crossers, and it has plunged again. Because it’s a “crisis” that the government has “done nothing about.” Err, except they have been doing something about it, trying to stem the migrant flow at the source, and lo and behold, it seems to be working. For now, in any case. But the Conservatives continue to press for a meeting of the Commons’ immigration committee next week to rail about it.

Meanwhile, Martin Patriquin calls out the divisive and inflammatory language because it misses the actual issue at play, treating it as a permanent burden rather than a temporary state of affairs.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An astronaut for GG?

Posted on by

Despite some MPs are agitating for the next Governor General to be Indigenous, it looks like it’s going to be Julie Payette, former astronaut. Payette is a woman and francophone, which fulfils the Anglophone/Francophone alternation that has been the pattern since we started naming our own Governors General, and the government’s desire to have more women in top spots. That she’s not Indigenous will be criticised by some, but I suspect that it may actually avoid other headaches because I do wonder if an Indigenous GG may not find themselves in an inherent conflict of interest given the relationship with the Crown that Indigenous people have which is as sovereign people in a treaty relationship, and being the Queen’s representative has the possibility of being far more complicated once you dig into it. As well, there would likely be pressure on an Indigenous GG from other Indigenous communities to exert influence on the government, given that the understanding of Responsible Government and heeding the advice of the government of the day isn’t all that well understood, and would lead to a lot of disappointment. Meanwhile, here’s Philippe Lagassé on some other aspects of the GG that are worth thinking about.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/885286674468614146

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/885289432747782144

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/885290949588508672

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/885291808942690305

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/885292570997399554

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/885294316247277569

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/885295661742215168

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/885296355324952576

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/885297826862960640

While Paul Wells has a great piece about the message being sent with Payette’s appointment, Lagassé also makes a good point about how her appointment is being framed.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/885307090935451649

And this comment from Denise Donlon seems to sum up a lot of the sentiment I’ve seen:

Continue reading →

Roundup: Once again, the problem is not PMQs

Posted on by

Apparently the topic hasn’t been exhausted, so here we go with round thirty-seven (or thereabouts). We start with Aaron Wherry comparing what happened in Westminster last Wednesday, where Prime Minister Theresa May was on her feet in the Commons for some three-and-a-half hours as she went directly from PMQs to announcing the Brexit plans, to taking questions on it, in a way that the rules in our own House of Commons doesn’t allow. And bully for Wherry that he acknowledged that such a thing couldn’t happen here under our present Standing Orders, but doesn’t quite get to the crux of the issue that our parliamentary culture is so diminished and bastardised when it comes to speaking and debate that even if we changed the rules to allow for such things, that it likely wouldn’t help. He does, however, acknowledge that Trudeau could start making changes around taking all questions one day a week, or announcing more policy in the Commons, if he really wanted to, without having to change the rules.

Chantal Hébert, meanwhile, notes that Trudeau has not really made himself at home in the Commons, starting with doing the bare minimum as an opposition leader, to not really engaging meaningfully when he does show up now, he and his ministers answering in bland pabulum delivered with a smile. From there, she wonders if this disinterest has manifested itself into a kind of tone-deafness as they try to push the proposed changes to the Standing Orders in as poor a manner as they tried to handle the electoral reform debate.

The Globe and Mail’s unsigned editorial on the proposed changes, however, is thin gruel when it comes to engaging on the issue, buying into these notions that the proposed changes are all about crushing the rights of the opposition, not quite articulating the actual role of parliament, while also not grasping what “programming motions” actually are, while propagating this notion that QP only counts if the PM is there, as though the rest of the Cabinet is unworthy of media attention (which really says more about their own perceptions than it does the PM if you ask me). But I’ve said my piece on this again and again, so I’ll let Wherry field this one, because he hits the nail on the head exactly with why this pervasive opinion is part of the problem.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/847970967917907968

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/847972498209730560

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/847973356586532864

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/847973747520921602

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/847975166277824513

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/847981913419722752

In other words, Globe and Mail, you’re part of the problem, so stop pointing fingers. As for the UK’s practice of ministerial questions, there’s this:

https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/847984674039320576

Continue reading →

Roundup: Procedural secret ballots?

Posted on by

Suggestions for improving the way things work in the Commons are relatively common, and mostly a load of nonsense, but then Kady O’Malley comes along and pitches a new idea that I’d never heard of before, so I figured I’d deconstruct it a little. Essentially, she takes a never-before-used-but-on-the-books procedural tactic and looks to expand it – in this case, secret votes in the Commons on procedural matters. The one on the books is an appeal mechanism for MPs to use when their piece of private members’ business is deemed non-votable by both the subcommittee and the full committee that determines these things. Why this hasn’t been used before is because MPs generally know to keep their PMBs within the rules – federal jurisdiction (which they try to get around with the creation of national strategies) or by creatively trying to ensure that they don’t spend money (though some of those suggestions are too-cute-by-half, and yet they try anyway *cough*That NDP climate change bill that they won’t let die*cough*). O’Malley argues that this secret ballot process, extended to other procedural votes on things like time allocation and splitting complex bills into smaller parts, will somehow embolden MPs and ensure that House Leaders have to convince their caucuses rather than crack the whip. And while this sounds great in theory, I’m not buying it. For starters, even if we think that secret ballots for MPs under limited circumstances will somehow miraculously embolden them (and I’m highly doubtful about that one), it also takes them off the hook when it comes to voting for unpopular things like time allocation or keeping omnibus bills intact. Their voters should see them do it so that they can hold them to account for it. The larger problem, however, is that this is a suggestion that largely re-litigates the last parliament. The issue of omnibus bills this government has promised to amend the Standing Orders to prevent (and that’s a promise that we can hold them to account for), while the issue of time allocation is almost certainly to be handled differently, because frankly, we’re not seeing a return to the days of an incompetent House Leader, like Peter Van Loan most certainly was. And frankly, even it that wasn’t the case, I doubt we would see too many outliers on contentious bills being put before a procedural vote because they tend to buy their party’s decision on matters and will find a justification if it ever comes to that. So while it’s a nice idea in theory, I just can’t see this as anything other than yet another well-meaning bit of tinkering that will only serve to eventually make things worse through its unintended consequences. No thanks.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An questionable call to the Governor

Posted on by

While I often cringe about the media’s reluctance to refer to Stephen Harper as prime minister during the writ period (as he remains prime minister and will until he offers the Governor General his resignation) out of an exaggerated sense of fairness, there was an incident yesterday where Harper himself blurred that line between being prime minister, and being the Conservative leader campaigning for his own ends. For the first time that I can recall, we got a press release that mentioned that the Prime Minister called up the Governor of the Bank of Canada. While the text was pretty banal, talking about “ongoing developments” in the global economy and the recent declines in the markets, it was still unusual because we never get these kinds of releases. Ever. There is a very clear separation between government fiscal policy and the monetary policy set by the Bank of Canada, and the two should never meet – in fact, there is an issue in Canadian history where the Prime Minister tried to interfere with the Bank of Canada, and the Governor of the day ended up resigning in protest as a result. While the purpose of Harper’s call to Governor Poloz is not mentioned, the fact that it came on the day where Harper’s campaign message was all about how only his party could be trusted to weather this global economic turbulence, well, it’s pretty icky. Harper subtly politicizes Poloz by using him as a campaign prop – look at my economic credentials! I’m talking to the Bank of Canada Governor, like an economic boss! For all we know, Harper and Poloz have a weekly call where they talk trends and forecasts, and so on, but if that’s the case, we never hear about it. This time, Harper made sure that we knew about it. I’m having a hard time trying to see how this is acceptable in any way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Politicizing the suspensions

Posted on by

Talk of the two Liberal suspensions continues to swirl and take on a darker and more political tone as Thomas Mulcair accused Justin Trudeau of “re-victimising” the two accusers as they asked him not to go public and he didn’t inform them ahead of time that he would suspend his MPs. Trudeau noted that he didn’t reveal the gender or party of the alleged victims, and that he had a duty to act when confronted with the allegations, and one can certainly imagine the accusations that would be levelled against Trudeau if it became public knowledge that he knew of the incidents and didn’t take action. It is also not really a helpful suggestion from those like Megan Leslie to say that he could have disciplined his MPs quietly, which is part of the problem that his public suspensions are trying to address – that there shouldn’t be any tolerance for this kind of behaviour, and that it comes with consequences. I also don’t think there’s any small amount of irony in Leslie saying that it should have been done quietly, when that just feeds the “old boy’s club” mentality that she seems eager to undermine. We also have learnt that one of the incidents took place more than a year ago and another Liberal MP, Scott Simms, know of it but didn’t say anything at the request of the alleged victim, whom he described as a “dear friend.” CBC has six questions in the wake of what has gone on, which help frame what we know and don’t know. In the wake of Wednesday’s suspensions, Leslie talks about some of the more subtle forms of harassment that goes on – not so much aggressive as unwanted touching of hair or lower backs, while former staffers have also opened up about their experiences, including Jordan Owens. She made a very good point about the value of staffers being their discretion, which is true and necessary for the kind of work that is being done, and it makes the situation that much more complicated.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Two suspensions and a resignation

Posted on by

Two Liberal MPs – Scott Armstrong and Massimo Pacetti – were suspended from caucus yesterday following complaints of harassment by two NDP MPs. Thus kicked off a firestorm of calls for independent investigations, bringing in the Speaker, and yes, political gamesmanship. There was, of course, a time when this kind of thing would be handled by the whips and party leaders behind closed doors, but in light of the Jian Gomeshi allegations and the conversation the nation is having about sexual harassment more broadly, Justin Trudeau felt he had no choice but to suspend the members pending an investigation, so that justice was seen to be done. But the fact that he didn’t inform the unnamed accusers – who had brought the matter to his attention in the first place – that he was doing this is suddenly bringing up accusations that he “re-victimised them,” as opposed to leaving him open to accusation that he did nothing when he was made aware of the allegations. The details of all of what happened remain sketchy, and the NDP are even more opaque on what happened and won’t confirm the details that the Liberal whip has revealed, and even the allegations are mostly couched in terms of “personal misconduct,” which both suspended MPs deny, Pacetti going so far as to say that he still don’t know what it is he’s being accused of. Aaron Wherry has collected the various letters and statements that were put out from the Liberal Whip, the Speaker, Thomas Mulcair, Trudeau, and the two suspended MPs. Chantal Hébert recalls the kinds of harassment that was on open display when she first arrived on the Hill in the late 70s. The Ottawa Citizen editorial board says that this story, now part of that conversation about sexual harassment an assault in this country, will hopefully start to bring about change. Similarly, Canadian Business discusses the need to stop treating sensitivity training with mocking, but rather as a way to shift reporting away from the victims alone and putting more onus on bystanders.

Continue reading →

QP: A growing economy will solve it

Posted on by

It was a black morning on the Hill with two MPs suspended for allegations of harassment, and Stephen Harper was absent, headed off to China, making the mood on odd one. While Thomas Mulcair was present, QP was actually led off by Megan Leslie, who raised the Governor of the Bank of Canada’s comments about the job market. Joe Oliver praised the 1.1 million net new jobs since the recession. Leslie asked if the government agreed with Poloz’s (torqued, selective) statement that young people should be willing to live at home and work for free if they can’t get a job. Oliver praised their measures for young people, and that a growing economy would help youth. After another round in the other official language, Libby Davies asked about more childcare spaces, to which Jason Kenney insisted that their tax credit measures and the universal child benefit were better than spaces. When asked again, Candice Bergen praised increased transfers to the provinces, whose jurisdiction childcare belongs to. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and he asked about the income splitting tax credit, to which Jason Kenney called the premise “rubbish” and said that it would benefit half of families and that their other measures would help more low income families. Trudeau called them out for avoiding income splitting in their responses, and raised something from Scott Brison’s 2003 Progressive Conservative leadership platform. Trudeau retorted with Brison’s line about his misguided time as a Conservative before asking the question again in French. Jason Kenney responded by accusing the Liberals of wanting to take away money from families.

Continue reading →