Tag Archives: Tough on Crime

Roundup: The uncertain final direction of pharmacare

Posted on by

The political reality of the pharmacare legislation is sinking in with one party, but not another, and you can probably guess which. Both Justin Trudeau and Mark Holland have been fairly circumspect in talking about where the system is going, and how coverage of the two classes of drugs will wind up looking like and costing because that’s entirely up to negotiations with the provinces, and nobody wants to wake up to that fact. This programme has been oversold from the beginning, and the NDP keep doing this victory lap while sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting “LALALALALA!” whenever anyone mentions the provinces, because they don’t want to hear it, and don’t even get me started on legacy media ignoring the provinces in this either.

One of the key details as to the future of pharmacare is that the Canadian Drug Agency will be doing work on a list of essential medicines within a year of royal assent, which could be the basis of a national formulary, but this again needs to be negotiated with the provinces—yet another one of those things that the NDP keep loudly ignoring whenever it gets raise. If this is to be a cost-shared programme—and it needs to be because there is no way the federal government can pick up the whole tab on this—then provinces need a say in that formulary. The Agency can also help coordinate the bulk purchasing that is what makes national pharmacare economically viable, and is going to necessarily be the cudgel that gets the provinces on board—there is more purchasing power if the whole country does it in one fell swoop rather than each provinces or a group of them banding together, and we need to remember that this is not just over-the-counter pharmaceuticals, but those used by hospitals and in clinical settings, which is why the provinces should have a vested interest in making this happen, because they pay for those out of their healthcare budgets.

I would also point out that the federal government has been doing the actual work of making this happen for years, because they got the Agency up and running quietly over the course of several years, while the NDP were alternately screaming and preening about this framework legislation that remains a case of putting the cart before the horse. So while the NDP take turns patting themselves on the back for this bill, the Liberals have been pretty quiet about doing the actual hard work, which again, baffles me entirely because they have a good story to tell if they actually bothered to try.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians appear to be massing a large force near the city of Chasiv Yar in the eastern part of the country, hoping to make a breakthrough in the Donetsk region, as they now have the advantage in ammunition and personnel. The Netherlands has signed a security agreement with Ukraine, and is promising more artillery funding.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Brian Mulroney passes away

Posted on by

News came down last evening that former prime minister Brian Mulroney had passed away after some health challenges.

The Star has a pretty good obituary here, as well as some of the reactions to his passing, and the CBC has a series of photos over the course of his life.

https://twitter.com/yfblanchet/status/1763346642294411713

Bloc MP Louis Plamondon, who was first elected as a PC MP in 1984 along with Mulroney, reflects on Mulroney.

In reaction, Susan Delacourt notes that it’s hard to imagine a Canada without the larger-than-life Mulroney given his lasting legacy, and also reflects on the political lessons that she learned in covering him during his time in office. Ian Brodie praises Mulroney for his strategic sense in global affairs at a time of great upheaval.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces are pushing hard against the front lines in the east and southeastern parts of Ukraine, which Ukraine has repelled, and they do keep shooting down Russian warplanes, downing another three on Thursday alone. Ukraine is using more domestically-manufactured military equipment, as they strive to move more toward self-sufficiency and away from faltering Western aid.

Continue reading →

QP: Brandishing an RCMP letter

Posted on by

Neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present today, though both were back in town (if a bit jet-lagged from their travel over the weekend), while only a few other leaders were present. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and after reciting some slogans, he said that the RCMP had confirmed that they have opened an investigation into ArriveCan, and tried to tie in the Aga Khan and SNC Lavalin. Dominic LeBlanc said that they have been giving authorities all of the documents they request. Poilievre repeated the question in English, and LeBlanc repeated his same response in English. Poilievre then cited a Food Bank report, and demanded the carbon levy be lifted (which has nothing to do with food price inflation). François-Philippe Champagne deployed his usual “take no lessons” line before saying that Conservatives on the committee were defending the profit margins of food processors, and exhorted then to support Bill C-59. Poilievre tried again, and Champagne patted himself on the back for spearheading the largest reform of competition in history. Poilievre then cited the existence of a dumpster diving Facebook group and blamed it on the carbon price. Sean Fraser got up to list assistance programmes that Poilievre and the Conservatives have voted against.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he repeated yesterday’s question about federal government spending to give other provinces what Quebec already has, and wanted compensation to opt out of any national pharmacare. Mark Holland said that a bill would be coming soon, and exhorted them not to criticise a bill they haven’t seen. Therrien wanted compensation to Quebec and the ability to opt out of dental care, and Holland insisted this was just trying to pick fights rather than helping people who need it.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he complained that people in Quebec can’t get a family do form which should be a question for François Legault. Holland said that they were cooperating with provinces, and that it takes time. Don Davies gave a non-Quebec-centric version of the same question, and Holland went on a tear about how the Conservatives would cut while the current government is investing. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre punches down

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre made a lot of statements yesterday, and they were all alarming in their own ways. First up was expressing support for Bill S-210, which aims to require ISPs to ensure age verification for any online porn sites, or face massive penalties—a bill that passed the Senate and is now headed to committee with opposition support in the Commons. It’s a hugely problematic bill that is going to be a privacy nightmare and cause more problems than it solves. Poilievre also said he doesn’t want this implemented by way of a government digital ID or that prevents people from access legal materials, and his MPs keep handwaving and insisting that there must be some kind of technological solution here. There’s not, this is bad, and frankly is pretty Big Government/gatekeeping, which Poilievre claims to hate. What it does, however, is tap into the moral panic over porn being the root cause of a bunch of social ills, and Poilievre loves getting in on that action.

He was then asked by Rebel Media about trans people and washrooms—because of course the far-right remains obsessed about this—and Poilievre stated that he was against trans women in changing rooms, washrooms, or women’s sports, which is an outrageous egregious overreach and is Poilievre punching down in order to appease the Rebel Media audience. (I will note that you had pundits on Power & Politics baffled by this, believing that Poilievre has this demographic “locked down.” Not true—he needs to actively court them because they see him as being too soft and establishment—see Christine Anderson referring to him as “Pussyvere”—and he has to constantly prove himself to them). It’s also worth noting that for Poilievre’s press conferences, which are limited to five questions and no follow-ups, Rebel and True North are often at the front of the line for questions, which is another particular sign of who he’s speaking to. Justin Trudeau did respond and push back about this making trans people unsafe, which is true, but this is another moral panic Poilievre is trying to cash in on.

The last bit was perhaps the ugliest, where Poilievre was asking about the upcoming online harms bill, and he said that Trudeau shouldn’t be the one to bring it in, claiming this would be censorship, misquoting the line about “those with unacceptable views” (again, playing to the “convoy” audience who took up this misquote with great aplomb), and then launched into a tirade about how Trudeau needs to look into his heart about his past racism and Blackface. And then, because of course, a certain CBC journalist wrote this up (which I’m not going to link to) and devoted half of the story to rehashing the Blackface history including photos, because they didn’t learn a gods damned thing about how Trump got in (and this goes beyond just egregious both-sidesing). None of this is good.

Ukraine Dispatch:

With the loss of Avdiivka, Ukrainians are expecting more advances from Russians. This has spooked enough of the elderly in villages in the area, who are now heading for safer regions, worried that their towns are going to be the next to be ground to dust. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is downplaying the loss of Avdiivka as he calls for more western arms and support, but it has been relentless grind for Ukrainian forces. This said, western intelligence suggests that Russia doesn’t have the domestic capacity to manufacture the ammunition it needs either, so we’ll see how long they can keep up their current pace. Meanwhile, anti-corruption authorities in Ukraine are investigating more than sixty cases involving the defence sector.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1760235411987980541

Continue reading →

Roundup: Falsely framing carbon prices and inflation

Posted on by

Because this is sometimes a media criticism blog, I want to point your direction to a CTV piece from the weekend, taken from an interview with Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon on CTV’s Question Period. The headline and substance of the piece, taken from the interview, is “Feds won’t pause carbon price despite inflation.” Now, if you were a casual reader who didn’t know what was going on, you might think that the carbon price is driving inflation and the government is being obstinate in refusing to deal with that driver of inflation.

That would, however, be completely wrong. We know that the carbon price contributes only negligibly to inflation because inflation is measured on a year-over-year basis, and with the carbon price increasing at the same rate every year, the impact on year-over-year prices remains negligible. The Bank of Canada figures that it works out to 0.15 percent of inflation. Is this mentioned anywhere in the story? Nope. Instead, it’s both-sides as pointing to Poilievre’s promise to “axe the tax” (which is not a tax, but a levy, and yes, there is a difference), contrasted with MacKinnon pointing out that at committee last week, food economists pointed to the fact that there’s no evidence the carbon price has had a meaningful impact on the price of food, because, again, if you pay attention, you would know that the bigger drivers of food price inflation are droughts or floods in food-producing regions, including Canada’s, which is related to climate change. (That poing is also absent from the story).

Why does this matter? Because of how the story has been framed. It frames itself that carbon prices are driving inflation, which is false and misleading. It sets up a false scenario about what is driving inflation (which has fallen over the last year and is now in a sticker place just above target), and sets about positing a false solution, while trying to look like it’s concerned about cost-of-living concerns while looking at absolutely none of the driving factors of what has caused an increase in the cost of living. This, my friends, is shoddy journalism. I get that they were trying to get a headline out of that interviews, but great Cyllenian Hermes, that was not the way to do it, and it’s a little embarrassing that this was the result.

Ukraine Dispatch:

At least three Ukrainians have been killed in Russian attacks on cities in the country’s east, near the front lines. Ukrainian forces repelled an attempted Russian advance on the southern front, as Russians move their forces forward following the withdrawal from Avdiivka. The withdrawal from Avdiivka was preceded by a change in Russian tactics designed to take advantage of the shortage of ammunition. Ukrainian forces say that Russians executed six unarmed Ukrainian soldiers taken prisoner in Avdiivka as they were fleeing, and two more in the nearby village of Vesele. Here is a look at the significance of Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian oil refineries and other infrastructure within Russian borders.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1759195559272108467

Continue reading →

Roundup: A dubious Federal Court decision, but right about judicial appointments

Posted on by

The Federal Court ruled yesterday that the federal government must start filling judicial vacancies faster because, which is true, but the judgment itself is something of a mess. It’s hard to see how the Court has jurisdiction here, and the judge seems to have invented a bunch of justification and has handwaved around constitutional conventions, and in the end, declared that the government must fill most of those vacancies “in a reasonable period of time,” which is vague and of little value other than the declaration. Emmett Macfarlane has promised a post on this soon, and Leonid Sirota has a thread here taking issue with the reasoning (though not the underlying issue of not making sufficient appointments—everyone is agreed on that point).

I have been writing on this government’s problems with appointments since probably their second year in office, possibly even sooner than that. While you can look up the myriad of columns I have written, the short version is this: The government wants to make diverse appointments (which is good! This is a good thing!) but they insisted on a system of self-nominations rather than going out and nominating people. We know that women, people of colour, and LGBTQ+ people routinely don’t apply for positions like this because society has drilled into them the message that only straight, old white men get positions like this. Even the Liberal Party itself gets this in their candidate selection process, where they set up systems to be persistent in getting women and diverse people to seek nominations. And even with that, the federal government has utterly dropped that ball and thinks that they can simply say “We’re accepting diverse applications!” and expecting those applications to flood in. They seem to act like the Sesame Street sketch where Ernie simply goes “Here, fishy, fishy, fishy!” and the fish leap into the boat. That’s not how this works, and when they don’t get enough applications, it slows down the process tremendously. And after seven years, they have absolutely refused to learn this lesson. Refused! It’s some kind of giant ideological blinder that they cannot get their collective heads around, no matter how many times the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court warns them, or the Auditor General sounds the alarm about vacancies on port authorities or the boards of Crown corporations, or even their process for appointing senators. They absolutely refuse to learn the lessons of their failures.

It does bear mentioning that there has been an uptick in the pace of appointments in the past few months, and filling vacancies for provincial chief justices and associate chief justices has also picked up speed (and yes, I have been keeping an eye out for this). That said, making federal judicial appointments faster won’t solve the problems with our justice system because a lot more of them involve provinces not properly resourcing provincial courts or superior courts, where you have a lot of cases where there are no court rooms or court staff available, and that causes as many if not more problems. The issue of federal appointments, however, is low-hanging fruit so it’s taking a lot more attention than it should, and once again, premiers are being allowed to skate because of it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians have struck a hospital and apartments in Selydove in eastern Ukraine, killing three people. Here’s a look at how Ukrainians are decoding Russian battle communications to save lives on the front lines. Russia is pulling old tanks out of storage and refurbishing them after having lost more than 3000 in the fighting in Ukraine over the past two years. Ukraine’s military intelligence is now saying that Russia has been buying Starlink terminals by way of “Arab countries.”

Continue reading →

Roundup: The hit piece that wasn’t

Posted on by

Remember a week ago when Pierre Poilievre put out a tweet declaring that the Toronto Star was attacking him, and he tried to pre-spin a forthcoming story about he and his wife buying a $300 splash pool for their kids? Well, we finally saw that story on the weekend, and lo, it was nothing at all like Poilievre whiningly described. Instead, it was about how security upgrades have been made at Stornoway because of concerns that included those from the Sergeant-At-Arms of the House of Commons. Some “attack.”

This is, of course, how Poilievre likes to frame every media interaction, no matter what. The attacks he’s been making against The Canadian Press for the corrections they made to a story were not misquotes or certainly not a “hit piece” like he keeps saying—the corrections were because the journalist drew the links that Poilievre was hinting at in the remarks he made to a radio station. That was it. With the stories about Danielle Smith’s anti-trans policies and trying to get comment from Poilievre on them, he keeps accusing them of “disinformation,” when it’s nothing of the sort. We all know, of course, that this is him playing for clips that he’ll feed to his base on his socials, and that his friendly outlets like Rebel and True North will pick up on his behalf, but come on. At some point, you would think that people would see that the stories were not attacks and that he’s being a big crybaby over nothing. Of course, that would mean that their cognitive dissonance wouldn’t also kick in to avoid criticizing their leader, but come on. You’re not the victim here.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia launched 45 drones over Ukraine early Sunday, after they previous hit Kharkiv the day before, which killed seven. Russian forces are pushing into Avdiivka, and getting close to main supply lines, which creates a major challenge for the new commander-in-chief. Russians have been found using Starlink terminals in occupied territories in an organised manner, while Starlink insists that they haven’t sold terminals directly or indirectly to Russia.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1756210514835722290

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reviving the NEP to own the Libs?

Posted on by

It’s kind of amazing how little thought goes into some of the slogan-laden thinking in so much of the politics in this country, and no party is exempt from it. It’s also funny how some of these policies are just rehashing of old programmes that they hated before. Case in point? Alberta trying to make hay about New Brunswick importing oil rather than getting it from Alberta.

Or as I like to say:

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian drones hit a petrol station in Kharkiv, causing a massive explosion. The new commander-in-chief wants to regain momentum in the conflict, but problems with manpower and dwindling ammunition remain structural challenges for him.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bad Supreme Court reporting is bad

Posted on by

There is a reason why journalists should have beats, and why it can be dangerous to write about topics or institutions when you’re not familiar with them. There was a case in point yesterday in the National Post which was trying to sound some kind of alarm about what’s going on at the Supreme Court of Canada—except there’s actually no story here. I’m really not trying to pick on the reporter of the piece, because he’s a good journalist, but he just doesn’t know the file, and got swept up in what a particular lawyer was telling him without having a proper bullshit detector.

The supposed crisis is that the Court is hearing fewer cases lately, and a lot of what it is hearing is being decided in rulings from the bench, meaning they generally don’t release written decisions, and that this is somehow bad for developing case law. Because he talked to one lawyer who tracks stats, he figures that’s the story. Except it’s really not. They’re hearing fewer cases as a direct result of the pandemic, which slowed down the ability to hear cases at the trial court level, which then slows down appeals, which slows down their ability to get to the Supreme Court. They piece pooh-poohs that almost four years later this is still a problem, when of course it is. These things take a long time, particularly when courts were operating on a minimal standard for nearly two years. And because they were operating minimally, most of what they did hear were criminal cases, because they have timelines attached lest they get stayed for delays. That means that most of what does filter up to the Supreme Court are criminal cases, many of them as of right (meaning that at the appeal level, it wasn’t unanimous, so it automatically goes to the Supreme Court of Canada). That’s why a lot of these cases are being decided from the bench—there isn’t any matter of national importance being decided, so they have few needs for written rulings. In the Court’s current session, only two of the cases are not criminal because that’s how the lower courts have been operating. It’s a problem for sure, but it’s one because provinces aren’t funding courts adequately, and the federal government is too slow to make appointments to fill vacancies. This is not a Supreme Court problem.

Furthermore, the piece quotes from a literal constitutional crank—a particular law professor who is of the “burn it all down” school—because it’s a lazy journalist’s trick to make the piece sound more controversial or edgy. But here, he’s saying that he can’t believe they weren’t hearing certain cases without actually saying what he wanted them to hear, and then, out of nowhere, says the Court is going to have to expand, but doesn’t explain why. It makes no sense other than it’s piggybacking on an American issue that has nothing to do with our Court. There is also concern that the court’s decisions are a lot more divided these days and not unanimous without actually exploring that. This is largely because of the different styles of chief justice—under Beverley McLachlin, she strove for more unanimous decisions, and in the end, many of the rulings became so narrowly focused in order to achieve unanimity that they were largely useless for the purposes of developing case law. There is more dissent now because Richard Wagner isn’t concerned with achieving unanimity to the detriment of the decisions, and you have a couple of judges on the court who like to be contrarians. That’s not a bad thing. There is no crisis with the Supreme Court, and if the reporter had any grounding in the institution, he would have seen that there’s no smoke, no fire, and stats without context are useless.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The fighting is now inside the city of Avdiivka, which Russians have been trying to capture for months. There was another prisoner swap yesterday, with 100 exchanged on each side. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has replaced the top army commander, looking for fresh ideas on how to push Russian invaders back. (More about the new chief here).

Continue reading →

QP: Getting partisan about gendered violence

Posted on by

The prime minister was off attending the big auto theft summit several blocks away from the West Block, while his deputy was similarly absent, as were all other leaders. Andrew Scheer led off in English, read some specious statistics about auto theft, and demanded more tough policies. Jennifer O’Connell countered with the fact that five years under the Harper government saw even higher auto theft rates than now. Scheer volleyed that those were the first five years with the problem they inherited, before giving a misleading statement about carbon prices and grocery prices. François-Philippe Champagne deployed his “take no lessons” line and gave a swipe about Jenni Byrne. Scheer returned with the number of former Liberal staffers who lobby for Loblaws, and gave an “it’s the carbon tax, stupid.” The Speaker warned him, before Champagne extolled his efforts to get new grocers into Canada. Gérard Deltell took over in French, and accused the government of prioritising photo ops over building housing. Champagne said that the only thing the Conservatives are good at is insulting  mayors. Deltell noted the decrease in housing stocks under the Liberals and demanded action. Champagne said that he has nothing to learn about videos and photo ops from the Conservatives, as they don’t solve problems.

Claude DeBellefeuille led for the Bloc, and she wanted the government to let Quebec proceed with advanced request for MAiD, to which Jean-Yves Duclos noted that as the former minster of health, he wanted to recognise Quebec’s movement and said that they would work together. DeBellefeuille repeated the demand for the Criminal Code changes, and Duclos said that they need to protect the most vulnerable, and promised to look closely at this.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the Bloc, and demanded support for their “grocery prices” bill, and in response, Champagne stated that they have moved forward with competition reform and took most of the NDP’s recommendations. Lindsay Mathyssen repeated the demand in English, to which Champagne repeated the same response in English.

Continue reading →