Absolutely no content, regardless whether original or retweeted, represents the views of any person or panda. Caveat lector. He/him. Also on bluesky.
5 subscribers
Jul 23 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
A few points to make in response to all this news and commentary.
@LichTamara and @ChrisBarber1975 have not yet been sentenced. Ms. Lich says the Crown is seeking a long custodial sentence, but we have yet to see what the court will decide. It will likely be shorter.
The Crown here are provincial Crown prosecutors. They operate free from political interference in these decisions. There is no evidence that the prosecution, including the sentencing submissions, is politically directed or motivated.
2/
Jul 7 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
Ms. Lich is referring to the account freezing that was done under the Emergency Economic Measures Order, which was made under the Emergencies Act (and hence only lasted until the public order emergency declaration was lifted).
About 290 accounts were frozen, with around $8 million in assets total. As people held multiple accounts, the number of affected persons was much lower, likely about 60. Accounts were unfrozen in some cases before the emergency ended as people left the protests.
2/
Jun 23 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
This is not accurate. Oil producers sell oil on the market. The price is not subsidized and instead reflects the bargain made between willing buyers and sellers.
Oil is an international commodity and there is therefore a worldwide price for oil. However, the benchmark prices used to report those worldwide prices are based on a specific quality of oil at a specific location.
Jun 23 • 33 tweets • 6 min read
(🧵) For no particular reason, I thought I would provide a "uranium enrichment for dummies" explainer; that is, what it is, why it is done and why it can pose a proliferation threat. Apologies in advance to experts; this is a layperson explainer for those with zero science.
1/
First of all is basic chemistry. Uranium is an element with 92 protons. However, like most elements, not every uranium atom has the same number of neutrons as other uranium atoms. Each version of an element (based on the number of neutrons) is called an isotope.
2/
Jun 3 • 17 tweets • 4 min read
Since there is clearly confusion (such as @msSharanKaur, but not to invite calling her out) as to pairing, a quick explainer: when a MP is unable to attend an important vote, the MP can "pair" with another MP of the other side who will then agree to also not attend the vote.
In the case of the opposition motion's amendment to the Reply to the Speech from the Throne, four LPC MPs were paired with (four) MPs on the opposite side of the House. These eight MPs are formally recorded as paired in Hansard for the vote.
2/
May 15 • 16 tweets • 3 min read
The article isn’t quite accurate. While a Budget Implementation Act is typically introduced shortly after the Budget is tabled, that Act does not provide the authority to spend the funds set out in the Budget. It does other things.
Most government spending is authorized by way of appropriation Acts, which is done through the estimates process and has its own timetable for when it happens (the business of supply) in the House of Commons. Four to five appropriation Acts are usually enacted each year.
2/
May 14 • 21 tweets • 4 min read
A lot of commentary in response to my thread, much of which seems to miscomprehend the particular and unique nature of what ministers do and what the public service does. So, I will try to explain.
The role of the public service is to provide the best possible advice to ministers and to implement the decisions made by the ministers. It is the public service's responsibility to ensure the quality of the advice being given, and so there are internal checks on this.
2/
May 13 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
Gentle reminder that in our Westminster system, Cabinet ministers are not appointed because of, or expected to be, subject matter experts. The professional public service has that expertise.
IMO, a good minister is one who can challenge and give direction to the public service. The minister needs to weigh the advice given and decide what is in the public interest, an inherently political task.
May 7 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
(🧵) As I've commented on the drafting of a few letters from a premier to a prime minister, I felt it was worthwhile including one that, with a few exceptions, was written very well. So, let's take a close look at the letter from the Premier of Manitoba:
There are a couple of nits at the start. No post-nominals are included after Dr. Carney's name. Usually, they would be P.C., M.P.. In Dr. Carney's case, he is not yet a MP (although he will be one shortly), so perhaps it is forgiveable that no post-nominals were included.
2/
May 3 • 21 tweets • 4 min read
(🧵) I’m disappointed, but unsurprised, with @ZivoAdam’s bad and erroneous takes. No rights were invented, and if a court has erred, the judicial system has an existing remedy by having appellate courts.
Courts have been extremely reluctant to enshrine any positive rights in their Charter decisions. The s. 7 right to life, etc., does not mean governments must *provide* bike lanes, safe consumption sites or similar things. But it *can* limit the ability to *remove* them.
2/
Apr 1 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
I am making no predictions, nor am I advocating for any particular outcome, but I would say this is a very bad take. The resurgence in LPC popular support illustrates democracy in action. To suggest differently is just wrong.
What polls showed was that Canadians were very unhappy with how they were being governed federally. Whatever the reasons—whether @Prominent_Bryan’s claims of the failures or whether other factors—voters were ready to pass an overwhelmingly negative judgment on the government.
Mar 20 • 13 tweets • 3 min read
So, as the article notes, this proposed bill would face certain constitutional limits which any first-year law student should be able to analyze. A brief (?) explanation of the legal principles follow.
First of all, provinces can certainly enact valid legislation regarding what constitutes a trespass, as they have jurisdiction over property and civil rights. This is why you see provincial laws such as the Trespass to Property Act.
2/
Mar 18 • 15 tweets • 3 min read
Where both the questions and answers have been poor, IMO, is with a transitional issue that can affect blind trusts: the fact that it is unlikely that the trustee will have completely rebalanced the investment assets quickly. However, this is nevertheless not a large issue.
We can expect that investments ("controlled assets" as defined in the Conflict of Interest Act) were transferred in-kind into the blind trust. So, Dr. Carney would know what the blind trust held on day one. What he doesn't know is what trades the trustee has since done.
2/
Feb 12 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
I’m not about to predict how the next election will go, or even which party deserves to win it. But I disagree with the claim that a LPC win would mean that “democracy’s self-correcting mechanism is malfunctioning.” I’d say the evidence is otherwise.
How the current government has handled a number of files certainly contributed to it becoming very unpopular, to the point that it might have been facing an incredibly humiliating defeat had an election happened at that point.
2/
Feb 10 • 22 tweets • 4 min read
(🧵) I would expect government correspondence, especially when it is being made public, would be carefully checked for errors. Alas, a significant number of those were not caught in this letter.
Addressing him as "Honourable" is a major violation of protocol.
2/
Jan 29 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
Canada is far from perfect. But it seems to me that we have a punditocracy that is eager to sanewash President Trump by making it seem like he has legitimate grievances with Canada, that if only we did (or did not do) X, we would not be in his crosshairs.
President Trump's pronouncements are, to put it mildly, batshit. His grievances are devoid of reality. Addressing his grievances is like playing whack-a-mole; if we can close one, he will jump to another equally imaginary complaint.
2/
Jan 6 • 38 tweets • 6 min read
(🧵) For no particular reason, a basic primer on "supply" or how the government is able to spend money.
1/
It is a constitutional requirement that Parliament approves all government spending. Moreover, bills authorizing spending (or imposing any tax) *must* originate in the House of Commons (other bills can start in the Senate; regardless, both Houses must approve).
2/
Jan 2 • 26 tweets • 5 min read
(🧵) I know we had long ago entered the unhinged era, but the #FoodProcessor has outdone himself with his latest tweets. Even without delving deeply, one can spot multiple major errors in his statements.
To whit:
1/
First, there is the claim that “the academic hard-left … has consistently attempted to silence dissenting voices”. Which is ironic given that the #FoodProcessor continues to have a podcast, is published as an OpEd writer and remains at Dalhousie University.
2/
Dec 14, 2024 • 12 tweets • 3 min read
A couple of comments in response to this OpEd. First, if the USA imposes tariffs and Canada decides retaliatory action is the best way to get the White House to back down, you want actions that hurt Americans but do as little harm to Canadians as possible.
An export tax, unlike a tariff, does not increase costs for Canadians. So, in that respect, it already has an advantage.
Of course, it can mean that export demand for the taxed good will decrease, which is, obviously, bad for the producers of that good.
2/
Oct 12, 2024 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
Counterpoint: caucus revolts are an important feature of our Westminster system between elections. When a party leader will not or cannot maintain public support, then the caucus will seek change.
They do this because they fear they, or the party overall, will lose seats in the next election with the status quo. It’s because they are accountable to voters, not because they are selfish. In a democracy, the MP’s loyalty to the leader yields to the views of voters.
(🧵)Obviously, until the actual amendments are introduced, we won't be able to see how the Government intends to implement what the Premier is promising in her video. But a few things can be noted as items to watch.
First, the Premier speaks about enshrining the right to make one's own medical choices "without fear of *undue* pressure or interference by government."
People were not involuntarily vaccinated against COVID-19.
2/
