QP: Boissonnault out vs caucus muzzling

Posted on by
1

Fresh from his trips to Peru and Brazil, the prime minister was present for QP today, ready to respond to any and all questions, though his deputy was elsewhere. All of the other leaders were present, and just before QP started, it was announced that Randy Boissonnault was stepping away from Cabinet to “clear his name” from the various allegations against him. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and led off with the various salacious allegations against Boissonnault. Justin Trudeau noted that Boissonnault has left Cabinet to focus on the allegations, but the Conservatives only want to cut. Poilievre raised Jody Wilson-Raybould and tried to compare her to Boissonnault, and Trudeau noted that for a leader who claims to want the truth is muzzling his own caucus. Poilievre switched to English, gave a quip about doubling hosing prices and gun crimes, and up until a minute ago, had a minister with a “double identity,” and Trudeau again repeated the points about Trudeau muzzling his MPs rather than letting them advocate for their communities. Poilievre again tried compare Wilson-Raybould to Boissonnault, and Trudeau repeated that Poilievre won’t let his caucus talk because he’s afraid of what they are going to say about him. Poilievre retorted that twenty Liberals want Trudeau gone, and demanded an election. Trudeau said that MPs on his side were free to share their opinions unlike the other side.

That threw a wrench in a bunch of planned #QP questions.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-11-20T19:32:28.061Z

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, said this display proved why Quebec needs to be on its own, and then demanded that the government force the Senate to pass the Supply Management bill. Trudeau noted that his party was in favour of it, and demanded the prime minister personally meet with senators to get them to pass it, and Trudeau noted that he does meet with them often, but regardless, the government will protect the system.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, complained about the cost of living, and demanded the government support their economically illiterate GST cut plan. Trudeau said that if the NDP was so concerned about the cost of living, they would help the government break the Conservative obstruction in the Chamber. Singh repeated the demand in French, and Trudeau repeated his same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ignoring the abuse and the banana republic tactics

Posted on by
Reply

While on the one hand, it’s nice that legacy media is once again paying attention to the fact that there is an ongoing filibuster in the House of Commons that has largely paralyzed any work for six weeks now, but it would be great if they could actually make a gods damned effort at it. Pretty much every story, and the CBC’s turn was yesterday, just types of the quotes from Karina Gould and Andrew Scheer blaming one another for the filibuster. The current fascination to this story, however, is that the Supplementary Estimates votes are coming up, and every gods damned Hill reporter is dying to use the phrase “American-style government shutdown” to go along with it that they continue to gloss over the actual issues at hand.

There is a legitimate issue about the abuse of the parliamentary privilege to demand documents, because the power is only in relation to Parliament summoning those documents for their own purposes, not to turn them over to a third party. The Speaker and the clerks who advise him should never have allowed this to be considered a matter of privilege because the powers are being abused, but this is too much of a “process story” for them, so they don’t like that angle. There is also the even more pressing issue that these powers are being abused in a manner befitting a banana republic, where the powers of the state are being weaponized against those that the legislature doesn’t like, and that should be absolutely alarming to anyone paying attention.

This kind of abuse sets precedents, and if it’s allowed to happen now, it’ll be allowed to happen the next time someone wants to abuses these powers. The most that media outlets can muster up is “The RCMP says they don’t want these documents, so why are you so insistent?” but never “Why do you think it’s appropriate to behave like this is a banana republic where you are using the state to go after your perceived enemies?” We are in a particular moment in western democracies where autocrats are threatening to take over, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary has provided them a template to dismantle the guardrails of the state to delegitimize opposition and stay in power as long as possible. This is creeping into Canada, and legacy media in this country needs to be alive to the issue and call out these kinds of tactics and behaviours, rather than just both-sidesing it and using words like “polarized” or “divisive,” because that just plays into their hands.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine fired eight US-supplied longer-range missiles into Russia, two of them being intercepted, the rest hitting an ammunition supply location. President Zelenskyy addressed Ukraine’s parliament with a speech to mark the 1,000th day of the invasion.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1858871441032155385

Continue reading →

QP: Speaker Fergus walks into the trap set for him

Posted on by
Reply

The PM was wrapping up at the G20, while his deputy was also elsewhere, as were most of the other leaders. Andrew Scheer was there to lead off, and he listed a bunch of specious allegations around Randy Boissonnault, and Boissonnault responded that he had nothing to do with the person in question. Scheer tried again, listing more salacious allegations, and this time Jean-Yves Duclos responded with the usual lines about Pierre Poilievre not getting his security clearance. Scheer then cited a tweet from Jody Wilson-Raybould that took a swipe at Boissonnault and then got into a back-and-forth with Speaker Fergus about which words he used weren’t parliamentary. Karina Gould got up to to decry the disrespect the Conservatives have been showing the Chamber, and had to start over after a lengthy intervention by the Speaker, who was pretty much exasperated by this point. Fergus then threatened to start taking questions away, before Luc Berthold got up to give the same talking points about Boissonnault in French, and Gould again got up to say that Boissonnault has answered, and it was time to stop the partisan games. Berthold tried one more time, got warned about the use of a first name, and Gould again got up to moralise about how the Conservatives are making a joke of this place.

Fergus has pretty much lost the entire Chamber. This is utterly ridiculous. #QP

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-11-19T19:32:20.904Z

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and railed about their fraud perpetrated against the CRA and the hunt for the whistleblowers. Marie-Claude Bibeau insisted that this was false and that they took it seriously, and that the Privacy Commissioner was involved. Therrien went on a tear about CRA trying to protect their own backsides, and Bibeau replied that they have not hidden anything and that that they have taken action.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and demand the government adopt the NDP’s economically illiterate GST cut plan. François-Philippe Champagne agreed with the framing device that the Conservatives would only cut, while the government is investing in Canadians. Leila Dance made the same demand in English, and Jenna Sudds also agreed that the Conservatives will cut before praising the school food programme.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Just which system is privileging the party?

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday morning, the charlatans at Fair Vote Canada put out a press release that, straight-faced, said that Pierre Poilievre’s refusal to let his MPs advocate for Housing Accelerator funding is because the current single-member plurality voting system means that it’s always “party first,” which is hilarious because one of the defining features of proportional representation, which they advocate for, is that it privileges the parties over the MPs—so much so that certain PR systems don’t even allow for independents because of how the voting is structured.

Hilarious nonsense from the charlatans at Fair Vote Canada.PR privileges parties over MPs. This kind of behaviour would be worse under PR, not better, because the party has more control over individual MPs, not less.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-11-18T14:30:33.890Z

Their argument was more along the lines of “If you have more than one member in a riding, they don’t have to fight to be the sole voice” or something like that, which is only a feature in certain forms of PR (because there are many), but one that is wholly unworkable in Canada. Why? Because of our vast geographic distances. Some ridings are already the size of France, and allowances need to be made for some of these rural and remote ridings to have a smaller population than the median riding size because the distance is just too great otherwise. Each of the Territories is a good example of that. Expanding those ridings to be multi-member is a non-starter, and if you think that means that we can have two different systems—multi-member ridings in cities, single-member ridings in rural and remote areas—well, good luck convincing the Supreme Court of Canada that the inequities are constitutional.

Nevertheless, it will never not be hilarious for Fair Vote Canada to try and claim that the current system puts the party first when in actual fact, it privileges the rights of individual MPs to make their own choices, and allows them the freedom to buck their party lines if they have the spine to do so, because they are elected as an individual, not as a name on a party list. That matters a lot in terms of the rights of an MP, and for them to dismiss it is yet another sign that they’re a bunch of pretenders who don’t actually understand the system, or let alone enough to want to change it for some hand-waving that pretends it will be a panacea to problems when in fact it will just trade one set of problems for a new set that could very well be worse.

Especially when it consists of three-word slogans, or feel-good pabulum.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-11-18T14:18:06.943Z

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile hit a residential building in Sumy late Sunday, killing 11l and wounding over 89. On Monday, a missile hit a residential neighbourhood in Odesa, killing ten and wounding over forty-four. President Zelenskyy visited the frontline towns of Pokrovsk and Kupiansk. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has found evidence of Russia using tear gas last month in battles in the Dnipropetrovsk region. Here is a look at how the 1000 days of Russia’s invasion have changed the landscape of drone warfare, and what the invasion has cost Ukraine. Here is a look at what the US’ decision to allow Ukraine to use its weapons for strikes in Russian territory could mean.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1858432305305424302

Continue reading →

QP: The character assassination of Boissonnault continues

Posted on by
Reply

While the prime minister was still in Rio for the G20 summit, his deputy was present, but most other leaders didn’t bother. Pierre Poilievre was present, however, and he led off in French by equating the prime minister to a firefighter setting fires, who blamed “bad actors” for the immigration problems, and that he needed to look in the mirror. Marc Miller spoke about the decision to lower targets as being the responsible thing to do. Poilievre repeated this in English, and Miller said they wouldn’t take any lessons from someone who has spent twenty years lighting fires in the House of Commons. Poilievre switched to the various allegations about Randy Boissonnault and demanded his resignation. Boissonnault said that despite the innuendo, he had not met and has no dealings with the person referred to in the article today. Poilievre tried again, with a couple of added swipes, and Boissonnault repeated that the same denial, and the article stated that fact. Poilievre then took a swipe at Trudeau saying people are confused by misinformation about the carbon levy, repeated lies about it, and demanded an election. Jonathan Wilkinson called out the disinformation and chanted that eight out of ten households get more money back. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he decried the amendments to their Supply Management bill in the Senate, and demanded the prime minister order senators to defeat the amendment. Karina Gould reminded him that senators are independent. Therrien railed about that independence and didn’t believe it, and repeated his demand. This time Marie-Claude Bibeau suggested that the Conservatives tell their own senators to pass the bill. 

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, complained about prices “not making sense” and more, and demanded the government adopt their economically stupid plan to cut the GST on certain items. Jean-Yves Duclos responded with a swipe about the Conservatives not supporting dental care. Don Davies repeated the same demand in English, and François-Philipppe Champagne repeated that the Conservatives will cut, and patted himself on the back for creating economic opportunities. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Who cares about the Speaker’s peril when there are talking points to parrot?

Posted on by
1

Because this is sometimes a media criticism blog, I want to point you to a piece that was on The Canadian Press wire this weekend about a potential procedural showdown between the ongoing privilege filibuster and the coming end of the supply cycle, when the Supplementary Estimates will need to be voted on. This could have been a fascinating discussion that focuses on the pressure that will be on Speaker Fergus to get it right—which, to be frank, he did not when he made the ruling that allowed the privilege filibuster to begin, and pretty much every procedural expert I’ve spoken to has said he got the ruling wrong, and even more to the point, even a former Law Clerk of the Commons has said that this shouldn’t be a privilege issue because the powers to demand papers doesn’t extend to turning them over to a third party as is the case here.

But did the CP story touch on this? Hardly at all! There was some vaguely-worded talk about how this showdown could be unprecedented, but doesn’t actually explain the procedure, or the ruling the Speaker would have to make, and instead spends most of the piece both-sidesing the Liberal and Conservative talking points about the filibuster, because that’s what CP does best in their desire to be as scrupulously neutral as possible. Because who needs actual facts or an explanation of parliamentary procedure when you can quote talking points? This is a problem that CP refuses to address for itself, as news outlets across the country become more and more reliant on wire copy as the number of parliamentary bureaux for legacy media outlets continue to shrink.

Any of it, really.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-11-17T01:44:06.383Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched a massive missile and drone barrage against Ukraine overnight Saturday, which hit an apartment buildingin Sumy, killing eight. Russia launched a further 120 missiles and 90 drones overnight Sunday, targeting power systems and killing at least seven people, which will likely mean power cuts. The invasion is now 1,000 days old, and Russia is continuing to expend massively, including in lives, for small territorial gains. It also appears that President Biden has finally okayed the use of long-range weapons provided by the Americans to strike targets inside Russia. It appears that a Russian factory has been producing hundreds of decoy drones meant to overwhelm Ukraine’s defences, while certain drones will carry thermobaric warheads. (More on that investigation).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Clapping back at the provinces and their JPs

Posted on by
1

Justice Minister Arif Virani has been honing his responses to the cries for bail reform lately, both in pointing out that the provinces are not living up to their responsibilities—whether that’s with properly resourcing the court system so that trials are conducted in a timely manner, or in dealing with overcrowded remand centres where people are locked up awaiting trial, and because of the overcrowding and poor conditions, many accused are being given bail rather than subjected to those conditions. Even more recently, he has started pointing to how certain provinces, and Ontario especially, have been appointing Justices of the Peace, to decide on most bail hearings.

Ontario in particular had this whole song and dance about how great it was that they were appointing JPs who weren’t all lawyers, because it gave them greater breadth of experience or whatever, but if it’s true that they’re not actually applying the law of bail properly, that’s a problem. It could simply be that their training is inadequate, which again is a provincial responsibility, because if they are being expected to read, understand and apply case law that the Supreme Court of Canada has laid out when it comes to the law of bail, then again, that is a problem that the provinces need to solve.

And yes, there are going to continue to be voices chirping that the law is the problem, and that the Liberals created an “open door” through two pieces of legislation, but this has been an orchestrated disinformation campaign. The one law that the Conservatives refer to codified Supreme Court jurisprudence, and actually toughened bail in certain respects, especially around domestic violence; the other law they refer to had to do with doing away with solitary confinement in federal penitentiaries, which has nothing to do with bail in the slightest, but repeated lying that has not been pushed back against by both-sidesing media has led a whole lot of credulous people to believe the bullshit. The law of bail is not the problem—it’s everything else that is, and the provinces are once again being allowed to get away with not doing their jobs.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian security services have detained a special forces unit commander accused of being Russian mole. Russian air defences claim to have downed a series of Ukrainian drones in a number of different regions. There could be another mass displacement of Ukrainians if energy systems continue to be damaged over the winter. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz had a call with Putin, asking him to withdraw his troops and negotiate, which of course Putin won’t, and now Zelenskyy is angry with Scholz because these kinds of calls decrease Putin’s isolation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Promising populist GST cuts

Posted on by
2

In a speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh laid out a pre-election campaign pledge of removing the GST on certain “essential” items like ready-made food, diapers, home heating, and mobile phone and internet bills—all of which he would finance through an “excess profit tax” on large corporations. It is possibly the dumbest economic policy possible, but our politics are moving into an absolutely brainless phase of populism.

Removing the GST on these items will have a negligible impact, particularly for those in low-income brackets. If anything, most of those reductions will benefit higher-income households, such as the GST cut on home heating (because wealthier households have bigger houses that take more fuel), and it when it comes to apartment buildings, the cut has little impact, or for places with electric heat, how exactly do you disentangle how much of the hydro bill is heat versus other electricity usage? I know that the NDP have been pushing this policy for years now, long before Singh was leader, but has anyone thought about it for more than five seconds?

In addition, making more exceptions to the GST are hard to administer, and it will reduce the GST rebates that lower-income households rely on. And promising the “excess profits” tax is basically an arbitrary exercise in determining what they consider “excess,” and that will basically be how much they think they can soak out of these companies, who will inevitably engage in creative accounting to suddenly lower profit margins or incur paper losses to avoid paying said tax, and all of the things the NDP had hoped to spend that windfall on will blow away like ashes in the wind. This isn’t progressive policy, but the NDP are going to pursue it anyway because they think that they can get the populist win here, when it’s almost certainly going to fail.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2024-11-15T01:27:01.865Z

Ukraine Dispatch

A combined Russian strike hit a residential building and energy installations in Odesa, killing one on Thursday evening. As well, the Russian assault on Kupiansk in the northeast broke through the outskirts of the city, but were eventually repelled.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Refusing to defend his own bill

Posted on by
Reply

Because this parliament has descended to the absolute depths of performative uselessness, Conservative MP Arnold Viersen is refusing to testify to his own private member’s bill, and his Conservative colleagues on the justice committee are filibustering to keep the clock running out on the bill rather than extend the time to hear from witnesses, in the hopes of reporting back without amendments. And why is Viersen avoiding testifying? Because the Liberal and NDP members are likely to ask him about his pro-life views and activities—for clips for their own socials.

The bill, which would mandate certification of age and consent for those who appear in porn, got all-party support before going to committee, but I suspect that this bill is completely unenforceable (as we are net importers of porn), and is likely to suffer from some of the same problems from the other age verification bill, which is unworkable and an absolute privacy nightmare. And it would be great if the committee could actually hear from experts who could say so, but they are unlikely to at this stage. (Conservative filibusters also limited witness testimony on the age verification bill, which meant they could not hear from experts who would tell them it’s unworkable and a privacy nightmare).

Nevertheless, I think that because of these kinds of shenanigans, if an MP refuses to testify about their own bill, the committee should vote it down, and it should be killed as a consequence for wasting everyone’s time. I’d even be happy putting that in the Standing Orders. We also need to change it so that if a PMB needs a royal recommendation, it doesn’t even get debated rather than the current practice of letting it go as far as the final vote, because again, that wastes everyone’s time, and time is a precious commodity in Parliament, and plenty of MPs could have used that time for their own PMBs who won’t get the change.

Speaking of committees, the Conservatives want an “immediate” recall of the public safety committee, rather than waiting for its regularly-scheduled meeting next week, to discuss the arrests of two teens who planned to bomb a pro-Israel rally on Parliament Hill. But in spite of the seriousness of the topic, we all know what this is really about—getting clips for their social media of them talking about how “divisive” Trudeau is, and that he personally caused this kind of radicalisation. It’s as predictable as it is stupid, but this is where our Parliament is right now.

This is a serious issue, but recalling the committee “immediately” is about nothing more than gathering clips for social media, and probably ones that try to blame Justin Trudeau’s “divisiveness” for this. #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-11-13T19:11:02.519Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces shot down two cruise missiles, two ballistic missiles and thirty-seven drones headed for Kyiv, where it looks like renewed attacks are being made on power systems ahead of winter. Ukraine’s General Staff also says that they repelled four attacks on the city of Kupiansk in the northeast. Here’s a look at Ukrainians trying to support those on the front lines while they collectively wait to see what Trump 2.0 brings.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The capacity to spend

Posted on by
Reply

One of the constant refrains since the Trump election is that Canada needs to get serious about increasing out defence spending faster, or he’ll be mean to us in NATO, or something like that. While I would note that he’ll be mean to us regardless because that’s who he is, and that he’s never understood how NATO actually works, so whether or not our spending is above 2 percent of GDP or not is almost a moot question. But the biggest consideration is actually whether we actually have the capacity to spend more.

The thing is, defence spending has gone up significantly, but the military lapses some of that spending on a yearly basis because they just can’t get that spending out of the door, for various reasons, including the fact that they simply don’t have the personnel to do everything that needs to be done, and you can’t just hire someone off the street in most of these cases—military personnel is just that, and they take time to train and rise up through the ranks appropriately. Add in the recruitment and retention crisis (thanks to sexual misconduct and abuse of power in the General Officer and Flag Officer ranks), and it makes it even harder.

Nevertheless, here’s Philippe Lagassé with some thoughts on building the capacity to spend more.

Ukraine Dispatch

It appears that Russia has fired cruise missiles against Kyiv for the first time in two months, not just drones. The US confirms that North Korean troops are now fighting alongside Russian forces.

Continue reading →