Tag Archives: Afghanistan

QP: Speaker Fergus walks into the trap set for him

Posted on by

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: Another threatened frivolous lawsuit

Posted on by

There is a weird little case of monkey-see-monkey-do happening between different conservative parties around the country that has accelerated with the three provincial elections, and Danielle Smith’s upcoming leadership review, and it would all be childish if the stakes weren’t so high. A few days ago, Scott Moe started claiming that the federal carbon levy was costing the jobs of teachers and nurses in the province—a transparently bullshit claim—but the talking point got picked up in Question Period by Pierre Poilievre, and soon other premiers were doing it, including Danielle Smith. Yes, it demonstrates an intellectual and moral bankruptcy that is stunning to behold, but also just how little imagination there seems to be among parties on the right in this country (not that the NDP has much imagination of their own, as they crib the notes of the “justice Democrats” in the US with alarming frequency).

After Blaine Higgs declared that he was going to launch a fresh legal challenge against the federal carbon levy—which will immediately be thrown out of court—Danielle Smith decided she couldn’t let that one go either, so she is now threatening a new legal challenge of the federal Impact Assessment Act, which has just been through changes after the Supreme Court ruled that the earlier version did not pass constitutional muster. And just like Higgs’ challenge that has no new legal arguments to draw on, Smith is also citing things that are not legislative in nature as she plans to challenge the amended law.

The federal government isn’t having it, and Steven Guilbeault has called her out over this, but I’m not sure her behaviour will change too dramatically once she’s on the other side of her leadership review because, well, she needs to prove to her base that she is doing more than just listening to them, but acting on their batshit crazy desires as well, so we’re going to see more of this nonsense going forward.

Applies to the vast majority of #cdnpoli.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-10-04T23:00:28.266Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian force shot down nine out of nineteen Russian drones targeting critical infrastructure overnight Thursday. Russian advances have knocked out about 80 percent of the critical infrastructure in the logistics hub of Pokrovsk, which they are trying to capture. President Zelenskyy visited the Sumy region, which borders the captured areas in Russia’s Kursk region. Reuters has a photo gallery of the all-female anti-drone mobile air defence unit known as the “Bucha witches.”

Continue reading →

Roundup: Waiting on the Industrial Relations Board’s decision

Posted on by

As the Industrial Relations Board began its deliberations of the rail situation and the request of the minister, one of the two railways, CN Rail, opted to end their lockout and start the trains running again. But because the minister’s order included extending the previous collective agreement to now, it somehow reset things for the union, and they issued a seventy-two-hour strike notice, so…the trains may not run again? The whole while, the other rail company, CPKC, just stayed the course with their lockout in order to wait for what the Board had to say.

As for the Board, it needs to determine if binding arbitration is the only way to resolve the impasse in the labour dispute, and whether it can justify that the economic situation has a sufficient impact on the general public that arbitration is, again, the only way to resolve this, and the parties need to present evidence to this effect because this is a quasi-judicial body. The way this whole situation with the Board has been described by most media outlets has been outright wrong, and coupled with the fact that the business lobbies don’t seem to understand the limits of the minister’s powers, and it has led to nothing but confusion as to what is really going on.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives are keeping conspicuously silent about the whole thing, no doubt in a cynical attempt to continue to court the blue collar union vote (as though their history of attempted union-busting will just magically disappear). It is impressive, however, just how much message discipline they have had over this, with nary a stray tweet being sent out (probably because they know Jenni Byrne will scream at them if they do).

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia has suspended ferry service to occupied Crimea after the Ukrainian navy blew up one of those ferries that was hauling fuel and munitions to the occupied region. The Ukrainian forces say that they have used high-precision US-made glide bombs in parts of Kursk, and that they have also re-taken some land in Kharkiv.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Electoral reform tries to take the spotlight

Posted on by

In addition to the constant wanking of pollsters and polling analysts, while the Elder Pundits continue to pronounce the end of Justin Trudeau’s political career, there has been an entire sub-category of commentary that is trying to tie this by-election loss to the failure to enact some kind of electoral reform, even though Trudeau has won two elections since then. Justin Ling wrote up a whole op-ed about this for the Star yesterday, given that the 84 candidates on the by-election ballot were because of a tantrum by electoral reform group to use the stunt to call attention to Trudeau’s broken promise. And Ling makes some wild assertions along the way.

This notion that MPs are more beholden to the party than to their constituents would not be fixed by changing the electoral system. In fact, the current system is the one that most empowers MPs to be beholden to their constituents, as most PR systems rely on party votes, and party lists to fill “proportional” seats, and that makes those MPs even more beholden to the leader because they don’t have the connection to a riding as a result. That’s an even worse outcome, and hands even more power to the leader to centralise, worse than they already do. The ability to be independent under such a PR system is even less than under the current system, so I have a hard time fathoming why anyone thinks that this solves any of those problems.

The current dysfunction that Ling complains about in the piece is not a result of the electoral system—it’s because of the perverse incentives that have developed, compounded by the Trump Effect, that have made rational discourse impossible because everything is about driving engagement over social media, not in the Houses of Parliament. Changing the electoral system wouldn’t change that—in fact, it could make it worse as parties fragment and fragile coalitions emerge that rely on extremists to play kingmaker, forcing parties to behave in even more outrageous fashions. Electoral reform doesn’t solve problems—it takes an existing set of problems and replaces them with a new set of problems. Resurrecting this debate in order to once again flog this dead horse is not helping anyone, and if anything, is just distracting from the actual frank conversations that parties need to be having amongst themselves with their members about how to meet the moment to solving the problems this country faces. PR won’t make that happen, and we have to stop entertaining the notion that it somehow will.

Programming Note: I’m taking the long weekend fully off of blogging, as well as a few days next week in order to work on another project.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces say that they have forced Russian troops out of part of Chasiv Yar. Some Ukrainian commanders are complaining that the Canadian-built Senator armoured vehicles aren’t built for off-road capability, break down too often, and aren’t well suited for the front lines. With the EU security pact now signed, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy called on European allies to fulfil their promises around arms and supports.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1806344642041917773

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1806321424446951489

Continue reading →

QP: Harvesting carbon and capital gains clips

Posted on by

As the final sitting week of the spring begins, with a heat wave starting, neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present, but most of the other leaders were. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he worried about Bloc having concerns about the capital gains changes, and that their hoped-for amendments wouldn’t happen next week when it comes into force. Anita Anand praised the plan the government put forward for the economy, which the Conservatives don’t have. Poilievre kept needling the Bloc, claiming they were taking Quebeckers’ money and giving it to Ottawa. Jean-Yves Duclos asked Poilievre to explain why people who make half a million in capital gains should pay less tax than a nurse making $50,000 in a year. Poilievre switched to English to worry about the so-called “cover up” of the costs of the carbon levy, claiming it costs the economy $30 billion per year, and wondered what else they were hiding about their other tax hikes. Steven Guilbeault pointed out the reductions in emissions while the Conservatives want to let the planet burn. Poilievre tried the same again, insisting the carbon levy won’t change the weather or stop a single forest fire, to which Jonathan Wilkinson wondered if Poilievre was a climate denier. Poilievre turned back to the capital gains changes, and cited the “Food Professor” about it (seriously?!), and Anita Anand praised…housing starts. Come on!

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he worried that the government would discredit the Hogue Commission if she didn’t come to the same conclusion as the government. Dominic LeBlanc said that he was pleased that Justice Hogue had agreed to look into this. Therrien railed that the prime minister has slept on the foreign interference file for months, and LeBlanc insisted that they have taken this seriously since the get-go.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he railed that progress on the Truth and Reconciliation calls to action were taking too long to be implemented. Patty Hajdu insisted that they have been working, and that she just stood with the National Chief to announce funding for a Northern Ontario hospital. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Premiers concern trolling on the carbon levy

Posted on by

A number of premiers have been writing letters to the prime minister, imploring him not to increase the carbon price on April 1st, citing the cost-of-living challenges that people are having. Unmentioned, of course, is the fact that the rebates are also increasing, and they’re front-end loaded, meaning the higher rebates already come into effect as the carbon levy increases, so if you pause the increase, the rebates will have already increased, which is going to cause a problem down the road for the federal books.

Nevertheless, this is largely concern trolling from the premiers, and yes, that includes Newfoundland and Labrador premier Andrew Furey, whom everyone has been making a big deal of because he’s currently the last Liberal premier standing, and he too is making the call. “Oh, just hold off on the increase while rates are still high!” they say, but rest assured, it will never be a good time to raise the price, and it will stall climate action, while the premiers mouth that they still believe in fighting climate change so long as it doesn’t cost them anything or that they don’t have to take any action, or that they’ll solve it through magical technology that hasn’t been invented yet, and never will be, especially not without adequate price signals that the carbon levy provides as it increases. Also, we’ve been down this road before with the price of oil. When it rises, people buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, and when it comes down, they go right back to buying SUVs and ridiculously oversized pick-up trucks that drive on suburban roads and never haul anything (especially because the box sizes in newer models are tiny).

If I were advising the government (and clearly, I’m not), I would insist that they hold the line on the increases, make the point about the rebates as much as possible—especially as they are delivering more to those who need it the most—because they can’t afford to show any further weakness on this file if they want to have any credibility left. They shouldn’t have caved on the home heating oil (but should have come up with a better temporary rebate for those in that particular situation), and they most especially shouldn’t have made the announcement in front of every single Atlantic MP (which was the single dumbest thing they could have done, so of course they did it). Maintaining the credibility of the programme may be its best hope for staying put, particularly when compared to all other options.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missiles hit two apartment buildings in Kryvyi Rih on Tuesday, killing three people. Ukraine’s security service says it broke up the largest pro-Kremlin “informational sabotage” networks it has found to date. Russia says they fought off “incursions” coming from Ukraine in the Belgorod region, while Ukraine fired drones and missiles at a major refinery in Russia, inflicting serious damage.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to falsely blame CTV

Posted on by

At his media availability yesterday, Pierre Poilievre was asked if it was responsible for him to declare the explosion on the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls to be “terrorism” before anything was confirmed. And what did Poilievre do? True to form, he attacked the Canadian Press reporter asking the question (including lying about the substance of the corrections that a recent CP story made to a story about comments he had made), then lied about why he said “terrorism.” Poilievre claimed this was from CTV reports, and tried to get the CP reporter to try and denounce CTV. The problem was that CTV didn’t publish anything before Poilievre began his questions in QP. And what we do know is that Fox News was definitively calling it terrorism, as were several disinformation merchants who pose as journalists over Twitter. But rather than admit that these were his sources, Poilievre lied, continued to lie, and then post the video of him attacking the CP reporter to his followers, because right-wing populism has a huge hard-on/wide-on for putting people in their place (particularly if they’re vulnerable minorities or someone they suffer no repercussions for attacking, like media).

And then things got stupid online, as Poilievre’s fans and apologists kept trying to “prove” that CTV was still the source, really, relying on screenshots that came from a different time zone. And at least two MPs shared these screenshots before they were called out and deleted them.

I will say that between these lies, and the ones he has been telling about the Canada-Ukraine trade deal legislation, it seems to finally shaking up some legacy media outlets to actually start calling him out on them. Somewhat. Some outlets are still egregiously both-sidesing the lies, as they always do, but you had Power & Politics host David Cochrane finally interjecting in places saying “That wasn’t true,” or walking through the timeline of lies in the case of yesterday’s attempt to blame CTV. It’s not nearly enough, but it is a start, but we’ll see how long it can actually last.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A daytime cluster bomb attack in a suburb of Kherson in the south killed three people. Ukraine’s farmers are hoping that the Black Sea trade corridor will help them get exports to market so that they can survive.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1727681997076644088

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, you can’t challenge a censure motion in court

Posted on by

Ontario MPP Sarah Jama has written to Doug Ford to ask him to retract his motion in the legislature to censure her and prevent her from speaking until she offers an apology for the comments she made at the start of the Israel-Hamas conflict. In it, Jama says that if Ford doesn’t, she’ll take the matter to the courts. The problem? The courts won’t touch any kind of legislative censure motion because it falls under the issue of parliamentary privilege and the separation of powers.

We have to remember that Parliament and the legislatures are self-governing, as they should be. That’s what keeps them independent of the powers of the King—and yes, the courts to count as the powers of the King, as the King is the fount of justice, and justice is carried out in his name. (That’s also why we have a doctrine by which the King can do no wrong, but rather, can merely act on bad advice, and the minister who offered that is responsible for it). Part of that self-governing power is the legislature’s ability to discipline its members, which is important because you don’t want an external authority able to do that, because it can create a great deal of interference in the workings of your legislature.

This being said, the fact that she was censured at all is a problem, and as I wrote in a column a couple of weeks ago, is part of a broader pattern that his happening that is extremely concerning (and is almost always hypocritically done by parties who claim to be all about free speech, but reveal themselves to only be pro-speech they like). And it should be up to voters to discipline parties that are abusing these powers to punish those they disagree with, but that also means keeping up the pressure on them so that they know that they are going to be punished for it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine says that in spite of that Liberian-flagged ship getting hit by a Russian missile, their alternative Black Sea corridor is working. Really! President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is also hoping for a conference next month on a joint weapon production agreement with the US and defence contractors.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1722903820684947654

Continue reading →

Roundup: Paying too much attention to one senator’s opinion

Posted on by

Sometimes the way the media cycle operates in weird ways in this city, and yesterday was no exception. On Wednesday, Senator Percy Downe wrote an op-ed that said that the Liberal Party should be having discussions as to whether they think Justin Trudeau should lead them into the next election, and a few people started frothing about it, but a day later, it got particular traction because Pierre Poilievre was using it in Question Period to attack Trudeau, as though Downe was a big name or had a network that was significant.

And that’s the part that mystifies me. Once upon a time, Downe was a chief of staff to Jean Chrétien, but senators haven’t been part of the Liberal caucus since 2014, when Trudeau famously expelled them as pre-emptive damage control in advance of the Auditor General’s (massively flawed) report on the Senate’s expenses, and claimed it was to give them more independence. Furthermore, Downe jumped ship to the fledgeling Canadian Senators Group right after he helped the Senate Liberals transform their caucus into the Progressives, which alienated him from the remaining Liberals in the Senate (who no longer call themselves such in the current environment). I fail to see how he has any kind of sway or influence at all. And when Trudeau was asked about Downe’s comments on his way into Question Period yesterday, he gave a classic “I wish him well” response and laughed it off.

Meanwhile, the attempt to make Mark Carney happen aren’t stopping either, as the Globe and Mail cornered him a climate summit in town this week to demand to know his leadership ambitions and *gasp!* he didn’t say no! Let’s gossip about this more! Never mind that Carney would likely mean the second coming of Michael Ignatieff for the party, if you ignore that he has no political machinery around him that could even support a bid (which he should avoid at all costs because it damages the Bank of Canada and its current governor, whether he likes to believe it or not). But seriously, this whole thing is ridiculous, and I cannot believe how much air time and digital space has been used up on it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian drones have hit civilian targets in Kharkiv region, but no reports of casualties as of when I’m writing this. Ukrainian forces repelled a new Russian assault on Vuhledar in the east.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The ugly discourse that won’t be disavowed

Posted on by

As the housing debate rages on, there is a particularly ugly strain of the discourse that is revealing itself throughout, which has to do with the rapid immigration increases in relation to the housing crunch/crisis, and that there is no real way for there to keep pace. This has led to some people lamenting that it’s too bad that the decades long, multi-party consensus on immigration is unravelling because governments haven’t been serious about housing. I’m not really buying it, though. My sense is that a lot of this is just dog-whistling and concern trolling—that these are largely the people who opposed immigration to begin with and who are taking the opportunity of the housing crisis to have a “legitimate” reason to blame immigrants for something.

Mark Miller is pushing back on this narrative, at least somewhat, pointing out that demographically and economically we can’t really cut back on immigration levels, adding that “The wave of populist, opportunist sentiment that does at times want to put all of society’s woes on the backs of immigrants—I think we need to call that out when we see it.” And he’s right. But he also needs to be far more vocal on the kick in the ass to provinces and municipalities about building more housing (which is their jurisdiction), because they also need these immigrants and have the responsibility of ensuring they have places to live.

What I think has been particularly telling is that Pierre Poilievre has been hinting at this, saying that the immigration system is “broken,” but he also won’t say what he would do differently, or what he would adjust the levels to. It’s the same kind of stupid game he’s trying to play on all of his files—saying just enough about a particular issue that the loudmouths and far-right extremists can read into it the awful things they think, and Poilievre will do almost nothing to dissuade them, so as to get them to think he’s on their side (even though, deep down, he’s not really, and some of them have already figured that out) and to hopefully cash in on their votes. And when you try to corner him on these issues, he will fight straw men or make the attacks personal instead of answering. It’s some of the most cynical of ploys, it’s absolutely corrosive to democracy, but he seems to think the ends justify the means, so he’s going to go for it, consequences be damned.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian drones have pounded grain storage and facilities at the Danube river ports in western Ukraine, which puts further grain shipments in jeopardy. Ukrainian forces say that they have reclaimed the village of Urozhaine in the southeast, but are admitting that the front in the north eastern region near Kupiansk is becoming more difficult.

Continue reading →