Tag Archives: Afghanistan

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 →

Roundup: No, it’s not another carbon tax

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre is currently on a tour of Atlantic Canada, braying about the increase in the carbon price, and the incoming clean fuel standard regulations, which he has mendaciously dubbed “Carbon Tax 2.” Poilievre claims will be a combined hike of 61 cents per litre of gasoline. He’s wrong—the figure comes from future carbon price increases plus a dubious Parliamentary Budget Officer report on the clean fuel standard pricing effects, which were based on a lot of assumptions that may not happen, and the figure from that report that Poilievre is citing was an estimated price effect from 2030, which again, he falsely implies is coming right away.

While I’m not going to say much more, because I will probably write about this later in the week in a more comprehensive way, it was noted that a columnist at our supposed national paper of record not only fully bought into Poilievre’s bullshit, but he couldn’t even be bothered to check his facts on these prices. Here’s energy economist Andrew Leach setting the record straight:

As a bonus, here is Leach throwing some shade at Michael Chong as he tries his own brand of bullshit about what is happening with Norway.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The counteroffensive moves “slowly but surely,” not only in regaining a cluster of villages in the southeast, but also around Bakhmut, while Russians are bringing in their “best reserves.” Ukrainian forces also have to contend with low-cost suicide drones that are difficult to defend against, as these drones target valuable equipment. Meanwhile, in a speech to parliament, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy ruled out any peace plan that would turn the war into a frozen conflict.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1674074924124631041

Continue reading →

Roundup: By-election holds in all ridings

Posted on by

There weren’t really any surprises in the by-election results last night, as both the Liberals and Conservatives held their respective seats. Both Liberals handily won their respective seats, getting over 50 percent of the votes in each riding, and they were a fairly close second in Oxford, but didn’t quite make it in the end with that seat. In Winnipeg South Centre, the fact that the Conservatives didn’t even crack 25 percent of the vote should be of concern to them, because this is the kind of riding they need to win if they’re going to form government, and they can’t. Again, in Oxford, the fact that the results were that close in a fairly safe Conservative riding should give them pause.

And then there’s Portage—Lisgar, and the big showdown with Maxime Bernier there, where the Conservatives wanted to “destroy” him. I’m not sure they succeeded, as the Conservatives got around 65 percent of the vote, and Bernier got around 17 percent, so I’m not sure it’s quite the “destruction” they had hoped for. It also came at a cost where they largely absorbed Bernier’s rhetoric in order to entice his votes to the Conservative party, but that is likely to have consequences, as they shift the Overton window ever further to the right, and far-right talking points become more mainstreamed.

Moving forward, expect each winner to visit their respective caucus meetings on Wednesday, and for Anna Gainey from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount to make it into Cabinet in short order during the upcoming shuffle, because she’s one of the few people that Trudeau trusts, which is why the government has as many problems as it does.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia launched another large air raid overnight, targeting mostly Kyiv but also other cities but no casualties have been reported. In part this is because Ukraine has been building a three-stage defence system using the technology provided by Western partners. Meanwhile, the counter-offensive slogs on, with Ukrainian officials promising that the biggest blow is yet to come.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hybrid sittings are now permanent, and Parliament will suffer

Posted on by

I knew that this was now inevitable, but that doesn’t mean it’s still not infuriating. After invoking closure and ramming it through with little debate, the government has forced through the changes to the Standing Orders that will make hybrid sittings permanent. The government has ignored all criticisms about this move, and blinkered itself to the supposed benefits to this system that are largely a false economy, because it “feels progressive.” They tried to force this before the pandemic, and they certainly didn’t let a good crisis go to waste.

The biggest losers out of this are the interpretation staff. Working by Zoom is an absolute killer for them, both from acoustic injuries because MPs can’t be arsed to use their headsets properly most of the time, or simply ignore those rules when it suits them (as the Conservatives did when they pretended to have issues with their voting apps), and because the cognitive load from interpreting this way burns them out. The Speaker, meanwhile, can’t be bothered to enforce rules or guidelines, and merely gently chides MPs that they should be nice to the interpreters, but with no consequences, these behaviours continue undaunted. We’re now accelerating toward a crisis of bilingualism in Parliament because they can’t just hire more interpreters. They’re not graduating enough at a rate to overcome attrition even before the injuries, and fewer of them are going to stick around in order to expose themselves to injury and the possibility of permanent hearing loss. It’s morally repugnant and unconscionable that MPs behave this way, treating the interpreters like furniture, but they’re still in the fuck around stage. They’re going to find out really soon, and Parliament is going to be in a genuine crisis, because the Liberals and NDP in particular are too self-centred to look at the harm they’re causing.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian authorities say they’re staging elections in occupied territories as a sign that they’re in control, as the Ukrainian counter-offensive makes progress but faces “tough resistance,” according to president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Ukrainian officials also say they are still advancing on Bakhmut around the north and northwest.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1669255405610909698

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s farewell hypocrisy

Posted on by

Former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole gave his farewell speech to the House of Commons yesterday, and it’s been a while since I’ve heard something as grossly hypocritical as that. Using his sombre voice (which has the benefit of completely beguiling the pundit class), he decried “performance politics,” where they chase social media algorithms, using the Chamber to generate clips, and fuelling polarisation, and replacing discussion with “virtue signalling”—which is his way of whataboutery to insist that the Liberals and NDP are just as bad. He also decried the use of conspiracy theories around things like the United Nations.

The problem? He hired a professional shitposter, Jeff Ballingall, to chase those very social media algorithms he is decrying. He fully used the Chamber to generate clips, he fully endorsed a number of conspiracy theories, whether it was about the firing of the scientists at the Winnipeg Lab, or around the United Nations when he was pretending to be a “true blue conservative” during the leadership. And while this has been seen by some as a rebuke of Poilievre, there was absolutely no contrition about any of what he did, from the serial lying, to his autocratic power games at the end of his leadership. The most he said was “too many members on all sides of this Chamber, and from time to time I have been guilty of it myself, are becoming followers of our followers when we should be leaders.” That was it. That was his contrition to how much he has done all of the things he is decrying as he exits, the bravery of someone who no longer has to live with the consequences of his actions.

https://twitter.com/dwjudson/status/1668484357089099777

It amazes me that the pundit classes, who have been falling all over O’Toole’s speech, keep memory-holing the entire tenure of his leadership and what an absolute lying, tyrannical disaster that he was throughout. Ignoring who he proved himself to be in favour of the image that pundits so desperately want him to be is a choice. And as he heads off to spend more time in his basement podcast studio, it would be great if we could be clear-eyed about just who O’Toole is, instead of just falling for his sombre-voice trick.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine says it has liberated seven villages in Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia provinces, as the counter-offensive gets underway. Russians, meanwhile, have been shelling Kharkiv, as well as nine towns and villages in Donetsk. They also launched an overnight attack against the central city of Kryvyi Rih, and there are reports of dead and wounded.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1668246754540630017

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exit David Johnston

Posted on by

Around 5.30 PM on a Friday evening, the Rt. Hon. David Johnston tendered his resignation as the special rapporteur on foreign interference, citing that the political firestorm around him has reached a point where his job of trying to restore confidence in our electoral system is now impossible, and while he does not counsel a public inquiry, he did urge consultation on choosing a replacement, for what it’s worth. Of course, what this really means is that instead of doing the work of the actual process part of this issue, sorting out what happened in the senior levels of bureaucracy and how to fix it going forward, we now get to spend the next six months fighting over a name that will be acceptable to all parties, whether it’s to continue the existing process or a public inquiry like everyone thinks they want.

In response, the Conservatives crowed and declared that this “proves” that Johnston was flawed from the start, and that his determination that we don’t need a public inquiry was also wrong, so launch a public inquiry, with a lot of Trudeau Foundation conspiracy theories thrown in for good measure. The Bloc were insisting that the head of an inquiry be chosen by Parliament (which is wrong and insane), while the NDP were declaring victory and patting themselves on the back because Johnston, in their estimation, heeded their motion to resign, never mind that he said nothing about that in his resignation letter, and repudiated their performance while at committee. (Peter Julian insisted that by his action of resigning, he took the NDP’s position, which is the most self-aggrandising bullshit this side of Pierre Poilievre). But the underlying notion that Parliament choose the head of an inquiry is both contrary to the law, which clearly states that the head of an inquiry is a Governor-in-Council appointment, and it also launders accountability going forward, which of course MPs can’t get their heads around because almost none of them understands that their role is about holding government to account.

None of this solves the underlying problem that a public inquiry is not magic. Everyone demanding one seems to think it can be wrapped up in the space of a few months, and that can be broad enough in scope to fully understand how deep Chinese infiltration goes into our country, while also providing concrete recommendations for protecting the next election. That’s not going to happen in a few months—that kind of scoping takes years, and is not going to get to the fundamental issue here, which is that this is ultimately a process story about the machinery of government, dealing with classified information, and that a public inquiry can’t hear most of it. That is, if they can find someone to head it who meets everyone’s satisfaction and who is willing to put themselves through the character assassination that will follow. This is one giant mess, and there’s more than enough blame to go around to absolutely everyone, and it’s not going to get any better.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian authorities claim that they have repelled a Ukrainian advance into Zaporizhzhia, and inflicted heavy casualties, but there is no confirmation of these claims. Meanwhile, more Ukrainians are being evacuated from flooded homes after Russia destroyed the dam on the Dnipro river.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1667133462787047425?s=61&t=OQl-ixPj-I_27b0NFGeMZg

https://twitter.com/kyivpost/status/1667094711994052609?s=61&t=OQl-ixPj-I_27b0NFGeMZg

Continue reading →

Roundup: Claims O’Toole also was a target

Posted on by

It is being alleged that Erin O’Toole has been briefed by CSIS that Chinese agents had been targeting him during his time as party leader because of his bellicose language about the regime. While there is no indication his family was also being targeted, his sister did live in Hong Kong for a number of years. Of course, I am taking the language in the article with a few grains of salt because the Johnston report pointed out that threats weren’t actually made to Michael Chong’s family, but that there was an indication that the agent in Canada was trying to gather information, so what exactly this “targeting” of O’Toole consists of I am keeping my powder dry on.

This has, of course, given rise to another round of cries for a public inquiry. Not one of them has articulated just how such an inquiry would make any iota of difference from the current process being undertaken by Johnston (aside from taking three years and costing a few hundred million dollars). How exactly does this situation require additional subpoena powers when the government has willingly turned over all of their documentation? If most of it will need to be behind closed doors because of the nature of the information, how exactly does this build trust? Nobody has yet articulated this, and “it just will” is not an answer—especially when the media and the opposition have been undermining trust in how these matters are being reported and discussed, and I fail to see how a public inquiry will change any of this.

Meanwhile, David Johnston took to the op-ed pages of the Globe and Mail to defend his decision to carry on with the review in light of the criticisms of his involvement, which has been pointed out seems to misunderstand the nature of how the political game is played these days. Of course, Johnston is hoping that he can get MPs and party leaders to be grown-ups and work together on this problem, but that’s unlikely to happen in the current climate and especially with the current players, and in that same token, writing an op-ed in the Globe seems a bit like that same kind of naïve hope that people will treat this as they did a couple of decades ago.

On a related note, the CBC has one of the worst examples of both-sidesing the supposed controversy around Johnston’s alleged conflict of interest—two professors who say it’s probably not a conflict, all things considered, but Democracy Watch (which has no actual credibility other than they are a reliable quote generator for lazy journalists) says it is, so it’s up to Canadians to decide. Seriously? This is exactly the kind of thing that has allowed misinformation and disinformation to flourish, because they refuse to call out bullshit when they see it. This is killing democracy, and they absolutely refuse to engage in any self-reflection about it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian missile struck a clinic in the city of Dnipro, killing two and wounding 30, after Ukrainian forces shot down ten missiles and twenty drones targeting Dnipro and Kyiv overnight. Meanwhile, the disaffected Russian group has allegedly shelled more targets in Belgorod region in Russia. Ukraine’s defence ministry is warning that Russia plans to simulate a major accident at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in order to thwart the coming counter-offensive.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1662024887731474432?s=61&t=P3QULyv63iAc0o1A98RiWQ

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1661975921455161344?s=61&t=P3QULyv63iAc0o1A98RiWQ

Continue reading →

Roundup: You’re not going to get a royal recommendation

Posted on by

Another day, and another warning from the Speaker that a private member’s bill is going to need a royal recommendation before the final vote, and it won’t get it, so be prepared to waste everyone’s time on a doomed bill that won’t go anywhere. This is becoming increasingly routine in this parliament, where MPs keep advancing these bills that have no hope of passage up for debate, apparently because they want to be seen talking about the issue, and maybe shaming the government for not supporting it, as with this particular bill on enhancing OAS and GIS benefits for seniors between 65 and 74 (ignoring that they are enriched for seniors over 75 because many of them have exhausted their savings by that point).

But seriously—a private member’s bill cannot spend money. Only a government bill can do so, because they’re the government, and they need that expenditure approved by Parliament. This is fundamental to how parliamentary democracy works. These clear delineations in roles exists for a reason, and the role of MPs who are not in Cabinet is to hold Cabinet to account, and the primary way to do that is through the power of the public purse. You cannot hold them to account if you too are spending public money with abandon because you have at that point blurred the responsibilities and the lines of accountability. This shouldn’t be difficult for MPs to learn and grasp, but unfortunately, they have picked up a lot of bad habits and wrong-headed beliefs over the past number of years, and it’s becoming quite obvious that they either refuse to learn how the Chamber and the institution work, or they simply don’t care and would rather waste everyone’s time.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The Ukrainian commander in the ruins of Bakhmut says that Russian Wagner Group mercenaries have stepped up their attacks in recent days, while Russia is denying claims that Ukrainian forces have made advancements in Bakhmut over the past couple of days. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that the spring counter-offensive is being delayed because they need more western weapons. This while the UK has opted to send newer cruise missiles to Ukraine, who have the longest range of any of their arsenal to date. Zelenskyy also says he has approved a plan to reform criminal and law enforcement systems, which is a requirement for future EU membership.

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1656535955338063873

Continue reading →

QP: Stop saying New York

Posted on by

While the prime minster was off to conferences in New York, his deputy and most other leaders were similarly elsewhere. Pierre Poilievre, however, was present, and he led off in French, worrying about the cost of bureaucracy rising while the strike happening, but then accused the prime minister of going “on vacation” to New York with “fancy people,” and demanded the prime minister go back to work. Mona Fortier said that they were working hard at the negotiation table to get a fair and reasonable deal. Poilievre repeated the question and false assertion with added misleading bluster in English, and Fortier repeated her same response. Poilievre scoffed at Fortier’s efforts before demanding that the prime minister return to Ottawa to “do his job,” to which Randy Boissonnault called this “bluff and bluster” before praising the economic recovery and lifting people out of poverty. Poilievre scoffed once again at this, using his tired line that the government was telling people they’ve never had it so good, before pivoting to the Glendore bid for Teck Resources, and demanded the government block it. Jonathan Wilkinson said that there was no formal bid, and praised Teck as being headquartered in BC. Poilievre accused the government of shipping off jobs, before he demanded the government remove “gatekeepers” for projects like LNG and more hydro dams in Quebec, to which Wilkinson suggested that Poilievre should do his homework. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and raised testimony from senior Liberal party official Jeremy Broadhurst at committee on foreign funding in the election and not having time to replace Han Dong as a candidate, and accused the prime minister of misleading the House. Dominic LeBlanc suggested they wait for David Johnston to weigh in. Therrien insisted that the prime minster’s version couldn’t be true, but LeBlanc repeated his response.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the Bloc, and he accused the prime minister of constantly being missing in action—got warned by the Deputy Speaker about it—and he restated his question to accuse the PM of doing nothing for two years and demanded he resolve the strike. Fortier insisted that they were at the table looking for creative solutions but would not give into unaffordable demands. Leah Gazan gave a somewhat confused question about the prime minister giving money to women’s institutions internationally but abandoning them at home, while phrasing this with the strike as well, and then accused him of fake feminism. Marci Ien pointed out that they gave emergency funds for shelters during the pandemic, and that she is currently negotiating with provinces on the plan to end gender-based violence.

Continue reading →