Tag Archives: Arctic

Roundup: A “debate” spectacle sans substance

Posted on by

It is now around day seventy-eight of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like the Ukrainians have made some gains in the eastern part of the country, pushing Russian forces out of four villages near Kharkiv. Meanwhile, a team of Ukrainian soldiers has been tasked with revisiting recent battlefields around Kyiv to gather the dead, and have recovered the remains of around 200 Russian soldiers thus far. It sounds like they may try to return these bodies to Russia in exchange for prisoners, but we’ll see if those kinds of deals hold.

Closer to home, it was the first official English debate of the Conservative leadership race, and it was…an experience. While it was not the hostile snipe-fest that was the Conference Formerly Known As the Manning Conference debate, it was a strange format where they tried to have limited engagements between candidates, to control the temptation to talk over one another, and then insisted that the audience not clap or boo, which…defeats the whole point of a live audience, and it was a real choice to try and control their reactions. And it had a sad trombone sound. No, seriously. Not every segment was on policy—some of it were personal, asking candidates what they’re reading, or the kinds of music they like, which is fine and humanizes them a little. (But seriously, Roman Baber choosing Amy Winehouse? Has he ever listened to what she has to say in her lyrics?)

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1524548247456559104

Some observation on each candidate, in the drawn order of their opening statements:

  • Scott Aitchison: While he is aiming to be the reasonable, middle-of-the-road candidates, there are plenty of places where he displays the intellectual heft of the truck commercial he launched his campaign with. A lot of what he offered is not really credible, particularly on environmental or resource development files.
  • Roman Baber: I’m not going to mince words. Honestly, this guy is a moron. He says a lot of things that he’s picked up in the online discourse, but none of it makes any sense, most of it is contradictory, and he’s utterly vacuous—but nobody would call him on that.
  • Patrick Brown: While he kept insisting that he’s the only one who can deliver the suburbs like in the GTA, Brown also made some particular missteps, like insisting he would advance a no-fly zone over Ukraine (essentially committing Canada to a shooting war with a nuclear power), or that the point of reconciliation with Indigenous people is so that we can build more pipelines.
  • Pierre Poilievre: Aside from just using “freedom!” in as many answers as possible, he opened by outright attacking the Bank of Canada and saying he would replace the governor if he were to form government, which is a pretty big bomb to drop. He lied and prevaricated about his previous statements and positions, particularly during the Bitcoin portion of the evening. But the longer the evening went on, the more it became clear that he was just going down the right-wing populist checklist and name-checking every item on it, whether it was saying he’s reading Jordan Peterson’s book, or that he wants to fight “government censorship.” He displayed no principles, just virtue-signalling to the crowd he is courting.
  • Leslyn Lewis: Mostly said a lot of hyperbolic things about how “divided” the country is because of COVID, and that she is somehow going to heal the divides between people who believe in science and evidence, and anti-vaxxers who don’t care how many people they infect because they refuse to wear a mask or stay home. How does plan to heal those divides? Who knows?
  • Jean Charest: Charest was more pugnacious and was willing to break debate rules in order to how do you do, fellow kids?, and insist that he’s the only one who can unite east and west…but he too made a bunch of fairly questionable pronouncements. Like private healthcare delivery could have avoided lockdowns (erm, you saw the States, right?) or that he would cut income taxes to fight inflation (which is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline).

It was an event that begged for booze (which I did not imbibe in, because I had this post to write). But I will leave you with Paul Wells’ suitably acerbic take on the event, which sums the lunacy of it up nicely.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Incoherent housing plans

Posted on by

We are now on or about day fifty-eight of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russia has declared victory when it comes to their siege of the strategic city of Mariupol, and has ordered its troops not to storm the last pocket of resistance there. But hey, they’ve “liberated” the city by shelling it to rubble, so good job there. It is estimated that some 2000 Ukrainian troops remain on site, spread out in a network of tunnels and bunkers, along with several thousand civilians. Of course, this also means that Russian forces are likely going to simply try and wait out those remaining troops and civilians as they run out of food and supplies, and trap them inside.

Closer to home, Pierre Poilievre has been unveiling more of his housing platform, but…it’s pretty incoherent, in a lot of ways. There isn’t that much financial leverage that the federal government can wield when it comes to ending NIMBYism and seven decades of market incentives for single-family homes that are unsustainable and which only continue to exacerbate the affordability crisis (not to mention the climate crisis). Oh, and Poilievre is defending his own rental property portfolio, citing that he’s providing affordable rental accommodations to two “deserving families.”

The last point on that list is pretty critical—it would undermine central bank independence, and one imagines could actually create a deflationary spiral in the right circumstances that would create a depression, which is precisely what they were avoiding when they engaged in quantitative easing during the pandemic recession. Jennifer Robson has even more concerns about the incoherence of the plan in this thread. Meanwhile, I would also recommend checking out this thread by Mike Moffatt about just how complex the drivers of the housing situation in Ontario is. It’s not just one thing—it’s a lot of moving parts that got us to where we are now.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1517214855572320256

Continue reading →

Roundup: The competing pre-budget narratives

Posted on by

We are now on or about day forty-two of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the talk of the day was president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s address to the UN Security Council, where he recounted (with video) the extent of Russia’s atrocities in towns like Bucha, and demanded war crimes tribunals, and more importantly, massive reform of the Security Council in order to strip Russia of its veto powers. That, of course, is far easier said than done, particularly because the major powers won’t play if they don’t get additional powers, and Russia is a nuclear power. So we’ll see what happens next (which may be nothing).

Closer to home, we are now one day away from the budget, so expect a lot of narratives about the expectations, whether the government should spend more or cut back, though I find there to be some problems with some of the assumptions therein. For example, when it comes to spending, I’m not sure why things like more money for housing or the investment in dental care would be classified the same as subsidies to industries or so on. Is an expansion of the social safety net the same as expansionary fiscal policy that would ordinarily be used to create jobs or growth (which is less relevant right now given that we are sitting around full employment)? I’m not sure they’re the same, but they seem to be treated as much in some of the pieces circulating in the Discourse right now.

At the same time, we should also be realistic about what the budget can and cannot do, such as combatting inflation. In spite of facile narratives that government spending is driving inflation, that’s not showing up anywhere in the data—what is driving it has a lot more to do with the world price of oil (which is directly impacted by the sanction on Russia as a result of their invasion of Ukraine), and the fact that there were droughts in food-producing regions including Canada, thus limiting food supplies and driving up costs, and that the invasion is going to make it worse as Ukraine was considered the breadbasket of Europe (and elsewhere), and if they can get crops planted this year, there are problems with the Russians having targeted ports. Add to that the rising cost of housing (which is largely a problem of supply driving by craven municipal governments who can’t authorize zoning changes or increase density because they’re afraid of NIMBYs and/or are in the pockets of developers), and you wind up with a whole lot of things that the federal budget can’t really do much about. Not that there won’t be an effort to put all of the weight on the federal government regardless, because that’s how we roll, apparently.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More nuclear concerns with more shelling

Posted on by

We are now into day thirteen of Russia’s (stalled) invasion into Ukraine, and things don’t seem to be advancing much more at the moment. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy posted a video showing that he was still in his office working, citing that he was unafraid, while photos circulated of Ukrainian forces taking out the supply convoy for the stalled convoy that has been stuck on the approach to Kyiv for days now. Meanwhile, Russian forces destroyed another nuclear facility—this time an atomic physics lab, which also provided medical isotopes to the country, so that’s a very bad thing.

Justin Trudeau was in London yesterday, where he met with Boris Johnson and Mark Rutte of the Netherlands to discuss more coordinated actions and further sanctions against high-ranking Russian officials, in advance of further meetings later in the week. Trudeau did make mention of possible higher military spending, but as we discussed yesterday, it’s hard to see how that will help if we already can’t spend what we’re allocating currently because of capacity constraints. Trudeau also pledged support for Europeans in getting off of their dependence on Russian hydrocarbons, but in spite of what Jason Kenney seems to think, we have no current LNG export capacity nor can we build any anytime soon, so this support will appear to be more geared toward their own green transition rather than to Canadian-sourced product.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1500851840136712192

Trudeau also met with the Queen yesterday, and they apparently chatted for some 45 minutes, when a usual audience lasts 20, so that’s a promising sign. It was her first event post-COVID, and it was nice to see her back on her feet again.

https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1500825664634687488

Continue reading →

QP: Bland assurances about Arctic sovereignty

Posted on by

For Thursday, neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present, nor were most of the the other leaders, save one. Luc Berthold led off, with a script but without a mini-lectern, and in French, he worried about the disinformation circulating about the invasion of Ukraine, but wedged this into a question about expelling the Russian ambassador. Anita Anand rose, not to answer but to recognise the presence of Ukraine’s chargé d’affaires in the gallery, which was against the rules—which the Speaker reminded her of—before Anand made a bland statement. Berthold worried about the state of our military’s readiness should Putin carry on, and Anand assured him that of course we are ready and that nothing has been neglected, before she read out what new lethal aid was provided to Ukraine this morning. Raquel Dancho took over in English to again demand to know what meetings she has had to prepare for Russian threats of retaliation. Anand assured her that they were prepared for any eventuality, and mentioned working with American counterparts to modernise NORAD as a priority. Dancho worried that we did not have sufficient military assets in the Arctic, and wanted further reassurances, and Anand repeated her reassurances before saying that we need to be non-provocative and rational in this situation. Berthold took back over to repeat the question about what we are doing about deterrence to keep Russia from invading the Arctic. Anand repeated that we would work with the US, and stated that the Coast Guard would defend us.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and worried that the government’s emergency travel documents for Ukrainian refugees would take too long, and Anand read that what was announced today would reduce red tape and would hasten passage for Ukrainians, and there was no limit to how many were would take in. Normandin stated the need for an emergency airlift operation, and Anand spoke about more measures for these refugees but did not commit to an airlift.

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, in person, and demanded more sanctions against more Russian oligarchs, to which Anand, after some hesitation, listed those already under sanction and said that they were working with allies to impose yet more sanctions. Singh repeated the question in French, and Anand repeated her response in French.

Continue reading →

QP: Support for Ukraine, but what about “ethical oil”?

Posted on by

While the prime minister was around, and would give a press conference after QP, and make a statement in the Chamber later in the evening, he was not present for QP itself, though his deputy was. Candice Bergen led off, saying that many of the country’s actions were too little too late and demanded the expulsion of the Russian ambassador and to recall ours from Moscow—because they believe diplomacy is a cookie for good behaviour. Chrystia Freeland rose to say that Canadians were united, and that this was about freedom versus tyranny, but didn’t address Bergen’s demand. Bergen said she agreed with the sentiments, and wanted visa-free travel for Ukrainians to Canada, and Freeland rose to address the previous question and noted that there were Russian officials who stood against the regime and she urged those officials in Canada not to be complicit, and said all options were on the table. Bergen demanded that the country end its “dependence” on Russian oil—of which, vanishingly little actually flows into this county—and to send Canadian oil to Europe. Freeland noted that the sanctions on Russia are having an effect, and hurting their oil exports was one way. Luc Berthold took over in French to demand the expulsion of the Russian ambassador, and Freeland took the opportunity to repeat her initial statement about unity in French. Berthold then repeated the demand for visa-free travel, and Freeland recounted news from her own family in Ukraine who decided to stay and fight, and that Canada would support them as well as those fleeing.

https://twitter.com/ChrisGNardi/status/1498407964440514562

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he gave a paean to the bravery of Ukrainian people, and pledged Bloc support to the government’s actions, and wondered what else they could do to help. Freeland recited her talking points about sanctions hurting “Fortress Russia.” Therrien asked if they can waive visas or take other actions, and Freeland noted that they have already started to welcome Ukrainians, including those currently in Canada and unable to return home.

Alexandre Boulerice led for the NDP by video, and after a false start, and demanded Canada do more to help Ukrainian refugees, to which Freeland assured him they were already doing so in a united fashion. Jenny Kwan took over in English to make the same demand, and Freeland spoke of her pride in the brave resistance of Ukrainians, and said that of course they were helping Ukrainian refugees with more details coming soon.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The stakes on Monday may be bigger than we think

Posted on by

There were a couple of columns on The Line yesterday that are food for thought as we head into the final days of the election. The first was from Matt Gurney, who states in no uncertain terms that if the Conservatives can’t pull out a strong enough showing, that they will start a death spiral as a party to the forces of right-wing populism that have consumed the Republican Party south of the border. Gurney’s thesis is essentially that if O’Toole can manage to get enough results to hold onto power, he might have enough time to get the party’s shit together to save it, but it’s going to mean hard choices and dumping the shitposters in his office and the loonies in his caucus like Cheryl Gallant, and have a firm enough hand to be the necessary bulwark. But I have my doubts that O’Toole is strong enough to do this – he’s spent his leadership winking and nodding to this crowd, given a free pass to Gallant and to Pierre Poilievre, and has basically lied his way through his entire leadership, while utterly debasing himself and his party in order to secure the favour of François Legault. I’m not confident that O’Toole is the person capable of doing the hard work of steering the ship away from Charybdis that lies ahead of it. I think Gurney is right that we need a coherent right-of-centre party for the sake of the country (and hell, we need a capable opposition party regardless of stripe to do the work of accountability), but I have less faith in O’Toole than Gurney does, and I think the party needs a complete generation change if it’s going to be truly successful in pushing back against the very populists that they’ve nurtured and coddled this whole time.

With all of this in mind, Jen Gerson lambastes the entire election as a collection of shiny talking points, with the Liberals basically a shell of a personality cult versus O’Toole amorphousness that is certainly not ready for power – and that there may be a problem with conservatism as an ideology when it comes to dealing with issues like a pandemic, as Alberta is demonstrating. Most of her points are legitimate, but I also think that if anyone thinks this election is about nothing then they’re not paying attention. I don’t disagree that the Liberals are largely a personality cult around Trudeau, but at the same time, they are the only party that has put in the homework, whether it’s on their plans for early learning and child care, inclusive growth, the environment, housing, LGBT issues – they have actual feasible plans behind them and aren’t just handwavey platitudes, or fig leaves that are designed to look like they have a plan but they really don’t. That counts for something, and Trudeau won’t be there for much longer. The cult of personality will reform as it always does, but there will be still be the actual work they’ve put in, and it has been a lot of work, even if it doesn’t look like it from the outside (and that’s partially the Liberals’ fault for not properly communicating their own successes).

And with that in mind, I am baffled by the fact that O’Toole is making his final pitch to voters that Trudeau called an “unnecessary” election – omitting the months of procedural warfare that O’Toole’s side was orchestrating, and that Trudeau needed to break that logjam one way or another. There is a lot at stake in this election, and it would be great if we could keep our eyes on some of what that actually is.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kabuki theatre around the Elections Act changes

Posted on by

There are days when the state of our parliament achieves the level of farce, and we appear to be having another of those moments. Minister Dominic LeBlanc sent a letter to opposition party leaders – which seems to be a more common occurrence the days – urging them to pass the bill that would allow for pandemic-related changes to the Canada Elections Act per the request of the Chief Electoral Officer. This bill was tabled back in December, and we have just exhausted the sitting weeks in March, and it still has not even made it to committee, in part because the Conservatives have spent weeks using procedural tactics to delay debate on most every piece of legislation on the Order Paper.

LeBlanc apparently mentioned the upcoming budget in the letter, because that is a confidence measure and this is a hung parliament, so it is possible that the government could face a non-confidence vote and trigger an election at pretty much any point. And so during what debate there has been on this bill, the opposition MPs keep saying that there’s no imminent election unless the Liberals plan on calling one, and the NDP are going so far as to say that they simply need to work together to avoid one. Essentially, they get to accuse the government of opportunism for trying to do their due diligence at the request of the Chief Electoral Officer, which is cute for everyone involved.

But here’s the real kicker that makes this all a farce – the bill has an implementation period of 90 days after royal assent. The House isn’t sitting for the next two weeks, and even if they managed to have a Second Reading vote, speed it through committee and rush it to the Senate, I don’t image that it could be passed both chambers before the 23rd of April at the earliest, and only then would that 90-day clock start. That means that the changes couldn’t be fully implemented until the very end of July, meaning that even if the budget were the crux by which the government could fall (those votes would likely happen sometime in early May), there is no way that these changes could pass before a spring election could be called (considering the usual writ period of about six weeks). Any party pushing for an election without these changes would be suicidal. The government really has no interest in calling an election (seriously, and I’ve spoken to ministers who lament the number of items they have on the Order Paper that they need to see passed), especially because we are now into a Third Wave of this pandemic and there is no possible way we can vaccinate our way out of it without a time machine, so all of this chest-thumping by parties (and pleading by bored pundits) is for naught. This is all a bunch of Kabuki theatre for the sake of scoring points. We are not a serious country.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Playing gotcha with the leaders

Posted on by

Yesterday had no presser from prime minister Justin Trudeau, but did have a ministerial presser featuring Marie-Claude Bibeau and Deb Schulte. Bibeau laid out additional measures and funding for employers of temporary foreign workers in the agri-food sector so that they can properly quarantine those workers when they arrive, and eventually properly explained the measures taken with the arrivals that the Bloc lit their hair on fire about on Saturday (which the government could have done three days ago had they been more competent in their communications). Schulte spoke about the new federal guidelines for long-term care facilities, but because it’s provincial jurisdiction, they’re hoping the provinces implement said guidelines (but no, they don’t really have any levers to force them because of the constitutional division of powers).

Of course, all anyone could talk about today was the fact that Justin Trudeau *gasp* went to see his wife and kids at Harrington Lake (where they have been staying since Sophie Grégoire Trudeau’s recovery) over the weekend, which people claim is in contravention to public health dictates. Erm, except that’s not really true because Harrington Lake is an official residence that is 20 minutes outside of Gatineau. It’s a gods damned suburb where people live year-round. It’s not cottage country where you have small populations and poor public health services that people are attempting to flee to and exposing the locals when they raid the area store on the way up. That was the behaviour that Public Health was warning against, but hey, let’s try to play gotcha.

And then there was Andrew Scheer, who decided to bring his wife and kids with him back to Ottawa on the government jet sent to pick him up for the Saturday sitting. It was supposed to be Elizabeth May, Carla Qualtrough and Scheer, where they could each physically distance on the plane, but with Scheer bringing his family (to spend the rest of the current pandemic period at Stornoway rather than in Regina, where they had been) at the last minute, and May and Qualtrough opted not to be dicks about saying no. (May and Qualtrough were flown back to BC after Saturday, for the record). It may say something about Scheer’s particular sense of entitlement, and that perhaps he should have made arrangements clearer beforehand so perhaps a different plane could have been sent, but the accusations between partisan camps over this is about as mature as we’ve come to expect during a global pandemic.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding to end the blockades

Posted on by

In the wake of the statements in the Commons earlier this morning on the ongoing protests and blockades across the country, the benches were full and all of the leaders were present for QP. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he read some of his same condemnation for the government not dealing with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs in favour of those who support Coastal GasLink. Justin Trudeau noted that they are concerned with dialogue, and that he invited other parliamentary leaders to discuss the matter but not Scheer because he disqualified himself after this morning’s statement. Scheer insisted that Trudeau was elevating “professional protesters” with those Indigenous communities that wanted these projects, and demanded a date for the blockades to come down, and Trudeau reminded him that they need solutions for the long term. Scheer decried the lack of action, and Trudeau said that they needed to ensure there was long-term partnership so that Canadians could rely on their transportation network rather than short-term violent action. Scheer again tried to insist that Trudeau was pandering to activists, and Trudeau reminded him that the Conservatives couldn’t get projects built because they would pick and choose who they would engage with. Scheer got increasingly breathy and high-pitched as he demanded action, and Trudeau reminded him that five years ago, Canadians chose parties who were committed to reconciliation. Yves-François Blanchet was up next for the Bloc, and he expressed his concern that Québec and Canada’s image was one where Indigenous communities were opposed to development, and wanted some clarity on the timeline for when blockades would be lifted. Trudeau stated that they were still committed to dialogue, and that was the first step to lifting the barricades. Blanchet asked for future meetings on the issue, and Trudeau said that he was open to that — for parties that wanted to engage constructively. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and demanded to know when the federal government would meet with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, but they were waiting on them. Singh wanted concrete action now, but pivoted to record-keeping on Indigenous kids in care, go which Trudeau reminded him that child and family services were provincial jurisdiction and they were working to devolve that to First Nations themselves.

Continue reading →