Tag Archives: Bill Blair

QP: The increasing hyperbole meets the wall of pabulum

Posted on by

The translation system was haywire in the Chamber, which made for a very awkward and very late start to the day. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he started off with the falsehood that  government spending caused inflation (he didn’t), and railed about increasing interest rates as a result. Justin Trudeau got up and said that he would respond in a second but wanted to mark that this is the 40th day since the murder of Mahsa Amini in Iran, and that he stood with the Iranian-Canadian community. Poilievre switched to English to say that people are now paying $7000 more on mortgage payments and wondered who was going to pay it. Trudeau said that the government made the decision to support people in the pandemic, and are now supporting them with the GST rebate, dental care and rental supports. Poilievre trotted out his misquote of Mark Carney and wanted to know how many people would lose their homes because of higher interest rates, and Trudeau pointed out that inflation is a world-wide problem, which is why they have supported Canadians. Poilievre chanted that the cost of government is increasing the cost of living (not true), trotted out falsehoods about ArriveCan and cited a problem with the disclosure from CBSA. Trudeau said that the appropriate ministers are looking into this discrepancy before patting himself on the back for pandemic supports. Poilievre accused the prime minister of personally handing out ArriveCan contracts and then complained about the cost of the hotel in London for the Queen’s funeral delegation. Trudeau reminded him they had a large delegation that went to the funeral and that they stayed in the same hotel and it was expected for us to have a strong presence as a Realm country.

Yves-François Blanchet worried that seniors between 65 and 75 were being discriminated against because they didn’t get the OAS top-up. Trudeau said it’s great that seniors are living longer but those older seniors can run out of savings, so the government was there in a proportionate way for those with the most needs. Blanchet made a dig about King Charles before demanding more healthcare transfers without strings attached. Trudeau said that the law states equitable treatment and the federal government was happy to talk to provinces about getting Canadians the services they need.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he railed about interest rates and demanded action from the government. Trudeau reminded him they are supporting those who need it most. In English, Singh noted that the prime minster’s own former economic advisor was concerned about the increasing interest rates and wanted help for families, and Trudeau repeated his response.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding support for their carbon price motion

Posted on by

Even though both the prime minister and his deputy were in town—the PM being in the building—neither were present for QP, and neither were any of the other leaders as well. That left if up to Melissa Lantsman to lead off, and with a script in front of her, she launched into the party’s talking points about inflation (which weren’t true), and then worried about increasing heating costs because of carbon prices, except they don’t go up until April, and the fact that there is no single type of home heating across the country. Nevertheless, she quoted the Liberal premier of Newfoundland and Labrador in opposition to carbon prices, and demanded the government vote in favour of their Supply Day motion to remove the carbon price on home heating. Randy Boissonnault took the question, and used the opportunity to recite his government’s talking points about supporting their bill on the kludge they call dental care, and for rental supports. Lantsman went another round of the same accusations, and Boissonnault recited the government’s record on lowering taxes, which the Conservatives voted against. Lantsman made a third attempt, to which Darren Fisher got up to denounce the Conservatives’ former policy of increasing the age of OAS eligibility for seniors to 67 as proof that the Liberals care more about seniors than the Conservatives. Pierre Paul-Hus took over in French to raise Chrystia Freeland’s new plan to tighten fiscal policy, insisting this was a surprise to the prime minister, that this was an admission that they created inflation (it’s not and they didn’t), and demanded that the carbon price not be “tripled” (that happens over seven years). Boissonnault said the Conservatives are only interested in cutting supports for things like seniors and housing. Paul-Hus insisted that the Conservatives want to cut the carbon tax and demanded the government stop raising taxes (erm, the only actual taxes going up are to corporations and on luxury goods). Boissonnault insisted that he respects his counterpart, but the Conservatives only cut jobs.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and said that the government could simply have enriched the Canada Child Benefit rather than creating their dental care plan, and recited the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report that this benefit “discriminates” against Quebeckers because they won’t get as much money—because they have existing provincial benefits. Jean-Yves Duclos stated this fact—that they already have dental coverage and the federal benefit will enrich it. Therrien repeated his question and called it “majority insurance” rather than “dental insurance,” and Duclos pointed out how much his government has reduced child poverty.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and in French, he read a statement from a doctor who lost a patient, and demanded the federal government do something about the crisis in healthcare. Duclos admitted there is a crisis, but he said they are providing additional funding to provinces to reduce delays, for workers, and for long-term care. Lindsay Mathyssen read her own condemnation of the state of healthcare in English, to which Duclos reiterated his comments, noting that the Canada Health Act has conditions, and that he was work with premiers.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The transcript doesn’t show interference

Posted on by

It turns out that the recording of that meeting of RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki coming down on her Nova Scotia team in the wake of the mass shooting in Portapique was found after all, and lo, it doesn’t actually show political interference. (Transcript here). She does say that she told the minister’s office the information on the firearms used would be released (we know that she was contacted by Bill Blair’s chief of staff, not Blair himself), and when the information was not released, she said she had to apologise to the minister and the prime minister, but there is no mention of a promise to release that information. In fact, the only time the word “promised” was used was when Lucki said that she was promised a timeline of events and a map, and she didn’t receive those either, and spoke about feeling disrespected because she wasn’t given it. Lucki did at one point bring up “legislation” the government was working on around guns (it was actually an Order in Council), which Lucki said was supposed to help police, but again, there was no mention of pressure from the minister about it. She was politically aware of what was going on, because she would have been consulted in its development (which had been going on for months at this point), and it should be stressed that political awareness is not interference. Commissioners are supposed to be politically aware. That’s part of their job, just like the Chief of Defence Staff.

The Conservatives, however, took that same transcript, cherry picked a couple of lines about feeling the need to apologise, and took this as “proof” of interference, that either Lucki or Blair had lied, and demanded both of their resignations, and launched a point of privilege in the House of Commons to the effect of saying that Blair lied to them. Because this is what they do—take everything in bad faith, and generate a bunch of clips for shitposts, then fundraise off of them. It’s not even truthiness at this point—it’s out and out bad faith, lies, and deception. And you don’t see the media calling bullshit on it and pointing to what is in the transcript, they just both-sides it, and their talking heads will waffle around it. The talking heads also don’t try to follow all of the information and put it together, where they would see that the allegations of interference don’t actually make sense. I won’t recap the column, but suffice to say, there was no need to interfere because they had all of the information, and the people who claim they were are actually arguing for less transparency. It’s bizarre all around.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 240:

Ukrainian forces have bombarded Russian positions in the occupied Kherson region in the country’s south, targeting their resupply routes along a major river. Russians shelled the Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia regions.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An inexplicable failure of police

Posted on by

Amidst all of the finger-pointing and blame-shifting, as everyone tries to pin the current occupations and blockades on the prime ministers, those of us who pay attention know that the real problem here is policing, and ultimately the rule of law. Bill Blair has rightly called it “inexplicable” why the Ottawa Police have not done their jobs to uphold and enforce the law, particularly when they have plenty of resources and added authority under the state of emergencies that have been declared municipally and provincially. Still no dice. And while the city says they’re waiting for reinforcements, we also find that there is actually no plan for what to do with them when they do arrive (and they have been trickling in), which inspires no confidence at all that this is going to be resolved anytime soon.

At the same time, the drumbeat for federal emergency powers is getting louder, and while ministers are saying it’s under consideration, there was also a Cabinet meeting last night, which is very unusual and could signal preparations for it. That said, it’s unlikely that they will without the invitation from Ontario to do so, and even if they do, it’s still a trap because they want Trudeau to wear this (more than he already is), and any action would ensure that he’s the one to do so.

https://twitter.com/adamgoldenberg/status/1492958766454738945

https://twitter.com/adamgoldenberg/status/1492966908538376197

In the meantime, we’re seeing gutless municipal politicians do their own blame-shifting and ass-covering and try to put this on Trudeau. No. The city’s Police Services Board is the civilian authority for the police and the body which holds them to account. They are the ones who have the power here. They should be calling the chief to the carpet and telling him that if he and his people don’t do their jobs and start enforcing the law, then he can find a new one, and keep going down the line until it starts to happen. But when it all comes down to it, these last almost-three weeks have clearly demonstrated that the Ottawa Police Service, which was already putrid with corruption, is irredeemable and needs to be disbanded entirely in order to start over from the ground up.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Nothing unexpected in the Speech from the Throne

Posted on by

In amidst all of the pomp and ceremony, there was very little that was unexpected out of yesterday’s Speech from the Throne, where Governor General Mary May Simon read the government’s planned agenda, talking about the fact that the pandemic is not yet over, and making high-level promises around climate action, reconciliation, and a nod to the rising cost of living. In a little over half an hour, it was over, and MPs returned to the House of Commons.

Two media narratives largely dominated the coverage the rest of the day: 1) this is basically the election platform, which erm, hello, is pretty much the point, and putting something shiny and new in there while in a hung parliament would be difficult and asking for trouble; and 2) daring the opposition parties to bring down the government, which they won’t do, but reporters will ask leading – if not goading – questions all the same. And because of the requisite chest-thumping that goes along with a hung parliament, we saw both the Conservatives and NDP talking tough about not supporting it (well, the NDP said that the Liberals shouldn’t take their votes for granted even though they pretty much can because the NDP are in no shape to back up their words), and the Bloc essentially acknowledging that they would support it because of course they will. Nobody is going to bring the government down over this and go to another election (because no, there is no other possible government formation possible with the current composition of the Chamber), so the Liberals will pass this, and their fall fiscal update, and one or two of the bills on their priority wish list before they rise for the holidays, and the Conservatives and the NDP will huff and puff about it, but that’s about as much as will happen.

Once the speech was over, the Conservatives immediately launched into a renewed round of procedural shenanigans once they got back to the House of Commons, and before Erin O’Toole read his response to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. First it was a point of privilege on the unresolved issue from the previous parliament on the Winnipeg Lab documents, in spite of the fact that the committee that wanted them doesn’t exist and the order they made also no longer exists. Then they went after the Clerk and the scurrilous allegations of partisanship (which, according to everyone I’ve spoken to – including Senate Conservatives – is ridiculous and office politics run amok in the House of Commons’ administration). The Speaker tried to cut that off, insisting that it should be dealt with at BoIE, especially as the Clerk cannot defend himself in the Commons, but they kept going after it, which is poor form and a signal that they want blood and they don’t care if they hurt the Clerk in the process. And after that, it was the vaccine mandate and the use of the Board of Internal Economy, demanding a vote on it – erm, which would just expose those who object to said mandate and tar those who object to the procedural use of the BoIE with the same brush, which seems politically foolish to me, but what do I know? (Affirming the vaccine mandate is part of the Liberals’ omnibus motion that would also restore hybrid sittings, for what it’s worth).

Continue reading →

Roundup: COVID is not done with Parliament

Posted on by

There was sad news over the weekend that Senator Josée Forest-Niesing passed away from COVID. Forest-Niesing had been recently discharged from hospital after being in for nearly a month after complications – while she was double-vaxxed, she suffered from an auto-immune lung condition that both made her extremely vulnerable, and the vaccines less effective, which is why we need more people to be vaccinated, so that it can’t spread to vulnerable people.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives announced that their MP Richard Lehoux tested positive (in spite of being fully vaxxed), which raises questions because Conservatives were all in town for caucus last week, and it’s very possible that this may have been a spreader event, as there are questions about the actual vaccination status of all Conservative MPs, (and I have some serious doubts about the veracity of some of the medical exemptions that are being claimed, especially as they are being claimed by those expressing anti-vax or vaccine-hesitant views).

The worst part of all of this is that this just gives the Liberals more ammunition to demand hybrid sittings, which need to end immediately, both for the health of our parliamentary democracy, as well as the health of our interpretation staff who are suffering injuries that we would not ask anyone else to endure so that MPs could stay at home while other essential workers have to be on the front lines – and Parliament is essential, and the government has been sending the absolute wrong signal in keeping MPs at home – the Liberals most especially if we have a repeat of last session, where Mark Gerretson would be the only MP in the Chamber and the rest of those benches were empty. There are ways to keep Parliament safe, especially now that everyone is doubly vaccinated (so they assure us) and can wear masks indoors at all times. It’s not difficult, and it keeps the business of the nation going. Let’s do this the right way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A refreshed Cabinet for a new parliament

Posted on by

So, that was the big Cabinet shuffle. It was extensive, and we saw three ministers dropped entirely (not the first time), a few promotions, a few demotions, and a lot more hybrid and chimeric ministries which will make governance a challenge to say the least. Nevertheless, here we are. Some observations:

  • This was not a new Cabinet or ministry – this was just a shuffle. It’s also not a third term or mandate, because we don’t have those in Canada – it’s the third parliament that the current ministry has spanned.
  • Marc Garneau’s exclusion from Cabinet has fuelled rumours he’s about to become ambassador to France. My presumption is that Bardish Chagger’s exclusion is because she is going to be the new Whip, as the old Whip and his deputy are now in Cabinet. Jim Carr’s departure may be health-related.
  • After Trudeau had rather bravely centralized all of the economic development agencies under one roof and didn’t have them beholden to local ministers and the corrupting influence that offers, he has relented and re-established the practice of regional economic development ministers again, and undone the work of trying to clean up the mess they create.
  • The most important portfolios – finance, defence, foreign affairs – are now all held by women. Anita Anand is the second woman defence minister in Canadian history (the first being Kim Campbell), and her background as a law professor specializing in governance can only help in a role where there has been a crisis in civilian oversight. As foreign affairs minister, Mélanie Joly will have to deal with the tensions between the US and China (and our general lack of a coherent foreign policy).
  • Splitting up Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was a good and necessary thing; giving Bill Blair emergency preparedness and not public safety is an even better thing because Blair was essentially at risk of capture in the role as a former police chief (with a questionable record around actions of the Toronto Police during the G20 to boot).
  • There are nine new faces in this configuration of Cabinet, and more diversity – the first Black woman since Jean Augustine, the first out lesbian minister, and the queerest Cabinet in Canadian history.
  • Putting Steven Guilbeault in environment may yet be a huge disaster given how badly he mismanaged Bill C-10, but Jonathan Wilkinson in natural resources will likely mean a steadier hand on some of those files where the two overlap.
  • Carving off an associate health minister portfolio for Carolyn Bennett to deal with addictions and mental health is a bit of a throwback to when she was the first minister of state for the newly-created Public Health Agency of Canada, back in the Paul Martin era. Jean-Yves Duclos in health – an economist who did a lot of work on poverty reduction – means he’s not going to be fooled by provinces trying to get more money out of the federal government that they plan to spend elsewhere.
  • Trudeau says he plans to lead the Liberals in the next election, but I’m not sure I believe him, and of course he’d say that now. He wouldn’t actually say he plans to leave until it comes time to do so, lest he turn himself into a lame duck without any moral authority to get anything done.

And now, the talking heads. Aaron Wherry hears from a Senior Liberal Source™ that the message of this Cabinet is the need for urgent delivery of promises. Heather Scoffield makes note of the activists leading the environment and housing files. Jason Markusoff highlights the squirming that Jason Kenney and others are doing now that Steven Guilbeault is the environment minister. Althia Raj sees some attempted legacy-building in Trudeau’s choices.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Heading down the same road to destruction

Posted on by

As the American election results continue to grind along, there are a couple of things that have emerged that we should take to heart – one is that “Trumpism” wasn’t a fluke in 2016, and that it’s a real force that America needs to contend with honestly. The other is that the polarisation in the country has become so acute that adherents to each tribe party are now living in alternate realities, where facts don’t penetrate. This was punctuated by something that Gerald Butts has been saying over the past couple of days, that there are also two “information ecosystems” in the US, that perpetuate these alternate realities, in that each side’s news media is fairly disassociated from one another (and in some cases, facts and reality).

Why do I think this matters in particular? Because I see elements of this culture war bubbling up in this country, in somewhat inchoate and fledgling forms, but it’s there. We may not have the alternate forms of media in this country, but parties – Conservatives in particular – are building it over social media instead of traditional broadcasting (though they did make an honest effort with SunTV). The complete disregard for facts has well and truly wormed its way into the party’s discourse, and we’re now on their second party leader for whom bald-faced lying is now a daily occurrence, and this gets built into shitposts for those social media channels that they are promulgating, in some cases presenting their own alternate reality versions of situations. The NDP aren’t much better, importing wholesale the rhetoric of a segment of the American democratic party, and their own adherents refuse to believe the facts of situations (such as the existence of federalism in this country), as their leader deliberately misleads or omits facts to present the image of a government that simply doesn’t care to do things rather than the truth of their not having the jurisdiction to do them.

This is a problem that we have been complacent about addressing in this country, because we insist that it’s not as bad as in the US – and sure, we don’t have the same level of tribalism and political duality as they do, but just because we’re not as far down the road as they are doesn’t mean we’re not on the road here. There was an attempt to create that duality here – it wasn’t that long ago that the Liberals were considered to be a spent force, politically, and the Conservatives and NDP spent early Question Periods of the 41st Parliament patting themselves on the back that there was finally a real contrast in parties in the House of Commons (while the whole of the pundit class demanded that the remains of the Liberals merge with the NDP, as though the parties didn’t have fundamental ideological differences). We keep adopting Americanisms in our political systems and structures, and way too many political staffers (and more than a few reporters) spend their days LARPing episodes of the West Wing. Too many Canadians are keen to import all of the same problems that are turning America into a failed state because we think they’re more “exciting,” or somehow enviable in other ways. We should be repudiating this and shedding these American affectations from our politics, but nobody wants to do that, and this is going to cause an increasing number of problems the longer we go down this road. America is a giant flashing warning sign to turn back – can we do so in time?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exit one arm of WE

Posted on by

The big news yesterday was that WE Charity is folding their Canadian operations – and putting a hefty share of the blame on the political situation around the whole WE Imbroglio. Never mind their pre-existing problems, convoluted structure, reported financial problems with some of their properties, problems with their board of directors and the resignations therein, and the fact that their whole modus operandi of voluntourism and White Saviour complexes turned into an existential problem for the organization – no, it’s so much easier to blame the slow-motion scandal around them that laid bare many of those pre-existing problems. (For a history of the organization, Maclean’s has a great longread here).

In response, the NDP are crowing that this means that the pre-existing problems that WE faced, exacerbated by the pandemic and the Imbroglio, just proves that the Liberals were trying to help them out all along – erm, which is a bit of a leap. The Conservatives, meanwhile, have demanded that WE still turn over all of the documents that the committee has requested (which WE’s lawyers laughed at given that the committee does not currently exist). And Liberal partisans all over social media are wailing and gnashing their teeth that this organization that did so much good was being killed by the petty partisan games of the opposition. (And, erm, they didn’t actually do that much good, and they are still carrying on their US and UK operations, as well as their for-profit arm – only the Canadian charity arm is being folded).

Meanwhile, Matt Gurney makes the very salient point that this whole situation happened because the Liberals were inept enough not to ensure that Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau do the simplest of steps and recuse themselves from any decisions involving WE because of their personal investment in the organization and its causes. It’s possible Morneau would still have his job as he wouldn’t have made his continuation in the role untenable (thought I have previously contended that even before this all blew up, he was probably overdue to be shuffled because he wasn’t terribly suited for it), and Trudeau wouldn’t be in as precarious a situation as he is (though the cultural problem of not caring about the rules and letting the ends justify the means because they mean well would still be there) if they had simply been a little more aware of what they were doing. Alas, they weren’t, and here we are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trading in NWO conspiracies

Posted on by

On Saturday, Conservative MP and former minister Kerry-Lynne Findlay retweeted a shitpost put up by a QAnon follower that contained a video of a pre-politics Chrystia Freeland interviewing George Soros, and worried that Soros was trying to get China on board with the New World Order – a particularly pervasive conspiracy theory which goes back to the anti-Semitic tropes of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Findlay’s quote-tweet – since deleted – had her proclaiming that Freeland was “listening carefully to him like a student to teacher. The closeness of these two should alarm every Canadian.” When called out, Findlay insisted that it was “about economics,” before she finally deleted her tweet, apparently after Liberal MP Anthony Housefather (who is Jewish) reached out to her to explain why the Soros/NWO conspiracy theories are inherently anti-Semitic. Findlay then made a qualified apology, claiming she “thoughtlessly shared content” and that she doesn’t endorse hateful rhetoric, but didn’t explain her won statement about why Freeland interviewing Soros should be “alarming.”

Why does this matter? Because other Conservatives including Pierre Poilievre were retweeting Findlay uncritically, which means that this kind of conspiracy theorism and anti-Semitism is getting more normalized. And then there’s the fact that Andrew Scheer spent his farewell speech promoting sites like True North and The Post Millennial which also trade in these kinds of narratives, and was touting them as credible and “objective,” when they are not. What this is saying about where the Conservative party is at in terms of what kind of narratives they trade in should be alarming, especially when you think of the fact that fourteen percent of the party voted for Derek Sloan’s outright parroting of Trump talking points, which includes the racism, misogyny and homophobia.

Over the rest of the weekend, Erin O’Toole was silent on the tweet, as were the other Conservatives who retweeted Findlay. That should also be concerning, especially because it means they are either ignorant of the anti-Semitic tropes they were trading in, or they were complicit in them. That’s not a direction that we want Canadian politics to be heading down, and Findlay owed an explanation of why it was “alarming” that Freeland interviewed Soros as a journalist, and O’Toole owes an explanation for his silence in not shutting this down when it happened.

Continue reading →