Tag Archives: Border

Roundup: Advice versus requests

Posted on by

It’s day one-hundred-and-six of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Ukraine has filed eight more alleged war crime cases to court, while Ukrainian troops are holding out in the ruins of Severodonetsk as Russian forces advance in the region. Further south, Russians have been targeting agricultural sites including warehouses, because it seems they are deliberately provoking an international food crisis in order to gain some kind of leverage. Here is a look at the situation in the eastern city of Bakhmut, who feel abandoned by Kyiv. The Speaker of the Ukrainian parliament has made a plea to the European Parliament to speed the process to name Ukraine a candidate for European membership, as that declaration could send a strong signal to Russia.

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1534633310651047936

Closer to home, there is a great deal of discussion as to whether or not Marco Mendicino lied when he said that he acted on the advice of law enforcement in invoking the Emergencies Act, in light of the clarification of his deputy minister. I’m probably going to write something longer on this, but I will make the point that police chiefs saying they didn’t request it is fully appropriate because they should not request it—that would be outside of their bounds as it is a highly political act to invoke it, and the minister needs to wear it. But Mendicino has been hidebound to pabulum talking points and bland reassurances, which is where the confusion is creeping in, and is compounding to weaselly behaviour. In any case, this thread by Matt Gurney lays out a lot of what we know, with some interventions along the way which add further shades of grey to this whole affair.

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1534528096828809217

https://twitter.com/thomasjuneau/status/1534617515158122498

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1534539298363654144

https://twitter.com/davidreevely/status/1534541264791773188

Continue reading →

QP: A personal tale of witnessing injustice

Posted on by

The prime minister was off to Los Angeles for the Summit of the Americas, we had two other leaders present, plus the deputy prime minister, so that was something. Candice Bergen led off, script on her mini-lectern, decrying Canadians skipping meals, saying that they don’t want a “top-up cheque” but want prices to stop rising. (If only the Canadian federal government had the power to control the world price of oil and to stop droughts in food-producing regions). Chrystia Freeland praised her government’s job-centred recovery and the record-low levels of unemployment. Bergen insisted that the government’s fiscal policy was a mess, and raised Bill Morneau’s revisionist concerns, to which Freeland listed the inflation-indexed benefits that families and seniors were getting. Bergen pivoted to rising gun crimes and accused the government of being soft on crime, and Freeland offered a personal story about her mother doing legal aid work for Indigenous clients in Northern Alberta, and she could see first-hand how the justice system treats them, which was why this government was making changes. Luc Berthold took over in French to decry the abolition of mandatory minimums, and Freeland repeated the same story in French. Berthold then pivoted to the cost of living concerns, complaining that their gimmick-laden Supply Day motion was defeated. Freeland wondered why the Conservatives didn’t support their own “concrete” assistance to low-income households.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he insisted that a third of Quebec seniors were losing purchasing power because of rising inflation. Freeland said that she had good news—that OAS was going up by ten percent this summer. Blanchet did not deviate from his question and insisted the same again, and Freeland reminded him that these benefits are already indexed to inflation.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded the GST credit and Canada Child Benefit be doubled. Freeland stated that there were targeted measures already going out. Rachel Blaney repeated the question in English with added sanctimony, and Freeland insisted that they looked ahead and set five particular programmes in motion before this summer hits.

Continue reading →

QP: Missing the mark on the tough-on-crime questions

Posted on by

While the prime minister was off to Calgary to sign a land settlement with a First Nation, and his deputy off to Washington DC, none of the other leaders were in attendance either. Luc Berthold led off, laying out that the prime minister promised to run a transparent government, but raised the CBC story on 72 secret orders-in-council (which are secret for statutory reasons, not because the government simply declared them to be). François-Philippe Champagne noted that there are particular decisions which need to be secret, particularly under the Investment Canada Act and under national security considerations, and while they strive for transparency, there are instances where the national interest requires secrecy. Berthold tried once again on this, and Champagne repeated his response. Berthold then raised the rise in gun crimes and worried that the bill revoking mandatory minimums was making life easier on criminals. David Lametti reminded him that there are many cases where the justice system targets Black and Indigenous people and that serious crimes will still receive serious sentences. Rob Moore took over in English to also decry the same bill and demanded the government abandon the bill. Lametti repeated his response. When Moore tried again, Pam Damoff listed actions the government is taking to tackle gun violence.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and claimed that the National Assembly has a democratic duty to protect secularism in the province, and insinuated that the federal government was trying to overturn democracy in the province. Lametti reminded Therrien that he too is a Quebecker, that Law 21 prevented a teacher from working, and that the federal government has a duty to protect minority rights. Therrien listed areas where the federal government turns down Quebec’s demands, and Pablo Rodriguez stated that while the Bloc is trying to pick fights, the government is trying to move society forward. 

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and in French, he noted a lot of food bank users are disabled, before he denounced the new disability benefits bill. Carla Qualtrough recited that they have worked with the disability community and provinces to lift disabled people out of poverty, which included ensuring that provinces don’t claw back benefits. Bonita Zarillo repeated the same condemnation in English, and Qualtrough reiterated points before calling on the House to get it done.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bill Morneau has learned no lessons

Posted on by

We’re now around day ninety-nine of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and…there wasn’t a lot of news I could find, other than the fact that Russia continues to pound cities in the Donbas region. Germany says they will send more advanced radar and anti-aircraft systems to Ukraine, but we’ll see how timely their deliveries really are.

Closer to home, Bill Morneau delivered a speech where he says he’s worried about the economic progress of this country because he says he doesn’t see enough focus on growth (never mind that it’s the dominant focus of the last two budgets). But then he went on about how he wants some kind of “permanent commission” to focus on said economic growth, and I just cannot even. It’s called Parliament. David Reevely lays this out in the thread below, but I will add that Morneau really was never any good at being in government. He kept trying to play things like he was still in the corporate world, where it was about who you knew, and it was paired with the mindset of this government where if you mean well, then the ends justify the means, so rules got broken an awful lot. That’s why Morneau was eventually forced to resign over his role in the CatastrophWE. And he demonstrates with this speech that he has learned precisely zero lessons.

Continue reading →

QP: Rota’s return to the big chair

Posted on by

Not only was the prime minister president for QP, as were most other leaders, but Anthony Rota was also back in the Speaker’s chair, for the first time in months. Before things got underway, he took a moment to thank MPs for their support during his absence, and for the care team for his surgery.

After several rounds of applause, things launched with Candice Bergen at her mini-lectern, and she accused the prime minister of trying to end the energy sector by way of the carbon price, insisting that he wants high gas prices. (Erm, Candice, Europe would like a word about gas prices). Justin Trudeau somewhat haltingly listed programmes that are indexed to inflation, and reminded her of what families in Manitoba get in the carbon rebate. Bergen then pivoted to trying to find fault with both the gun control bill and the bill that will remove mandatory minimums on some gun crimes. Trudeau took up a script to praise his own gun control bill, and to recite that removing mandatory minimums is about keeping Black and Indigenous people for; being disproportionately affected by the justice system. Bergen read some scripted outrage about criminals getting house arrest, to which Trudeau read a script about systemic discrimination or people going to jail because they struggle with addiction. Raquel Dancho took over, accusing the government of being responsible for the rise in violent crime, denouncing the removal of mandatory minimums along the way. Trudeau, extemporaneously, listed the new measures in the gun control bill tabled yesterday. Dancho insisted the government wasn’t doing enough to stop gun violence, inadvertently listing things the government was already doing as her counter to “useless” gun bans. Trudeau dismissed this as parroting talking points from the gun lobby, and noted they did invest in the same tools Dancho mentioned.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he complained that the federal government was ready to go to the Supreme Court of Canada over Quebec’s Law 21 and 96, and he wondered if English was really threatened in Quebec. Trudeau took up a script to raise the woman denied a teaching job because she wears a hijab, and it was his job to defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Blanchet insisted this was a lie, and that secularism was being attacked, before repeating his question a to whether English was threatened in Quebec. Trudeau, extemporaneously, stated the incorrect truism that French is under threat, and insisted that this was about defending minorities throughout the country.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and in French, he noted that the government agreed to decriminalise small amounts of hard drugs in BC, and wanted support for the private member’s bill on doing this nationally. Trudeau recited a script about the opioid crisis and today’s announcement out of BC. Gord Johns repeated the question in English, and Trudeau read the English version of the same script.

Continue reading →

QP: Gathering outrage clips about gas prices

Posted on by

The prime minister was away in meetings, but his deputy was present, so that was something, though no other leader was present either. Luc Berthold led off in French, and he proclaimed that masks came off in Quebec, but pivoted this toward a question on gas prices and inflation, demanding a break be given to people. Chrystia Freeland recited that they sympathised with the families, which was why they had measures in the budget like dental care. Berthold railed that the Liberals liked high prices, and invited Freeland to join him at a gas station. Freeland reminded him that Canadians are smart and know this is a global issue, caused by Putin’s war in Ukraine. Berthold then raised Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada ruling and the invitation to bring forward new legislation around extreme intoxication. David Lametti got up to read that they are closely studying the ruling, and specified that Friday’s ruling does not apply to most cases where intoxication is a factor. Karen Vecchio took over in English and read a hugely torqued reading of the decision and demanded action, and Lametti read the English version of the same response. Vecchio carried on building a moral panic around the ruling, and Lametti reiterated that the ruling came out on Friday, so they wanted to examine their options.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he complained that a number of Liberal MPs attended a protest in Quebec against the province’s proposed (draconian) language laws, to which Pablo Rodriguez said that Liberal MPs were not handcuffed, and the government had their own official languages legislation. Therrien was outraged by this, and Rodriguez continued to needle him that Liberal MPs were no less Quebeckers than Bloc MPs. 

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and in French, he railed that gas prices were increasing while the government subsidised the fossil fuel sector, hitting Canadians twice. Freeland replied that they were phasing out those subsidies, and carbon capture was part of the way forward. Rachel Blaney appeared by video to repeat the question in English, and Freeland reiterated her points, with some added emphasis on the efficacy of carbon prices.

Continue reading →

Roundup: How to remove a central bank governor

Posted on by

It is now approximately day seventy-nine of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and war crimes trials are beginning in the country, hearing from one youth who whose father was murdered in front of him, and who was shot by Russian soldiers but who survived. Shooting at civilians—and children especially—is a war crime, and Russians will be hard-pressed to come up with justifications for them. As well, the UN is declaring a “child rights crisis” in the country, given how many children have been killed in the invasion. Meanwhile, here is a look at the “partisans” fighting on Ukraine’s behalf from behind Russian lines, which may or may not be the cause of all of those fires and explosions.

Elsewhere in Europe, Finland’s president and prime minister are urging the country’s parliament to vote in favour of making their application to join NATO, while Sweden is expected to follow suit days later. If Putin’s fig-leaf excuse for invading Ukraine was to stop NATO’s expansion, well, he’s just done the opposite, so good job there. There will be some sensitivity in managing the time between Finland applying for membership and when they are granted it, as they could be particularly vulnerable to Russian aggression during that period.

Closer to home, Pierre Poilievre’s attack on the Bank of Canada is not going unnoticed, but it helps for the rest of us to know just what he’s trying to suggest. To that end, Kevin Carmichael provides needed context to what exactly Poilievre is threatening to do to the Bank of Canada governor, and why he’s wrong on inflation. As well, this thread is a good take on the mechanism for the how governor is appointed and what it would take to remove him.

Continue reading →

QP: Border crossings and gun control

Posted on by

Even though the prime minister was mere steps away, concluding a press conference with this Latvian counterpart, he was not in the Chamber for QP today, though his deputy was, and most of the other leader didn’t bother to show up either. Luc Berthold led off in French, and he worried about Roxham Road, accusing the prime minister of creating a “gap” in the safe third country agreement, and he echoed François Legault’s demand to suspend the agreement and close the crossing. Chrystia Freeland read that they respect the immigration system, and that they work closely with the Americans on the shared border including with the agreement. Berthold then pivoted to gang violence in Montreal (and for a moment, it sounded like he was drawing a comparison because it was such a clumsy transition), and Freeland agreed with him that as a member from a big city, there is a problem with firearms, which was why the government was taking steps to limit them, and invited the Conservatives to support them in that. Berthold insisted that the prime minister was turning a blind eye, and targeting innocent people, and Freeland repeated her same response. John Brassard took over in English to decry gun violence and noted that in one arrest, the accused had been arrested on an unrelated charge 48 hours earlier. Freeland insisted that as a mother of Toronto teenagers, she was well aware of the problem of firearms, which was why they were banning military-style assault rifles. Brassard listed other gun incidents and insisted the prime minister was protecting violent criminals and not families. Freeland assured him that farmers and hunters do not use military-style assault rifles, which is why they were being banned.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he worried about the escalating cost of the Trans Mountain expansion, as it gets another $10 billion (loan guarantee, not actually new funds), and Freeland assured him that they did not intend to be the long-term owners and that it was a responsible investment that created jobs. Therrien bellowed louder on the matter, and Freeland repeated her response.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he worried that oil and gas companies got government money and is now raking in massive profits. Freeland listed efforts on eliminating subsidies and imposing emissions caps. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same response.

Continue reading →

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 →

QP: The person not in charge didn’t make a request

Posted on by

For proto-PMQ day, all of the leaders were present for the first time in a while, so that made for a nice change of pace. Candice Bergen led off, script on her mini-lectern, and she raised the testimony of the RCMP Commissioner at committee, saying she did not request the use of the Emergencies Act, even though she found it helpful. (Note that she would not have been the one to request it because the RCMP was not the police of jurisdiction). Justin Trudeau read a statement about the police needing the tools and that they now had the inquiry to review what happened. Bergen insisted that the use of the Act was an overreach and the prime minister was trying to cover it up. Trudeau dropped the script and extemporaneously stated that the Conservatives seem to be pretty nervous that the inquiry will uncover their complicity in keeping the occupation going. Bergen pivoted to the rising cost of living, or the line-ups at airports and Service Canada office, and tried to paint him as out of touch by pointing out that he doesn’t buy his own groceries or pump his own gas—never mind that as leader of the Official Opposition, she also gets a chef and a driver. Trudeau recited the list of benefits the government has been enriching for people. Luc Berthold took over in French, declared the prime minister to be a “master of disinformation” and decried the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Trudeau read the powers that were needed, and that there was an inquiry underway. Berthold then accused the prime minster of doing nothing about the cost of living and demanded a break on gas taxes, to which Trudeau read that if Conservatives really cared about affordability, they wouldn’t delay the budget implementation bill.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he raised their Supply Day motion yesterday to replace the daily prayer in favour of a moment of daily reflection, insisting that this was related to the “British Monarchy,” and demanded to know how the prime minister would vote on it. Trudeau listed the things that people were more concerned about than this issue. Blanchet tried to pin Trudeau down on it, and he called this out as a desperate attempt to find wedges to exploit.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he raised the price of gasoline before demanding new taxes on oil companies to pay for social programmes. Trudeau reminded him that they already raised taxes on the wealthiest one percent and indexed benefits to inflation, and that the NDP had voted against that at the time. Singh repeated the question in French, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →