Tag Archives: Border

QP: The usual demands ahead of the fiscal update

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town today, he was not in QP, and neither was his deputy. Most of the other leaders were absent as well. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and cited a figure that claims the deficit is adding two percent of interest rates per month (erm…), and demanded a balanced budget. Anita Anand listed measures the government is taking to help people with affordability. Poilievre repeated the same claim and demand in English, to which Anand noted that much of the spending noted by that report was provincial and not federal, and that they were there for Canadians when they need it. Poilievre repeated his same points more emphatically, and this time Sean Fraser said it was hard to accept criticism from a member who didn’t get homes built when he was the minister charge of the housing file. Poilievre then pivoted to the carbon price, and proposed a “Canadian compromise” to freeze said price until the next election. Fraser then listed figures that poked holes in Poilievre’s revisionist history of his time as a minister. Poilievre pivoted again and worried that one of the battery plants the government is funding would rely on temporary foreign workers. Fraser got back up to carry on with the criticisms on housing, with a slight mention of the new economy. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded that the government extend the CERB repayment deadline lest there be millions of bankruptcies. Rechie Valdez read her talking points about extending the date and providing more flexibility. Therrien then demanded the fiscal update include the promise for a national school lunch programme, and more specifically transferring money to Quebec for it. Jenna Sudds reiterated that the government is working with the provinces to developing this programme together. 

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he decried the profits of grocery giants, and demanded a windfall tax in the economic update. Anand praised the government’s bill to increase competition, now that it is moving ahead again. Daniel Blaikie patted himself on the back for “improving” that bill and demanded more funds for housing in the fiscal update. Fraser suggested he wait for the update tomorrow.

Continue reading →

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

Ukraine Dispatch:

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

Continue reading →

Roundup: Stop ignoring the premiers’ role in pharmacare

Posted on by

Over the weekend, the Star ran a brief interview with Dr. Eric Hoskins, former Ontario health minister and the person that Justin Trudeau initially tasked with writing a report on getting to pharmacare, about the current situation between the government and the NDP over getting to just that. Hoskins says he’s trying to have high-level engagements with both parties, because this could be the last opportunity to get this to work in a long time, but some of that means getting the NDP to back down on their arbitrary timelines (which is more than reasonable considering how much their stupid timeline demands has meant a poor rollout of dental care, because proper implementation can take time).

This having been said, I was struck by the fact that the story completely left out the role of the premiers in this, and I cannot stress this enough, because healthcare delivery is a provincial responsibility, you cannot in any way, shape or form, get to national, universal pharacare without the provinces on board. And no, this isn’t something that they can just opt-in to over time, like the NDP seem to think—they need to be in on it from the ground floor, so that they can shape the direction of the Canada Drug Agency, and negotiate a national formulary rather than just the federal government pulling it out of their asses and, again, expecting the provinces to sign onto it (again, like the NDP seem to think). Hoskin’s whole report premised on the provinces being active participants in the process, because this affects them fundamentally. And it’s the provinces who have been the biggest hold-up for moving forward with this—only PEI has moved ahead, and thanks to the gradual build-up they’ve implemented with the federal government, they have a low-cost co-pay system running in the province, which is a wild step-up from the virtually nothing they at the provincial government level before.

The way that media keep talking about pharmacare is that this is something the federal government will do on high, and will somehow pay for entirely themselves, which again, is not how this would work. The PBO’s report cites a figure that the federal and provincial governments together would be paying (using whatever a methodology that may or may not survive reality), but doesn’t have any breakdown about what the cost-share would be, because of course that would need to be negotiated. It would be great if the national conversation, particularly that is happening in media, could actually include the crucial role of the provinces, but we all know that legacy media is allergic to the issues around jurisdiction, and it means a much worse discourse as a result.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces intensified their push toward Avdiivka in the east, and Kherson in the south, while six people were killed in a Russian missile strike on a postal distribution centre in Kharkiv. Russian forces claim that they foiled several attempts by Ukrainian forces to cross the Dnipro river near Kherson over the past day. Meanwhile, here is a look at Ukrainians preparing for another winter of attacks on the electricity grid, as they prepare firewood and candles.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No resignation from Rota, chaos ensues

Posted on by

The fallout from Friday’s incident in the House of Commons where Speaker Anthony Rota recognised a Ukrainian veteran who had served with a Nazi-affiliated unit was a complete and utter gong show yesterday, as Rota did not offer his resignation as he should have, and the day simply spiralled out of control. Both the NDP and the Bloc have called for Rota to resign, and the Liberals have been doing this weird hinting that he needs to “really think about” whether he can maintain confidence, without just coming right out and saying he can’t, while only the Conservatives have been de facto rushing to his defence by trying to blame Justin Trudeau and the PMO for what happened, in a stunning display of bad faith and mendacity, while also apparently trying to shield an incompetent Speaker whom they want on the job because he’s so lenient with them. The prime minister did make a brief statement about how this was an “embarrassment,” but didn’t call on Rota to resign either.

Much of the bad faith arguing was a deliberate conflation from every single Conservative between security screening and political vetting. The 98-year-old veteran was not a security threat. All security screening was followed. What he was not subject to was political vetting, as the Speaker is not subject to the PMO, and his office submitted their guest list to the Parliamentary Protocol Office who doesn’t share the list with PMO, and which doesn’t to background checks or vetting for political embarrassment, because that’s frankly not their job. The fact that there is a reporting relationship between the Parliamentary Protective Service and the Minister of Public Safety also has nothing to do with political vetting, as it’s not their job, and they don’t (and couldn’t) do background checks on everyone who visits the Hill, because that would be insane. Nor should PMO be doing this, as has been the assertion from a great many people who should know better, which is again utterly ludicrous.

Compounding the mystifying behaviour yesterday was Government House Leader Karina Gould trying to move a motion to strike the mention of said individual from the record, but also to have the audio-visuals scrubbed as well, which is weirdly Stalinist behaviour. While I get the impulse to try and remove the taint of his visit from the record, and that Parliament has done this in committee when Conservative MP read the manifesto of a mass shooter into the record, this was nevertheless fairly gross and disturbing, and the Conservatives objected (which also turned into an absolute gong show as this went down, and Rota was, yet again, out of his depth in the Chair).

So while we await Rota’s resignation, which cannot happen soon enough, we’re seeing Russian propagandists having a field day with this. But should Rota finally do the right thing and resign, the session will need to suspend, possibly for a day or two, so that the election of a new Speaker can take place. The likely two candidates are Conservative Chris D’Entremont and Liberal Alexandra Mendès, currently the deputy and assistant deputy Speakers, and we’ll see how this ends up. But Rota has to resign, immediately.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia’s early-morning attack on Odessa Monday has killed four people and caused significant damage to infrastructure at their grain storage facilities. There were early morning attacks today against the grain port at Izmail. Meanwhile, Ukrainian officials say that their attack on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet headquarters in occupied Crimea last week killed 34 officers including the fleet commander.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1706193779940581503

Continue reading →

Roundup: What our diverse Cabinet isn’t thinking enough about

Posted on by

It’s one of those mid-August “let’s quote a random academic” stories, but this piece on the added diversity in the Cabinet shuffle did get me thinking about a slightly more serious topic than perceived tokenism and need to ensure that these new ministers are adequately supported. Part of my thinking was simply the fact that I have interviewed some of the previously-new Cabinet ministers from after the previous election, and a recurring theme was that having more diverse voices around the Cabinet table is a net benefit, and that they have a lot of really enriching conversations as a result. Which is fair!

But the other thing I got to thinking about was intersectionality, and how such a diverse Cabinet should be getting better at it—but this is still a PMO with a strong central impulse (because the PM’s circle of trust is so small and too many things funnel through his chief of staff, Katie Telford). This is something that they should be better at, and should be more aware of, but perhaps this is one more of Trudeau’s blind spots, where he believes that simply paying lip service to the existence of intersectionality is enough, rather than actually doing the work.

And with that in mind, here’s economist Lindsay Tedds, who is actually doing the work of intersectionality, and is calling on the government to get their act together.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1689841585746579456

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1689841590423224321

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1689841594617434112

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1689841599197671426

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1689843815614664705

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian missile struck a house not far from the Polish border, killing an year-year-old boy. Meanwhile, all of the heads of regional army recruitment centres have been fired as part of ongoing battling of corruption within the country, after audits found abuses within those centres.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre tries out new tough-on-crime disinformation

Posted on by

As evidenced in Question Period yesterday, the Conservatives have found a new lie to suit their narrative around the transfer of Paul Bernardo, and it’s citing the former Bill C-83, which allegedly eliminated solitary confinement in Canadian prisons on favour of “structured intervention units.” We can pretty much be assured that the legislation did not do what it said it would, and “structured intervention” is largely still solitary confinement, and the actual problems haven’t been solved, but the underlying notion here was that this bill was in response to the finding of the courts and international human rights bodies that solitary confinement is a violation of human rights. Nevertheless, this is being blamed for the conditions that allowed for Bernardo’s transfer, which again, is not true. It’s not the first time they’ve done this tactic—they also did it with the former Bill C-75 on bail reform, which was about codifying Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence around bail, and actually created several more categories where a reverse onus was needed, which made bail tougher to get. That didn’t stop the lies then, and it isn’t around C-83 now.

In the meantime, here is the Alberta Prison Justice Society with some important context around prison transfers and security classifications, which a lot of people should know (and in some cases, do know but are lying about it in order to drum up outrage, because politics is all about rage-farming and shitposting these days).

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians struck the settlement of Novoberyslav in the Kherson region, killing a married couple when their house was bombed. The Ukrainian advance continues in the south, while Russians are trying to trying to dislodge Ukrainian positions in the east. Meanwhile, a group of African leaders are visiting Kyiv to discuss Ukraine’s “peace formula” to end the war.

Continue reading →

QP: Conspiracies and scrambling the speaking list

Posted on by

The prime minister was off to Toronto to mark the first day of awareness of gun violence, and his deputy and at least one other leader was away as well. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, insisting that the House of Commons declared non-confidence in David Johnston, said that Johnston’s declaration that he works for the government and not Parliament was part of the problem—never mind that Johnston is not an officer of parliament, and any public inquiry would also report to the government and have its terms of reference set by government, so functionally it would be no different. Bill Blair responded that Johnston was doing the work asked of him. Poilievre switched to English and haltingly asked Blair about the wildfire situation in Nova Scotia, and Blair assured him that they responded immediately to the request for assistance. Poilievre then pivoted to the news that Bay du Nord was being postponed for three years, blaming government “gatekeepers” as he blamed the government for other projects that have not gone ahead (mostly because oil prices didn’t warrant them). Steven Guilbeault said that he did approve the project but they paused it because of market conditions. Poilievre scoffed at the notion of market conditions, and this time Julie Dabrusin said that they have tabled a bill to help Atlantic provinces diversity their economies with offshore energy projects. Poilievre insisted the government keeps suffocating projects, and Dabrusin disputed this, listing mining projects approved. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he decried that Johnston reports to the government and demanded a public inquiry. Pascale St-Onge said she was disappointed that the opposition parties were not being responsible about combatting foreign interference or strengthening democracy, and implied them to get the briefings. Therrien was not mollified and tried again, and got the same response. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and worried about the early and severe wildfire season. Blair got up to note the size of the fires but also the federal assistance. Singh switched to French to asked about the opioid crisis, which gave Carolyn Bennett an opportunity to denounce Poilievre’s retrograde beliefs on drug policy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Arguing over an appearance already scheduled

Posted on by

It’s not even a sitting week, and yet we were treated to another instalment of the parliamentary clown show that has infected our House of Commons. The Procedure and House Affairs committee held an emergency meeting to demand that David Johnston appear before them to explain his reasons for not recommending a public inquiry. But the moment they got there, the chair said that Johnston was already scheduled to appear at the committee on June 6th, and that this had been arranged previously, and it just confirmed that this insistence he appear right away was just really, really bad theatre.

And then it went downhill from there, as MPs spent the next four hours debating a motion for Johnston to appear even sooner than the 6th, for no less than three hours, alone, because remember, they need to put on a bit song and dance about how they’re so serious! about all of these allegations. As I said, bad theatre. And then, the Liberals and NDP decided to try and be clever about this, and include a recommendation in the motion that all party leaders go through the security clearance process in order to read the full report and all of its classified evidence used to compile it. Well, that didn’t go over very well, and in the end, the Conservatives voted against their own motion because they didn’t want to be called out for refusing to actually read the full documents.

Spending four hours to try and sound tougher about a pre-scheduled meeting, to give themselves the last word, is just one more reason why our Parliament is no longer a serious institution. It’s appalling that they have wasted everyone’s time and resource like this, because Michael Cooper needed to make himself look like a tough guy. Inexcusable.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Wagner Group mercenaries are preparing to turn over control of their positions in Bakhmut to Russian soldiers, while Ukraine says that Wagner is only turning over positions on the outskirts of the city, and that they have drawn Russian forces into the city, where they are inflicting high casualties and weakening Russian defensive lines elsewhere. A prisoner swap took place for 106 Ukrainian soldiers, some of them captured in the fighting in Bakhmut. Russian control of one of the dams along the Dnipro river is causing flooding because they haven’t been working to level the water flow with the other dams in the network.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chong didn’t explain how his privileges were breached

Posted on by

Conservative MP Michael Chong appeared at the Procedure and House Affairs committee yesterday to discuss the sense that his privileges as an MP—being able to do his job—were breached by Beijing’s threats to him and his family. And so, Chong gave a speech at the committee where he touched briefly on the privilege issue, saying that he wants a formal parliamentary censure of the Chinese diplomat named (and since expelled) in the situation, before going on to whole thing about the prime minister, national security, and what we should be doing in Canada. And he’s not wrong! But that’s not the point of this committee meeting. The point was to discuss his privileges being breached, and what MPs should do about said breach.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1658610455739346944

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1658615915540279297

As expected, the Conservatives on the committee mostly spent the time trying to get Chong to denounce the prime minister, and did they talk about his privileges being breached? Nope. The other thing that bothered me was that Chong kept bringing up the Winnipeg Lab issue, which is where I have lost a lot of respect for him because he has been building a bullshit conspiracy theory around it. What happened at that Lab has been extensively reported on by Dylan Robertson and others. There was no indication that there was a national security issue involving China at all, but rather a policy breach around intellectual property with the two fired scientists. Chong would know this if the Conservatives had allowed NSICOP to view the redacted documents that had been provided to them, but they have steadfastly refused to do so because it serves their narratives not to. Is NSICOP perfect? No, but it’s a very good start, and if we want to transition it to a parliamentary model, there need to be a whole lot more steps than just Parliament making a declaration (one of the most important considerations being the lack of secure meeting spaces and servers on the Hill).

So while there were interesting things raised, the point of the meeting was about privileges, and once again, a committee is being abused to go on a tangent or a fishing expedition. Committees have functions, and this one was supposed to be determining how his ability to do his job was impacted. I didn’t see really any of that in the testimony, which is all the more frustrating.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Overnight attacks against Kyiv saw 18 missiles launched, all of which were shot down—but Ukrainian forces are saying that six of those missiles were hypersonic, and that their new air defences brought them down too, which is proving the new Western systems against the supposed best of what Russia has to offer. One of the Patriot missile systems used by Ukraine may have been damaged in a strike, however. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces appear to be making more gains around Bakhmut, which they say is not connected to the upcoming counter-offensive. Elsewhere, Ukraine’s chief of the Supreme Court has been dismissed after being detained in a bribery case.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1658379904029736960

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1658351720232108034

Continue reading →

Roundup: Abusing a committee’s mandate

Posted on by

Because our Parliament is made up of deeply unserious people, the Conservatives on the Procedure and House Affairs committee, led by Garnett Genuis, are trying to push investigations of the Trudeau Foundation. The problem? This is far beyond the remit of this committee, and they have absolutely no authority to do what they’re attempting to do. The opposition members of the committee have been blocking Genuis’ motions, but this is absolutely abusing the parliamentary process in order to pursue a bullshit vendetta and conspiracy theory.

For the record, the committee is charged with dealing with the reports of the Auditor General, and ensuring that the government is accountable for implementing them. It’s actually one of the low-key best committees in the House of Commons, which largely does serious and valuable work and has been known to put ministers and deputy ministers on the hot seat in a serious way.

But there is absolutely no connection between the reports of the Auditor General and the Trudeau Foundation. The only government connection that the Foundation has is the endowment, which they remain accountable to the industry minister for maintaining intact. That’s it. Their donations have nothing to do with the government’s business. The Auditor General has no authority to audit the Foundation, and the CRA operates at arm’s length from the government, so the government and certainly not this committee can’t bully them into auditing the Foundation beyond the compliance measures they are already subjected to in order to maintain their non-profit status.  This is simply an attempt to weaponise the committee for the Conservatives’ political gain, and it’s damaging one of the few good committees in the Commons for a bullshit purpose.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces launched an air raid of “exceptional intensity” on Kyiv in the early morning hours, but damage was limited, mostly because air defences have been working. Over near Bakhmut, Ukrainian forces continue to push Russians back. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy stopped in London at the end of his brief European tour to get a pledge of more drones and missiles from the UK. Anti-corruption forces in Ukraine seem to have found evidence of bribery in the country’s Supreme Court.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1658033675072598017

Continue reading →