Tag Archives: Budget 2023

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 →

QP: Freeland finally takes the budget questions

Posted on by

The prime minister was making a stop in Alberta to survey the wildfire situation before heading off to South Korea, but his deputy was present for a change, as were most of the other leaders. Before things got underway, the Speaker asked MPs to listen during Members’ Statements rather than talking amongst one another so that they don’t inadvertently laugh during sad statements, or anything like that.

Pierre Poilievre led off in English, and tried point to contradictions in things Chrystia Freeland said, and demanded they stop “inflationary” taxes and deficits. (Taxes actually fight inflation). Freeland got up to accuse the Conservatives of talking down the economy, and praised the country’s Aaa credit rating. Poilievre repeated the question in French, and Freeland said it’s important to understand the data, and listed items to show how well Canada is doing among the G7. Poilievre said that the prime minister had fled the country rather than defend the budgets and tried to call out Freeland as well. Freeland noted that she was with G7 finance ministers in Japan, and said that if Conservatives think that they shouldn’t go to these meetings, they should say so. Poilievre returned to English to mock the “important meetings with important people” rather than common people, and accused her again of fuelling inflation. Freeland took exception to the notion that government travel was somehow elitist. Poilievre hammered away at this, to which Freeland reminded him that he lives in Stornaway with a chef and driver and has only lived on taxpayer dollars his entire life.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and railed that the prime minister called by-elections rather than a public inquiry into foreign interference. Marco Mendicino recited the well-worn pabulum about measures they have taken and waiting for David Johnston. Therrien tried again, and this time Dominic LeBlanc says that he shares the concerns about protecting by-elections, and said that they have implemented measures.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he blamed the government for Stellantis blackmailing them over a battery plant, and Freeland insisted that the government always fights for workers and jobs by things like the New NAFTA, the EV tax credit incentives in the US, and the Volkswagen plant. Singh switched to French to complain about rising rents in Quebec. Ahmed Hussen recited his housing benefit talking points in English.

Continue reading →

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

Posted on by

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

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

Ukraine Dispatch:

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

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

Continue reading →

QP: The “courage” to manufacture misleading clips

Posted on by

The prime minister was in town but elsewhere, while his deputy was present for a change. Most of the other leader were also absent, save the Leader of the Opposition. After the Speaker had to read a statement about decorum and calling one another liars, Pierre Poilievre led off, and stated—falsely—that the finance minister had said that the deficit was fuelling inflation, and raised the defeated policy motion at the Liberal convention on the weekend about balancing budgets. Chrystia Freeland said that what the party really said at the convention is that they’re the optimistic party, and the party that believes in Canada. Poilievre accused the prime minister of not having the courage to answer, when he’s not here, and praised the “courageous” Liberals who raised the policy proposal. Freeland said that Liberals were courageous for doing what needed to be done in the pandemic and raised the country’s Aaa credit rating. Poilievre insisted the prime minister stand up and be “courageous” in kicking out that Chinese diplomat who was involved in the Chong threats. Freeland insisted that it was beneath the dignity to say that nobody stands for threats against elected officials. Poilievre tried again, demanding to “bring home” security—because he has to get his new tag line in there—and demanded the diplomat be expelled. Marco Mendicino reminded him that the foreign minister summoned the ambassador last week and let it he know that interference will not be tolerated. Poilievre repeated the question in French, and got the same response from Mendicino.

Claude DeBellefeuille led for the Bloc, and raised the so-called “century initiative” to increase immigration by the end of the century, but didn’t have regard for Quebec or the status of French, and demanded to know if this is government policy. Sean Fraser said that they can bring in immigration and protect French, and noted the increased Francophone immigration last year. DeBellefeuille repeated her concerns, and Fraser said that the government makes policy, not Dominic Barton, before repeating his same points.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and demanded to know if any other MPs were being threatened like Michael Chong was. Marco Mendicino said that 49 parliamentarians had been briefed by CSIS. Alexandre Boulerice worried that big corporations want to introduce GMO foods into schools, and that voluntary compliance was not enough. Francis Drouin said that the government has been working with the organic food sector.

Continue reading →

Roundup: It’s Coronation Day

Posted on by

It’s Coronation Day, and Justin Trudeau will have arrived in the wee hours, having taken a red-eye across the Atlantic to get there. Trudeau was absent from the meeting with other Commonwealth leaders, where he could have been doing something productive like organising to help advance LGBTQ+ rights within those countries (as I suggested in my Xtra column). Nevertheless, it was bad form for him not to be there, especially as he could have moved his party convention to another weekend once the coronation date was announced.

Most of the official delegation gathered for a photo, sans-Trudeau. Not in the delegation but part of the day’s festivities is Canadian Marion Portelance, who will be playing cello at the post-Coronation concert, and it’s believed the cello she’s using was once owned and played by the King.

And because it’s her big day as a royal correspondent, our friend Patricia Treble has stories out on pretty much every platform:

  • For the Globe and Mail, a visual guide of the event and the regalia used in it.
  • For The Line, she delves into the Kremlinology of who is and is not showing up for the big event.
  • For the Star, some coronation history and some of the fascinating events that have happened during them.
  • In The Walrus, traces the indifference Canadians feel for the King to the apathy to the Crown exhibited by governments.
  • On her Substack, showcases some of the coronation scenes in London.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The leader of Russia’s mercenary Wagner Group says they’re pulling out of Bakhmut in days because they lack ammunition, and are dying in vain. (Ukraine believes they are simply reinforcing their positions). There is still shelling happening in the Kherson region, while the Russian-installed “governor” of the Zaporizhzhia region is ordering an evacuation of villages close to the front line. Meanwhile, new analysis is showing that the drone that struck the Kremlin likely launched from within Russia.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Angst over a poor metric

Posted on by

A lot of ink (or, well, pixels, I supposed) has been spilled over the past week about those leaked documents where Justin Trudeau allegedly told NATO leadership privately that Canada will never reach the two percent of GDP defence spending target, which shouldn’t be a shock to anyone who has paid a modicum of attention. And while we get these kinds of analysis pieces that try to dig more into the two percent target and its significance, we have to remember that it’s a lousy metric. Greece has been above it for years because of a stagnant economy and including military pensions in their calculations—and you can easily get to 2 percent of GDP by tanking your economy, while growing your economy makes that spending target increase impossibly. The other thing that the two percent metric doesn’t capture is engagement—Canada routinely steps up to meet its NATO commitments even without reaching the spending target, while certain European countries may meet the spending target but don’t participate in these missions (again, looking at you, Greece, but not just Greece).

Part of the problem is that while this is a conversation that requires some nuance, the two percent target is too easy for journalists to focus on, and that becomes the sole focus. It’s a problem because We The Media keep reducing this to a single binary “are we meeting/not meeting that two percent” rate, which doesn’t help advance the conversation in any way, but most of us refuse to learn because a simple binary is easier to understand/convey.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Fighting continues in the western part of Bakhmut, as Wagner Group mercenaries are worried about the coming Ukrainian counter-offensive. Ukraine’s minister of digital transformation says that new technologies are going to help them win the war, particularly as they enhance the accuracy of modern artillery.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions on regulatory efficacy

Posted on by

The Environment Commissioner released a series of reports yesterday, and I have some questions about a couple of them. His first report looks into the plan to plant two billion trees and states that it won’t be achievable unless there are big changes, citing that last year’s targets weren’t met, and that the agreements with provinces and territories around this are still being worked out. While I did notice that his graph about the plans for planting these trees does backload much of it because it will take time to grow enough saplings to plant, I’m not sure that one year’s data is enough to declare imminent failure. Maybe I’m just being optimistic.

One of his reports also criticises that the government can’t track which regulations reduce how many emissions, which makes it hard to assess their efficacy. I’m just not sure how a government would go about doing so, because there are so many overlapping measures including the carbon price, and emissions have started to bend, so that we’re slowly dropping below pre-pandemic and 2005 levels, particularly as the economy is growing, which is a good sign that measures are working overall, but there is more to do. And while I appreciate what he’s trying to say, I’m just not sure how someone goes about calculating how much the inventory changed for each regulatory measure. He did also talk about how many missed targets there were, but didn’t differentiate between which stripe of government was in power, and how the previous government set targets that they deemed “aspirational,” meaning that they did nothing to attempt to meet them, while the current government’s targets are for 2030, and they could very well still meet them if they continue their current trajectory. I’m sure he doesn’t want to get into that difference as part of his role as non-partisan quasi-Officer of Parliament (he is not a standalone officer but is part of the Auditor General’s office), but it is relevant to the state of the discussion.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces had a misfire, and accidentally bombed their own city of Belgorod, near the Ukrainian border. Oops. Meanwhile, the head of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, visited president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv, and declared that Ukraine’s future is in NATO (but that can’t happen under NATO rules so long as they have Russians occupying their territory). Ukraine has trained eight storm brigades worth 40,000 troops for the upcoming counteroffensive. Treason charges are being laid against several Ukrainian servicemen for giving away information to Russian force during an unauthorised mission, and those Russians damaged a Ukrainian airfield as a result.

https://twitter.com/minpres/status/1649093237632647179

Continue reading →

Roundup: Impressing the Scots

Posted on by

The Speaker of the Scottish Parliament paid a visit to Ottawa’s Parliament earlier in the week and was apparently so impressed with our Question Period that she plans to write a report to take suggestions from it. I’m frankly a little dumbfounded, because our QP is pretty gods damned terrible in pretty much every respect, but let me first take what her observations are.

One of them is that ours operates bilingually fairly seamlessly. Well, she didn’t see the seams, in any case. In Scotland, they have translation available for those who speak Gaelic, but it’s not automatically provided like English/French is here. But she didn’t seem to see the stress that the pandemic has caused our simultaneous interpretation abilities, from the injuries to interpreters, or the strains to resources that are now severely limiting the function of our Parliament because MPs didn’t care enough about those interpreters as they abused them over Zoom, and lo, we’re staring down a crisis.

She was impressed with the “brevity” of our QP, where it operates in thirty-five second questions and answers. I’m not sure that’s a good thing, frankly, because it has largely just created a demand for talking points, both in asking and answering questions, and so much of the exercise is useless—the questions must contain key phrases (and that’s getting worse), while the answers are frequently non-sequiturs or just bland pabulum that is disconnected from what has been asked. I’m not sure what she saw that was so impressive. The fact that it happened at a rapid pace and bilingually looks impressive from afar, but spend more than a day here, and the uglier underside quickly becomes apparent. Yes, ours can be more dynamic than Westminster’s because we don’t require questions be asked in advance in order for briefings to be prepared, so the PM must be nimble when answering, but again, most of those answers are going to be vague and superficial.

It’s kind of flattering that they’re seeing the good we have to offer, but these days, our rules and system has given rise to an increasingly unserious Chamber, and that’s not something we should be exporting to anyone.

Ukraine Dispatch:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited the border with Poland and Belarus, citing a need to be ready in case Belarus became another invasion route for Russia.

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1648688637670830083

Continue reading →

Roundup: The optics ouroboros

Posted on by

So, that big CBC/Radio-Canada “scoop” that dominated the news yesterday about Justin Trudeau’s Christmas vacation. Because this is sometimes a media criticism blog, I figured I would make a few remarks, because there were some very obvious things about it that were just being shrugged off, or actively ignored by some of my fellow journalists. To begin with, there is not a lot of substance to the story. It’s some typical cheap outrage—how dare the prime minister go on a luxury vacation on taxpayer dollars when there are people struggling in Canada—mixed with a specious connection that doesn’t mean anything in substance, but which looks bad when you make it sound sinister in order to fit it in with the current nonsense around the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. Fit those two in a particular frame that makes it sound salacious, and you have the makings of a story that dominates Question Period. Congratulations! You’ve set the agenda for the day, you can pat yourselves on the back to your heart’s content.

But the whole connection to the Foundation is a construction that implies a relationship that doesn’t exist. Yes, the Trudeau and Green families have been friends for 50 years, but the donation to the Foundation was a bequest after the death of one of the Green family members, and it was done two years ago, which was eight years after Trudeau stepped away from any involvement in the Foundation. Implying that there was something untoward about the donation and then vacationing with Trudeau—who has been family friends his entire life—is simply scandal-mongering. And this gets justified with the pearl-clutching about “optics!” But you’re the one creating the optics with the distorted framing of the situation, so you’re literally inventing a mess that doesn’t actually exist, so that you can report on the invented mess, and then report on the follow-up reactions from other political leaders who will tut about “optics.” Which you created in the first place with your framing, like some kind of ouroboros. Very convenient, that.

None of this is to say that Trudeau shouldn’t know better than to take these kinds of trips, because he knows full well that there is an intrinsic culture of petty and mean cheapness in Canadian media, and that his opponents will take full advantage of it. And lo, the story also quotes unnamed Liberal Sources™ who are once again shocked and dismayed that the prime minister once again did something with poor optics, because that’s who he is. And Trudeau then made it worse, as pointed out in my QP recap, by not answering about the gift of the accommodations, which just perpetuates the story rather than cutting it off at the start. “Yes, I accepted the gift of the accommodations. Yes, the Ethics Commissioner cleared it. Yes, I paid the equivalent commercial rate for the flight.” And it stops their ability to try and stretch this into a scandal. But Trudeau and the people who advise his communications are so tone-deaf that they keep doing this. They keep stepping on every rake in their path, every single gods damned time.

Ukraine Dispatch:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited troops in the eastern city of Avdiivka, which is facing an advance like Bakhmut, which itself is facing an increase in Russian shelling and air strikes. Ukraine has reached a deal with Poland about grain and other food products transiting that country, but the future of the Black Sea deal remains in doubt.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1648431809200553985

Continue reading →

QP: Interminable questions about Trudeau’s Xmas vacation

Posted on by

Both the prime minister and his deputy were present, together, for the first time in probably two months, which should have been notable, but ended up not being as a result of today’s news cycle. Pierre Poilieve led off in French, cited a poll that said many Canadians had to cancel summer vacation plans, and then raised that CBC story about the prime minister’s Christmas vacation where he stayed at the villa of someone who donated to the Trudeau Foundation. (Note that this link is entirely specious), and asked if the prime minister paid for his lodgings at the villa. Justin Trudeau noted that he has been friends with that family for 50 years and that they worked with the Ethics Commissioner to ensure that all rules were followed, and if Poilievre was really preoccupied by the cost of living, he would support the budget. Poilievre switched to English to reiterate the question, with some added smarm, and Trudeau repeated his response with a couple of added attempted jabs. Poilievre insisted that nothing was free and demanded to know who much was paid for the accommodation, to which Trudeau noted that Poilievre seems to have struggle with the concept of friendship, and that this family friendship goes back fifty years, before he pivoted to Poilievre running to American billionaires in order to attack the local news that Canadians rely on. Poilievre insisted that this was about power and influence, and took a swipe at the Aga Khan, before Trudeau hit back that there were security considerations before chiding Poilievre for not voting to support Canadians. Poilievre took more swipes, including at the Queen’s funeral (which he termed “a vacation”) before deploying his tired “this prime minister is out of touch while Canadians are out of money” line. Trudeau said that if Poilievre cared about Canadians as he did about partisan attacks, he would support their plans for things like child care and dental care.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he took his own swing at the vacation story, and Trudeau insisted that the Ethics Commissioner cleared everything. Blanchet tried to pivot to that dubious Chinese donation to the Trudeau Foundation, and Trudeau stated bluntly he hasn’t had anything to do with the Foundation for ten years.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he demanded help for workers instead of CEOs. Trudeau recited his lines from a script about the grocery rebate and the help they are delivering. Singh repeated the question in French, and Trudeau repeated his response extemporaneously.

Continue reading →