Tag Archives: Budget 2024

Roundup: Simping for the return of Stephen Harper

Posted on by

Yesterday, former Conservative campaign manager and current media darling Fred DeLorey wrote a column for iPolitics that posited that under a Pierre Poilievre government, appointing Stephen Harper to the Cabinet post of foreign affairs would be a “bold declaration of Canada’s readiness to assume a pivotal role in shaping global affairs.” It’s a…novel…argument, and while I will admit that I haven’t read the piece because my subscription has lapsed, I wanted to make a few points regardless.

The first point is that while it is possible for a prime minister to appoint a minister who doesn’t have a seat, the convention is that they find one as soon as possible, whether in the Commons or in the Senate, because otherwise they can’t report to Parliament or sponsor legislation without needing a proxy to do it for them. Harper himself appointed Michael Fortier to the Senate in order to serve as minister of public works, and later international trade. (Fortier resigned from the Senate to run for a seat in the Commons in the next election and was soundly defeated). I find the notion of Harper being given a Senate seat to be far too ironic considering his utter disdain for the institution, and in particular its appointed nature. The alternative is asking one of Poilievre’s MPs to resign in a safe seat to run a by-election for Harper to run in, but again, I have seen zero desire on his part to get back into electoral politics. He’s also a one-man show, and the party is still very much his cult of personality, three leaders later, so I have a hard time envisioning him being a team player and not undermining Poilievre’s authority at every turn.

As for it being a “bold declaration,” I think that on the face of it, it smacks of trying to copy Rishi Sunak giving David Cameron the post in the UK government (along with a seat in the Lords), and Sunak’s government is about to be wiped out in the upcoming general election. There has also been plenty of chatter since this proposal went up over Twitter, and a lot of it is from people who still, to this day, believe that Harper is some kind of Bond villain, and that his IDU is some kind of SPECTRE. He’s not, and it’s not. The IDU is a social club for terrible people, and Harper has spent a lot of time cultivating friendships with autocrats and dictators, and has been part of the move to create permission structures for far-right parties to engage in increasingly autocratic far-right behaviour. It’s hard to think of what kind of cachet Harper is going to have on the foreign policy circuit given that he didn’t really have any foreign policy wins when he was in office. Conservatives love to recount how he allegedly told Putin to get out of Ukraine at a major summit, and look how effective that was—Putin went from occupying Crimea to launching a full-scale invasion of the rest of the country. Harper really showed him! Meanwhile, he’s spent so much time cuddling up to these terrible people and laundering their actions in pretending that they are “centre-right democratic parties,” unless that’s the kind of foreign policy that Poilievre wants to cultivate (which is possible). I just fail to see where DeLorey sees an upside in any of this.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians have been pounding Ukrainian power facilities, including a hydroelectric dam on the Dnipro River, or power supplies in Kharkiv, during which president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is calling on allies to summon the political will to deliver needed air defences. Russia says these are “revenge strikes” for attacks across their border, an claims these military targets including “concentrations of troops and foreign mercenaries.” Ukraine says that Russian oil refineries are legitimate targets. Ukraine is also worried that Russia could be preparing as many as 100,000 troops to make a new offensive push this summer, or to replenish depleted units.

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1771149078010765485

Continue reading →

QP: A late pivot to shouting about Ukraine

Posted on by

It being Wednesday, the prime minister was present to answer all questions, as is his wont, while his deputy was elsewhere. Most of the other leaders were present again today, which is great to see, even if they take up most of the spotlight on Wednesdays. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and after reciting his slogans, and then took a swipe at the Bloc before accusing the prime minister of stoking inflation with “tax hikes” on April 1st (blatantly untrue), and wondered if they would need an election on carbon pricing. Justin Trudeau recited that the carbon rebates give eight our of ten households more back than they pay, and that Conservatives don’t want to help with affordability or climate change. Poilievre insisted that the PBO said that most families will pay more and be negatively impacted—again, not what he actually said—and then said there was a “second tax” coming to Quebec—also not true—and wondered if the Bloc would support the government on this. Trudeau said that if Poilievre listened to Canadians, he would know the cost of inaction is high on farmers and fishers, while the government’s plan puts more money in people’s pockets. Poilievre switched to English to again recite his slogans and repeat his demand to cut the price increase or face a non-confidence motion, and Trudeau reiterated that the plan puts more money back into the pockets of most Canadians than they spend. Poilievre recited a bunch of falsehoods about the impact of the price, and repeated his demand. Trudeau again stated that the choice is more money in the pockets of Canadians. Poilievre raised the numbers from the PBO, knowing full well they are out of context, and Trudeau again repeated that people get more back than they pay.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he raised that the National Assembly voted on yet another unanimous motion to demand that Quebec get full powers for immigration, as though that means anything. Trudeau insisted that they were friends with the Quebec government, and Quebec already has more powers regarding immigration than any other province. Blanchet decried that Quebec pays for asylum seekers and demanded a billion dollars in compensation. Trudeau noted that they are compensating Quebec for asylum seekers. 

Blake Desjarlais rose for the NDP, and demanded the government not cut any funds to Indigenous Services, and Trudeau insisted that they have tripled investments and have come to settlement agreements, and that they were still doing the work. Desjarlais decried that this was insufficient, Trudeau reiterated his same points about the investments made.

Continue reading →

QP: Spike the Hike vs Scrap the Crap

Posted on by

Kicking off the sole sitting week of the month, the prime minister was not present for QP, though he did show up immediately after, for the speeches paying tribute to Brian Mulroney. Trudeau’s deputy was present, however, as were most of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and after rattling off his slogans, he railed about the increasing carbon price, and pivoted to a decree about supposedly closing the forestry sector in Quebec. Chrystia Freeland responded that Quebec has their own system for carbon pricing, which…was not the question. Poilievre noted that wasn’t what he asked, and then asked something around police needing to control crowds for food basket deliveries. Freeland noted that the Conservatives only want to cut supports for those less fortunate. Poilievre switched to English to again rattle off his slogans, and noted military families going to food banks and demanded the levy increase be curtailed. Freeland repeated that the Conservatives only want to cut programmes people rely on. Poilievre declared this to be “fear and falsehoods” and repeated some slogans about the carbon prices. Freeland retorted that Poilievre traffics in fear and falsehoods, and repeated that he wants to cut the carbon rebates. Poilievre read an out of context figure about how much the increase will cost—citing a different figure than what applies to households—and Freeland gave a somewhat confused group of carbon rebate points that didn’t really flow.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and raised the PM’s meeting with François Legault last weekend, and lamented all the things that Trudeau rejected that Legault warned. Marc Miller noted they already have an agreement with the province, but they won’t turn over all powers. Therrien took a swipe at Trudeau’s radio interview on Friday, and Miller repeated that they have constructive dialogue with the province.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP to exhort the government to vote for their Supply Day motion on Palestinian statehood. Mélanie Joly said they agree with the aims of peace, but didn’t say if they would or would not support it. Singh repeated the demand in French, and Joly noted that she was in the region last week, and spoken about a two-state solution but again didn’t give a clear answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The NDP call for more Biden policies

Posted on by

I am once again forced to wonder what exactly is the point of the federal NDP if the only thing they will ever call for are just the policies of the American Democrats, no matter how inappropriate for the Canadian context, or how lazy it is to just regurgitate the American talking points without any critical conception of how Canada is a different country and is not just America divided by ten (well, probably nine now given how fast our population is rising compared to theirs).

Case in point once again—as part of their pre-budget demands, the NDP want the Canadian government to copy Joe Biden’s proposed tax increases on corporations and billionaires, because of course they do. This after years of calling for “windfall” taxes on oil companies and grocery chains, and higher wealth taxes. There are a few problems with this, however, the first being that just because Joe Biden proposes something, it doesn’t mean it’s going to happen—especially if it’s a tax increase after all of the time and energy since the 1980s on tax cuts in that country. Biden doesn’t control Congress, and I have serious doubts he could get the increases passed. And while I would agree that every billionaire is a policy failure, we have so few in Canada—even fewer who file their income taxes here than who are Canadian citizens—that even if we did increase the taxes on them, it would amount to very little. The same with the demands on wealth taxes—we don’t have nearly as many as the Americans, and it wouldn’t really dent our fiscal situation federally. Windfall taxes also come with side-effects, particularly for something like the oil and gas industry, where if we impose these windfall taxes when oil prices are high, it would likely come with an expectation of greater bailouts when those prices crash.

I get that every Canadian political party likes to play fanboy/girl to American politicians, and invite them to their conventions (though the Conservatives lately have eschewed public association with most Republicans, but will instead associate themselves with disastrous UK Conservatives like Boris Johnson), and get organizing lessons from them, but come on. Some actual local policy development that reflects the Canadian economy and polity might be a good idea for a change.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missiles and drones stuck communications infrastructure in north-eastern Ukraine, knocking out television and radio signals in five towns. Ukrainian officials say that two of Russia’s border regions are now “active combat zones” thanks to incursions, primarily by rebel Russian forces located in Ukraine. Ukrainians living in occupied regions of the country are being coerced to vote for Putin in Russia’s elections this week.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A couple of notes on Campbell’s record

Posted on by

The weekend was full of conservatives and other right-leaning commenters chirping about Kim Campbell’s record after her (verifiably true) assessment that Pierre Poilievre is a “liar and a hate-monger” who doesn’t believe in the urgency of climate change. Some of them—such as a certain self-aggrandising independent MP—have been utterly dismissive of Campbell and her record, but most people don’t really understand what happened in 1993, and why the fact that the PCs went from a majority to two seats was hardly her doing.

The thing to remember about Brian Mulroney’s massive majorities was that he had managed to build a particular coalition of conservatives in the Prairies, and that he was won over Quebec, which is incredibly difficult for any conservative to do, and no doubt a lot of this was premised on the (somewhat hubristic) promise that he was going to finish the constitutional project that Pierre Trudeau wasn’t able to complete and bring Quebec “into the fold” (which is mostly hyperbolic nonsense anyway). By 1993, that coalition has collapsed, in part because of the failure of Mulroney’s constitutional projects, being Meech Lake and Charlottetown, the latter referendum failing.

Conservatives in Quebec has largely fallen away to the Bloc, which was formed in part by Mulroney’s old friend and confidante, Lucien Bouchard. To this day, the Dean of the House, Bloc MP Louis Plamondon, was first elected in 1984 as part of Mulroney’s PC landslide, and in 1990, crossed to the nascent Bloc. Meanwhile, the prairie conservatives had defected to the nascent Reform Party under the banner of so-called “Western alienation,” in part because of decisions that Mulroney had made, not only in areas of the constitutional reforms that failed, but also because of things like CF-18 maintenance contracts that were supposed to go to a Winnipeg firm were instead given to those in Montreal, and it exacerbated the existing grievances that the Pierre Trudeau’s National Energy Programme had inflamed (though he was largely blamed for things that were not his fault, like the collapse in world oil prices that the NEP didn’t cause, but were blamed for regardless).

Campbell inherited a PC party that had lost its voter coalition, thanks to Mulroney’s actions. The election went from three parties to five, with two very different regional parties at play. Trying to pin the blame for that collapse on Campbell is classic glass-cliff logic, where she was handed a bag of dogshit and when she didn’t perform a miracle, was given the blame for it. Did she make mistakes in that campaign? Indeed she did. Could she have resurrected the party’s fortunes with the voter coalition disbanded? Certainly not in the time allotted. For modern conservatives to say that her “record speaks for itself” don’t seem to understand what actually happened in the early 1990s, and instead are showing a particularly misogynistic streak in how they are choosing to attack her and her record.

Ukraine Dispatch:

One woman was killed in Russian shelling in the Kursk region on Sunday. Two people were killed, including a teenager, in Russian artillery attacks on the Dnipropetrovosk region on Saturday, and Russia claimed to have shot down a Ukrainian fighter jet. Here is a horrifying look at the rapes and torture that Russians have subjected Ukrainian prisoners to, particularly in occupied areas.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Running interference for Scott Moe

Posted on by

There is no shortage of terrible opinion pieces in Canadian media, but I believe that the prize for utterly missing the point comes from the Globe and Mail yesterday, where John Ibbitson tried to lay the blame for Saskatchewan’s flirtation with lawlessness on Justin Trudeau, with the headline accusing him of “botching” national unity. It’s a…curious accusation, because the implication therein is that if the federal government doesn’t accede to every demand or tantrum of the provinces that they can be accused of damaging national unity. I take that back. It’s not curious, it’s utterly absurd and wrong.

Ibbitson goes to great pains to both point out how unprecedented it is that Saskatchewan is going to break federal law, but then turns around to run interference for Scott Moe and tries to insist that this is really Trudeau’s fault because he used federal spending powers to “bend provinces” to his will rather than negotiate, and in imposing the federal carbon price on provinces who failed to meet national standards. Both of those are half-truths at best—there is nothing illegitimate about using federal spending powers to get provinces on board to ensure that there are equitable services across the country, particularly for programmes with greater economic good such as early learning and child care. As for the carbon price, provinces had an opportunity to come up with their own system that met minimum standards, and most provinces refused. He also didn’t explain that when the system was enacted, most provinces already had carbon pricing in place (Alberta and Ontario both changed governments who dismantled their systems and were subsequently subjected to the federal system), and he doesn’t spell out that BC and Quebec have their own systems that meet the standards.

Yes, the federal government should have found a different solution to the problem of heating oil than the “pause,” and doomed themselves when they announced it with all of their Atlantic MPs behind them. I’m not disputing that. But while Ibbitson insists that this doesn’t justify Saskatchewan’s lawlessness, he thinks that the best solution is to “reach some sort of compromise.” Like what? He won’t say. He just laments that “Canada doesn’t work like that right now.” Did it ever? What compromise can there be when one province breaks the law and tries to justify it with a fig leaf of “fairness” but obscures the facts and truth of the situation? This kind of white bread, milquetoast “Why can’t we find a compromise?” handwringing is a hallmark of a certain generation of punditry, and it serves absolutely no one.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces downed 33 out of 37 Russian drones fired at Odesa, the remainder of which damaged infrastructure, though there were other attacks in the north in Sumy and Kharkiv that cost civilian lives. There are concerns that safety is deteriorating at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, as the international community keeps trying to convince Russians to leave the site. India says they have encountered a human trafficking racket which promises young men jobs in Russia, and then forces them to fight in Ukraine on their behalf.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another NDP budget demand

Posted on by

The NDP’s latest budget demand is a national school food programme, which is a) provincial jurisdiction, and b) something already under negotiation with provinces. This was a Liberal campaign promise, and as with many a file like this, they’ve been doing the heavy lifting in the background. For Jagmeet Singh, however, this isn’t happening fast enough, because in his conception of how governing works, the prime minister simply needs to put on his Green Lantern Ring and use enough willpower to make whatever he wants happen, and in the NDP’s conception, that generally means something that obliterates the federal and provincial jurisdictional boundaries.

I suspect a couple of things are at work—one of them is that if the federal government does come to an agreement with the provinces, Singh can try and claim victory for it, as he does with most things that he has done absolutely no work towards other than throwing a public tantrum. If this is a matter of the provinces looking for more federal money, then it will take time to ensure that the agreements are drawn up in a manner that has strings attached because we know that we absolutely cannot trust provinces to take the money and put it entirely where it is supposed to go (bitter experience with health transfers and pandemic supports), because as we’ve seen in child care, where there are agreements with strings, that some provinces have not been spending the federal funds where they are supposed to go, which remains a very big problem.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A man was killed in a Russian missile strike in the Kharkiv region, while five people were killed when a bus struck a mine in Luhansk region. One of Ukraine’s top commanders says they will stabilize their defensive position shortly, with the aim of returning to counter-offensive actions later in the year. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in Odesa with the prime minister of Greece when a Russian strike exploded nearby the pair. Here is a look at Europe’s attempt to get more ammunition to Ukraine, including a Czech initiative to deliver stockpiles until production can ramp up.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A stunt at committee everyone fell for

Posted on by

The Conservatives, and Michael Chong in particular, pulled a stunt yesterday where they tried to call for an emergency meeting at the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee to study the Winnipeg Lab documents. Liberal and NDP members on the committee said that this isn’t the right committee and this isn’t an emergency, and shut it down. This was the Conservatives’ plan, so that they could take to social media and scream and caterwaul about the “cover-up coalition,” and just like they planned, virtually every single pundit and media outlet did their bidding for them.

To wit, this is that particular committee’s mandate:

“Under Standing Order 108(3)(h), the Committee’s mandate is to study matters related to reports of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, and the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner pursuant to the Conflict of Interest Act (matters related to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons are studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs). The Committee can also study any legislation or regulation or propose initiatives that relate to access to information and privacy and to ethical standards relating to public office holders.”

This study has absolutely nothing to do with it, and while there should be some kind of parliamentary scrutiny, it belongs most likely at the Health Committee, as PHAC would fall within their remit, and possibly Public Safety and National Security, but not Ethics. The NDP think this should go to the Canada-China Relations committee, but I also find that one to be a bit of a stretch (because I also think that committee is little more than a sideshow). But again, it was wholly appropriate for the Ethics committee to shut this down, because it was only meant to be a stunt.

It’s absolutely maddening to see how many media outlets and pundits walked right into this trap and let themselves get played. The CBC, for example, both-sided it, with the headline of “Conservatives accuse,” and the Liberals pointing out this was the wrong committee halfway down the piece. The Canadian Press both-sidesed it more concisely, and didn’t provide any context about the committee. The Globe and Mail, somewhat predictably, downplayed the Liberals and NDP pointing out that this was the wrong committee, gave over plenty of space to the Conservative argument that it should be without actually checking it against the statutory remit of the committee, and privileged Michael Chong’s comments, when he is not on the committee and was 100 percent pulling a stunt.

The thing is that this keeps happening—Conservatives have been regularly proposing studies on issues that committees have no remit over (such as trying to get the Public Accounts committee to go after the Trudeau Foundation), and then crying foul when they don’t play along, and then drive social media engagement off of the faked outrage. Rules matter. Parliamentary procedure matters. It’s not a “process story” you can dismiss, it’s bad faith actors playing the media, and the media going along with it when they should know better.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say they stopped a Russian advance near Avdiivka, but that Russian troops appear to be regrouping further south.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Winnipeg Lab documents revealed at last

Posted on by

We finally got a look at the Winnipeg Lab documents yesterday, and the reason why those two research scientists were fired, and it’s certainly far more innocuous than the lurid tales that certain Conservative MPs have been telling over the years. The short version is that the scientists in question, likely out of sheer naïveté and belief in the goodness of science, were far too trusting of Chinese counterparts, and didn’t like to follow rules and protocols when they didn’t feel like it, and eventually, lied to CSIS security screeners about their activities. This doesn’t appear to be some kind of major espionage, but a pair of scientists were entirely too precious, and were used to having their own way, and became security risks as a result, hence their termination.

It shouldn’t have taken this long to see the documents, but this was a whole dog-and-pony show for the Conservatives, who demanded—bizarrely­—that the Commons’ law clerk do the redactions for the documents rather than trained public servants, never mind that the clerk has no national security training and doesn’t know what to look for in terms of potential security issues. Even though the government turned the documents over to NSICOP in an unredacted form, the Conservatives went and boycotted the committee for theatrical reasons alone, and eventually, the government came up with an ad hoc process that involved MPs from all parties and retired judges to go through the documents, and it took years longer than it should have if they just let NSICOP do its work in the first place. There was no reason for them to object and to do this song and dance, and make false accusations about what was being hidden, and yet they carried on like this for years for absolutely no reason.

Predictably, Pierre Poilievre is trying to make this an issue about Justin Trudeau “allowing” this potential security breach, except that these scientists did most of their work in the Harper era, and the Public Health Agency of Canada is an arm’s-length agency, which the government cannot micro-manage. Kind of like CBSA. There has been zero contrition from Michael Chong about the fact that he has been spinning outright fictions and conspiracy theories about these documents for the past four years, but he sold out his integrity years ago, so none of this is surprising. And now that these documents have been released, I will point out that reporter Dylan Robertson was getting these stories and had the context of their firing correct when he was reporting on this for the Winnipeg Free Press years ago. That reporting all stands up with the release of these documents, and he deserves major props for it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians bombed the Kharkiv region, killing four people including a six-year-old girl and a priest. Here’s a look at the new chief of military intelligence for Ukraine, who has hinted that the country’s previous counter-offensive plans wound up in Russian hands before it had begun. Ukraine’s finance minister says they need about $3 billion in foreign aid per month in order to maintain macroeconomic stability through the year.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The AG’s report into ArriveCan

Posted on by

The Auditor General released her report into ArriveCan yesterday, and it was suitably scathing, but in spite of Pierre Poilievre throwing arounds words like “corruption” and blaming the prime minister directly, the AG’s criticisms were squarely directed to the CBSA. It bears mentioning that CBSA is a federal agency, not a department, which means that it operates at arm’s length of government. Unlike a department, they don’t have direct political oversight, and while the president of CBSA reports to the public safety minister, and will accept broad political direction, the government does not direct operations (much like the CRA or RCMP).

So just what did she find? A complete lack of paperwork, of checks and balances, or of proper management or contracting practices, right up to the point of the outside contractor taking senior CBSA officials out to dinners and helping write the terms for when the contract would be put out to tender in a way that benefitted them. Once again, it’s hard to pin this on the government or Cabinet because they’re not involved in this level of decision-making. The Conservatives like to characterise this as “Liberal insiders” or “cronies” getting rich, but again, the report draws none of these conclusions. Meanwhile, those senor officials are now suspended, and there is an ongoing RCMP investigation, which is appropriate, while CBSA’s internal audit is ongoing.

There is an open question as to the reliance on outside contractors, which may be appropriate considering that CBSA wouldn’t have required the presence of app developers on their IT staff as a matter of course, and I’m not sure if this could have been contracted out to Shared Services Canada either (though given SSC’s history, I’m not sure I’d be confident in the quality of that product). And that’s fair enough. The problem becomes that they cut every corner and disregarded the rules in the process, whereas transparent contracting and proper paper trails and records of approval processes could have shown this to be a viable exercise, but we can’t know that because of how they ultimately behaved. So, while Poilievre and Jagmeet Singh insist that civil servants could have done the work, I’m not convinced, but that doesn’t mean that this still wasn’t handled in the worst way possible.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces attacked a power plant in Dnipro with missiles and drones, cutting off power and water supplies to some residents. Analysis shows that Russia used Zircon hypersonic missiles against targets in Kyiv on February 7th. Ukraine is looking to produce thousands of long-range drones this year. Ukrainian military intelligence suggests that Russia has been obtaining Starlink terminals through third countries.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1757040939929944128

Continue reading →