Tag Archives: CBSA

Roundup: Back to challenging the Speaker once again

Posted on by

Not unexpectedly, a number of MPs have renewed the call to oust Greg Fergus from the Speaker’s chair after Tuesday’s dramatics during Question Period. For the Bloc, who soured on Fergus shortly after his election and his recording a video in his robes, they’re complaining that he can’t control the room, which is a bit unfair because MPs themselves have hobbled the Speaker’s ability to enforce decorum by giving him narrow powers in the Standing Orders. This logic also ignores the culpability of those who are making the noise—the Speaker isn’t making them behave like that. And for the record, Fergus says he’s not stepping down.

For the Conservatives, however, they are playing the victim, as is a common far-right tactic these days, and claiming that he had a double standard on Tuesday. Their proof—that prime minister Justin Trudeau wasn’t forced to retract or get named when he referred to Poilievre’s “spineless leadership” in not denouncing far-right extremists and Alex Jones. Note that the language Trudeau used was that the leadership was spineless, he did not call Poilievre that. And he was warned about inflammatory language, and he rephrased. Poilievre called Trudeau “whacko,” which was is a direct attack, and then refused to withdraw the word when instructed to—and again, the prevarication and wheedling of trying to replace the word is not respecting the Speaker’s authority, especially when invited to simply withdraw four times. There is a difference between what each leader said and how each responded, and if Conservatives can’t tell that difference, then they have a real problem with their critical thinking skills, which isn’t a good thing for an MP.

There was added drama when Conservative MP Rachael Thomas, who now claims that she withdrew her remarks yesterday but was ejected anyway, and more to the point, says that Hansard was edited to justify Fergus’ decision. Recall that Fergus was cautioning her for yelling at him during an outburst, to which she shot back “I have big problems with the Chair.” Fergus told her to withdraw that, to which Thomas’s response was “Mr. Speaker, I stated that the Chair is acting in a disgraceful manner,” and then says that she added “I withdraw,” which is also in the Blues (meaning the unedited transcripts before they go for final polish). But I was sitting right above her, and didn’t hear her say “I withdraw,” but even if she did, you can’t challenge the Speaker again and then just say “I withdraw” and expect no consequences. That’s not even like a qualified apology, it’s openly challenging a second time, and then trying to give yourself a fig-leaf of cover. That’s bullshit, and she knows it.

To put a cherry on top of this, CBC dug up video of then-Speaker Andrew Scheer saying you can’t challenge the integrity of the Speaker, which includes allegations of partisanship, and lo, what are they doing now? Rules for thee but not for me is very much their modus operandi, and it’s not great for democracy.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian ballistic missile struck a postal depot in Odesa, injuring fourteen and starting a huge fire, and Russians claim to have struck Ukraine’s southern command post in the same attack. There was also a guided bomb attack in the Kharkiv region, killing two in an attack on the village of Zolochiv, while there was also an attack on the town of Hirnyk near the front lines, which killed at least two more people. Drone footage shows the way that Chasiv Yar has been devastated by Russian bombardment as the move toward it, while Ukrainian forces in that area say they badly need more ammunition. The US is accusing Russia of breaking international chemical weapons ban by deploying choking agent chloropicrin against Ukrainian troops.

Continue reading →

QP: The provocation and the restraint

Posted on by

After all of yesterday’s drama, it was a real question as to what was going to go down today, with the prime minister present, and there to respond to (but not necessarily answer) all questions. His deputy was absent, but all other leaders were present. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, worrying about the public health director suggesting decriminalisation in Montreal and Quebec, and demanded the government deny the request. Justin Trudeau said that they should take a moment to reflect on what happened yesterday, and said that the government takes the tragedy in BC seriously and they work with science and compassion, and will work with BC on adjusting their pilot project. Poilievre demanded to know if he would reject a request from Quebec, and Trudeau said that they worked with BC when they made the proposal, and he has received no other proposals. Poilievre switched to English, dropped the Montreal angle and demanded he reverse course on BC’s decriminalisation. Trudeau repeated that they will work with BC to adjust their pilot project. Poilievre insisted that Trudeau still hasn’t answered the question, and went into six British Columbians dying every day, and Trudeau repeated that BC approached them with the pilot project, and they worked with them to develop the project, and they looking into the modifications of the project they have asked for. Poilievre very slowly demanded that he reverse decriminalisation, and Trudeau again said they were working with BC.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, needled the Bloc for declaring they will support the budget, before going on about Amira Elghawaby making comments about the challenge to Quebec’s Law 21. Trudeau said that they build bridges by funding infrastructure and by helping communities come together. Blanchet railed about Elghawaby and halal mortgages, somehow, and insisted that some communities were getting other privileges. Trudeau said that in a pluralistic democracy, it’s important to talk to communities in order to meet their concerns.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he raised the Loblaws boycott, and the fact the grocery task force has done no work. Trudeau says that they are concerned with Loblaws not signing onto the grocery code of conduct, and they have given the Competition Bureau new powers. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same answer.

Continue reading →

QP: Two ejections and a walkout

Posted on by

Tuesday, and both the prime minister and his deputy were present, which is a nice change. All of the other leaders were present as well, and Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and blamed the federal government’s “radical drug policies” (which aren’t federal) for tripling overdose deaths and claimed Bloc support, and cited newspaper reports about safe consumption sites near schools in Montreal. Trudeau insisted that they need solutions grounded in compassion, healthcare and science to fix the problem. Poilievre switched to English to repeat that the “radical” drug policy has resulted in even more deaths, and demanded the prime minister listen to the NDP to re-criminalise these drugs, which is not the demand—the demand is to re-criminalise public use only. Trudeau said that he already answered this and called out Poilievre consorting with white nationalists. Poilievre said that he denounces extremists and racists including the guy who spent the first half of his adult life dressing up in racist costumes, meaning the prime minister, and after he was cautioned by the Speaker, Poilievre changed his denunciation of the prime minister for funding Laith Marouf and not condemning the IRGC. Trudeau got up and pointed out that Poilievre was spineless, and in the ensuring uproar, Rachael Thomas wound up being named and kicked out for the day. Fergus warned Trudeau, and he re-started his response, saying Poilievre is courting radicals and gave a denunciation of Diagolon. Poilievre got back to calling Trudeau a “radical” for not banning drugs, and Trudeau retorted that Poilievre is still not denouncing groups like Diagolon, Poilievre accused Trudeau of killing 25,000 British Columbians by way of his “extremist” policies, and called him a “whacko prime minister.” Fergus again got up to ask Poilievre to withdraw the term, and Poilievre said he withdraws “whacko” and replaces it with “extremist,” which did not satisfy Fergus. Poilievre said he would replace with “radical,” and Fergus said that wasn’t the request. Poilievre still didn’t withdraw the remark, and after consultant with the Clerk, Fergus asked one last time to withdraw the comment. Poilievre pushed again, did not withdraw, and Fergus named him too, and Poilievre left the Chamber to great  applause on his side, followed by most of his caucus, who started screaming at the Speaker on their way out. After everything settled down, Trudeau started his last response, again calling out Diagolon, during which Michael Barrett screamed that Trudeau was endorsed by Hamas, and after yet another disruption, Trudeau finished by saying Poilievre’s plan to overturn Charter rights is dangerous, and by this time, every Conservative had left the Chamber.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, congratulated the Speaker for his good sense, and then decried government management and told them to stay out of Quebec’s jurisdiction. Trudeau said that his responsibility is to take care of Quebeckers everywhere. Blachet raised the premiers’ letter about staying out of their jurisdiction (but still giving them money), Trudeau dismissed this as the Bloc just picking fights.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he raised the report that 25 percent of Quebecker are in poverty but tied this to Big Oil, somehow. Trudeau noted that they have prioritised creating equal opportunities for all generations in the budget. Heather McPherson railed against Danielle Smith’s attack on pensions and demanded support for her private member’s bill on protecting pensions. Trudeau thanked her for supporting them in standing up for Canadians but did not commit to supporting the bill.

Continue reading →

QP: Two solitudes and a scripted gotcha

Posted on by

The first Monday after a constituency week, and the prime minister was off to deliver a “fireside chat” at a union event, but his deputy was present for a change, and this was to be her first opportunity to answer questions since the budget was released. Most but not all of the other leaders were also present. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, cited a figure that said that 25 percent of Quebeckers are below the poverty line, and blamed the federal government’s spending with Bloc support. Chrystia Freeland noted their commitment to tax fairness versus Conservative austerity. Poilievre worried about debt servicing charges and again blamed Bloc support, to which Freeland said this wasn’t true, noted the Aaa credit rating, and their responsibility. Poilievre switched to English to lament the scourge of open drug use in BC, and demanded these drugs be re-criminalized. Ya’ara Saks said that they are reviewing the request of BC, because they have a plan for public health while the Conservatives did not. Poilievre insisted that this was chaos and disorder brought about by the Liberals demanding to know “What the hell are they thinking?” and got a caution from the Speaker. Steve MacKinnon got up to raise the fact that Poilievre was consorting with a far right encampment and got drowned out, and when the Speaker restored order, MacKinnon invited him to disavow white supremacists and Alex Jones. Poilievre says he disavows the person who spent the first half of of his life being a racist—meaning Trudeau—before demanding the federal government not allow Toronto decriminalise drugs like BC has. MacKinnon read a script about Poilievre showing who he really is.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and raised a poll that said Quebeckers want the provincial government to take care of things, not the federal government, and demanded unconditional fiscal transfers. Pablo Rodriguez said that the Bloc were simply trying to find excuses to vote against the budget. Therrien raised all of the premiers writing that they want unconditional transfers instead of federal interference, and Rodriguez repeated that the Bloc were merely looking to pick a fight.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he denounced the government’s disability benefit in the budget, to which Freeland patted herself on the back for this programme, and insisted this was just the first step which meant working carefully with provinces. Singh repeated the question in French, and Freeland repeated her same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Soft-pedalling the extremist camp

Posted on by

It has been very interesting to watch how legacy media outlets have been covering Pierre Poilievre’s appearance at a “tax revolt” encampment on the Nova Scotia border, but also very, very predictable. For example, they take at face value that this is some kind of “anti-carbon tax” protest, much as they did during the Occupation of downtown Ottawa, but don’t actually who all of the participants are. While they may note that there are Diagolon signs, none of the outlets mentioned that much of this encampment is made up of adherents to the “sovereign citizens” movement, which is a dangerous movement that believes that with some special incantations, they can opt themselves out of laws or obligations like paying taxes. That’s kind of a big deal to be overlooked.

Somewhat hilariously, they all got the vapours over the fact that Poilievre said of Justin Trudeau “People believed his lies. Everything he said was bullshit, from top to bottom.” *gasp!* No mention of course that this was projection, that everything that Poilievre says is lies and bullshit, because they couldn’t possibly. And then it veered off to Trudeau’s response that this is a sign that Poilievre will do “anything to win,” and the whole stupid thing about not disavowing Alex Jones, which seems to be the wrong thing to try and hang this whole thing on. The matter is not that Poilievre is getting the endorsement of the biggest conspiracy theory charlatan in the United States, but rather that he is courting far-right extremists and making false promises to them that he can never keep, and that will have consequences down the road.

This being said, I also find it somewhat predictable that all of the conservatives who had a field day with the head of Hamas thanking Canada for a UN vote—which was a clear information operation—are now whinging and crying about the Alex Jones attention, and saying that Poilievre doesn’t follow him so he shouldn’t need to denounce him. I mean, good for the goose and the gander here, but if you think one is legitimate to make hay with, the other should be fair game as well by your own rules of engagement. Neither of you should make hay over these things, but consistency would be nice.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missiles struck residential buildings in Kharkiv, injuring six people. Ukraine launched its own drone attack against a major Russian steel factory in Lipetsk region, and partially destroyed an “oxygen station” that should do long-term damage wo their work. Ukraine’s government has also clamped down on military-aged men applying for passports as they try to deal with their mobilisation woes.

Continue reading →

QP: Bizarre accusations, crying about being shushed

Posted on by

As the countdown to the budget release was underway, neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present, and while she had the excuse of being in the budget lock-up meeting with journalists, I’m not sure the PM’s excuse. Most of the other leaders were also present, and Pierre Poilievre led off in French, read off his slogans, and then claimed that the “millionaire prime minister’s” friends who never pay for the cost of his spending, but welders and single mothers. François-Philippe Champagne insisted that the Conservatives have no vision and no plan, and nothing but new slogans, while a country that has ambition is one that invests. Poilievre insisted that their vision was to replace his boss, and complained about the size of the debt and deficit. Champagne noted that slogans don’t build homes, pave roads, or create jobs. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his slogans, and railed that seniors and single mothers who foot the bill for the government spending and not their “wealthy friends.” Anita Anand listed supports for people while remaining fiscally prudent. Poilievre listed other “working class” people that he is in support of, and Anand repeated her same assurances. Poilievre insisted that the Liberals are the problem and not the solution, but Sean Fraser took this one, mocked Poilievre’s statements about electricians capturing lighting or welders using their bare hands, and suggested he talked to people with real jobs—as Poilievre walked out during said answer.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, claiming that Quebec was being “cheated” out of housing funds, and demanded they pay their fair share of housing funds immediately. Fraser said that the Bloc are not defining housing policy in Quebec while they have an agreement with the provincial government to build 8,000 homes. Therrien demanded a second time, and this time Pablo Rodriguez got up to rant about the Bloc not doing anything but pick fights.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and praised Biden’s policies in the US, to which Champagne took issue with the premise, and praised their work in fixing competition in the country. Laurel Collins complained that the government wasn’t going to implement a windfall tax on oil and gas companies. Jonathan Wilkinson got up to list the measures they are taking to reduce emissions. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Economists endorse carbon pricing, not the Liberal plan

Posted on by

Yesterday, a group of leading Canadian economists published an open letter about the facts about carbon pricing and the rebates, and debunked several claims that conservatives around the country have been making. It was a good and necessary corrective, but of course, legacy media headlined it as them defending the Liberal plan, which they weren’t doing, particularly because while the Liberal plan includes the carbon levy and rebates, it also is full of regulation and subsidies, which these economics are explicitly not in favour of. But legacy media loves to make this a partisan fight where they have to be on one side or the other. Liberal Party comms didn’t do themselves any favours either on this one.

To that end, here is energy economist Andrew Leach on carbon pricing, and throwing some shade at the PBO’s rather shite report once more.

Meanwhile, a number of premiers demanded to be heard at the House of Commons’ finance committee about the carbon levy, because they think that’ll do them any good, but instead, the Conservative chair of the Government Operations Committee invited them to testify today. The Government Operations Committee has fuck all to do with this file, but apparently, we no longer care about things like committee mandates anymore, so long as you can put on a dog and pony show, and gather clips for social media shitpost videos, that’s all that matters. This shouldn’t be allowed, but this is the state to which our Parliament has now debased itself. Ours is no longer a serious institution for doing serious work. It’s only about content creation, and I cannot stress enough about how absolutely terrifying this is for the future of democracy.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Ukrainian missile attack struck a Russian naval reconnaissance vessel as well as a large landing warship. Ukraine’s navy says that they have destroyed or disabled a third of the Russian Black Sea fleet over the past two years. Here’s a look at how Ukraine’s burgeoning domestic defence industry is ramping up to provide necessary ammunition for the war. Here’s a great explanation of Ukraine’s use of drone warfare with some excellent infographics.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1772541600591147503

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 →

Roundup: Making up censorship claims

Posted on by

Facing pressure for dismissing the Online Harms bill before he had even seen it, Pierre Poilievre put out a statement yesterday that said that things like child sexual exploitation or “revenge porn” should be criminal matters, and that police should be involved and not a new “bureaucratic” agency. It’s a facile answer that betrays the lack of resources that law enforcement devotes to these matters, or the fact that when it comes to harassment or hate, many police bodies have a tendency not to believe victims, especially if they are women.

But then Poilievre went one step further, saying “We do not believe that the government should be banning opinions that contradict the Prime Minister’s radical ideology.” I’m not sure where exactly in the bill he sees anything about banning opinions, because he made that part up. More to the point, the provisions in the bill around hate speech quite literally follow the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Whatcott, and codifies them, which means the standard is exposing someone to “vilification or detestation” if they are a member of a group that is a prohibited grounds for discrimination. That means that it goes beyond “opinion” one doesn’t like. The minister confirmed that “awful but lawful” content will not be touched, because the standard in the bill is hate speech as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada. And it would seem to me that if the standard of “hate speech is bad” is “radical ideology” in your mind, well then, you are probably telling on yourself.

Speaking of Poilievre making things up, he spent the afternoon loudly proclaiming that the RCMP sent him a letter saying they were investigating ArriveCan. Then he posted the letter on Twitter. The letter doesn’t say they are investigating. It literally says they are assessing all available information. That is not an investigation. That’s deciding if they want to investigate. The fact that he released the letter that doesn’t say they are investigating, and says that it proves they are investigating, feels like a big test of the cognitive dissonance he expects in his followers, which is just one more reason why our democracy is in serious trouble.

Ukraine Dispatch:

As Ukrainian forces withdrew from two more villages near Avdiivka, one of which Russia has claimed the capture of, there are concerns that Russia is stepping up influence operations to scupper international support. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has landed in Saudi Arabia for meetings related to his peace plan and a push to get prisoners and deportees released from Russia. In Europe, NATO countries have been backing away from statements that French president Emmanuel Macron made about not excluding any options to avert a Russian victory in Ukraine, which were presumed to mean western troops. (Macron said this was about creating “strategic ambiguity.”)

Continue reading →

QP: Brandishing an RCMP letter

Posted on by

Neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present today, though both were back in town (if a bit jet-lagged from their travel over the weekend), while only a few other leaders were present. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and after reciting some slogans, he said that the RCMP had confirmed that they have opened an investigation into ArriveCan, and tried to tie in the Aga Khan and SNC Lavalin. Dominic LeBlanc said that they have been giving authorities all of the documents they request. Poilievre repeated the question in English, and LeBlanc repeated his same response in English. Poilievre then cited a Food Bank report, and demanded the carbon levy be lifted (which has nothing to do with food price inflation). François-Philippe Champagne deployed his usual “take no lessons” line before saying that Conservatives on the committee were defending the profit margins of food processors, and exhorted then to support Bill C-59. Poilievre tried again, and Champagne patted himself on the back for spearheading the largest reform of competition in history. Poilievre then cited the existence of a dumpster diving Facebook group and blamed it on the carbon price. Sean Fraser got up to list assistance programmes that Poilievre and the Conservatives have voted against.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he repeated yesterday’s question about federal government spending to give other provinces what Quebec already has, and wanted compensation to opt out of any national pharmacare. Mark Holland said that a bill would be coming soon, and exhorted them not to criticise a bill they haven’t seen. Therrien wanted compensation to Quebec and the ability to opt out of dental care, and Holland insisted this was just trying to pick fights rather than helping people who need it.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he complained that people in Quebec can’t get a family do form which should be a question for François Legault. Holland said that they were cooperating with provinces, and that it takes time. Don Davies gave a non-Quebec-centric version of the same question, and Holland went on a tear about how the Conservatives would cut while the current government is investing. 

Continue reading →