Tag Archives: CF-18 Fighters

Roundup: The tone of the interference debate gets worse

Posted on by

Because we are in an era of bad faith and lowest-common-denominator shitposting, Pierre Poilievre called a press conference yesterday to assert that Justin Trudeau was working in China’s interests against Canada—no doubt catnip to the conspiracy theorists whom he has been trying to attract to his banner, who carry signs about “treason” and who carry nooses to rallies. Even one-time sensible moderate Michael Chong has gone on television to be “just asking questions” about Trudeau’s loyalty to Canada, which is frankly beyond the pale. (Poilievre also said some absolute nonsense about LNG in Canada and his steadfast belief that there would have been a market for it if not for red tape—never mind that proponents could find buyers and couldn’t make a business case to proceed with projects that were fully permitted).

Trudeau later responded that Poilievre’s was eroding faith in democracy with this kind of rhetoric, but that’s kind of the point with this brand of populists. They are trying to erode faith in institutions so that they can insert themselves as the solution to the problems of democracy, without needing to worry about things like minority rights. Not that Trudeau has helped, with his back-patting and platitudes, which doesn’t push back against this kind of threat. (Some good analysis here).

In the meantime, we wait for the announcement of the special rapporteur, but if the goal is to have opposition sign-off, that could be difficult. The NDP say they are cautiously optimistic, but the Bloc want someone who has pre-determined that there needs to be an inquiry, while the Conservatives are likely to engage in bad faith regardless of what happens, so the ability for there to be consensus on a name is not a hope I am holding out for. But seriously—everybody howling for a public inquiry doesn’t seem to realise that NSICOP is likely more independent, because a public inquiry would be appointed by Cabinet, with terms of reference set by Cabinet, and would report to Cabinet. The government is trying to create some distance from themselves with this rapporteur, but nobody wants to hear the actual process or procedure around the demands they’re making.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1633129536358346755

Ukraine Dispatch:

Kyiv is disavowing a group that has been making raids over the border in Russia, while other small groups within Russia are also conducting sabotage operations in opposition to Putin. Ukrainian officials have identified the soldier in a video that was executed by Russians, in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1633042812605280256

Continue reading →

Roundup: End of the 2022 fall sitting

Posted on by

Yesterday was the last sitting day of 2022 for the House of Commons, and as is common at this time of year, everyone is cranky and ready to go home and have a nap, and this year is no different. This being said, Question Period has been pretty sedate overall the past few weeks, and there have been pre-Xmas QPs in years past that were rancorous, and we haven’t had that. Nevertheless, the government is in definite need of time to go regroup after the way they utterly ballsed-up their own gun control legislation, as well as some of the other problems with bills like their broadcasting and online news legislation. Hopefully some time away will help them get their priorities straight, and to fix the mistakes they made by either being too clever by half, or by sheer incompetence (and sometimes it’s a tossup as to what the problem was indeed).

I will note that there was an outcry over Twitter from members of the disability community that the Canada Disability Benefit legislation didn’t pass before they rose, and an NDP MP tried to pass a motion to give emergency funds in the interim, as though that were remotely feasibly and wouldn’t result in provinces clawing back their own meagre benefits. (Seriously, CERB was not magic.) The thing that needs to be remembered is that the CDB bill is just a framework—even if it passed yesterday, it wouldn’t pass the Senate in time, and when it does pass, it needs to go through a massive regulatory process to fill in the benefits, which also needs to be done with provincial negotiations so that we don’t wind up in a situation where provinces either claw-back benefits or funding so that these people are worse off than they were before, or where things wind up in a situation where other supports are withdrawn because they were means-tested and the federal benefit moves them out of reach of those thresholds, which again, will disadvantage those who need it. None of this is happening overnight, and it’s a process. So frankly, the fact that the bill didn’t pass before Xmas this year is not surprising, and wouldn’t have an immediate impact in any case.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 295:

Ukrainian authorities say that they intercepted and destroyed thirteen explosive-laden drones headed for Kyiv yesterday, but the wreckage still damaged five buildings. Meanwhile, Russia has said there will be no Christmas ceasefire in Ukraine, which isn’t surprising (though the only thing even less surprising would be them agreeing to it and then reneging). In the meantime, they have shelled the regional administrative centre in Kherson, because.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More nuclear concerns with more shelling

Posted on by

We are now into day thirteen of Russia’s (stalled) invasion into Ukraine, and things don’t seem to be advancing much more at the moment. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy posted a video showing that he was still in his office working, citing that he was unafraid, while photos circulated of Ukrainian forces taking out the supply convoy for the stalled convoy that has been stuck on the approach to Kyiv for days now. Meanwhile, Russian forces destroyed another nuclear facility—this time an atomic physics lab, which also provided medical isotopes to the country, so that’s a very bad thing.

Justin Trudeau was in London yesterday, where he met with Boris Johnson and Mark Rutte of the Netherlands to discuss more coordinated actions and further sanctions against high-ranking Russian officials, in advance of further meetings later in the week. Trudeau did make mention of possible higher military spending, but as we discussed yesterday, it’s hard to see how that will help if we already can’t spend what we’re allocating currently because of capacity constraints. Trudeau also pledged support for Europeans in getting off of their dependence on Russian hydrocarbons, but in spite of what Jason Kenney seems to think, we have no current LNG export capacity nor can we build any anytime soon, so this support will appear to be more geared toward their own green transition rather than to Canadian-sourced product.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1500851840136712192

Trudeau also met with the Queen yesterday, and they apparently chatted for some 45 minutes, when a usual audience lasts 20, so that’s a promising sign. It was her first event post-COVID, and it was nice to see her back on her feet again.

https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1500825664634687488

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bold new climate action

Posted on by

As expected, Justin Trudeau and Jonathan Wilkinson (along with Steven Guilbeault for good measure) announced the next round of climate action to get us to the Paris targets, and it includes a rapidly increasing carbon price, which immediately had conservative premiers like Doug Ford and Jason Kenney go into full meltdown about how this was going to crush the economy and make life unaffordable for people – never mind that it’s designed to be revenue neutral. We even had political show hosts try to frame this issue as “can we afford climate action when the economy is terrible?” which is both irresponsible in that it presents a false binary and a wrong expectation that climate action is costly as opposed to able to provide cost savings. As part of this, a more enhanced rebate for those provinces subject to the federal price was announced so that people will be getting larger quarterly front-loaded rebates so that they can offset their increased costs and make smarter choices and keep more of their money.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1337535225245655041

Meanwhile, Heather Scoffield declares the plan to be bold, but worries that there is no alternative to a carbon price if the Supreme Court of Canada strikes down the current one (but that ignores that they could impose it by a different legislative mechanism). Paul Wells is also surprised by the audacity of the plan, given that this government likes to try and take the easy route rather than make the politically hard sell of carbon pricing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Framing for controversy

Posted on by

I try to give my brethren in the media the benefit of the doubt as often as possible, but yesterday there were two egregious examples of places where they framed a quote in a way that gave it a particular perception, and then went and tried to make news about that perception. The first example was to take a quote from Trudeau from the Global News interview from the night before, and tried very hard to make it look like Trudeau was blaming Trump for the deaths on Flight PS752.

“If there were no tensions, if there was no escalation recently in the region, those Canadians would be right now home with their families,” said Trudeau. “This is something that happens when you have conflict and war. Innocents bear the brunt of it and it is a reminder why all of us need to work so hard on de-escalation, moving forward to reduce tensions and find a pathway that doesn’t involve further conflict and killing.”

If you notice, the focus was – quite rightly – on the fact that civilians get caught in the crossfire of war. But the various outlets in this country (and the US – Fox News in particular) tried to frame this as Trudeau blaming Trump, which he didn’t actually do. And then, CBC had their Washington correspondents getting reaction to the “perception” that Trudeau was blaming Trump, even when he wasn’t, and in interviews, kept aggressively going after the perception of the comments, without actually acknowledging that they were trying to create that very perception with the very frame they put around those comments. The lack of self-awareness and self-reflection was entirely galling.

The second incident in a single day was taking a comment that Stephen Harper made, where he called for “change in the nature of the government” in Iran, and headlined it “calling for regime change” which has a very specific meaning, and got their reaction quotes based on the notion that he called for regime change – again, putting a frame around comments which were so bland as to be not worth reporting. (Note: CBC was not the only offender here, and they had to issue a “clarification,” which was really a correction, as a result; the CTV piece eventually changed their headline and lede, but didn’t note that they had made the correction).

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1217233046908416000

Two instances of torqueing quotes and placing dubious framing devices around fairly innocuous quotes to spark controversy in a single day. Not good, guys, and like Robert Hiltz said, this is the kidnd of thing that erodes trust. Let’s be better than this.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Dire warnings about MPs’ jobs

Posted on by

Another day, another apocalyptic warning that the workload and schedules of MPs are going to wind up killing somebody someday, and I just cannot even. This isn’t even the first time this particular argument has been made by MPs, but it boggles me even more that journalists aren’t pushing back more, and at least giving an “Oh, come on,” and it leaves the impression that there is an expectation that parliamentarians go in thinking it’s a nine-to-five job. And it gets even more ludicrous when you realise that MPs are not only sitting fewer days than they used to, but we already eliminated evening sittings three days a week in order to make the days more “family friendly” (which, as it happens, made congeniality worse because they stopped eating dinner together three nights a week).

https://twitter.com/garry_keller/status/1150587736736317441

Part of what has triggered this wave of pearl-clutching are the number of voting marathons that we saw in this current parliament, but we need to pour a bit of perspective sauce on the situation here. First of all, the opposition needs to have some tools to apply pressure to the government when they feel it’s necessary, and eliminating those tools would be a major problem. That said, I’m not sure that these particular marathons were appropriate uses for those tools, particularly as they were pegged to issues that were fairly minor on the scope of things, if not outright ridiculous, and yet the Conservatives made a big song and dance about these vote-a-thons, which wound up coming across as a temper tantrum. It became routine that estimates votes were coming up, so they were going to force a vote-a-thon to express their outrage of the day, and then blame the government for “forcing it” to happen. That’s…not how this works. And if MPs are opposed to those tactics, well, they can let their party leadership know that they’re opposed and do something about it internally. Otherwise, I’m not sure what their suggestions are for making life easier for MPs, because the alternatives – such as time allocating all business by means of programming motions and the like – is not healthy for democracy either. Perhaps they need to think about that as they complain about the jobs they chose.

Speaking of workloads, there was some angry debating over Twitter over the weekend about the Senate not sitting later to pass the bill that would add CBSA to the new civilian oversight body created for the RCMP (the accusation that they wanted to go on vacation). While I have my doubts about that bill (I think the earlier Senate bill to create an Inspector General for CBSA held a lot of promise, but the government refused to debate it), it’s pretty unfair to lay the blame on the Senate as a whole. Rather, it’s the government’s fault – both in introducing the bill so late, and sending it to the Senate at the very last minute, and in their Leader in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder, who controls the agenda. He could have ensured that the Senate sat long enough to pass it, but we’ve seen over the past three-and-a-half years that Harder has been absolutely allergic to staying later than the Commons does, even though the Senate is actually scheduled to sit for an extra week at the end of each sitting, like they always do. Harder, however, has steadfastly refused, and the Independent senators haven’t pushed back. If you want someone to blame, start there.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Musings from a non-committee member

Posted on by

It was another day of clutched pearls as Liberal MP Francis Drouin, who moved the motion at the stunt committee meeting on Wednesday to adjourn until the planned meeting next week, spoke to CBC about the fact that he thinks that they’ve heard enough and it’s time to move to the next phase of the committee. The problem? That Drouin isn’t actually a member of said committee, so his opinion doesn’t really matter. That he was at the committee on Wednesday is largely because his riding is not far from Ottawa, and that tends to be what happens when emergency meetings get called – most of the regular members don’t end up showing up because of travel times and commitments (or in this case, it’s the middle of March Break, and some of them have families with kids that they don’t see nearly enough). Now, if the Liberals meet on Tuesday, and put a bunch of ringers on the committee when they decide to go in camera to talk next steps for witnesses and timetables, and they decide they’ve had enough, well then, yes, we will have something to complain about. But that hasn’t happened yet, there isn’t any indication about that happening, so let’s all just calm down. Drouin is entitled to his own opinions, but he won’t be making any decisions here.

Should the justice committee opt to end the investigation, here are options that Jody Wilson-Raybould could use to “speak her truth” some more (though given how tactical her silence has been, I wouldn’t hold my breath). I also suspect that after their dire warnings yesterday, the opposition are going to start procedural shenanigans in order to try and force the government to carry on the hearings, but we’ll see how that unfolds.

In related news, it turns out that SNC-Lavalin also tried to recruit the Quebec justice minister to lobby for a DPA on their behalf. As well, a luxury condo in Toronto owned by the Gaddafi family, redecorated at SNC-Lavalin’s expense, has been sitting empty since 2009.

Continue reading →

Roundup: In the testimony’s aftermath

Posted on by

Yesterday was the day for performative outrage, as the Conservatives demanded – and got – an “emergency debate” on their call for Justin Trudeau to resign. Of course, given the reality of how our parliament works these days, “debate” is a term to be used very loosely, and it was more like several late-night hours of stilted speeches being read to one another for the sake of looking tough. Woo. On the committee front, Gerald Butts offered to testify on his own behalf, which was accepted, and both Michael Wernick and the deputy minister of justice are on their way back for another round, though none of the other staffers mentioned by Wilson-Raybould are (though that is also because they shouldn’t appear before committee, under the doctrine of ministerial responsibility – it’s for ministers and deputy ministers as accountability officers to appear as they are responsible for them). Ministers of the Crown were also doing the media rounds, including Bill Morneau and Chrystia Freeland, and most of them were offering variations of the line that while they thought that Jody Wilson-Raybould was telling the truth as she saw it, they also believe the PM in that he would never be inappropriate or cross a line, which made most of the pundit class’ heads implode – never mind that the crux of this whole matter is that it’s a subjective test as to what kind of pressure is or is not appropriate. (On a related note, the Liberals really, really need to put Carla Qualtrough out more. She is easily one of the best communicators that they have in Cabinet, but she never gets out there enough on items other than Phoenix, which is too bad because they desperately need someone with her communications skills out in public). And we’ll see how this continues to play out in the caucus as well, given that the usual suspects are not remaining so silent, and the not-so-usual suspects have openly stated things like “sour grapes” (before being made to apologise).

https://twitter.com/WayneLongSJ/status/1101160075023011840

For context, here is a comparison between what Wilson-Raybould said, and what Michael Wernick testified before the committee. Here’s a look at whether the Ethics Commissioner really can get to the bottom of this whole mess. Here’s the who’s who of everyone Wilson-Raybould named in her testimony. Here’s a roundup of how the Quebec press is treating Wilson-Raybould’s testimony.

In punditry, Susan Delacourt looks at how nervous the Liberal caucus seems by this whole affair, and what that disaffection may be doing to the party in the longer term. Robert Hiltz suggests that Trudeau take a long, hard look at himself and his government, given what this situation has revealed about them. Chris Selley points out that the Liberal treatment of not being Stephen Harper as a virtue is going to be something that ends up costing them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The drip, drip, drip of details

Posted on by

At a press event yesterday morning, Justin Trudeau tried to offer some reassurances around Jody Wilson-Raybould, and only seemed to complicate matters – which didn’t help that everyone seemed to read meaning into what he said that I don’t think was at all was intended. To recap, Trudeau said that back in September, at a time when there was a lot of discussion about the SNC-Lavalin, and the jobs and economic repercussions, Wilson-Raybould asked him if he intended to direct her on how to deal with the issue, and he said no, it was her call; in October, the Public Prosecution Service rejected the notion of giving SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement. He also said that if Scott Brison hadn’t resigned that she would still be in justice, but things get moved around when you start shuffling Cabinet pieces around (which is fair – there are a lot of considerations). This of course turned into a childish game over Twitter about “blame Scott Brison,” which is not only ridiculous, but completely misrepresents what he said. (Note that regarding her poor performance managing her department, Brison’s departure may have been the opportunity to deal with it, but that it was considered manageable until the next election, but I can’t say that I’m privy to those determinations). Oh, and Trudeau also said it was unacceptable for people to be taking shots at Wilson-Raybould, but this was also about eight days after the anonymous grousing started appearing in media reports.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1096465016100777986

Amidst this, people have started taking a look back at the deferred prosecution portion of the budget implementation bill when it was being debated and studied back in the spring (*coughs*my story once again*coughs*), perhaps to prove that this was something the government snuck through to the benefit of all of that SNC-Lavalin lobbying. While Aaron Wherry finds a voluminous paper trail here, and the chair of the Commons finance committee, Wayne Easter, told Power & Politics that he personally questioned why that section wasn’t being sent to the justice committee, where things get really interesting is before the Senate’s legal and constitutional affairs committee, where those provisions were sent for study. It becomes exceedingly interesting that Wilson-Raybould refused to make herself available to testify on the issue – which is a very bad thing for a minister – and while Senator Serge Joyal, who heads the committee, says that in hindsight she may not have been comfortable with the subject matter if there was pressure (if that is indeed what was happening), we also need to remember that she refused to appear on other bills, which was holding them up because the committee (quite rightly) said no minister, no bill. Since she was shuffled, Lametti has agreed to appear before the committee on those bills. This kind of truculent behaviour should be taken into consideration when people think that she was doing a “great” job (she wasn’t), but even when she did appear to answer questions, the only thing she’d ever say was how proud she was of the job she was doing (another strike on her record).

Former BC premier Christy Clark affirmed Trudeau’s line that if Wilson-Raybould had a problem and was feeling unduly pressured that she had a duty to say something and resign, which she didn’t. And as a related note, here’s a closer look at the principles of Cabinet secrecy that Trudeau has noted are a consideration in what’s going on here, and how Trudeau has the prerogative to invoke it or not.

In other related news, a former SNC-Lavalin executive had his obstruction of justice charge stayed because it “timed out” under the Jordan principles outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada. As for SNC-Lavalin’s pursuit of a deferred prosecution agreement, here is an explainer of what kind of process a company would need to go through for a prosecutor to consider granting them one, and why it’s not simply paying a fine.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne insists that because SNC-Lavalin couldn’t meet the tests necessary to even qualify for a DPA that there shouldn’t have been any reason for Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould to talk about one, while Paul Wells looks at the polling numbers on the issue, and finds Trudeau’s credibility lagging Wilson-Raybould’s on the issue.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Foreign policy complacency

Posted on by

There has been some musing of late about Canada’s place in the world, and a couple of things jumped out at me. First is Paul Wells’ most recent column, which responds to a Globe and Mailop-ed from a former trade negotiator that wrings its hands at the way the current government is handling China. As Wells points out, said former negotiator is all over the map in terms of contradictory advice, but most gallingly, suggests that we break our extradition treaty with our largest and closest ally in order to appease China. And Wells quite properly boggles at this suggestion we break our treaty, while at the same time taking a moment to reflect on how there is a different way in which Ottawa seems to operate when it comes to these matters, particularly in an era where major corporations with investments in China are no longer calling the shots by way of political financing.

At the same time, Stephanie Carvin makes some particularly poignant observations about Canada’s foreign policy complacency in this era of the Americans retreating from their obligations on the world stage (never mind the Brexit-mired UK). We talk a good game, but have no follow-through, and in the past, she has quite rightly pointed to the fact that we won’t invest in the kinds of things we talk about the importance of globally (most especially “feminist” foreign aid). The government’s actions in Mali are another decent example – putting on a big song and dance about how important it is we go there, spend a few months there doing low-risk medevac, and then refuse to extend the mission for a few extra months so that our replacements can get properly established, meaning there will be a gap in services there.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1080853935328497665

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1080854398052564992

I do have to wonder about some of the crossover between what Wells and Carvin are talking about – that Wells points to the rise of crowd-pleasing populism freeing governments from the go-along-to-get-along complacency, but Carvin points to the fact that we are not actually free of that complacency, though perhaps there are different sorts of complacency that we are grappling with when it comes to our place on the world stage. Something to think about in any case.

Continue reading →